Airliners.net

I am personally in favor of the death penalty for the very worst of crimes. It needs to be something cold and premeditated. Not just a simple shooting of an ex-lover or shooting a cop in the heat of the moment. Its use should be rare and there must not be any doubt about the guilt of the defendant. Someone like Tiffany Cole is a prime candidate for capital punishment. She robbed and tortured an elderly couple and then buried them alive.

But I was appalled to hear that the state of Tennessee used the electric chair to to execute two inmates last month and earlier this month. Those two inmates requested it but I still find it repulsive. Upon furter research it seems Tennessee and Virginia are the only states to have actually used the electric chair in about the last twenty years. Several states still have them as options but have never been put back in service. An inmate in FL requested to be electrocuted but the state has thankfully said no. The electric chair is nothing more than a modernized burning at the stake and came into existence via a crazy dentist and the owner of an electric company (Edison) looking to ruin his competitor (Westinghouse). It should never been allowed but it most certainly has no place in modern society.

The states of Oklahoma and Mississippi are making plans to move to nitrogen asphyxiation as their primary method of capital punishment. This is what all states that have the death penalty should be required to use. It is completely painless, quick, and extremely easy to administer. All that is required is a sealed oxygen mask. Nitrogen is also easily obtainable vs the lethal injection drugs. And since all you need is the nitrogen canister and oxygen mask it could be administered almost anywhere. Maybe a nice setting outdoors or a comforting indoor environment. Most death row inmates go to their death willingly with no struggle. There really isn't any need for large amounts of restraints. The death penalty is a punishment but there is no need to make the condemned uncomfortable. I think these changes would be very well received by the public.

I get that many people don't support the death penalty at all and I'm not looking for a discussion on that. But why does it take states so long to adopt new procedures? And even if you are against capital punishment, wouldn't you want it to be as comfortable as possible?

No I don't want it to be comfortable. You think Ted Bundy's victims were smiling and comfortable when they died? I am sick of coddling people that hurt and kill others. You do the crime you accept the consequences.

NIKV69 wrote:

No I don't want it to be comfortable. You think Ted Bundy's victims were smiling and comfortable when they died? I am sick of coddling people that hurt and kill others. You do the crime you accept the consequences.

I understand what they did is horrible but we should not be going down to their level. Our Constitution requires no cruel punishment. I'm pretty sure that would include the potential of people being set on fire by the electric chair. A bullet to the back of the head would work very well for a quick and painless death. But it's messy and few people would want to do it.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I am personally in favor of the death penalty for the very worst of crimes. It needs to be something cold and premeditated. Its use should be rare and there must not be any doubt about the guilt of the defendant.

That is false, you can never be 100% sure, never. So if you are in favor of the death penalty, you automatically take for granted that some innocent people will be executed. If you don't want that, you are automatically against the death penalty.

TTailedTiger wrote:

But I was appalled to hear that the state of Tennessee used the electric chair to to execute two inmates last month and earlier this month.

Why is this a problem to you. My problem is that the state kills, doesn't do anything in prevention and that you cannot rectify mistakes. I don't care what the method is. It is all inhumane.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I get that many people don't support the death penalty at all and I'm not looking for a discussion on that.

You can't distinguish between those issues, they are automatically linked.

TTailedTiger wrote:

But why does it take states so long to adopt new procedures? And even if you are against capital punishment, wouldn't you want it to be as comfortable as possible?

No, I don't think so, certainly not if it is to comfort the people whom are in favor of this heinous punishment.

NIKV69 wrote:

No I don't want it to be comfortable. You think Ted Bundy's victims were smiling and comfortable when they died? I am sick of coddling people that hurt and kill others. You do the crime you accept the consequences.

eye for an eye makes everyone blind.

Dutchy wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I am personally in favor of the death penalty for the very worst of crimes. It needs to be something cold and premeditated. Its use should be rare and there must not be any doubt about the guilt of the defendant.

That is false, you can never be 100% sure, never. So if you are in favor of the death penalty, you automatically take for granted that some innocent people will be executed. If you don't want that, you are automatically against the death penalty.

TTailedTiger wrote:

But I was appalled to hear that the state of Tennessee used the electric chair to to execute two inmates last month and earlier this month.

Why is this a problem to you. My problem is that the state kills, doesn't do anything in prevention and that you cannot rectify mistakes. I don't care what the method is. It is all inhumane.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I get that many people don't support the death penalty at all and I'm not looking for a discussion on that.

You can't distinguish between those issues, they are automatically linked.

TTailedTiger wrote:

But why does it take states so long to adopt new procedures? And even if you are against capital punishment, wouldn't you want it to be as comfortable as possible?

No, I don't think so, certainly not if it is to comfort the people whom are in favor of this heinous punishment.

So you're telling me if the suspect was captured bludgeoning the victim on the homeowner's 4k video surveillance, their fingerprints are everywhere, and their DNA is all over the victim that you wouldn't convict them?

I am not in favor of the death penalty. In its place, however, I would expect a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The only thing that makes me waiver is if a person who is already serving a life sentence commits murder. I still don't believe that the death penalty is appropriate, but it's a tougher scenario for me. In that case, I would support some sort of solitary confinement without the possibility of the inmate coming into contact with people.

I would also support voluntary assisted suicide if an inmate serving a life sentence, after being thoroughly counseled, chooses.

