PUBLIC OPINION > The Death Penalty Is Necessary
SodaHead News
2012/04/25 17:00:00
The death penalty is a complicated and controversial topic, evidenced by the fact that 16 states refuse to practice it, and more are struggling to decide. California is the latest state to challenge the death penalty, and they're taking an unusual route -- the ballot. California voters will actually get to decide whether or not to repeal the death penalty this year, and commute the sentences of more than 700 death row inmates. We took it to a broader audience first.
The death penalty is controversial, but the overall vote was still firmly in favor. Supporters just couldn't entertain the thought of letting a criminal guilty of horrible crimes have the luxury of hope, particularly in the case of heinous murders, aggravated rape, and the like. Some also argued that the death penalty is a deterrent. On the other side of the argument, there is the possibility of executing an innocent. The Top Opinion wrote, "Better that we should jail the scum for life than inadvertently put to death one innocent person."
Liberals Let Them Live
Politics play an obvious role, but the reason behind the distinction is less obvious. The fiscal elements seem incidental, and it's not your typical "family values" case, either. It does resemble anti-war sentiment in the sense that there is a strong opposition to the risk of innocent life. But liberals weren't as against it as conservatives were for it, hence the overall.
California for Capital Punishment
Though California has recently been a Democratic majority, it's still strongly in support of the death penalty. It could be that the volume of death row inmates worries residents enough to keep the practice in place. In New York, where the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional in 2004, support was much lower.
Against It Overseas
It's a hot issue in California right now, but the death penalty is a global issue. It's still practiced in China, India, Indonesia, and the U.S. -- the four most populous countries in the world -- but the UN General Assembly issued a moratorium, and it's been abolished in most of the world, including all of South America and Europe (except Belarus).
If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about the death penalty. We'd love to hear from you!
Top Opinion
-
holieberie 2012/04/25 18:51:56
+4Do you realize how much money it costs to keep these "murderer's" in prison? How much tax dollars it costs? These people who are put on death row are well aware of their actions. They chose to make those choices...taking another life, They deserve to feel that pain as well. And eye for an eye. If I could, I would have each one killed the same way they killed their victims. It would make people think a lot harder for their actions
The case begins in the Federal District Courts, which you're typically looking at another 2 or 3 year wait. Then you have the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal which will take even more time. You cannot use the same briefs in each following court either. It takes some time do the necessary research and write the brief. Each layer of appeals must also review the transcript of the case when it was in the lower court.
However this seems to be a lot about semantics. Whether you call them rights or governmental authority it "means" the same thing. We allow the government the authority to imprison people to help protect peoples whom have had their rights (limits on government authority) violated. I still stand by the argument that if murder is wrong, then so it stands that just because the state has the authority to commit it does not make it more right. It simply makes it state sanctioned murder.
I do know that I want states to have the choice to have or not have the death penalty as the state sees fit.
It's expensive. I'd like to see the costs for capital murder cases go down, but I don't know how that'd be possible.
However, the point is that I do agree with the death penalty in some cases & I believe it is good that we have it.
I just don't know that it is "necessary." I'm pretty sure that our nation wouldn't collapse were it not available any longer.
As for the ignorant "Top Opinion" regarding the costs I would encourage people to look into some of the facts that back their opinion before making statements. If they did we wouldn't have to waste time on stupid statements like "it costs more money to keep them alive than if we were to execute them". This is completely false with far too many examples of cost studies that have been performed by local, state, federal, private, not-for-profit, foundational and educational organizations to list refuting this ignorant belief.
I do not think the death penalty is in place because killing is "wrong." Personally, I believe there is a time & place where killing is not wrong.
However, the reason we have the death penalty in the US is because we feel that we need to eliminate the potential of certain individuals from ever mingling among the general population, procreating &/or us having to pay for the existence of a person who's committed certain heinous crimes, not to mention that it is also cruel to keep a human in a hole or a cage.
The cost you are referring to is the cost of the court & attorney fees.
