Should the federal government allow the death penalty?

[flips333]

To me the most glaring inefficiencies in the death penalty system are its excessive costs and the propensity to execute an innocent person.

To that end my plan would be threefold.

The first step is to leave it up to the states as to whether they want the death penalty, as it should be a state issue.

The second step would be to make it so that any state that does allow death penalties must meet the criteria set forth below:

A) That the act was premeditated.

B That the same person committed multiple murders and that the murders were callous or heinous in nature.

C) There is indisputable video evidence of the person committing the murder or

D) If Lack of video evidence is available there must be an overwhelming number of eyewitnesses that witnessed the murders. (NOTE: The exact number needed to obtain an overwhelming amount I'm still unsure about, but I'd envisioned over 5)

The third and final step to my plan is to minimize the costs and amount of appeals a person who has met all the above criterias is allowed, so long as it doesn't conflict with rights guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights.

That way there is absolutely 0% chance that an innocent man is executed and it greatly reduces the costs associated with the act while still leaving it up to the States.

5 eyewitnesses could finger the same guy and get it wrong. Never mind the cognitive issues that go ino poor memory(I give a 45 minute lecture on this when I am talks about memory in my cog psych class), but you have to understand the prosecution is likely to put forth those that support thir case but not harm it (I know they are not "allowed" to do that, but they do).

The death penalty serves no real function in our society. It's time we joined the human race and get rid of the archaic punishment.

[gcoll]

I think so. I think there are certain crimes that warrant an ultimate punishment.

[natepro]

I think so. I think there are certain crimes that warrant an ultimate punishment.

Like, say, killing an innocent person?

[valade16]

I think it's important, for this issue, to not get bogged down in hypotheticals. What IF we had a perfect judicial system? What IF it was 100% obvious that the person is guilty? What IF it infringes on states' rights? What IF it was someone who committed extraordinarily heinous acts? What IF it was YOUR family member who was murdered?

Stick to what IS. It IS imperfect. It has and IS going to kill wrongfully accused individuals. It IS expensive. It IS not a deterrent. It IS used by *** backwards nations.

So your initial instinct at seeing a broken system is not to say "Can it be fixed, and if so how?" but instead to say "Get rid of it"? You've successfully advocated for the abolishment of the entire Legal System with the bolded, as all of those are true of the system at large.

The difference is I don't believe perfecting the system requires us to dabble in hypotheticals.

5 eyewitnesses could finger the same guy and get it wrong. Never mind the cognitive issues that go ino poor memory(I give a 45 minute lecture on this when I am talks about memory in my cog psych class), but you have to understand the prosecution is likely to put forth those that support thir case but not harm it (I know they are not "allowed" to do that, but they do).

The death penalty serves no real function in our society. It's time we joined the human race and get rid of the archaic punishment.

To the first paragraph, you're absolutely right, which is why I even put the caveat that the exact number would be up for debate on what would be a sufficient amount.

My intent was to narrow it down to the "high-profile" mass murder types of cases, like the Colorado shooting. I agree that people can remember a situation incorrectly but in cases like the ones I'm envisioning it's literally impossible. He's the guy who dyed his hair orange and is wearing body armor and holding multiple assault rifles. There is absolutely no ambiguity in those cases.

Or had they caught the Oregon shooter. The guy holding an assault rifle with a Jason-style Hockey mask. It is literally impossible to "get the wrong guy" in those instances.

As for the last part, I think it can serve an important function in our soceity. These people are beyond help, they are literally psychotic to a level that they will never be able to be reintegrated into soceity, and even if they were, we wouldn't ever let them out of prison anyway; so what's the point of keeping them alive?

If we limit the amount of appeals they get to 1 then the death penalty would be saving money by doing so. Or to turn it around, can you think of any valid reason these people should be kept alive?

[natepro]

So your initial instinct at seeing a broken system is not to say "Can it be fixed, and if so how?" but instead to say "Get rid of it"? You've successfully advocated for the abolishment of the entire Legal System with the bolded, as all of those are true of the system at large.

The difference is I don't believe perfecting the system requires us to dabble in hypotheticals.

Nonsense.

The legal system being flawed is exactly why that system should not have the authority to put people to death. It's the single most final solution we can implement on a problem, and if done incorrectly, there is nothing we can do to fix the situation even a little.

