Topic: Death Penalty
From: Das_Biest
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 10:51 PM
Out of personal interest, I would like to collect some opinions about this topic.
Just post if you are for or against it, and for what reasons.
Then, if you don't mind, we'll discuss it later and see whatever we come up with.
From: sarah
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 10:39 AM
I'm opposed to it becuase of the amount of money spent to execute someone is
so great that it could keep them in max. security with no chance of getting out for
over 100 hundred years, at the least.
Social Ethics is a good book where you can read about this topic. It addresses all
of the aguements imaginable on this topic.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 10:41 AM
So, in other words, you are against it solely for monetary reasons?
From: sarah
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 11:54 AM
It is my main reason, my second is that it has been proven that only about 40% of
the persons we have killed on death row in the past we can now verify with DNA
and such, that they really did commit the crime. I guess this is my second reason
because I try to have some faith in the improvement of our judicial system over
the past few years.
From: Joe Booty
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 11:43 AM
On 2/25/99 10:39:49 AM, sarah wrote:
>I'm opposed to it becuase of
>the amount of money spent to
>execute someone is so great
>that it could keep them in
>max. security with no chance
>of getting out for over 100
>hundred years, at the least.
See, that's what I don't get. Why does it cost so much to kill a person? They use
all this high-priced technology when there are so many cheaper ways. Take
stabbing for instance; it doesn't cost anything. (Just kidding everyone, I know why
it takes so much money.)
From: virtual_god
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 03:18 PM
yeah, i'd like to see proof that it costs that much to do it. one of the reasons i'm
for it is because it's cheaper then keeping them imprisioned for their entire life.
From: sarah
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 05:22 PM
That's just a misconception. It actually costs about 2 million for the execution
alone, not to mention all of the expenses of court appeals....which are ten times
more likely in a death penalty case than a life imprisonment one.
From: virtual_god
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 05:53 PM
that's just retarded that it costs 2 million to do the deed. i understand the court
appeals and whatnot. they need to just fix up the appeal system better in death
sentence cases, and then it would be a lot cheaper.
From: Kathryn Anne
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 10:54 PM
On 2/25/99 5:53:39 PM, PoeTiC_FooL wrote:
> they
>need to just fix up the appeal
>system better in death
>sentence cases, and then it
>would be a lot cheaper.
I agree. A lot of times, the criminals spend years, and tons of money just
appealing. They should create some sort of limit on appeals. It would help in
many different cases, not just dealing with the death penalty.
From: Tara
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 09:19 PM
I used to believe very strongly in the death penalty; not so anymore. I believe that
killing is a disgrace to humanity. It goes against the very nature of what and who
we are, and to promote it for any reason is just plain wrong. That is my moral
stance.(luckily it is backed by a monetary one as well, thanks for pointing that out
Sarah) I know I am getting myself into trouble here, I have never been close to a
victim of a murder, so I will obviously admit that such a thing would perhaps
change my point of view, but I really don't think so. I think the thing most lacking
in this world is compassion. We, especially as a western society, have difficulty
with this.
WOW, so I guess I have a few thoughts on this issue.
From: virtual_god
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 11:22 PM
On 2/25/99 9:19:31 PM, Tara wrote:
>I used to believe very
>strongly in the death penalty;
>not so anymore. I believe that
>killing is a disgrace to
>humanity. It goes against the
>very nature of what and who we
>are, and to promote it for any
>reason is just plain wrong.
How many things that people do don't?
How many things that people do are disgraceful?
Maybe that's part of being human...
It might not be a part we want to claim, but in reality it's out there.
From: Wolfgang
Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 08:38 AM
I am for the death penalty, but against it as is. It isn't a deterent when the
execution of justice (pardon the pun), takes as long as it does. If the number of
appeals were limited, and a cheaper form of execution were found I'd be all for it.
Honestly, if one wants to increase the deterent factor, reinstate public hangings
or public firing squads.
If one feels that the guards emotional status is in jeopardy, (guilt from being the
killer of a killer) then instate a firing squad composed of robots, or have a line of
guards with all but one firing blanks, that way their never sure who exactly killed
the inmate.
Sorry, just think that it would decrease the costs, and doesn't require excess tech,
unless one goes the robot route.
From: Tara
Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 11:06 AM
In what ways exactly is the death penalty useful? I know this question seems
simplistic, but I am honestly asking. Do you(I mean those in favor) think that fear
of recieving the death penalty prevents crime? How? or do you mean that it keeps
killers from killing again? A mute point considering what Sarah mentioned earlier,
that we could concievably keep these people in prison for the rest of their lives
with the money spent end them. So how is it that the death penalty is "useful?"
