How the death penalty really works

My objection to the death penalty is based on one major point: economics. It is far less expensive to put someone away for life than to execute them, often times MANY years later, and after numerous and very expensive rounds of appeal up to and including the Supreme Court.
Outlaw the death penalty for this reason and we may then declare the remaining arguements moot: the disparity with which it is applied among the races; reversals after DNA evidence bears out a person’s innocence; its morality; sensationalism of trials; and ultimately, its constitutionality.
The millions spent on Death Penalty cases each year is obscene in comparison to the good that money could do if elsewhere applied by the state & federal governments.

Is our system just? No. The reality is that our civilized nation is uncomfortably closer to barbarism than most would care to admit. The fact that lawyers routinely, for both the prosecution & the defense, play to juries sympathies is proof of the problem. Is there a solution? Possibly. Imagine a trial with no jury to play to. The jury could be physically removed from the trial, reading transcripts or viewing evidence away from the courtroom, in an effort to remove some of the theater and emotion. That would be one barrier to undue influence. Removing the references to one’s past or influences on one’s behavior would be trickier. I’m no lawyer but perhaps there could be some way to modify courtroom procedure or rules to discourage the playing up to (or down to) jurors fears, prejudices or emotions.

When does an innocent child become a drug-addicted monster?
When he kills a babysitter with a pair of scissors.
“Society” didn’t do that. “Society” didn’t stab a woman 17 times with a pair of scissors, in order to steal money.
We should recall that human beings are not animals, and have the ability to decide their fate for themselves. Many people are abused, or mentally ill, or drug addicts; they somehow manage not to murder. They make a decision that their pain is not “Society’s” fault. They do not kill.
Or, maybe we should let him go, as an apology for causing his pain. Mari Anne Pope was a member of “Society” after all.

The death penalty is one unmistakeable sign of a truly unhealthy society. That over 20,000 people were murdered in 1987 is appalling. That we allow our government – under any circumstances – to exact revenge upon her citizens by legalized killing is even worse. It is indeed telling of how far we’ve fallen when we send people to death chambers willingly, legally, eagerly and with smiles on our faces.

The real irony is that journalists think that covering the news somehow gives them a privileged perspective. I could care less about Moran’s opinion – he’s merely a recording device for society. The opinion of a jury is what counts.

tu mataste mi padre en la silla de electricidad. ello no es guilty.

He stabbed a woman 17 times. Brutally. And he’s still alive, being fed, clothed, maintained and even entertained by my tax dollars with books and magazines?
Why wasn’t he executed within a year of the crime? Critics of the death penalty are fond of saying that it doesn’t work. Of course it doesn’t, because it takes decades to be carried out, if ever.
My sympathy, my compassion, goes to the family of the victim and the victim herself.
That young man made a choice, to take drugs, to associate with druggies, to break into a house with a woman and children.
Stop blaming the drugs! You people make me ill with your claims of, “It’s the drugs. Oh, he’s not responsible!”
Balderdash.
If I grabbed a .30-06 rifle and fired it down the freeway, at nothing in particular, and that bullet hit and killed someone you’d lay the responsibility solely in my lap.
What’s the difference when you decide to follow a lifestyle of drugs?
Want to see crime take a dive in this country? Clear out the death rows, where inmates sit for decades, laughing at the system, while filing endless specious appeals and even getting college degrees.
Put a .44-40 bullet in their brainpan. They were sentenced to death, carry it out!
The coddling of criminals only perpetrates more criminals.
Anyone who kills without provocation should forefeit their life.
Send them to Hell, where they belong.

My mistake, the person above me I was referring to was Gatofeo, not Ski Daddy…but my point remains the same.

I find the death penalty despicable and hypocritical not to mention immoral. We want to teach our society that killing someone is wrong and, therefore, we kill someone to prove that point?!? Our society, including our “President” Bush, upholds the death penalty and wants to see it carried out swiftly. The United States condemns countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, China,etc. for their abuse of human rights. However, in the same breath, we uphold the same form of punishment as do the countries we chastize. Hypocritical – you bet!
When an individual is executed, the only thing that is accomplished is that we create a completely new set of victims. The new victims consist of the family members and friends of that inmate. What did they do to have to suffer the loss of their loved one? They are just as innocent as the original victim’s family. Why does our society think that a punishment that can create such sorrow is just and logical? The death penalty is a plague on this nation and should be eliminated. We execute individuals each year who may have been innocent. Is is worth taking the chance? Does God think that we are noble by executing people? Wake up and see what this barbaric act is costing. It is time for this to end.

The death penalty is just plain stupid. I oppose it for the same reason I oppose abortion. NO HUMAN HAS GOT THE RIGHT TO TAKE ANOTHER HUMAN’S LIFE.

What part of you kill you will die, dont you people understand?
Weather by mans or God’s hand you are dead.

