The Death Penalty

Originally Posted by krylo

So now we're back to petty revenge? Point out to me in a law book where it says that the purpose of the judicial system is to get revenge for victims. I can point out a lot where it says that the purpose of the judicial system is to reform offenders and turn them into contributing members of society.

or justice as i would call it. you have to make people pay for their crimes, it just isn't right that a sadistic bastard would get off easy

Originally Posted by krylo

Point 1: In 2 years most of your forensic information will have degraded to the point where it will be totally useless in proving anything.

while it's true that such evidence generally degenerates over time, it very rarely hapens that quickly. it usually takes around 20-30 years or more

Originally Posted by krylo

Point 2: You can never prove anything 100% because there's always a chance that the forensic teams missed something. Something as small as a piece of hair or a certain kind of bug at the scene can lead to a totally different outcome after looking at all the evidence.

that's why we need to train them how to investigate a crime scene better. they usually don't miss anything though unless their hot on the trail of a suspect and in a hurry. but that just goes with aneed to reform law enforcement

Originally Posted by krylo

Point 3: That's 2 years that a murderer is left out on the street to kill people all that he likes. Regardless of if the suspect is him or not, you're not arresting anyone, so you certainly aren't arresting the right person.

a serial killer like that would likely be caught red handed long before those 2 years are up. at any rate i'd rather take that chance than see an innocent person arrested

Originally Posted by krylo

Point 4: If it were possible to prove every case 100% then we wouldn't be having the discussion of innocent people on death row.

it's not tht they can't, it's that they don't. cops often make assumptions and neglect to double check things when making arrests, which is usually how a false arrest happens

Originally Posted by krylo

Point 5: Not all cop cars have those cameras, only most. And they can be disconnected.

then they should, and cops who disconnect them should be fired. that's not to say it'll happen, but it should

[Krylo]

while it's true that such evidence generally degenerates over time, it very rarely hapens that quickly. it usually takes around 20-30 years or more

Guess again, most forsenic evidence needs to be collected and stored very carefully, especially genetic material, or it will degenerate to the point of uselessness. That's the real reason that forensics teams tend to hurry... that and someone walking past the crime scene can fuck stuff up by getting their genetic material in there (a piece of hair or whatever) that the team can find and misconstrue as having to do with the actual crime. They hurry because if they don't hurry their results become skewed.

that's why we need to train them how to investigate a crime scene better. they usually don't miss anything though unless their hot on the trail of a suspect and in a hurry. but that just goes with aneed to reform law enforcement

I could take some hair from a barbershop, kill someone and then drop a bunch of random people's hair around the crime scene, wear gloves while doing it, and, if the person I'm killing happens to scratch me, wash their hands off. The forensic team wouldn't know if it was me or someone at that barbershop. They'd probably presume some totally innocent person did it. Forensic evidence is not perfect. It's very very very good, but easy to foul up. If it takes a few days for them to find a body... then you have no idea whether people have been walking past it, getting their genetic material in it, whether that stick in it is because some local kids decided to play with it, or if it's something the killer did. You don't even know if the local kids are the killer because you have a bunch of evidence from a bunch of false sources flying around.

a serial killer like that would likely be caught red handed long before those 2 years are up. at any rate i'd rather take that chance than see an innocent person arrested

Maybe it's just me... but I think I'd rather spend a few years in prison than get killed by someone who the police didn't arrest because they couldn't make a 100% conclusive case. A better solution might be to just leave cases open even after someone has been convicted, and then continuing to investigate until they were absolutely sure that there's nothing they missed. This wouldn't be 100%, because that's just not possible. Remember that not only can a crime scene be contaminated, but that humans are falliable. A forensics investigator isn't a robot... and most aren't even as good as Grisham on CSI. They're going to fuck up from time to time.

it's not tht they can't, it's that they don't. cops often make assumptions and neglect to double check things when making arrests, which is usually how a false arrest happens

See above.

[GatoFiero]

The money argument: It costs the same amount of money to kill a convicted felon as it does to incarcerate a convicted felon for life. This argument is nullified.

Revenge argument: The death penalty brings closer to the families of victims. This is a true and valid argument.

Prevention argument: Studies show (as a side note these study use data collected over a span of 30 years to ensure accuracy) that the death penalty either has no preventative power or so little preventative power that it makes no difference. This is proven through use of comparing death penalty level crime rates in states with the death penalty to the rates in states without the death penalty. This is a valid argument with valid and well documented data to back it up.

The 2nd prevention argument: If the goal of the punishment is preventing that crime from ever happening again, then this can equally be accomplished by either the death penalty or life sentences.

The imperfection argument: The court system is not perfect and innocent people do get sent to jail. Innocent people have been sent to death row. In the words of one of my favorite authors when refering to death as punishment, "Think carefully about what your going to do, because what you do is done and it can't be undone."

