POLL: Muslims, you crazy!

[devilock76]

I said when there is zero doubt.

Zero doubt with current technology, right?

Ken

[texastorm]

How do you define 'worst offenders'? Ok, murder makes sense, but not everyone on death row is there for murder.

Show me a case on death row that the crime doesn't fit?

All I can find are brutal rapes, child molesters, and killers.

I am fine with all of those getting death. Rapist will rape again, molesters will gladly molest again, and killers already asked for their fate. Thats my opinion.

I can find no drug dealers on death row, no whores, no thieves(that didn't kill in the theft), no tax evaders... I think we pretty much have a handle on what warrants a death sentence.

Now lets flip it....

What in your mind warrants a heinous criminals "right to life, etc" if he or she takes that right from another citizen. Who has more rights? The criminal or the victim. Shouldn't the act of taking these rights from another person by force be enough to have these rights denied to the criminal? Why should the criminal get more empathy than the victim? I mean I had a bad childhood, but i dont rape, kill, torture or molest anyone. Why is that always tossed in as an excuse for horrific behavior? How is my right not to be murdered usurped by an individual yet he gets to retain his right not to be murdered if he takes mine?

So sure the worlds not fair, and I dont expect it to be. But every action ideally have an equal and opposite reaction. Killers should be killed, but we cant rape rapist, or molest molesters.. yet they took someones happiness and typically ruin an otherwise happy life... so why not let them give up theirs?

[tom502]

When it's a case where everyone knows who did it, and even the person admits he did it, then there is no doubt, and most cases are like this. If there is doubt, and the person swears he didn't do it, yet the evidence says he did, then give him life, so he can work on an appeal.

[sgreger1]

No, I never said that. An innocent man sent to prison can be undone, an execution cannot. An innocent with a life sentence has recourse (appeals, new evidence, etc).

Good point. Still, does that mean we shouldn't shoot at the enemie's soldiers during war? I mean hell they don't even get a trial! Sorry, but sometimes there is injustice in the world. That is a problem which has nothing to do with the death penalty. Take it up with god/the universe.

How do you define 'worst offenders'? Ok, murder makes sense, but not everyone on death row is there for murder.

Well let's look at how the law defines it. Let's take a look at the people who are on death row in, oh I dunno, Texas:

http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/i...h-Row-Inmates/

Franklin DeWayne:

On January 2, 1998, Alix murdered a man at an apartment complex in Houston. Alix had kidnapped and raped the victim's sister and then forced her to return to her apartment and load up his car with electronic equipment. When the victim returned home Alix chased him down and shot him one time in the back, resulting in his death.


Allen Guy:

On April 3, 2002, in Travis County, Texas, Allen got into a physical altercation with his 47-year-old girlfriend. After witnessing the assault, the victim's 19-year-old daughter called the police. When the police arrived they found the girlfriend and her daughter stabbed to death.

Daniel Clate:

On March 12, 2000, Acker kidnapped a 32-year-old woman and murdered her by strangulation and blunt force trauma. The womans's body was found along side a county road.

Buenka Adams:

On September 2, 2002, in Cherokee County, Texas, Adams entered a convenience store and robbed a 24-year-old man and shot him one time in the head. Adams then attempted to rob, kidnap and sexually assault two women.





The list goes on and on. The point is that the people currently on death row appear to have committed some pretty offensive and haenous crimes. I don't stand up for people like that, and they get what they deserve. If an innocent man is convicted, than an investigation needs to be launched in order to ensure it doesn't happen again, and the family should be paid via settlement for wrongfully executing their family member. It's a 1 in a thousand circumstance so it shouldn't be too difficult.

The vast majority of people currently on death row have commited terrible crimes. That is what I would define as "worst offenders", those who the law currently dees the "worst offenders".

What is more cruel: being innocent and having a quick execution without stay, or being guilty and having the rest of your life to ponder your bad decisions behind bars?

All that matters is that they get what they deserve and do not get the luxury of existing like a normal human being. Allowing them to live out their life watching TV, reading books and exercising is not a harsh enough sentence for these people.

[raptor]

There is no such thing as zero doubt.

[sgreger1]

sgreger, I think this sums up what you believe should be:

"I believe in speedy executions of convicted murderers (and sex offenders (?)) as it will save the state money and I believe it is less cruel than life sentences. And I am ok if an innocent does get executed in this manner."

Almost perfect. I DO care if an innocent gets executed in this manner, but still it is better than locking them in a cage with other criminals to rape/abuse/stab him for 20 years. Like in war, there is collateral damage. It is unfortunate but impossible to stop. If we stop prosecuting people because someone may be innocent, than the other 99.99% of criminals would walk free. I believe this would be to the detriment of society at large.

[sgreger1]

If there is no good answer does that mean we should continue plodding along with a known bad one? Forgive me but I must ask you to answer that question before I answer yours.

Ken

My answer: We have to do something to address crime. Until a better solution presents itself, we will stick with this. Much like with capitalism, it is deeply flawed but works better than the alternative, hence we stick with it.

[sgreger1]

Show me a case on death row that the crime doesn't fit?

All I can find are brutal rapes, child molesters, and killers.

I am fine with all of those getting death. Rapist will rape again, molesters will gladly molest again, and killers already asked for their fate. Thats my opinion.

I can find no drug dealers on death row, no whores, no thieves(that didn't kill in the theft), no tax evaders... I think we pretty much have a handle on what warrants a death sentence.

Now lets flip it....