From: virtual_god
Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 11:34 AM
just one insensitive point in which it's useful that's on the top of my head is to help
prevent overcrowding in jails.
From: Wolfgang
Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 12:50 PM
Well, no chance of recidivism (sp). On the other hand a prisoner w/ a life
sentence serves 15 yrs in a place where they receive instruction on becoming a
better criminal, they are then thrown back into society, to repeat their various
crimes.
From: sarah
Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 01:58 PM
That's my whole point though, If we enforced the whole life imprisonment term, it
would cost so much less in the first place. A lot of states have been practicing this
for the past 15 years or so, and it's working.
Then you have to consider that a lot of people want to go on death row. Keep in
mind that most religions find forgiveness for murder, but none find such for
suicide. It sounds silly, but it happens all the time.
From: Wolfgang
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 06:21 AM
if ya think 'bout it though, coming from a Christian standpoint, one has to repent a
sin before one can be forgiven, you cant repent a suicide, one can repent a
botched attempt, but not a successful one.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 12:54 PM
Okay, thank you all for your input. The reason why I asked this
question was the following:
Last year a citizen of Paraguay, I believe, was executed although at
the time of his imprisonment the US violated international law to
contact the consulate of his country in order for him to be defended
properly. The same thing happened this week: Two german
brothers were (the other one will be this week) executed for
stabbing a bank manager- the consulate was not informed (and
germany is the US's #2 ally these days, and it were the first
executions of German citizens in this century during peace time).
This does not mean that Germans should be over US law- but how
come the POPE has the power to save someone from execution
randomly, like he did during his visit?
Today, it is not the severity of the crime that determines the
sentence, but the abilities of your lawyer- very sad indeed.
As far as the costs of the death penalty are concerned, most of you
are correct. Lifetime imrisonment is about $750,000, death penalty
is about $2,000,000. As far as the "scare" factor goes: Most states
that have the death penalty have higher crime rates than those that
do not, and the rates have risen rather than decreased after it was
re-introduced. That implies that those states raly on the death
penalty to solve the crime problems, rather than attacking the
problem at its root: crime prevention through education and youth
programs- both cheaper than the death penalty. And thirdly, the US
has the by far highest crime rate of the industrialized nations, and is
the only one that HAS the death penalty.
Everyone is against killing. In many countries it goes as far as
abortions being considered "killing". Churches and many other
groups are against it- why are they for death penalty?
I have to go to class now, but I will pick up on this later today. See
you!
From: virtual_god (virtual_god@yahoo.com)
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 01:43 PM
the pope requested just because he was going to be there, he didn't
randomly save the person.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 02:03 PM
Virtual God, you don't call that "randomly"? That person did not
deserve to live any more or less than anyone else.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 02:20 PM
The right to live is a basic human right. In my eyes, nothing and
nobody should be allowed to take that right away. It is ridiculous
that the US government, who thinks that they are the keepers of the
holy grail of human rights, take the same right away from their own
criminals.
The right to live is also a biblical right (Thou shalt not kill).
Murderers clearly violate that, and they need to be prosecuted. But
spending more than twice the money it would cost to imprison that
person for life just to satisfy the feeling of revenge? Not with my tax
money, not with my beliefs.
There are mass murderers and vicious killers who plan to
assassinate their victims. In my opinion- clearly a case for lifelong.
And there are those who have never been criminal, but they were
put in a situation out of their control- and the only escape they saw
was killing- those people need to be rehabilitated after a deserved
punishment, NOT killed.
As you can tell, I am all against capital punishment as much as I am
against nuclear weapons, unsustainable development and the Spice
Girls. I am against it because it is cruel, expensive, and unnecessary.
I will be starting to create a web page with FACTUAL information
about all this, and I will definitely use some of the things I learned
from this discussion.
I would like to close with two direct responses to previous posts:
VIRTUAL_GOD: That you are okay with the fact that innocent
people have been treated like murderers, imprisoned for years,
taken away from society and their families and finally executed is the
most disappointing statement you've made on this web board, in my
eyes. I am not too familiar with the judicial system over here, but
where I am from you are innocent until proven guilty.
WOLFGANG: Communism and death penalty do not work
together. Communism is a progressive (left wing) ideology, death
penalty is a conservative (right wing) tool.
