Death sentence

[burner69]

Killing people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong

Right, I read an article in the paper today about a man going back onto death row. He was the man who won the first legal case in US history, and subsequently changed the law, that let him off execution because he had an IQ under 70, and was therefore deemed mentally retarded.
Now, he is going back on trial because, during his time reading and writing for his defence case, and helping other people in similar situations, his IQ has gone up to 76, and he can be legally executed for the abduction and murder he committed.

I just wanted to use this story to get a debate going about Capital punishment. What do you guys make of it?

I'm very much against it personally, I believe it goes against the whole notion of the legal system, and shows that often we're all as bad as eachother.

Your thoughts, please

 

[bliink]

Killing is perhaps the crudest and most cave-man like method of punishment.
I like to think as a species, we're a little beyond that..

Not only that but the whole "eye for an eye" thing only leads to a big mess later on.

 

[The Mullinator]

There are definately some people who really do deserve death in my opinion, and by deserve I mean what they did was so terrible and the person would be more than willing to do it again if given the chance. However people like that are so incredibly rare even in the prison system that I don't think making the death sentence legal should be done.

 

[bliink]

There are definately some people who really do deserve death in my opinion, and by deserve I mean what they did was so terrible and the person would be more than willing to do it again if given the chance. However people like that are so incredibly rare even in the prison system that I don't think making the death sentence legal should be done.

There may be people who deserve it, but I would never bring myself down to their level.

 

[Tr0n]

Killing is perhaps the crudest and most cave-man like method of punishment.
I like to think as a species, we're a little beyond that..

Not only that but the whole "eye for an eye" thing only leads to a big mess later on.

Well the problem is we ain't.

Killing is apart of human nature...only way to stop it is like what I said before and make some type of drug that does away with feelings and emotions.

OR

Monitor everyone with barcodes or somethin to keep track of them.

So yea...people killing each other is gonna be here for a long long long time.

 

[RZAL]

No comment

 

[el Chi]

Why Burner, with this can of worms you are really spoiling us

Personally I find the whole concept of capital punishment barbaric.
As Mahatma Gandhi said: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."

 

[qckbeam]

I have two reasons for opposing the death penalty. First of all, we are supposed to be civilized human beings, and as such we should not bring ourselves down to the same level the very dregs of society inhabit. An eye for an eye is not the way a civil society deals justice.

Now laying the principle argument aside, I think that it is downright arrogant to go about assuming that we as human beings possess any justice system which could be called infallible. We are not perfect; our justice system is not perfect. Dealing out a punishment as fatal as death with an imperfect system for determining guilt or innocence is reckless and irresponsible.

 

[clarky003]

Well the problem is we ain't.

Killing is apart of human nature...only way to stop it is like what I said before and make some type of drug that does away with feelings and emotions.

OR

Monitor everyone with barcodes or somethin to keep track of them.

So yea...people killing each other is gonna be here for a long long long time.

urm, self control? it only takes someone to stand up to their emotions and say NO, its called stength of will, and also helping us to develop by bettering our childhoods, education... its physcological, drugs are a quick fix , like guns to crime have become in the West.. and we wouldnt be learning anything, its just like 'shut up , here take this' ...

but i guess if somone really got out of hand it would be much more civilised to give them a drug, rather than put them down... especially if they had a harsh life, which causes there angst and onto a life of crime..

like bliink said, alot of us are more developed than this, and physcology is the core to a prosperous human race, if we can understand ourselves we can begin to correct the problems we place on others.

 

[Edcrab]

As is jailing someone for up to fifteen years, only to find out that yes, as he always claimed, he was in fact innocent. No justice system can be infallible... short of constant monitoring and telepathy or something equally impossible.

A wrongly passed jail sentence is far more reversible than execution- just not entirely so. Losing a long segment of your life is almost as bad.

So as tempting as it is to wipe repeat offenders with no respect for human life off the face of the planet, I don't think it's practical- not because I have a single empathic bone in my body, but because, for reasons entirely beyond me, execution is a far more expensive process than a decade of incarceration.

So economically speaking, let's just keep piling people into our overcrowded prisons and spending money on supporting them- some of whom will be beyond rehabilitation- because it's cheaper in the long run than killing people.

 

[burner69]

A wrongly passed jail sentence is far more reversible than execution- just not entirely so. Losing a long segment of your life is almost as bad.

Between these two eternities of nothingness, this little blip of light called life I've got is something I intend to hang on to for as long as possible. While the light might fade behind bars, it can brighten up again. When you turn the light off, that's all folks.

 

[qckbeam]

As is jailing someone for up to fifteen years, only to find out that yes, as he always claimed, he was in fact innocent. No justice system can be infallible... short of constant monitoring and telepathy or something equally impossible.

