Death penalty - is it a national custom?

[Big War Bird]

Ever heard of life imprisonment?

He killed while in jail and pledges to do so again. Can you justify keeping this man alive. Anyone guarding him is in extreme danger (even more than usual) he has shown himself capable of escaping and willing to murder to do so. He is something more than a common murderer.

[Каие]

Here is a something to munch one.

Suppose you had a convicted murderer that has pledged he will kill again at the first opportunity. Incarcerate him you say? What if I told you all the murders this man committed were while he was escaping from custody.

The man is too dangerous to be kept alive. Oh and this is a real story that just happened in Atlanta. Somehow this man that killed a judge, a federal agent and couple other peolple was not given the DP thanks to a hung sentencing jury.

He killed while in jail and pledges to do so again. Can you justify keeping this man alive. Anyone guarding him is in extreme danger (even more than usual) he has shown himself capable of escaping and willing to murder to do so. He is something more than a common murderer.

How can he kill while in jail?

[Big War Bird]

How can he kill while in jail?

Yes he was under guard in a courthouse, assualted his guard, stole her gun and went and killed the judge that was trying him for rape and kidnapping (I think) and then in escaping the courthouse killed a few other people. He managed to escape for a day or two.

While awaiting trial he plotted another escape with outside help and was planning to kill to accomplish that.

He is one bad mother effer.

[Каие]

Yes he was under guard in a courthouse, assualted his guard, stole her gun and went and killed the judge that was trying him for rape and kidnapping (I think) and then in escaping the courthouse killed a few other people. He managed to escape for a day or two.

While awaiting trial he plotted another escape with outside help and was planning to kill to accomplish that.

That is not a failure of the justice system, but a failure of secuirity measures. If he was in the courthouse it doesn't matter whether it was the death penalty or life imprisonment this occurred during the trial, no?

[Gelgoog]

there is no deterrent effect in the death penalty.

its overly expensive because of the large amount of appeals guarenteed to the inmate. We want to be sure we are not executing someone innocent.

Those being executed are not someone who stole a car. They are people who committed the most horrible of crime and usually show no remorse, its a sentence saved for the worst of the worst. Such as someone who abducts several children and proceeds to rape and murder them.

A large amount of death row inmates have the sentences commuted to life imprisonment, not that many actually are exectuted.

this has been a public service announcement, please return to beating the dead horse

[Mangalore]

...
its overly expensive because of the large amount of appeals guarenteed to the inmate. We want to be sure we are not executing someone innocent...

The pervert thing is that studies in the US have shown that there is still a high rate of doubtful convictions in trials that ended with the death penalty. I think I remember that up to 20% of people on death row ended up there not because of proof of their guilt but because of a botched trial where the jury ended up convicting them anyway despite flimsy evidence, flaws in the investigations which should have actually busted the case instead of bringing someone into prison.

[Gelgoog]

The pervert thing is that studies in the US have shown that there is still a high rate of doubtful convictions in trials that ended with the death penalty. I think I remember that up to 20% of people on death row ended up there not because of proof of their guilt but because of a botched trial where the jury ended up convicting them anyway despite flimsy evidence, flaws in the investigations which should have actually busted the case instead of bringing someone into prison.

which is why we have such a long appeal process, and alot of those people have their sentence commuted. Alot of those cases also involve people who've been there before DNA testing and are often looked at by non profit groups.

[Big War Bird]

Right, is he too dangerous to be allowed to live?

[Каие]

Right, is he too dangerous to be allowed to live?

If secuirity was conducted properly, no.

[Viking Prince]

So where is the Botony Bay alternative for redemption. To keep alive in prison for life is in what way more civilized than execution when society deems the criminal beyond the pale and beyond redemption within the confines of a prison? I fail to see how the civilized argument works here?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

So where is the Botony Bay alternative for redemption. To keep alive in prison for life is in what way more civilized than execution when society deems the criminal beyond the pale and beyond redemption within the confines of a prison? I fail to see how the civilized argument works here?

Killing someone isn't civilized anymore, even if it's pursued by the state. The state should grant your basic right to live, not take it, lol.

Why should cost matter either way?

Well, by your measures, it matters. Someone's not useful to society? Does he cause too much trouble? Alright, let's kill him!

I just don't understand why don't you apply the lex talionis in other cases as well.

Did someone steal from me? Let's cut his hand! Libelled me? I have the right to libel him back in front of the public!

Raped my child? Let's rape his child in return!

[Sidmen]

I just don't understand why don't you apply the lex talionis in other cases as well.

Because we aren't applying it in any event. It isn't a simple Kill = be killed. The average sentence for a murder is 30 years imprisonment.

