The Death Penalty (morals, punishment, virgin, beliefs, America)

[Fluffy]

What I don't get is, if this poll is at least roughly representative of the attitudes of Americans towards the death penalty, why does America still have the death penalty?

[Bangbang]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

What I don't get is, if this poll is at least roughly representative of the attitudes of Americans towards the death penalty, why does America still have the death penalty?

Because most people in America have not voted in this poll. I guarantee that most people in Michigan want the Death Penalty re-established. However it is much more expensive to sentence and execute someone than it is to keep an offender in prison for life. No crap!

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Yes, so, your reasons are to make sure there is a zero chance that they'll ever do it again, it'll make people feel better and it can be used as a bargining chip?

You forgot it increases the security of the guards =P

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Well, really, killing someone won't bring your loved ones back, so what's the point?

Having the state kill someone would help ease the families suffering in some cases... If I had a child murdered by someone I know I would be in full support of the death penalty for that person. Why would the criminal be allowed to live when his existance brings pain to the families he hurt?

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Not sure about the bargining chip thing, but maybe they could say, help us out and we'll let you have cigarettes in your cell, or we'll let you have some whiskey once a year. I mean;

Yes, because saying "we'll let you have some whiskey once a year" is way better than being able to say "we won't kill you"

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Why not just make stricter roles for violent criminals... required solitary... more security.

Because that is "inhumane" while our government does not have a history of killing people for lesser crimes, our country DOES have a history of trying to make life for the criminal as nice as possible because they are humans too. This is why minimal security prisions have video games, weight rooms, all that fun stuff to keep them occupied.

Originally Posted by Darldale

Why not let a lot of these poor non-violent criminals out of jail and use the added funds to increase security for the violent ones?

Let poor non-violent criminals out of jail? Er, like?

Originally Posted by Darkdale

I mean, there is no reason to kill them. Why not just make the death penalty illegal and not worry about trying to make sure you only kill guilty people?

This doesn't make sense... We would still spend money to make sure the person is guilty. The reason death penalty cases take up so much money is because of the appeals... Which, if there is so much evidence agaisnt them... I say there should be no appeals on "technicalities." Many people are let off death row, yes... But not because they did not do the crime...

Originally Posted by Darkdale

I mean, if you never kill any, you really improve your chances for never killing an innocent man.

And if you never imprision someone for the rest of your life theres no chance you will kill an innocent man that way... your point? I am pretty sure if an innocent man is sentenced to death row, he is more likely to get off than if he is sent to prision... for the simple fact that there are so many anti-death penalty people out there that they are willing to fund any appeal he can come up with.

Originally Posted by Darkdale

I just don't see how killing people benefits anyone. You seem to be looking at it from the point of view where there are certain cases where it would make sense... but it's one in a million.... so, really, why do it? Why allow the government to have it if they'll hardly ever use it anyway?

Why restrict the government from ever doing it? I do believe there are some powers the government shouldn't have, but the ultimate punishment, they should be allowed to give if the situation arises.

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by BangBang

However it is much more expensive to sentence and execute someone than it is to keep an offender in prison for life.

That is because of all of the appeals... I think that someone on death row should be allowed a limited number of appeals... After a certain number of appeals you start just making stuff up to save your life...

[FFH]

This is a great question. I lean towards the mercy side of this. I think killing should be done in self defense only. A murderer who is in prison is not a threat to anyone. The question we should ask ourselves is this, "would I carry out the execution personally if I had the chance?" Most of us could not say yes to this.

[Bangbang]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

That is because of all of the appeals... I think that someone on death row should be allowed a limited number of appeals... After a certain number of appeals you start just making stuff up to save your life...

I think they should put them to death immediately after the sentence in public. If he/she was innocent they will be resurrected anyway....... right? Or if a Muslim will go to Allah...right?....or maybe just be reinacarnated...or be.......

[Bangbang]

Originally Posted by FFH

A murderer who is in prison is not a threat to anyone.

They murder other inmates and staff. I have been an eyewitness to this for the ones that have been sent to State Mental Hospitals. Some get realeased to harm more people. I change my vote. Kill them all.

[BUDDY]

For my thoughts on this execution, I will once again quote Don Feder:

"Executing a murderer, is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices...A murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of perole can still laugh, learn, and love, listen to music and read, form friendships, and do the thousand and one things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to his victims."

From Don Feder, "McVeigh Puts Capitol Punishment in Focus"

For my thoughts on deterrence, I will once again quote Dr. John McAdams:

"if we execute murderers and there is no detterent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have dterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

From Dr. John McAdams, Professor, Marquette University

I personally could care less whether the death penalty does deter crime or not. It seems to me that the number of people in the justice system trying to plea bargain their way into life imprisonment, indicates that it does have a deterrant effect, but I will trust the studies sighted so far. What I really care about is the number of people who have gotten off with lighter sentences for murder, and then move on to kill again. A perfect example of this is John Wayne Gacy. It is a punishment that fits the crime and should be handed out when appropriate.

Also, what does, "only in extreme cases" mean. Are we now qualifyng what deaths are appropriate for the death penalty to be administered and what deaths are not? Is one life worth more than another? Please explain this.

[Pardus]

I voted "Only in the worst cases is it just." but my belief is the death penalty should only be an option that the convicted can choose over another penalty.

i haven't read thru most of the posts in this thread, sometimes you just can't be bothered listening to dumb opinions. I'm not saying you are all dumb, but pro-death penalty people bug the hell out of me, because they can't grasp the concept that the death penalty will kill innocent people or they are just too heartless to care.