As for the cost thing all I can say is that the court and attorney's fees are a lot of the cost I'm referring to yes, but the condemned get 14 years of appeals that are automatically triggered. Plus maximum security unlike any other inmates. Their handling costs are extreme. In addition it costs on average $1 million for a capital case so since when is that not relevant? when are the costs to try these cases not part of the equation? How about the 14 years of appeal? Like I said too many sources to list refuting the cost statement. Look it up; I'm not going to research a moot point for you.
All of the above is to refute the cost statement but the costs aren't the only reason, in fact they are the last one I'd cite. The moral and ethical issues as well as the unfair ethnic bias coupled with human errors and wrongful prosecution and you'd have to be an idiot to think we should be doing this with 100% certainty.
But I'm most curious about your "right" time to kill a person. Please do tell.
Well, I'm a little less politically correct than most of the members of this forum regarding that (& other) issue(s). I've traveled a bit & I've witnessed other cultures' ways of handling things.
Of course, I believe that it is always appropriate to use whatever force is necessary to stop someone from hurting one's child. A parent is a different breed of cat from a non-parent & when a child is being hurt (raped, beaten, etc.) I think that a parent's natural instincts kick in & all hell breaks loose on the perpetrator. That's just the way it is. The idea that he/she should be able to hold him/herself back, is simply not reasonable. Rationale about anything else but their child goes completely out the window. It's expected. It's natural. I cannot blame a parent for defending his/her child (in almost all cases). And it does not matter how old the child is... to a parent, that person will ALWAYS be his/her child.
I was in West Africa during an interesting time. There was a pervert who'd cornered a couple of young kids (boys & girls). The citizens of the commun...&
&&
&
&&&
&
&&&&&&
&&
&
&
Well, I'm a little less politically correct than most of the members of this forum regarding that (& other) issue(s). I've traveled a bit & I've witnessed other cultures' ways of handling things.
Of course, I believe that it is always appropriate to use whatever force is necessary to stop someone from hurting one's child. A parent is a different breed of cat from a non-parent & when a child is being hurt (raped, beaten, etc.) I think that a parent's natural instincts kick in & all hell breaks loose on the perpetrator. That's just the way it is. The idea that he/she should be able to hold him/herself back, is simply not reasonable. Rationale about anything else but their child goes completely out the window. It's expected. It's natural. I cannot blame a parent for defending his/her child (in almost all cases). And it does not matter how old the child is... to a parent, that person will ALWAYS be his/her child.
I was in West Africa during an interesting time. There was a pervert who'd cornered a couple of young kids (boys & girls). The citizens of the community just stoned him & beat him until he was dead.
Personally, I had no problem with that whatsoever.
When it comes to self-defense, I think that there are times when it's perfectly legitimate to protect yourself if you think the person is going to kill you. I do not think it's okay to kill someone in order to stop them from beating you up. I think you have to believe your very life is in danger.
I also believe in the defense of one's spouse & other family, sometimes friends as well. This all depends, of course, on circumstances & situations.
I believe in the defense of one's home against violent intruders (including governments in some cases ).
Now, regarding the state, when a person engages in serial raping, or performs a rape that is torturous or extreme, I think it's perfectly okay to remove that person from this planet... & I don't want to run into him one day on Mars.
The same goes for child molesters. I would have no problem with the bulk of those perverted Catholic priests going into one of those showers the Germans set up 70 years ago... no problem at all.
Frankly, in my opinion, there are creatures that are so deeply sick, so twisted in their heads that they need not be put through the torture of life in a box nor the torture of living inside their screwed-up minds. There is no effective rehabilitation & punishing an extremely ill person does no good either. There is no humanity in life-long punishment because the person is sick & the sickness causes them to be bad & the badness causes life in their community to be unsafe. Keeping them in a cage or a hole is inhumane. It's cruel. When I see a sick or injured animal, I kill it so that it isn't suffering. I feel the same when it comes to extreme cases of mental illness that have caused perversion in a person's mind. There is no getting "right" for that person. I do not feel sadness or regret about them dying. In my opinion, death is a relief, they are being set free from their torturous insanity. Anyone's who's ever lived on a farm has seen that there are sometimes animals that are just simply born bad. Sometimes, we have to protect the rest of the animals from them. Generally, we do so with a bullet.
