What do you think of the Death Penalty?

[Type Username Here]

http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/15519792/what-costs-more-the-death



That's for Washington, but it's pretty much been found in every study (in states that have capital punishment) that it ultimately costs taxpayers more to put someone to death


http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/

Okay, thank you. It makes sense with the appeals and waiting period.

Now can we find a source stating these laws are made for deterrence?

 

[acri1]

Okay, thank you. It makes sense with the appeals and waiting period.

Now can we find a source stating these laws are made for deterrence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_v._Georgia#Capital_punishment_and_the_Eighth_Amendment

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. Referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases[1] and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg, the Supreme Court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comport (i.e. comply) with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments." The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

Background
All five cases share the same basic procedural history. After the Furman decision, the states of Georgia, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Louisiana amended their death penalty statutes to meet the Furman guidelines. Subsequently, the five named defendants[2] were convicted of murder and sentenced to death in their respective states. The respective state supreme court[3] upheld the death sentence. The defendants then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their death sentence, asking the Court to go beyond Furman and declare once and for all the death penalty to be "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus in violation of the Constitution; the Court agreed to hear the cases.

In the July 2 Cases, the Court's goal was to provide guidance to states in the wake of Furman. In Furman only one basic idea could command a majority vote of the Justices: capital punishment, as then practiced in the United States, was cruel and unusual punishment because there were no rational standards that determined when it was imposed and when it was not. The question the Court resolved in these cases was not whether the death sentence imposed on each of the individual defendants was cruel, but rather whether the process by which those sentences were imposed was rational and objectively reviewable.

Capital punishment and the Eighth Amendment
The defendants in each of the five cases urged the Court to go farther than it had in Furman by holding once and for all that capital punishment was cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth Amendment. However the Court responded that "The most marked indication of society's endorsement of the death penalty for murder is the legislative response to Furman." Both Congress and 35 states had complied with the Court's dictates in Furman by either specifying factors to be weighed and procedures to be followed when imposing a death sentence, or dictating that the death penalty would be mandatory for specific crimes. Furthermore, a referendum in California had overturned the California Supreme Court's earlier decision (California v. Anderson) holding that the death penalty violated the California constitution. The fact that juries remained willing to impose the death penalty also contributed to the Court's conclusion that American society did not believe in 1976 that the death penalty was in all circumstances a cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court also found that the death penalty "comports with the basic concept of human dignity at the core of the [Eighth] Amendment". The death penalty serves two principal social purposes—retribution and deterrence. "In part, capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct". But this outrage must be expressed in an ordered fashion, for America is a society of laws. Retribution is consistent with human dignity, because society believes that "certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death". And although it is difficult to determine statistically how much crime the death penalty actually deters, the Court found that in 1976 there was "no convincing empirical evidence" supporting either the view that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime or the opposite view. Still, the Court could not completely discount the possibility that for certain "carefully contemplated murderers", "the possible penalty of death may well enter into the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act".

Finally, the Court considered whether the death penalty is "disproportionate in relation to the crime for which it is imposed". Although death is severe and irrevocable, the Court could not say that death was always disproportionate to the crime of deliberately taking human life. "It is an extreme sanction, suitable to the most extreme of crimes".

 

[Type Username Here]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_v._Georgia#Capital_punishment_and_the_Eighth_Amendment

Thank you for your hard work. I think the SCOTUS opinion is a very strong argument, but I can't seem to find any lawmakers passing these laws and saying it's solely for deterrence. I'm sure there have been but I can't seem to locate any. Historically, that has been absolutely true.

Question on your post though: so by your logic, because the deterrence is not met, the retribution part should be abandoned? In what way are they connected?

 

[acri1]

Thank you for your hard work. I think the SCOTUS opinion is a very strong argument, but I can't seem to find any lawmakers passing these laws and saying it's solely for deterrence. I'm sure there have been but I can't seem to locate any. Historically, that has been absolutely true.

Question on your post though: so by your logic, because the deterrence is not met, the retribution part should be abandoned? In what way are they connected?

