BookTalk.org

The abortion thread proved very interesting so I thought I'd start a thread on capital punishment. For it or against it and why?

I am against it for several reasons.
1) I think it's enormously expensive and it has never deterred crime.
2) Over 100 people on death row have been released from prison because of evidence that proved their innocence. How many innocent people have we executed while the public cries "fry 'em"?
3) The vast majority of people on death row are not white. Statisticly a white murderer is more likely to recieve life without parole than a non-white who committed a similar crime. In connection with that, a non-white defendent is more likely to be represented by an over-worked public defender with less resources and time than a private attorney.
4) I don't think a death sentence should be determined by factors outside of the crime like politicians, judges, and D.A.s up for re-election that want to appear to be tough on crime.
5) Many people on death row were convicted primarily on eye-witness testimony, proven to be the least reliable form of evidence.

I don't know if the death penalty is necessarily "cruel and unusual" and there certainly are horrible crimimals who deserve it. My main concern is in our zeal for cowboy justice are we cheering on the deaths of innocent people along with the guilty? I'd rather see a piece of garbage that deserves to fry sit in jail for life than know a wrongfully convicted person is going to be executed. There's no way to unring that bell.

I'm in the middle. Shipping all criminals off to an island to battle for survival would be my answer. Like Easter Island or something. A dozen or so patrol ships with good firepower and the option to scrambler some fighter jets, problem solved. The port for the guardian fleet would have to be miles away with a defensive perimeter as well.

I think no matter what, our system will have collateral damage, convicting innocents. At least until forensic science gets better(it's damn near there already).

The largest consideration then is expense. I hate the idea that some of the money taken from my paycheck every two weeks goes toward 'life support' for criminals. Is killing them more expensive than keeping them alive?

I was thinking about 'Oliver Twist' in Victorian England...

They caught....The Artful Dodger who was shipped off to Australia.

Poor old Fagin....A Jew - was hanged.

Bill Sykes....well he hung himself...but would have been hung perhaps.

The point I'm making is.....if a criminal thinks he has a good chance of escaping....he'll take the chance, even if the chance is the death penalty.

But if he thinks he's almost sure to get caught and brought to justice....he'll think again.....even if the penalty is just a few years in prison.

I think....it's up to our justice system to get its act together.

I think we're coming closer and closer to the time when almost every crime is solved. We can have inexpensive cameras everywhere and all hooked together, and can recreate what a person looks like if they leave behind DNA. Catching them involves cameras also, and facial recognition software.

The death penalty system is clearly more expensive than a system handling similar cases with a lesser punishment. The most expensive system is one that combines the costliest parts of both punishments: lengthy and complicated death penalty trials followed by incarceration for life...

Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is needed for a death penalty case, only more so:
• More pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial more pre-trial motions will be filed and answered.
• More experts will be hired.
• Twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution.
• Jurors will have to be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered.
• Two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment.
• The trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials
• And then will come a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in the high security of death row.

Interbane wrote: I think no matter what, our system will have collateral damage, convicting innocents. At least until forensic science gets better(it's damn near there already).

Many death row inmates have been set free because of DNA evidence. Usually they were convicted prior to the early 90s when DNA was first accepted in courtrooms as a solid science. But it isn't that simple. It can only be tested if some DNA evidence from the original crime is preserved. Many prosecutors though are very resistant to re-opening a conviction citing this undermines the jury process. Let's say someone on death row is actually lucky enough to get the help of an attorney and can actually prove their innocence with DNA. There is a whole other legal process to actually remove the felony conviction off their record, which affects their ability to get a job and move on with their lives. As bad as getting a life sentence is for a crime you didn't commit is, getting the death sentence is worse if there's no DNA evidence at the time to prove your innocence. I don't think we should be applying the maximum punishment unless there is scientific certainty of a persons guilt and we are pretty close to it. But the fact is, we don't really reserve it for the worst of the worst criminals. Many outside factors could be involved with who gets life and who gets death, none of which have to do with the elements of the crime. A man who kills a store clerk in an armed robbery could get death while someone like Charles Manson gets life (I think he still gets reviewed for parole). How badly does society need to execute people to feel like justice is being done? How much collateral damage is acceptable? Is any acceptable?

Perhaps we really should consider beating people with a bamboo cane.

In many cases, I think life in prison is a greater punishment than death... well, at least if the death sentence were carried out more quickly rather than years later. That's the most ridiculous part to me. If guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt(scientific evidence and all) and the death sentence is given, drag em outside the courtroom and shoot them instead of wasting our money.

Interbane wrote:

Perhaps we really should consider beating people with a bamboo cane.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Interbane:-

The largest consideration then is expense. I hate the idea that some of the money taken from my paycheck every two weeks goes toward 'life support' for criminals. Is killing them more expensive than keeping them alive?

We don't have the death penalty in the UK. Our prisons are overcrowded.

But to me the cost to inland revenue is not an economic consideration but a moral consideration. We are paying to live in a country where the justice system is as fair as possible. It is expensive.

I worry about the philosophy of 'bring back the birch' the equivalent of beating people with bamboo canes. I understand the frustration that causes you to advocate it but It seems to me, a short step back to public floggings and thence to public hangings etc.

For some crimes, I think the sentence should be punitive, in the hope of deterring the person from re-offending. But some crimes are unforgivable, torturing and murdering through neglect, small babies and children. We've had two of these cases recently. I'm afraid that I feel that these people should be painlessly destroyed....

If we wanted to inflict the same pain on those people, we would be as foul as they and it wouldn't alleviate anything that those children have suffered. So, I think they should removed from society.

I never thought I would say this. I used to be adamantly against capital punishment.

Richard Dawkins gives a very good case against the jury system too, he says legal cases should be judged by legal experts, trained in legal matters. Not twelve vulnerable members of the public. My jury is still out on this one.