The Death Penalty

---

Is it just about killing brown people? Discuss.

and white people with tattoos

Who are "brown people"?

Pretty much anyone darker than pink.

OK...just curious as to what you were trying to imply.To answer your question: No.

No! Brown people..? come on bob.

No, however, as with most things answers are never simply black and white.The socio-economic disparity of "brown people" places them in higher crime areas with inferior eduction systems and fewer opportunities for legitimate advancement. That being the case disproportionately higher numbers of "brown people" face incarceration. Coupling that with majority Caucasian jurors and the human tenancy to deal more harshly with alien (people less like themselves) populations the death penalty is, or was, disproportionately leveled more frequently against people of color. Given that, the problem (if there be one, I haven't looked at any recent data) is of an unintentional systemic nature rather than by design and therefore much more difficult to address as a discrepancy of justice.

Let's face it, the death penalty is both an archaic and ineffective mode of punishment. In my opinion, it is also morally corrupt.Heavier enforcements and more severe deterrents are not the tools for fighting crime. Meaningful education, practiced equality, and a sensible criminal code, instead, go much further than after-the-fact, feel-good, voodoo remedies that do nothing to address and prevent the problems that lead to violence and eventual incarcerations/death sentences.LQ

Originally Posted By: LittleQHeavier enforcements and more severe deterrents are not the tools for fighting crime. Meaningful education,Strike one. Quote:...practiced equality,Strike two. Quote:...and a sensible criminal code,Foul ball. Quote:...go much further than after-the-fact, feel-good, voodoo remediesIt's all the "feel good" BS that exists in our current, liberal education system and modern culture that largely created the problems to begin with.Strike three...yer out! Quote:...that do nothing to address and prevent the problems that lead to violence and eventual incarcerations/death sentences.LQ The face of imminent death is one of the strongest motivating factors currently in existance, and is what is required for those who have no intention of behaving in a civilized fashion. The problem is that so many folks that are guilty get off on technicallities that are designed to protect the innocent. They know this, and can reasonably expect to weasel out of anything they get caught doing...at least based on what is commonly thought to be true. Again, in Japan the conviction rate is 98%...start with that, and the death penalty becomes a real threat. Today it's more of a joke to a real criminal than anything else. Take a look at how many folks receive the death penalty sentence and compare that to how many sentences actually get carried out. The numbers that get carried out are quite small in comparison...assuming the guilty get convicted at all.A better solution would be to dump all such folks on an island surrounded by sharks and a vast expanse of ocean. If folks want to live by a criminal code, then let them live with other criminals. Also lightens up the burden on tax-payers to house, feed and educate such folks. But my guess is all the weenies who destroyed our sense of adult responsibility by replacing it with "the right to feel good about ourselves" would cry about criminals being trapped on an island...so the death sentence is the best we've got right now.

My opinion (to bob) is that regardless of race, I don't care if your white, black, yellow, or polka-dotted, it's not right. A murder of a criminal hardly justifies their 2 or 3._______It would also help [you] if the penalties were carried out right away, not having to wait 10, 20, 30 years on death row, when the prisoners will just die in jail, thereby not becoming [one of your] statistics. Currently 1,219 of 3,275 sentenced have been executed. And you can't possibly expect DA's to ALWAYS convict the guilty, whether it be because lack of evidence or otherwise.I think the "feel-good" remedies q is talking about is your penalty. What good does it do, really, murdering someone who murdered someone else, after they're sentenced to life without parole, other than provide a twisted sense of "justice"? I would think that's why most criminals don't flinch too much, because they know if they don't get capital, they'll just rot in prison for 150 years. Besides that, we're the only [1st world] country in the world that still uses it, and yet, we still have the highest homicide rate in the [1st] world (85th most peaceful of 149 nations), and the states without penalties (save AK and NY) have the lowest crime rates.( This is more just added info... )And you also realize that [while because of past/current stats, and that they solve a great deal more cases than we do] the crime rate in Japan is virtually nil, and the death penalty is only reserved for the most heinous of things (homicide and treason), not like somewhat trivial things in the US, or multiple counts of some semi-serious things, and is being considered for suspension in Japan. Crime Rate-US Crime Rate-JP D. Penalty-US D. Penalty-JP Further Reading

