The Death Penalty for innocents

Originally posted by slimjim
It costs more because of puke lawyers who drag out the trial most of the time knowing their client is a murderer.

Originally posted by slimjim
They should let the family of the victim decide whether to kill the SOB or not.

Originally posted by wittywonka
That's exactly why we have a court system.

If you let individuals take revenge into their own hands, you will result with chaos.

Also, while you are at it, can you provide a rational reason as to why the crime rate is not higher in those ten states if the death penalty does not apply? It is not a deterrant.

Originally posted by wittywonka
That's exactly why we have a court system.

If you let individuals take revenge into their own hands, you will result with chaos.

Also, while you are at it, can you provide a rational reason as to why the crime rate is not higher in those ten states if the death penalty does not apply? It is not a deterrant.

Originally posted by slimjim
Muderers, rapists, and child molesters should be executed at the soonest possible moment.

Originally posted by lepomis
This is true. I know if given the chance to avenge the murder of a family member... I would smile and proceed with deed. The justice system stands in the way of that... as it should.

Originally posted by wittywonka
If you see that as justice, fine, but I see it as revenge. Why do you not accept life imprisonment over execution?

I ask again, can you provide a rational reason as to why the crime rate is not higher in those ten states if the death penalty does not apply?

Originally posted by slimjim
As they say revenge is a dish best served cold. I would feel better killing the person that had killed one of my family members if that were to happen. As for the 10 states. Anything written by Amnesty International is a load of manure as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by wittywonka
If you see that as justice, fine, but I see it as revenge. Why do you not accept life imprisonment over execution?

I ask again, can you provide a rational reason as to why the crime rate is not higher in those ten states if the death penalty does not apply?

Originally posted by jammer
If it was the way you wish, no DP, life imprisonment instead .. would you be willing to take responsibilty for anyone that escapes or somehow manages to murder again?

In other words, will you stand behind your convictions?

Originally posted by agryson
Uhm, I think your personal hygiene is a debate for a whole different thread to this one...
Point being that if you ARE going to support the death penalty, at least don't claim to do so under the banner of Justice, because when the stakes are as high as actually killing someone, one innocent dying [b]is not justice.
Imprison an innocent person, justice ...[text shortened]... t happens to the judge who condemned an innocent man to death, what justice can be served then?[/b]

Originally posted by wittywonka
Will you stand responsible for those "specks of crap," which you so carelessly relate to actual people, who represent the innocents who have been executed?

Originally posted by jammer
Yes

Originally posted by wittywonka
As few people listened to me then, I doubt many people will listen to me now, but the subject was relevant.

Thread 63133

***

Capital punishment does not deter crime.

FBI data showed that ten of the twelve states in the United States who have abolished the death penalty have homocide rates below the national average.



Are you arguing that one caused the other?



Capital punishment costs more than life imprisonment.

One legislative audit found that death penalty cases averaged 70% more expensive than life imprisonment cases. The average cost of a life imprisonment case: $740,000; the average cost of a death penalty case, including cost of execution: $1,260,000.



Fine. That means death penalty costs need streamlining.




Capital punishment is often given to innocent people and is obviously irreversible.

Since 1973, more than 120 people have been released from death row due to wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 people were released because of wrongful convictions.



a. Those are claimed as wrongful by various anti-DP groups; other groups have examined these claims and refuted many of them.

b. Let's just take the average US homicide rate, 16K / yr, and apply to your sample duration of 1973 - present. That's 35 x 16K = 560K homicides. How can you reasonably compare even your inflated value of 120 wrongful convictions (NOT executions) against this number?

[/b]

Capital punishment is racially and socio-economically biased, in addition to being arbitrary.

Around 80% of all death sentences are issued when the victim is white. In addition, one study in Pennsylvania in 1998 found that African Americans received the death penalty four times as often as people of other races. Thirdly, 95% of death row inmates cannot afford their own attorney, and court-appointed attorneys are often overwhelmed, underpaid, and underexperienced. Finally, the death penalty is arbitrary because only two percent of defendants convicted of crimes eligible for the death penalty receive it.

[/b]

This appears to be an argument for fixing the administration of DP trials and sentences, not abolishing them.

Agreed, the Law is a dinosaur. Why give the accused the right to face the jury if it slants the jury's decision? Put all defendants outside the courtroom, delete all references to name, age, sex, race, and upbringing in trial evidence, provide all trial evidence as hardcopy only, NOT as speeches delivered by attorneys. There you have it: justice!



124 countries worldwide have abolished the death penalty.

While 124 countries worldwide have abolished the death penalty, the United States, China, Iran, and Viet Nam account for 97% of the world's executions. Does the U.S. really consider itself on the front of human rights in alliance with China, Iran, and Viet Nam? Thirdly, nearly every European country has completely abolished the death penalty, in addition to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, and South Africa.



TFB. Does that mean they're right?



Capital punishment is hypocritical.

Why should the government punish unethical, premeditated crimes with unethical, premeditated murder?



Is anyone arguing they should? If your requirement is that everyone agree with your definition of "ethical", the debate's over, isn't it?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
Why give the accused the right to face the jury if it slants the jury's decision? Put all defendants outside the courtroom, delete all references to name, age, sex, race, and upbringing in trial evidence, provide all trial evidence as hardcopy only, NOT as speeches delivered by attorneys. There you have it: justice!