Death Penalty...?

[gina_rlp]

I don't know if this has been posted about previously, I don't always come on this side of the :bowl but I read in the papers the other day about Arnie Schwatzeneger (i really have no idea how to spell his name I'm sorry!) in his duties as the CA state bloke being able to issue the death penalty to a guy who had killed (I think) two children and two adults in nineteen eighty-five.

The whole death penalty issue seems to be a huge one. I spent two hours having quite a spirited debate with my mum's partner about whether it is right or wrong. He is pro, and I'm anti. It was quite an interesting debate and I was just wondering what everyone else thought...?

It's not exactly an easy issue to come to a conclusion to.

I can see why the death penalty would be used:

:bug It would save the taxpayer's money paying for criminals to spend the rest of their lives in a prison with televisions, comfortable surroundings, books etc.

:bug It would be a good deterrent. In Kashmir, if you steal, you get your hand chopped off. If you have an affair, you and your partner are stoned to death. That is why the crime rate is so low over there.

:bug It would probably give the police force more authority, not because they would have the right to issue the penalty, but because they would be feared more.

:bug Punishments for "lower" crimes such as robbery or fraud would be harsher, therefore lowering the crime rate.

However, being anti, these are my reasons for not doing it:

:flower It make work for crime rate in Kashmir, but are any of those people over there actually happy? Or safe? Th country is run like a prison.

:flower Who has the right to issue a death penalty? Someone with a degree in law? A judge? It's playing God. I don't believe in god, but the theory is the same. It's allowing someone the right to judge the fate of another person.

:flower How can we ever progress as a society when we continue to use death and violence as an acceptable form of punishment? We would be teaching people not to carry out criminal activities because they would be physically punished. Not because of the moral implications.

:flower What would be considered an acceptable situation in which to use the death penalty? How do you standardise a situation? It depends almost entirely on the jury. Where do you draw the line?

:flower It would be too easy for some judges or politicians to become "death-penalty-happy." It's like with armies. I don't believe in the principles of an army. Killing in the name of your country is still killing. Killing in the name of the law is still killing!

Now these are my opinions, and I understand it's not as easy as all that, but I do feel very strongly about it. But I do want to know what other people feel about it?

:ear

[Amsters]

I'm strongly, one-hundred percent against the death penalty...no exceptions to the rule, no situations where it "might be possible."

why?

:bug i feel that it is a punishment that no government has the right or authority to administer. as a government, if we want to set the precedent that killing people is completely wrong, unethical, and not the way to handle any situation, we have to practice that lesson ourselves. i believe it teaches people that killing a fellow human being for retribution, punishment, or whatever reason is okay in certain situations...and that is not the lesson I want to teach.

:bug it is a fundamental violation of the right to life and a denial of the dignity found within each person. I do not in anyway deny the seriousness of the crime committed...I believe in a true LWOP (life without the possibility of parole) sentence, allowing for prisoners to work during their time imprisoned with part of their wages going to a victim's restitution fund and part going to cover a part of their expenses in prison. In my opinion, this punishment is just...it respects the fundamental law that we're trying to teach here - that human life is precious and is not something to be taken by the hands of another human being.

I could add more....such as things about how it's biased, how it's not cost-effective, and how it's poorly administered...how in general it's a gut response - a desire for vengeance to try to make us feel better - but in my opinions, those are simply the icing on the cake in the argument. They are the trivial details and focusing on them ignores the gravity of the situation. That's why, first and foremost, my argument is on the basis of the worth of all human life and the need to consistently respect that.

whew...sorry...probably more than you wanted to know!

[Strangefolkphan]

gina_rlp said:

It's not exactly an easy issue to come to a conclusion to.

I can see why the death penalty would be used:

:bug It would save the taxpayer's money paying for criminals to spend the rest of their lives in a prison with televisions, comfortable surroundings, books etc.
:ear

Actually it costs the taxpayers more money to have people on death row because of the exhaustive appeals process. It's cheaper to keep them in prison. And as a person with a loved one in prison, I can assure you that it is not comfortable in his surroundings. The TV he has had to be bought with MY money, books need to bought by an outsider, too. He has a metal bed, chair and desk. The heating is never at a comfortable level. He is constantly having to look over his shoulders for fear of being beaten, stolen from, or worse. But he does deserve to be there.

My point is that prison is not the luxurious living that many assume it to be. I used to think prison came with nice amenities, too, until my loved one went in.

