capital punishment

[Irishgrrrl]

Doodle and Swimmer, I am so sorry. I can only imagine how you must feel, and my heart goes out to both of you. ((((HUGS))))

AGBF - can I ask, what is it you would have done with those that are undeniably guilty of heinous and horrible crimes? What would you have done to those who have killed others with no remorse? Repeatedly? What of those that have left bodies posed, removed limbs and left them to be found, have tied up, tortured, and raped other people before killing them, or injuring them and leaving them to die?

I'm just presenting those as a scenario of people that are undeniably guilty and in my opinion, evil. I do understand you are against the death sentence, but I'd like to hear what your idea of a just punishment is? Manson once requested to be allowed to stay in prison because it felt like home. Should we give those people that comfort, though it is small, and not grand compared to freedom, to some it does become a comfort. What do we do with those people, who show no remorse, and feel like they've won out in getting their bed and three meals a day. Who go on to write books, and poetry like Danny Rolling did (I had the name misspelled earlier, my apologies), before being executed. What of those that kill other inmates, and stab their guards just to be put in a safer environ within the prisons? Is that fair for them to get to, after they killed so many already?


ETA : Actually, I'd be interested to hear others' answers to this question as well. For those of you who are against the death penalty, what do you propose to be a good punishment for these people?

DF ~ I don't have a lot of time to reply right now, but I basically agree with the response Deb (AGBF) gave you above. I think solitary confinement would be appropriate, as it would protect society from these offenders. I don't think killing them does anyone any good. By killing the killers, don't we become killers ourselves? I think life in prison without parole is an appropriate punishment, and I would like to see the prisons become more strict and less "cushy" so that imprisonment is more of a deterrent. (For example, I don't think prisoners need to be watching TV, and I think they should have to earn their keep in some way.) Also, Deb is correct about the cost of capital appeals far outweighing the cost of housing a prisoner for his/her lifetime.

Cubs ~ You asked about the argument that the death penalty won't bring the victim back. When I was asked by another poster whether I would become pro-death penalty if one of my loved ones was murdered, I responded that I would not be pro-death penalty because executing the murderer would not bring my loved one back. I think you need to take another look at the context of my statement. It's painfully obvious that no form of punishment for the offender will bring a murder victim back. THAT is a moot point. What we need to do is look at what punishment is most ideal under the circumstances, and I personally believe that killing another person is NEVER ideal.

 

[doodle]

I would like to ask a question I am genuinely curious about:

For those who keep saying that the death penalty won't bring their loved one back, well, by that logic neither will a life sentence in jail. So what is the point? No punishment will ever bring a loved one back. I don't get the relevance of that argument. It's a moot point. Many of the arguments I hear in favor of the death penalty are purely emotional arguments. Sure, you want a murderer to pay for their crime, but performing their crime against them won't ease your own pain any. Substituting vengeance for justice is self-serving--the concern becomes more about easing your own suffering and feeling vindicated rather than setting forth a fair legal system. My primary point was that a judicial system should be based upon justice, not upon grief in a time of suffering, sheer emotional instinct, or blind hatred.

I am sorry for those who've experienced such awful losses. Thank you. If anything, my feelings against the death penalty are stronger as a result of my friend's death--I would never want to be part of making someone else feel the way I'm feeling right now, and even a heinous killer or rapist has someone somewhere who loves him. The killer wouldn't be the one to suffer as a result of his execution; his family and friends would.

Another question:

You do realize that plenty of convicted prisoners have escaped from jail (and killed again), right? Ted Bundy escaped once from prison after his first arrest, only to kill a 12 year old girl in Florida, where he was ultimately caught for good and executed. How utterly tragic that he was able to take another life before this finally happened. Yup, I realize that. That's a great example of some of the flaws in the prison system, but it's not an example of a flaw in the judicial system that imprisoned him in the first place. That's like saying, "Wow, this highway is full of potholes. Let's not fix the pavement, though. Let's just revoke the license of anyone who tries to drive here." You're justifying the death penalty as a possible solution to a totally different problem, in my opinion.

