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 was thinking. Use of the death penalty in America is pretty much tokenistic. For the most part, it's on the books but rarely used, and when it is used, it's rather arbitrary and seems mostly just to "prove a point" or create some kind of moral catharsis.
If we were really going to put every murderer and rapist to death, we'd have to shed rivers of blood and kill dozens if not hundreds of people every day when you consider hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered in America during living history, and probably millions have been raped. There would be tons of "collateral damage" of innocents if we killed people on such an industrial scale.
So instead we just pick a person here and there and decide they need to die, to make us feel better about ourselves. How is that much different from human sacrifice?
I was thinking. Use of the death penalty in America is pretty much tokenistic. For the most part, it's on the books but rarely used, and when it is used, it's rather arbitrary and seems mostly just to "prove a point" or create some kind of moral catharsis.
If we were really going to put every murderer and rapist to death, we'd have to shed rivers of blood and kill dozens if not hundreds of people every day when you consider hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered in America during living history, and probably millions have been raped. There would be tons of "collateral damage" of innocents if we killed people on such an industrial scale.
So instead we just pick a person here and there and decide they need to die, to make us feel better about ourselves. How is that much different from human sacrifice?
Sacrifices are selected for their perfection. That's what makes it a "sacrifice."
If the US was burning a Miss America every now and then, that would be a sacrifice.
That doesn't mean there is not a catharsis effect when a really bad man is executed...just as I experience a catharsis when I clean junk out of my garage or have a really good bowel movement. But that's not a "sacrifice."
I would not consider it a sacrifice. A sacrifice implies that there is something sacred in the event, a ritual to aid or appease some spiritual power that is beyond us. But that is not the case with those who are put to death.
Those that get the death sentance go through the event without be 'offered up'.
I do not understand the process much myself. Here we have people on death row that have committed horrible murders and have been given the death sentance, and yet they sit there.
If they have been sentenced to death, why are they still here?
As for rapists, I don't recall rape being a crime punishable with the death sentance. I am pretty sure you have to kill someone or several someones to get to that point.
I also don't think that every 'murderer' should be put to death. What about the woman who was beat by her husband who just finally snapped or was just trying to defend herself and ended up killing him?
I think the death sentance should be reserved for the real crazy evil killers.
There is nothing arbitrary about a death sentence, a death sentence must be handed down by a jury not just one person and it must be a unanimous decision. Currenty in this country there are only two crimes that will get you the death sentence if the jury agrees, 1st degree murder and treason.
Had to edit this in reference to the bold: One would have to ask if the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Samir Khan was legal, one man ordered the death sentence of these people and all three were American citizens, one would argue that they were traitors and deserved what they got, however, the constitution clearly spells out the act of treason and how it should be handled.
Perhaps in a sense, but there is one important difference.
The people sacrificed in tribal cultures were often innocent of any crime. While the people we choose to execute are chosen from a pool of guilty individuals who arguably deserve death. You could look at as... normally we're more forgiving and allow them to keep their lives, but once in a while we have to show that we're willing to enforce the maximum penalty.
It's not usually arbitrary, either. While all cases of 1st degree murder are in theory eligible to be executed, in practice it's usually only done in the most heinous cases where we can't sympathize with the murderer at all. Perhaps it's not applied consistently, but there is a tendency to execute the ones who seem like total monsters in particular.
However, one note I'd like to add. I HATE the term "death penalty," it sounds like something you get for breaking the rules in a hockey game. There's something disgustingly sanitized and fake about it. If we're going to do it, we should have the guts to call it execution. Otherwise, we shouldn't be doing it at all. But we shouldn't try to minimize the severity of what we're doing.
In Texas, the death penalty is administered more than any other state, which I like. Here, its not just every murder. The people who are getting a death penalty carried out have, in most cases, committed two felonies in the process. Rape and murder, multiple murder, robbery plus murder, etc. Their cases are appealed multiple times and usually get to the US supreme court at least once. So it is far from arbitrary. The govt. would like to execute more but the cost of fighting all the anti-death penalty lawyers makes it expensive.(I'd love to know who is paying those guys salary and expenses). The death penalty is a deterrent to crime, but it isn't used enough to have much effect. Maybe some day it will be used more and then crime will be reduced.
In Texas, the death penalty is administered more than any other state, which I like. Here, its not just every murder. The people who are getting a death penalty carried out have, in most cases, committed two felonies in the process. Rape and murder, multiple murder, robbery plus murder, etc. Their cases are appealed multiple times and usually get to the US supreme court at least once. So it is far from arbitrary. The govt. would like to execute more but the cost of fighting all the anti-death penalty lawyers makes it expensive.(I'd love to know who is paying those guys salary and expenses). The death penalty is a deterrent to crime, but it isn't used enough to have much effect. Maybe some day it will be used more and then crime will be reduced.
The problem, however, is really being sure you have the right person. The reason the death penalty was suspended in Illinois was because the governor discovered that the majority of those convicted were convicted on no physical evidence whatsoever--only on coerced confessions. No actual physical evidence or eye witnesses at all convicting the men to the crime.
In Texas, there is the cautionary case of Lennell Jeter, convicted of a crime he didn't commit by application of a really dumb Texas court procedure: The judge can cut off testimony when he feels enough evidence has been provided to prove a point.
In Jeter's case, the question was whether he had been sufficiently identified as the armed robber at a convenience store. The prosecution presented several eye witnesses who pointed him out. The judge did not allow Jeter's attorney to present his alibi, stating that Jeter's whereabouts were already adequately proven by the eye witnesses.
Jeter's alabi: Jeter was an engineer at a firm that handled military contracts (I was interested because they handled contracts for my military unit). At the exact moment of the robbery, Jeter was fifty miles away sitting in his boss's office for a performance evaluation. His boss knew where he was and was willing to testify. The boss' secretary knew where Jeter was and was willing to testify. The next engiineer waiting in the office for his own performance evaluation knew where Jeter was and was willing to testify. The secretary said in an interview, "We always knew when Lennell was in the office--he was like a raisin in a bowl of rice." Dang, you can't make that up.
But the judge did not permit their testimony because he believed Jeter's location was already sufficiently proven by the eye witnesses.
Later, it was shown that the eye witnesses had been subtly prompted by police. When Jeter had first arrived in town, he had been arrested for vagrancy while sitting on a park bench in his business suit eating a bag lunch. His mug shot had been taken.
After the robbery occured, the police showed his mug shot to the witnesses over and over and over again. Then they put him into a lineup with people who the witnesses had never seen before. Jeter was the only one they'd seen before, so they pointed him out. Jeter went to prison.
The actual criminal was later found...and even after that criminal was convicted for that crime and also sent to prison, it took years to get Jeter retried and released.
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.