What part of you kill you will die, dont you people understand?
Weather by mans or God’s hand you are dead.

I was against the death penalty when young, then a close family friend was murdered. After her death, I embraced the death penalty.
But as I’ve grown older, I’ve seen the failings of our legal system. It, and the people who try and judge cases, are fallible. I would not want to trust my life to it and doubt anyone else would either.
Add to this the economic reality that putting someone to death is now more expensive for taxpayers than housing them for life, and I vote for doing away with it. My only caveat would be that life without parole would be an option in all states.
Now, if it could be definitely substantiated that the death penalty was a deterrent, then once again I might change my mind. A woman’s prerogative, I suppose.

i once served on a jury that acquitted a man for aggravated assault. A few years later he kidnapped a teenage girl and murdered her parents, I feel I failed the system and contributed to the second crime!

The death penalty is not enforced enough, if some one is dumb enough to get involved with drugs, alcohol, etc…and then kill someone, they should go from the court room to the chair and die immediately. We let these prisoners sit on death row, they get 3 meals a day, a roof over their head, they can watch TV, they can go out and exercise…they are taken care of for years, before they are put to death if they ever are. All this while the victims family has to deal with the loss of a loved one…our justice system needs refinement.

I say a “Eye for a Eye”. The problem with this country is that once a person is convicted he is allowed to appeal until the cows come home. If I was in the position to change those laws, one appeal only and no more than 30 days after the appeal is either denied or allowed the sentence would be carried out. This would change a few would be crooks if they knew that Justice would be fast, quick and no chance to get out of it. When we have people dying in prison from old age and these individuals are on Death Row, then the system is quite the laugh…….. If they stabbed someone 27 times in the back, let them die the exact same way.

I have maintained for years that the death penalty should be swift and sure. No it is not a deterrant to crime because it is not applied properly. I agree 100% that if all appeals had to be exercised within 30 days after the end of the trial and then judgment is meted out within 30 after the appeals are heard then it would then become a deterrant. Criminals know that they can kill someone and will not be truly punished because our legal system is broken. We have given over the power to the criminal and have forgotten about the victim and their families. What is just about a young girl being stabbed 17 times twenty years ago and her killer still being alive – there is nothing just about that. When and only when we decide to make our legal system work and apply the death penalty as it should be applied will it work. I only pray that it happens in my lifetime.

The problem with crime and punishment is there is no causal relationship with the action. It’s like spanking a child for something they did 5 years before. It serves no purpose in terms of education of the individual or as a deterrant in society. The take by criminals (when they think long enough to have a take) is that even if they get caught they will be bounced aroudn in the system until h*ll freezes over and nothing much will happen except “3 hots and a cot”. The action and the punishment must be related to each other or the cause/effect relationship fails.
As to the drama of trials, we can thank the fact that juries react to this sort of thing or it would not go on. I have long wondered if jurors should not have professional training and be paid to perform the duty like other professionals – although that would require a constitutional amendment. There are far fewer hystrionics in bench trials because judges have heard it all.
While those who are not lawyers concern themselves about the mental status of the former abused child/alcoholic/mental patient the bottom line is that the law does not distingish between them and the “reasonable person.” Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to murder and insanity must be so severe that someone is incapable of understanding what they are doing or conform their actions to the law. Few meet that standard. Therefore, except for children and the profoundly retarded, we’re all culpable for what we do and if death is the penalty to be had for it then legally it is applicable.
The question is whether we want to bother with the death penalty, which is irreversable and costly. Some days I am 100% against it as a waste of money. Other days I read about people torturing young children with stun guns and I find I vehemently disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision that the death penalty cannot be applied to child abuse, child sexual abuse, and violent rapes.

People are justifiably outraged at murder, but the reality is that the death penalty has never been applied to most murder cases. Only a handful of US states pursue it on a significant scale and therefore, rightly, opponents point to its arbitrary application based on geography. In those States there is clear evidence of bias (including bias against the poor who cannot afford to hire competent, motivated attorneys), prosecutorial misconduct, and wrongful conviction. The advent of DNA testing has revealed for all to see, the depth of the failure of the system. It is right to follow the example of international allies, and end this unfair, unnecessary and barbaric practice.

