☆ENGLISH ONLY☆コミュのCapital punishment

Capital punishment is immoral.

I don't think capital punishment is immoral. Take a life and you don't deserve
to live either. Problem is:

1. Studies show it is NOT a deterrant (to murder at least).

2. There is a small percentage of people who are found guilty, go
to prison, and years later evidence is found they were wrongly convicted.
Even if it's a small percentage, it wouldn't be right to risk executing
someone who is not guilty.

I concur -- my biggest fear is executing people who are innocent -- and it HAS happened. With advancement in DNA science, I don't think anyone should be executed unless there is overwhelming DNA evidence.

This pisses me off:
In Texas, we have a law (the "law of parties") that if one person in a group commits murder, EVERYONE in the group can be tried for murder. Currently we have a case where a robber killed someone during a hold-up at a gas station. That robber who committed the murder received life in prison while his get-away driver (who hadn't even witnessed the murder) was sentenced to death. WTF? This makes no sense to me -- how can you sentence to death a person who hasn't actually killed anyone?

Luckily, a judge granted a stay of execution at the last minute, so it's still pending if he will actually be put to death or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Wood_(prisoner)

I agree with ♪メガロン♪. There's too much of a chance that an innocent person will be executed (and it has happened before). DNA evidence should be double and even triple checked before anyone even THINKS of putting someone to death for a crime.

No capital punishment in Australia - look at how diversified our ethnic and cultural populace is, then look at our respective crime rates.

It's not necessary. However, I would agree if one was given 20+ years imprisonment and elected to have their life ended, then the monies that would be spent in caring/feeding etc for such prisoners could be directed towards victim(s)/charities/specific government organisations etc.

Society is a group of people living together; in order to facilitate our relationships and ensure fairness, we have social contracts (laws) to serve as an agent to keep us together. When someone violates these laws by committing a certain act (crime), we have measures to deal with such acts.

In what manner do we deal with criminals, and why do we punish? In many cultures, the punishment is viewed as a severe deterrent against committing a crime. Steal something, and a representative of society--a judge--sentences you to a fitting sentence, like, say, receiving lashes.

Certain societies have decided against meting out "cruel and unjust" punishments; thus lashing and other forms of corporal punishment may not be viewed favorably in them. The death penalty, interestingly enough, is not viewed across the board as being "cruel and unjust"--it is viewed as being that ultimate deterrent: commit a large enough crime against society--by murdering another--and society will kill you. Problem is: as it turns out, it's not always the right person who is arrested, and it doesn't actually act as a major deterrent.

I believe in trying to examine why someone committed a crime--what precipitated their decision, and what are the mitigating circumstances; I believe that society should make all attempts to assist the convicted toward bettering him/herself. If one stole because he is hungry, examine why he was hungry; educate him in order to facilitate his employ. If one murdered her husband because he beat her daily, then we should as a society examine what resources we can offer women in similar situations--and take her circumstances into consideration (i.e., is she violent against society, or violent against a single individual with 'just cause'). I also advocate bringing back the stocks so that society can literally punish an offender directly; perhaps if we did we would have less white-collar crime.

But what of those who wish to murder because they enjoy killing? Should we have the death penalty for them as well? Are they so far beyond "redemption" that society has the right to take their life?

I've recently gotten into a serious discussion regarding this topic.
I was surprised that many people are FOR capital punishment, and their reason for that is "eye for eye", In my opinion, it is a very childish reason., what, are you a grade schooler?

I've done a lot of research on this topic, mostly because one of my favourite movies reminded me of it (Maundy Thursday, a Korean movie based on a Korean novel).

I'm against capital punishment in ANY society. It shouldn't be present in any civilized society. It has already outlived itself.

Okay, here are some of the reasons I'm against capital punishment. And all of them are facts I found online or after talking to American government workers.

Errors:
The system can make tragic and irreversible mistakes. In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas for starting the fire that killed his children. Multiple forensic experts have since found that the arson "science" his conviction was based on was actually just junk science. As of today, 139 wrongly convicted people who were sentenced to death have been exonerated. DNA, is rarely available in homicides and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Obviously, if someone is convicted and later found innocent you can release him from prison, but not from the grave.

Crime reduction (deterrence):
The death penalty doesn't stop others from committing murder. Homicide rates are consistently higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in those without it. The most recent FBI data confirms this.

Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in 49 states (all except Alaska), also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending 23 of 24 hours a day locked in a tiny cell is no picnic. Two advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty

Costs, a surprise to many people:
The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. The high costs of the death penalty are for the complicated legal process, with the largest costs at the pre-trial and trial stages. The point is to avoid executing innocent people. There are tremendous expenses in a death penalty case whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.

Who gets it:
Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

Victims:
People assume that families of murder victims certainly want the death penalty imposed. It just isn't so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported the death penalty in principal have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

t comes down to whether we should keep a system for the sake of retribution or revenge even though it isn’t effective in reducing violent crime, costs much more than alternatives and, worst of all, can lead to the nightmare of executing someone for a crime he didn’t commit.

ONE ARGUMENT FOR the death penalty is that it brings relief to the victims family. But this is never the case. The cold vengeance that fills the hearts of the victims family won't be quenched by the death of another human being. And when they strive for the death penalty they are committing murder in their own right, because the seek the death penalty with malicious intent. And in the end, trust me, the victim's family is never satisfied.

Even if you're so eagerly FOR the capital punishment. Think about THIS: when someone gets a death penalty, he dies. When you think about it, what kind of punishment is it? When you spend all your life (50 or 60 years) in prison it's something different when you got death penalty and just die. I've read an article about how prisoners see life sentence. And I can tell you, they were not happy about living in prison for their whole life. It's not like they have a quiet prison life, you know. That is THE punishment.

