The Death Penalty, Schwarzenegger and The Exonerated

[Rooster]

"On a personal note, I'd rather see some idiot rot away in prison for the rest of his natural life for a terrible crime than have his life/suffering cut short. But maybe that's just the sadist in me coming out."

If this is true, why isn't every man on death row trying to drop his appeals so he can die and "escape punishment" that much quicker?

[tropical_fishy]

because it's human nature to want to hang onto life for as long as possible... that's why so many suicide attempts fail, or so I've read.

[Rooster]

So it is more painful to die. Which is why the death penalty should be used more often.

[tropical_fishy]

well I dont really think it's more PAINFUL to die... but we know what we're getting into by living. The uncertainty is more what I think affects people's perception of death.

[Timmee]

Death should be a release, not a punishment. In the rare case where someone commits an overtly heinous crime (for example Osama Bin Laden and crew, Timothy McVeigh, etc), the general prison population will take care of them in the manner they deserve.

[Hasty8]

I've seen the play, read numerous articles, even saw "Dead Man Walking" and so far nothing has altered my opinion of the DP.

It's a punishment. Plain and simple.

It's a punishment that fits the crime. I am willing to say that for the first crime, it should not be sought unless there are seriously incriminating circumstances. However, for a third time offender, I'm sorry, fry the guy.

I live 20 minutes away from Rikers Island and know quite a few friends who work there and every day it's the same thing.

One guy gets out after serving a short sentence only to be brought back in within a few months notice with yet another murder rap.

Plus, the use of forensic science will greatly diminsh the possibility of wrongly convicting the innocent.

You say that it's time for us to join the rest of the "civilized world" and find a more "humane approach". What can be more humane then how we do it here?

A DP gives the defendant access to a far greater avenue of appeals than any other type of decision. While in prison an inmate on death row is given top-notch medical care, access to whatever legal help they need and other resources not currently available to the homeless.

When their time does finally comes they get a final meal of their choosing, they get access to priest or other religious leader to seek absolution and they are humanely put to sleep and then their heart is stopped.

In contrast, their victims are murdered with their last moments filled with fear and anxiety, knowing that their family will never get to know their last words or thoughts. The victims die alone, cowering in fear, covered in their own blood.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for predators. Like cancerous cells they need to be removed from the Societal Body and I'll be damed if my dollars are going to go to give them three hots and a cot.

If that makes me a monster, then so be it.

Just my point of view on the topic.

[Hasty8]

I do have some serious problem with the death penalty....it takes too long, doesn't kill enough convicted criminals and the crimes that qualify a person for the death penalty are too narrow.

Cost: each side of the issue claims that the other method cost more. Just a matter of how the numbers are manipulated

I am not about to take a queue from the rest of the world on how to govern my country. The supreme court has already started to infuse their decision by citing laws from other countries. One of these countries is Sudan, one of the worst human rights countries in the world!

If one innocent person is executed to maintain order for the masses, so be it. An unpopular positon I am sure, but quite frankly I don't care. I understand that the system is messed up. I think an average of 12 years on death row is too long. Do you realize that the ACLU is trying to sue the government stating that 12-20 years on death row is cruel and inhumane? Who in the hell do you think made it take so long to kill people? That's right, the ACLU!

I agree with pickle wholeheartedly.

I honestly think there should be a three strikes rule. You get convicted of three murders and you get sent right to the head of the line. No more appeals, no more chances. You have been proven to be an unrepetant predator.

Now, I'm not talking about those rare instances where you are in a situation and you fear for your life but the jury does not see it that way. Too long to explain here but I'm talking about the gang-bangers, drug-pushers and other assorted scum.

These are the people we need to remove immediately.

Considering that most on the streets today see a stint in prison as a credential to more street cred we need to put some fear back in these animals.

[Hasty8]

Death should be a release, not a punishment. In the rare case where someone commits an overtly heinous crime (for example Osama Bin Laden and crew, Timothy McVeigh, etc), the general prison population will take care of them in the manner they deserve.

This edict makes us no less, if not worse, then the crimials themselves.

As a people were are willing to say that yes, every live is valuable but this person has done a crime so heinous that they must pay for it with their life.

The manner in which that payment is collected says a lot about the people and to government.

We go to every length to reduce the pain the convicted feels at every step but if you say this one is allowed to not pay the fee because it is too painful then you take away a weapon in fighting crime.

A lot of people say that the DP is not a deterrant. I disagree. I contend that the DP is a deterrant but that most know how hard it is to convict for a DP. Also, I don't really think that a great amount of the murderers, rapists and other assorted scum out there are really all that capable of thinking beyond the moment.

Perhaps if more people stopped to think about the consequences of their actions they might stop and realize what could happen to them.

[steveg]

Perhaps if more people stopped to think about the consequences of their actions they might stop and realize what could happen to them.

If they had that capacity there would be no need for this discussion

Can you point me to any empirical evidence that even suggest that the DP
is a deterant.

[Hasty8]

If they had that capacity there would be no need for this discussion

Can you point me to any empirical evidence that even suggest that the DP
is a deterant.

Off the top of my head, no.

But let me also say that I do not see the DP as just a deterrant.

I also see it, more significantly infact, as a punishment.

Even if there was no data to suggest that it is a deterrant that does not mean that the DP should not be used as a punishment.

I firmly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.

[edit]Let me further say that if the conditions of the death penalty were more stringent, i.e., three convictions and you go to the head of the line, then perhaps the DP could be more of a deterrant than it currently is. Honestly, I do not see it as too much of a deterrant right now.[/edit]

[tropical_fishy]

This edict makes us no less, if not worse, then the crimials themselves.

Well I'd personally rather see someone suffer for their crimes... I just don't know if death is enough "suffering" for me. So I'm as bad as a criminal... but I haven't raped or killed anyone. And how should we decide WHO gets the death penalty? Murderers? Rapists? Drug dealers?

Can't a rape be just as heinous a crime as a murder? If a woman (or man's) life is destroyed by a rape, does the fact that they're still technically living absolve the rapist of some of the responsibility for their ruined life? There's just so many gray areas that it's hard to apply the death penalty effectively.

[Ov3rmind]

People aren't exocuted on the basis on a single person's word. If you can be convicted of an offense you can be exocuted for, you might not have been the guy who pulled the trigger, but you were the guy holding the loot sack for him. I feel no pity for exocuted criminals of any degree.

How can you deduce that? What if they are completely innocent of a crime? What if they are framed? It is NOT okay to kill someone who is guilty of nothing.

What we need is a get tough policy with a few more public exocutions. Let the kids see a few bangers get their neck stretched, and see what they want to do with their lives.

When you can show me the death penalty is a viable deterrant, then maybe I'd agree. But until then, no.

[Ov3rmind]

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for predators. Like cancerous cells they need to be removed from the Societal Body and I'll be damed if my dollars are going to go to give them three hots and a cot.

Even more of your tax dollars are going down the toilet putting them to death than keeping them alive. If you hate them so much, spend less and let them rot their life away in jail. I don't see why this is a problem for people. Why do you insist on spending MORE so they can suffer for LESS time?

[Hasty8]

Even more of your tax dollars are going down the toilet putting them to death than keeping them alive. If you hate them so much, spend less and let them rot their life away in jail. I don't see why this is a problem for people. Why do you insist on spending MORE so they can suffer for LESS time?

Then you don't see the problem.

They take a life, they give a life.

[Rooster]

"When you can show me the death penalty is a viable deterrant, then maybe I'd agree. But until then, no."

Thats because people know they have a far better chance of doing life in prison, than getting the chair. A few hundred public exocution would do the trick.