Do you support death penalty?

Walt said:
I certainly believe he is guilty, and think it is beyond a reasonable doubt... But that is not 100%. Beyond any possible doubt is an unachievable goalpost.

So my question becomes, should beyond a reasonable doubt be enough to execute a suspect? I think it is reasonable to say yes, but let's not pretend we will ever reach "beyond any possible doubt, 100%, even if everyone is lying, the suspect is still guilty" standard.

The counter argument is that if you put a convicted person in prison without parole, and he turns out to be not guilty, you can just release him. That is a strong argument, but not an absolute argument.
Click to expand...
Since the system is not perfect, I agree that the death penalty is wrong.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Absolutely. When you sentence someone to life in prison without parole, and they continue to commit capital crimes in prison, they deserve to die for it. Why should we keep someone around who was imprisoned for life for such crimes and then have no means to punish them for doing those crimes in prison?

Why should another inmate, or a guard, or staff, in a prison be subject to rape, murder, or the like by a prisoner who knows they will suffer no consequences for their act? Solitary isn't punishment for someone like that. It's simply an attempt to minimize that prisoner doing it again. Note, that won't stop them entirely and they could still commit further crimes. Death is the only sure solution.

There are also crimes so heinous, so vile, that they deserve something more than simply putting someone in prison for life. Without a death penalty what would you give such a person, multiple life sentences without parole? How stupid is that? Hell, such a person might take it as a challenge to see how many they can rack up.

The death penalty is a deterrent, an absolute deterrent, that prevents the person put to death from committing further crimes.

Without a death penalty there will be those in our society that see they can spend their life committing murder, rape, or whatever, be it in prison or on the street and face no penalty for their actions. Eliminating them from society by death is the only sure option open to dealing with such a person.
Click to expand...
Nordberg said:
The death penalty is not a deterrent. The attention they get from the press and justice results in copycat crimes. Murder is not a choice made in fear.
The DP is an end to that person committing more murders. It is also the end of his possibility of being freed for a crime he did not commit. The Innocence Project has pulled many people off death row. They got crappy treatment by justice. DNA has saved many from suffering penalties for crimes they did not commit.
I know, you do not care about them.
Jail stops them from committing more crimes.
Click to expand...
Terry's dementia aside, I agree the death penalty is not a deterrent. It can have the opposite effect. Consider Pedo Don's repetitive desire to institute the death penalty for drug dealers. If the penalty for dealing pot is the same as for killing a cop or raping and murdering children, then why wouldn't a drug dealer do all of the above if it means escaping the law?


Trump says he will direct Justice Department to ‘vigorously pursue the death penalty’​

“As soon as I am inaugurated, I will direct the Justice Department to vigorously pursue the death penalty to protect American families and children from violent rapists, murderers, and monsters. We will be a Nation of Law and Order again!” Trump wrote on Truth Social, echoing his long-standing advocacy for use of the death penalty, which was part of his tough-on-crime rhetoric during the 2024 campaign....

...Throughout his campaign, Trump’s advocacy for greater use of the death penalty was part of his hardline commitment to reducing violent crime and drug and human trafficking. In his speech launching his 2024 presidential campaign, he pledged to seek the death penalty for drug dealers. He said last year he would ask Congress to pass a law that “anyone caught trafficking children across our border” should receive the death penalty.
 
Nordberg said:
The death penalty is not a deterrent. The attention they get from the press and justice results in copycat crimes. Murder is not a choice made in fear.
Click to expand...

It sure as hell is to the person put to death! They have been 100% deterred from committing any future crimes.
Nordberg said:
The DP is an end to that person committing more murders.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It deters that person.
Nordberg said:
It is also the end of his possibility of being freed for a crime he did not commit.
Click to expand...

This is a continuum fallacy. Yes, there is that possibility but it is so slim as to be irrelevant in cases where the person has committed the crime repeatedly. That's the case I've made. The person committed murder. They were sent to prison. They murdered again while in prison. They have now committed that crime twice, once with the original crime, and again with a new case.
I'm not arguing we should put someone to death for say, a single murder and that remains their sole crime.

I would argue that there is so infinitesimal a chance of someone murdering others on more than one occasion in disparate circumstances and being tried and convicted of those crimes as to make the argument that they are innocent irrelevant.
Nordberg said:
The Innocence Project has pulled many people off death row. They got crappy treatment by justice. DNA has saved many from suffering penalties for crimes they did not commit.
Click to expand...

How many have they gotten off death row for having committed repeated violent crimes of a period of years? I'm not talking someone who was convicted of a single crime in a single instance. I'm talking about someone who has committed multiple violent crimes over a period of time and has possibly also indicated that they will continue to commit such crimes if given the chance. HOW MANY?
Nordberg said:
I know, you do not care about them.
Jail stops them from committing more crimes.
Click to expand...
Jail is a deterrent. It does not stop someone from committing more crimes, it only makes it harder for them to do them. There are plenty of examples of this to choose from. 11 of the 37 persons with death sentences Biden just commuted committed murder WHILE IN PRISON. They committed crimes while in jail.
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
There are times and places where violence IS the answer. No justice system is going to be perfect in every case. So long as we try and do our best to ensure that the justice system is as fair and accurate in how it works, the outcomes can be considered fair. We should strive to make the system fairer, but also punctual. I'd say the biggest issue with our current justice system is it is anything but speedy. It can take years for a case to wind through the courts and appeals. That's as bad or worse than making a mistake in a case.

As for your original question here: do we deserve to kill, not do they deserve to die, there are times when yes, someone deserves to die and we have an obligation to carry that out to stop further killing by the person condemned to die. If a person has exhibited through word and deed that they are willing to murder, rape, or violently assault others, and that punishments such as prison will not stop them, then yes, they should be put to death. It is far worse that we accede to their actions by keeping them alive.

That is, in putting them to death we used the only sure method available to stop them from committing more murders, rapes, or violence. Those who would be victims of this person's future crimes, which are all but ensured to occur, and have been exhibited by their behavior to present, are saved from that fate by the person's death.

The question back to you is, Which is worse, allowing someone to live who goes on to commit more violence and death so we can somehow claim superior moral standards, or putting that person to death and stopping their endless violence and death?
Click to expand...

Arguably better to execute that lone hypothetical "someone". But he or she is not alone but part of a system and it is the system we are concerned with. The system executes or incarcerates by choice not by necessity. Incarceration is not irrevocable, and for that reason alone is the right choice.
 
martin said:
Arguably better to execute that lone hypothetical "someone". But he or she is not alone but part of a system and it is the system we are concerned with. The system executes or incarcerates by choice not by necessity. Incarceration is not irrevocable, and for that reason alone is the right choice.
Click to expand...
Not when incarceration has proven ineffective, and the person incarcerated has gone on to commit more crimes.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. It's also cheaper to give them three hots and a cot for life than all the appeals required in a death penalty case.
Click to expand...
There was a time that things were different. There was a time that groups of people did not have enough food for everyone to survive the winter. That there was no resources to waste feeding prisoners, much less having a prison. Maybe back then it was better to just execute someone who was a suspect.

I do not see any need to execute the vast majority of very bad criminals.

Maybe with Hitler. Not so much because of the severity of his crime, but because of the strong support of millions who could break him free.
 
Walt said:
Eyewitnesses especially are not 100%. Even cameras are not 100%.

You started out by claiming that only in cases where it is 100%, and now you are saying that it just needs to be "reliable enough." So lets say we are 90% sure someone is guilty, is that good enough? We can say for every innocent person we execute, we execute 9 guilty people.
Click to expand...
Walt. You are a fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top