I am also one-hundred percent against the death penalty. For me, it's just more people murdering other people. How can I tell someone that murder is wrong when we punish with murder. Seems contradictory to me. Crime has steadily risen ever since the d.p. has been reinstituted, where's the deterrent.

I also agree with Amsters about the biases and injustices in the death penalty. But I could write a book on it, so I'll stop now.

:peace and :love,

Christine

[Manic]

AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND THE WORLD WILL BE BLIND

I too am totally against the death penalty, for the reasons mostly emntioned above.
As part of a national exam (GCSE) which :uk take at sixteen, I wrote an essay on the Death Penalty, and it was given one fo the top five marks in the country, and I was commended by the exam board etc.
There are many arguments for and against, and I have heard a lot because not a lot of my friends agree with my opinion, but at the end of the day disguise it all you want, murder is murder.

[pooh bear fan]

Strangefolkphan said: ... I can assure you that it is not comfortable in his surroundings. The TV he has had to be bought with MY money, books need to bought by an outsider, too. He has a metal bed, chair and desk. The heating is never at a comfortable level. He is constantly having to look over his shoulders for fear of being beaten, stolen from, or worse. But he does deserve to be there.

My point is that prison is not the luxurious living that many assume it to be.


I agree with Strangefolkphan that Prison is not the luxurious place that many people believe it to be.

I visit my clients once a week in Prison and I think for some of them being in Prison is a tougher Sentence for them than what the death penalty could ever be.

:trigger (mentions physical assault)

I have a client who is serving time and the other week another inmate threw a litre of boiling water over him, causing him severe facial burns and he now needs skin grafts etc.

Some of them are on twenty three hour lock down, which means they're in their cell for twenty three out of twenty four hours. They will have a tiny cell where they will reside, sleep, eat and pee. If they behaviour themselves and don't get into any fights etc, the privilege they get is the Prison tv for a few nights, all the while watching their back though.

[gina_rlp]

Thanks for the replies, I was interested in the other points you all brought up!

Re: the comfortable/not so comfortable prison situation, thanks for highlighting something for me which I didn't know. My opinion was based on my friend who works in a local prison situation and that was how she described the life there, but I guess I was only basing it on one prison, and this is in the UK so the US probably have different standards.

I can see why the death penalty would be used:

I'll rephrase that... what I meant was, "I can see why people would be for the death penalty. I'm completely against it, but I can understand why some people would want to use it. While I agree with the rest of you that it should never ever be used, I can understand the feelings of those, who perhaps were affected by the criminals in question, such as mothers whose children had been sadistically murdered, for example, would not want the person to carry on living.

Please don't interpret my reasons for the death penalty as my own opinions, I am merely stating why the world is so divided on the issue.

Thanks again for the input!

[ribbon]

I'm pro the death penality, although I believe some major changes need to be made in order for it to be more equitable. Race, gender and economic status should not preclude or include a criminal for the ultimate penalty. DNA testing should be done even for those defendents who cannot afford it to ensure there is no doubt about his/her guilt. The idea of death penalty inmates spending years and years on death row is unfair to the victims of the crime and there should be swifter action, once all DNA testing has been complete.
I sense that I'm going to be in the minority with this opinion :winky.

[Gwenann]

I'm going to join Ribbon in the minority here. I do agree with the death penalty, but I think that I look at this from a mother's/family perspective. If someone took the life of one of my family members (murder, not self defense, or accidentally), I would want them to die as well. I would not want them to spend life in prison (no matter how bad the environment).

Did Gacy deserve to die? You betcha!


:clover :moon Gwen :moon :clover

[gudinne]

If the evidence is clear and not circumstantial, I am for it. I don't care to pay for anyone's life in prison with my tax dollars, especially if we've agreed as a society that the crime in question is one for which there is no reason to ever parole.

I have no faith in prison as a vehicle for rehabilitation of any criminal. Prison should be a bad enough experience to deter someone from committing a crime, as well as a way to protect the rest of us from criminals, and that's it. I think we should think twice about who goes to prison and why; for example, it's ridiculous to imprison drug users and traffickers for simply doing that (I don't mean the ones who also murder). If the goal is rehab, use something other than prison. Maybe some sentences involve a combination of prison and some kind of rehab, but mixing the function in one facility isn't working. Prison should be a punishment meant for someone who deserves a second chance. Some crimes don't warrant a second chance; again, then I support the death penalty.

Forensic science is coming a long way to make this position more defendable. I wish that the American judicial system wasn't so corrupt. That in my mind is the real reason that none of the above is going to work in today's real world. Too bad.

.