Anytime someone is imprisoned when innocent, it's a tragedy. But, every day they're alive is a chance for that to be discovered, for them to be released, and for them to be able to try and find enjoyment with the rest of their remaining time.

When we incorrectly kill someone, as has happened, none of that is possible. We can't bring them back, we can't give them any remaining time, because we've made sure that's off the table.

What do we gain by doing this? Nothing, as far as I see. But we've lost plenty.

[natepro]

If we limit the amount of appeals they get to 1 then the death penalty would be saving money by doing so. Or to turn it around, can you think of any valid reason these people should be kept alive?

Also, to focus just on this part...

How do you propose to stop the killing of innocent people by the state, while simultaneously limiting the number of opportunities for their innocence to be discovered?

[flips333]

So your initial instinct at seeing a broken system is not to say "Can it be fixed, and if so how?" but instead to say "Get rid of it"? You've successfully advocated for the abolishment of the entire Legal System with the bolded, as all of those are true of the system at large.

The difference is I don't believe perfecting the system requires us to dabble in hypotheticals.



To the first paragraph, you're absolutely right, which is why I even put the caveat that the exact number would be up for debate on what would be a sufficient amount.

My intent was to narrow it down to the "high-profile" mass murder types of cases, like the Colorado shooting. I agree that people can remember a situation incorrectly but in cases like the ones I'm envisioning it's literally impossible. He's the guy who dyed his hair orange and is wearing body armor and holding multiple assault rifles. There is absolutely no ambiguity in those cases.

Or had they caught the Oregon shooter. The guy holding an assault rifle with a Jason-style Hockey mask. It is literally impossible to "get the wrong guy" in those instances.

As for the last part, I think it can serve an important function in our soceity. These people are beyond help, they are literally psychotic to a level that they will never be able to be reintegrated into soceity, and even if they were, we wouldn't ever let them out of prison anyway; so what's the point of keeping them alive?

If we limit the amount of appeals they get to 1 then the death penalty would be saving money by doing so. Or to turn it around, can you think of any valid reason these people should be kept alive?

Yes. They should be kept alive. They could serve a purpose to society... I believe they should be studied so we can better understand how our society leads to these people.

Our society needs to move beyond the idea that killing someone is acceptable.

[valade16]

Also, to focus just on this part...

How do you propose to stop the killing of innocent people by the state, while simultaneously limiting the number of opportunities for their innocence to be discovered?

That's simple, by limiting the number of cases that result in death by narrowing the scope of people who are allowed to be put to death.

A perfect example is the Colorado shooting. Do you really need multiple appeals (which will undoubtedly happen) in this instance? Is it not about as cut and dried a conviction as is humanely possible?

Yes. They should be kept alive. They could serve a purpose to society... I believe they should be studied so we can better understand how our society leads to these people.

Our society needs to move beyond the idea that killing someone is acceptable.

That's fair enough, I could see the benefit of that.

I just find it funny in many peoples cases from the left that they scream "Don't throw your religious morals on the whole country, do that in your own state" and then turn around and try to throw their own morals in everyone elses face.

Seems a little hypocritical (not implying that you are guilty of this, just something I've noticed).

[natepro]

That's simple, by limiting the number of cases that result in death by narrowing the scope of people who are allowed to be put to death.

A perfect example is the Colorado shooting. Do you really need multiple appeals (which will undoubtedly happen) in this instance? Is it not about as cut and dried a conviction as is humanely possible?

And it's an example you've used at least twice now, for good reason: It's an outlier. There are rarely instances like that, and even fewer where the killer isn't killed on the scene, either by their own hand or by a cop. Having in place a system to deal with the small amount of people that do things like this - a system that is offering us no benefit, no matter how much we limit it - is a ridiculous waste. What's the point? What is society benefited from killing a guy that will never breathe free air again, either way?

That's fair enough, I could see the benefit of that.

I just find it funny in many peoples cases from the left that they scream "Don't throw your religious morals on the whole country, do that in your own state" and then turn around and try to throw their own morals in everyone elses face.

Seems a little hypocritical (not implying that you are guilty of this, just something I've noticed).

Anyone that wants to use their religion to justify something in a secular society has already lost the argument.

