The Death Penalty.

Sarah - posted on 06/21/2010 ( 68 moms have responded )

5,465

31

331

Are you for or against the death penalty and why?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

LaCi - posted on 06/21/2010

3,361

3

171

A girl and her boyfriend are really into rough sex, like REALLY rough sex. So they go at it one night and the girl heads home, on the way home she's beaten to death and thrown in a dumpster. All evidence will point at the boyfriend because there will likely be some signs of sexual trauma as well as his semen. It's DNA evidence, we can prove its his sperm, but it doesn't mean he did it. No way do we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in all cases just because there is DNA. Maybe she's just into one night stands, so no one even knows she hooked up with this guy and he's condemned based on a one night stand.... No. I disagree. DNA doesn't necessarily confirm a crime.

Sara - posted on 06/21/2010

9,313

50

584

I'm against it. I say that you can't put someone to death for a crime that they may have been falsely convicted of. Until our system is fool-proof and innocent people aren't charged and convicted, then I can't agree with it.



I agree that these people have taken away someone else's rights, so why do we care so much about theirs? Probably for the same reason that I don't agree with torture. I think our society is best reflected in how we treat the lowest among us, whether that be murders or war criminals. I'm not saying people shouldn't pay for what they've done, but I don't think killing someone who killed someone to show that killing is wrong is really doing the trick.

Jackie - posted on 06/23/2010

1,415

44

71

I am totally for the death penalty. In fact, I think that they should use good ole sparky more often becuase I can't imagine a worse way to die.

I'm only speaking for the people that kill children and the defenseless. No, wait, I think pedophiles should ride the lightening too, whether they killed the person or not!

Sounds harsh, I know but prison is a cake walk for people like that. People become intitutionalized when they've been in prison long enough. What that means to me is that is their way of life and they become accustomed to it. They're ok with lifting weights, hanging out in the rec yard bullshitting with the other low - life scum bags that have murdered women and children, 3 hots and a cot. No responsibilities other than MAYBE folding some laundry. Pffft! Whatever, let em fry.

Johnny - posted on 06/22/2010

8,686

26

318

Well, for starters we could legalize soft drugs. That would free up oodles of room in prisons.

I just can not understand the mentality that leads people to think that killing anyone is okay. Execution sounds so "legal" but really, it is simply murder by the state. We debase ourselves in every way by seeking vengeance through murder.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

68 Comments

View replies by

Andrea - posted on 07/09/2010

294

7

29

I don't think anyone has the right to say who lives your dies. That about sums it up I could right a book on this subject. I used to get in some pretty heated debated with other students on ths subject when I was in school for criminal Justice.

[deleted account]

im against, as im am 100% prolife in all matters.. death penalty is a hard thing to contemplate.. now, i have two children.. if they were raped and or murdered.. that would be very hard for me not to want that person dead.. i will admit.. makes me angry just thinking about it.. but as i am Catholic and prolife, its not acceptable.. say or think what you will.. but i've thought about it a lot and i know its different than God forbid it ever happened.. but my faith will have to get me through.. as much as it pains me i would prob be the one standing up in court saying you cannot kill this person bc of what happened.. ughh again sickens me lol.. but thats the way i think

[deleted account]

There can never be a guarantee that innocent people don't get executed and there is also no guarantee that the executed will have a painless death.

The whole trial and appeals process that attempts to make it look fair is getting ridiculous in the USA. There's decades worth of appeals for most death row inmates these days. In less open jurisdictions such as China and the Muslim countries, it's obvious there's only a half assed attempt at fairness.

I don't think justice should be about revenge and a Texas jury has no divine authority to decide who should live and who should die.

The only advantage I can see is that it keeps other sentences long for other types of murder and violent crimes. Most Americans are terrified that abolition of the death penalty will result in the pithy sentences that criminals get in Europe.

Isobel - posted on 06/24/2010

9,849

0

282

I say death penalty for mass murderers, and freedom for people in jail on drug charges (well...HEAVY jail time for selling drugs to minors). Problem solved. :)

Rosie - posted on 06/24/2010

8,657

30

315

true, didn't think of that one! :) i just can't get over letting someone who killed my child (hypothetically) live, get 3 squares a day, and cable, and weighbenches while my baby has maggots eating his body. to be able to live, and to fantasise over and over again about what they did to my baby.
i don't get the rationale that some against the death penalty use. they say that sitting in jail is more tortcherous (sp?), and horrible than killing them, yet in the next breathe they say those who favor the death penalty are hypocrtical for legislating immoral actions with another immoral action. what's important to me is that the offender never gets another chance to kill again, he has that chance all throughout his jail sentence, and if he's there for the rest of his life there is no stopping him from killing again.