TTailedTiger wrote:

So you're telling me if the suspect was captured bludgeoning the victim on the homeowner's 4k video surveillance, their fingerprints are everywhere, and their DNA is all over the victim that you wouldn't convict them?

If I were a judge I would convict him/her, but not the death penalty ( I am a believer in professional judges, not lay-judgement ). Point being, you can never ever be sure. I think some 25 people were put to death in the US whom were proven innocent at a later date. You said that only people whom were 100% certain that they did it and was pre-meditated and cold? What is cold anyway? Pre-meditated is a gray area, insanity is a gray area, probably cold is also a gray area. Like I said, it is the easy way out to say 100% sure and all the other safeguards. I am 100% sure that if you are in favor of the death penalty, you have to accept that in your name innocent might be executed, no safeguards will prevent that. In the end, any conviction will have a human factor in it and humans are per definition fallible. If you don't want that, you need to be honest with yourself and be against it (and besides that it doesn't serve any purpose).

Dutchy wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

So you're telling me if the suspect was captured bludgeoning the victim on the homeowner's 4k video surveillance, their fingerprints are everywhere, and their DNA is all over the victim that you wouldn't convict them?

If I were a judge I would convict him/her, but not the death penalty ( I am a believer in professional judges, not lay-judgement ). Point being, you can never ever be sure. I think some 25 people were put to death in the US whom were proven innocent at a later date. You said that only people whom were 100% certain that they did it and was pre-meditated and cold? What is cold anyway? Pre-meditated is a gray area, insanity is a gray area, probably cold is also a gray area. Like I said, it is the easy way out to say 100% sure and all the other safeguards. I am 100% sure that if you are in favor of the death penalty, you have to accept that in your name innocent might be executed, no safeguards will prevent that. In the end, any conviction will have a human factor in it and humans are per definition fallible. If you don't want that, you need to be honest with yourself and be against it (and besides that it doesn't serve any purpose).

If you are innocent then you had better pray that you get the death penalty. You are far more likely to be exonerated due to the amount of scrutiny they receive. You have endless appeals and receive much more attention. With life imprisonment you are pretty much thrown away and forgotten about. I'm not aware of any innocent people executed after 1978 when the death penalty is reinstated. And btw, the ultra liberal stafe of New York executed more people in its time than any other state by quite a large margin. I'm sure they fried a few innocent people since they executed them within months of the trial. So save it.

If I'm on a jury I'm not convicting anyone unless I am 100% sure they did. Any punishment is too much for an innocent person. I'm not sure why you think locking an innocent person up for life is so much better.

TTailedTiger wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

No I don't want it to be comfortable. You think Ted Bundy's victims were smiling and comfortable when they died? I am sick of coddling people that hurt and kill others. You do the crime you accept the consequences.

I understand what they did is horrible but we should not be going down to their level. Our Constitution requires no cruel punishment. I'm pretty sure that would include the potential of people being set on fire by the electric chair. A bullet to the back of the head would work very well for a quick and painless death. But it's messy and few people would want to do it.

I tend to agree, the state and more importantly, the citizens of the state are not a mob nor vigilantes. If the state is to take a life there must be strong process and protections in place. One never wants to freely grant the power of death to the state, especially with emotional people wanting to make the decision.

Dutchy wrote:

That is false, you can never be 100% sure, never. So if you are in favor of the death penalty, you automatically take for granted that some innocent people will be executed. If you don't want that, you are automatically against the death penalty.

I am supportive of the death penalty only at certain at times, when facts are known (not "proven"). I am not trying to convince you, just stating my position as I disagree with the blanket statement/justification you are attempting.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I'm not sure why you think locking an innocent person up for life is so much better.

Tugg

The standard for conviction is reasonable doubt, not no doubt whatever. There’s been controversy on the deterrent effect, but criminals must weigh the incentives and deterrents associated with their criminal behavior, so there must be some deterrence. If they didn’t act on the possible punishments, what would be one of the prime justifications for punishment—preventing crime.

By the way, the economically efficient criminal punishment would be rare convictions followed by extreme punishment. Involves low cost of policing and court, high deterrent effect.

GF

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The standard for conviction is reasonable doubt, not no doubt whatever.

And that is something I do disagree with for the death penalty.

Tugg

NIKV69 wrote:

No I don't want it to be comfortable. You think Ted Bundy's victims were smiling and comfortable when they died? I am sick of coddling people that hurt and kill others. You do the crime you accept the consequences.

Strangely so many of those "BEARING THE CONSEQUENCES" seem to have been convicted on faked or "misinterpreted" evidence.
How do you handle acquittal for the innocents that are now dead ?

TTailedTiger wrote:

If you are innocent then you had better pray that you get the death penalty. You are far more likely to be exonerated due to the amount of scrutiny they receive. You have endless appeals and receive much more attention. With life imprisonment you are pretty much thrown away and forgotten about. I'm not aware of any innocent people executed after 1978 when the death penalty is reinstated.

Sorry to bring it to you, but that is an American-centric position to take. I do think your justice system isn't the best in the world, if you may be so frankly. I think your statement is true for the American situation and I think it is quite sad and unacceptable.

TTailedTiger wrote:

And btw, the ultra liberal stafe of New York executed more people in its time than any other state by quite a large margin. I'm sure they fried a few innocent people since they executed them within months of the trial. So save it.

So? I am not from New York, not even from the states, so what is your point?

