Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would consider the source of the information and discount the study. Death penalty cases are reviewed again and again. I am not aware of anyone who has been executed and later found to be not guilty, at least in recent times. Years ago, yes its possible, just like there are people in jail who are not guilty of their crimes. But death penalty cases, the ones I've read about, there is no doubt the person committed the crime, is guilty and deserves the punishment because of how horrible the crime is. Even saying that, no justice system will ever be perfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a one.
You'd think differently if the person wrongfully convicted was you, a relative, or a friend.
I support the death penalty in some limited situations. However, the current system sentences too many people to death and makes inadequate provision for effective legal counsel in too many cases.
Unless there is the equivalent of DNA, fingerprint evidence, or something equally compelling to prove an offender's guilt, I think the death penalty is inappropriate. I regard confessions--in many cases--as unreliable.
If you believe the system functions well, you might read "Innocent Man" by John Grisham. Its the story about how an innocent man named Ronnie Lee Williams was essentially railroaded to the death house in Oklahoma. If the system had not provided for lengthy appeals and review, this person would have been executed. Other innocent offenders were discovered in that state as well. One was also on death row and another had been sentenced to life imprisonment for a murder he had not committed.
When life without parole is a substitute, the death penalty should be off the table in cases where there is anything less than proof to a virtual certainty of guilt.
Are Juries Competent Enough To Reasonably Discern Guilt?
No. Most of jury members today are dumbed-down by todays popular culture, lack of competent education in public schools/universities and the gerrymandering hocus pocus bogus tactics used by defense/trial lawyers.
If the state wrongfully executes ONE person then the death penalty should be abolished, because obviously the system has flaws and taking INNOCENT life makes them and everyone invlolved just as guilty as the murderers themselves.
There are many flaws in the system. But the system can't be thrown away based on a few issues, compared to the larger problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImMovingVerySoon
No, the death penalty should be abolished. Locking someone up forever accomplishes the same thing. Maybe the U.S. should ask places like Canada and Australia how they get it done without having to kill people? Maybe there should be less corruption in our government, maybe we should take a look at how guns are really getting into the wrong hands. Obviously if executions were the best way to deal with/discourage murders than the U.S. should have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world, but as we all know the U.S. does not.
We don't execute enough people to make any difference. 14k+ murders last year, and less than 50 executions. Would that deter anyone? No, it won't. Locking people up forever is an enormous expense, not to mention being continually dangerous. Before you say it, since you're quoting all the usual empty arguments, the death penalty is expensive because it is poorly implemented. One trial, one appeal within a year, then $10 of drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImMovingVerySoon
I think you made my point quite nicely. If someone is GUILTY than it's BETTER they face a judge instead of a jury, for the exact reason you named...THEY KNOW THE LAW AND WOULD BE HARDER TO SWAY.
At the end of the day I'm not sure if there's a God and certainly don't believe in one that gives a sh*t. What if you walked someone to their death who was innocent? I think that you and EVERYONE involved at the very least should be convicted of manslaughter. One of my biggest regrets about their not being divine judgment is there's probably not going to be a hell for people like you to burn in.
Modern convictions are far less suspect than ones from even 30 years ago. In any event, as has been said several times in this thread, start with the obviously guilty, and go from there. That will thin the herd by at least half.
I have to say that I am for the death penalty and think it should be used more. But the fact of the matter is, the thought of it is depressing. I often wonder why people have to commit crimes that put them to death. And for every stone-cold sociopath on death row, there is one who is misunderstood, abused, mentally ill, mentally disabled, or plain just snapped and did something irreversible.
With that said, there are definitely things I don't like about the death penalty, not the least of which is that it is not used equally. Somebody can kill one person on a whim and get the death penalty while someone else can kill six people and get life in prison or even a lesser sentence. Although I know the justice system tries its best to deal with people according to their crime and the circumstances of that crime, it seems that if one has the right money, people-skills, connections, economic class, attractiveness, gender and color, they tend to get treated better than people without these things, regardless of the crimes they committed. It also has to do with a difference in geographic location and local culture where the criminal lives, that decides his/her fate, and that's what really gets me. People should be dealt with according to their crime and past history, nothing less.
I also don't think it's right that people can spend thirty years on death row, get execution dates over and over and over that get delayed by a stay, and then it's back to the same old thing. I think it's a form of torture, but that's just me. I also don't like the thought that the death penalty is used as "punishment". Yes I understand the concept of "an eye for an eye" and it seems like the death penalty is what it describes. I don't feel that it's right for somebody else to "play God" but at the same time, I can't help but think of the taxpayers who support these people for decades on end. Our jails and prisons are the most overcrowded in the world and our prisoners do have it good compared to the rest of the world.
