Should the Death-Penalty be Eliminated from the World? - General

Should the Death-Penalty be Eliminated from the World?

67 replies, posted
In This Thread

These is my debate/reasons why I think the death penalty should be eliminated from this Earth. Imagine yourself in front of a television of some sort. A man is convicted of murder. He’s been found guilty, and his punishment is… Death! Sounds pretty fair right? Wrong, they’re just deciding to make it easy for themselves and commit the same exact crime as the criminal committed. Pretty hypocritical is you ask me… The U.S. Government made a study on local prisons and domestic prisons. The study was about how many inmates got mental illnesses. Over half of the inmates have a mental illness, which shows that jail is more of a better punishment, to punish murderers. But also, many of those mental illnesses cause suicide or suicidal thoughts for most inmates. Someone could argue that the death penalty is to show the pain of death from the victim’s perspective for the murderer. I understand, but do you realize that killing someone off will not help to support your cause. It’s also not un-heard of to have another person be inspired by a murderer and see their death as a heroic action. Since 1973, over 143 INNOCENT civilians have been slaughtered by the death penalty. Even if one innocent person was killed, that’s just sickly and disgusting. It needs to stop! Do you really want a regular every day person to get killed, just for being in the wrong place and wrong time? One example of an innocent being murdered and falsely accused was Carlos DeLuna, a man who executed in Texas, 1983... The Supreme Court and Detectives had not bothered to check the evidence enough. There was a card of the actual killers name, his knife with his fingerprints and his shoe print. Even Carlo DeLuna said the real name of the killer: Carlos Hernandez, who happened to have the same height, weight, and facial features as DeLuna. This is the quote he said in his last week before he died: "Maybe one day the truth will come out," he said from behind reinforced glass. "I'm hoping it will. If I end up getting executed for this, I don't think it's right." – Carlos DeLuna. It boggles my mind, to have anyone argue against all my proof. Society just wishes to kill the worst of the worst. They consider the amount of murders of a convicted criminal, instead of their own morals. Nothing comes out of having the person killed, since many consider it an easy way out. They barely have to face their consequences. Also the death of them, just to satisfy other peoples sorrow makes no logical sense. It’s okay to feel bad for the victim and their family, but you do not know them. So saying that the murderer deserves death to satisfy some ones need to feel happy in the world again is completely ignorant. I hope this changed your mind, or gave you more reasons to agree with me. [editline]25th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Sypto;44347163]*These are my debate/reasons for why I think the death penalty should be eliminated from this Earth.[/QUOTE]. That was an edit just because I'm on a tablet and edit's are weird.

I would only keep it for severe cases for those which have absolute concrete evidence against them for an extreme crime, are beyond help/support if they are mentally ill and do not genuinely regret what they did. I don't think it should be completely eliminated but I don't think it should be taken lightly either.