TTailedTiger wrote:

If I'm on a jury I'm not convicting anyone unless I am 100% sure they did.

I certainly hope so, you might be 100% sure, but all I am saying is that it still might not be the case.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Any punishment is too much for an innocent person. I'm not sure why you think locking an innocent person up for life is so much better.

Yes, duhh, but I do think that locking an innocent person up is much better than killing an innocent person, wouldn't you agree?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

By the way, the economically efficient criminal punishment would be rare convictions followed by extreme punishment. Involves low cost of policing and court, high deterrent effect.

do I have to understand your position as

"only those that are dumb enough to get caught will be punished,
but those fully over the top for their crime?"

Think about what that will do to a society. ( actually in the US you only have to look out the window.)
Successful criminals rise to presidency.

Tugger wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That is false, you can never be 100% sure, never. So if you are in favor of the death penalty, you automatically take for granted that some innocent people will be executed. If you don't want that, you are automatically against the death penalty.

I am supportive of the death penalty only at certain at times, when facts are known (not "proven"). I am not trying to convince you, just stating my position as I disagree with the blanket statement/justification you are attempting.

What justification? You are attempting to justify being in favor of the death penalty by saying only in the cases of 100% certainty, all I am saying you can never ever be certain, so if you want to race the bar that high, nobody will ever be convicted, thus in practice you are against the death penalty.

Dutchy wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That is false, you can never be 100% sure, never. So if you are in favor of the death penalty, you automatically take for granted that some innocent people will be executed. If you don't want that, you are automatically against the death penalty.

I am supportive of the death penalty only at certain at times, when facts are known (not "proven"). I am not trying to convince you, just stating my position as I disagree with the blanket statement/justification you are attempting.

What justification? You are attempting to justify being in favor of the death penalty by saying only in the cases of 100% certainty, all I am saying you can never ever be certain, so if you want to race the bar that high, nobody will ever be convicted, thus in practice you are against the death penalty.

Nope, not so. There are times when there are facts that are known and incontrovertible. In those times I am in support of the death penalty.

A big part of the reason why I am against it is the immense societal waste it can cause due to the length of time it takes in the USA and the repeated delays and automatic appeals etc. All at state cost, instead lock them up for life, let the criminal work it out for themselves if they need to.

Tugg

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The standard for conviction is reasonable doubt, not no doubt whatever.

True.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s been controversy on the deterrent effect, but criminals must weigh the incentives and deterrents associated with their criminal behavior, so there must be some deterrence. If they didn’t act on the possible punishments, what would be one of the prime justifications for punishment—preventing crime.

By the way, the economically efficient criminal punishment would be rare convictions followed by extreme punishment. Involves low cost of policing and court, high deterrent effect.

GF

> death penalty does not deter, that is proven.
> most murders aren't criminals, most murders know their victims, most are family matters, at least in The Netherlands. Don't know the statistics in the US
> justifications for punishment: retribution, preventing crime, correction of criminal behavior, not just preventing crime
> economically efficient criminal punishment --> not true, if you want deterrent then you need to raise the chance of being caught, not a more harsh punishment. It is proven that a jail sentence longer than five year is pointless.

Tugger wrote:

Nope, not so. There are times when there are facts that are known and incontrovertible. In those times I am in support of the death penalty.

You can never be certain what someone was thinking and sanity. That is only one aspect. You are only convincing yourself of a false fact. Let's put it to rest and agree to disagree about this.

Dutchy wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The standard for conviction is reasonable doubt, not no doubt whatever.

True.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s been controversy on the deterrent effect, but criminals must weigh the incentives and deterrents associated with their criminal behavior, so there must be some deterrence. If they didn’t act on the possible punishments, what would be one of the prime justifications for punishment—preventing crime.

By the way, the economically efficient criminal punishment would be rare convictions followed by extreme punishment. Involves low cost of policing and court, high deterrent effect.

GF

> death penalty does not deter, that is proven.
> most murders aren't criminals, most murders know their victims, most are family matters, at least in The Netherlands. Don't know the statistics in the US
> justifications for punishment: retribution, preventing crime, correction of criminal behavior, not just preventing crime
> economically efficient criminal punishment --> not true, if you want deterrent then you need to raise the chance of being caught, not a more harsh punishment. It is proven that a jail sentence longer than five year is pointless.

I invite you to read Gary Becker, Nobel economist

There was a tendency during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Anglo-Saxon countries, and even today in many Communist and under- developed countries, to punish those convicted of criminal offenses rather severely, at the same time that the probability of capture and conviction was set at rather low values.27A promising explanation of this tendency is that an increased probability of conviction obviously absorbs public and private resources in the form of more policemen, judges, juries, and so forth. Consequently, a "compensated" reduction in this probability obviously reduces expenditures on combatting crime, and, since the expected punishment is unchanged, there is no "obvious" offsetting increase in either the amount of damages or the cost of punishments. The result can easily be continuous political pressure to keep police and other expenditures relatively low and to compensate by meting out strong punishments to those convicted.

From,

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/259394

By increasing the probability of being caught,you are increasing societies costs of policing, convicting and punishing, in addition to the knock-on effects of losing an admittedly marginal productive person, societal costs of supporting his/her family, etc. It’s expensive to enforce the law in many ways.

80% of US murders are gang/drug related occurring in the inner cities.

GF

Dutchy wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Nope, not so. There are times when there are facts that are known and incontrovertible. In those times I am in support of the death penalty.