[Solène]

I think that anyone who commits a crime terrible enough to send them to death row, yeah - if charges are true, they deserve to die... However I also absolutely believe that humans have no right to play God. That goes for the beginning of life w/ cloning and the sketchy ethics of stem cells, and determining the end of someone else's life as well. Therefore I'm against the death penalty.

[Feak]

I'm mostly anti... basically cause I refuse to believe that anyone is pure evil in this world, and that there is reasoning, however maladaptive, behind criminal behaviour. People do bad things for reasons, and they need help to sort themselves out. I'm very much pro-rehabilitation. Even in horrific cases, where they show no remorse, it's often down to psychological disorders that they can't help, or previous trauma. Not that they didn't still have free will of cause, and I'm not excusing criminal behaviour at all, I just try to see the reasoning behind it cause I refuse to believe that anyone is pure evil.

Then there's the matter of proving their guilt. Can we be one hundred percent sure? Is the justice system really blind, think institutional racism, sexism, classism etc. The system is far from perfect, and more work would need to be done to make it better before bringing in something so final as the death penalty.

In addition, many cases which might recomend the death penalty will be highly emotive, and in justice we need to think with logic, not emotion. That is very hard to do in such cases!

Plus, religiously, I believe in karma and reincarnation. Whatever negative energy you send out comes back to you threefold. So anyone who's commited heinous crimes are going to get "punished" by natural law anyway. If not in this lifetime then the next, until they sort out what made them choose that bad path. Just my religious justicication for my belief by the way, I'm not trying to forse this on anyone.

:love Claire

[tigerurchin]

Ribbon,
I'm not trying to be contrary, I just wondered -- how do you think we can keep race/class disparity from affecting when the death penalty is given out? I mean, officially the US doesnt have institutionalized racism, and many people will argue that there is no disparity and insist that black people simply commit more crimes and thats why theyre convicted (an argument I am familiar with because I run into it a lot.) So how do you get a country whose judicial system is racist to stop being racist when no one will admit that they are in the first place? As long as we have a jury system it seems we're stuck with a justice system that reflect our society, since people are condemned to die based on the opinion of others -- and most others will believe that a black person is more of a threat than a white person, even if they won't admit it.

I'm stumped about this, myself -- although the fact that our justice system is corrupt gives me an easy answer to the death penalty question, it still bothers me. Do you have any thoughts on how you'd be able to get racism out of the picture when it comes to capital cases?

[AngelBarbie]

I am against it. I don't see how anyone can justify an eye for an eye? It's barbaric and alway unjustified. Sometimes I think that death is too good for these "monsters." It's more of a hardship to have to exist, without freedom.

[ribbon]

tigerurchin said: how do you think we can keep race/class disparity from affecting when the death penalty is given out?

If I knew the answer to that I'd probably be running in the democratic primaries for president :zoinks :winky.
I don't know the answer to the question. I do know there are recent cases where white, middle/upper class men have been sent to death row. I think if each case is handled as an individual case whether a millionaire is being charged or a homeless person and the defenses all have accesses to the same resources, that would be a start. A poor person, minority or not, needs to be able to do DNA testing and hire expert witnesses etc.
It's complicated, which is one of the reasons I never studied law :winky because our system is geared toward the rights of the defendant more so than the rights of the victim. Victims are often trashed on the witness stand and blamed for being victims. I suppose that's a whole other topic.
:hugon tiger :hugoff Do you think it's more about class and economics than racism? That's where my thinking is right now.

[tigerurchin]

:hugon Ribbon :hugoff

you know, I'm not sure -- see, I'm white, and my background is working class, so I'm probably more in tune towards attitudes towards class than towards race. Becuase the problem I see is not just a lack of resources, its that if I went in to be tried for a crime, I look like a "nice young lady," and a jury would react differently than they would to someone else from my family, who didn't go to college and dresses from Walmart and looks like "white trash." And just as attorneys try and trash victims on stage, they do the same thing to the defendants, particularly in capitol cases, where the point is "this person is so awful they deserve to die."