You can tell how effective it is by seeing how low the murder rate is in the US (5.4 per 100,000) compared with Canada (1.83 per 100,000), where there is a similar culture but they don't have such an effective deterrent.Of course, thor, you believe that would change if we dispensed with the awkwardness of trials where accused people are sometimes found not guilty. Given that already it is known that innocent people have been executed, and between 1973 and 2005 123 people who had been sentenced to death but not yet executed were found to be innocent on later evidence, what proportion of innocent people would you accept being executed?You assume that people who commit crimes do so while sanely, intelligently and dispassionately weighing up the consequences of their actions. I don't think anyone who seriously thinks that should even be on the baseball team.Your 'better solution', BTW, has already been tried. It was called transportation. It didn't work either, though it provided both the US and Australia with some of their earliest European inhabitants.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleYou can tell how effective it is by seeing how low the murder rate is in the US (5.4 per 100,000) compared with Canada (1.83 per 100,000), where there is a similar culture but they don't have such an effective deterrent.Of course, thor, you believe that would change if we dispensed with the awkwardness of trials where accused people are sometimes found not guilty. Given that already it is known that innocent people have been executed, and between 1973 and 2005 123 people who had been sentenced to death but not yet executed were found to be innocent on later evidence, what proportion of innocent people would you accept being executed?You assume that people who commit crimes do so while sanely, intelligently and dispassionately weighing up the consequences of their actions. I don't think anyone who seriously thinks that should even be on the baseball team.Your 'better solution', BTW, has already been tried. It was called transportation. It didn't work either, though it provided both the US and Australia with some of their earliest European inhabitants. As is typical for you, you offer no solutions of your own, and only serve to counter proposed ideas and solutions made by me...and make it difficult for others to feal comfortable offering their own solutions. It's no mystery who you're working for.Pay attention to the subtleties and not only to those issues you intend to try and poke holes in. If you do (and that's a big "if"), you'll find out that, no, my idea has not been tried before. Anywhere. And anyone who compares the US with Canada in the same fashion as you have is completely ignorant of history....or just not willing to accept the truth. I've got a mound of sand in my back yard waiting for you to bury your head in, ostrich.

For me to imagine to offer 'solutions' to a problem as old as mankind would be rather arrogant, don't you think? The idea that all that is needed is for one man's view of Utopia to be given free rein has led to the most horrible and brutal episodes of history. I think the most any single person can reasonably aspire to is to make very slight improvements in their local sphere of influence.

Most killings of other people are done in heat, and consequences are usually well out of mind. But even when done in cold blood and carefully planned, the killers' aims are generally to avoid detection, rather than expecting a not guilty verdict at trial. A near-certainty of detection might reduce the numbers of those crimes, but how could that be achieved? The cure might be worse than the disease.

Quote:

As is typical for you, you offer no solutions of your own, and only serve to counter proposed ideas and solutions made by me
It's the way you make them, thor, that gets my back up. You don't propose ideas and solutions: you seek to belittle and bully and sneer at those who don't agree with you. If you are going to be belligerent, you should not be surprised to experience resistance. I know you believe that you have the right answers and that the test of a concept's rightness is whether it agrees with what you think, but you should not find it strange that other people disagree.

Quote:

and make it difficult for others to feal comfortable offering their own solutions
How many people have told you that?

Quote:

It's no mystery who you're working for.
It's a mystery to me. Oh please do enlighten me: there must be some wages I need to pick up.