You can never be certain what someone was thinking and sanity. That is only one aspect. You are only convincing yourself of a false fact. Let's put it to rest and agree to disagree about this.

You don’t have to be certain, just “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the charged committed the capital crime. In most high profile murders in the US the facts meet that standard which is why they are convicted.

If you don’t think execution affects criminal behavior, you missed speaking to a late friend who worked for the US Marshall’s service. He had charge of a murderer who was in for life, committed a “contract” killing in prison. The US Attorney put the death sentence on the table. The man, a stone cold killer, folded and turned evidence. Knowing you will die changes behavior.

GF

Dutchy wrote:

That is false, you can never be 100% sure, never. So if you are in favor of the death penalty, you automatically take for granted that some innocent people will be executed. If you don't want that, you are automatically against the death penalty.

Are you telling me that if Dylan Roof is sentenced to death over the massacre he committed, you'd spare him because you're not 100% sure he did it? There are ways to be 100% sure and those usually involve DNA or being caught in the scene red-handed.

If circumstantial evidence is involved, that's where it gets fishy because you're relying on indirect leads that can never be 100% confirmed; in addition, if it's by a jury of your peers, race unfortunately always plays a role so you may be innocent and be found guilty or be guilty and set free.

For the record, I'm opposed to the death penalty, but for the very pro-life, Christian Americans it's already ingrained in their society so if we have to live with it, I say reserve it for those cases where the person openly admits to committing a murder or is caught redhanded at the scene of the crime. If it relies on circumstantial evidence, the bar has to be set high enough that a fair trial can take place and jurors don't acquit or convict based on perception alone.

I used to be pro-death penalty, but then I wasn't. I was morally against it, and against it because of the risk of killing innocent people.

Now I don't necessarily think its immoral to put down a lost cause. Honestly, there are tons of people that are a waste of flesh and society is way better off without them. I don't cheer any deaths, but I view the world as better, for example, when a gunman is shot dead by the police, 30 terrorists die in a drone strike, etc

BUT

Until we are 100% sure we aren't killing innocent people, I have to be against it, just like Dutchy says. Yeah, sometimes you have video surveillance, DNA evidence, eye witnesses, the murder weapon, and a confession. You know the person did it "beyond a reasonable doubt."

But there have been people that were on death row that have been proven innocent... They were also convicted "beyond an reasonable doubt!!!!!" This should NEVER happen but it does!!

There are errors in our system. We can't have permanent, non reversible actions. At least with life with no parole, there is a chance evidence can come out proving innocence and we can do the best we can to compensate

Maybe someone innocent will live for decades and die in prison and then be proven innocent. At least they had the time they were alive to be proven innocent after their conviction. We need to have a justice system, so we can't just jail no one since there is a tiny tiny tiny chance it was botched. The death penalty is irreversible

DeltaMD90 wrote:

I used to be pro-death penalty, but then I wasn't. I was morally against it, and against it because of the risk of killing innocent people.

Now I don't necessarily think its immoral to put down a lost cause. Honestly, there are tons of people that are a waste of flesh and society is way better off without them. I don't cheer any deaths, but I view the world as better, for example, when a gunman is shot dead by the police, 30 terrorists die in a drone strike, etc

BUT

Until we are 100% sure we aren't killing innocent people, I have to be against it, just like Dutchy says. Yeah, sometimes you have video surveillance, DNA evidence, eye witnesses, the murder weapon, and a confession. You know the person did it "beyond a reasonable doubt."

But there have been people that were on death row that have been proven innocent... They were also convicted "beyond an reasonable doubt!!!!!" This should NEVER happen but it does!!

There are errors in our system. We can't have permanent, non reversible actions. At least with life with no parole, there is a chance evidence can come out proving innocence and we can do the best we can to compensate

Maybe someone innocent will live for decades and die in prison and then be proven innocent. At least they had the time they were alive to be proven innocent after their conviction. We need to have a justice system, so we can't just jail no one since there is a tiny tiny tiny chance it was botched. The death penalty is irreversible

I agree that it should only be used if you are 100% sure the person committed the crime. And sometimes there are cases where there is no doubt. If there is any doubt then they should be found not guilty and set free. I think life in prison makes some juries lazy and just convict the person without putting much thought into it. Having the death penalty on the table will probably make them take their task seriously. I would much rather have a guilty person found not guilty and walking the streets than an innocent person executed or behind bars. There was no doubt that someone like John Wane Gacy murdered all of those boys. We are better off without him.

Real quick, seen a few people post this, probably splitting hairs, but we can never be 100% sure and we don't even need to be 100% sure. It's beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond ALL doubt. The latter rules out aliens beaming evidence into place or something, obviously an impossible and impractical burden of proof

But another point, I often see "ok, life in prison but when we are absolutely certain, then the death penalty." The thing is, all criminal convictions should be as certain as times we are absolutely certain... If we aren't, then we shouldn't convict that person!

But despite some evidence not quite lining up and not being beyond a reasonable doubt, we sometimes end up convicting an innocent person. It's always a possibility!