I'm actually really intriqued and interested in partaking in this debate as I'm currently studying criminology and could probably offer some insight as to what we're taught. I'll go over you statements and add some of my own thoughts. Killing to punish the killers: Yes, it's hypocritical, but it's considered the ultimate form of punishment, and incapacitates the individual from being able to commit similar crimes. (While ironically enough, a lot of murderers don't commit the crime of murder more than once, many of them are what we consider "heat of passion" homicides, and rarely happen again, HOWEVER, in most cases, this same person is (usually, but definitely not always) mentally unstable or can't control their thoughts and actions as well as your average citizen, which makes them dangerous to the public and bound to commit more crime, and resist heavily against any rehabilitation efforts). Not to mention that we are protected by the people who also punish us (or people that they are protecting us from), that's just how it works, the punishment is arguable, but that's what we empower the government with. Capital punishment also helps with the ridiculous prison over-crowding issue(slightly) Mental Illness: Between common law and all of our revisions to previous laws, mental illness can literally be anything, OCD and ADD are considered mental illnesses. Mentally handicapped inmates cannot legally be executed for their crimes regardless of how servere, but people who are mentally ill with psychosis, insomnia, or multiple personality disorder are extremely difficult if not impossible to rehabilitate. So saying jail is "better" for them is a very subjective analysis, depending on their crime, rotting in jail for life doesn't improve their criminal mindset over being threatened with capital punishment. Killing somebody for "emotional vengeance" (which is how I would summarize that): I've actually never heard this, but it makes sense. However, capital punishment is not designed to be painful in any way, while they do go through some emotional fear before being executed, this isn't the intent as some could argue this is cruel and unusual punishment, however, (I'll touch more on this later), MOST PEOPLE know that by killing someone, you're either getting life, or the electric chair (while obviously not the only outcome, it's a pretty obvious one that most people are aware of as a possibility). That alone should be a deterrent from committing the crime in the first place, and as it clearly didn't (if they still commit the crime), they have no remorse or accountability of the law to begin with, so why would they care about jail? We pay a lot...and I mean a LOT money for prison systems and incarceration around the united states, so if somebody really doesn't give a rats ass about the law, why waste the money on them anyway when you can get them off the streets, making them incapable of committing more crime, and save the money from incarcerating them (which if i remember correctly is about 50k per inmate per year) and contribute to the problem of prison over-crowding? Accidental accusations/death penalty charges: This happens with any crime, and unfortunately, even if people don't get the death penalty, they can still be incarcerated for 60 years before they find him/her innocent in the first place. This is just a problem with the system on occasions, and does it suck? Of course, but having or not having the death penalty wouldn't solve this. As technology improves these incidents become less and less frequent. Many people who have been incarcerated for more than half their life even though they were innocent, by the time they get out don't even care about anything anymore. They lost their families, jobs, finances, EVERYTHING, and some would argue they'd rather have been executed than to spend 50 years in jail, then have the courts say sorry and give you a couple grand for the inconvenience. Other thoughts: The cj system will never be perfect, in many cases, people who are executed for their crimes commit seriously brutal crimes, or are repeat offenders. Very rarely is someone sentenced to execution for a low level homicide, especially on a first offense. What we need, is people who don't kill people, but because that will NEVER happen, the threat of something more than free housing, food, and community needs to be there (yes, people intentionally go back to jail or prison because it's actually good living compared to being on the streets) and unfortunately, it get's killers of the streets. Most repeat offenders will always be repeat offenders, they don't care about or can't be rehabilitated because of their habits, and there's to many people in our prison system to hang onto all of them. It's a way to weed out the absolutely terrible criminals, because if they get back out on the streets, they may or may not kill someone again, but they are much more likely to commit more crime than anybody else, why risk it if they didn't care the first time? And this is just in the US, not to mention the world lol. This sounds like another debate about taking away guns from cops to reduce gun crime. Does it seem like a good idea? Sure, but the killers are still going to kill, and if they know they can't get executed for it, and have a crappy life anyways, why not? This shouldn't be justification enough to take somebody else's life away. Oh, if I kill someone I might get executed? Well...makes you think about it a little more if you're on the streets, a crappy life is better than no life (as many would agree). I could talk about this topic forever... [B]TL:DR[/B] No, it serves many purposes as a deterrent, as prison population control, and to get repeat and extremely violent offenders off the street and stop them from committing future crime, it's not perfect, but it works better than the threat of throwing them in jail.

It would be a lot cheaper to convict certain people then just eliminate them right after the trial. Sure some innocents may die, but the majority of criminals will have fear put in them.

I always thought it one of the most hypocritical things. Isn't the right to life something that can't be taken away; why is it ok for the state to kill its citizens then? It's never worth it if even ONE innocent dies anyway, which has shown to actually happen, since our justice system isn't perfect.

[QUOTE=Levithan;44356969]I always thought it one of the most hypocritical things. Isn't the right to life something that can't be taken away; why is it ok for the state to kill its citizens then? It's never worth it if even ONE innocent dies anyway, which has shown to actually happen, since our justice system isn't perfect.[/QUOTE] The "right to life" is subjective, we don't kill someone for taking someone's life we kill the perpetrator because it makes the act of murder have more cost then benefit.

