Nebraska repeals Death Penalty

[BigRedBuster]

 

I used to be perfectly fine with the death penalty. Then, the more I studied it and read about it, the less it makes sense. It's more expensive and it lowers us to the level of the criminal we want to put to death. BUT, the biggest thing for me was that when a horrible criminal is put on death row, many times that actually makes that criminal some kind of sick legend. It keeps their story in the news from time to time and the loved ones of the victims have to keep reliving what ever that evil person did.

 

I'm glad Nebraska repealed it and now, we can put these horrible people in prison for life and forget about them.

 

There is only one situation I can think of that I would support the death penalty against someone moving forward. If that person somehow had control over people on the outside and from prison that person was directing them to murder or do other horrible things like terrorism...etc.. Even then we should be able to control communications enough to stop that.

The last few sentences sounded like it came straight out of a "Castle" episode. Ha!

 

Interesting...I've never watched that show.

[RedSavage]

Bring it back for the Omaha guy that killed his mom with a baseball bat/knife, threw his baby brother over a bridge into a river (alive and awake), and threw his other baby brother in a dumpster and then get rid of it. In fact, for one day, get rid of that cruel and unusual punishment rule and throw his ass over a bridge with weights on his ankles. POS scumbag deserves death. And his girlfriend too.

Reasons like this are the only reason I support it - same goes for the cop that died today. If prison wasn't a better life for so many of these people than their lives on the "streets", I would be less in support of it. Many of the people in prison for life now get a roof over their head, 3 meals a day, a pot to sh#t in, etc. When they had none of that before. Why should we improve their quality of life when they are scum? Last I checked that wasn't the point of being sent to prison.

 

I do have an issue with the people that are wrongfully executed but If you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for a very heinous crime, you do not deserve to be on this Earth IMO.

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

Looking at this from a financial perspective, it's expensive if they live, expensive if they die. To me, it needs to be a without a doubt conviction, but the large upfront cost is smaller than the long term.

 

And before the sympathy crew comes beating down... I know they are people. So are the people whose lives they ended.

 

If you want to abolish the death penalty then fine, but they should live in such isolation that they wish they were dead.

[BigRedBuster]

Here's something that I have never understood as it pertains to these types of people who are incarcerated for heinous crimes.

 

I have known various ones that are on "suicide watch". Hmmmm....why? Why stop them?

 

OK...I understand why we don't have the death penalty, but...why do we prevent them from ending it themselves?

[Ulty]

There is no rational basis for the death penalty. None. It is only a means for satisfying some folks' twisted sense of "revenge" (which is not the same thing as "justice").

 

Just a little over a year ago, there was a good thread about the death penalty after Oklahoma botched an execution. I thought I would paste my posts from that thread into this one:

 

First and foremost, no one should feel sympathy for this guy. A rapist/murderer of this sort has no function in society. Good riddance.

 

However, this is but one reason that the death penalty should be beneath us as a civilized society. There is a difference between justice and revenge. Those who celebrate the brutality of how this guy died are doing so because of vengeance, but this does not serve justice any more than if he had died more humanely or if he had simply been locked up forever.

 

We are the only civilized country that still uses the death penalty, and I'm not sure if there is really a valid reason for keeping capital punishment as an option except to satisfy our bloodthirst and need for revenge. The death penalty is not applied equitably, it does not serve as a deterrent, it is more expensive than keeping someone imprisoned for life. It risks putting innocent people to death. It is hypocricy.

 

The Bill of Rights that we cherish in this country forbids cruel and unusual punishment. If this guy's death was not cruel and unusual, what is? That doesn't mean he didn't deserve it, but carlfense is right, we are supposed to be above that.

 

Oklahoma was experimenting with a new kind of drug in this execution, if I read that article correctly. That reminds me of the state of Nebraska's recent attempts to acquire new drugs for the purposes of executions. Nebraska illegally purchased the drugs from a company in India, which the DEA seized. Then Nebraska made a purchase from a company in Switzerland through an illegal middleman, and the producer had no intent for the drugs to be used for executions. This supply was court ordered to be sent back also. Are we that desperate to kill our own prisoners that we have to resort to illegal and underhanded methods just to carry it out? Why?

 

Is there a purpose for capital punishment other than revenge? Bloodlust? Are we really civilized if we clamor for this sort of action? That we celebrate brutality?

