Should America abolish the death penalty?

The death penalty should remain as a deterent. The process should be speeded up so people don’t sit around for 20 years waiting on all the appeals that are currently allowed.
In the past, there probably were some number of innocent people executed. With DNA capabilities now, that should not be the case nearly as often.
The victums and witnesses of these crimes are still left out of the loop in these legislative decisions. These people have rights also, and many times they are violated with no concern for them. The victums and witnesses sometimes live in fear that if that person were to get out of prison, they might come after them years later.
I think there should be some checks and balances so it is a fair trial and assignment of the death penalty, but keep it around and if it saves more lives than the few that today would be executed and innocent.

There ARE totally unacceptable degrees of murder. Murder for money, murder for greed, cold blood executions, murder of children, terroristic murder and so forth have no place nor reason in a civilized environment. To let those who commit such crimes to continue to live and feed off society, while the innocents lie dead and rotting in the ground remembered by grieving friends and family, is an insult to the lives they so notoriously ended.

I would go along with the death penalty abolishment, only if those guilty parties would be guaranteed to be put away with absolutely no chance of release. It seems study after study reveals that criminal felons are never rehabilitated, and are constantly repeating horrible crimes. It has also told us that crime goes down when these offenders are kept in jail. There seems to be no thought in the brains of certain bleeding hearts of protecting innocent people from criminals. Put them away forever in Antartica.

No. There are 3 reasons society punishes criminals; all are valid, and any one of them is sufficient. One is deterrence, which is discouraging others from committing the same act. Another is prevention, meaning preventing recidivism. The third is retribution, a natural right which the individual relinquishes to the collective as part of the implied social contract, as no civilized nation can allow vigilante justice.

While it is debatable whether capital punishment is a deterrent, it is inarguable that it is preventative. No person so punished has later committed another murder.

The problem with the death penalty not being a deterrent is the fact it is not executed speedily. How long did Sadam Hussein languish in prison before being executed? Not even two months. By the time a criminal in the U.S.A. is executed the crime is long forgotten in the media. There is no sense of justice because no one remembers the crime, and there is media hype against the execution. Punishment implemented slowly does not act as a deterrent. This is true with child rearing, dog training, and crime reduction. If you remove the death penalty, you remove the governments ability to control violent crimes in society. Until everyone feels they can go around shooting up any school, restaurant, or other public facility killing innocent people, because there is no immediate punishment felt by the perpetrator.

As a resident of Illinois I have seen a significant number of those given the death penalty later found not guilty because of failures in our system. Our country was founded on the principle that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to punish those not guilty. If you want to reverse this, it would make sense to round up all the suspects and execute all of them. That would insure that more of the guilty were executed. Since it costs us more to go through the process to execute than to incarcerate, execution makes no sense there either.

The death penalty should be abolished not because it does not deter crime, a guilty person executed will not commit another crime, but because the legal system is so falible. Obviously it has failed too many time in the past with the history of those exonerated using
DNA testing and there is no sure way to determine guilt in too many instances. With no sure way, the ultimate punishment should not be used. At least if a person is falsely convicted and is alive to be released some measure of restoration can be made.

This fits into my Pro-Life agenda. I agree, no parole. It is harder for a real convict to sit waiting to die naturally than to be executed. It cost’s us more to execute than to jail for life. God will make the final, final judgement, forever. -Bill

I see the death penalty as a punishment, not a deterrent and the punishment should fit the crime.

As far as innocent people going on death row, that is a problem with the system, not the punishment.

Recently in Wisconsin, and person in prison for life was found to be falsely accused and released from prison. A few months later this same guy raped and murdered a young lady. The system that finds these innocent people on death row is not perfect either.

Looked at as a non-US citizen it baffles me that the US persists in retaining the death sentence. It simply does not work as a deterent (repeatedly the statistical evidence proves this - yet some are blind to hard science, prefering emotion over reason). It risks sending innocent people to their death. And perhaps most importantly it contradicts itself - how can murder be wrong if the state condones it?

I believe absolutely not…unless we replace the death penalty with some inhumanely painful torture that would last for the duration of their despicable life.

