Associated Press – December 12, 2007:
More than at any time over the past 30 years, the future of capital punishment is in limbo.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next term in a momentous lethal injection case. While it’s widely expected that executions will resume in some form following that case, the moment gives Americans a chance to contemplate what would change if they stopped for good.
* States with many death-penalty cases would save millions of dollars now spent on legal costs in long-running appeals.
* Abroad, notably in Europe and Canada, America’s image would improve in countries that abolished capital punishment decades ago and now wonder why America remains one of only a handful of prosperous democracies that continue with executions.
* Among the American public, reaction would be deeply divided. Death penalty supporters would decry the loss of what they consider a valuable crime deterrent as well as the ultimate form of justice for victims and their families. Foes of execution would welcome the end of what they have deemed a barbaric national tradition.
Most important of all, you wouldn’t run the collective risk of killing an innocent, thus becoming murderers. It might already be too late for that, but hey, what you don’t know can’t worry you.
Well, you already answered it==we would save money, time, and worry.
I believe in the death penalty==as in some people deserve to die. That would be extra-judicial as well as in the recent killing of the neighbors burglars.
But reality has to address “all the factors.” In the GOUSA, that includes the reality of negligent convictions and a lengthy appeals process.
At the end of the day, I’d rather have my wallet protected than my ego stroked.
The death penalty is nothing more than government sanctioned revenge. It does absolutely nothing to stop crime, or even console the victims of crime.
I was initially very pro death penalty. But, in its current form, it’s many times more expensive to kill a man rather than incarcerate him for life. Also, it takes so long to do (for anyone other than Timothy McVeigh, oddly)that often the person that is executed is not the person that committed the crime.
Save money?? Sure all the cost of appeals would be abated, but what about the cost of building new prisons and housing the thousands of new lifers that would be coming into the system. Maybe we can house house them in Manhattan, like in Escape from NY, or better yet, the state of California. It should be plenty big enough.
Hey, I’m not a big fan of the death penalty, but there are too many scumbags in this country who think nothing of killing you or me for something as trivial as a necklace, watch or a cheap thrill. Housing all these shit heads for life would be a monumental task.
Just kill ’em all.
No, seriously… I’m 110% pro-death penalty. I believe it does provide some solace for the victims of violent crime to know that the man who took the life of their loved one will not sit in some cell with free meals and cable.
I don’t think of it as the death penalty, I think of it as the accelerated version of life in prison.
And — oh — by the way, as far as I can tell about 85% of falsely accused people who are “falsely” convicted of a capital offense are usually scumbags who just happened to not be guilty of that particular crime.
People in gangs or with a history of criminal activity that wrongly get convicted because it wasn’t them, but some other hoodlum they are associated with, may not be guilty of the particular offense, but that doesn’t make them innocent.
It would be interesting to see the true number of “innocent” people who have been executed who didn’t have a criminal past. It’s few and far between, usually.
Stuff like “he was only driving the car” or “he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger” are usually the only kind of “innocent” many “falsely” convicted capital offenders are.
>>may not be guilty of the particular offense,
>>but that doesn’t make them innocent.
Yeah! And if they’re guilty of anything (including fraternizing with naughty people), let’s fry their scumbag asses!
Or we could put them in concentration camps and have them work for a living, after all, arbeit macht frei, right?
And more people would die. Correlation may not imply causation, but the data I have seen about the reduction in murders following an execution seems more than coincidental.
From a Christian perspective, I feel that the death penalty is still morally wrong. (“An eye for an eye” is Old Testament and my personal belief is that the teachings of Christ have superseded this part of the Law.) From other perspectives, particulary any philosophy that focuses on the greater good, I can see where the death penalty would be a moral imperative.
Most important of all, you would run the collective risk of killing an innocent – the innocents killed by escaped or released murderers.
It has been already be too late for that, but hey, what you don’t know can’t worry you.
RBG
>>From other perspectives, particulary any
>>philosophy that focuses on the greater good, I
>>can see where the death penalty would be a
>>moral imperative.
Ah yes, like the Nazi “philosphy”:
“lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility. – COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD]“
#7, Hmeyers,
And — oh — by the way, as far as I can tell about 85% of falsely accused people who are “falsely” convicted of a capital offense are usually scumbags who just happened to not be guilty of that particular crime.
The vast majority of murderers on death row are single crime prisoners. Whether they are scumbags or not is irrelevant as that is your subjective opinion. In this country we sentence people for the crimes they are convicted of, not the crime they might have done.
While I not a rabid fan of abolishing the death penalty, I am very concerned that innocent people are still being sentenced. Currently there is great after the fact effort put into clearing death row cases. Those are not the only people falsely convicted though. As unfortunate as this is, there are too many people like #7, Hmeyers that feel if you didn’t do this crime, you must have done something else.
Vengence does not equal justice.
From a Christian perspective, I feel that the death penalty is still morally wrong.
Didn’t stop the Church from killing thousands in the dark ages. The church has been and always will be a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to morality.
#13, Bryan,
How does capital punishment cut down on recidivism? If they didn’t get the death penalty, they would get life without parole.
#15, that old argument is as without merit as throwing blame on all Italians for the actions of the Roman Empire. There’s a REASON they called them the Dark Ages!?!? The church was run by creeps, in general, that’s why there was a reformation, after all.
Why does the opinion of Europe or Canada matter in even the slightest aspect to this decision? Who cares what they think of how we treat mass murderers?