Thing is, death is a release. People are more inclined to murder when they're gonna die after a year than after living all their life in prison, and its silly to assume that the death penalty actually does anything but satisfy a revenge fantasy. Also, considering the average murder rate is much higher in states with the death penalty than without, I feel that it would be a good idea overall to remove the death penalty. source: [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state[/url]

[QUOTE=jeagerfrau;44356865]It would be a lot cheaper to convict certain people then just eliminate them right after the trial. Sure some innocents may die, but the majority of criminals will have fear put in them.[/QUOTE] The problem you have here is that you have people who are just generally insane and violent, so those tactics of general deterrence don't work. Hell, they don't even work on sane people who murder others (most murders are with blunt weapons and are unplanned, spur of the moment crimes.) source: I am taking sociology and took criminology.

generally the death penalty is either a) employed to perminently silence opposition such as in 3rd world dictatorships, iran, and shitty corrupt communist states such as laus. b) employed in a functional justice system such as the U.S. but due to prejudices and racism, generally tends to be biased towards minorities. in the case of b, the problem with the U.S.'s death penalty is partially that states varry in sevarity, and partially that the states that do have the death penalty tend to be a bit zealous of it anymore. take for example an upcomming case in mississippi, a woman was convicted in 1980 of her husband's murder even though they could never put her at the crime, her son was not permitted to testify, he admitted to committing the crime AND DNA evidence and witnesses linked him to the scene of the crime, unfortunatly the mississippi courts to try to save their ass from such a grossly incompident case, are not doing shit about it, they know she is innocent but they're going to put her on the slab anyways while the confessed killer is free to do whatever. the death penalty just doesn't work with what we know about human psychology anymore, the people likely to kill are already not going to be the ones to obey the law or are not even in the mental state to understand the law.

[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;44357170]Thing is, death is a release. People are more inclined to murder when they're gonna die after a year than after living all their life in prison, and its silly to assume that the death penalty actually does anything but satisfy a revenge fantasy. Also, considering the average murder rate is much higher in states with the death penalty than without, I feel that it would be a good idea overall to remove the death penalty. source: [url]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state[/url][/QUOTE] This data is so subjective to other factors, for comparison , Louisiana (highest crime rate with death penatly) saw a 10% decrease in violent crime where New Mexico (highest crime rate no death penalty) only saw a 2% reduction. This data itself is convincing, but by looking at other crime statistics, the states with the death penalty also tend to have more crime than those without. Population, crime data, and previous trends can all seriously impact the basis of the statistics for suggesting no death penatly is better. Saying people murder because they'd rather die than be tried to jail is a very questionable statement, 1: they don't know their conviction before they commit the crime, and 2: even if they did, going to jail for life or drying isn't favorable either way over just not committing the crime in the first place. But if they disregard it anyways, why waste tax payer dollars to house them for life rather than execute them as they had no remorse for the law to being with? [QUOTE=Sableye;44358014] in the case of b, the problem with the U.S.'s death penalty is partially that states varry in sevarity, and partially that the states that do have the death penalty tend to be a bit zealous of it anymore. take for example an upcomming case in mississippi, a woman was convicted in 1980 of her husband's murder even though they could never put her at the crime, her son was not permitted to testify, he admitted to committing the crime AND DNA evidence and witnesses linked him to the scene of the crime, unfortunatly the mississippi courts to try to save their ass from such a grossly incompident case, are not doing shit about it, they know she is innocent but they're going to put her on the slab anyways while the confessed killer is free to do whatever.[/QUOTE] That's just a shitty case all around, that ultimately is the sons fault for lying in the first place, letting his mother take the fall for it, and waiting so long to come clean. I'd be surprised if she gets executed though, but setups do happen. I didn't read into it enough to see the details, but proving there wasn't any dna from the suspected shooter would have cleared the case, and it doesn't sound like shes filed for appeal. People before have been exonerated for convincing dna evidence contrary to the original conviction, which is why I feel like the dna evidence isn't conclusive in that case for a release (if any exists).

The problem with the death penalty is that it solves nothing. Say someone commits first degree murder, so you sentence them to death. Congratulations, where you once had one dead person, you now have two. The better option would to find out why the murderer did it (likely mental illness) and rehabilitate them so that they can be a functional member of society. Once people understand that people don't just commit crime because they're assholes, then people will realize that using prison/the death penalty as revenge is just stupid and solves nothing. For example, nobody becomes a thief because they sit there for a long time and think "Yeah this would be an awesome way to live my life" they do it because they have no money so their options are either starve to death or steal. Once you see this it becomes clear that putting the thief in prison solves nothing because he goes to jail for x years and then is released in an even worse situation than he was locked up in, so he's faced with the same choice. The real solution is to solve his problem at it's core. Find out why he's so poor and desperate and fix that problem. If nobody is poor, nobody would steal unless there's some other factor like insanity or something.