Quote:The face of imminent death is one of the strongest motivating factors currently in existance, and is what is required for those who have no intention of behaving in a civilized fashion. so why are there capital crimes while still under threat of death? It also stands to reason the the perfect deterrent would never need to be exercised.We have known for years that murder falls into the 3 categories of passion, compulsion and profit. Persecution is not a part of any of those equations. Any conviction rate you may wish to hold up as an example is totally irrelevant.Also, we know for a fact that innocent people are convicted of murder.So, the question is so blatantly simple if you can look beyond the political and religious rhetoric...If the deterrent isn't 100% effective and the investigation & prosecution process isn't 100% accurate, why would we support a punishment that is 100% final?

Government ... can’t be trusted to control its own bureaucrats or collect taxes equitably or fill a pothole, much less decide which of its citizens to kill. ~ HELEN PREJEANI have always found it paradoxical that those who most distrust government in all other aspects of actuality so trust it in dealing out life and death for the citizenry who's very liberty they profess such great concern for.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleIt's the way you make them, thor, that gets my back up. You don't propose ideas and solutions: you seek to belittle and bully and sneer at those who don't agree with you. If you are going to be belligerent, you should not be surprised to experience resistance. I know you believe that you have the right answers and that the test of a concept's rightness is whether it agrees with what you think, but you should not find it strange that other people disagree. Well said.  Originally Posted By: OldFolksI have always found it paradoxical that those who most distrust government in all other aspects of actuality so trust it in dealing out life and death for the citizenry who's very liberty they profess such great concern for. Also well said.  Originally Posted By: thorand make it difficult for others to feal comfortable offering their own solutions Internalizing, are we thor?And always remember, you could be wrong.

I admit I struggle with the death penalty. Part of me agrees with it and another part of me disagrees with the practice. I will admit the older I get the more I lean towards disagreement because there are people who have been sentenced to death that were innocent and there is no doubt we have people sitting on death row right now that are innocent.

But with that said, what about these people where is there absolutely no doubt they did the crime? The people that come forward admitting to the crime or we perhaps have video proof of the crime exposing the criminal? If the crime warrents the action, would the death penalty be okay in this situation?

This is where I struggle. If there is absolutely no doubt they did the crime, why should we have to support them in prison for the rest of their lives? Also, why should they have the right to live when they took the right to live from someone else? Though I agree with the responses I know I'll get from that question... who are we to have the right to take life, how would that make us any better? I agree, but again its questions I struggle with when it comes to this topic.

Quote:why should we have to support them in prison for the rest of their lives? That would seem to be a fair question if it hasn't been shown time and time again that the expense of putting someone to death exceeds the expense of keeping said person in prison.

Quote: putting someone to death exceeds the expense of keeping said person in prison Only because the system is so screwed up.

All the moral arguments—about folk having no right to send others to death, about innocent folk being killed, etc.—aside, the death penalty is worth doing away with on the simple demerit of ineffectiveness.As has been stated, executing someone is more costly than imprisoning them (as it is only reasonable for a more severe punishment to carry a more severe cost). As has been demonstrated through criminal statistics (statistics on crimes, that is, not statistics that are criminal), there is no relationship between a society's use of the death penalty and its crime rate. So it is that the penalty's costliness along with its lack of demonstrable effectiveness are reasons enough to rid any society of its use.Now, thor accused Ineligible of offering no solutions and only countering thor's proposed ideas. Yet, thor did likewise when discounting my proposed solutions in a poorly-played game of baseball.So, the ball is in the pro-penalty's court. It is their turn to bring forth evidence to show the penalty's effectiveness; it is their turn to bring forth evidence showing the penalty to be worth its cost; it is their turn to demonstrate that the alternatives used in other countries for reducing crime—such as the ones I mentioned (education, equality, etc.)—have a higher societal cost-benefit ratio than their beloved death penalty. If they can show that there is a greater benefit to a society when it employs the death penalty in place of less severe crime-reducing strategies, then they will have won their case and proven the value of the penalty. If this task they fail, then so too fails their argument. As the defence attorney is always careful to remind the court: the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.LQ