Those are all the arguments I can think of off the top of my head. As a side note, I believe that being put in jail for you entire life is a fate worse than death. Death is fast and painless (by united states legal standards) whereas life imprisonment can last a very long time with the medical technology we have today. I also heard a good suggestion from my philosophy teacher that we could use life sentence prisoners as organ donors. They would receive human treatment and get the best medical care, and when someone needs a lung, it’s right there waiting, if someone needs a heart, same thing, it’s right there waiting.

Originally Posted by krylo

Guess again, most forsenic evidence needs to be collected and stored very carefully, especially genetic material, or it will degenerate to the point of uselessness. That's the real reason that forensics teams tend to hurry... that and someone walking past the crime scene can fuck stuff up by getting their genetic material in there (a piece of hair or whatever) that the team can find and misconstrue as having to do with the actual crime. They hurry because if they don't hurry their results become skewed.

forensics is more than just genetcs, genetics just puts you at the crime scene at one point or another. and it's true they have to hurry to the crime scene, but that's more to do with interference with evidence than degeneration of it.

Originally Posted by krylo

I could take some hair from a barbershop, kill someone and then drop a bunch of random people's hair around the crime scene, wear gloves while doing it, and, if the person I'm killing happens to scratch me, wash their hands off. The forensic team wouldn't know if it was me or someone at that barbershop. They'd probably presume some totally innocent person did it. Forensic evidence is not perfect. It's very very very good, but easy to foul up. If it takes a few days for them to find a body... then you have no idea whether people have been walking past it, getting their genetic material in it, whether that stick in it is because some local kids decided to play with it, or if it's something the killer did. You don't even know if the local kids are the killer because you have a bunch of evidence from a bunch of false sources flying around.

microscopic peaces of your clothing(containing oil from your skin, thus dna evidence) and skin wither and fall to the ground constantly. it's one of many reasons your clothes deterriorate over time. everything you do has a very minute influence on the invirnment around it. you just can't completelycover it up

Originally Posted by krylo

Maybe it's just me... but I think I'd rather spend a few years in prison than get killed by someone who the police didn't arrest because they couldn't make a 100% conclusive case. A better solution might be to just leave cases open even after someone has been convicted, and then continuing to investigate until they were absolutely sure that there's nothing they missed. This wouldn't be 100%, because that's just not possible. Remember that not only can a crime scene be contaminated, but that humans are falliable. A forensics investigator isn't a robot... and most aren't even as good as Grisham on CSI. They're going to fuck up from time to time.

that's where you and i differ. i think being falsely arrested is a fate worse than death. maybe it's dissent on my part, or maybe it's just because i absolutely hate being falsely accused. and i know it they can make mistakes, but they can check and recheck to make sure they don't just as well

[Devon Lake]

Anarchy_Balsac:

Honestly, you make no sense. If everyone were to be proven guilty before they got arrested, you'd actually need to hold a trial before you even make the arrest. Now, you can't hold a trial for someone who hasn't been arrested and charged with anything, therefore, no one would ever get arrested for anything, ever. As for "getting caught red handed", that certainly wouldn’t be 100% proof of guilt in most circumstances. Nearly any "getting caught red handed" scenario would more or less be circumstantial evidence and thus would not be proof of guilt. You may see me standing over someone stabbed to death with a bloody knife in my hand after following a trail of screams, but it could just as easily have been that I was pulling the knife out AFTER the murder to help. A cop would actually have to be a personal eye witness to any crime to charge anyone, and rarely is a murder committed right out in broad day light when a cop happens to be loitering around.

I mean, you act like when you're charged you’re guilty until proven innocent. What is it about merely being charged that is so damned wrong? It in no way is a claim that you have committed a crime; being charged is merely the opening of an investigation to determine whether you have committed a crime or not. To resist such an entirely necessary investigation, when there's probably cause and you're innocent anyway and thus have nothing to fear, is a complete and utter disregard for all civic virtue. Suck it up, it's your duty to society to go and watch yourself get declared innocent if your ever get charged for a crime you didn't commit.

As for "justice", justice isn't petty vengeance; it's doing the right thing. Wronging someone because they've wronged someone else isn't going to make the world any better of a place. It's entirely unconstructive, and frankly I wouldn't want to sacrifice my social productivity so that a few hate mongers can get their jollies killing convicts.

Imagine a scenario whereas a father is beating his son in retaliation for the child beating his brother (And this beating is entirely disproportionate to the previous one.). Imagine if I were to then beat the tar out of this fellow afterwards because I considered such a beating of a helpless child wrong. So, what have I accomplished in this circumstance? The father obviously thought he was justified in his child abuse, and it's pretty unlikely the bastard is going to think otherwise just because some "asshole" gave them a thrashing. What has happened is that he has been put in searing pain is probably pretty damned angry. Is making a person angry and miserable really so lofty an objective? Chances are he's just going to be made more unpleasant and stress out his family, friends, and coworkers with a viciously of grumpy mood. He may beat his kid even worse, now in intense anger, just out of spite for the beating he took, or probably try to get revenge back at me. And isn't that a just world?

