The Death Penalty

[Babyguile]

Be realistic. No parent is going to give an objective answer imagining their child bound, gagged, raped and mutilated now are they?

It is however alot harder to be the parent of the killer isn't it? and that's a reality for alot of families who have to travel that road so don't pretend it isn't or it doesn't exist and there is only one side of the story because there isn't.

When weighing up whether I would endorse the death penalty, 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's just an incredibly emotional and selfish way to look at the issue. Do you really look at the world's problems with that mindset?

[Scheherazade]

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.

Does the jury ever sentence anyone? I was under the impression that they merely decide whether someone is guilty or not and it is the judge who does the sentencing.

[tonywalt]

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.

That maybe true but I really would like to see these particular macabre traditions fade out fast.

The country with the highest Shia population(numerically and percentage wise) has a very large englightened segment historically and today - I always had hope for them. Their voices are heard to some degree in urban areas, but the rural areas are a bit different.

[cacian]

Does the jury ever sentence anyone? I was under the impression that they merely decide whether someone is guilty or not and it is the judge who does the sentencing.

Well it is down the jury to decide whether the individual is guilty or not and so in effect the balance hangs on their interpretation of events. Once the decision is been made then it is up to the judge to sentence or not.
I am not aware whether judges can rebut juries decisions.

I am not so sure again about what the legal proceedings are about a jury's decision is not unanimous.
What is outstanding must be accounted for.
The party that does not believe the concerned is guilty is still a part must be legally justified.
The voting system is done on the number of votes which is rather questionable.
In other word even if four out 5 voted guilty that remaining one that did not is still outstanding.

Is this a breach of the law when the proceedings does not clear or justify who abstaint or did not vote for the sentencing of the concerned.
There are gaps that do not add up.

So a sentence is declared to induce a type of a punishement on the indiviudual and must reach full completion of its legal terms.
There are concerns over sentences that are not met meaning when the sentenced occur sudden death or keep rebuting or appealing the sentence.
Suspended sentence is still legally outstanding.
Again there are massive gaps here that are not accounted for.

[BienvenuJDC]

It's funny how much people refer to studies and proof that is never sited. Stating that the death penalty is not a deterant is such an ambiguous statement. I think that the judicial system and society that implements such procedure is a major factor in the effectiveness of the deterence. It seems that there is much emotion and unsupported opinion thrown around here without much logic and sound reasoning. It seems that no matter what kind of discipline is implemented, there must be consistency. I see the legal/judicial systems lacking ANY consistency. Lawyers, judges, and legislators are doing nothing more than feeding themselves instead of establishing a well working system. Until the political machine is fixed and the state is removed from being the "parent", the PEOPLE cannot rule themselves well, and implement a proper penal system to invoke a reasonable disciplined society.

[LadyLuck]

What are your opinions on the death penalty in general?

The death penalty is always a touchy subject. I can't claim to be one of the "string em up" crowd, as you termed them, but I also am not against it. In the cases where there is no shadow of a doubt the someone committed a crime, like the shootings in Denver, I think the death penalty is appropriate. It's not suitable in it's current form, I really think the person should just be executed on the spot. Not out of spite, not as retribution for their crimes, not because it will appease the families of their victims, but simply because someone who is that much of a danger to society should never be released on it again. It is fiscally stupid to afford them food, medical, and all the other amenities while they live out their lives in a society that they have no purpose in. I tend to feel the same way about rapists, people who abuse children, etc. Insanity really isn't an excuse, because if you are that unstable then you still shouldn't be released back into society. Basically, if you are a true danger then I've no disagreement with execution. Burdening the rest of the population with the care of a defective subset seems a bit unfair to them, and that money could be much better spent in education programs, youth outreach, etc.

[Alexander III]

It's funny how much people refer to studies and proof that is never sited. Stating that the death penalty is not a deterant is such an ambiguous statement. I think that the judicial system and society that implements such procedure is a major factor in the effectiveness of the deterence. It seems that there is much emotion and unsupported opinion thrown around here without much logic and sound reasoning. It seems that no matter what kind of discipline is implemented, there must be consistency. I see the legal/judicial systems lacking ANY consistency. Lawyers, judges, and legislators are doing nothing more than feeding themselves instead of establishing a well working system. Until the political machine is fixed and the state is removed from being the "parent", the PEOPLE cannot rule themselves well, and implement a proper penal system to invoke a reasonable disciplined society.