[flips333]

That's simple, by limiting the number of cases that result in death by narrowing the scope of people who are allowed to be put to death.

A perfect example is the Colorado shooting. Do you really need multiple appeals (which will undoubtedly happen) in this instance? Is it not about as cut and dried a conviction as is humanely possible?



That's fair enough, I could see the benefit of that.

I just find it funny in many peoples cases from the left that they scream "Don't throw your religious morals on the whole country, do that in your own state" and then turn around and try to throw their own morals in everyone elses face.

Seems a little hypocritical (not implying that you are guilty of this, just something I've noticed).

I do agree that there is a difference between morality based on reason does have a place in the discussion in a secular society.

That being said I do love the freedom debates here in America... It seems we all love freedom but are terrified of the types of freedoms those who are different from us would propose. Guns on one side and sex on the other.

[natepro]

I do agree that there is a difference between morality based on reason does have a place in the discussion in a secular society.

That being said I do love the freedom debates here in America... It seems we all love freedom but are terrified of the types of freedoms those who are different from us would propose. Guns on one side and sex on the other.

I have no problem with people carrying muskets. Concealed muskets, even.

[behindmydesk]

I do agree that there is a difference between morality based on reason does have a place in the discussion in a secular society.

That being said I do love the freedom debates here in America... It seems we all love freedom but are terrified of the types of freedoms those who are different from us would propose. Guns on one side and sex on the other.

I must be king freedom then. I love guns and sex. Hell have as much consensual sex with who ever (human) you want, (preferably not with my nieces or wife, or I will use my love of guns)


As on the issue at hand, I prefer state rights. I think the federal government should only step up in the aggregate when justified to stop a problem. I do understand some of the anti state rights arguments and they are valid.

I do support the death penalty as well especially with DNA evidence we have at our disposal. Lots of good points made back and forth in this thread though.

[GGGGG-Men]

So your initial instinct at seeing a broken system is not to say "Can it be fixed, and if so how?" but instead to say "Get rid of it"? You've successfully advocated for the abolishment of the entire Legal System with the bolded, as all of those are true of the system at large.

The difference is I don't believe perfecting the system requires us to dabble in hypotheticals.

You're jumping to the wrong conclusions from what I said. You need to remove the irreversible penalty while you correct the system. It'll never be perfect, few things are and because of that you don't have irreversible penalties; you don't drop the whole system which I never once said or implied.

[valade16]

You're jumping to the wrong conclusions from what I said. You need to remove the irreversible penalty while you correct the system. It'll never be perfect, few things are and because of that you don't have irreversible penalties; you don't drop the whole system which I never once said or implied.

I understand the "irreversible penalties portion, but I'm saying if there is 100% knowledge of guilt then whether a penalty is irreversible or not is irrelevant.

Also, I don't really differentiate between someone who receives the death penalty wrongly vs someone who is wrongly imprisoned for the rest of their life and nobody overturns the decision.

In both instances their entire life was taken away from them because they were not-guilty. And if you argue that living a life in prison is better than being executed then you've just outlined why people advocate for a death penalty, since you are admitting it's a harsher form of punishment (not saying you did advocate, just extrapolating on a hypothetical counter-argument).

But to me this boils down to States' rights and forcing your opinion upon another person. I just think if States vote to allow the Death Penalty then my proposal set forth in a previous post should be the guide to ensure there are no wrongly executed individuals.

[valade16]

What's the point? What is society benefited from killing a guy that will never breathe free air again, either way?

Anyone that wants to use their religion to justify something in a secular society has already lost the argument.

I guess my counter question to the first one is: How is soceity benefitted by not killing someone who is 100% guilty and will never breathe free air again? Whether the man dies or not is completely irrelevant to societies well being so I see no reason why it shouldn't be left up to the states for their preference in that instance.

As to the religion bit, I agree with you. But I disagree with the idea that your morals are more valid than someone elses because theirs is founded in religion. What you are trying to do is force everyone in the country to follow your moral code, where it is derived from is irrelevant, it is still your personal morality.

That is how every law based on morality is determined, but the ones that are generally irrefutable are because everyone shares that same moral principle (i.e. rape is bad). Obviously regarding this issue there is not a strong majority that feels the action is either moral/immoral, so advocating others be forced to adhere to your moral standards is precisely why the States were made in the first place.