[QUOTE=007SILVERTOE;44347989] Other thoughts: The cj system will never be perfect, in many cases, people who are executed for their crimes commit seriously brutal crimes, or are repeat offenders. Very rarely is someone sentanced to execution for a low level homicide, especially on a first offense. What we need, is people who don't kill people, but because that will NEVERhappen, the threat of something more than free housing, food, and community needs to be there (yes, people intentionally go back to jail or prison because it's actually good living compared to being on the streets) and unfortunately, it get's killers of the streets. Most repeat offenders will always be repeat offenders, they don't care about or can't be rehabilitated because of their habbits, and there's to many people in our prison system to hang onto all of them. It's a way to weed out the absolutely terrible criminals, because if they get back out on the streets, they may or may not kill someone again, but they are much more likely to commit more crime than anybody else, why risk it if they didn't care the first time? And this is just in the US, not to mention the world lol. This sounds like another debate about taking away guns from cops to reduce gun crime. Does it seem like a good idea? Sure, but the killers are still going to kill, and if they know they can't get executed for it, and have a crappy life anyways, why not? This shouldn't be justification enough to take somebody elses life away. Oh, if I kill someone I might get executed? Well...makes you think about it a little more if you're on the streets, a crappy life is better than no life (as many would agree). I could talk about this topic forever... [B]TL:DR[/B] No, it serves many purposes as a deterant, as prison population control, and to get repeat and extremely violent offenders off the street and stop them from commiting future crime, it's not perfect, but it works better than the threat of throwing them in jail.[/QUOTE] Death penalty as a deterrent is inconclusive, there's no evidence to suggest it works. Our prisons are overpopulated because our justice system is shitty and incarcerates people for non-violent crimes, especially drugs. About half of the prison population is in on drug offenses. Criminals are only so likely to be repeat offenders, again, because our system is shitty and needs major reforms. These are all issues that can be solved with actual reforms, solving them with the killings of humans is barbaric. We lead the world in incarcerated citizens per capita. We're fifth in executions. Yet our murder rate is one of the highest of all developed countries. Not much of a deterrent after all, huh? Oh and it's cheaper to keep a prisoner for life than to execute him also, this: [QUOTE]a crappy life is better than no life[/QUOTE] directly contradicts this [QUOTE]They lost their families, jobs, finances, EVERYTHING, and some would argue they'd rather have been executed than to spend 50 years in jail, then have the courts say sorry and give you a couple grand for the inconvenience. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44366453]The problem with the death penalty is that it solves nothing. Say someone commits first degree murder, so you sentence them to death. Congratulations, where you once had one dead person, you now have two. The better option would to find out why the murderer did it (likely mental illness) and rehabilitate them so that they can be a functional member of society. Once people understand that people don't just commit crime because they're assholes, then people will realize that using prison/the death penalty as revenge is just stupid and solves nothing. For example, nobody becomes a thief because they sit there for a long time and think "Yeah this would be an awesome way to live my life" they do it because they have no money so their options are either starve to death or steal. Once you see this it becomes clear that putting the thief in prison solves nothing because he goes to jail for x years and then is released in an even worse situation than he was locked up in, so he's faced with the same choice. The real solution is to solve his problem at it's core. Find out why he's so poor and desperate and fix that problem. If nobody is poor, nobody would steal unless there's some other factor like insanity or something.[/QUOTE] People have gone through rehabilitation and parole boards and still killed again. There's a point where considering rehabilitating and releasing someone is not an option. Innocent lives should not be risked for the freedom and livelihood of a criminal, at the very least. The fact that there's two dead people instead of one isn't necessarily a bad thing if you weigh the values of the victim and the perpetrator separately. People suggesting rehabilitation for certain types of murderers are forgetting about the obvious and real risks. Of course, there is the option of just jailing people who commit heinous crimes for life with zero possibility of parole.

