The Death Penalty

[bennychico11]

I just finished watching Penn & Teller's bullsh#t episode about the Death Penalty.

If you've never seen their HBO (or was it Showtime) TV show...they basically pick a topic and talk about how ridiculous it is to agree with it. I actually agree with most of the topics they talk about. Or at least come to a middle ground with them. However, after watching the episode about the death penalty, I found myself yelling at the TV. Maybe it's because I'm a midwestern...maybe because I'm more liberal than anything (if possible). Even though, ironically, one of the guys interviewed who had lost his pre-teen daughter to a man who kidnapped and sexually murdered her, blamed the liberals for protesting the jury's decision and execution of the accused.

Anyway...

The episode kept talking about whether or not the government has the right to decide who should be executed. And more specifically HOW they should be. SOME murders (not all) are chosen for death row. Usually the most heinous of criminals are the ones chosen....serial killers, rapists who murder, child killers, etc. And then the way they die is sometimes called into question....particularly recently with the lethal injection method. But then the show went on a complete tangent talking about how government authorities sometimes screw up. Prosecutors, jurors, judges, etc. sometimes sentence a person to die when they are found many years later to be innocent. And that if we as citizens agree with lethal injection....we should too be considered murders if an innocent dies. In fact an old Jewish lady who survived the Holocaust stated near the end, "If you support the death penalty and only one single person is killed and killing an innocent person is murder, then you become murders. So, you deserve to be killed. This is the paradox of the death penalty and you cannot avoid this paradox."

I for one think that Penn/Teller went completely off topic from talking about whether the death penalty was moral for government/society to decide...to whether or not when the government fu#*$ up choosing an innocent to die, we should be held responsible. Yes! If we elect an innocent person to be sent to death row, it's a problem with the system. NOT with the idealogy of the death penalty. I don't think we should use it as a deterrent for criminals. I think we should use it to get rid of those among us who would do serious, violent harm to others again.

At the end of (and during most of) the program, they showed shots of a crowd outside a prison protesting an execution. The execution of a known gang leader who killed a handful of people with (what I assume from the story) a motivation of gaining money. The gang leader, after imprisonment, later decided to be anti-gang, anti-violence, and repent for his wrong-doings. Of course, they never showed the response to one of the interviewee's whose pre-teen daughter was killed/raped a man. Probably because no one chose to protest it. For some reason people decide to protest someone who has 'said' they have changed their ways, but no one dares show up for a convicted child molester/murderer.

Anyway, my question (if there is one) is what is your stance on death penalty? Are we using it as a deterrent? Should we be using it for punishment? For you anti-government people...does the government have the right to decide who dies and who doesn't? Are we as citizens responsible for the mistakes our government makes in deciding to execute the innocent? Is lethal injection fair enough despite its flaws? If your child was brutally raped and killed by someone, would you say life in prison is a severe enough punishment for him? Go on...rant! I just did

 

[AR Husker Fan]

Lotta questions. So, here goes, for what it's worth...

Anyway, my question (if there is one) is what is your stance on death penalty?

I favor the death penalty. There are individuals who are beyond rehabilitation, and even in prison continue to murder. Further, there are some acts that so offend that the death penalty is warranted.

Are we using it as a deterrent?

In theory, yes. All sentences imposed are supposed to carry a deterrent effect. And perhaps it works. The trouble with the deterrence argument is two-fold. First, how can we prove that it is achieving that goal? Second, if it is achieving that goal, why do people still commit acts for which the death penalty is imposed? The simple fact is that no matter the penalty, there will always be an element of the population for which the penalty is not a deterrent.

Should we be using it for punishment?

No. To my mind, that's not punishment. Punishment is making someone suffer for their crimes. While some might argue otherwise - and I can see why - killing someone isn't "punishment". Once the execution is carried out, there is no further harm to the executed. Ideally, it would be nice to be able to lock them up for the rest of their life in some manner that denies them all but the most minimal of rights - food, water, etc. Make them suffer for their lack of freedom - really suffer. That would be punishment.

