The Death Penalty

[Alexander III]

No it wouldn't, it is far more likely that innocent people get executed than a mass murder not be deterred, given the extreme rarity of mass murders.

By what reason do your arrive to this conclusion. i think we are all in agreement that the death penalty should only be used when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence. Besides that would be a failure not of the death penalty but of Justice, because if you say that many innocent people would be condemned to death think about how many innocent people are sent to prison for decades, and let's face it often death is preferable to spending a life in jail - for me it certainly would be. So you are pointing out a flaw with the legal system, not a flaw of the death penalty.

And besides, even if the penalty was a deterrent I wouldn't approve of it because it is state sanctioned murder

.

As St.Lukes said before, how many civilians have been killed in Afghanistan so far? I know you do not approve of war, but then again no one is naive enough to say we should get rid of our army and not conduct any more wars(actually due to the economic depression the french did just that in the 1930's severley cutting their army.) War is a tragic yet necessary facet of civilization, and so is punishment.

Focusing on punishment is a misguided approach to justice all around; rather than prevent the crime through effective public policy, it just produces a useless system of public appeasement that makes people feel better about the crimes that do get committed.

Why are you assuming that the two are mutualy exclusive? I am all for focusing on crime prevention. But the fact of the matter is, if I may make the analogy of the state as a parent and it's citizens it's children, punishment is necessary. It sends a strong and clear message not only to criminals but to the civilian population. When a mass murderer spends 30 years doing court appeals and then gets sentenced to a long jail term were he lives a decent life more comfortable than many working class citizens- what message is the state sending to it's nation, one of indifference, one of weakness one of confusion - the death penalty sends are far better message, it shows the people that the state will avenge them and it will not tolerate that harm comes to it's innocents especially women and children.
There are numerous ways to prevent crime that are more effective and don't come with the reprehensible, perverse lowering of society to the level of the criminal.

One can look at the statistics within the USA, there seems to be little to no effect of death penalty laws. Some of the states with the death penalty have some of the highest murder rates (Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland) and some are amongst the lowest (New Hampshire, Idaho, Utah). At the same time those without the death penalty appear near the top (New Mexico) or way at the bottom (Vermont). It seems that if death penalties deterred murder there would be some noticeable trend.

So we are both in agreement that when it comes to crime rates there are too many variables to be able to identify a single cause.

[Delta40]

But the problem with that reasoning is that you are putting being a mother a more important than being a good woman. I will agree with you that 99% of mothers are first and foremost mothers and then all else, but there is a 1% which I deeply admire which are first and foremost Good Women and then all else, and if their son were a mass murderer they would be content to see him get the death penalty as it would be better for them and him and the victims for his life to end. I think in such arguments as this you can't let subjective personal feelings get in the way of what is just and what is not just, if you do the system of Justice fails as a whole to provide justice for everyone equally.

Oh please! Stop with the so called higher plane of thinking. We are humans shaped by our experiences and beliefs. I may as well suggest Nazi women were 'good women' who rose above their maternal instincts as millions of Jews were gassed. Would you deeply admire them?

[tonywalt]

Right?!? The thing that disturbs me most about the whole issue is the attitudes of "normal" people. When I see people getting all excited over the killing of another human being who yes, has caused immeasurable suffering to other people who you've never met, but who hasn't caused one single ounce of suffering to the person who's reaction to the crime I'm witnessing, it's just... ech... it reflects poorly on their own mental and emotional state, and that of humanity as a whole. They're just the crowd that used to gather to enjoy a good hanging, except now they have to pretend to actually give a **** in order to enjoy the show.

It absolutely is the crowd 'that used to gather to enjoy a good hanging' - the mythod changed, the geography did not.

There is a quiet but ever rumbling 'push' by the media to televise executions, and they site demand by the public which they must satisfy. I do not think it would happen at this point in the country's history - one would hope not, for the sake of decency.

[stlukesguild]

It is however alot harder to be the parent of the killer isn't it?

You seriously believe that it would be harder to deal with your child having been a murderer than with your child being the random dead victim of such a murderer?

I ask myself the simple question 'if my child was a killer, would I want them put to death?' Answer? NO! So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander - end of story.

That seems a rather odd quote to have selected considering the circumstances. Another mother's child is dead... murdered by your child... but your child deserves to live because you would empathize with another mother if it were her child that had been the murderer.

What you are continually ignoring in the situation is the dead victim... and the living victims (his or her family). I wonder how many parents of such dead victims would agree that it is much more difficult being the parent of the murderer.

Ultimately, I agree with Alex that they are all victims of the killer.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I am against it.

Speaking of reactions - I always find it unsettling to see crowds (typically fraternitiy types) cheering and having parties outside the prison during these exuctutions. And the media interviewing people like it's some sort of pep rally.

This reminds me of when Bin Laden was killed. There were parties in the streets in every major city here in the US. Aside from New York (I could kind of understand their celebration, since they have such a direct and personal connection to 9/11), I couldn't understand what people were happy about. I was glad he was dead for what happened, but I wasn't happy. Why would I be? How can I celebrate the death of a man who caused death? Death isn't celebratory.

[Darcy88]

Right?!? The thing that disturbs me most about the whole issue is the attitudes of "normal" people. When I see people getting all excited over the killing of another human being who yes, has caused immeasurable suffering to other people who you've never met, but who hasn't caused one single ounce of suffering to the person who's reaction to the crime I'm witnessing, it's just... ech... it reflects poorly on their own mental and emotional state, and that of humanity as a whole. They're just the crowd that used to gather to enjoy a good hanging, except now they have to pretend to actually give a **** in order to enjoy the show.

Anything that recalls to mind the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition or Nazi Germany is worth our boisterous and passionate righteous indignation.

[Scheherazade]

I am not suggesting that the pain and suffering of the parents of a killer would equate with those of the parents of a victim; however, I imagine parents of a killer would go through a lot of soul searching and reflection to determine whether anything they did might have contributed or changed the circumstances that led to the killing.

[Emil Miller]

So we are both in agreement that when it comes to crime rates there are too many variables to be able to identify a single cause.

Like it.

[Delta40]

It is however alot harder to be the parent of the killer isn't it?

You seriously believe that it would be harder to deal with your child having been a murderer than with your child being the random dead victim of such a murderer?

I ask myself the simple question 'if my child was a killer, would I want them put to death?' Answer? NO! So, what's good for the goose is good for the gander - end of story.

That seems a rather odd quote to have selected considering the circumstances. Another mother's child is dead... murdered by your child... but your child deserves to live because you would empathize with another mother if it were her child that had been the murderer.

What you are continually ignoring in the situation is the dead victim... and the living victims (his or her family). I wonder how many parents of such dead victims would agree that it is much more difficult being the parent of the murderer.

Ultimately, I agree with Alex that they are all victims of the killer.

I don't think it is an odd quote at all. It's a standard that we must set and adhere to if we are to remain a civilized society and as far as I am concerned, stooping to a life for a life because some members digress from that standard is not an excuse. If we call ourselves a society then we better be prepared to assume responsibility for its deviant side and implement a corrective system to deal with it. We call it jail, which isn't static and I expect it to evolve as we go along.

My point is, do I agree with the death penalty and what criteria do I use to make that decision. That's my criteria and I'm anti-death penalty. I don't have a dead child and I don't have a killer child but I do know this - my murdered kid wouldn't be facing the death penalty so all I could do is seek justice on their behalf so I would work with what I had as an ethical, yet flawed human being.

[Emil Miller]

This isn't mine but it succinctly puts the matter to rest: " If you want to abolish the death penalty then let the murderer make the first move."

[JuniperWoolf]

This reminds me of when Bin Laden was killed.

Bleh, me too. The next mornng, in the largest lettering I've ever seen in a newspaper, the Edmonton Sun just had the words "BURN IN HELL" written over a picture of Bin Laden's face. What the hell is that? I wish we could have truly embodied how our minister described the Canadian reaction to the news that Bin Laden was shot - "sober satisfaction." I could live with that, it's much better than riotous, macabre celebration.

I imagine parents of a killer would go through a lot of soul searching and reflection to determine whether anything they did might have contributed or changed the circumstances that led to the killing.

They'd probably torture themselves forever. My dad's friend shot himself when they were seventeen, and my dad says he still asks himself "could I have done anything to prevent it?" Imagine being the parent of a mass murderer, that question would drive you mad. Suffering isn't quantifiable, so you can't say that a person suffering in one situation is suffering more or less than another person in a different situation. All you can say is that they both suffer, it's not unquestionable to imagine both situations. Right now I can picture my mom if I killed a bunch of people and I could picture her if I was the one killed. Her life would suck either way.

Anywho, who even says that the parent of the victims want the killer to be killed? What if more killing wouldn't make them feel better in the slightest, what if it's against their wishes, or if it would even make things much worse for them (depending on their personal beliefs)? Also, what about citizens who are nauseated by the idea of helping to kill people (because if they're paying taxes which are used to kill people, they're taking part in their death), should they be forced to take part in something that they find seriously morally reprehensible? Also, what good does execution do? War accomplishes something tangible, you protect trade routes, you aquire resources, you defend your boundaries and those of your allies - a killer in prison is already neutralized, there's nothing to be protected or gained by killing them.

[Monamy]

This reminds me of when Bin Laden was killed. There were parties in the streets in every major city here in the US. Aside from New York (I could kind of understand their celebration, since they have such a direct and personal connection to 9/11), I couldn't understand what people were happy about. I was glad he was dead for what happened, but I wasn't happy. Why would I be? How can I celebrate the death of a man who caused death? Death isn't celebratory.

Words of wisdom there, my friend.

I stand in support for Death Penalty, but I have to disagree on how most nations use it. Death Penalty should never be used as a lesson, because the subject dies anyway (so much for a lesson.)

A person who kills knowingly and on purpose deserves to be killed but not tortured or humiliated. And we should definitely not make a party out of his death. We always talk about Death Penalty without completely considering the crime itself. The subject murdered someone, the act of Death we so hate in Death Penalty is implemented first by the murderer. Don't such people deserve to be killed? Where did "An eye for an eye" disappear to? So a person can kill someone and put in jail, just to pay his bail and walk freely once again? Is this Justice? Why is killing a criminal act? Let's put some ads here and there saying: "Murder is no longer a crime, but you must PAY in order to kill."

I'm not justifying the deaths of many innocents who were discovered later to be the wrong person in the wrong place. As I said earlier, I do not approve of how governments use death sentences. If I end up killing someone for whatever reason, I'll fully understand why people would seek my head.

[mona amon]

This reminds me of when Bin Laden was killed. There were parties in the streets in every major city here in the US. Aside from New York (I could kind of understand their celebration, since they have such a direct and personal connection to 9/11), I couldn't understand what people were happy about. I was glad he was dead for what happened, but I wasn't happy. Why would I be? How can I celebrate the death of a man who caused death? Death isn't celebratory. - Mutatis-Mutandis

Bleh, me too. The next mornng, in the largest lettering I've ever seen in a newspaper, the Edmonton Sun just had the words "BURN IN HELL" written over a picture of Bin Laden's face. What the hell is that? I wish we could have truly embodied how our minister described the Canadian reaction to the news that Bin Laden was shot - "sober satisfaction." I could live with that, it's much better than riotous, macabre celebration. - JuniperWoolf

You people are positively saintlike!

I did a happy dance when I heard the news of Osama Bin Laden being shot, and we all thought it was the coolest thing we'd heard in a long while, and it doesn't even have anything to do with my country. I mean, it's so satisfying to see bad guys getting a dose of their own medicine, and it happens so rarely that it's cause for celebration.

Anywho, who even says that the parent of the victims want the killer to be killed? - JuniperWoolf

Yes, I've heard that under Sharia laws the victim's family can spare the life of the killer if they wish, and that it isn't unusual for them to do so.

I'm against the death penalty because, like Juniper I don't see that it achieves anything that life imprisonment does not. As for the expense of keeping the criminal, well that's an unavoidable burden and society will just have to bear it.

[cacian]

In legal terms a death penalty is in actual void.
In legal proceedings within a jusridiction of the death penalty when the judge declares
a sentenced as:

''I herby declare you dead or sentence you to death'' is void because for a sentence to be it must reach full completion of its legal terms.
Declaring someone dead when they are not is not completion and declaring they are to die to complete the sentence is not completion either because they are dead.
In other words the sentencing to death in legal terms is in breach of the law or simply void.

[Alexander III]

. As for the expense of keeping the criminal, well that's an unavoidable burden and society will just have to bear it.

Which is tolerable when the cows are fat and everyone is drinking, but when you have people are highly taxed and can no longer reach the end of the month, and they know how much money is being wasted on keeping murderers and child rapists incarcerated because they should be rehabilitated not punished, people naturally get upset.


Also how can you have done a dance when Osama was killed yet at the same time be against the death penalty?

In legal terms a death penalty is in actual void.
In legal proceedings within a jusridiction of the death penalty when the jury declares
a sentenced as

''I herby declare you dead or sentence you to death'' is void because for a sentence to be it must be reach completion of its legal terms.
Declaring someone dead when they are not is not completion and declaring they are to die to complete the sentence is not completion either because they are dead.
In other words the sentencing to death in legal terms is in breached or void.

Hot damn you are right! Quick someone inform Rick Perry!