The death penalty is for exceptional cases where the jury (or judge) determine that the offender is an imminent threat to society and anyone hes around. Essentially meaning that the jury (or judge, depending on the court) believes that if the offender is given the opportunity to, he will offend again. Serial rapists, those who have committed 20-30 acts of rape and have been in jail several times for it would be a great example. It is beyond certain that he will rape again, so there is no reason to keep him alive.

Jail, in my view, should be only about deterrence and rehabilitation. When you can't deter or rehabilitate someone, then thats when the death penalty comes in.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

When you can't deter or rehabilitate someone, then thats when the death penalty comes in.

When you fail to deter or rehabilitate someone, then thats when the barbarism and stupidity comes in.

[Sidmen]

When you fail to deter or rehabilitate someone, then thats when the lack of thinking (death penalty) comes in.

Not everyone can be rehabilitated, and its damn sure that not everyone can be deterred. These are facts. Otherwise life imprisonment would never be used.

I don't believe in justice being used as a punishment, which is what life imprisonment is, its only goal should be to rehabilitate people who have committed crimes, and deter people from committing future crimes. If those 2 things can't happen, then kill the person and move on, he will never rejoin society.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Not everyone can be rehabilitated, and its damn sure that not everyone can be deterred. These are facts. Otherwise life imprisonment would never be used.

I don't believe in justice being used as a punishment, which is what life imprisonment is, its only goal should be to rehabilitate people who have committed crimes, and deter people from committing future crimes. If those 2 things can't happen, then kill the person and move on, he will never rejoin society.

How can you be so sure, that someone can't be rehabilitated, if you didn't take all the measures to rehabilitate him and simply exterminate him? This just indicates the lack of efforts of the justice system or the ineffectivity of the prison system. Putting a serial rapist in a penal settlement where he is obliged to do jobs for the rest of his life is still more humane (and more rational btw), than taking his life.

No man can decide whether someone is allowed to live or not. No man can play God.

[seal]

I thought the poll was interesting. People in countries that have the death penalty support it, and people in countries that have abolished it don't support. However, per OP's original question:

I just don't understand how can a democratic, liberal, modern, human-rights-loving country like the USA still apply capital punishment, the same capital punishment which is applied by China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other, not-so-democratic, not-so blah blah countries.

The US is a democracy in which the majority of its citizens are in favor of this extreme penalty. Majority rule is a from time to time.

The biggest moral complaint I hear about the death penalty is that killing a killer is wrong. However, there's a problem with the logic there. Murder and killing are two fundamentally different things.

No man can decide whether someone is allowed to live or not. No man can play God.

Why not? It happens everyday. The state has dictated a punishment for a crime, that is supported by its citizens. It isn't even a matter of justice, because a serial murderer cannot be killed six times. The death penalty is purely a bureaucratic institution.

The best argument, in my opinion, against the death penalty is in its associated costs. However, as long as the people are willing to carry the economic burden, the institution should remain.

[Sidmen]

Putting a serial rapist in a penal settlement where he is obliged to do jobs for the rest of his life is still more humane (and more rational btw), than taking his life.

Never going to happen. Not since Australia has there been penal colonies in the modern world; and exiling people to a prison island to take care of themselves is not an option anymore. Tho I'd be more than happy to have them.

How can you be so sure, that someone can't be rehabilitated, if you didn't take all the measures to rehabilitate him and simply exterminate him?

It would have already been decided that he was not capable of being rehabilitated; otherwise he wouldn't be in for life. Till we can effectively and permanently change someone's personality there will always be unchangeable/dissuadeable people. To think otherwise is silly.

No man can decide whether someone is allowed to live or not. No man can play God.

In spite of your noble sentiment, every time a murderer kills someone, every time a solder kills someone, every time someone is executed - that call is being made. Man can both create and destroy life as he sees fit; and eventually we will be able to make it in any form we wish.

[magpie]

I tend to waver on this issue, It depends on how horrific the crime or series of crimes commited by the individual.
Maybe some brain surgury would be in order for the worst cases.
You don't kill them just take away their motivation/
magpie.

[Soulghast]

Completely and utterly against. Voted for the last option.

I agree with most of the arguments put up against it. I do not know if it is a national custom, and I seriously do not care. It's inhumane, plus the fact that in my opinion no killing is ever justified. Yes, sometimes it is necessary to kill for our own survival, but that does not make it right in anyway. A state sanctioned killing is not only not necessary, but it is also incredibly wrong, and frankly, ironic when it kills someone for killing.

[KaerMorhen]

Abolishing death penalty is cowardly and hypocratic - the way PC loves it