I personally believe that the death penalty should be optional for criminals who are serving a life sentence or more that would amount to them dying in prison or being too old to be a functioning member of society when they are released. At any point of their sentence they would appeal for death, see psychological evaluation to confirm they are in a semi-rational state of mind and then they can be executed by reasonable method of choice, firing squad, falling from height, humane* things like that. *In terms of the fact you are still taking human life. I believe everyone has the right to live, but just as important is the right to die. Putting the terms of death in the hands of the condemned is quite frankly, the only humane thing to do, preventing them from being able to die is just as cruel as forcing death upon them.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;44366685]Death penalty as a deterrent is inconclusive, there's no evidence to suggest it works.[/QUOTE] As equally inconclusive as suggesting that jail time provides a "rehabilitative" effect. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;44366685]Criminals are only so likely to be repeat offenders, again, because our system is shitty and needs major reforms.[/quote] I don't see the correlation here, regardless, it would shock you how many more repeat offenders there are than first time offenders. Unless you're referring to murder cases, in which case it doesn't matter what reforms you make, the punishment for murder is server regardless, if not going to death row, they are going to prison for a very long time, which is why heat of passion murders (usually first time offenders), are first time offenders, because they're in jail forever for their first crime and don't have the opportunity to do so again. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;44366685]Oh and it's cheaper to keep a prisoner for life than to execute him[/quote] Did you Google this? Because I bet you didn't also look into the scope of the statistics. The increased cost overall is for the increased rates of appeal, generally higher cost lawyers, and the cost to house these individuals in prison, not the actual execution itself. This also depends on the crime, as somebody sent to death row for a server enough crime would be put in maximum security prison ANYWAYS if not sentenced to death row. These studies also don't account for the increased medical care required by older inmates (which is a lot). So not quite, you basically just told me Mcdonald was cheaper than Burger King because you only got a snack wrap at McDonald's versus a meal at Burger King. You have to look at the scope of the study. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;44366685] also, this directly contradicts this[/QUOTE] No it doesn't, they are in two completely different contexts. The first one is an indication of how criminals would think of the system for a crime they were about to commit without the death penalty (being alive is better than being killed). Where as in the second statement, I was talking about the current issue of people being wrongly incarcerated for years, and the court saying "sorry" and letting them go with nothing. Contradicting if in the same circumstance, which is not the case. Yes. The system needs reform, but that's not what this thread is about. Given the circumstances at hand, prison overcrowding is a thing, regardless of the cause, and executions help slightly with that.

The death penalty is a quick and easy way out for someone who has committed an applicable offense. Removing the death penalty allows murderers, serial killers and so forth wake up in jail every single morning and remember why they are locked up in a jail cell. For killing that guy, for blowing up that house, and other terrible things. These people do not deserve to be instantly killed, they deserve to die in jail.

[QUOTE=007SILVERTOE;44368662]Did you Google this? Because I bet you didn't also look into the scope of the statistics. The increased cost overall is for the increased rates of appeal, generally higher cost lawyers, and the cost to house these individuals in prison, not the actual execution itself. This also depends on the crime, as somebody sent to death row for a server enough crime would be put in maximum security prison ANYWAYS if not sentenced to death row. These studies also don't account for the increased medical care required by older inmates (which is a lot). So not quite, you basically just told me Mcdonald was cheaper than Burger King because you only got a snack wrap at McDonald's versus a meal at Burger King. You have to look at the scope of the study.[/QUOTE] That doesn't really change anything. The cost is still much higher. What would you suggest, we get rid of their ability to appeal?

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;44367692]People have gone through rehabilitation and parole boards and still killed again. There's a point where considering rehabilitating and releasing someone is not an option. Innocent lives should not be risked for the freedom and livelihood of a criminal, at the very least. The fact that there's two dead people instead of one isn't necessarily a bad thing if you weigh the values of the victim and the perpetrator separately. People suggesting rehabilitation for certain types of murderers are forgetting about the obvious and real risks. Of course, there is the option of just jailing people who commit heinous crimes for life with zero possibility of parole.[/QUOTE] Can you provide statistics that show that any reasonable number of people actually trick the government into thinking they've been rehabilitated?