LaCi - posted on 06/23/2010

3,361

3

171

To kill an innocent man in the and call it justice is by far worse than a typical murder, in my opinion. It's not a matter of the value of the individuals life, it's a matter of principle.



Additionally, if you've got an innocent man and still convict him and sentence him to death that would mean the real killer is still on the loose and can kill again (given that this is a killing scenario) So either way you have a killer on the loose and potential murders after the fact, in only one situation do you have a man being killed unjustly in the guise of punishment.



I know these things do happen, but they shouldn't. Youll never prevent a guilty man from going free now and then but you can prevent an innocent man from being wrongly setenced to death.

Rosie - posted on 06/23/2010

8,657

30

315

i'm saying that guilty man who is let go has the opportunity to kill another person (and many have). is the innocent mans life more important, than the killers next victim? basically i'm just pointing out that the argument that we could possibly kill an innocent person, while tragic, is just a part of our justice system. as is a guilty man who is let off to kill again. both situations suck, but both are a part of the justice system.

Jenny - posted on 06/23/2010

4,426

16

126

For me, I would limit it to known dangerous, aggressive, repeat offenders. After a thourough amount of time spent researching them. I'm talking preople like Gacy, Dahmer and Canada's Pickton and Olsen. The truly fucked up, keep heads in the freezer, wear skin, eat little boys kinda people.

LaCi - posted on 06/23/2010

3,361

3

171

"which is worse? is that person's life that the offender killed after being let off, not as valuable as the falsely executed man?"

If what you are asking is if I would rather see a guilty man walk or an innocent man be executed, I'd rather se a guilty man walk.

LaCi - posted on 06/23/2010

3,361

3

171

But it's not her boyfriend, it's some guy she met in a bar. Could just be a nutcase, people are into rape and murder with no defined motive. Just sayin'

Rosie - posted on 06/23/2010

8,657

30

315

so, this is going to sound bad to some, but for as many people that are falsely imprisoned that are executed, there's probably twice as many that were found innocent when they actually did kill someone, and some of those probably killed again. which is worse? is that person's life that the offender killed after being let off, not as valuable as the falsely executed man? sure, in a perfect world neither of these situations would happen, but our justice system is flawed. if you're alright with one, you should be alright with the other, IMO.

Jackie - posted on 06/23/2010

1,415

44

71

@ Laci - To add to the rough sex senario, one of the things that they will try to look for in the boyfriend is a motive. The would have to come up wih some sort of reason that he killed her. OK, not HAVE TO but a good detective would try to.

LaCi - posted on 06/23/2010

3,361

3

171

Trust me, there are plenty of people who get mega rough on one night stands. Safe words don't really do you much good when you can't breathe anyhow.

Let nonviolent drug offenders go, and half (or more) of the US prison population is free. Also, prisons are privatized and theres HUGE amounts of money to be made off prisons-another reason we have so many people lobbying against marijuana legalization. Prisons should be government run in all cases, no private ownership. cheaper.

Nicole - posted on 06/22/2010

64

2

1

my mother always used to say they should bring back the death penalty,i never agreed as there are some cases where they are inocent,but the way the world is going im not too sure half of me says yes but the other half thinks that death penalty is the easy way out for them i say jail is too good to them bring back the water and bread and concrete cells 24 hour lock down no jobs for money,id rather see them being tortured every day of there lives rather than die easily by injection,thats teaches them nothing.

Jessica - posted on 06/22/2010

626

26

28

lol so legalize soft drugs..and then maybe that person will get so f*cked up that they go kill someone...it could happen. And again, for the really horrible crimes that I think the death penalty should be for ( and i do mean the worst), those aren't people...and if they are, they are sorry excuses for humans.

[deleted account]

Most certainly for. I live in New Zealand and our laws are pitiful. People are not punished enough so they do not fear prison or any other form of punishment. Having the death penalty will make people think twice. Though that being said, just because the penalty is there, doesn't have to be used left right and center. Should only be used when necessary. Then again, I believe that if you kill a person, you should die. Though people always say, "That will never bring them back," which is true, but it is the least that could be done. Justice is cruel when it needs to be.