For you anti-government people...does the government have the right to decide who dies and who doesn't?

I'm not anti-government, and won't presume to speak for those individuals, but yes, government has the right, particularly in our system. The rules and punishments adopted by the government are done so through individuals we elect to represent us and our positions. Societies exist, in large part, to codify behaviors and conduct. We give up absolute freedom in exchange for a system that grants us the most freedoms possible while still providing a framework of acceptable conduct to which the society is expected to adhere. Trite as it may be, if someone does not believe that government should have that right, they have two options - leave the society or change it. However, taking the position that it should changed does not automatically negate those rules for those individuals - they still must obey them until they effect the change.

Are we as citizens responsible for the mistakes our government makes in deciding to execute the innocent?

Yes. See above. We create and perpetuate the system through the election of those that represent our interests. If we, as a people, do not agree with the system that allows for such mistakes, we should change it. If we do not, we are, in fact, condoning it. I'm not saying that's good or bad - it just is. The reality is that no matter the system, there will be errors. Because of that, if we as a people don't want to mistakenly execute the innocent, then we have no alternative but to eliminate the death penalty - again, because no system is perfect. We can minimize the errors, but we can't eliminate them (at least at this time - perhaps some day there will be the technology to ensure absolute certainty, but I doubt it).

Is lethal injection fair enough despite its flaws?

"Fair" is a subjective term. Fair as compared to what? Certainly it is fair as compared to, say, stoning or any other means of execution that would be drawn out and more painful. The real question is, is it constitutional? Does lethal injection constitute cruel and unusual punishment? I don't think there is any definitive answer at this time, except this...it certainly seems to be better than many alternatives that we, as a society, has used. It is more humane than those alternatives, and in that regard it can certainly be argued that it is not cruel or unusual punishment as compared to those earlier methods.

If your child was brutally raped and killed by someone, would you say life in prison is a severe enough punishment for him?

No - again, unless there was a system of imprisonment that would make his life a living hell. No contact with other inmates. No way to smuggle in drugs or contraband. No TV, no magazines, no computer access, no exercise or exercise equipment, no air conditioning, no heating, etc. As I said earlier, there are some acts so heinous that they demand execution. Raping and killing a child - a true innocent - is one of them.

 

[Enhance]

Good ol' death penalty discussion.

I'm on the fence about this one.

If it were up to me, I probably wouldn't institute the death penalty, but not because I think it's immoral. I just think it's too easy and humane for the people who deserve it. For example, I watched a movie over the weekend called Citizen X. It's a difficult movie to watch but very intriguing. It's about a detective in Russia who spends nearly a decade trying to catch a serial rapist/murder, but because of the way the former Russian government was run (aka Cold War era), the Russian government refused to provide the necessary funding and equipment required to catch this man because the Russian government thought murderers were a "western" civilization problem and couldn't possibly be a problem in Russia. By the time the man was finally caught, he had raped/murdered 52 people, many of which were under the age of 17.

The man or the movie is not the point of this discussion though, but his method of punishment is. After admitting his crimes, he was simply taken to an empty room with a drain and shot in the head. Quick, easy, and probably painless overall. Why was a man who had committed so many heinous acts and tortured dozens of people been given such an easy way out? The murderer would often stab his victims repeatedly while raping them, or commit a multitude of other terrible acts. Yet, in his ultimate judgement, he gets a quick bullet to the head.

If it were up to me, these people would be left to rot in the most uncomfortable way for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, our jails and our penitentiary system allow these men to live relatively comfortable lives with cable access, internet access, access to books, a lot of leisure time, and the even the ability to gain an education while in jail. Therefore, the death penalty ends up becoming the more formidable punishment, because these people won't be offered this relatively easy going time for the remainder of their lives.

Overall, I would prefer these men suffer the rest of their lives and not be put to an abrupt end. But, unfortunately, our jail system treats almost every man (regardless of crime) as equals in a jail, being given similar access to all the amenities. In turn, this makes me believe that in many cases, the death penalty is a much more formidable means of punishment.