Nature does some things we just don't understand sometimes & we can't fix. That's just the way it is.
Look, humans are just animals. We're breeding like bunnies, after all. It isn't as if every single life is "precious." I just do not believe in that concept. Yes, there are lives that are more valuable than other lives, in my opinion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with race, money or social class. But, in my opinion, there are times when killing is warranted.
Now, that being said, do I believe that everything I've seen over-seas is "right" or "correct" for use in American law? Naahhhhh. That's just silly. But, you asked about my personal views & I gave them to you. I think that American law is a completely different story. Law is difficult. That was the brilliance about the scene in West Africa. The community took care of the situation. There was no trial. There was no costly appeals process. There was no process that took months or years & no torturous prison sentence, no judges or attorneys to pay or pay off. The community simply took care of it, quickly & efficiently. The perpetrator was dead within an hour of the scene's beginning. He didn't suffer... long. What could the State do? Arrest the whole town? Punish everyone for taking care of their community? It was put in the paper & on the radio & that was the end of it. Maybe someone came from the government & shook his finger at them... but likely not.
I thought that it was just brilliant... efficient, affective & humane. Everyone felt better when it was over... safe, secure & at peace. The perpetrator included.
I do not think that the US should go back to those kinds of actions. Don't get me wrong... I'm not some loony-tune. But I sure did admire the way it was handled.
Consider the idea that Americans are told they are free, but don't actually understand freedom at all. Freedom is responsibility. When a person is free, truly free, he/she is completely responsible for him/herself. He/She can do what he/she likes, but has to be responsible for the consequences. He/She cannot sue someone because he/she tripped over the rug in a shop or restaurant. We in the US are very sheltered, coddled, nursed, if you will, through life. That's okay. There is something to be said about "civilizing" our society.
However, that being said, I do not believe that putting people in a cage for thirty or forty years is civil or humane or okay. I just don't. I don't want to pay for it. I don't want the person in the cage to ever have to sort out how to function in general society at the end of his/her sentence... I don't believe it can be done. It is not fair to anyone involved. It's torture... State sponsored/sanctioned torture that the taxpayer has to pay for. Even though the process for capital punishment is more expensive than non-capital punishment, I think that there are cases where capital punishment is a better option than life without parole ...for everyone involved in the situation. I am well aware of the cost differential between the two types of trial processes & would never argue that point. I don't know how to lower/decrease those expenses or the time it takes to get through the process (however, the time is sometimes a good thing because new evidence/technology is often found that releases an innocent person).
Our process has faults. Innocent people are often convicted. It's a real tragedy when that happens.
I don't know how to change that.
I don't know what the answers are to correct our system or our society.
However, yes, there are times when I believe killing is justified. In fact, I believe there are times when killing is not only warranted, but is down-right needed.
But that's just me. I know there are others who disagree vehemently. But those people & I fundamentally disagree on humanity's value in general.
I would say that rehabilitation is, indeed, possible for some actual murderers as well as for most killers. But I don't think it's true for all murders.
I agree with you... sometimes capital punishment is simply necessary.
The death penalty has a foundation in justice and it spares more innocent lives.
Anti death penalty arguments are either false or the pro death penalty arguments are stronger.
The majority populations of all countries may support the death penalty for some crimes (1).
Why? Justice.
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.
1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com...
2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com...
FOOTNOTE
1) US Death Penalty Support at 80%; World Support Remains High
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com...
Also, too many innocent people have been killed by this. Jail time would give criminal justice officials time to reconsider the evidence, so that less innocent people will be executed.
Too many of these low lifes extend their own with repeated appeals and such to get OUT of dying, while they had no remorse for those they killed.
So, flip that switch, plunge that needle. aim that rifle-get it done.
Also, it costs a fortune to put on a murder trial that is seeking the death penalty.
I believe it is cheaper and better to lock them up for life.
Also, I believe life in prison is a worse penalty than the escape of death.
Also groups that appose the death penalty should gain more political clout,and more media attention. So this way governors will then lean towards the logic and fair choice,abolishing the practice. If governors get less votes because they agree with capitol punishment they will soon be voted out of office.