March 11, 2015 at 8:14 pm #7998
First off, I’m in favor of the death penalty. If guilt is 100% that is. Tim McVeigh would be an example of someone 100%. Scott Peterson, not 100%. OJ, 100%.
Utah is trying to bring back the firing squad. Most people would be against this, but I have to say why? Lethal injection is a failure. Firing squad is a guaranteed quick death.
I think the bigger issue is that people tend to view lethal injection as “humane”, but would be against methods such as firing squads, beheadings, or hangings.
Even though they all share the same result.March 11, 2015 at 8:21 pm #8000LangstonParticipant
Interested to know who sets the percentages.March 11, 2015 at 8:32 pm #8002
The evidence should set the percentages.March 12, 2015 at 9:15 am #8015jerry1949Spectator
In our culture with our economy there’s no reason to kill anyone. All the forms of capital punishment are inhumane.March 12, 2015 at 9:56 am #8019
Our Justice System is imperfect.
(OJ Simpson being a prime example)
My personal view on the death penalty in fact changed with the Simpson verdict.
You do not take a life based on an imperfect system.
How many people on death row have been exonerated by DNA technology alone?March 12, 2015 at 10:43 am #8024BrianlParticipant
That’s just it, Amus. We now have the DNA technology. If that is used in finding guilt, and 100 percent accurate, fry ’em.March 12, 2015 at 10:49 am #8025
But even that doesn’t address the inequities in the system.
Is there any doubt that OJ would have been found guilty if he had had a public defender as opposed to the “Dream Team”?March 12, 2015 at 10:54 am #8026BrianlParticipant
I don’t disagree for a second that there are flaws in our justice system. I don’t think there is a “perfect” justice system.
That said, it’s still the best in the world.March 12, 2015 at 12:11 pm #8030Andy BrownParticipant
I’m against the death penalty, but not for moral reasons. The problem with the capital justice system is both fiscal and to social impact.
Studies continue to show that the cost of mandatory appeals and the execution exceed on the average of the cost of life imprisonment without parole including health care and end of life costs. In addition, executions have become sparser and thusly have become giant media circus events that glorify the villain. Life imprisonment and eventual death of old age/sickness gets a lot less attention making it, IMO, more in line with its significance in historical terms and less influential on the public mindset. In other words, he did it, they locked him up and threw away the key and everyone got over it and moved on. Better for victims family, you ask? That might be the only drawback for some.
Morally it’s a close call for me. Too many have been put to death in error, and those mistakes are irreversible. So whereas I am not opposed to the concept of the death penalty, like some of you, I really would like to see a higher standard of accuracy in the courts. We don’t have that yet, but it is getting better. The caveat is that perhaps these mandatory appeals and such that drag these cases out over time have been helpful is saving some innocent people from a wrongful death.March 12, 2015 at 12:12 pm #8031
I don’t disagree.
But I still don’t favor a death penalty in any case with an imperfect system.
You can never be 100% sure.March 12, 2015 at 12:48 pm #8034
If you’re sure enough to put someone behind bars for life without parole, you should be sure enough to send them to death row.March 12, 2015 at 1:06 pm #8035
Bad is it would be, you could release someone from life in prison.
You cannot release them from death.March 12, 2015 at 1:42 pm #8036missing_kskdParticipant
I oppose the death penalty for similar reasons.
Really, it seems to center on the idea that a person has no value being here.
I do think people get there, but I am unconvinced it is a fixed, irreversible state.
We do find people not deserving of a place in society, which is what a life sentence is for. Sometimes those people manage to improve and do some good, or have purpose too. This may just be acceptance and some closure for those harmed.
Sometimes we kill them anyway, which is tragic, and is what happened to the gang member in Cali a while back, despite the guy figuring it out and doing real good knowing he would never again be released.
If that is all, it is still potentially worth a lot.
Frankly, if death is allowed, then I’m not so worried about the humanity of it all. Killing people is flat out ugly. There is no humane way to do it.
Suffering and medical choices and reasons aside. Those are just and compassionate when not abused.
On that basis, Utah can have its firing squad, hanging, whatever. It does not matter much to me as I see it all as cruel and it should be very unusual.
I also think they should be required to publicize it and those making the determination to be directly involved in the deed too. Put the judge out there for all to see. They pull a trigger, or are present, right there for other means.
If they can live with that, chances are we can too, and the bar for justice to trump anger and revenge would be more appropriate for the severe and undoable nature of it all.
It should be expensive to do, and that cost should fall on those willing to do it.
We make a lot of mistakes. I’m not sure we can ever avoid them. We also can learn a lot from people who are alive.
There are some just executions. I still oppose them, but I’m not going to seek purity and be absolutist about it.
Instead, I would much rather see a greater emphasis on helping people be better people be given the same level of attention and consideration as punishment currently is.
Interestingly, that kind of argument seems a lot like the abortion related ones where we strike a balance for the greatest net good.
In some nations, max prison time may be as little as 20 to 25 years. Flat out murder even qualifies.
But, those same nations also invest in helping those people in jail and they enjoy lower return rates as well as less overall crime.
I often wonder at the punishment we hand out and how it very frequently, or at least more frequently seems unjust given what happened. This happens most with mandatory sentencing too.
The best overall improvement would be to eliminate mandatory terms in most cases, allow judges to actually judge more, execute where they believe they can live with having to carry it out, and invest more, much more strongly in corrections in the material sense, not fixating on punishment alone as means to a frequently implausible end.
Maybe do not allow anyone with a lifetime appointment to execute anyone. We then can rid ourselves of over zealous judges, if needed.
Given better dynamics and with those, better results from the justice system, perhaps we would see actual incidents of the death penalty being warranted drop.
I really don’t feel good about our system, nor its results and the poor outcomes, high costs, errors… are on the rise too.
We don’t really deserve to have the death penalty in our current, and I would submit, deplorable state.
Why can’t we get after some of the more pressing troubles and focus on better outcomes?
Frankly, the money and human savings doing that would deliver would fund keeping the really ugly ones locked up with no worries at all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.