Blizzhackers

[Open Debate] Capital punishment;
Is death ever justifiable as a punishment?

"Executing the mentally retarded is senseless cruelty. Even strong death penalty supporters recognize that capital punishment is wrong for people with the mind of a child."

Is the death penalty justifiable in today's society? Do people deserve a second chance? Should religion influence the Government's stance on capital punishment?

Each year there are about 250 people added to death row and 35 executed. The death penalty is the harshest form of punishment enforced in the United Sates today. Once a jury has convicted a criminal offense they go to the second part of the trial, the punishment phase. If the jury recommends the death penalty and the judge agrees then the criminal will face some form of execution, lethal injection is the most common form used today. There was a period from 1972 to 1976 that capital punishment was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Their reason for this decision was that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. The decision was reversed when new methods of execution were introduced.

What about unfirm convictions, and potential conviction errors? The current judicial system in most western civilizations offers a 'fair' trial, which usually consists of a jury verdict, so evidently the potential role of human error is always apparent.

How effective is Capital Punishment as a deterrent in countries and states in which it is still practiced? How does this compare with countries which no longer allow the death penalty?

Is it right to take a fellow being's life, in order to satisfy the law?

*edit*

Split into its own topic.

-Emo

Is the death penalty justifiable in today's society?
In any practical way? No. Death is not a sentence that can be justified. There are a number of concepts taken into mind when asserting this conclusion:
Economic principles, Moral Issues, and Controversy's propensity to be stirred when the two aforementioned principles are called into question.

Economics:
The death penalty is just plain bad economics at work. When you put somebody in Jail, you are then obligated to pay for their room and board; of course, this is a hefty expense. Going a step further, when you mandate somebody to be sentenced to death, you not only pay for their room and board, but the subsequent appeals that will inevitably take place. Ever heard the phrase, "If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you?". Those lawyers don't get paid out of thin air.



Moral Concerns
First of all, we have to consider all groups involved. This is not simply a case where you can instigate the phrase "If you don't like it, turn the other way." No, this is not. The death penalty may occur to anyone regardless of their creed or moral objections. It is involuntary, and therefore infringes upon the right of said person. The Death Penalty is something forbidden in many religions and looked upon as "taboo" by many people. As we are the government, we must look to please as many people as we can. The Christians are against it, the Muslims are against it, and the Jews are against it. This is a rare case that religion's boorish agenda pushing is not present in the least bit. Besides, a life-term in prison is among the harshest penalties one may endure, debatably worse than the Death Penalty. I, for one, think it is worse. While others may not hold the same to be true, it can be compromised--at the very least--to be near equal. The Death Penalty extinguishes life, but a life-term steals your life from you, similar to Azkaban's Dementors in the novel "Harry Potter".

Do people deserve a second chance?
Not necessarily so. Many people are thrown into jail wrongly. Many people are sentenced to death wrongly. Do people who committed atrocious, heinous, inhuman acts deserve a second chance? Probably not, but that is all a matter of opinion. Purely subjective.

Should religion influence the Government's stance on capital punishment?
Absolutely. These religions are being directly affected by the Government's stance on capital punishment. If something is affecting you and your beliefs in such a manner, you damn we should be able to influence it. Else we would not be free.

This is of absolutely no consequence because justice isn't for sale to the lowest bidder.



The Christian religion, while split up to many seperate types, mostly all follows the Holy Bible - be it tweaked a bit to their likings. However, the same Old Testament in the Holy Bible that commands, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" also forbids vengeance. This shows a clear distinction between retribution and vengeance.



Widespread use of DNA virtually eliminates the argument that the death penalty can't be fairly applied. Also note that DNA has gotten any wrongfully convicted people off of death row and there's no evidence that any innocent people have been executed.



Okay, but it shouldn't be the religion actually influencing it, if anything it's the religion influencing the individuals who should influence the government. Linking governments and religions too closely just begs for problems (crusades, anyone?).

I'm glad that you find economics to be of absolutely no concern. You may keep that position all you like, but the rest of us, you know, the tax payers will sit over on the other side. Monetary concerns are always at the hearts of issues. You can't simply disregard them; moreover, justice isn't "for sale the the lowest bidder". I can't see how that quote could possibly apply. There is no bidder in this situation. If you simply meant to say that monetary manners are of no concern, I would advice that you turn right around and find the road in which you turned wrong. The death penalty's lack of issuement is not stopping justice from being served; the channels in which justice is served are simply chaged.

It is just ineffective in a society such as this, and thusly has no place:

Fancy that. Yippee-dee-doo-da. Not only does it not take economic considerations to mind, but it doesn't even serve the justice. How can you support it if it doesn't even do its job? The "highest bidder" doesn't do squat.

There isn't even any proof that the Death Penalty is a more effective form of punishment. It certainly does not serve as an effective deterent.



You can quote bible verses until you turn blue, but it is the general Christian consenus that the Death Penalty is wrong. This is such common knowledge. It really doesn't matter what the bible does or does not say. It is what the people believe, and that is the pertinent issue. If you want to sit here and tell me that Christians aren't against the Death Penalty, stop me now, because I'm wasting my time debating here.


I would like a source on this one; otherwise, this is a laughably bold statement.

What? Not only are people being wrongfully executed. We are catching it only after the fact, many times. I mean, before you claim that "there is no evidence", you should back that up with something. If not, it's a baseless claim. Come to think of it, the ratio between guilty and "we know were actually not guilty" is pretty terrible.