A wrongly passed jail sentence is far more reversible than execution- just not entirely so. Losing a long segment of your life is almost as bad.

Killing someone is a process which cannot be reversed no matter what we do. I find it reckless to deal out such incredibly permanent punishments when we have a system in place that we know doesn't always work correctly. I do not find the alternative to the death penalty reckless. I hardly think it’s pleasant, but as you said, no system is infallible and therefore at least the alternative, jail time, should be reversible if it’s later discovered we were wrong.

 

[Edcrab]

Yep. That's entirely my point- glad to see I got that across without having to kill any- I mean lock anyone up.

Of course that'll nurture all sorts of debate on just how reliable prison is- but that's the problem; we need a deterrant that is both effective and amendable.

Just out of interest, who here considers imprisonment to be a worse punishment then death, and who here merely upholds the prison system because it's more socially acceptable?

Although, yet again, that'd depend on which society you looked at...

But to elaborate further on that throwaway remark of mine, can the death penalty ever be justified, if the crime (or the unrepentant attitude of the criminal) is heinous enough? I'm sure more people would want to see Saddam rot in jail rather than simply be shot, for example.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I support it, but the way it's handled currently needs to be changed.

Giving it in clear cut cases with situations, such as someone walking into a parking lot and killing 5 people, and everyone knows it was them for sure, etc, with the sentence being carried out quickly (within a year or two rather than now like it sometimes happens 30 years later)

 

[Bodacious]

I support it, but the way it's handled currently needs to be changed.

Giving it in clear cut cases with situations, such as someone walking into a parking lot and killing 5 people, and everyone knows it was them for sure, etc, with the sentence being carried out quickly (within a year or two rather than now like it sometimes happens 30 years later)

I agree, they need to be executed faster.

 

[GhostFox]

Now, he is going back on trial because, during his time reading and writing for his defence case, and helping other people in similar situations, his IQ has gone up to 76, and he can be legally executed for the abduction and murder he committed.

Incorrect.

Your IQ is finalized between ages 3 and 4 and if tested properly at age 6 and age 60, your IQ will not change that drastically. Maybe 1 point for normal fluctuation. No amount of studying will ever raise your IQ. So either one of the two tests was screwed up, or you misread the article. If your IQ changes when recorded on the same scale someone screwed up.

 

[CptStern]

there was a man executed recently who spent 20 years on death row before he was finally put to death... that's not justice. IMHO it's a crude and morally questionable practice that should be abolished. As a species we're supposed to be moving forward not backward.

 

[Pericolos0]

pretty simple no.

The government should set itself morally apart from the killer. If justice is about killing, then in my eyes i dont see a diferrence between the killer and the people that decide he should be killed. Punishment shouldn't be about revenge, but about taking a criminal from society in a morally justifiable way.
that's pretty much my main point. Make yourself morally superior from the killer. Killing is not right in whatever way. Even if it's killing a killer. Eventhough i'm an atheist theres also no religion that would support this.

Next to that its an archaic practice. Eye for an eye shouldnt be a system of justice anymore.

On a more pragmatic side it has shown not to be an effective deterrent, its just too costly, and there's the risk of killing an innocent person. Not even 1 innocent person on 10000 makes it justifiable

 

[burner69]

Incorrect.

Your IQ is finalized between ages 3 and 4 and if tested properly at age 6 and age 60, your IQ will not change that drastically. Maybe 1 point for normal fluctuation. No amount of studying will ever raise your IQ. So either one of the two tests was screwed up, or you misread the article. If your IQ changes when recorded on the same scale someone screwed up.

My first post was wrong about his initial IQ. But here is a section from the article, taken from the independant

In an extraordinary reversal of fortune, Daryl Atkins will return to court later this year where a jury will decide whether he is officially retarded. If the court decides he is not, Atkins, 27, could be executed by lethal injection * in effect, because of the work he did that resulted in other mentally retarded prisoners being spared.

Atkins' IQ was first tested in 1998 and was found to stand at 59. But when it was tested more recently, he scored 76. In Virginia, the level at which the state differentiates between someone who is retarded and someone who is not is 70.

Testing IQ is very difficult, I've been told by two seperate tests I've got an IQ of 109, and 125. I feel reeeally sorry for this guy, even though he did do some nasty sh*t before.

 

[Raziaar]

I agree with the death penalty, but things should be changed. It should only be for people who have without a doubt, did the murder/multiple murders, and it should happen very effectively and faster. No waiting years on it.

I don't believe everybody can be rehabilitated. It just can't happen with some people. And the tax payers money shouldn't be wasted on someone with such a huge disregard for human life who likely has no chance of having their psyche changed.

 

[Edcrab]

That's just it- short of drastic brain surgery, you can't actually change someone's mental processes. Some have argued that all humans have homicidal tendencies, it's just that we suppress them. And don't get me started on Freud.

Rehabilitation can and does occur successfully- but it is indeed purely naive to think that each and every offender can be "changed" in such a way, and that's the problem.

But what are we to do? Brutally execute a killer who's claimed another victim since leaving jail, or just lock him away for eternity?

 

[Absinthe]

I have yet to develop a concrete stance on this issue, but I do lean more towards the "No" option.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

there was a man executed recently who spent 20 years on death row before he was finally put to death... that's not justice. IMHO it's a crude and morally questionable practice that should be abolished. As a species we're supposed to be moving forward not backward.

The remedy to this is to leave capital punishment for the "Brutally for sures" and execute them faster, but not to totally get rid of it.

 

[Vigilante]

Like Ron White's state of texas, all states should have an express lane. Yes I believe in it.

 

[KoreBolteR]

only people like "ian huntly" and "the washington snipers" should get the death penalty imo. evil people like that would be gone, and the prisons less crowded.

the only thing i would worry about tho, is "what if the guy was innocent" .

like the film "life of david gale", anyone seen that?

 

[Raziaar]

only people like "ian huntly" and "the washington snipers" should get the death penalty imo. evil people like that would be gone, and the prisons less crowded.

the only thing i would worry about tho, is "what if the guy was innocent" .

like the film "life of david gale", anyone seen that?

Wasn't the video at the very end of that movie showing that he in fact, was somehow responsible? I only watched the end of it.

 

[Vigilante]

only people like "ian huntly" and "the washington snipers" should get the death penalty imo. evil people like that would be gone, and the prisons less crowded.

the only thing i would worry about tho, is "what if the guy was innocent" .

like the film "life of david gale", anyone seen that?

the "washington snipers" were caught 4 miles from my house in Myersville, MD. Talk about scary. our schools were on total lockdown(nobody in or out) during that 'incident'. Not to mention my cousin when to the same school and was in the same grade as the ONLY person who survived the shootings (happened a Benjamin Tasker middle in Bowie, MD)

 

[KoreBolteR]

spoiler of the film "life of david gale" below.

Spoiler

yes David Gale and constance, staged the whole thing to prove that there is people on the death row that are in fact, innocent.
like himself. Both Constance and David sacrificed thier life to prove this.

overally good movie 9/10

the "washington snipers" were caught 4 miles from my house in Myersville, MD. Talk about scary. our schools were on total lockdown(nobody in or out) during that 'incident'. Not to mention my cousin when to the same school and was in the same grade as the ONLY person who survived the shootings (happened a Benjamin Tasker middle in Bowie, MD)

wow thats scary ..

was you scared, cos i probably would have been. :|

 

[burner69]

only people like "ian huntly" and "the washington snipers" should get the death penalty imo. evil people like that would be gone, and the prisons less crowded.

the only thing i would worry about tho, is "what if the guy was innocent" .

Ian Huntley's a tough one, because he obviously killed the girls, but he does insist it was acciedently, and not helped by his mental instability.

If you want my opinion, legalise drugs, free up half the prisons, then you can lock up real criminals, people who murder people, without having to stoop to their level. Like someone said on these forums a while ago, let them do some work in prison; could be computer work, or maybe good old hard labour in some secure site, and earn themselves more privileges in prison. When they finally do come out, keep them monitored (electronic tags) so they know they can not get away with a crime again, but also since they will have learnt that "put some effort in, you get rewards" they're far less likely to do so.

 

[Raziaar]

spoiler of the film "life of david gale" below.

Spoiler

yes David Gale and constance, staged the whole thing to prove that there is people on the death row that are in fact, innocent.
like himself. Both Constance and David sacrificed thier life to prove this.

overally good movie 9/10



wow thats scary ..

was you scared, cos i probably would have been. :|

But the thing is. Should we abolish life imprisonment too, because there might be innocent people there? Life sentence, and death penalty are roughly the same. The person will die in prison, except the latter will likely cost less in the long run. I would imigine some prisoners would be in favor of the death penalty rather than living their dreary existance in prison.

My question still remains though... if death penalty is so fought against, why isn't life imprisonment either? They both take away the persons life, innocent or guilty. However, it would be a stupid idea to not imprison people for their crimes, isn't it? I think both are necessary, especially in a country as messed up as the united states. We need speedier executions for the ones we know are guilty.