 

This botched execution in Oklahoma was a failure of a certain procedure but was ultimately successful in the end, but the death penalty in general is a failure of human ethics and our American ideals, imo.

Now let's talk about the deterrence issue. Deterrence is hard to measure, but there is certainly more evidence to show that the death penalty is not a deterrent. In fact, the conclusion should be pretty damn clear.

 

Dusting off the old criminal justice notes from college, the theory of deterrence posits that in order for any punishment to be an effective deterrent, the punishment must be swift, certain, AND severe. All three must be present. Of course, there is no perfect deterrent, partially due to our justice system (rights of the accused, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, etc). Swiftness dictates that you are quickly punished after the crime occurs, which almost never happens, and in fact it is rare to even be caught quickly after committing a crime. Certainty of punishment would mean that you are certainly going to get caught and punish if you commit the crime, but we all know that a large number of crimes, including murders, go unsolved. In terms of a severe punishment, it doesn't get any more severe than the DP, but without the other elements of swiftness and certainty, deterrence isn't going to happen. Then of course you can argue whether or not life in prison is on par with DP in terms of severity, or if it is a big enough difference to matter in terms of deterrence. I'd argue that life in prison without possibility of parole is pretty severe.

 

To reinforce this point, if the death penalty was an effective deterrent to committing murder, you might expect that the murder rates in states that use the death penalty would be lower than states that don't use capital punishment. Nope.

 

States that do not use the death penalty have significantly lower murder rates.

 

http://www.deathpena...er-murder-rates

 

This is not totally conclusive, you can argue correlation/causation or whatever else, but the people who really study this stuff agree:

 

Criminologists report that the death penalty does not deter murder

A recent study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology reported that 88% of the countrys top criminologists surveyed do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide. Eighty-seven percent of them think that the abolition of the death penalty would not have a significant effect on murder rates and 77% believe that debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.

http://www.deathpena...d-death-penalty

 

There's also this little theory called the "Brutalization Effect," which suggests that executions actually lead to (or at least correlate with) an increase in crimes:

Studies of capital punishment have consistently shown that homicide actually increases in the time period surrounding an execution. Social scientists refer to this as the "brutalization effect." Execution stimulates homicides in three ways: (1) executions desensitize the public to the immorality of killing, increasing the probability that some people will then decide to kill; (2) the state legitimizes the notion that vengeance for past misdeeds is acceptable; and (3) executions also have an imitation effect, where people actually follow the example set by the state, after all, people feel if the government can kill its enemies, so can they (Bowers and Pierce, 1980; King, 1978, Forst. 1983).

http://www.e-archive...ime_control.htm

 

That same article also says this about deterrence:

he scientific conclusion is clear. The death penalty does not deter homicide. No study has ever found a deterrent effect, no matter how skewed the research question was in favor the death penalty. It's alleged deterrent value is refuted by everything we know about violent crime. The death penalty, if it is to deter, must be a conscious part of a cost-benefit equation in the perpetrator's mind. There are very few murders that involve that level of rationality or consciousness of the outcomes. Most murders are (1) committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol; (2) committed by people with severe personality disorders; (3) committed during periods of extreme rage and anger; or (4) committed as a result of intense fear. None of these states of mind lend itself to the calm reflection required for a deterrent effect.

 

Finally, there is another kind of deterrence. I've been talking about general deterrence here, the idea that the notion of punishment will have a deterring effect on the general population. There is also specific deterrence, which means that when you punish someone, you deter that specific person from committing the same offense again. The death penalty is a damn effective form of specific deterrence; that person is not going to kill anyone else. But that same objective can be achieved with life in prison without parole.

 

So there you go. Feel free to provide an argument to show that the death penalty has any added benefit.

 

I got to use my CJ degree today!

[zoogs]

Now I know where my recent thoughts on the death penalty came from! I remember reading that post now. I guess it made an impression. Great post, Ulty! (And thank you.)

[Micheal]

As someone who is pro life, against abortion, I totally support getting rid of the death penalty. It is not our place to take someone's life from them, that it is God's to do when He determines it is time. Then they will face the consequences for their life.

[Dbqgolfer]

As someone who is pro life, against abortion, I totally support getting rid of the death penalty. It is not our place to take someone's life from them, that it is God's to do when He determines it is time. Then they will face the consequences for their life.