So we need to be against the death penalty. It's immoral until we can get rid of any possibility of wrongful convictions... Impossible

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Real quick, seen a few people post this, probably splitting hairs, but we can never be 100% sure and we don't even need to be 100% sure. It's beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond ALL doubt. The latter rules out aliens beaming evidence into place or something, obviously an impossible and impractical burden of proof

But another point, I often see "ok, life in prison but when we are absolutely certain, then the death penalty." The thing is, all criminal convictions should be as certain as times we are absolutely certain... If we aren't, then we shouldn't convict that person!

But despite some evidence not quite lining up and not being beyond a reasonable doubt, we sometimes end up convicting an innocent person. It's always a possibility!

So we need to be against the death penalty. It's immoral until we can get rid of any possibility of wrongful convictions... Impossible

All states have the death penalty. They allow their cops to use lethal force. The states who have "abolished" the death penalty are the biggest hypocrites. They allow a dumb cop to kill a person in a split second decision but won't allow 12 jury members to make that decision, multiple trials, state and federal court, and 20-30 years to make sure we got it right. No no, they say that's immoral. But bring on a scared cop who shoots at anything that moves. No problem. And we'll just give them a pass if they shoot an innocent person because they have such a tough job...

Any law, by definition, implies the State’s use of its monopoly on force. If in doubt, look up
Eric Garner. He was arrested for selling untaxed loose cigarettes, pretty minor stuff; except he’s denying government their take in drug pushing. Anyway, he resisted and died in police hands without a gun used.

Laws will kill you, regardless of their intent, seriousness or your intent. Government should be strictly limited in the range of acceptable laws.


GF

TTailedTiger wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Real quick, seen a few people post this, probably splitting hairs, but we can never be 100% sure and we don't even need to be 100% sure. It's beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond ALL doubt. The latter rules out aliens beaming evidence into place or something, obviously an impossible and impractical burden of proof

But another point, I often see "ok, life in prison but when we are absolutely certain, then the death penalty." The thing is, all criminal convictions should be as certain as times we are absolutely certain... If we aren't, then we shouldn't convict that person!

But despite some evidence not quite lining up and not being beyond a reasonable doubt, we sometimes end up convicting an innocent person. It's always a possibility!

So we need to be against the death penalty. It's immoral until we can get rid of any possibility of wrongful convictions... Impossible

All states have the death penalty. They allow their cops to use lethal force. The states who have "abolished" the death penalty are the biggest hypocrites. They allow a dumb cop to kill a person in a split second decision but won't allow 12 jury members to make that decision, multiple trials, state and federal court, and 20-30 years to make sure we got it right. No no, they say that's immoral. But bring on a scared cop who shoots at anything that moves. No problem. And we'll just give them a pass if they shoot an innocent person because they have such a tough job...

We can talk about police SOPs and ROE, and we can debate the rate of police shootings and how to lower them......

But come on, it's pretty dishonest to conflate a police officer's legitimate use of lethal force in self defense and having a suspect in custody and whether we should give them the death penalty. I'm not sure if I misunderstood your post or not

By that logic, should all the other countries around the world that have banned the death penalty reinstate it since their armed officers are able to shoot/kill in self defense (being the judge, jury, and executioner?)

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

criminals must weigh the incentives and deterrents associated with their criminal behavior

Very few criminals weigh incentives and deterrents in the rational manner you are implying. I am opposed to the death penalty simply because it wastes enormous sums of the state's money fighting inevitable appeals; it is welfare for lawyers. Incarceration is much cheaper. I don't see the death penalty as a deterrent anyway; if anybody is doing any weighing of "incentives and deterrents" when they are committing murder, they are just calculating whether or not they will get caught, if they even do that.

If someone kills on prison, there are penamax type institutions for them where prisoners are kept in cells 23 1/2 hours a day and only let out to a yard by themselves. There are you tube videos of prison conditions if anybody is interested; nobody is "coddled".

I have a problem with the way prisons are run in the US, it's as if we don't realize that most of them are going to be let out someday; but that's another subject.

DeltaMD90 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Real quick, seen a few people post this, probably splitting hairs, but we can never be 100% sure and we don't even need to be 100% sure. It's beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond ALL doubt. The latter rules out aliens beaming evidence into place or something, obviously an impossible and impractical burden of proof

But another point, I often see "ok, life in prison but when we are absolutely certain, then the death penalty." The thing is, all criminal convictions should be as certain as times we are absolutely certain... If we aren't, then we shouldn't convict that person!

But despite some evidence not quite lining up and not being beyond a reasonable doubt, we sometimes end up convicting an innocent person. It's always a possibility!

So we need to be against the death penalty. It's immoral until we can get rid of any possibility of wrongful convictions... Impossible

All states have the death penalty. They allow their cops to use lethal force. The states who have "abolished" the death penalty are the biggest hypocrites. They allow a dumb cop to kill a person in a split second decision but won't allow 12 jury members to make that decision, multiple trials, state and federal court, and 20-30 years to make sure we got it right. No no, they say that's immoral. But bring on a scared cop who shoots at anything that moves. No problem. And we'll just give them a pass if they shoot an innocent person because they have such a tough job...

We can talk about police SOPs and ROE, and we can debate the rate of police shootings and how to lower them......

But come on, it's pretty dishonest to conflate a police officer's legitimate use of lethal force in self defense and having a suspect in custody and whether we should give them the death penalty. I'm not sure if I misunderstood your post or not

By that logic, should all the other countries around the world that have banned the death penalty reinstate it since their armed officers are able to shoot/kill in self defense (being the judge, jury, and executioner?)