 

[Arkteia]

I would like to ask a question I am genuinely curious about:

For those who keep saying that the death penalty won't bring their loved one back, well, by that logic neither will a life sentence in jail. So what is the point? No punishment will ever bring a loved one back. I don't get the relevance of that argument. It's a moot point.

I am sorry for those who've experienced such awful losses.

The only point of jailing someone who kills is, in my opinion, to keep him off the streets.

AGBF

I disagree with jailing to keep them off the streets. There should be punishment. Surprizing as it is, these beasts who torture and kill others, are horribly afraid of losing their own miserable lives. So good people, heroes, sacrifice themselves for others, and these lowlifes are writing petitions, begging, pleading, what not. Ted Bundy wrote a book. A book! - While in jail. (Why do I hate him so much? Because he pretended to be an invalid and asked girls for help then abducted them - he preyed on the kindest ones...)

Did someone mention isolating them and putting these sociopaths together? That's an interesting way of looking at the problem. Let us not kill them, but lump them together and let them rape each other, eat each other, beat up on each other. Trouble is, even in such a situation the strongest ones will end up preying on the weakest ones, so for the strongest ones there would be less punishment.

But - here is a good way of punishment. Once upon a time, there was a prison in Pennsylvania where an interesting experiment was performed. The idea was to give people plenty of time to think, turn to God, pray and repent. So it was a fully solitary confinement. Just a cell with no books, no light, when the prisoners would go out they would wear a hood covering their face. Not conversing even with the staff. They did lose their mind! I do not know the name of the prison, just that it was in PA, in late XIX - beginning of XX century. With this type of punishment, we may not need to go further.

 

[stone-cold11]

Sensory deprivation. One of the most powerful forms of torture. There are even higher forms in the former USSR. In a dark tank of body temperature water, no sound, light, temperature discomfort, gravity... Most do not last a week.

 

[waterlilly]

instead of killing them, what about castrating rapists? how about performing some sort of lobotomy to prevent them from being able to form enough thoughts to kill someone again? then they can't hurt anyone anymore, including the prison guards that risk their lives caring for these animals.

 

[iheartscience]

Nevermind, too lazy.

 

[AGBF]

Nevermind, too lazy.

Well...if you had something sensible to say, then it's a shame.

AGBF

 

[iheartscience]

Nevermind, too lazy.

Well...if you had something sensible to say, then it's a shame.

AGBF

Sorry to leave you fighting the good fight, Deb. I was going to post about a woman on death row in Virginia who is mentally disabled, but debating in a thread with someone advocating sensory deprivation and torture for criminals seemed like a waste of time.

For any sensible people, the woman's name is Teresa Lewis and she was convicted of hiring two men to kill her husband and stepson and collect a life insurance policy. So she actually didn't even kill anyone herself. Her IQ has been tested as 72, and anything below 70 is considered mentally retarded by the Supreme Court. According to her prison chaplain she is very easily manipulated and eager to please, and one of the men she hired admitted to manipulating her into hiring him IN A LETTER so he could get part of the insurance money.

Here's a link to an article written by her chaplain: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/27/my-turn-teresa-lewis-doesn-t-deserve-to-die.html

Aside from the clear moral (and logical) problem with sentencing people to die for killing, Teresa Lewis's story (as well as the stories of the many other totally innocent people who were sentenced to death and have since been exonerated) should convince any intelligent person that the death penalty has no place in a supposedly civil society.

 

[ksinger]

Nevermind, too lazy.

Well...if you had something sensible to say, then it's a shame.

AGBF

Sorry to leave you fighting the good fight, Deb. I was going to post about a woman on death row in Virginia who is mentally disabled, but debating in a thread with someone advocating sensory deprivation and torture for criminals seemed like a waste of time.

