Should the federal government allow the death penalty?

[natelpete]

I side with the idea that it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted; needless to say, I voted "no".

[Longhornfan1234]

No.

[Randy West]

I feel like there have been to many people that have been executed in error for it to continue on like it has.

[The Schmooze]

I feel like there have been to many people that have been executed in error for it to continue on like it has.

That alone shows the ineffectiveness of the system itself. If the government executes even one person when they're innocent(and they have, plus many more), then we need to take a deep look as to whether or not this is a viable practice.

[dbroncos78087]

I'm with all the states rights posters. Let the states decide. One size doesn't fit all. We live in a large country. People in Texas are differen't from people in Florida, which are differen't from people in California, which are differen't from people in New Hampsire and so on. It's the most fair way too let the individual live.

I think this is the most ironic part of your post. We are talking about whether a state has the right to sanction the death of another, this isn't how to make the schools effective. This isn't a multiple choice question, this is a true/false.

[b1e9a8r5s]

I'm pro death penalty. It should be used more and shouldn't take 20 years to finish appeals. That being said, I understand that their have been mistakes made in the past. I'd add an addtional threashold to use it. Example: civil court uses proponderance of the evidence, criminal courts are beyond a reasonable doubt. For death penalty their should be an additional DNA or video threashold. Make the appeals easier/quicker and be sure you are punishing the right person. But if they have you on video committing the murder, let them fry.

[C-ross12]

I think this is the most ironic part of your post. We are talking about whether a state has the right to sanction the death of another, this isn't how to make the schools effective. This isn't a multiple choice question, this is a true/false.

I thought the title was "Should the Federal government allow the death penalty". The Federal government should not be mingled into this type of issue. Differen't states will decide differently on all issues. This way people can be best represented.

On the issue of the death penalty as a general concept.. I go back and forth on this. Obviously, taking a life should never be taken lightly. Ever. You need to have a very good justice system. But the cost of inprisonment is substantial. If someone is found guilty of Murder at 25 years old, its going to cost a ton of money by the time the inmate is 80 and dies by natural causes. Obviously you dont want to zap innocent people, but you dont want to let bad people live on your dime for 50 years either. Tough call really.

[GGGGG-Men]

No.

Not sure I have the motivation to have this debate anymore, but I'll throw out my reasons while having no intent on arguing this with anyone:

1. Imperfect system. Absolutely should not have an irreversible penalty when we have an imperfect judicial system. Innocent people have been put to death via capital punishment which is sadly ironic for a penalty that punishes killers. It's a disgrace. Until you have a perfect judicial system free of corruption......(pause for laughter).....you can't put people to death. Give life sentences with no parole and if they turn out to be innocent there's at least a chance to set them free and compensate them.

2. It's ****ing barbaric and disgusting. And don't give me that "what if you're wife was murdered...." crap. If that happened (1) I don't trust our system to catch the right guy and (2) I'd rather he suffer in prison than get the easy way out (death).....that's why in hostage/murder situations they often take themselves out. It's the coward's way. Let them rot in a cell and fight prison gang members to survive. (3) I'd rather not stoop to the uncivilized level of the killer.

3. It's more expensive. From appeals to the actual act of killing, it has been proved to be more expensive than keeping a guy in prison for life (who can at least be given a prison job and contribute to an area of need).

4. Contrary to some belief it does NOT work as a deterrent. At all. Nobody in the frame of mind to kill is contemplating the repercussions. It's a behavioral dysfunction or drastic emotional action or other state of mind that doesn't weigh consequences. The only hope of it EVER being a deterrent even to some small degree is to follow the George Carlin method of public executions.

5. Look at the company we keep. Want to see the mentality it takes to have a death penalty? Take a look at the other countries who allow it and use it. China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia (and most religious run countries who feel there's some kind of hell on the other side for them to enter), most of the middle-east and northeastern Africa. Japan is the only other modern country that utilizes it and they are a culture filled with honor killings/suicide and they even rarely use it.

[C-ross12]

No.