 

[carlfense]

I believe I saw a statistic that it's cheaper to imprison someone for life than it is to go through with execution. Based on that fact (plus the wrongful conviction issue) I oppose the death penalty.

Lock 'em up. Throw away the key. Save the taxpayers some money and actually punish someone (jail for life vs. relatively painless death.)

I know if I were convicted with the choice between the two I'd choose death. No contest.

 

[MCAT800]

I believe I saw a statistic that it's cheaper to imprison someone for life than it is to go through with execution. Based on that fact (plus the wrongful conviction issue) I oppose the death penalty.

Lock 'em up. Throw away the key. Save the taxpayers some money and actually punish someone (jail for life vs. relatively painless death.)

I know if I were convicted with the choice between the two I'd choose death. No contest.

I can supply the government with bullets in calibers of their choice at about 25 cents a piece, that should reduce their cost.

 

[Hingle McCringleberry]

Seeing a trial end yesterday about two men who first attempted to rob a family, then ended up raping the wife, and young (11 I think) daughter, finished them off by pouring gas on them lighting them on fire while tied to their beds. They found the 11 y/o away from her bed. I guess the ropes had burnt off before she died, and tried to escape.

Today I read about the Elizabeth Smart trial. Nine months in servitude being raped by a man who told her if she spoke out he would kill her and her family. S spent weeks chains to trees being raped daily, with only a pale for relief, and the only place to sleep was in a tent next to her abductor.

In my opinion all three of these men (and possibly the complacent wife w/the Smart case) should be put to death. It is about justice, not deterrence. I dont care how much it costs to bring about justice, I want to make damn sure they are guilty (in the these examples there is NO doubt), and when that is proven they will die. Prison is not punishment enough for them, they are granted there rights, even though they have taken the ultimate right of another to live (or in the case of Smart, her childhood, and more than likely, any chance at a normal life).

 

[Enhance]

Seeing a trial end yesterday about two men who first attempted to rob a family, then ended up raping the wife, and young (11 I think) daughter, finished them off by pouring gas on them lighting them on fire while tied to their beds. They found the 11 y/o away from her bed. I guess the ropes had burnt off before she died, and tried to escape.

Today I read about the Elizabeth Smart trial. Nine months in servitude being raped by a man who told her if she spoke out he would kill her and her family. S spent weeks chains to trees being raped daily, with only a pale for relief, and the only place to sleep was in a tent next to her abductor.

In my opinion all three of these men (and possibly the complacent wife w/the Smart case) should be put to death. It is about justice, not deterrence. I dont care how much it costs to bring about justice, I want to make damn sure they are guilty (in the these examples there is NO doubt), and when that is proven they will die. Prison is not punishment enough for them, they are granted there rights, even though they have taken the ultimate right of another to live (or in the case of Smart, her childhood, and more than likely, any chance at a normal life).

Because of the way our society is, prison becomes the easier way out than death. Which is why, in most cases, death seems more justifiable because prison almost seems like they're getting off easy.

If it were up to me, prisons for offenders such as the men mentioned above would be nothing like the ones for people who go to jail for DUI's or other similar offenses. These men deserve to live out their lives in agony.

 

[rawhide]

Build a large compound in the desert somewhere in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada or California. Put up an electrified fence. Place all convicted murderers in that area. Give them tents for shelter and supply the inmates food and water. That's it.

24/7 security around the perimeter and a detail to p/u the db's. Sounds kinda lenient though. except no heat, electricity; just the basics: shelter and food.

I can say with almost 100% certainty that the ACLU would have a fecal hemorrhage over that type of prison. Cruel and unusual, not like the horrific death the victims suffered.

 

[huskertim]

I can't buy the arguement that " life in prison is far worse than death". If this is so, than it shouldn't cost so much to try these cases. After all, if faced with a far worse penalty, wouldn't the offender wave his appeals. Obviously, to those committing capital offenses, three hot meals, a cot and cable TV sound better than old sparky. It seems these are exactly the guys we want to deter.