[QUOTE=007SILVERTOE;44368662]As equally inconclusive as suggesting that jail time provides a "rehabilitative" effect. I don't see the correlation here, regardless, it would shock you how many more repeat offenders there are than first time offenders. Unless you're referring to murder cases, in which case it doesn't matter what reforms you make, the punishment for murder is server regardless, if not going to death row, they are going to prison for a very long time, which is why heat of passion murders (usually first time offenders), are first time offenders, because they're in jail forever for their first crime and don't have the opportunity to do so again. Did you Google this? Because I bet you didn't also look into the scope of the statistics. The increased cost overall is for the increased rates of appeal, generally higher cost lawyers, and the cost to house these individuals in prison, not the actual execution itself. This also depends on the crime, as somebody sent to death row for a server enough crime would be put in maximum security prison ANYWAYS if not sentenced to death row. These studies also don't account for the increased medical care required by older inmates (which is a lot). So not quite, you basically just told me Mcdonald was cheaper than Burger King because you only got a snack wrap at McDonald's versus a meal at Burger King. You have to look at the scope of the study. Yes. The system needs reform, but that's not what this thread is about. Given the circumstances at hand, prison overcrowding is a thing, regardless of the cause, and executions help slightly with that.[/QUOTE] Look at any other first world nation for examples of rehabilitation properly in action. Look also to these nations to see how much fewer their repeat offender rate is. The system needing reform is not what this thread is about but in real life issues like this are tied. Plus, your whole argument is based on the idea that executions solve these problems, my counter-argument is you're just sweeping them under the rug in lieu of real reform and justifying the killing of humans on unnecessary grounds.

[QUOTE=007SILVERTOE;44368662]As equally inconclusive as suggesting that jail time provides a "rehabilitative" effect.[/QUOTE] Wrong. Rehabilitation cuts recidivicm rates better than a punishment based system. And until you start killing everyone, punishment doesn't actually stop or drop crime rates ever. [QUOTE]I don't see the correlation here, regardless, it would shock you how many more repeat offenders there are than first time offenders. Unless you're referring to murder cases, in which case it doesn't matter what reforms you make, the punishment for murder is server regardless, if not going to death row, they are going to prison for a very long time, which is why heat of passion murders (usually first time offenders), are first time offenders, because they're in jail forever for their first crime and don't have the opportunity to do so again. [/QUOTE] You do know the american prison system is more or less a training ground for hardened convicts? They literally call it "Con College". American prison system is more or less the least effective method of reducing repeat offenders. [QUOTE]Did you Google this? Because I bet you didn't also look into the scope of the statistics. The increased cost overall is for the increased rates of appeal, generally higher cost lawyers, and the cost to house these individuals in prison, not the actual execution itself. This also depends on the crime, as somebody sent to death row for a server enough crime would be put in maximum security prison ANYWAYS if not sentenced to death row. These studies also don't account for the increased medical care required by older inmates (which is a lot). So not quite, you basically just told me Mcdonald was cheaper than Burger King because you only got a snack wrap at McDonald's versus a meal at Burger King. You have to look at the scope of the study.[/QUOTE] Yeah, a bullet is cheap, but you know what isn't? Making sure you don't kill the wrong person. When in just 40 years in the states a minimum of 27 innocents have been killed by the death penalty, you think that's an acceptable statistic? It isn't. It isn't cheaper in the long run to kill people with the death penalty because you will always have to spend a shit ton of money to prove that the person you're about to kill isn't the wrong one. You sound like you don't want that step involved. The appearance of justice is justice enough? [QUOTE]Yes. The system needs reform, but that's not what this thread is about. Given the circumstances at hand, prison overcrowding is a thing, regardless of the cause, and executions help slightly with that.[/QUOTE] No. No, they don't. They don't actually clear up any room or help empty prisons any faster. I don't know how you got that idea.

