PUBLIC OPINION > The Death Penalty Is Necessary

what about serial killers or people like sadam that killed millons or kin jing ill etc. or the hitlers or stalins of the world.

It seems to me that it be a harsher punishment for them to be in prison for the rest of their lives without ever being free. The thing is that we do have people that have been imprisoned and executed that are not guilty. That's why I changed my mind about this.

There are punishments far worse than death.

When the death penalty applies to the elitist that destroy the world for their personal gain I will go a long with it. Until then state sponsored murder is lame.

Your response seems to be based on emotionality & not any great thought. Just my opinion, though.

No emotion just truth. Tired of seeing scumbag bankers and fat cats on wallstreet ripping people off then getting bailed out for bad behavior with the public's money. John Corzine should be on death row along with Bernie Madoff and other folks like them for robbing people. Anyone involved with the federal reserve and helped it continue its financial terrorism on America should be hung for treason. I could go on but I think you should get the point.

I don't care who's on death row, so there is no need for you to carry on your "Occupy" sissy rants. The issue we're discussing is should there BE death row, NOT who should be on it. Sheesh! You need to relax a little. Were you out yesterday rioting & destroying others' property with your anti-Wallstreet "friends"?

Truth hurts I see. If you didn't care you shouldn't have replied to me. Simple as that!

What "truth" did you tell me, honey? You're an emotional person, and your reactions to my posts prove it. Girlie men are a dime a dozen anymore. Don't let it get you down, though, because at least you're not in the minority. If I had some Kleenex, I'd give it to you (I wanted you to know I cared).

Truth hurts lady. I know. I use to be just like you. Naive and stupid.

See, I told you that you were a girlie man. I mean, when truth hurts you, it's getting bad, lol. Now, I think I've had enough of wasting my time with you. You're a cry baby, & we both know it. Now, get a pair & leave the women alone. ;-)

Bingo! Some people such as the dumbass above you don't get that fact. They rather ignore it and bash others that point it out.

My opinion on the death penalty changed when my daughter was born 23 years ago. Until then, I was pragmatic. I knew that upholding the death penalty all the way thru execution is more expensive to the taxpayer than keeping killers in jail all of their lives.

But as soon as I had my baby girl, I knew without hesitation that anyone who took her life should not have the right to continue to breathe. It's really that simple to me.

PROBABLY did..

Great answer!

As a parent, yes, for me it is.

Tell ya what. That 35% who think horrid criminals should live and stay in prison can now pay the costs of storing them and providing their care and feeding.

The rest of us will pay for a bullet.

Putting them to sleep like a pet animal is just too nice.

Hell, is it about that? Murders & such aren't exactly pets LOL. I don't really care "how", but there comes a point when it's time to "git er done".

Voluntary-- I can see where a libertarian might excuse someone connected with the victim for taking retribution in an open-and-shut case. But no libertarians in my personal orbit trust the _government_ with this power. I'd be interested to know how you square your pro-DP opinion with voluntarism.

http://www.lp.org/platform
maybe you should figure that out for yourself

I don't see where the LP address the death penalty on the site. Maybe it's just not prominent and I missed it. I am a libertarian, so I'm familiar with the philosophical lay of the land here. Anyway, was hoping you would elaborate on it a bit personally.

A mistake in the application of the death penalty is not something that can be remediated. So my objection is not that the death penalty is necessarily too severe a punishment for some heinous crimes, but that the penalty is simply too severe and final for government to apply it responsibly. Since the fundamental motivation in a fair legal system is avoid convicting the innocent at all costs, the government would have to have a provable 100% accuracy rate in capital cases--obviously, that will never be the reality.

There are so many instances of wrongful conviction that would seem impossible to trust the government with the power legally to kill people based on a conviction. It remains a mystery to me why anyone, especially a libertarian, would trust the government in this manner.

Best,
Forty

Oops, I should have said: ...punishing the innocent at all costs...

Well, not any great difference. To convict is always then to punish.

I'll give it a try, but doubt that it will be either thorough or perfect. I'll limit this to discussing murder.

While we're all skeptical of the legal process being in control of our Rulers, it generally results in a trial by jury of our "peers". I assume a death sentence requires (or should require) unanimous vote of that jury, and even then may be ignored by the judge. Finally the murderer ends up on death row, where he can make appeal after appeal, which often continues for many years and many appeals ad nauseum. Most of that is simply the games people play. In the absence of some showing of new evidence or bad faith by prosecutor or counsel, the decision of the trial stands. As D-Day arrives, so often there is yet another appeal to the Governor.

Meanwhile through all of the above, we People assume all the costs of storing, securing, entertaining, feeding, clothing, laundry, cost of trial and appeals, because rarely can criminals pay their own costs. It's a bundle, at $40k per year plus all the extras.

In almost all cases, they DID the Deed, are are entitled to none of that. Due process has been done, and it's time to cut off the tears. The criminal's victim is never restored.

Thanks for the reply, Voluntary. I see where you're coming from. Rather than reply laboriously, lemme just say that I think the primary weakness in the argument you present here is, from my point-of-view, the "almost all cases" part.

Okay, how many innocents have been put to death, over what time-span? I am aware of a very few.

Back in the days of the guillotine weren't the wrongs more real and much greater?

Do we give welfare to everyone because of a few?

Do we sacrifice thousands because one Ruler wants to War?

> I am aware of a very few.
I'd say that's a few too many.

I think reflecting on the days of the guillotine rather supports my own position. To steal from people and give some of the proceeds to others is wrongful coercion. To sacrifice lives in unjust wars is wrongful coercion.

In the same way, to punish an innocent person is wrongful coercion (to kill them wrongfully is literally unpardonable, and we need to avoid this at _all_costs_, even in multiples $40,000/yr). I would much rather avoid wrongful killing, than issue a few "wrongful" subsidies of 40K/yr to a few extra worthless scum.

Looks like we'll get nowhere with this. I can't afford the cold storage, but maybe you can.

Letting all the nonviolent pot-smokers out of prison would probably make up the difference with enough left over to give an Alcor "head job" (or a nice chest freezer, their option) to everybody who wants one. ;) Anyway, take care, man.

Agreed!

Statistically though, because we leave inmates on death row, and the court system has to deal with a long process to prevent wrongful execution, death sentences are actually more expensive than life sentences, and so millions of taxpayer dollars are used up every year in the U.S. to maintain the death penalty. Millions more than life in prison, anyways.

That is plain nonsense.

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

New Study Reveals Costs in Maryland: $186 Million for Five Executions

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.o...

See zionosphere's below (above?) response...

It adequately summarizes the truth. A fair death penalty system requires hundreds of millions, because so few actually get to the execution, and basically suffer through a life sentence -- BUT the government also has to waste EXTRA money on legal processing and such.

That makes no sense. If you eliminate the death penalty, you will still have to support those prisoners for life and those very same prisoners will continue to abuse the system with the appeal process to get out of jail or have their sentences reduced.

They are already being supported for life, and thanks to the inefficiency of the legal processes (and/or the fear of false convictions), we are paying even more. MUCH more.

You're right, it doesn't make sense. But it's true -- just look at the statistics.