From: virtual_god
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 03:24 PM
i didn't say i was okay with it. i said it was a fact of life. it happens.
people are innocent until proven guilty. but once you're proven
guilty, you're guilty. unless you can appeal, but basically the burden
then is to prove your innocence, not to retain not being guilty,
because that party has already been proven guilty. rightfully or
wrongfully.
and it wasn't randomly no, it was because the guy was going to be
executed on the same weekend that the pope was visiting st.louis.
that's why, not random.
TOP | Post | Reply | Reply/Quote | Email Reply | Delete | Edit
Previous | Next | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Topic:
Death Penalty (28 of 40), Read 34 times
Conf:
General Stvff
From: virtual_god
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 03:30 PM
an interesting side note. the guy that got off the death penalty
because of the pope is like a second cousin or something like that of
one of my best friends from back home.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 03:36 PM
The date might not have been randomly chosen, but for the person it
was just "luck" that they were going to murder him that weekend.
From: virtual_god
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 03:55 PM
that is true. he was lucky. but it wasn't random that he was saved. it
was lucky cause his date fell on that weekend. but i was saying that
he "wasn't randomly saved"
From: sarah
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 04:30 PM
Okay, going to have to jump in. In my opinion, the Pope had no
right to ask that. It was out of line. He is not an American citizen,
(no offense) and if American citizens had banded together and
asked for this, nothing would have changed. To me, it was a gross
overuse of power, and it's another thing that makes me disrespect
him.
But, my favorite aspect of the movie Dead Man Walking was that
neither victims' families felt any bit better after he was killed. It was
not retribution, not even revenge. It did nothing, but make his family
victims too.
From: virtual_god
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 05:39 PM
yeah, the biggest problem i had with it was that it definantly crossed
the lines of seperation of church and state.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 06:28 PM
He is the pope- in his country they aren't seperated...
As the head of the catholic church it is his job to save people from
such barbaric punishement. The fact that the guy's sentence was
changed so easily shows that the death sentence and judicial system
are random and corrupt.
From: virtual_god
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 08:20 PM
On 3/2/99 6:28:37 PM, Das_Biest wrote:
>He is the pope- "in his country"
>they aren't seperated...
enough said.
From: Das_Biest
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 10:27 PM
His country is the Vatican, of which he is the head, as far as I know-
obviously state and church are not seperated there. I have to admit
that sort of lead off the discussion- sorry.
I really do not agree with much that the pope does, but he has
gotten involved in the human rights protection, and I appreciate that,
because he is a very influencial person.
Sure, the pope has no more the right to demand a person to be
spared from execution that the US has the right to go out and bomb
Iraq or Afganistan. He asked for him (whatever the guy's name is)
to be spared, without threats or anything, and the responsible
agencies granted that wish. That might be interpreted as violation of
the seperation of church and state, but that violation was on the side
of the STATE, not on the church. It was the state that acted in this
matter.
From: virtual_god
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 11:13 PM
that's very true, it was the state that violated...but if the request
hadn't been made..
nah, i won't go into that. i do agree that he makes a good speaker
for human rights in his position and all though.
From: Sarah
Date: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 01:35 PM
Human rights my ass. Take Social Ethics. When a man in such a
power of position comes out and says that the offical reason
Catholics are against abortion and birth control is that it would
empower women to the point they may feel that they don't need to
marry and depend on men, he does not have my respect as a
humanitarian.
But, I do not want to insult my friends that are Catholic, because I
know that the majority of Catholics are against those reproductive
issues because of the life issue, and that's if they are even against it
at all.
From: PoeTiC_FooL
Date: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 03:08 PM
i didn't say i paid any attention to what he says about human rights,
just that i believe in his position he would be a good one to do so.
however, you make a valid point that he may not make such a good
speaker for "human rights" if he were merely speaking for the church
and the long held ideals that go with that.
From: Wolfgang
Date: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 09:53 AM
I don't accept all of the teachings of the CP, as if you didn't already
know.
I hold some of the basic theories to be accurate, with the obvious
exception to the idea that people can forget their greed, and that,
my friend, is why I could never be a full blown commie. But as it
stands the CPUSA isn't a full blown communist org either, it might
as well be a yes man for the democratic party, which IMHO is as
bad as the GOP.
From: Tara
Date: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 11:14 AM
On 3/2/99 2:20:04 PM, Das_Biest wrote:
>As you can tell, I am all
>against capital punishment as
>much as I am against nuclear
>weapons, unsustainable
>development and the Spice
>Girls. I am against it because
>it is cruel, expensive, and
>unnecessary.
How much do I love this guy???
(Sarah, I know you're with me here...)
I would like to personally thank-you for your intelligent voicing of
opinion and your factual additions to the web board.