Couldn't agree more.

[True2tRA]

As someone who is pro life, against abortion, I totally support getting rid of the death penalty. It is not our place to take someone's life from them, that it is God's to do when He determines it is time. Then they will face the consequences for their life.

 

How come God gives them the power to take another's life? I mean, there is only one true Judge right? So why is a murderer allowed to Judge another and make them deserving of death? Also, doesn't the Bible say "an eye for an eye"? If we are not the ones to hold each other accountable, then you must be against judges an judicial law, no? Just curious of your postion on this.

 

I wouldn't want to be the guy that has anything to do with the death of another either. I imagine that if there is an almighty judge, he will see that you took part in the taking of a life he created. If there's any truth to the preaching of Christianity, then you would be led to believe it's no mans place to be judge, jury, or executioner of another man, correct?

 

People have been executing other human beings for a very, very long time. We've either been doing it right or we've been doing it wrong for quite a while. Another way to look at it would be this: Is the executioner of the wicked doing God's work? Is he even more of a Saint than we since he is cleansing the world of a dispicable person?

[Enhance]

I might be in the minority here but I am for the death penalty. I actually think it is to lenient right now. I would prefer to see someone convicted of first degree murder without a reasonable doubt taken straight from the courtroom and led to the execution chamber. I think this would serve a big wakeup call to these people that don't give a sh#t about killing someone. Right now, they have a mentality that they will get life in prison and that is fine with them.

This is one of the major problems with the current death penalty process, though - it's too long to be any real form of punishment. Sentenced to death - enjoy your execution 10+ years from now or longer. For decades, our society has progressed to one of caution over action, and that's probably never going to change. Capital punishment isn't going to get easier to decide and carry out - it's going to get more challenging. I think the death penalty serves as one of many reasons why I wouldn't kill someone, but, a lot of research suggests hardened criminals don't take this same approach and that capital punishment really doesn't do much other than make some people feel better and take a criminal off our hands. Each person has to weigh the value of this themselves.

 

I've always waffled on the death penalty - I'm mostly against it, but, I've never had anyone close to me taken away from me by murder, and I hope I never do. But, I don't know how I'd react. I don't know if I'd want the murderer dead, or kept alive to rot in a prison. But, do they even really rot? Not really... they're fed a few times a day and have access to various recreational activities. So, I've often asked myself, how would that be fair?

 

I also agree with what someone else said - I look at capital punishment as if I'd be able to carry it out myself, and I don't think I'd be able to just like that.

 

One thing I've thought about too is the suggestion we reserve the death penalty only for particularly vicious criminals or a very heinous crime (i.e. Boston Marathon Bombing). But, then how do you define heinous? Is killing a child more vicious than killing two adults in cold blood? This could get complicated.

 

I ultimately don't feel any of us have the right to kill another via capital punishment, but, part of me does wish there was a way the people that commit terrible crimes could be punished more than a relatively simply life behind bars.

[Stumpy1]

 

I might be in the minority here but I am for the death penalty. I actually think it is to lenient right now. I would prefer to see someone convicted of first degree murder without a reasonable doubt taken straight from the courtroom and led to the execution chamber. I think this would serve a big wakeup call to these people that don't give a sh#t about killing someone. Right now, they have a mentality that they will get life in prison and that is fine with them.

This is one of the major problems with the current death penalty process, though - it's too long to be any real form of punishment. Sentenced to death - enjoy your execution 10+ years from now or longer. For decades, our society has progressed to one of caution over action, and that's probably never going to change. Capital punishment isn't going to get easier to decide and carry out - it's going to get more challenging. I think the death penalty serves as one of many reasons why I wouldn't kill someone, but, a lot of research suggests hardened criminals don't take this same approach and that capital punishment really doesn't do much other than make some people feel better and take a criminal off our hands. Each person has to weigh the value of this themselves.

 

I've always waffled on the death penalty - I'm mostly against it, but, I've never had anyone close to me taken away from me by murder, and I hope I never do. But, I don't know how I'd react. I don't know if I'd want the murderer dead, or kept alive to rot in a prison. But, do they even really rot? Not really... they're fed a few times a day and have access to various recreational activities. So, I've often asked myself, how would that be fair?

 

I also agree with what someone else said - I look at capital punishment as if I'd be able to carry it out myself, and I don't think I'd be able to just like that.