That way if they are found innocent later, we can simply let ‘em go!
…and apologize.

I’m guessin’ there’s a few more guilty folk on death row than innocent.

While all people have inherent worth and dignity, not all people have inherent value. Some people, as a result of their behavior, deserve to be put to death. Even so, this is mainly for vengence and not deterrence. Also, it is not always possible to be sure you are killing the right person. The death penally cannot always be accurately used and will be misused, like all tools. Ideally, extreme punishment should require extremely good evidence. Practially, it should be abolished because it cannot be equitably and fairly applied.

Indivuals may never honor life in a society that doesn’t. Should we spank our children for hitting?

If the murder of humans by other humans is deemed to be less than ideal by society, then what is the difference when the killing is done by consensus or proxy? It is still murder and done mainly out of fear and also for revenge. There are they who decry the cost of lifetime incarceration as the prime impetus for supporting capital punishment. These people would rather have someone killed as a matter of convenience than spend the money to keep them locked up – hardly different from taking out a contract on one’s estranged spouse to get out of alimony. All of the 1st world nations except the USA have abolished the death penalty as immoral, no deterrent to murder, and impossible to undo in case of exculpatory evidence adduced post penalty application. Americans as a group are primarily motivated by fear (a fact that is not lost on those who seek power and control of others) to and believe that anyone who justly, unjustly or through ignorance transgresses the law must be punished.

Until the Federal Government takes judicial responsibility away from the states, it should remain as it is - a decision made by the state governments.

Sorry - the first post was submitted accidently.

If the murder of humans by other humans is deemed to be less than ideal by society, then what is the difference when the killing is done by consensus or proxy? It is still murder (justified by the fallacy ad populum) and done primarily out of fear but also for revenge. There are they who maintain the cost of lifetime incarceration as their prime impetus for supporting capital punishment. These people would rather have someone killed as a matter of convenience than spend the money to keep them locked up – hardly different from taking out a contract on one’s estranged spouse to get out of alimony. All of the 1st world nations except the USA have abolished the death penalty as immoral, no deterrent to murder, and impossible to undo in case of exculpatory evidence adduced post penalty application. Americans as a group are primarily motivated by fear (a fact that is not lost on those who seek power and control of others) to and believe that anyone who justly, unjustly or through ignorance transgresses the law must be punished. Until we grow up as a nation and no longer bow to the thrall of fear and reprisal, we will be seen as the moral equivalent of those countries we decry as barbaric

Eliminate an out-of-date and ineffective practice. It has been repeatedly shown to have no deterrent effect and there is limited data that it increases the level of violence. Further, the US remains the only developed country in the world still relying on capital punishment; which appears to be more aimed at vengeance then deterrence and cares not a whit for true innocence. Far too many death penalty cases have been shown to have convicted the wrong person. I stand with a late great Supreme Court Justice you remarked “if you execute an innocent man, what do you do, go out to his grave and say “Sorry”?

No thank you, eliminate the death penalty; LWOP is more appropriate and cheaper too.

I hear people quote statistics (”hard science”) yet I know statistics can be manipulated for political and/or emotional reasons. “The Earth is flat”, used to be “hard science.” Sorry, that one doesn’t fly.

WITH DNA testing today, far fewer innocent people will ever face a death penalty. The true guilty ones who DO face it are often guilty beyond doubt - many times caught in the act by big brother’s cameras.

And if executions cost more than life imprisonment, it looks like we need some cost reductions somewhere.

Twp wrongs don’t make it right. I would like to think that as civilized humans we could not be party to any killing. We have become used to socially sanctioned murder in the form of war, but we can not tolerate it when it happens in our neighborhoods. Let’s spend some time addressing the violent nature of our being, eliminate the culture of violence Americans are noted for, and start by eliminating the massive amount of weapons at the disposal of each potential murdering criminal in our midst.

Yes, we could abolish the death penalty, but with one vital provision:
The alternative sentence must be life imprisonment AT HARD LABOR!! This would mean, no basketball games, no body-building facilities, and no conjugal visits!! Then, even if someone served years, but was later found innocent, he/she could be released and compensated for the time served.
Oh yes, some of that “hard labor” could be picking crops, that chore that is now the province of Mexican illegals. Gee, a win-win solution to another problem!!

