Death penalty -- what's the point

[techweenie]

I hear that Terry Nichols was convicted of 161 counts of first-degree murder and will get life in prison.

If we don't execute a guy like that, what's the point of having a death penalty?

[84porsche]

Is their honestly any point to executing him besides cost. Is it going to bring any of those lives back? I have not declared a position on the death penalty but really it has been almost 9 years since the bombing. For a punishment to be effective it is to be swift. Is it wrong to kill, it damn sure is in my book. What if anything is Terry Nichols going to lose (besides his life whether it be prison or the death penalty.)

[jyl]

Giving the victims' families some satisfaction/closure, and whatever deterrent effect the prospect of death might have, seem like reasonable goals to me.

When we're talking about someone who commits a crime as heinous as Nichols did, I really don't place much value on his life. (Did I say that - me a liberal? - yup.)

I have a problem with the death penalty in cases where the condemned's guilt isn't utterly certain. For example, for convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony (often quite unreliable), or where jury bias/racism was involved.

In general, I think the death penalty should be quite rare, but I do support it in extreme cases.

[dd74]

The death penalty isn't the problem. The lawyers are the problem. The death penalty worked long before we became civil and overly litigious.

[Hugh R]

When you have a defect in nature, nature takes it out of the gene pool. Alas, with our modern technology (don't read this the wrong way about medical problems) we need to occasionally take defective units out of the gene pool to maintain the species. I agree with the posts about absolute certainty, lawyers, etc. I was a juror on a very brutal, sadistic home invasion double execution murder case a few years back, and let me tell you, if I'm ever charged with a crime, I'll opt for a jury trial, there are a lot of people with IQs at the top of the IQ bell curve on juries (if you don't get that, your one of them). Fingerprints, stolen property, shoe prints, you name it, and it took 9 days to convict. Lots of the jurors focused on the defense's statements about the accused's troubled lives. My sole concern was "do we have the right guys?" not why they did it. BTW, we convicted, but deadlocked on Special Circumstances. During the OJ trial, I remember a local Los Angeles radio talk show host making a profound statement as to why OJ would be aquitted. Reason? he was reading from USA Today that it was the anniversary of the death of Elvis and that a USA Today poll showed that 1 in 10 adults in the U.S. believed that Elvis was still alive. Thats why they OJ would get off, you only need 1 in 12 for a mistrial.

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by dd74
The death penalty isn't the problem. The lawyers are the problem. The death penalty worked long before we became civil and overly litigious.

some would argue that if it weren't for lawyers, we'd have Saddam Hussein justice

[widebody911]

I think the death penalty is about retribution. It can't possibly be about deterrence, what with up to what, 10 years? between the crime and the chamber. It's like whacking a puppy with a rolled-up newspaper 2 weeks after he pees on the carpet. *

FWIW, we're well on our way to 'Saddam-style' justice. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/03650087.asp

* no puppies were harmed in the creation of this post

[pbs911]

The only reason I am against the death penalty is because it cost tax payers more to go through the mandatory appeal process than it does housing an inmate for 40+ years.

[911ctS]

Too bad we can't just lock him up in some small dungeon, throw away the key, never feed him, and if he just so happens to die... then... O well. Out of sight out of mind, not out of pocket.

Also: I would only say this on the account that someone was, without a doubt guilty. This case sounds to be that way... 161 counts OMG!

[Moses]

Originally posted by widebody911
I think the death penalty is about retribution. It can't possibly be about deterrence...

The death penalty may not be a deterrent, but it has a dramatic effect on the rate of "repeat offenders".

[techweenie]

The death penalty has never been shown to be a deterrent.

But retribution, yes. And as Moses says, the executed never come back to commit more crimes. (except in movies)

[djmcmath]

This is one thing I like about military justice. Seaman Schmuckatelli is late for muster, I can punish him right now today, like Right Now. Heck, I can take some rank and pay and put him on restriction today. Justice happens real fast around these parts, yessirree ...

Dan

[84porsche]

Originally posted by widebody911
It's like whacking a puppy with a rolled-up newspaper 2 weeks after he pees on the carpet. *
* no puppies were harmed in the creation of this post

That is the best analogy I have heard about the death penalty.

[rammstein]

I was under the impression that it would cost much more to keep the dirtbag alive than to kill him. I think there's no doubt as to his guilt. He shoud be executed, not with some $1000+ injection, but with a few 25 cent bullets.

It doesn't keep people from doing it, but it saves taxpayers' money.

[Superman]

I'm not comfortable with the death penalty. I think that if I were free from those little voices in my head that tell me this is right, and that is wrong, then I would be okay with it, probably. Or perhaps if I were a great deal less intelligent. Or maybe if I had some sort of violence hangup. 'Course if that were the case, then I'd probably be concluding that the way to eliminate terrorism is through the military.

No, it's retribution, clearly. It's the kind of thing that, when we see the behavior in our kids we know that full maturity is not yet there, and more coaching is needed. There is a message out there that we're being sent. It is in the ether. You can feel it, easily in fact. Also, someone made specific verbal descriptions/lessons for us a couple of thousand years ago. But He knew that many would not listen.

Having taken my bachelor's degree in Philosophy, and with my brain patterns, trust me when I tell you that many many many issues present themselves to me in shades of grey. Few issues are clear, obvious black and white no-brainers. The death penalty is one of those issues.

[Rot 911]

I see nothing wrong with using the death penalty as retribution.

[Superman]

Well, clean your room and make sure your bed is made, then do your homework.

[911ctS]

Its easy to think that the death penalty isn't 'the right thing to do' until you think about someone in your own family being murdered. What if it was your son or daughter, wife or husband, mom or dad? In all honestly... if that ever happened to my family I would personally deliver the death penalty in order to keep my sanity. Can I say that here? I hope so...... (cricket chirp....)

EDIT: also, wouldn't it be nice if life in prison actually meant... umm...life in prison.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Kurt V
I see nothing wrong with using the death penalty as retribution.

I think if one can define for whom the retribution is conducted will ultimately make the pro and con argument of the death penalty. In other words, what does it solve? Who benefits from it? Personally, I'm for the death penalty, but not in the way that it is conducted by this country. I truly believe it needs to be used as a deterrent and not the political and legal platform that it has become. The philosophical wrangling over its justice or lack thereof has gone on too long. The argument that a civil society would not employ the death penalty is baseless because a civil society contradicts itself with uncivil behavior that merits the need for a death penalty. Therefore, what is the deterent? I believe what we need are basic ground rules that include public execution. Hang them in the town's square. Why? As a deterent. As a sign to others that "you better not do what this guy did, or you'll be treated the same way."

For the most part, our society has been made ignorant of its responsibilities through legal loopholes, psychological excuses and an overall inability for one to stand up and say "Yes, it's my fault. I was in the wrong." It is now engrained in us to act this way up to and including murder. I believe most of us have dumbed ourselves down to the point where we can only recognize that ill behavior is punishable with an- eye-for-an-eye outcome. Life in prison does not cut it for most, particularly when these people in prison live life in much better conditions than their victims. No, we've degraded ourselves to the point where the death penalty should be a mandatory manner in which to conduct justice. I only say we should take it one step further and make it public. That may scare the next criminal into thinking twice before committing his next crime.

[Big Ed]

To me, the prospect of being dead is less fearsome than a life where my freedom is gone, living in a prison.