Secondly, the expense is too great. I have to take the position that justice must prevail at all cost for injustice will cost us all. I could argue that the extraordinary measures taken to ensure one is not unjustly sentenced to death should be the same measures taken to ensure that one is not unjustly sentenced to life in prison, which we all know is far worse than death.

Furthermore, the idea that any penalty doesn't deter crime is rediculous. I mostly comply with the speed limit don't you? I don't shoplift, do you? When I was in high school I smoked a lot of pot. The consequences at the time where mild and the chance of getting caught remote. Now, I have a good job and a family, so the consequences are far greater, thus, I don't imbibe. Frankly, if it were legal, I probably would.

My drill instructor in boot camp loved to say, locks keep honest people honest. Some will always act regardless of consequence and others will be detered. It is for the others that most laws are written.

Lastly, the death penalty isn't only about punishment. From a cold, logical point of view, simply removeing these people from the world makes sense as they can no longer serve any constructive purpose yet, under the right circumstances, they can cause destruction.

 

[shpadoinklehusker]

I believe its wrong in any case because it breaks the Social Contract between the General Will (the communal peoples) and the Government. According to Rousseu, "There is no man so bad that he cannot be made good for something" (Rousseau, Social Contract, Book II, Chapter 5) We as the General Will should stand up to the Government and force them to get rid of the death penalty. A man or woman who does a crime that would warrant the death penalty should be put into prison and also while in prison should be used in a way that can benefit society, I.E. making license plates, picking up litter from the roads, etc.

 

[huskertim]

I believe its wrong in any case because it breaks the Social Contract between the General Will (the communal peoples) and the Government. According to Rousseu, "There is no man so bad that he cannot be made good for something" (Rousseau, Social Contract, Book II, Chapter 5) We as the General Will should stand up to the Government and force them to get rid of the death penalty. A man or woman who does a crime that would warrant the death penalty should be put into prison and also while in prison should be used in a way that can benefit society, I.E. making license plates, picking up litter from the roads, etc.

The general will as expressed by polling data year after year not only strongly supports the use of the death penalty but in most polls a strong plaurallity and sometimes even a majority think it isn't used enough,

I think this data alone is indicative of a system strikeing the delicate balance between mob rule and monarcial dismissal of the public will.

Given his rejection of soveignty of the people through represenetative assembly (indirect mob rule if you will), I should think Rousseu would have been delighted with the controls imposed on our founding principles much of which was influenced by his very writings. Without which our revolution may well have followed the path of the French Revolution.

 

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

in favor of the death penalty

 

[HUSKER 37]

Build a large compound in the desert somewhere in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada or California. Put up an electrified fence. Place all convicted murderers in that area. Give them tents for shelter and supply the inmates food and water. That's it.

24/7 security around the perimeter and a detail to p/u the db's. Sounds kinda lenient though. except no heat, electricity; just the basics: shelter and food.

I can say with almost 100% certainty that the ACLU would have a fecal hemorrhage over that type of prison. Cruel and unusual, not like the horrific death the victims suffered.

Why supply food?

The threat of being eaten might be a nice little deterrent. chuckleshuffle

I haven't given this subject much thought but it is interesting.

Carbon monoxide is probably the most "humane" death, and I seem to remember reading about states trying to go to that...but there are some murderers that I wouldn't mind seeing fed into a wood chipper..S L O W L Y.

But what would Jesus do?

It might be more of a deterrent to let the victims' families decide the fate of the death row inmate, but only after given enough time to forgive, for killing for revenge hardly ever lets the family heal properly.

 

[huskertim]

I don't think we can see the death penalty as vengance. When we serve vengence, how can we also serve justice. No one (or one society in this case) can serve two masters.

 

[CornHOLIO]

I don't think we can see the death penalty as vengance. When we serve vengence, how can we also serve justice. No one (or one society in this case) can serve two masters.

But we CAN serve 43?

I try to approach most things logically as I picture Leonard Nimoy in a thought cloud over my right shoulder.

But I'm still not sure why "Justice" is so dang important?