My point is that there are far more innocent people who have died at the hands of cops then those who were wrongfully executed. I find it hypocritical to care about the government killing innocent people via the death penalty but not having an issue with bad cops. Statistically you are more likely to die at the hand of a cop than in the state death chamber.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Nope, not so. There are times when there are facts that are known and incontrovertible. In those times I am in support of the death penalty.

You can never be certain what someone was thinking and sanity. That is only one aspect. You are only convincing yourself of a false fact. Let's put it to rest and agree to disagree about this.

You don’t have to be certain, just “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the charged committed the capital crime. In most high profile murders in the US the facts meet that standard which is why they are convicted.

If you don’t think execution affects criminal behavior, you missed speaking to a late friend who worked for the US Marshall’s service. He had charge of a murderer who was in for life, committed a “contract” killing in prison. The US Attorney put the death sentence on the table. The man, a stone cold killer, folded and turned evidence. Knowing you will die changes behavior.

GF

People whom are defending the death penalty on this forum said they need to be 100% certain, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". My point is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" bar, includes people whom are innocent, so if you raise the bar to 100% certain, you are against the death penalty and if you set the bar at "beyond a reasonable doubt", you will accept that a certain percentage will be put to death innocent.

Death penalty never has been proven to prevent any killing, being certain that you will be caught will. Your anecdotical evidence does not count. He already killed, so no murders were prevented.

TTailedTiger wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

No I don't want it to be comfortable. You think Ted Bundy's victims were smiling and comfortable when they died? I am sick of coddling people that hurt and kill others. You do the crime you accept the consequences.

I understand what they did is horrible but we should not be going down to their level. Our Constitution requires no cruel punishment. I'm pretty sure that would include the potential of people being set on fire by the electric chair. A bullet to the back of the head would work very well for a quick and painless death. But it's messy and few people would want to do it.

So you are trying to say you don't want the death penalty? It sure sounds like it. In fact all these threads and arguments start this way. Then if we say life in prison there are too many people in jail. Etc.

There is a reason there is little to no crime in Singapore and it's because they punish crime. Not try to find ways not to punish crime.

WIederling wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

No I don't want it to be comfortable. You think Ted Bundy's victims were smiling and comfortable when they died? I am sick of coddling people that hurt and kill others. You do the crime you accept the consequences.

Strangely so many of those "BEARING THE CONSEQUENCES" seem to have been convicted on faked or "misinterpreted" evidence.
How do you handle acquittal for the innocents that are now dead ?

I hope this is a serious post and not trolling but there is a strict appeal process with all death penalty cases for this very reason. If you can find me somebody on death row that is innocent please post it.

NIKV69 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

No I don't want it to be comfortable. You think Ted Bundy's victims were smiling and comfortable when they died? I am sick of coddling people that hurt and kill others. You do the crime you accept the consequences.

I understand what they did is horrible but we should not be going down to their level. Our Constitution requires no cruel punishment. I'm pretty sure that would include the potential of people being set on fire by the electric chair. A bullet to the back of the head would work very well for a quick and painless death. But it's messy and few people would want to do it.

So you are trying to say you don't want the death penalty? It sure sounds like it. In fact all these threads and arguments start this way. Then if we say life in prison there are too many people in jail. Etc.

There is a reason there is little to no crime in Singapore and it's because they punish crime. Not try to find ways not to punish crime.

WIederling wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

No I don't want it to be comfortable. You think Ted Bundy's victims were smiling and comfortable when they died? I am sick of coddling people that hurt and kill others. You do the crime you accept the consequences.

Strangely so many of those "BEARING THE CONSEQUENCES" seem to have been convicted on faked or "misinterpreted" evidence.
How do you handle acquittal for the innocents that are now dead ?

I hope this is a serious post and not trolling but there is a strict appeal process with all death penalty cases for this very reason. If you can find me somebody on death row that is innocent please post it.

Not at all. I stated quite clearly that I am in favor of capital punishment. But I believe the method must be humane. Cooking someone from the inside out via electrocution isn't humane in my book. Hell get back to basics and either hang them or shoot them. A proper hanging will render an instant death. And I feel bad for the funeral home staff that has to take a hot and bloated body out of the chair. I've read several state electrocution protocols and they leave it up to the people picking up the body to unstrap them and pack them up. That's messed up. And sometimes the flesh burns off and sticks the electrodes. Would you want to be the guy that has to scrape it off?

And the attorneys that claim lethal injection is cruel are just lying to buy time. There's nothing cruel about it. If we have to stick you a few times to find a good vein because you blew them out from years of drug use then that's on you. The inmate is unconscious before the lethal drugs flow. Or just do like Nevada and give them a lethal dose of heroine and call it a day.

I'd say the gas chamber is cruel as well. It's basically a chemical garroting. Breathing in cyanide fumes can't be painless. Plus it's just a huge production to carry out.

But for sure Oklahoma and Mississippi have the right idea to move to death by nitrogen. The inmate dies within a couple of minutes in a state of euphoria. Nothing cruel about that and that means fewer court challenges.

The goal of capital punishment is to take out the convicted murderer as humanly and efficiently as possible.

TTailedTiger wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

Real quick, seen a few people post this, probably splitting hairs, but we can never be 100% sure and we don't even need to be 100% sure. It's beyond a reasonable doubt not beyond ALL doubt. The latter rules out aliens beaming evidence into place or something, obviously an impossible and impractical burden of proof

But another point, I often see "ok, life in prison but when we are absolutely certain, then the death penalty." The thing is, all criminal convictions should be as certain as times we are absolutely certain... If we aren't, then we shouldn't convict that person!