The only things I think are unjust about it is that people commit murders everyday without the facts being in question and don’t get the death penalty and it varies by race of perpetrator and victim. Those are inequities in the system.
But……..”Terry, none of this would be an issue if it not for one simple fact: Slagle murdered Mari Anne Pope.”
All this worrying about rights God never gave the convicted and that have never been actually codified by any legislature anywhere, rather just made up by a bunch of confused nincompoops and do-gooders who think they know better than the jury put in place to decide. All for the greater glory of attorneys. Ridiculous.
Two other things, to me, stand out. One, the claim that the death penalty costs more than life without parole is unsubstantiated. Every primary source I can find says the exact opposite. Is this the old Hitler trick of repeating a lie until hoi poloi believe it true?
And, the claim that we have courts instead of blood feuds because we believe jurors are perfectly or at least highly rational. Wrong. That people are horrified by horrific acts is part of the process. Nothing rational about being offended, of course. No, the important difference isn’t rationality, but one of prejudice. THe key word in the 6th is “impartial”. “Rational” nor “smart” nor “generally well-informed”, do not appear. And, since “rational” usually means “agrees with me” to most people, it’s a good thing. Unfortunately, we now have the so-called 14th Amendment and a lot of activist judges who think they know better than the people. The People as opposed to hoi poloi, which is what we are now.

I grew up in Texas as a strong supporter of the death penalty. Then, when George Bush as head honcho in our state executed one of the finest Christian women ever to walk the earth, Karla Fay Tucker, I became an arch foe of the death penalty, and also an arch foe of Gov. now President Bush. I opposed the death penalty because it did not take into account the genuine repentance and reformation of SOME prisoners condemned to die. Those fine people should be put to invaluable use by the state talking to students in schools. They can tell the kids more about the wages of sin and more forcefully motivate them against an evil lifestyle than anyone else could ever dream of. So their lives should be spared permanently for the good of our children and society in general. An intelligent and morally responsible government would do that because their educational and spiritual benefit to the people outweighs by a hundred tons the example of their execution.
The problem with this is that when you have a moral troglodyte like little Georgie in position to make those life and death decisions, the virtuous die along with the evil. And the ignorant masses care only that another “criminal” has bitten the dust.
There is a vast difference between murder and killing. Murder is the taking of an innocent life. Karla Fae had become an innocent woman through genuine Christian conversion and proved it daily by her extremely effective counseling ministry through the mails. So George in cahoots with the corrupt legal system of the state of Texas and for political benefit murdered a woman innocent in the most profound sense that fateful day over 10 years ago. (Could God’s judgement for that incredibly evil and stupid decision have anything to do with his lunatic decision to invade Iraq? Methinks it must have.)
Killing is another matter indeed. Killing is the taking of a guilty life. When someone invades my home, here in Texas we have the legal right to take that person’s life in defense of our home and our own life. That is killing, not murder. When we take the life of an enemy soldier in a just war, that is killing, not murder. (The Iraq war is a just war but ignorantly conceived and foolishly executed beyond compare.) When the state takes the life of an evil criminal, it is not murdering him. It is rather exercising justice on him in behalf of the citizens of the state. We elected representatives who made the laws governing the treatment of criminals guilty of capitol offenses. I wasn’t there to defend with deadly force the young lady attacked by that murderous youth. Had I been there, I would have dispatched him to hell instantly with my trusty 12 guage. So now the state is going to do to him as my representative what I would have legally done to him then…and that is not murder.
The death penalty is supposed to exist to rid our population of those who take innocent life like the young lady in the above story. With the passage of time and clearer thinking, I now once again favor the death penalty but only when it takes the genuinely repentant off the death schedule. Our legal system could make that possible were it enlightened to the need. As I keep up with the news day by day, it seems to me that the death penalty is exercised much too seldom, much too randomly and much too slowly to be just and a proper deterrant. It only deters those who are executed from the further commission of crimes. That also can be changed by representatives who are not afraid to act without reference to what is now considered to be politically correct. We desperately need men and women in public service who fully understand how totally vile evil is, and are willing to express that profound insight through the just and swift execution of unrepentant and unreformed killers. It is a further crime of serious magnitude that they are not killed in such a manner that their organs can be transplanted into law abiding citizens who need them. That would be the one good thing to come out of their entire existance.
I ardently hope that some day the death penalty will be extended to apply to those who murder innocent unborn or partially born babies. That has to be the most mindlessly brutal, viscious and heinous of all crimes and thus worthy in the most complete sense of being punished by execution.

I am doing a research paper on the Death Penalty and all the different arguments about it. I used to not like the death penalty until I turned sixteen. I spent the night at my friends house and we were playing our Nintendos on the floor. Her dad came into the house smelling like alcohol and drugs. I screamed when I saw he had a gun in his hand and I wished I had never saw the way he shot my best friend. He just walked right up to her, pressed the end of the gun to her head and pulled the trigger. I watched it. I saw my best friend die. How do you think that makes me feel? That man is still in court and that was over five or six years ago. He’s on the death row right now, but he should have been killed a long time ago. My best friend was like my sister and I lost her to a man that I used to look up to. So, yes, I believe that the Death Penalty should stay legal and is right and just. Letting murderers out of the prison’s and jail’s just because we don’t have the money is a sick thing to do. Who knows how many people will get killed next?