 

One thing I've thought about too is the suggestion we reserve the death penalty only for particularly vicious criminals or a very heinous crime (i.e. Boston Marathon Bombing). But, then how do you define heinous? Is killing a child more vicious than killing two adults in cold blood? This could get complicated.

 

I ultimately don't feel any of us have the right to kill another via capital punishment, but, part of me does wish there was a way the people that commit terrible crimes could be punished more than a relatively simply life behind bars.

 

My belief is that the death penalty should be carried out immediately on someone that intentionally killed another person and was found guilty of said crime without a shred of doubt from the jury. I know this would open a can of worms for such crimes as drunk driving where someone was killed by a drunk driver or someone accidently shot another while showing off a gun. These crimes right now get viewed as manslaughter and carry a far less penalty then 1st degree murder where the death penalty could be sentenced.

 

I just think that people would honestly view potential actions differently if they knew that they could be executed right after being found guilty. I am sure there would still be people that would commit murder because they just don't care.

 

When I was in HS, There was a kid that was run over by another kid and killed. The 2 of them had gotten into a fight earlier in the night at a dance that everyone was attending and the one kid that ran the other one over had said that he was going to kill him because he had just got his ass kicked. To me, this should have been murder plain and simple but they called it manslaughter and the kid only got 3 years in prison. He freakin drug the kid for a mile before stopping. If that wasn't pre- mediated, then I don't know what is. This is where I think our justice system is messed up.

[Enhance]

I see your view point, but I also think the death penalty will never regress to the point of quick executions. If you were find guilty of a bad crime in the Wild West, sure, you might get sentenced and hung like the snap of a finger. If there was quick judgment like what you're suggesting, it might deter some crime, but I think it's a little too hypothetical to consider.

 

Plus, there are several cases of people found guilty and sentenced to death/life in prison only to be vindicated by evidence later uncovered. This bolsters the argument for those who 1) think the death penalty should disappear and 2) think we need to have a fair and balanced appellate process.

[Enhance]

For those of you who have Netflix, I highly recommend a documentary called "Into the Abyss." It follows two men convicted of murder, theft and various other charges. One is sentenced to death for killing three people, the other is sentenced to several years in prison for being an accessory (I think he's in his upper 20's and not available for parole until he's in his 60's.)

 

The focus of the documentary though is the death penalty and whether it's right/wrong. The man who created the documentary interviews both criminals, family members of the victims, authorities who were involved in the initial investigations, the wife of one of the criminals, and a former death man, among a variety of others. A death man is someone who spends the last remaining days with a person sentenced to death - sits with them during meals, brings them their last meal, helps carry the body out of the execution chamber, etc. The death man's interview is perhaps one of the most profound - even though he did the job for years, one particular execution ended up mentally and physically debilitating him to the point he now feels no one has the right to take another human's being life. But, a daughter of a victim is also interviewed and says watching the man who killed her mom die took an immense amount of pressure off her and helped her cope.

 

No matter which side of the debate you fall on, it's a really interesting documentary I highly recommend.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Here's my thought on the death penalty: I think it's a perfectly acceptable punishment if it fits the severity of the crime. But it's an incredibly risky sentence to deliver even if that person isn't executed until years after the sentence is delivered because you risk killing a potentially innocent man. So if we're going to sentence someone to death, that jury needs to be 110% sure that the person is the right person. In other words, I don't think the death penalty is the problem, I think we (juries) sometimes arrive at guilty verdicts too quickly without a thorough examination of the evidence.

[BigRedBuster]

Here's my thought on the death penalty: I think it's a perfectly acceptable punishment if it fits the severity of the crime. But it's an incredibly risky sentence to deliver even if that person isn't executed until years after the sentence is delivered because you risk killing a potentially innocent man. So if we're going to sentence someone to death, that jury needs to be 110% sure that the person is the right person. In other words, I don't think the death penalty is the problem, I think we (juries) sometimes arrive at guilty verdicts too quickly without a thorough examination of the evidence.

I have thought about that. I believe that if we are going to use the death penalty, it needs to fit the crime, there needs to be three corroborating witnesses to the crime and forensic evidence pinning the crime on the accused. Without that, the death penalty should not even be an option for the jury. If all those items are met, the execution needs to be within 12 months of sentencing.

 

Since we don't have that, I'm against the death penalty.