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44370593]Can you provide statistics that show that any reasonable number of people actually trick the government into thinking they've been rehabilitated?[/QUOTE] I don't have statistics, you could look at murder recidivism rates for that, but I do have a list of people who have gone through parole boards and or education/guilt training programs. [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mcrae-john-r.htm[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukio_Yamaji[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/miller-john-lawrence.htm[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.F/f/ferrell-jack-dempsey.htm[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/buss-timothy.htm[/url] Arthur J. Bomar Jr. [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/little-dwaine.htm[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Shawcross[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.P/p/pandeli-darrel.htm[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/lee-chad-alan.htm[/url] [url]http://www.supreme.state.az.us/opin/pdf2002/cr-97-0317-ap.pdf[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/mckinney-james-erin.htm[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m1/massie-robert-lee.htm[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m1/mcduff-kenneth.htm[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.G/g/geary-melvin-joseph.htm[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Lee_Gray[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abbott[/url] [url]http://missoulian.com/whitefish-murder-suspect-convicted-of-similar-killing-in-massachusetts/article_eb4450ef-0a04-53b5-a7c9-19339b411c52.html[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s1/sattiewhite-vernon.htm[/url] [url]http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/hittle679.htm[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/bellen-michel.htm[/url] [url]http://murderpedia.org/male.U/u/unterweger-jack.htm[/url] Within that list there are multiple people who went through rehabilitative programs, notably the Japanese near the top and the man at the bottom. They ALL went through a parole board (containing criminal psychologists) or got commuted. The combined amount of deaths that they've caused is a statistic on its own. I'd say one recidivist murder is enough to warrant blocking the possibility of release for everyone, but there's a lot more than just one recidivist murder. A nice amount of the people listed killed multiple people after they were released, in fact. Rehabilitation may reduce recidivism, but preventing criminals like the ones above from ever walking free again removes the possibility of recidivism entirely. I don't care if it sounds "cruel", or "inhumane". Innocent lives are worth more than criminal livelihoods and freedoms. There's a nice big clump of people in that list who were commuted from the death sentence, got out, and immediately started killing again.

So would you say innocents that die in the death penalty are of less value than those that are killed by re offending murderers?

[url]http://nj.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Among_Homicide_Offenders.pdf[/url] [QUOTE]Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17[/url] [url]http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/space/publications/recidivism-studies/[/url] - Norway still has a %20 recidivism rate. Not worth the risk. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44373110]So would you say innocents that die in the death penalty are of less value than those that are killed by re offending murderers?[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that even if the death penalty is abolished--and it can be abolished safely (without commuting anyone like what happened in parts of that list)--murderers and extreme offenders should not be offered release at all unless it is proven that they did not do the crime at all. I'm saying that the death penalty isn't as useful as people might make it seem (in certain parts of the world), but on the other extreme people have this stupid naivety in believing that everyone deserves a second chance. If you want to reduce innocent deaths, get rid of both of these risks, or at least get rid of the death penalty for people who aren't caught red handed.

It should stay, keeping someone for a whole life in prison is just gonna waste jail cells and it will be a painful death, even if it's a criminal.

I don't want my tax money to be spent on keeping people like Anders Breivik alive and kicking. It makes me sick just thinking about it.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;44373160][url]http://nj.gov/corrections/pdf/REU/Recidivism_Among_Homicide_Offenders.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17[/url] [url]http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/space/publications/recidivism-studies/[/url] - Norway still has a %20 recidivism rate. Not worth the risk. [/QUOTE] This seems to be based on the untrue belief that prisons are good at rehabilitating people, which they're notoriously bad at.