I know the way issues of class are talked about among white people; I know that a lot of our superficial ideas of whats attractive and appropriate are veiled attempts to gauge class (part of the reason Aileen Wuornos in "monster" was so "ugly" was becuase she looked like a woman from the communities I lived in when I was little.) And I can only imagine a jury reacts to that in the same way an everyday person would -- I'm thinking of the West Memphis Three, three young white men who were accused of a crime on very little evidence, no motive, and alibis, becuase they dressed in black and came from the wrong part of town. Thing is, I don't know about being black; I don't know that I can accurately gauge the amount of racism in our society becuase I'm not as attuned to it -- I imagine some of my own attitudes and beliefs might be offensive, and I walk a balence between ignoring issues of race and interpreting them in a privileged/narrowminded/racist way. So I can't say its more class than race, because I dont have the experience of seeing someone judge me because of my color, and knowing how often that happens or how far off it is. And I think so often, problems of race get disguised as class problems -- ie, the poor black neighborhoods here in Pittsburgh are "bad," but the poor white ones aren't.

this is really interesting, but I don't have any answers either. The problem is that a jury, like a judge, is always a gamble -- and bpth defence and prosecution lawyers are ready willing and eager to play on prejudice and hate of any kind to get their way.

Thats the main reason I'm against the death penalty (when I am) -- I don't believe we as indivudals have changed that much since we believed it was okay to lynch a black man for a flase rape accusation, and I dont believe I, in Pittsburgh, am far enough from the people who put the WMthree on death row for dressing in black and being outcasts, to be making decisions of life and death. Because I can't say the degree to which my attitudes are informed by prejudice -- maybe not race or class, but against people who are unlike me in other, less defined ways. I wouldn't want someones life to hang at the mercy of twelve people like me.

[ribbon]

tigerurchin said: Thing is, I don't know about being black

Me either :muhaha.

[Jen]

Personally I believe very strongly in the sanctity of human life and therefore oppose the death penalty. Interestingly I was discussing this topic with my little foster sister (somehow it came up in her class) and as her biological parents were murdered it was an issue that touched her rather deeply. Her view was that the death penalty was a double standard (and I guess she tried to explain this perspective to her sixth grade teacher and was told she was wrong which is why the topic came up at home) since we say it's wrong to kill some people but not others. Although I've been fortunate to have not had a family member or close friend murdered I think I share Jill's perspective that capital punishment would not bring me closure but more grief. That said I do not wish for an opportunity to test my beliefs.

ribbon said: I'm pro the death penality, although I believe some major changes need to be made in order for it to be more equitable. Race, gender and economic status should not preclude or include a criminal for the ultimate penalty. DNA testing should be done even for those defendents who cannot afford it to ensure there is no doubt about his/her guilt. The idea of death penalty inmates spending years and years on death row is unfair to the victims of the crime and there should be swifter action, once all DNA testing has been complete.
I sense that I'm going to be in the minority with this opinion :winky.

I agree that race and class should not be factors in our judicial system but unfortunately with a jury system we must accept the reality that all individuals have some prejudices and biases. Admittedly how this plays out in the process is unpredictable and perhaps almost random enough to make it fair. I'm not really sure that I believe that but...........

I don't think the lack of DNA evidence in cases is ever due to the defendant not having the financial resources for it. DNA evidence is not the panacea that it's perhaps been suggested as in the mass media. Often DNA testing is not relevant to the case or there isn't available DNA. If there is a financial issue with DNA testing it is more one of small municipalities (who often do initial investigations) not having those resources.

As always just my thoughts!

:love,
Jen:bear

[Vicks]

I use to be for the death penalty but now I am staunch stuanch oppante.

What I think is interesting honesly is that the only countries that allow the death penalty or those countries that I would not want any part of some of them are even "axis of evil contries"

I mean, why would anyone want to be one of only a hand full of countries in the world who have this law? The other countries being The Democratic Republic of Congo, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan, and Yemen.

Plus, not to mention, it is against the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If someone I knew, who got killed, I don't know how I would act and/or feel, what I would hope tho is that my anger, and sadness, wouldn't win, I would hope a law out there, would prevent me from seaking revenge.

The US scares me, I love this country I do, it has so many awesome awesome things, the death penalty and the execution of Minors inpaticular, is just so barbaric that it really really does scare me sometimes.

Vicks

[ilikejesus]

This is just my personal view on the issue but, If the president is so against violence and people killing people, why does he support the death penalty? I would think that if he is so against it that he would just sentence the criminals to life behind bars. If he keeps punishing criminals by using the death penalty isn't that just showing him being contradictive of his own views? (By putting people to death when he believes people should not kill other people.)

That's just what i've felt about the whole issue most of my teenage years.

:clover :singing ilikejesus :singing :clover

[ribbon]

ilikejesus said: This is just my personal view on the issue but, If the president is so against violence and people killing people, why does he support the death penalty?

Do you really think the president is so against violence and people killing people? He did start a war. Or are you saying that he claims to be so against violence and killing people?