#2
You said it well. There is not much difference in revenge techniques between quick killing and torture for life. However, at the end of the day, law enforcement has proven to be regularly fallible and the hang ups in Court end up costing more than punishing them for life. So, let’s go with the cheaper solution. If we can make execution cheaper given the long court battles, then let’s go with that.
#3
As is life imprisonment. They are simply two different implementations.
#5
The problem with that argument is that we are talking about a very small number of people. We are only talking about people that would have warranted the death penalty. In comparison to the overall prison population, it is a tiny number.
my favorite quote from the above passage: “America’s image would improve” That’s a rich one. Like this call to my vanity is going to change my opinion. OMG! The Canadians and Europeans think poorly of me… quick! dump the death penalty! LoL
Personaly, I think the death penalty is a less severe punishment than life without parole.
#17 Ok, want some modern day church hypocrisy, how about pedophile priests. The church feels that homosexuality is sin, yet it turns the other cheek when its own priests are boning young boys up the ass.
My state, Colorado, has the death penalty. Colorado has executed one person since 1976, and has three people on death row. It is reserved for particularly heinous crimes, and given the number of times it has been applied (1 time), compared to the 5700 murders which have take place in Colorado during that time frame, I dont worry about it being missaplied. (How was that for a run on sentance?)
The problem with the death penalty is that it is not applied often enough, or rapidly enough to have an impact on crime.
The overwhelming majority of death penalty supporters are self proclaimed Christians. And Jesus is unhappy with them. Sure there’s that “eye for an eye” thing, but that’s Old Testament (Exodus 21:23–27). Jesus commented on this in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:38–39)…”You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” So fine, you can be pro state death penalty, but stop pretending to be holier than though Christians too.
Now for the rest of you (atheists) that support the death penalty, my only concern is that I don’t want the state to “own” me or have the right to ever kill me. I don’t want them deciding someday that protesting against the king/President is a death penalty offense. Being locked up is one thing, you can be let go later as policy/leaders change. But if the state kills you, there’s no going back.
>>Why not put all violent criminals on an island
Already tried that with Australia.
#25 FUNNY! That one actually turned out pretty well…maybe we should just KEEP putting them there. Hmmm.
As for the deterrent, there’s no proven statistics on that. It doesn’t even make logical sense. It’s like gun laws. Someone who would shot me in committing a crime is already breaking multiple laws, they don’t CARE if it’s also technically illegal for them to have a certain type of gun, or size of clip…silly. Someone who is committing a murder crime of passion, or is a complete psychopath generally won’t sit back and carefully study state law to determine if they can ‘get away with it’. Not saying that’s NEVER happened, but I’d say 99% of murders wouldn’t be DETERRED even if you publicly say we’d shoot murders out into space. They’re already willing to murder another human being…the technical legal ramifications are likely the LAST thing on their mind.
#26,
if there was no penalty for speeding, would you speed more or less? What if the penalty was only 25 cents? I think the punishment does deter many criminals. Of coure, most murderers assume they wont get caught.
Lets say that immediatly upon conviction, murderers were publicly disemboweled and left for birds to eat while still alive? I think this would have a significant effect on murder rates. Am suggesting this? Of course not.
>>Am suggesting this? Of course not.
So what ARE you suggesting then? The death penalty as currently implemented doesn’t work, I doubt that even your public-disembowling trick would do anything, so what’s left?
Oh yeah….abolish it!
Besides, it’s barbarian. The current methodology of having people stand around and watch while the guy gets a hot needle slipped into his vein (or his eyes pop out of his head in Ol’ Sparky) is not really all that different than disembowling. It just makes the bleeding heart murderers who support the death penalty feel a little better.
#16 (re #15):
Real life example from NY state. Multiple and repeated murderer (if I remember correctly with the total of 4 murders on his tab) was given life without par. sentence.
While in the jail he used self-made weapon to kill one guard and seriously debilitate another (lost his eye). Clear evidence that he did it.
Why isn’t society better and safer with him dead?
If not, what sentence that wouldn’t be considered cruel would prevent him from killing more people (guards or inmates)?
#28
I agree that “The death penalty as currently implemented doesn’t work” The reason being that it is applied 15 years after the fact, to far less than 1% of murderers. As a potential murderer, why would something which there is a very slim chance might happen to me 15 years from now be a deterrent.
My point was that if the criminal was going to be given a painfull punishement now, instead of just going to sleep 15 years later, it might have deterent value.
Have you ever had general anesthesia? I don’t know how you can call the “process” barbarian?
The entire subject of capitol punishement is certainly debatable, it may have no place in a civilized society, but I don’t think the process is cruel.
well of course in the absence of the death penalty the united states would disintegrate completely into a lawless land with gangs of armed killers roaming the streets and everyone would automatically become murderers and the economy would collapse because everyone would be afraid to venture to the malls, and the jails would become overcrowded.
just like in every nation without the death penalty
duh.
>>Have you ever had general anesthesia? I
>>don’t know how you can call the “process”
>>barbarian?
1. If they just gave an overdose of general anesthesia, it might be less barbaric, but it would still be barbaric. The elaborate and complicated sequence of drugs they use now includes potassiuim chloride, which is excruciatingly painful when given intravenously in lethal concentrations, and often the person being murdered is still “awake” (although paralyzed) at the time the KCl is given.
2. The puprpose of general anesthesia is to block pain during surgery. The purpose of the Death Cocktail used in state-sponsored murder, like that of the bayonette, is TO KILL.
Painless or painful, it makes no difference. When the government sponsors killing people in a cold, premeditated way, it’s barbaric. We’ve come to expect that from a knuckle-dragger like Little King Georgie, but America should be nobler than that.