[deleted account]

So Lea, are you saying we kill people because we've run out of room? If that's what you mean, I have to say that in my opinion, that is absolutely appalling!

Lea - posted on 06/22/2010

540

11

21

Heres a question for you: so lets say we don't execute anyone. What happens when we run out of space for all these people? They already let people out for this reason. There are so many dangerous repeat offenders out there that need to be in there. I'm sure there has to be some kind of criteria to allow for execution.

Johnny - posted on 06/22/2010

8,686

26

318

I think the point is that no matter how hard the police work, how careful the judge, jury, lawyers, etc. are, jurisprudence is often complicated and unclear. The guilty sometimes go free on technicalities when the evidence is clear that they did it and the innocent are sometimes convicted by what appears to be clear cut evidence pointing to them. It amazes me that people are willing to gamble with killing an innocent person.

Caitlin - posted on 06/22/2010

1,915

5

171

From what i've heard, if she's into kinky sex and strangulation, people don't do that with one night stands, because you need to know your partner well to do that safely with safe words and knowing the other persons comfort level and everything, it would be highly improbable if that were the story the guy gives out, and a very stupid woman.

LaCi - posted on 06/22/2010

3,361

3

171

The strangulations subsequent bruises wouldn't have been consistent with killing, although it would have been consistent with a rapist subduing his victim.



Second part of the first scenario I noted she may have picked up a guy in a bar, she's into one night stands.



No pubes, girl was well waxed. Head hair was pulled up in a tight bun.





So you have a girl leaving a bar with a strange man, evidence their may have been a rape, and a body with blunt force trauma to the head. No murder weapon, no witnesses.

Jessica - posted on 06/22/2010

345

39

51

The guy she slept with but if she was beaten in the head that means that the strangulation didn't kill her and unless they can prove that he beat her in the head ie, finding the murder weapon then they couldn't prove that he killed her. Also there is always proof when sex is involved (unless of course you want to make sure there is none). So I'm pretty sure there would have been a hair or something of hers around because you mentioned in the original senario that it was her boyfriend so I'm pretty sure there would be plenty of evidence supporting that. After discovering the boy friend then the real work starts, they have to prove it. Your turn.

LaCi - posted on 06/22/2010

3,361

3

171

we'll say beaten in the head with an inanimate object. It's frigid cold, the killer was bundled. Probably wearing some run of the mill leather or vinyl gloves, vinyl coat, some type of hat. It's about 4 am, no witnesses, guy has no alibi, there's no biological evidence to support the fact that they had sex at his apartment, maybe they had sex standing, clothes on spur of the moment. Guys semen is found, there is vaginal trauma, and lets say just for the hell of it the girl is into strangulation so her neck is somewhat bruised and the length of said bruising is consistent with guys hands. Surveillance at the bar they met in shows she did leave with this guy, and the next day girl is found with her skull beaten in. Who's the prime suspect?

Jessica - posted on 06/22/2010

345

39

51

There may not be a plethora of evidence but if she was beaten to death there would clues there. If he used his hands and the boyfriends hands where clean and unbruised then obviously it wasn't him. I'm not naive, I know that life isn't a tv show and honestly it would be nice that if you could produce rock solid evidence we didn't have to worry about the jury.
I think the jury works sometimes and others they fail miserably. I think if you can produce enough hard evidence to a judge that the jury shouldn't be consulted. Why waste everybodies time and money if there is undeniable proof.

In case no one could tell I have no tolerance for criminals. My husband always tells me I could never be a cop, I wouldn't make it past day one w/out shooting someone.

LaCi - posted on 06/22/2010

3,361

3

171

"On the hypothetical question about the rough sex then murder. If all the detectives did was convict the boyfriend because they found his semen they are crappy detectives. There's always more than meets the eye and that's what they trained to find"

There isn't always a plethora of evidence to go on, reality isn't CSI. If we always had the evidence to convict someone we wouldn't have a need for juries, alibis, circumstantial evidence, witnesses, so on. We could prove everything with science, and to date we can not prove everything with science.

Jessica - posted on 06/22/2010

345

39

51

Someone mentioned that the lethal injection hurt, here it what the injection does... First they are given a very strong barbituate to knock them out, then they are given a drug to stop their breathing, then potassium chloride to stop their heart. It is formulated not to hurt so it can be more "humane". I hate to say this but when it comes to murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. my humanity goes right out the window.