I wouldn't argue that it was solely for deterrence, retribution has always been part of it too. I'd only argue that there's no convincing evidence that it actually is an effective deterrent.

And I'd argue that life (without possibility of parole) should be enough to meet societies need for "retribution". But my primary arguments against the death penalty are the other things that have been mentioned throughout this thread -

1. Cost to Taxpayers/Waste of limited resources

2. Very strong racial/class bias when it comes to who actually gets the death penalty

3. Possibility of killing innocent people - pver 140 people (since the 70s) have been released from death row because they were found to be innocent. In fact innocent people are convicted more often than most people think, there are tons of examples of this.

4. Lack of evidence of any sort of deterrence - the possibility of life in prison would deter any rational person from committing a heinous crime anyway.

 

[Type Username Here]

I wouldn't argue that it was solely for deterrence, retribution has always been part of it too. I'd only argue that there's no convincing evidence that it actually is an effective deterrent.

And I'd argue that life (without possibility of parole) should be enough to meet societies need for "retribution". But my primary arguments against the death penalty are the other things that have been mentioned throughout this thread -

1. Cost to Taxpayers/Waste of limited resources

2. Very strong racial/class bias when it comes to who actually gets the death penalty

3. Possibility of killing innocent people - pver 140 people (since the 70s) have been released from death row because they were found to be innocent. In fact innocent people are convicted more often than most people think, there are tons of examples of this.

4. Lack of evidence of any sort of deterrence - the possibility of life in prison would deter any rational person from committing a heinous crime anyway.

All very good points. I think life without parole fits about 95-99% of criminal behavior that warrants it. I just feel that there comes several unspeakable crimes that warrant death. At that point it doesn't even become about deterrence OR retribution, but simply putting an animal down that is not fit to exist.

For example, a few years back there was a story about a man who was caught having sex with newborns and 2 year old children. He taped this acts and the article describes how the police and officials who watched it had severe emotional issues. They describe these little children going through pain and severe discomfort.

That person does not in anyway deserve to live. They deserve a trial and an appeal process, but once those are met, death is the most humane thing to do. It's like putting down a sick dog.

 

[Bud Bundy]

Like In general, Do you believe that it should used at all? If yes, Do you think murder is the only crime that should be eligible for capital punishment?

Want to get people's opinions

don't believe in it. living in captivity is worse then any death sentence.

 

[acri1]

All very good points. I think life without parole fits about 95-99% of criminal behavior that warrants it. I just feel that there comes several unspeakable crimes that warrant death. At that point it doesn't even become about deterrence OR retribution, but simply putting an animal down that is not fit to exist.

For example, a few years back there was a story about a man who was caught having sex with newborns and 2 year old children. He taped this acts and the article describes how the police and officials who watched it had severe emotional issues. They describe these little children going through pain and severe discomfort.

That person does not in anyway deserve to live. They deserve a trial and an appeal process, but once those are met, death is the most humane thing to do. It's like putting down a sick dog.

Yeah, I can definitely respect that view...I personally don't think that somebody who would do something like that deserves to live either.

But still, I just think that having the government make that decision is a slippery slope best avoided. Especially since there arguably aren't any real benefits to society (in terms of cost or deterrence) to killing said person. I'd also point out that, from what I recall, the average person spends something like 15 years on death row before being executed, and some have spent 30+ years. So many end up being in prison log enough to die of natural causes anyway.

Again tho, I really can understand that some crimes are really that horrible. In all honesty I don't even know how I'd feel if somebody committed a heinous crime like that against my family/friends.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

 

[nineteeneightysix]

Like In general, Do you believe that it should used at all? If yes, Do you think murder is the only crime that should be eligible for capital punishment?

Want to get people's opinions

My opinion of the death penalty is this...

1) If somebody is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced to death, an immediate family member of the victim should be the one who kills the perpetrator...If the victim's people don't have the stomach to kill the perpetrator, then he obviously does not deserve a death sentence...

2) Death penalty should be reserved for murder and rape (except date drug rape)...I am talking rape were a woman/man is savagely beaten...

 

[Chris.B]

My opinion of the death penalty is this...

1) If somebody is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and sentenced to death, an immediate family member of the victim should be the one who kills the perpetrator...If the victim's people don't have the stomach to kill the perpetrator, then he obviously does not deserve a death sentence...

2) Death penalty should be reserved for murder and rape (except date drug rape)...I am talking rape were a woman/man is savagely beaten...

 

[Liu Kang]

[...]
For example, a few years back there was a story about a man who was caught having sex with newborns and 2 year old children. He taped this acts and the article describes how the police and officials who watched it had severe emotional issues. They describe these little children going through pain and severe discomfort.

That person does not in anyway deserve to live. They deserve a trial and an appeal process, but once those are met, death is the most humane thing to do. It's like putting down a sick dog.

That crime is beyond horrible.
But I think the death penalty is just something beyond a state's right and above all, is not necessary : if you can put an offender away for life and therefore protect the citizens from him forever, why put him to death ? Why the need to overdo the punishment when life is enough ? Isn't it the reasonable thing to give them life because it is enough ?
How can we properly judged that one deserves to live or to die ? I think it's more of a philosphical debate but still, how do we draw the line ? and why should me draw that line (life / death) because objectively, it's not necessary ?

Sometimes, I don't think that sex offenders (pedos, rapists or even torturers) deserve to "live" but that's just an opinion as a citizen and that thought comes everytime an awful story like this comes to ligh. But I'd never want a world where they are put to death for being that.
If you look at this 2011 study, it clearly shows that sex-offending issue is a little more complex than just the evil predator stuff : http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/tandi/421-440/tandi429.html

Conclusion
An understanding of child sex offenders, based on the available evidence, is critical if child sexual abuse is to be prevented and responded to in effective ways. A wide range of criminal justice and related professionals (eg police, therapists, corrections) and processes (eg investigative, court, sentencing) deal with child sex offenders and could benefit from an accurate understanding of this population of offenders. This paper contributes to the literature on perpetrators of child sexual abuse by outlining the evidence around a number of common misperceptions. Specifically, it highlights that:

• not all child sex offenders are ‘paedophiles’. That is, child sex offenders are a heterogeneous group with varying offender profiles;
• children are usually abused by someone they know, although data suggest that strangers comprise nearly one in five perpetrators of child sexual abuse against males;
• not all child sex offenders have been victims of sexual abuse themselves and there are complex relationships between being a victim of child sexual abuse and becoming a perpetrator, which require further research. It is important to recognise that while many offenders report a history of being sexually abused, most victims of child sexual abuse do not become perpetrators later in life;
• while not all child sex offenders have high rates of recidivism, a specific subset—those who target extrafamilial male children—do frequently reoffend; and
• although it is difficult to accurately determine how many children a child sex offender has already offended against by the time he is detected for an offence, this number varies according to offending profiles and is unlikely to be as high as is commonly assumed. There is, however, a subset of extrafamilial male offenders who abuse high numbers of victims.

Although sexual offending against children is a highly emotive issue, it is important that the empirical literature on this topic underpins any public policy response to child sex offenders (eg risk assessment, treatment, investigative and court processes, sentencing, child protection policies) in order to ensure the implementation of approaches that are best placed to enhance public safety and protect children from sexual abuse. A future paper will explore some of the current policy issues in prosecuting and managing sex offenders, once they have been identifi

 

[Chris.B]

if an animal kills a human it's put down, why not a human who kills a human?

 

[Liu Kang]

if an animal who kills a human is put down, why not a human who kills a human?

We shouldn't put down animals who kill humans in the first place.

 

[Chris.B]

We shouldn't put down animals who kill humans in the first place.

once an animal taste the flesh of humans, it will ASSUME that humans can be food.

An animal is not smart enough to differentiate between human flesh and other flesh.
That's why when a dog kills or bites a person it's almost killed immediately to prevent the next person from being eaten.

I put murderers in the same category, if they go unchecked...they will kill again.

Also for most people worried about disproportionate among of minorities on death row.....

MOST BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA ARE KILLED BY OTHER BLACK PEOPLE