Thoughts on the death penalty?

[Ketchup345]

As some of you may know, New Jersey just banned the death penalty.

What are PSOW users' view on the death penalty?

Here's (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:nlaqXoDaV6cJ:www.njleg.state.nj.us/committees/dpsc_final.pdf+death+penalty+study&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us) a Google HTML version of the New Jersey study.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ketchup345 on 2007-12-17 16:47 ]</font>

[Sinue_v2]

I support it. In fact, I think they should return to being not just public events - but something you can bring the whole family out to the courthouse to enjoy. Bring a picknic basket and make a day out of it.

George Carlin had the right idea. Strap a guillotine to the top of a giant pachinko board and place bets on which basket the head is going to land in. Make a lottery out of it, and televise the thing on pay-per-view, with proceeds going to the families of the victims.

[Scrub]

I think that banning the death penalty is one of the most foolish things possible.

Don't get me wrong, the death penalty isn't to be thrown around lightly. But why do we feel the need to keep horrible murderers, rapists, and serial killers alive? So they can waste our money and resources living in prison to 'think about what they've done'? So they can get out 'for good behavior' and continue doing whatever horrible deed that put them there?

I honestly can't see the sense in banning the death penalty, in any sense or form.

[Rashiid]

Death is usually what they want. Torture them >=]

[ABDUR101]

I still say China has the right idea. Bring all those to be executed out, set them down, and do a group execution with a simple gunshot to the head. Then bill them or their families for the bullet.

Currently, we feed them, cloth them, and give them shelter for years until its their turn in the gas chamber/electric chair/injection. I'd allow time for appeals and to find evidence that might prove them innocent or whatever incase of a mistrial; but no way should they set on death row or even in prison their entire lives. We have homeless that should have it so lucky, to be under a 'house arrest' wherein they get fed, clothed and cable with a warm bed.

If I were homeless, fuck the shelters, I'd go do something petty to get prison time during the winter.

[DizzyDi]

On 2007-12-17 16:11, ABDUR101 wrote:
I still say China has the right idea. Bring all those to be executed out, set them down, and do a group execution with a simple gunshot to the head. Then bill them or their families for the bullet.



I'm all for the death penalty but I think thats a bit harsh. :
I think a simple, painless injection is the best way to do it.
Anyways, TIME TO GATHER UP A GANG OF NE'ER-DO-WELLS AND MOVE TO JOIZEY!

[rahl1]

I am personally for the death penalty.
I live in Virginia and it is still an option here, depending on the crime. I am just glad that I don't have to decide what crime would fall in the category where the death penalty was an option. To me those who abuse/molest children, abuse the elderly, are cruel to animals, rapists or are habitual violent offenders would be in this category. I don't have any tolerance for those who harm others, so I think there comes a time when a crime is so heinous that a person forfeits their right to live. If our legal and prison systems could actually rehabilitate criminals, then I think we would have another option instead of the death penalty for some offenders. Even the death penalty is not deterrent enough to prevent crimes. Until we as a world society can make changes on the underlying reasons people commit crimes we will never get rid of crime and thus the need for the death penalty.

I have 3 nieces and a nephew and I would rather they not share the world with people that have proven they will prey on others. I know the death penalty will not make them 100% safe from violent crime, but it will mean a few less people that could potentially harm them.

[ABDUR101]

I'm of the mindset that someone raping little girls or killing people is harsh aswell, but I think killing a murderer or someone detrimental to the safety of society is fine; harsh or not. Why give them a little pin-prick to ease them into death when they most likely did'nt offer the same courtesy to their victim(s)?

[ShinMaruku]

On 2007-12-17 16:14, DizzyDi wrote:


I'm all for the death penalty but I think thats a bit harsh. :
I think a simple, painless injection is the best way to do it.
Anyways, TIME TO GATHER UP A GANG OF NE'ER-DO-WELLS AND MOVE TO JOIZEY!


You think the injection is painless?
I'm not for any of that shit. Who give you the right over some jackasses life and with these so-called painless thing? It's no deterant.
If you want lessons I say keep the fucker alive and use him for cheap ass labor and make money off these jerks.

[DizzyDi]

The death penalty shouldn't be about giving them a painful death. It shouldn't be about vengence or giving them equal pain that they caused their victims. Thats just my opinion.

[Ketchup345]

Personally, I'm against it. There is always the case for someone to be wrongfully convicted, as seen by Project Innocence (210 as of this post were exonerated just by that one project). Earlier this year someone on death row in New Jersey was exonerated.


On 2007-12-17 16:03, Scrub wrote:
But why do we feel the need to keep horrible murderers, rapists, and serial killers alive? So they can waste our money and resources living in prison to 'think about what they've done'? So they can get out 'for good behavior' and continue doing whatever horrible deed that put them there?
Because we can not be 100% sure we are executing the proper person. It costs more to allow the death penalty than to keep a person jailed, due to the lengthy legal follow ups. Here's (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/16/eveningnews/main3624023.shtml)an article saying that New Jersey found the death penalty more costly than prison. The link also gives one of several wrongful convictions for the death penalty that was exonerated. Another (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/54.php) exonerated person that was on death row. $2 million more to execute than to jail (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/deathpenalty/i/death_penalty_2.htm).