What in your mind warrants a heinous criminals "right to life, etc" if he or she takes that right from another citizen. Who has more rights? The criminal or the victim. Shouldn't the act of taking these rights from another person by force be enough to have these rights denied to the criminal? Why should the criminal get more empathy than the victim? I mean I had a bad childhood, but i dont rape, kill, torture or molest anyone. Why is that always tossed in as an excuse for horrific behavior? How is my right not to be murdered usurped by an individual yet he gets to retain his right not to be murdered if he takes mine?

So sure the worlds not fair, and I dont expect it to be. But every action ideally have an equal and opposite reaction. Killers should be killed, but we cant rape rapist, or molest molesters.. yet they took someones happiness and typically ruin an otherwise happy life... so why not let them give up theirs?

Again, spot on.

[devilock76]

I am fine with all of those getting death. Rapist will rape again, molesters will gladly molest again, and killers already asked for their fate. Thats my opinion.

That may be your opinion, but the facts and statistics don't agree with it. In fact they are quite the opposite.

Ken

[texastorm]

I will say it...

I believe in speedy executions of convicted mureders and sex offenders. I believe this is way less cruel than a life sentence (who wants to live with the knowledge they killed people or raped a child). I believe if done swiftly it would be cheaper. I am ok being wrongly accused as well... however I am only ok with all of the above if this act is SWIFT, if I have to sit on death row for 20 years of sometimes ridiculous appeals thinking about being wrongly accused (as people are doing today I am sure) then that is cruel an unusual punishment.

A few posts back someone said shoplifters where the most likely to repeat a crime. Here is what I find interesting. If you lived in a society where you lost your left hand if you shoplifted, two things happen. One the obvious, its now harder to steal, you got one arm! and two the shopkeeper now knows who is a crook. Since as stated thieves are the most likely repeat offenders, how is this cruel an unusual now? This is more of a deterrent that 4 months in jail if you ask me.

[devilock76]

When it's a case where everyone knows who did it, and even the person admits he did it, then there is no doubt, and most cases are like this. If there is doubt, and the person swears he didn't do it, yet the evidence says he did, then give him life, so he can work on an appeal.

And what if that person is not mentally competent?

Ken

[raptor]

Good point. Still, does that mean we shouldn't shoot at the enemie's soldiers during war? I mean hell they don't even get a trial! Sorry, but sometimes there is injustice in the world. That is a problem which has nothing to do with the death penalty. Take it up with god/the universe.

I wasn't referring to war at all. This is something we should hold for our own citizens, that we won't murder them if they're innocent. And because things like zero doubt are never truly attainable there is no perfect guarantee that we can avoid such while having an active death penalty.

[devilock76]

I will say it...

I believe in speedy executions of convicted mureders and sex offenders. I believe this is way less cruel than a life sentence (who wants to live with the knowledge they killed people or raped a child). I believe if done swiftly it would be cheaper. I am ok being wrongly accused as well... however I am only ok with all of the above if this act is SWIFT, if I have to sit on death row for 20 years of sometimes ridiculous appeals thinking about being wrongly accused (as people are doing today I am sure) then that is cruel an unusual punishment.

A few posts back someone said shoplifters where the most likely to repeat a crime. Here is what I find interesting. If you lived in a society where you lost your left hand if you shoplifted, two things happen. One the obvious, its now harder to steal, you got one arm! and two the shopkeeper now knows who is a crook. Since as stated thieves are the most likely repeat offenders, how is this cruel an unusual now? This is more of a deterrent that 4 months in jail if you ask me.

And that shoplifter now is judged for ever for what in some cases might have been a one time mistake, additionally they are less able to make an honest living with one hand less so they may be more likely to have to find criminal enterprises to survive. Either way this discussion is on the death penalty, not Hammurabi's code which is clearly unconstitutional and rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Ken

[devilock76]

I wasn't referring to war at all. This is something we should hold for our own citizens, that we won't murder them if they're innocent. And because things like zero doubt are never truly attainable there is no perfect guarantee that we can avoid such while having an active death penalty.

The difference between combat and the justice system is the basic principle of imminent threat. A person handcuffed and unarmed in a courtroom surrounded by armed bailiffs, or in a cell, is not an imminent threat. I will abstain from our wars and discussions of how much they are about imminent threat since we are merely talking a soldier on a battle field.

Ken

[sgreger1]

As of March 11, 2009, there have been a total of 15,645 executions due to the death penalty in the U.S.; 14,489 of these occurred before the U.S. Supreme Court declared capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972, and 1,156 occurred after capital punishment was reinstated in 1976.

Of those 15,645, 130 death row inmates were exonerated, instead of executed, between 1973 and 2008 due to emerging evidence, including DNA analysis. A smaller number of people have been exonerated posthumously.

The Death Penalty Information Center estimates for every seven executions, one death row inmate is exonerated. Some of the prisoners they believe were innocent appeared to have developed dubious alibis late in the appeals process, so the determinant of guilt or innocence is subjective in many cases.





So 0.8309364014062001 of death sentences result in the person getting off. This doesn't necessarily mean they are innocent, but rather means that at some point in the appeal process they convinced the jury to not go through with the execution. So of .83%, what percent were actually guilty. And should we have freed the other 15,515 criminals because we weren't sure?


I think we need to use technology to better prove guilt before giving someone an execution sentence, but still I think the current system is better than no system at all, and I have yet to hear a viable alternative. We can't lock everyone up because we ran out of room a long time ago.