Not sure I have the motivation to have this debate anymore, but I'll throw out my reasons while having no intent on arguing this with anyone:

1. Imperfect system. Absolutely should not have an irreversible penalty when we have an imperfect judicial system. Innocent people have been put to death via capital punishment which is sadly ironic for a penalty that punishes killers. It's a disgrace. Until you have a perfect judicial system free of corruption......(pause for laughter).....you can't put people to death. Give life sentences with no parole and if they turn out to be innocent there's at least a chance to set them free and compensate them.

2. It's ****ing barbaric and disgusting. And don't give me that "what if you're wife was murdered...." crap. If that happened (1) I don't trust our system to catch the right guy and (2) I'd rather he suffer in prison than get the easy way out (death).....that's why in hostage/murder situations they often take themselves out. It's the coward's way. Let them rot in a cell and fight prison gang members to survive. (3) I'd rather not stoop to the uncivilized level of the killer.

3. It's more expensive. From appeals to the actual act of killing, it has been proved to be more expensive than keeping a guy in prison for life (who can at least be given a prison job and contribute to an area of need).

4. Contrary to some belief it does NOT work as a deterrent. At all. Nobody in the frame of mind to kill is contemplating the repercussions. It's a behavioral dysfunction or drastic emotional action or other state of mind that doesn't weigh consequences. The only hope of it EVER being a deterrent even to some small degree is to follow the George Carlin method of public executions.

5. Look at the company we keep. Want to see the mentality it takes to have a death penalty? Take a look at the other countries who allow it and use it. China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia (and most religious run countries who feel there's some kind of hell on the other side for them to enter), most of the middle-east and northeastern Africa. Japan is the only other modern country that utilizes it and they are a culture filled with honor killings/suicide and they even rarely use it.

Really nice post. You may have swayed me some.

[whitesoxfan83]

I'm against the death penalty, but this is a state issue. So I guess I vote yes.

^^^

[flea]

I feel that it violates the 8th Amendment.

[nastynice]

I feel like there have been to many people that have been executed in error for it to continue on like it has.

this.

Although I agree with the death penalty in principle, someone had made a good point to me on this forum before, that given the inherit fundamental flaw of our system (prison for profit, lawyer for profit), its probably best to do away with the death penalty for as long as our system continues to operate in this manner. It does a great disservice to victims, but I guess we all gotta give a little for the greater good

[GA16Angels]

I'm pro death penalty. It should be used more and shouldn't take 20 years to finish appeals. That being said, I understand that their have been mistakes made in the past. I'd add an addtional threashold to use it. Example: civil court uses proponderance of the evidence, criminal courts are beyond a reasonable doubt. For death penalty their should be an additional DNA or video threashold. Make the appeals easier/quicker and be sure you are punishing the right person. But if they have you on video committing the murder, let them fry.

1. You might want to say "pro capital punishment" instead. It makes you sound a little less like you're from biblical times

2. Could you please state the reasons why you're in support of it?

[jrice9]

this.

Although I agree with the death penalty in principle, someone had made a good point to me on this forum before, that given the inherit fundamental flaw of our system (prison for profit, lawyer for profit), its probably best to do away with the death penalty for as long as our system continues to operate in this manner. It does a great disservice to victims, but I guess we all gotta give a little for the greater good

What do lawyers working for profit (this is only defense attorneys not prosecutors) and prisons being for profit have to do with the death penalty? How would this effect any justice regarding the death penalty.

This was a shot at capitalism/corporatism for no apparent reason (and I'm saying this as someone opposed to the death penalty)

[GA16Angels]

I understand many of you "pro state-rs" are inherently against giving any type of additional power to the federal government or further limiting the power of states, but having state by state variance on an issue like this does not make sense. As a country, we're united completely in the realm of common law. All court procedures that are similar to past cases must take the precedent in the past case and apply it to the present one. In effect, all the states are bound to uniformity under common law. State variance on the death penalty would, in effect, disrupt the uniformity of common law proceedings.

For example, imagine that California outlawed the death penalty and Texas didn't. If the Texas court was trying to decide a punishment in a murder trial very similar to a previous murder trial in California, the Texas court would not be able to use the precedent set in the California case due to variance in capital punishment between the states. Uniformity among states, in terms of remedies for crimes, is needed to ensure that common law is upheld. Therefore, it should be within the federal government's power to determine whether or not the death penalty should be nationally outlawed or remain intact. This is not a state issue.