The death penalty accomplishes (2) equally important objectives:

1) Permanently removes the perpetrator from society, which WILL prevent a repeat offense. Recidivism is really the only deterant necessary. Public display and excessive media coverage of capital punishment is abhorrent. It is a very private issue between the family of the victim, the family of the perpetrator and the legal system. Furthermore, preventing others from committing capital offenses is a different argument.

2) Allows the offender a means of making restitution. The Savior’s Atonement does not cover the act of murder. Therefore, at the judgement bar before God, the offender may offer that they paid the ultimate price for taking another’s life by sacrificing their own.

To expect more from capital punishment than this is unrealistic, a waste of time and an excessive expense. To do less to the perpetrators of capitol offenses, is an injustice to the living and the dead.

What ever happened to the biblical concept “thou shalt not kill”? I don’t see any conditional apparatus on that statement. An institution or government is not entitled to kill, anymore than an individual. We have seen enough examples of people on death row who turned out to be innocent, just railroaded or otherwise convicted of a crime some of them did not commit. It’s wrong to kill, and as it was mentioned by another commentator, God will decide when someone incarcerated for life… will die.

The recidivism rate for those who have paid the death penalty is ZERO. All other judgments are the province of God

First, I believe the NJ study is badly flawed. If someone is put to death, they can’t commit another crime. Furthermore, the current long wait of endless appeals negates the deterence of the death penalty. The great advances in DNA testing should correct most, if not all, of the innocent being wrongly convicted, except in cases of purposeful doctoring of evidence.

Second, we should make more crimes subject to the death penalty. In the 1930s, people convicted of kidnapping, rape, and child rape were put to death. We should be doing that now. That just might bring child molestation to a screeching halt! Either that, or cut it all off of a male offender.

To Peter M: If you’re going to throw GOD into this discussion and attempt to quote scripture, at least get the quote correct! The commandment is not that one should not kill, but that one should not murder. A significant difference exists between these two terms.

The problems, as several others have already stated are:
1) The time on death row for appeals and delays is ridiculous
2) The cost of an execution is a waste of taxpayer money

We need to expedite the process of getting these people to their fate. It should never be allowed to take longer than two years after the initial conviction until all appeals are exhausted and sentencing is carried out.

With regards to the methods and that cost. Why do we need sterile needles for an injection intended to cause death? What’s wrong with a 22 caliber round to the temple? That would be inexpensive!! Why are we concerned with the pain and suffering of someone being put to death? Why do we care if they feel pain; were they concerned with the pain felt by their victim(s)? I say we let the relatives of the victim decide the method of execution, within reason. “Within Reason” would be anything that was not more atrocious than the method they employed to end the life of the victim.

I guess I am for keeping the death penalty, but making it financially responsible. As for prison, we need to get back to hard labor instead of the resorts with cable, basketball and air conditioning. I’m for chain-gangs cleaning the roads and picking crops (ditto on DCA’s earlier mention of replacing illegals in the fields).

OOPS, I forgot to leave my name on that long post.
It was me!! :o)

I see that they who are pro-murder by society according to this poll roughly mirror the childish vengeful petulance of Americans at large. The posters in this forum break down slightly better (or worse depending on one’s bias), 58 % for capital punishment (some with quite the degree of punishment lust) and 42 % against. This is probably because the forum is composed of engineering/scientific types who are more capable of abstract thought than the general populace. Even so it is discouraging to observe the murderous attitude of the posters who condone this relic of mankind’s inhumanity to man.

In Massachusetts, some attorneys are so greedy that they will put profit ahead of human life. If they can make a bigger profit by getting an accused convicted, they will sabotage the trial. We MUST clean up the legal profession and our courts to make sure that innocent people are not executed. We MUST establish honest ethics boards where attorneys are routinely investigated to make sure that all accused are given a fair trial. At least, with non-capital offenses, there is the hope that a dishonest trial can be overturned.

The death penalty may not deter crimes of passion, but studies have shown a deterrent effect for premeditated murder and for murder committed during robbery, etc. I, like many people, believe that the appeals process should be greatly expedited; if this cannot be done, the deterrent effect is largely lost and we might as well go to life imprisonment. We also need to look into methods of execution which are painless and have minimum mental trauma; a while back someone wrote an article - in National review, I believe - suggesting nitrogen asphyxiation, which they said was painless and non-traumatic: one simply falls asleep. Examples were given of industrial workers entering spaces with a high concentration of nitrogen; they simply collapsed, never realizing that the “air” they were breathing didn’t have enough oxygen to support life. Might be worth looking into.

Frank Karkota says: In Massachusetts….

Fortunately in Massachusetts there is no Death Penalty.

The stump I get up on is not very tall as I speak as someone that sees the people who dig the trenches and then have to live in them, but I wonder how many of the commenter’s that are so in favor of taking a life, are not also those that are the first to stand up as anti abortionists and are willing to kill someone too so called protect the innocent. I have served this country and proud of it, but to me life is life and it is the most valuable thing there is! At 6 weeks or 26 years it is something that we should cherish and not end lightly. Should someone that has killed be punished YES! most severely but putting them to death to me is the easy way out and for many that do this type of crime death, many times is exactly what they want, as they feel that their life, and the life they took are not worth much. How can we expect anyone to not do violent acts if we as a society find that the only way we can deal with acts of this type is with an eye for an eye? Remember Violence begot violence. Just look how many of our good troops have been killed to satisfy Mr. Bushes Eye for an Eye!!!!

The heart of genuine justice is notion of making whole as nearly as it humanly possible. Thus, where theft or property damage is concerned redress is recompensation of loses paid by the perpetrator to the injured party. Where intended injury is concerned, justice would require redress wherein the perpetrator is required to bear similar injury and pain as that which perpetrator purposely inflicted upon the injured. The biblical instruction ‘eye for eye and tooth for tooth’ limited in the name justice what might be inflicted…if a one eyed man blinded one eye of a two eyed man, redress and hence justice would not be served by requiring the loss of the only remaining eye of the perpetrator rendering him totally blind while the injured would continue to see with his remaining eye. Justice where murder has been committed can only be served by requiring the perpetrator to suffer the same degree of injury as he inflicted. This because redress, recompensation is not possible to make the injured whole.

In the United States, our thinking has become clouded by the notion of injury being done to the State. The injustice of the State prosecuting perpetrators is that there is no justice, no redress, no recompensation of the injured party. Either the injured party goes wholly unrecompensated, or the People are forced to bear the cost of loses in the form of insurance settlements, etc..

We could get rid of the homicide problem by making the word politically incorrect and define away the problem. However, victims and their families and potential victims may have a different view of the situation since they live and die in the real world.

I would say that we should abolish the death penaly, but only on the following conditions:
1. Life without parole;
2. Sentenced to a prison farm where you grow your own food, with a no work, no eat rule (just like the people outside have it).

RJA

Response to Peter M. and any that believe biblical law, Exodus chapter 20 somehow forbids capital punishment.

Unfortunately earlier translations of Exodus 20:13 do render the Hebrew word ‘ratsach’ as kill in English, an error. However, all modern translations render ‘ratsach’ “murder” as indeed does the context in reading the balance of the Mosaic law.

Under that law, any number of crimes were capital in nature and after trial and due process of law, were punished by death of perpetrators.

No restitution is possible for a life premeditatively taken, murder, therefore the only just punishment possible is execution of the perpetrator.

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, we need not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” (CCC 2267)

The death penalty serves as a tool of justice. To remove that tool from the judicial system is as asinine as posing such a question in the context of a technological opinion poll.

NASA should focus on getting men back to the moon and beyond - if the editor wants to wax philosophical in the political arena, he should seek employment with Time magazine.

The best information i have found exactly here. Keep going Thank you

It’s a pity that people don’t realize the importance of this information. Thanks for posing it.

Good post, I can’t say that I agree with everything that was said, but very good information overall.

Thanks so much! I’ve looked everywhere for this! You’re amazing!