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44376128]This seems to be based on the untrue belief that prisons are good at rehabilitating people, which they're notoriously bad at.[/QUOTE] Except even prisons with rehabilitation facilities have produced repeat murderers. Norway has rehabilitative prisons, and quite a few of the people I listed went through rehabilitation programs (which do in fact exist in some American prisons, not to mention the Danish and Japanese ones which all have some sort of program). I'm saying that rehabilitation facilities will not reduce the recidivism rate for murders to zero, and so it isn't worth the risk of trusting these people. There is no acceptable recidivism rate for murderers.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44369738]That doesn't really change anything. The cost is still much higher. What would you suggest, we get rid of their ability to appeal?[/QUOTE] Honestly, multiple times over and over on usually a stupid basis without any knowledge of some hard evidence contrary to their conviction? Yes. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;44371365]Look at any other first world nation for examples of rehabilitation properly in action. Look also to these nations to see how much fewer their repeat offender rate is. The system needing reform is not what this thread is about but in real life issues like this are tied. Plus, your whole argument is based on the idea that executions solve these problems, my counter-argument is you're just sweeping them under the rug in lieu of real reform and justifying the killing of humans on unnecessary grounds.[/QUOTE] That's in third world countries, here in America where people think they're entitled to do whatever the f*** they want, they don't care, they use it as an excuse to get out of jail (opinion), most of the people who go to rehabilitation FAIL, because they recommit crime on their probation period. I understand that the death penalty extends past the "scope" of this thread but it can incorporate SO much more than we are covering, which was my only reason for saying that. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44372362]Wrong. Rehabilitation cuts recidivicm rates better than a punishment based system. And until you start killing everyone, punishment doesn't actually stop or drop crime rates ever.[/quote] There's no way to evaluate the effectiveness on capital punishment as a deterrent as there's no reliable way to measure it. Does rehabilitation work better on drug offenders than jail? Well sure, but we're talking about capital punishment, not punishment in general (i.e. jail). Regardless, it works "better" but the margin is to statistically insignificant to suggest abandoning what we have now. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44372362] You do know the american prison system is more or less a training ground for hardened convicts? They literally call it "Con College". American prison system is more or less the least effective method of reducing repeat offenders. [/quote] Exactly, doing a "dime" is a status symbol now-a-days. So if you have this, and the same convicts not giving a rats ass about rehabilitation, then what's left? Life in prison (status symbol) or Capital punishment. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44372362]Yeah, a bullet is cheap, but you know what isn't? Making sure you don't kill the wrong person. When in just 40 years in the states a minimum of 27 innocents have been killed by the death penalty, you think that's an acceptable statistic? It isn't. It isn't cheaper in the long run to kill people with the death penalty because you will always have to spend a shit ton of money to prove that the person you're about to kill isn't the wrong one. You sound like you don't want that step involved. The appearance of justice is justice enough?[/quote] The issue I have with this, is innocent people go to prison all the time, eventually to be released, this is a problem with the court systems discretion and plea bargaining methods. If more time was spent in trial court to without a doubt convict a felon, it shouldn't matter in the first place. An appeal when new evidence comes to light, great, but 8 appeals because they just want to try and work the system in getting out after they knowingly committed a capital crime, is bs. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44372362] No. No, they don't. They don't actually clear up any room or help empty prisons any faster. I don't know how you got that idea.[/QUOTE] I didn't say any faster, nor that it solves the problem of prison population, but it does remove an individual that was part of it before, and if same individual has complete disregard for the system to begin with (given that they were rightfully convicted), and because rehabilitation on violent crime is crap, why not?

[QUOTE=007SILVERTOE;44381979] That's in third world countries, here in America where people think they're entitled to do whatever the f*** they want, they don't care, they use it as an excuse to get out of jail (opinion), most of the people who go to rehabilitation FAIL, because they recommit crime on their probation period. I understand that the death penalty extends past the "scope" of this thread but it can incorporate SO much more than we are covering, which was my only reason for saying that. [/QUOTE] I specifically said look at other first world nations. Our system is actually closer to a third world one.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;44382078]I specifically said look at other first world nations. Our system is actually closer to a third world one.[/QUOTE] My bad, in any case: "The number of repeat offenders in Canada is nearly four times as high as the official figure issued by the federal government, a Vancouver Sun investigation reveals." [url]http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/Courts/Sun%20Repeat%20offender.htm[/url]' Didn't look into the reliability of the source, but it was the first thing that came up. Regardless, you're comparing the most diverse country in regards to it's ethnic, racial, and religious composition than any other first world country, that alone is bound to show a greater level of crime just on diversity alone. Just because they have successful rehabilitation doesn't mean that it's actually rehabilitating criminals "better" than we are, rather, the criminals that are able to be rehabilitated are more abundant, and reflected in their rehabilitation statistics. In other words, America has some of the highest crime rates, and we imprison the most people, within that, we are bound to have worse criminals than other countries, criminals that even in those circumstances, could not be rehabilitated. (As rehabilitation doesn't rely on the effectiveness of the program, rather, the criminals' mentality towards changing)

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.