Identification of a suspect is horribly unreliable.


Personally, I favor life in prison without parole for the worst offenses. True life in a supermax prison, not life = ~40 years. But life as in until the convicted person dies or is exonerated. Make them work like ShinMaruku said.

[ABDUR101]

Hey, I'd be all for factory labor from prison inmates.

[Sord]

On 2007-12-17 16:40, ABDUR101 wrote:
Hey, I'd be all for factory labor from prison inmates.


this is pretty much my stance. Don't just kill the bastards, you should get something out of them. Make them work, use whatever means needed to "motivate" them to work.

[Sinue_v2]

I think forced labor is a little too close to slavery. And really, what are you going to do if they don't work? Beat them? Put them in solitary? Is it really more "humane" to imprison a convicted murderer and subject them to slavery, beatings, and torture rather than simply executing them? What about an innocent man who was wrongfully accused? Sure you're not killing them, but if and when they do get out - what is left of their life after you've taken everything away and abused them so?

I still think that executions should be carried out, and streamline the process. If you want to make sure innocent people aren't subjected to this - make reforms in the courtroom, not the prison.

Also, if you want a painless death - use carbon monoxide. The victim just falls asleep. Or use the knockout gas they use in hospitals to put you under. Then behead them just to make sure.

[ShinMaruku]

I say make a use of them, since they are such obstructions to society, they should be forced to become something to society, close to slavery? Yes but if one will kill people and crap like that? I think that's right up their alley.
I don't think taking a fools life from them is the right way to do it.

[Darkly]

I was going to add that in MEDC's specifically it costs more to execute prisoners than keep them in prision, but ketchup345 beat me to it.

Maybe its the comics I read as a kid but killing a killer makes you a killer.Would you feel like you've done the right thing by killing the murder?

It's alright to support it, but what if it's your friend who's being put on trial, what if you know he's innocent etc... I Know it's far-fetched but, can you still be in favour of the death penalty when its your family on the line?

[Ketchup345]

I'd give them a small salary. I wouldn't go as far as forcing them to work, as they would have something to work for (maybe use the money for some kind of bonus).


On 2007-12-17 17:19, Sinue_v2 wrote:
I still think that executions should be carried out, and streamline the process. If you want to make sure innocent people aren't subjected to this - make reforms in the courtroom, not the prison.What kind of reforms would you do? Many safeguards are in place to try prevent innocent people from being killed. As shown, sometimes even these aren't enough. There are many required after trials for death penalty cases, and even all of them combined still fail once in a while. Getting rid of the life sentence completely is the only way to make sure no one innocent dies.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ketchup345 on 2007-12-17 17:55 ]</font>

[Tigerram]

People that murder, rape, sexually assault children, and do harm to others that is severe which equals to murder doesn't deserve to live. I support the death penalty.

Not only do I think these people have a serious problem, it's as most say..."it's a disease." That's bullshit. If it is, fine, eliminate the walking disease. Know what I mean? If found guilty with the proper evidence and what not, do it right then and there, instead of these assholes waiting 20-25 years to die. This would certainly help the over crowding in prisons. It's pure common sense. These people are sick and twisted, and I don't care what anyone says, they won't change. They are raised to know that this stuff isn't things that you do to other people...they have a choice every day not to do it.

I also say this...instead of wasting precious dollars on say a Potter's Field, throw their bodies out into the woods; let the predators munch on their bodies. They don't deserve to be buried properly, not even in prison.

Not to mention t the individual on what they do in China...that would be nice to have something like that here in America...I agree whole heartedly that we need to get more physical with the death penalty. A shot in the arm is too wussified, and so-called painless. so I say...bring em to an open field, torture them to death, and throw them to the dogs.

I know my method is harsh...but the hell with em. Also, New Jersey is dumb for eliminating the penalty.

[Jehosaphaty]

I guess the logic of "if you kill a killer then you're a killer" gets lost on me. Who are you defining as the "you", the public who allows it to happen, the guard who escorts the prisoner into the facility, the jury who laid the verdict down, or the person who flips the switch? You're not killing the murderer--they've already killed themselves in a manner of speaking: as soon as they commited the crime, they put themselves under the penalty of death since it pre-existed their crime. That person, man or woman, already decided their fate. You kill somebody then the punishment that exists in many places is you get to die too.

I'm still working through how I personally feel about it, but nonetheless I thought that I'd just throw that point out.

[Darkly]

I meant you. plural, regardless of the laws set in place these people just don't deserve coming down to their level.
I just feel like killing them proves nothing, well only to get an eye for an eye really - which ghandi said makes everyone blind.

murders don't deserve much, but all those wrongly convicted who die just isn't worth it, becase you want murders dead, innocent people have to suffer too? I know you won't feel this way but Anything that can cause harm to those wrongly accused is much worse than killing a killer.