On the hypothetical question about the rough sex then murder. If all the detectives did was convict the boyfriend because they found his semen they are crappy detectives. There's always more than meets the eye and that's what they trained to find.
I also don't agree with life in prison being worse than death. For one after your dead I don't have to pay for you punk ass anymore. Also, I think I would sleep a little better knowing that the monster that raped a little girl (stole her right out of her front yard) and left her on the side of the street naked was getting ready to be in hell where he belongs. This really happened in Broken Arrow, OK a couple of miles from my kids daycare.

Rosie - posted on 06/22/2010

8,657

30

315

i agree that we will never be able to be sure 100% of time with 100% of people. take scott peterson for instance. while he is sitting on death row, i am not convinced that he did it. i'm not convinced he didn't either, but i don't think he should be put to death. and for the people who are 100% guilty like the idiot with barrels of dead women all over his property, kill him and kill him fast. no appeals no nothing. i've heard somewhere it costs more to kill someone because of how many appeals and motions are filed.

LaCi - posted on 06/22/2010

3,361

3

171

WOW indiana killed twice the people that KY and TN did..combined! I'm shocked! so not what I expected.

ME - posted on 06/22/2010

2,978

18

190

http://jaysays.com/2010/06/texas-gop-off...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/

Here are a couple of things I found about the cost of the Death Penalty as opposed to the cost of life in prison (for anyone who thinks that the question of human life should be about the bottom line)...

I'm against the death penalty, but not because of $ amounts. It is NOT a deterrent, it makes no logical sense (ie, killing people to prove that killing people is wrong is just insane), and we get it wrong A LOT! IN IL we have a moratorium on the DP because we got it wrong SO often...that's just not ok with me.

LaCi - posted on 06/22/2010

3,361

3

171

All the technology in the world can't prove 100% guilt in 100% of the cases. I'm perfectly fine with my tax dollars paying for food and shelter for prisoners if it means a single innocent person may not die.

I really wish I could remember the author that changed my mind on the death penalty. I used to be very pro-death penalty until about a year ago. I can't remember his name though :(

Farrah - posted on 06/22/2010

46

7

10

I'm against it, I think it is wrong, two wrongs don't make a right. Besides prison could be a long time to think about what they have done and suffer.

Jessica - posted on 06/22/2010

626

26

28

I agree with Jen, I don't actually think that death penalty is or would be an actual deterrent, but I don't think thats the point either.

[deleted account]

I think these people need to pay for their crimes.
I'm not sure about the death penalty, don't like it.
BUT as a tax payer i don't really want to pay for these people to get 3 meals a day for the rest of their lives.

Jessica - posted on 06/21/2010

626

26

28

Life in prison is no guarentee that they won't get the chance to hurt someone again, systems are to corrupt and these days there are to many people standing up for "criminals rights" as human rights...I'm sorry but people like that, are not human to me and lose those "rights".

[deleted account]

This is where I depart from most of my liberal views. I fully support the death penalty where there is no doubt at all of a person's guilt and the victims' families request it. A primal instinct in me is to allow a family a measure of vengeance for the death of a family member. I do not presume to say it is a deterrent to crime because I don't believe it does.



ETA: The death penalty is also a LOT kinder than what I would do to certain classes of criminals but like I said, I do hearken back to a bloodthirstier ancestry on occasion.

La - posted on 06/21/2010

0

0

62

I am for the death penalty. I think punishments should fit the crimes. They should have done to them what they did to others but ten times worse. I have no problem taking the life of a scumbag who has it coming to them. Our justice system is flawed and lets sick, violent people go free after minimal sentences all the time. You can't treat people "humanely" when they are dangerous animals. Sounds harsh but there must be a balance...they must pay for their choices.

Johnny - posted on 06/21/2010

8,686

26

318

And imprisoned for the rest of their days with no access to the outside world would also take away any chance to destroy another life. Why let them off?

Rosie - posted on 06/21/2010

8,657

30

315

i think there is definitely ways to prove 100% that someone killed another person. i see it all the time on crime shows like forensic files, or cold case files. i see case after case on these shows where even when DNA is not present, you know they did it. i find it very doubtful that murder victims drivers licenses and other personal belongings found on a person who had access to the murder victim, and their body is on their property in a 50 gallon drum, along with 5 or 6 other bodies in other 50 gallon drums, and more bodies in storage lockers of the offender. yeah, i'm 100% positive that that person killed those people.