And also, I can't say anything for the Japanese government, but I know that the more people receive death penalty in the US, the less those who actually do the punishment are willing to continue it. Do you have any idea how hard it is to kill a person, because it's just your job? And no sir, there are no courses that would train you how to kill people and how to cope with it. Those who carry out those punishments are the ones strongly against it.

From what I know a lot of states have already forbidden capital punishment and a lot of others are close to doing the same.

Some people say that the question of capital punishment varies for every culture and society. But I disagree. We are ALL the same humans, we have the same morals and principles. It isn't written anywhere that one can kill the other. So it doesn't matter if it's Japan we're talking about or the US, or the UK, etc etc etc.

Wooh! I'm done speaking^^
One of the sources I used: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

>Evgeniya

Just to stir the puddin', I want to argue the other side of your points. I'm not saying I disagree with what you said, but it's always a good thing to have one's ideas challenged occasionally, and I've heard several valid pro-death-penalty arguments to counter yours.

Errors:
Well, obviously NO ONE wants to put an innocent person to death. But if you can say "end the death penalty because of possible errors", it's logical that we should end imprisonment for the same reason. One argument I often hear from death-penalty opponents is "life in prison is WORSE than death". If that's the case, then it stands to reason that it's actually worse to incarcerate an innocent man for life than to execute him. You are right that we can release someone if he is later found to be innocent, but in many cases, wrongly imprisoned people are never released and die in prison.
As I said before, I believe that if we are to have capital punishment, there should be the requirement that it can only be administered with sufficient DNA evidence (as opposed to questionable eye-witnesses or "junk science" as you put it) -- but that should be a requirement for ANY violent crime... too many people have been wrongly accused and convicted simply because the victim couldn't correctly recall the attacker's face. Someone spending the rest of their life in prison for a rape they didn't commit is no less a travesty than executing an innocent man, yet no one has made the argument that we should completely abolish prisons.

Who gets it:
While I agree poorly defended people are more likely to receive death, that's a problem with the system, not the death penalty itself. The same thing happens with imprisonment also. When's the last time you saw a famous actor or singer go to prison for drug use/possession? We lock up no-name non-violent drug offenders all the time while Hollywood elites get a pass with "treatment", "counseling", and a negligible fine. Unfairness pervades the entire justice system, not just those accused of murder. This needs to be fixed regardless of the penalty meted out by the courts and does not necessarily pose an argument against the punishment itself.

My question to you is: if we could eliminate errors 100% and all accused could be given expensive, top-notch lawyers, would you then be in favor of the death penalty? I'm guessing you wouldn't. Therefore, I can't say these 2 arguments are the best to use for why you oppose capital punishment. On the other hand, I would be much more likely to support capital punishment if these two issues were completely resolved -- mostly because I believe there are some people whose crimes are so heinous that they DO deserve death, but ONLY after they have been afforded the same defense given to the elites in our society AND they have been accurately and scientifically proven to have committed the crimes. While I wouldn't abolish capital punishment completely, it needs to be utilized extremely sparingly in rare and extreme cases.

Anyway, I wish I had more time to examine and counter your other arguments. They are good points and deserve a thoughtful debate.

I don't support capital punishment. There are really only
3 arguments used to in support of the death penalty.

1. It acts as a deterrent to the most serious crimes.
It actually doesn't. It has been shown time and time
again when comparing states with the death penalty
(in the U.S.) and states without the death penalty
that the crime rate is not effected.

2. It saves money.
It doesn't. After all appeals are exhausted putting a
man to death costs a lot more than putting him in
dark hole somewhere for the rest of his life.

3. It's retribution.
Maybe. But in the case of the U.S. at least it isn't
applied impartially. African Americans and people
of other minority backgrounds. People who are
poorly educated and in some cases retarted. People
from very low socio economic backgrounds are
much more likely to have the death penalty applied
to them than people from a white middle class
background who commits the exact same crime.

There are also numerous cases where people who
were known to be innocent of the crime have
been put to death because the courts and the
governor have refused to look at new evidence.

I believe that killing the ones we loathe makes us
less as human beings. I'm all for prison.....lock them
up, throw away the key. Put them in a room with
me and I'll show them a little of what their victim
felt....but killing them is a step too far.

> Ian
I can certainly agree with your last paragraph.

I believe one reason people support capital punishment is they think that "life in prison" isn't really punishment. In most prisons, chain-gangs have been replaced with weight-rooms, basketball, and cable TV -- at least that's how the media has portrayed it. I think if the penal system could guarantee an unhappy existence for the murderer, it would satisfy most victims' families' demand for justice.

I don't know how efficiently capital panishment works as deterren to meaningless murder as we can see in Japanese society now, and I don't know if we need the panishment.

But also I don't know how people whose important people have been murderd without any reason can be OK, when the murderers' lives are prtected by laws or some human rights groups whose important people haven't been murdered.

I believe that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, none should hurt familes of people meaninglesslly muredered, even for human rights or any other ideologies.

If there's substantial DNA evidence against the person, especially if they're a multiple offender (murder,sex crimes), I don't see why not. There's a website where you can go and view what sex offenders are living in your area (for US residences), and I was shocked at how many were living in my mother's neighborhood (nearly 20). Maybe it's not a deterrent, but at least the specific person cannot take/ruin another life.

Crimes are not black and white in my opinion, so it should be without a doubt when they execute a person.

When I was in HS, I was against the death penalty, but after reading tons and tons of criminal justice cases, I've come to realize that some people should not walk the streets.

Also, jails are extremely crowded in many countries, and I think jails just create more and more repeat offenders of petty and serious crimes, so allowing those people to sit in jail and possibly influence/hurt others is not necessarily my idea of justice either.