But despite some evidence not quite lining up and not being beyond a reasonable doubt, we sometimes end up convicting an innocent person. It's always a possibility!

So we need to be against the death penalty. It's immoral until we can get rid of any possibility of wrongful convictions... Impossible

All states have the death penalty. They allow their cops to use lethal force. The states who have "abolished" the death penalty are the biggest hypocrites. They allow a dumb cop to kill a person in a split second decision but won't allow 12 jury members to make that decision, multiple trials, state and federal court, and 20-30 years to make sure we got it right. No no, they say that's immoral. But bring on a scared cop who shoots at anything that moves. No problem. And we'll just give them a pass if they shoot an innocent person because they have such a tough job...

Quite a few cases of police shootings were found that the officer reached for their pistol in lieu of their taser in the heat of the moment by mistake, usually in foot chases. This has been found by putting the pistol on the hip of their dominant hand and taser on the other. Some police departments have made it SOP to reverse that, by putting the taser on the officers dominant side and pistol on the other.

About the job itself being tough, it really is. I knew a guy who was a career Army vet during the Cold War. He told me one of his options upon leaving the Army was becoming a cop. He realized that as a cop you're way more vulnerable than a soldier on the front lines because the bad guys have the element of surprise, so he stayed in the Army. Whereas the enemy on the battlefield (Cold War days, not today) would be coming from a certain direction, wearing certain uniforms, using certain equipment, and a lot of this was known with great accuracy. The insurgency aspect is still alive and well and is a serious challenge for police officers today and makes the job extremely dangerous.

NIKV69 wrote:

There is a reason there is little to no crime in Singapore and it's because they punish crime. Not try to find ways not to punish crime.

So America should be the safest country in the world, they have the highest prison population by far. Spoiler: it isn't.

Preventing crime has many aspects, punishment is one, but not the most important one.

TTailedTiger wrote:

DeltaMD90 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

All states have the death penalty. They allow their cops to use lethal force. The states who have "abolished" the death penalty are the biggest hypocrites. They allow a dumb cop to kill a person in a split second decision but won't allow 12 jury members to make that decision, multiple trials, state and federal court, and 20-30 years to make sure we got it right. No no, they say that's immoral. But bring on a scared cop who shoots at anything that moves. No problem. And we'll just give them a pass if they shoot an innocent person because they have such a tough job...

We can talk about police SOPs and ROE, and we can debate the rate of police shootings and how to lower them......

But come on, it's pretty dishonest to conflate a police officer's legitimate use of lethal force in self defense and having a suspect in custody and whether we should give them the death penalty. I'm not sure if I misunderstood your post or not

By that logic, should all the other countries around the world that have banned the death penalty reinstate it since their armed officers are able to shoot/kill in self defense (being the judge, jury, and executioner?)

My point is that there are far more innocent people who have died at the hands of cops then those who were wrongfully executed. I find it hypocritical to care about the government killing innocent people via the death penalty but not having an issue with bad cops. Statistically you are more likely to die at the hand of a cop than in the state death chamber.

It is a stupid argument to make. Cops don't have a license to kill. They have a right to protect themselves or the public. I hope that each shooting involving a cop will face scrutiny and will find that the cop either draw his gun and eventually shot justifiable or face charges like involuntary murder or wrongful death. The epidemic in the US of shooting by the Police is another problem. You wanted to talk about the death penalty. You can't justify the death penalty by saying cops do much more killing, so this killing is ok. But glad you seem to accept that the death penalty has been executed to innocent people. And by being in favour of it, you accept the risk of executing the innocent in your name.

Dutchy wrote:

That is false, you can never be 100% sure, never. So if you are in favor of the death penalty, you automatically take for granted that some innocent people will be executed. If you don't want that, you are automatically against the death penalty.

Of course you can be 100% sure the person you’re executing did it. In many cases there is absolutely no doubt about who did it. The problem in the US is they allow far to many appeals, it should be a mandatory one and if they lose execute them. It doesn’t work as a deterant if crimes get to spend decades before they are popped off, it also adds to the cost.

TTailedTiger wrote:

And the attorneys that claim lethal injection is cruel are just lying to buy time. There's nothing cruel about it. If we have to stick you a few times to find a good vein because you blew them out from years of drug use then that's on you. The inmate is unconscious before the lethal drugs flow. Or just do like Nevada and give them a lethal dose of heroine and call it a day.

I'd say the gas chamber is cruel as well. It's basically a chemical garroting. Breathing in cyanide fumes can't be painless. Plus it's just a huge production to carry out.

But for sure Oklahoma and Mississippi have the right idea to move to death by nitrogen. The inmate dies within a couple of minutes in a state of euphoria. Nothing cruel about that and that means fewer court challenges.

The goal of capital punishment is to take out the convicted murderer as humanly and efficiently as possible.

> the death penalty is handled by nonmedical staff, putting in a needle is a medical procedure.
> The drugs which are used, sometimes, are the same of putting someone to sleep for an operation. It is known that in some cases people were paralyzed during an operation but awake. So that is quite a nightmare scenario. The drugs itself seems to burn your arteries on the inside, Killing someone is actually quite hard, life wants to survive and you need to overcome that. So where is the lie in that?
> Heroine as a drug for death penalty? Fentanyl perhaps, has did been actually used? Don't seem to find it online.
> If you are dead set on killing one painless, there are sure methods which aren't cruel. CO or N2O will do the job, or certain chemicals also used in euthanasia or suicide.