I think you bring up a good point, consistency is the most important thing. If the law is consistent first and foremost that would be a huge deterrent to criminality and a huge comforter to the average civilian who can trust the law to adequately protect him and punish those who would do him harm. When the law looses consistency the citizens faith in the system fades as well.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Does the jury ever sentence anyone? I was under the impression that they merely decide whether someone is guilty or not and it is the judge who does the sentencing.

Here in the states, the jury usually recommends a sentence. How often the judge goes by the recommendation, I don't know.

P.S. Nice to see you, Bien.

[Paulclem]

The death of victims leaves a hole in their families lives, trauma, instability, and affects the community they came from to a greater or lesser extent. Have you ever known someone who was murdered? Even hearing of it from afar leaves a kind of pall over you for a while, and a case like the school shootings, and well known child murders do the same to lots of people. A notorious case in the 1990s here in the UK involved the death of a toddler who was killed by two minors. Anyone who had a toddler at that time felt it, and anyone, as was widely reported, who had seen the two kids with the child must have been sorely affected by how powerless with hindsight they were.

The same goes for murderers. Do you know anyone who has committed murder? They are not a breed apart; they have family, come from local communities, and also get to know the prison community and jailors. An unnatural death affects everyone. You do see some people who rejoice in the idea of other's deaths, as if it's some kind of victory, but it's really a failure of prevention, understanding - prior to the crime - and often extreme misfortune. I'm not condoning murder, or suggesting that murderers should not be held accountable, I'm just commenting on the effects of unnatural death.

I see the death penalty as a reneging of hope. Instead of one death, or deaths, you end up with another. I'm not saying that I, or anyone else would not feel the normal human reaction of wanting a murderer of one of my family killed. That's why we have the law to deal with it in as rational and fair a way as possible. (Not always true I know). We really don't want the law run as an emotional rollercoaster. For me, the simple fact that a jury might just have got it wrong precludes any sense in administering the death penalty where there is any reasonable doubt for a start.

Where there are clear murderers, such as the ones who have committed the mass shootings, it would be good to understand their motives, profiles and be able to research their actions for future reference. There's a possibility of prevention.

Then there's always the possibility of hope too. Of a murderer doing some kind of good, or becoming a role model, or writing what they have learnt. It's always possible.

For others - those with mental illness and various delusions and psychosis - which a number of those who do the mass shootings display -well how can we really condone killing the sick. They are dangerously sick people, and should always remain inside, but we are punishing people who can't help it in many cases.

We talk about murderers as if they are another breed, but most are normal people. I used to work with some in the slaughterhouse, as often they couldn't get staff, and a high security prison and prison hostel was nearby. I worked with two guys in particular who were nice, normal blokes. One had killed his wife's lover - he told me. Whilst not condoning murder, I can understand how it might happen. (He didn't go into details). With the death penalty for murder, where do you draw the line? These two guys had served their time, and now worked and led ordinary lives.

It's a normal reaction to wish for someone's death after they have committed murder, but I don't think it's either the most useful thing we can do, or the most compassionate.

[Delta40]

That's just an incredibly emotional and selfish way to look at the issue. Do you really look at the world's problems with that mindset?

I know what my limitations are now that I have entered the realm of motherhood and realise that one can't go back or rise above themselves in their thinking when it comes to issues like this. I'm human and flawed, it's that simple. At least I don't pretend to be otherwise.

[qimissung]

Paul, thank you. That is just so beautifully put.

They are people, they are human. We are as capable of something terrible as (most) of them are of something good. All things are possible and all those possibilities dwell within us all.

This doesn't have anything to do with the death penalty per se, but it is apropos, I think. I believe I remember that story about the toddler, btw; this concerns a baby.

A woman in a suburb of Dallas cut off her baby's arms. She was found to be mentally ill and has been in a state hospital since that time. Recently it was discovered that she was working at a Wal-Mart in the town where she had been treated. Naturally after the news got out, Wal-Mart fired her. I do understand being uncomfortable, but I really think we must develop a sense of mercy and empathy.

This woman has a life to live. How is she going to do that if she can't work? Ever? If no one will ever, ever, ever forgive her, even though justice has been served?


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/commu...in-terrell.ece


And the same is true with the death penalty. "Revenge is mine, saith the Lord." Even if a person is not religious, some things are not part of our domain. It's why we put our trust in laws, and courts, and juries, imperfect as they are. And when the system is through with punishing them, we should try to be through with punishing them, too.

Because I can never forget: There, but for the grace of God, go I.

I do have exceptions. I did not celebrate Bin Laden's death, but I did not want him to be free, either.

Also, I live in Texas, and dear God do we kill a lot of people.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1753968.html

Apparently we've put seven people to death this year, with nine more to go before the end of the year.

[JuniperWoolf]

Stating that the death penalty is not a deterant is such an ambiguous statement.

Well, the death penalty exists in Colorado. It's never done much good, two of the largest mass killings I can remember happened there.

I'm not saying that I, or anyone else would not feel the normal human reaction of wanting a murderer of one of my family killed. That's why we have the law to deal with it in as rational and fair a way as possible.

Yes yes, exactly. The law should be an emotionless system, that's the only way to make sound decisions.

Where there are clear murderers, such as the ones who have committed the mass shootings, it would be good to understand their motives, profiles and be able to research their actions for future reference.

I was so hoping someone would say that.

[togre]

I'm not going to say it wrong to have a criminal justice system that cares about rehabilitating criminals or about preventing further crimes through detention, yet the society that loses the idea that wrong actions merit punishment (that is, just consequences) is setting itself up for anarchy. I'm not saying you need to support the death penalty, but the concept of justice cannot be divorce from punishing wrong-doers. It's not the same as vengeance. Vengeance is selfish repayment of wrongs or hurts. Vengeance is me taking my pound of flesh. Justice isn't vengeance. There needs to be an impartial, unemotional arbitrator, one who considers the facts, extenuating circumstances, etc. and decrees a just sentence accordingly.

My personal stance on the death penalty is built on the conviction that some crimes, specifically the willful taking of life and treason, merit/earn/deserve death. If there is a deterant effect, that's fine, but not the foundation. If there is emotional damage to the offenders family and friends, that is sad, but laid upon him as a consequence of his actions.

In general our court system is pretty good. Compared with a perfect standard, it is easy to get discouraged. Yet compared with any real world counterpart, it looks far more acceptable. It does have quirks and warts and failures. The consistency with which the death penalty is (or is not) sought is one of these. As is the length of time permitted for appeals and delays. That undermines its use as a disciple or a deterant. Which is one reason why those delays exist. Opponents of the death penalty, having lost the fight to abolish or prevent it, game the system to make it work slowly and poorly. Now that is a more serious injustice than any caused by the courts that I have heard of.

[mona amon]

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

They are different situations - the Osama thing was a war mission, not a criminal trial. He attacked another country and killed people there. They retaliated by hunting him down in the country that was sheltering him, and killing him. Fair enough.

But much more than that, the dance was an emotional reaction. It came straight from the heart. Being against the death penalty is a conclusion I've come to after many years of soul searching, reasoning, and listening to other people's opinions on the subject. It comes from the head.

India is one of the countries that still retains the death penalty, but since 1995 when a serial killer was hanged, there has been only one other execution, that of Dhananjoy Chaterjee in 2004 for the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl. I remember both cases, and the satisfaction I felt when I read that they had been executed. I was pro death penalty at the time, but even now I'd be happy. These are baser instinctual reactions, and we shouldn't let them interfere with our reasoning.

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.

I can understand the irritation, but every society has to have its prisons, just as it has to have its roads, public schools and hospitals. The percentage of murderers to the general population must be very low (I am hoping), so keeping them alive will not make that much of a difference.

[BienvenuJDC]

Does anyone see the irony in the fact that most people who are against the death penalty are in favor of abortions? If there is a rape that occurs, it is the consensus among some that it is justified to destroy the child, while the rapist is allowed to live. If we are truly concerned with preserving life, why do we kill unborn children?

Consistency

And if anyone wants to make the argument that the unborn children aren't yet humans, then I could also make the argument that criminally insane people are no longer human either.