For any sensible people, the woman's name is Teresa Lewis and she was convicted of hiring two men to kill her husband and stepson and collect a life insurance policy. So she actually didn't even kill anyone herself. Her IQ has been tested as 72, and anything below 70 is considered mentally retarded by the Supreme Court. According to her prison chaplain she is very easily manipulated and eager to please, and one of the men she hired admitted to manipulating her into hiring him IN A LETTER so he could get part of the insurance money.

Here's a link to an article written by her chaplain: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/27/my-turn-teresa-lewis-doesn-t-deserve-to-die.html

Aside from the clear moral (and logical) problem with sentencing people to die for killing, Teresa Lewis's story (as well as the stories of the many other totally innocent people who were sentenced to death and have since been exonerated) should convince any intelligent person that the death penalty has no place in a supposedly civil society.

Interesting discussion. I've waited until now to hold forth because I've just had a good time reading.

The hubs and I are about 85% against the death penalty. There are people who the world would be much better off without and there is no question of this. And societies have been deciding life and death for certain groups or individuals for millenia, so I don't have qualms from that standpoint: saying that we don't have the right is pretty much belied by all of human history. We have and DO, period. However, the level at which we do that is the question, to my way of thinking. Do we decide by a clearly defined set of guidelines, ie LAW, applied dispassionately and fairly, or do we descend to a level of torture and vengance that make us little better than those we deem worthy of death. I would have to say, no, we do not apply the death penalty well or fairly. And when we do make the inevitable mistake, and execute the innocent, it is a non-recoverable error. So from a personal standpoint, I have to come down on thinking that we here in the US, should decide NOT to execute. I don't think we will, but I think we should. I much prefer life imprisonment.

FYI - my aunt was on the team of lawyers who worked for years to have Fernando Bermudez' murder conviction overturned. He was declared innocent last year. While he was not on death row, just this one case demonstrates that miscarriages of justice happen so much more than we wish to acknowledge.

 

[Diamond*Dana]

I support the death penalty. I have always agreed with it, but even more so after my cousin was murdered at 20 years old, 1 week shy of his 21 birthday and 2 weeks prior to me becoming pregnant with my first child. Since his death, there have been 7 additions to our family that he will never meet, and they will never know him. The loser that murdered him took so much from our family that day.

 

[Laila619]

I support the death penalty. I have always agreed with it, but even more so after my cousin was murdered at 20 years old, 1 week shy of his 21 birthday and 2 weeks prior to me becoming pregnant with my first child. Since his death, there have been 7 additions to our family that he will never meet, and they will never know him. The loser that murdered him took so much from our family that day.

I am so sorry.

 

[waterlilly]

Nevermind, too lazy.

Well...if you had something sensible to say, then it's a shame.

AGBF

Sorry to leave you fighting the good fight, Deb. I was going to post about a woman on death row in Virginia who is mentally disabled, but debating in a thread with someone advocating sensory deprivation and torture for criminals seemed like a waste of time.

For any sensible people, the woman's name is Teresa Lewis and she was convicted of hiring two men to kill her husband and stepson and collect a life insurance policy. So she actually didn't even kill anyone herself. Her IQ has been tested as 72, and anything below 70 is considered mentally retarded by the Supreme Court. According to her prison chaplain she is very easily manipulated and eager to please, and one of the men she hired admitted to manipulating her into hiring him IN A LETTER so he could get part of the insurance money.

Here's a link to an article written by her chaplain: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/27/my-turn-teresa-lewis-doesn-t-deserve-to-die.html

Aside from the clear moral (and logical) problem with sentencing people to die for killing, Teresa Lewis's story (as well as the stories of the many other totally innocent people who were sentenced to death and have since been exonerated) should convince any intelligent person that the death penalty has no place in a supposedly civil society.

Rude. Why? It's a debate on a topic. You can't give supporting arguments for your side without insults? You don't have a clue as to the intelligence level of any people here advocating the death penalty, you certainly know nothing about me or why I have formed the opinions that I have.