 

[The Mullinator]

But the thing is. Should we abolish life imprisonment too, because there might be innocent people there? Life sentence, and death penalty are roughly the same. The person will die in prison, except the latter will likely cost less in the long run. I would imigine some prisoners would be in favor of the death penalty rather than living their dreary existance in prison.

My question still remains though... if death penalty is so fought against, why isn't life imprisonment either? They both take away the persons life, innocent or guilty. However, it would be a stupid idea to not imprison people for their crimes, isn't it? I think both are necessary, especially in a country as messed up as the united states. We need speedier executions for the ones we know are guilty.

Some people are occasionally proven innocent while serving a life sentence and are released.

However the big reason is the view of life being sacred.

 

[Raziaar]

Some people are occasionally proven innocent while serving a life sentence and are released.

However the big reason is the view of life being sacred.

True. I don't deny that there are likely innocent people in prison.


However, about the sacred thing. First of all, isn't that a religious term? Second of all... tell that to the people they murdered. Life is sacred, but they gave up their right to life when they took someone elses in an unlawful fashion outside of war.

 

[The Mullinator]

However, about the sacred thing. First of all, isn't that a religious term? Second of all... tell that to the people they murdered. Life is sacred, but they gave up their right to life when they took someone elses in an unlawful fashion outside of war.

Well sacred isn't really the right word but it does get accross the right idea I think. Its really the sense of "two wrongs don't make a right", one "sacred" life was ended but why then do we have to end another "sacred" life?

Personally I view that "two wrongs don't make a right" to be used in very stupid ways sometimes. After all what makes killing some people a "wrong"? Would giving Hitler the death sentence be wrong? In my view killing someone who was wrongfully convicted is obviously wrong, and killing someone who can be changed is wrong. However anyone else (and there are very few of these people) is IMO someone who has thrown away their own right to live. Killing them is not barbaric but conveniently removing their threat and creating space for the rest of society. As cold as that may sound I hold that view because I don't view the ending of a life to be "taboo".

Like I said though there are extremelly few people who I would say should be given the death sentence. Most of them you end up hearing a lot about in the media anyway.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Ian Huntley's a tough one, because he obviously killed the girls, but he does insist it was acciedently, and not helped by his mental instability.

If you want my opinion, legalise drugs, free up half the prisons, then you can lock up real criminals, people who murder people, without having to stoop to their level. Like someone said on these forums a while ago, let them do some work in prison; could be computer work, or maybe good old hard labour in some secure site, and earn themselves more privileges in prison. When they finally do come out, keep them monitored (electronic tags) so they know they can not get away with a crime again, but also since they will have learnt that "put some effort in, you get rewards" they're far less likely to do so.

good idea, but what if that person commited another crime?
he wont fear going back to prison, because hell know that its just like "going back to school".

think of it, tramps will commit crimes, so they can have decent daily meals and education. could sound like heaven for people like them.

 

[Pericolos0]

Well sacred isn't really the right word but it does get accross the right idea I think. Its really the sense of "two wrongs don't make a right", one "sacred" life was ended but why then do we have to end another "sacred" life?

Personally I view that "two wrongs don't make a right" to be used in very stupid ways sometimes. After all what makes killing some people a "wrong"? Would giving Hitler the death sentence be wrong? In my view killing someone who was wrongfully convicted is obviously wrong, and killing someone who can be changed is wrong. However anyone else (and there are very few of these people) is IMO someone who has thrown away their own right to live. Killing them is not barbaric but conveniently removing their threat and creating space for the rest of society. As cold as that may sound I hold that view because I don't view the ending of a life to be "taboo".

Like I said though there are extremelly few people who I would say should be given the death sentence. Most of them you end up hearing a lot about in the media anyway.

i think it's just your duty to put yourself morally superior from the murderer. Don't kill him. You arn't the killer.

 

[Blakeb155]

Really, death is actually better than sitting in a cell for the rest of your life and dying of old age.

 

[burner69]

Really, death is actually better than sitting in a cell for the rest of your life and dying of old age.

I don't think so. Unless you committ murder when you're, like 50, you're stil quite likely to see freedom before you die. I for one would wait my whole life to just have one year of freedom at the end, rather than die.

 

[Blakeb155]

But if you knew you'd never see the world outside the prison or you believed in an after-life where you can return as Gordon Freeman, Death would be better.

 

[burner69]

But if you knew you'd never see the world outside the prison or you believed in an after-life where you can return as Gordon Freeman, Death would be better.

If there was no chance of ever being free again, perhaps I'd opt for lethal injection.

I think while most people, at least in the UK, like to say they're religious, I doubt many of them genuinely believe in an afterlife, or at least would be willing to die to find out. Most would rather spend a good spell in prison.

 

[Absinthe]

Edit: Nevermind.