The goal should be to prevent crime, prevent relapse in criminal behavior and the protect society at large. The capital punishment only ticks one of the boxes.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That is false, you can never be 100% sure, never. So if you are in favor of the death penalty, you automatically take for granted that some innocent people will be executed. If you don't want that, you are automatically against the death penalty.

Of course you can be 100% sure the person you’re executing did it. In many cases there is absolutely no doubt about who did it. The problem in the US is they allow far to many appeals, it should be a mandatory one and if they lose execute them. It doesn’t work as a deterant if crimes get to spend decades before they are popped off, it also adds to the cost.

This statement is utter nonsense. I have given many examples here, why you can't be 100% sure. And it has been proven over and over again that a certain percentage of the people in American prisons on death row are innocent. In your system, they would have been put to death a long time ago and quite a few have been released upon they were proven innocent by advances in DNA or some other methods.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I invite you to read Gary Becker, Nobel economist

There are no "Nobel" economists.

It is a banksters hooraying the current "economic cuture creator" price.
Worthless.
The other worthless (but real) Nobel prize is the one for literature.
Invariably abused for political purposes.

Dutchy wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I am personally in favor of the death penalty for the very worst of crimes. It needs to be something cold and premeditated. Its use should be rare and there must not be any doubt about the guilt of the defendant.

That is false, you can never be 100% sure, never. So if you are in favor of the death penalty, you automatically take for granted that some innocent people will be executed. If you don't want that, you are automatically against the death penalty.

I disagree. War crimes, including warmongering by officials, is a public crime. There is no possible claim of innocence, just sentencing and carrying out the sentence. IMO.

Mass shooters, also.

Dutchy wrote:

Death penalty never has been proven to prevent any killing, being certain that you will be caught will. Your anecdotical evidence does not count. He already killed, so no murders were prevented.

Jail and capital punishment is not solely a persuasion technique to make people behave well. It is also about containing and punishing criminals.

To me there continues to be a decline in the use of the death penalty in the USA and that it will no longer be applied on the State and Federal level in another 20 or so years. On the Federal level, no one has been executed since 2003.

A variety of factors are causing the use of the death penalty to face its own 'death penalty' and life sentences without parole instead given. Continuing issues as to methods to carry out executions being cruel, most recently as to drugs but other methods each having their own moral issues. The racial and economic differences as to who gets it or not. Inconsistency that many states don't have death penalty laws anymore and a few with them vary in application of it. The costs of appeals for those sentenced. The continuing belief that is not a deterrent and many other factors brought up here and elsewhere seems to be leading to an end of its use.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I'm not aware of any innocent people executed after 1978 1976 when the death penalty is reinstated.

Just because you're not aware doesn't mean there haven't been any

A quick search brings up at least three,
Brian Baldwin
Ray Krone
Thomas Martin Thompson

Then you have the wrongful executions that are yet to be uncovered, on top of the long list of executions that were seemingly carried out on shaky ground.

ChrisKen wrote:

Just because you're not aware doesn't mean there haven't been any

There have also been people exonerated of capital crimes after spending many years on death row. If the wishes of those that want to see the death penalty accelerated were granted, those people would have to be added to the list of incorrect executions.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

80% of US murders are gang/drug related occurring in the inner cities.

I'd love to see a reliable source for that claim.

Scorpio wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

80% of US murders are gang/drug related occurring in the inner cities.

I'd love to see a reliable source for that claim.

That would be easy to do as long as the claimant gets to use his own definition for "inner city", "gang related" and "drug related" which are all subjective terms.

Personally I think the death penalty should be expanded. A true three strikes and you are out. Rapist, child molesters, all great candidates for the death penalty. Methods we use today are all fairly efficient. Electric Chair? 2000 volts at 8 amps directly into the brain will render you brain dead in a spit second, wont feel a thing. Lethal injection? They give you a lethal dose of sodium thiopental to begin with so you really wont feel anything. Firing Squad? They aim for the heart as soon as the bullet hits in a split second you are gone.

The only thing we need to do it cut the endless appeals. I thing the sentence should be carried out within 30 days of it being issued.

There is no proof anyone innocent has ever been executed.

So lets light up old sparky and start to render justice!

“Now I don't necessarily think its immoral to put down a lost cause. Honestly, there are tons of people that are a waste of flesh and society is way better off without them.”

Who gets to decide the parameters and definition of a lost cause? Any tyrant can rise to power and use this excuse to kill off whomever they choose. This would give the government way too much power.

Capital punishment isn’t really about justice — It’s about revenge and blood lust. Humanity needs to grow up and the death penalty has no place in a civilized society. It achieves nothing and gives the government too much power.

AA747123 wrote:

The only thing we need to do it cut the endless appeals. I thing the sentence should be carried out within 30 days of it being issued.

There is no proof anyone innocent has ever been executed.

So lets light up old sparky and start to render justice!

Render justice?

Here's a list of people freed after being convicted and given death penalties. With your ludicrous 30 day limit, at least 163 wrongfully convicted people would have been executed. 163!
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence- ... -death-row

Render justice?