I also hear in Texas about inmates getting the death penalty for killing other inmates and that is where I'm divided. While inmates are no doubt important to protect, it seems like the culture of prison encourages aggression and "standing up for yourself". Certain inmates who don't defend themselves get harassed more and more until they finally decide to do something and while I don't agree they should be killing people, the corrections system created this monster if you ask me.
I have to say that I am for the death penalty and think it should be used more. But the fact of the matter is, the thought of it is depressing. I often wonder why people have to commit crimes that put them to death. And for every stone-cold sociopath on death row, there is one who is misunderstood, abused, mentally ill, mentally disabled, or plain just snapped and did something irreversible.
With that said, there are definitely things I don't like about the death penalty, not the least of which is that it is not used equally. Somebody can kill one person on a whim and get the death penalty while someone else can kill six people and get life in prison or even a lesser sentence. Although I know the justice system tries its best to deal with people according to their crime and the circumstances of that crime, it seems that if one has the right money, people-skills, connections, economic class, attractiveness, gender and color, they tend to get treated better than people without these things, regardless of the crimes they committed. It also has to do with a difference in geographic location and local culture where the criminal lives, that decides his/her fate, and that's what really gets me. People should be dealt with according to their crime and past history, nothing less.
I also don't think it's right that people can spend thirty years on death row, get execution dates over and over and over that get delayed by a stay, and then it's back to the same old thing. I think it's a form of torture, but that's just me. I also don't like the thought that the death penalty is used as "punishment". Yes I understand the concept of "an eye for an eye" and it seems like the death penalty is what it describes. I don't feel that it's right for somebody else to "play God" but at the same time, I can't help but think of the taxpayers who support these people for decades on end. Our jails and prisons are the most overcrowded in the world and our prisoners do have it good compared to the rest of the world.
I also hear in Texas about inmates getting the death penalty for killing other inmates and that is where I'm divided. While inmates are no doubt important to protect, it seems like the culture of prison encourages aggression and "standing up for yourself". Certain inmates who don't defend themselves get harassed more and more until they finally decide to do something and while I don't agree they should be killing people, the corrections system created this monster if you ask me.
I agree with a lot of what you said. Though I don't think giving someone the death penalty accomplishes anything that putting them in a dark hole for the rest of their life doesn't. Your trying to seperate them from society so they can't harm anyone else. I mean think about it. What kind of person could be an executioner? Killing someone who you don't know, who has done nothing to you, and who very well could be innocent. It's a broken system for all the reasons you named and because I think it's murder, nothing more, nothing less.
Modern convictions are far less suspect than ones from even 30 years ago. In any event, as has been said several times in this thread, start with the obviously guilty, and go from there. That will thin the herd by at least half.
All of what you quoted isn't from me. Please don't combine peoples sentences when replying and quoting someone.
My problem with the death penalty has always been the discriminatory way it's given out. The poor are more likely to get it then the rich, blacks more then whites, males more than women etc
During this same time period, there have been 137 death row exonerations (this excludes 6 exonerations in 1976 that took place in the months prior to the reinstatement of the death penalty).
Is an execution to exoneration ratio of 10 to 1 reasonable?
Does this long established execution/exoneration ratio of 10 to 1 support that juries are reasonably competent enough to discern guilt in capital murder trials?
If juries are not competent enough to reasonably discern guilt in the most important of all trials, what would you expect to be their ability to discern guilt in criminal trials that deal with lesser charges?
What wrongful conviction rate would you expect actually exists in the criminal trials that are not capital murder trials?
yes they are, but in the automatic appeal process, lie detectors and truth serums should be used in conjunction to the appeals process. that way innocence ruled out. also, I do not believe in having someone being convicted of capitol murder when it is only circumstantial evidence.
During this same time period, there have been 137 death row exonerations (this excludes 6 exonerations in 1976 that took place in the months prior to the reinstatement of the death penalty).
Is an execution to exoneration ratio of 10 to 1 reasonable?
Does this long established execution/exoneration ratio of 10 to 1 support that juries are reasonably competent enough to discern guilt in capital murder trials?
If juries are not competent enough to reasonably discern guilt in the most important of all trials, what would you expect to be their ability to discern guilt in criminal trials that deal with lesser charges?
What wrongful conviction rate would you expect actually exists in the criminal trials that are not capital murder trials?
thats a completely misconstrued stat.
the total number executed is the number you cited, the total number sentenced to death is a large multiple MORE,
you need to ttake that total number and then plug in the number executed. Then you have the total picture. the way you have it now makes it look alarmingly common versus a very large death row population not reflected in your stat
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