Who here advocated the death penalty for people who have not violently killed someone?

What is the debate against castrating a repeat or violent sex offender?

Killing people is always wrong - so one country should never go to the aid of another country to help end horrific civil wars where women and children are having their limbs cut off daily by the thousands - or overthrow violent and deranged leaders that are torturing and killing citizens? "ooops, sorry, can't help - we might accidentally kill someone, plus we are far too sensible and civilized to help you."

Someone who hires someone to kill another person should not get the death penalty...the person who actually does the killing? Certainly in the running for it a far as I'm concerned.

As others have suggested, life in prison is basically a death sentence. Should we do away with life sentences because of the potential for wrongly convicting someone and sentencing them for life?

 

[iheartscience]

Waterlily-that's my opinion. If you don't like it, sowwies! I stand by everything I said. I'm not going to play the semantics game.

I didn't say people were advocating for the death penalty for nonviolent offenders or that killing people was always wrong. You're putting words in my mouth.

And no, I don't agree with maiming people to punish them.

If the only thing you took from my post was that I question the wisdom of putting to death someone who doesn't actually kill anyone, you really missed the point.

 

[dragonfly411]

Thing2 - I do see your point, but that's what many are trying to argue as well. There should be a more detailed system for determning a sentence, but in the end the people doing the cold blooded killing are the ones who should be either sentenced to some form of life long punishment, or eradicated from society. Could you imagine a mass breakout of these people? Just sayin.

I do see your point as well though, and I do think that she should have a place somewhere with the criminally insane.

 

[AGBF]

You're putting words in my mouth.

And no, I don't agree with maiming people to punish them.

Aha! They can put words in your mouth, but not air in your head! You're my kind of gal, thing!

Big hugs,
Deb

 

[ksinger]

You're putting words in my mouth.

And no, I don't agree with maiming people to punish them.

Aha! They can put words in your mouth, but not air in your head! You're my kind of gal, thing!

Big hugs,
Deb

Yes to the maiming bit. I definitely disagree with vindictiveness. If the point of "justice" is to inflict equal suffering, why don't we just cut the murderer slowly into little pieces? Draw and quarter them? We've certainly done that very thing in times past. I kind of thought we were past that as a society, but the impulse for revenge is deeply wired into us I guess.

All this talk of sensory deprivation, solitary confinement, castration, and lobotomies is just plain creepy, and I'm sure I hear Phillip Zimbardo, shaking his head and chuckling blackly somewhere offscreen.

 

[y2kitty]

I only wish "Dexter" was real.

Who is, "Dexter"?

AGBF

The tv serial killer who only kills other serial killers. It airs on Showtime.

 

[movie zombie]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/cl ... atersb.htm

it took 18 years for this woman to get her brother exonerated for murder.
what justice would have been served had his sentence been death [instead of life] and he had been executed?
what punishment for the women that lied and lived their lives while he was locked up for 18 years?
does an eye for an eye mean that we as a society don't care if the real killer is held responsible as long as someone pays?
what if the person convicted really is innocent and that person is your friend or relative....how would you feel?
no one is going to change anyone's mind.....but there is certainly a lot to think about if one hasn't already done so.

MoZo

 

[monarch64]

instead of killing them, what about castrating rapists? how about performing some sort of lobotomy to prevent them from being able to form enough thoughts to kill someone again? then they can't hurt anyone anymore, including the prison guards that risk their lives caring for these animals.

B.E.G. posted an excellent article a few pages ago about castrating rapists. Very interesting stuff.

 

[joxxxelyn]

My problem with it has always been that you'd better be sure of guilt before you do it. There's no going back. If you do a quick search on things like exoneration due to probable innocence you will find that sometimes, the system is not sure. Assuming we as citizens trust our government enough to allow them to implement a justice system wherein they will be certain of guilt before they kill someone, then fine. But, I don't yet know if I would trust such a system or not. And I don't know if even once innocent life being taken by capital punishment warrants the deaths of guilty criminals who are already housed safely in jail.