[Sinue_v2]

What kind of reforms would you do?

The hell if I know. If I had the answer to that, I'd be out there trying to implement it. Just because you don't know how to completely fix the system, doesn't mean you can't recognize that it's still screwed up. Mistaken identities are going to happen, and people will be wrongly accused. You're not going to get around that. The government makes a lot of decisions which kill or make suffer innocent people every day. So why so much concern over an area of government where MOST of the people who are caught up in that particular system DO deserve to die.

[Blitzkommando]

They knew what they were doing when they did it. Why waste my money that I pay in taxes to keep the scum of the earth alive? Shoot them. Bullets are cheap and easily had. I have zero tolerance for 'people' that murder, rape, and such. It's not just a punishment, and really not so much that at all. It's more of a way to guarantee that they can't and won't be able to repeat what they did ever again. I'm all for the death penalty and for lethal force in self defense.

[Jehosaphaty]

Devil's advocate to Sinue...Is innocent colateral, even of the smallest nature, worth the price for the death penalty? Just because the government makes decisions that kill innocent people doesn't justify some innocents falling through the cracks of the death penalty.

[Sinue_v2]

And Devil's advocate to you, is imprisonment - which carries with it the possibility of escape or parole (or worse, turning the murderer into a celebrity like Charles Manson) worth the price of said convict getting out and killing again?

In this country, you have the right to protect yourself and your property with deadly force. A police officer can shoot you if they suspect you pose a serious threat to them or innocents. Yet, people get squeamish when you talk of killing someone who has been convicted - by an (ideally) fair and impartial jury of their peers, of murder? Why so?

And remember the case in the news just recently of Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee who pushed for the pardon of serial rapist serving a life sentence Wayne DuMond - who upon release from prison promptly went out and raped again - this time killing his victims. Now, upon who's hands is the blood of those innocent victims?

Innocent collateral is unavoidable. If anything that case (among many) highlight that innocent collateral is unavoidable. As I said, if you want to reduce the number of innocents caught in the system - then you need to try to refine the system that hands out death penalties, but not to abolish the death penalty in and of itself.

Remember also, that depending on the crime, just "life" is a death penalty in and of itself. An innocent caught in prison on a murder conviction subjects themselves to the possibility of murder by other inmates every day - especially from other "lifers" since there's really no further punishment. For example, look at the case of Jeffery Dahmer who was sentenced to 15 life sentences and kept seperated from the general prison populace - but killed by a fellow inmate while on work duty.

In many ways, the current death penalty is far more humane and less traumatizing than conventional prison time - even for the innocents caught up in the system.

[Shadowpawn]

I personally don't think convicted criminals and rapist are stable enough for forced labor. That would just give them a different location to incite a riot and cause more chaos outside of the prison. Unless the factory was built into the prison where as though you could directly export them to the factory without the risk of less security.

As for the death penalty, personally it doesn't matter to me whatever they live or die. Whatever takes up less of our resources is ultimately for the best. However, I do think those who commit serious crimes should receive a real life sentence like Sinue mentioned and have half their expenses paid out the victims families. This alone might deter the likelihood of someone doing such a devious crime.

The only real complication that might come out of something like this is on the stance of the mentally ill. Will a mentally ill person with repeated offenses be shipped of the prison for life to be abused and possibly murdered? Or does the mental hospital take the place of prison and house them? If the former, is it morally sound to do such a thing to a person who has no sane comprehension of the crimes they may have committed?

[Jehosaphaty]

On 2007-12-17 19:43, Sinue_v2 wrote:
In many ways, the current death penalty is far more humane and less traumatizing than conventional prison time - even for the innocents caught up in the system.


Agreed.

A stretch, but fairly obviously imprisonment is currently the best option for keeping criminals locked away, albeit the systems has its faults. I'd objectively say that escape carries a statistically much smaller problem than the debacle that is parole.

[Sord]

On 2007-12-17 20:35, Shadowpawn wrote:
If the former, is it morally sound to do such a thing to a person who has no sane comprehension of the crimes they may have committed?


One of my best friends father is mentally ill (severe Schizophrenia.) He thought some man was an FBI agent out to kill him for some reason and shot him. The guy didn't die, but he definitly got a bullet wound. The father is moved between both the jail and the mental hospital both on a scheduled basis for regular checkups as well as when needed should he lapse into false reality again. I'm not 100% positive what his prison conditions are, but I think he is isolated.

And I'm pretty sure their have been incidents where some form of labor was put inside prison walls. It realy doesn't have to be a factory, any form of labor that has some decent benefits for everyone else outside the jails. Preferably something they can do with just their hands, wouldn't want to give them tools. The amount of labor would be based on what the crime was.

Speaking of which, it seems everyone neglected to mention their point of view when someone crosses the line and should be killed, or if they haven't done enough and should be spared.