DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

No, no one.

This is a good topic, because it questions the moral side of this, instead of the legal side which we already covered.

I think there are extreme exceptions, such as torture, certain rapes and murders, or a basic proclivity in these gruesome tasks, that would indicate a person is so far removed from societal boundaries that there isn't much hope of rehabilitation or function. So for a moral basis, we might be justified in simply killing that person and saving our limited resources for people who could be restored to norms. But this justification exists largely as a thought experiment in a world with perfect information and moral clarity. We rarely have the evidence needed to provide a certainty that we have the guilty party, that they then are beyond recovery or sensibility in future, and that they then deserve death as a consequence.

As practical matters
1) It's cheaper to seek a sentence for someone of life imprisonment than to try a capital case, even including a conviction with a life prison term paid for.
2) There is a fairly large percentage of people sentenced to death who are/were, in some probability, innocent. If they can prove their innocence with real evidence, then if we've already killed them there isn't a whole lot we can do to remedy the situation. If we sentenced someone for life without parole, we can always just let them go and/or give them some sort of restitution.
And of course,
3) There is no deterrent effect from the death penalty option. In fact, when closely examined the states that use the death penalty have higher crime rates and it might even cost more lives than it saves. The really funny example to me is the death penalty option for murders undertaken in narcotics trafficking. Sitting on death row is actually safer for that drug dealer than being a street corner drug dealer. Some deterrent.

When will the less educated in this world realize that there are some people – and I use the word very lightly in describing these human animals – that will not ever be rehabilitated. Child molesters are among the worst. I do not believe that there has ever been a child molester that was rehabilitated in the history of this nation. Can anyone explain the moral righteousness of trying to keep someone like that behind bars for 60 to 70 years (living the good life of having everything he ever needs at your expense, and happily living every day with his memories of what he has done to his victims) when all we have to do is blow his brains out and be done with him (allowing his surviving victims to get on with their shattered lives).

Yes, there are times and circumstances that call for the execution of someone who has no regard for the laws or morals of society.

Let me be perfectly honest with all of you who read this blog – I am a man who has seen quite a lot in my 65+ years, most likely more than most of you ever will. Do not misunderstand me, I actually do like most people I have met. However, I have come to the conclusion that there are just some people who do not belong among the living . . . and these include forcible rapists, child molesters, and thrill killers just to mention a few of the worst.

Anyway, that is just another of my not-so-humble opinions.

As I detailed above, it's not so much the moral righteousness as it is a practical consideration of cost. It's a simple matter to keep locked away and hidden from society the creeps and freaks that pose real dangers to others. It is not so simple to provide a basis for putting them all to death simply because that takes a tremendous amount of our legal resources away from general prosecution and criminal defense expertise. It ends up being cheaper to lock people up, even for 60-70 years, than it does to execute them.

It also ends up being somewhat less racist in its applications.

"Racist in its applications"? What do you mean by that?

Death penalty cases are much more commonly used with minorities. Part of this is simply because they are poor (on average) and have less resources to successfully oppose such prosecutions. Or are more commonly victims of crime to begin with. And most crimes are committed by people we know, ergo, much crime is caused by minorities upon other minorities.

But that does not explain all of the motivations behind pushing for a capital case in murder trial or some other terrible crime. It's a lot easier to sell killing a black man to voters (and prosecutors often care about voters), even if he killed another black man in some gruesome way or because of a narcotics transaction, than it is to sell killing some white guy who looks like the average voter. Even if he is crazy and plausibly deserves it in accordance with his actions.

I find that response to be racist.

so explaining the motivations of implicit racism openly is racist?

Precisely.

You might want to elaborate if there is some legitimate rebuttal to my position that I'm ignoring.

I don't agree with those sentiments, I am simply declaring that they exist in our current system. People are still racist. Voters are racist. Etc. If you take the incentive of capital punishment out of the system, there are still implicit penalties that will be pressed for at times simply because of racial complications in a case. But they (prosecutors) won't have the carrot to put some random black murder case on death row to score political points. And some of them will do that. We should be able to call them out for it. Without people complaining that this is in itself "racist".

As individuals we do not have the right to kill somone except in self-defense of imminent danger. Any killing after the fact is revenge. If I do not posses the right how can I grant the right to my government or to sociey. I can not. Therefore, society can not possess the right to kill someone as a punishment.

There has to be some sense of punishment for certain crimes. Someone needs to explain to me how a murderer, rapist, or child molester has the right to live. I tend to be fairly extreme on the DP issue because I believe that when you harm someone to such a degree as a murderer, rapist, or child molester does, there has to be consequences beyond havintg taxpayers pay over $50,000 a year to keep these monstsers alive. And yes, it is revenge, but all punishment is revenge. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for allowing a man who rapes and kills 10 little girls, then kills them, to live out his life, even in a prison.

There comes a point where one forfeits their right to life. If you have less than zero respect for someone elses life, why should anyone respect yours?

Agreed, and as usual Tiberivs waves the tax card. Sun-Tzu usually I've been agreeing with nearly everything you say, but in this case I think the taxpayers are spared ALOT of money by NOT housing these monsters for the remainder of their natural lives. Trials for death penalty and trials for life imprisonment last nearly the same amount of time. I don't see the major monetary disconnect b/w spendng a bit more money upfront to remove this creature from tax payers burden. Again, and as always, less money spent per year from taxpayers to maintain these lifers in prison is more money back in our pockets.

I don't have kids yet, nor thankfully, has anyone I know ever been murdered or raped. But I'm sure if this happened to my family I'd be out for blood, and I'd definitely want the DP for the criminal. Is it animalistic and uncivilized of me? Probably, but maybe I just haven't progressed far enough yet.

Or maybe its a fair response. It's visceral. You rape my child I want you dead. How is that not reasonable? It's not like we should, or will ever be killing people for stealing cars…

yes we do have a right to out some one to death, there is a point where my rights start and theirs end. rape my child and your right to life has ended…regardless of law

i think that society as a whole should know both sides and decide if someone is put to death. Some say that we shouldn't have the decision, but by spending money on feeding these people, we are making a decision on where that money goes. It could be better spent improving the fact that a child dies of starvation every two seconds. we like to deny it, but we have a morale obligation to the lives of those that die of starvation, and by feeding and housing (even if it is a cell) these terrible criminals, we are deciding to take the food out of the mouths of those kids.
Besides, it is not just us that have to make the decision, but by committing those crimes, the criminal is making the decision to do that. He knows, or should know, the consequences for that decision. if you touch fire, you get burnt. If you don't learn, then you get burnt again, and again, and again, until one day, the whole house sets alight. Those that receive the death penalty should be the ones that aren't just risking getting burnt, but those that risk, or already have, burnt the house down. Those that hurt not just their own lives, but other lives. We need not just to think about the criminal, but also the lives he affects.

Speaking on legality, i believe the government should apply laws that protect the innocent people who obey the law and if that so happens to be the death penalty then so be it. My only problem with the death penalty is that we dont use it enough. Currently states barely even execute people who commit murder. I think we should execute rapist, child molesters, murders, and drug traffickers. After an individual has committed one of the following crimes, I believe he or she should be put to death the same day as the trial ends. But thats just me