 

[AGBF]

Whoa! MZ? Thing? Ksinger? Is there a presidential debate on tonight? The whole darn gang is back together!

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Did someone mention isolating them and putting these sociopaths together? That's an interesting way of looking at the problem. Let us not kill them, but lump them together and let them rape each other, eat each other, beat up on each other. Trouble is, even in such a situation the strongest ones will end up preying on the weakest ones, so for the strongest ones there would be less punishment.

You are a well educated woman, crasru. But may I say that I can see you were raised on Raskolnikov?

AGBF

 

[joxxxelyn]

And to address claims about capital punishment deterring crime, here is a source that shows the opposite is true- higher murder rates in states with capital punishment. The numbers are taken from the U.S. Census and the FBI. The issue of capital punishment's impact on crime is imperative because that is presumed to be the reason for the policy, no? We want to prevent more violent crimes from occurring.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

But even after information like that, we still can't prove causality, and assumed causality is one of the most common fallacies of all. To quote another article, "If a place has a high murder rate and has capital punishment, is this because capital punishment failed to deter murders, or even caused murders? Or is it because the place's murder rate got so high that the people there finally resorted to capital punishment as a way to fight it?"

http://www.johansens.us/sane/law/capstate.htm

It appears as though there are multiple studies that support both sides and thus the link is inconclusive, at least if you are honest. This isn't surprising given that the policy is a reactive one. By nature, all punishments are. Therefore isn't it illogical to expect a reactive policy to be wholly preventative in nature? The problem I have with this policy is just that- there is a fundamental disconnect in wanting to prevent something by reacting after it occurs. Sure you can assume that there will be a psychological deterrent to more crime and you can ensure that a specific criminal does not re-offend, but you have not really resolved the fundamental driving forces that initiate these crimes, and to top it off you have blood on your own hands.

 

[AGBF]

And to address claims about capital punishment deterring crime, here is a source that shows the opposite is true- higher murder rates in states with capital punishment. The numbers are taken from the U.S. Census and the FBI. The issue of capital punishment's impact on crime is imperative because that is presumed to be the reason for the policy, no? We want to prevent more violent crimes from occurring.

Welcome to the great capital punishment debate, joxxxelyn. I realize that you have not declared a side, but if you would like to come over to the anti-capital punishment side (as opposed to sticking with the "there are flaws with capital punishment" position which I believe one could say you now hold), you will be most welcome. Anyone who can correctly spell, "occurring" is most welcome among us.

Best regards,
Deb/AGBF

 

[joxxxelyn]

ABGF,

Thanks for the invite. That is my official position, but my method has always been to show that I understand both sides. But now that I have done that, I can declare that I am against it. Is it really that common for people to misspell occurring? I feel bad now. People ask me how to spell things frequently and I sometimes play tricks. Once I told them that quarter was spelled c-o-r-t-e-r thinking they would get the joke. It's probably a bad idea.

 

[monarch64]

After reading this thread, through and through, over the past few days, I have decided I could NOT in good conscience, decide someone's fate AKA putting them to death. Meaning, I could not ever, ever, ever, decide under any circumstances, that I want someone to die. I had never thought about it this long and this hard before.

I've decided that I am NOT the one to dictate someone else's fate, no matter the crime put before me. As someone else very eloquently put it: I don't have the right to undo someone else's wrongdoing.

I respect everyone's opinion.

Crasru: thank you for bringing this subject to light and forcing it to be thought about. Even in college, and having had to write pages and pages about it , I never felt like it was a serious matter. I'm very thankful that you brought it up here and made it a serious topic which received so many varied and unbiased answers. That was very courageous of you.

I'm super afraid to post this. I haven't been on PS much anyway, so maybe no one will take it seriously. But if they do...I'm sort of worried about how my words will be construed! I'm just going to post it anyway, and I guess that I can always retract my post, if need be. Thanks for listening.