...and that is exactly what is happening. The religion has influenced the people who have influenced the government.

The problem of economics doesn't lie in the death penalty, but in the costs of trials & appeals. And those (many) appeals are there to ensure that nobody gets wrongfully convicted.





Not an effective deterrent? Notice the swift & sharp increase in homocides after the death penalty's abolishment in the United States? How do you explain that? And also the sharp drop after the first widely publicized execution since its reinstation?

Yes, I've seen it where they've made it to death row and then been cleared of the charges, yes I've seen it to where some people really still felt they were innocent after execution but didn't have conclusive proof of it. But, like I said before, I have yet to see conclusive evidence that any innocent person has actually been executed.



That's not common knowledge to me. I used to be Catholic, and most everybody I knew within the church supported it.



The sheer number of people that have been cleared of charges since the introduction of DNA testing should be evidence enough, no? There can never be complete and utter certainty, hence why I said "virtually."



I'd like to see the survey.



Ideally it should be zero, yes. Yes there have been wrongful convictions, too many of them. But they are inevitable. No matter how good a justice system is it'll eventually make some mistakes. The goal is to have as few as possible.



Agreed.

Um, no? The many appeals to ensure that nobody gets wrongfully convicted are a major part of the death penalty. You can't simply discard them as another separate entity. They are inseparably bound.


That is not what the graph says. I would like text to prove this.
That, or the graph lies. No source? No website? That graph means nothing. You can't disprove a source with a graph you could have very-well made in powerpoint a few minutes ago. Especially if you are to question my sources directly after...
SOURCE

That is the State of Tennessee, and that is an official document.




I have posted "Conclusive Evidence" already.
I've cited a perfectly valid source, and I don't see any reason to call it into question.


But, I mean. If that isn't good enough for you, I have another one.
To flash around the credentials...

The title of the Document is found to be "Columbia Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 15 ".




Oh, come on!.
With sites like this, you are going to sit in my face and tell me no?
Further, more concrete proof.
You must have a weird church, man.



The number of people "cleared" so late in the trials is just proof against it.


I posted another source which supports it.


Let me give you a heads up, bud. The ratio is disgusting. 90% of death penalty trials have made serious errors in their verdict (Source posted above.). This isn't how many errors "a good justice system" should have. That is gross and outrageous. Hell, 29 percent of these cases were found to have made major errors on the first direct appeal!

Yes, but only in extreme circumstances (aka 9-11 terrorists, that guy who blew up 50 people in Oklahoma city, etc.).



Yep.



I like to think that everybody gets a chance to live, regardless of what they have done. However, other people don't feel the same way. Therein is the downside of democracy.



At what? Living life outside of a prison? If they've done something so bad that society deems them unfit to live, I don't think they should be let out of their cell forever.



Fuck no. Religion SHOULD have no bearing on anything today, as was previously established by the majority in a previous forum topic, religion is a currently-unnecessary tool used to control people. Sure, it USED to be important, but not today.



So don't falsely convict ANYONE until you are 100% sure that they did it - aka you have 5 forms of undisputable evidence against them, or they plead guilty.



Again, the downside of democracy. I'm not saying it's bad (there are worse alternatives), but it had its bad moments.



I would imagine that people break the laws the same. As there's only so much you have to do to be convicted on a death sentence these days, people who do bad things simply don't think about the death penalty unless they knowingly do something REALLY bad.



IMO, no. But that's why this topic is in the debate forum.

Capital punishment is a good idea in some cases, think about pedophiles, rapists and killers. But it is still axed on the crime itself. A man could kill another man and that could have been a mistake, a man could have raped his girlfriend and it was completely out of his character, and just a burst of rage at a moment. That doesn't deserve the death sentence. But think about the killers who kill more than once, pedophiles that have pictures of all the kids on the block and the rapists who rape on a weekly basis. Those people should be lead to their doom.

Some people will bring up "what if they were innocent!?!?". That is indeed a problem, but it would be just as bad if they were innocent and spent the rest of their life rotting in prison.

Are you suggesting that religious people should have no say on issues dealing with government? Just because I've ever been to church, I can't vote on this subject? Religion doesn't just directly march up and take hold of politics anymore; they have countless pawns to do so for them, in a collective sense, at least. Many people form their beliefs based on a religion, as it is easy to follow a rubric that is deemed "acceptable" by the majority of society (Which is why their beliefs can be so stubborn. It isn't formed by their own mind.). Religion will work its bearing on government by the many people it influences. The only way to stop it from affecting the government, would be to stop all religious people from having their say.

He's saying that the people should decide what the government does and does not do. Religion should not be a consideration of decision-makers. They were elected based on their positions, by a populace partially constituted of religious followers. That is their influence.

Exactly.

My views on this are short and sweet. I believe it shouldn't be allowed, as many people who are sentenced have turned out to be, in fact guilty.

Also, two wrongs don't make a right

Did you mean to say "not guilty"?




The debate is over whether or not the death penalty is wrong. If you assume that it is wrong, then the "two wrongs don't make a right" principle could be used to disprove any revenge/retribution/punitive arguments for capital punishment. But it is an incomplete argument against it, by itself anyway.

Valid opinion, just keep it clean.

the real issue isn't the needle its why does it take 10+years to off the silly punk who raped and killed someones sister/brother/mother/etc, it should be done within 2 years max, genetic misfits like that are not needed in our society and only further corrupt our moral values by keeping them around ....dam I'm heartless =D