Justice is supposed to cause LESS problems, not more.

[Mikorlias Zard]

Why would anyone prefer death to being falsely accused of something? Why would anyone prefer death to anything???

I am very, very much against the death penalty, and I'm glad I live in a country where it doesn't exist, namely the UK (England, though I'm part Welsh).

I don't believe in 'murderers' and 'innocents'. Everyone's a human being, some us have killed people, some haven't. A human being who has murdered someone has a life and family too. They aren't random non-humans placed on this world by a malevolent higher power for the sole purpose of causing as much death and pain of possible. They may well have done some really good things in their lives too, and may still do in the future. Of course, the court system is there to punish people for wrong-doings, not reward them for good-doings, one of societies flaws IMHO. It's so easy to brand someone as a 'murderer' and condemn them to whatever their fate may be, without taking into account the good that is inside them, all of the other things in their lives that don't involve killing and slaughtering. Some people may seem completely morally bankrupt, but they aren't. Everyone 'murderer' or 'innocent' has a mixture of good and evil inside them. A mixture of dark and hateful desires and benevolent and compassionate feelings towards their fellow men/women, different people just have different quantities of each. To kill someone is to kill both sides, and I personally feel that that is unacceptable.

Add to that the fact that capitol punishment is little more of a deterrent than life imprisonment, if at all, and that it provides no room for rehabilitation or reform (which is an aim of punishment) and is no better than any other type of killing (from a moral perspective) then I'm afraid that capitol punishment doesn't look too good in my mind.

Oh yeah, and the money arguement. Is capitol punishment cheaper than life imprisonment? I don't know. I don't have the economic figures. But I personally don't put my own money over the lives of human beings, and I don't see that the government should either. Hit men (or women) kill for money. Isn't the desire to use capitol punishment as it is 'cheaper' any different to that mentality?

Mikorlias Zard

[FunnyLooking]

<i think being falsely arrested is a fate worse than death>

Uhm... what? I don't understand this logic at all. If you're falsely arrested, you're still alive and can be proven innocent and be free in society. Maybe you mean falsely convicted?

<The money argument: It costs the same amount of money to kill a convicted felon as it does to incarcerate a convicted felon for life. This argument is nullified.>

All right, whoa. We need figures on this. No one, including myself, has given any reliable figures, and this is quantitative so it should be easy.

Anyway, we're (the people against death) aren't necessarily saying that these people don't deserve death, we don't believe it's productive.

<'murderer' or 'innocent' has a mixture of good and evil inside them. A mixture of dark and hateful desires and benevolent and compassionate feelings towards their fellow men/women>

But that point only goes so far. Hitler loved his step-niece very much (or one of his almost-relatives), but he's still Hitler. To murder someone, is a crime which deserves some severe consequences.

[Devon Lake]

But that point only goes so far. Hitler loved his step-niece very much (or one of his almost-relatives), but he's still Hitler. To murder someone, is a crime which deserves some severe consequences.

Well, Hitler's a pretty extreme example. Honestly, I don't see the harm going medeival/goblins in hell on his ass would do if it would provide even a HINT of deterence to those like him. When it comes to killers with death counts in the millions, the possibility of scaring them enough to spare a single life is reason enough to make examples out of them.

[Muffin Mage]

Here's a question for all you anti-death people:

Let's say that Billy steals $500 from George. He then goes out and spends that $500 on drugs, or deposits it in his Swiss bank account. If he were arrested, which would make more sense: incarcerating him for seven years, or fining him $500, or chopping his hand off?

[GatoFiero]

"We find no consistent evidence that the availability of capital punishment, the number of executions, the amount of television coverage they receive....is associated signigicantly with rates for total and different types of fellony murder. These findings are consistent with the vast majority of studies of capital punishment."

-Hans Zeisel, "The Deterent Effect of the Death Penalty: Fact and Faith," in The Death Penalty in America, 3d ed., ed. Hugo Adam Bedau (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 133

Average cost per execution in the U. S.: $2-3 million
Average cost per life incarceration in the US.: $1.9 million

-New York State Defenders Association (1982) Capital Losses: The Price of the Death Penalty for New York State, Albany, NY: author; Margot Garey (1985), "The Cost of Taking a Life: Dollars and Sense of the Death Penalty", University of California Davis Law Review 18: 1221-1273; Robert L. Spangenberg and Elizabeth Walsh (1989), "Capital Punishment of Life Imprisonment? Some Cost Considerations." Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 23:45-58; Richard C. Dieter (1992), Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty, Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center;