 

[ksinger]

ABGF,

Thanks for the invite. That is my official position, but my method has always been to show that I understand both sides. But now that I have done that, I can declare that I am against it. Is it really that common for people to misspell occurring? I feel bad now. People ask me how to spell things frequently and I sometimes play tricks. Once I told them that quarter was spelled c-o-r-t-e-r thinking they would get the joke. It's probably a bad idea.

Umm...well....(shuffling awkwardly) I'm generally considered by all to be a good speller, BUT...occurring is truly my Waterloo. Shameful. Mental block. No matter HOW many times I use it, I STILL have to look the blinkin' thing up. I'm sure I have unwittingly embarrassed myself more than once with that dratted word.

 

[ksinger]

After reading this thread, through and through, over the past few days, I have decided I could NOT in good conscience, decide someone's fate AKA putting them to death. Meaning, I could not ever, ever, ever, decide under any circumstances, that I want someone to die. I had never thought about it this long and this hard before.

I've decided that I am NOT the one to dictate someone else's fate, no matter the crime put before me. As someone else very eloquently put it: I don't have the right to undo someone else's wrongdoing.

I respect everyone's opinion.

Crasru: thank you for bringing this subject to light and forcing it to be thought about. Even in college, and having had to write pages and pages about it , I never felt like it was a serious matter. I'm very thankful that you brought it up here and made it a serious topic which received so many varied and unbiased answers. That was very courageous of you.

I'm super afraid to post this. I haven't been on PS much anyway, so maybe no one will take it seriously. But if they do...I'm sort of worried about how my words will be construed! I'm just going to post it anyway, and I guess that I can always retract my post, if need be. Thanks for listening.

Yes, this has been a very very substantive thread and worth the time to go through.

You have nothing to retract Monarch. If someone manages to get their knickers in a twist over what you said, then they clearly need new knickers, not a retraction.

 

[Arkteia]

Did someone mention isolating them and putting these sociopaths together? That's an interesting way of looking at the problem. Let us not kill them, but lump them together and let them rape each other, eat each other, beat up on each other. Trouble is, even in such a situation the strongest ones will end up preying on the weakest ones, so for the strongest ones there would be less punishment.

You are a well educated woman, crasru. But may I say that I can see you were raised on Raskolnikov?

AGBF

I do not think my views have anything to do with my culture, and, funny, I never liked Dostoevsky. My favorite writer was (still is) Tolstoy who wrote "God is Love". I am afraid, though, and I am also raised on Ann Rule who writes about true crime.

My concern is simple. I think there are many horrific crimes that we simply do not know and will never know about. Have you looked at all "missing children" posters? Most of these children are never found. What happened to them? I can not even think of it. Several people on this forum have lost someone to violent death (and my heart goes out to you, fellow PS-ers!). A lady I know personally lost her fiance this way.

ABGF, all of us have met criminals. How many of them think about their crime? Not repent, just think? I bet there is statistics on this issue, too, and studies have been done. I have to dig into it. I do agree that a high percent of them has mental illness, and in many cases, unfortunately, it is first diagnosed in jail, which is a shame. But I should not get into this area, suffice it to say, that with this diagnosis comes certain responsibility to be invested in treatment and it is a totally different issue. (BTW -I do not think that capital punishment should even be considered for this hapless autistic man involved in Virginia Tech shooting. He was sick and never diagnosed. But there are many cruel, violent criminals who are found totally sane.)

Once upon a time, a person I know got anonymous letter stuck in his mailbox. It was a horrendous fantasy about a man taking a woman and her son into the woods, torturing them in every possible way and burying them. One page listed all possible means of torture and homicide (including an Uzi gun). The police told him that "people receive so many similar letters every day, we can not even count". Unfortunately, there are many people walking around who have totally perverted, sick fantasies. And I am afraid of them.

 

[monarch64]

Thanks, Ksinger. I've always respected your opinion and posts.