Jessica - posted on 06/21/2010

626

26

28

Soil samples, bugs found on corpses, materials etc, forensic sciences have vastly matured.. I obviously dont know all the ins and outs, i'm just saying, while DNA of course would be a big thing, there are many other things as well.
As far as death being an easy way out for them, who cares, they are gone and will never have the chance to destroy another life..

Johnny - posted on 06/21/2010

8,686

26

318

I am totally against it. For many reasons, but the over-arching reason behind my opposition is that violence begets violence. I do not believe in the idea of an eye for an eye.



And also, for me, there is no acceptable number of innocents that we can allow to be murdered by the state. False convictions happen. You can release someone from jail, you can compensate them financially (although not psychologically, etc), but you can never un-murder them.



Besides, life in prison is a miserable punishment, death is an escape. I have no sympathy for those who have committed terrible crimes, and no interest in releasing them from paying their toll. I am an agnostic and I do not believe in the concept of a sentient after-life, so to me, they are getting off easy. Their judgment is cut short. And I do not see death as some terrible thing, there are often situations where death is better than life.

[deleted account]

I'm strongly against the death penalty, but not because I'm terribly concerned for the human rights of those who have committed terrible crimes, but because of the effect the power to decide who will die will have on the person/system who has that power.
And, of course, the issue about absolute guilt - can it ever be proven without a shadow of doubt?

LaCi - posted on 06/21/2010

3,361

3

171

No you were talking about something NEW. " there was not the same kind of technology and ways to prove guilt as there are now. Now we can prove without a shadow of a doubt that someone raped, murdered, etc and so yes, I think those people should be put to death, and no, I don't care if the shot hurts, they didn't care who they were hurting and destroying. They are a waste of skin."

So what new skill do we have that suddenly eliminates all doubt?

Caitlin - posted on 06/21/2010

1,915

5

171

The laws up here are waaaay too lax (in canada). I hate that my tax dollars go to pay for these people to live, eat better meals than me sometimes, have the right to smoke inside even though it's banned anywhere else to smoke indoors (I'm not a smoker, but still). My husband works full time to afford to go to school full time so he can get his degree all the while raising 2 kids and I'm also a student trying to get my degree but these guys can sit on their butts in prison and get their degree for free (well, I pay for it technically). Some people have been known to go in for more petty crimes and re offend just to go back to prison, becasue the conditions in there are better than the way they live on the outside. That's no deterant! I could go on and on. It cost taxpayers over 100k a year to keep some incredibly violent offender who has several consecutive life sntences in solitary confinement so the other inmates don't kill him.. I wish I had 100k a year!



So yes, i'm for the death penalty...

Jessica - posted on 06/21/2010

626

26

28

Sorry, maybe I'm not reading it right but I'm not sure I get the question your asking...
What other forms of proof are there besides DNA? There are tons of things about a crime scene that can place the bad guy at a scene and prove guilt. And of course I do only think Capital Punishment should be used in cases where it's fairly apparent that human life means nothing to the person in question, the most horrible of crimes. I don't think it should be taken lightly, I just honestly think that there are some people in this world who shouldn't be.

LaCi - posted on 06/21/2010

3,361

3

171

alright What modern amazing evidence do you require an event to be proven before you pull a trigger?

Jessica - posted on 06/21/2010

626

26

28

Actually, I never said DNA, there are many many other ways to convict someone of a crime with 100% accuracy. And it's true, Canada has such a lax system for criminals, it's insane. Even with 100% proof of guilt sometimes the worst criminals still get to walk free because of technicalites- ie- wrong date written down on legal document, etc. Sounds unreal but it's true.

LaCi - posted on 06/21/2010

3,361

3

171

I haven't heard of such a case, I doubt you'd get a conviction overturned if they found your DNA regardless of all the possible circumstances. And most of the time I'm sure it's proof. There are just some situations I can concoct in my head that could so easily happen. It's all hypothetical, but its very possible.

Rosie - posted on 06/21/2010

8,657

30

315

i'm curious laci, has anybody that you can find or know of a particular case where DNA was there, and that person ever got released from prison? i have heard PLENTY of cases of peoples convictions being overturned when their DNA was tested and it wasn't before because of technology not being that advanced yet, but no cases where there conviction was overturned where their DNA placed them at the scene.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms