NEWS: Death penalty at record levels!

Amnesty International is reporting that close to 4000 people were put to death last year. That is the largest number of executions in over 10 years.
One note, these numbers only reflect what has been reported. There are a number of countries where the death penalty as well as executions is performed in secret.
The most surprising statistic is the US is not in the lead.. The US comes in at fourth behind both China (1st) and Iran.





For years, the US has received a black eye on this issue from the international community. Many people have stated that the US leads the world in the number of people that are executed annually but the US has taken steps to back off that misnomer by putting into place such laws like the one that banned the death penalty for minors.
I do have to disagree with Amnesty International though who wish to ultimately do away with the death penalty world-wide. The problem that I have with this lofty goal is that there are people out there who no matter how long they are imprisoned, no matter the rehabilitation techniques, will continue to pose a threat to the general population.
Leaving them to serve life sentences in prison is not a real alternative. Think of it this way, the cost of their upkeep in prison which averages $22000 a year per prisoner. Note this figure does not include medical nor does it include the court costs that we the taxpayers have to bear the burden of.
In many cases, the people that would / should receive the death penalty, would now instead of terrorizing civilian victims, will now turn their attentions to their fellow inmates. Then once these other inmates (the ones who are not there for life) would turn the new “tricks” that they learned in prison on to the civilian populace.
Thus, instead on one monster, you now have 2, 3, 4 or more.
Thin of Jeffery Dahmer, Charles Manson, would you really want these monsters back out in the public?


[edit on 5-4-2005 by kenshiro2012]

[edit on 5-4-2005 by kenshiro2012]

[edit on 5-4-2005 by John bull 1]

I kind of agree with you (thread poster). Thing is innocent people still go to jail! Amnesty wants ZERO executions. That is ridiculous in some cases. As you pointed out to Dahmer and Manson.

I'm in favor of genitalia removal for rapists too-

We do not condemn people to death because they are "witches", adherents to religions other than "our own", thieves, cattle rustlers or even CEO's of companies that cause others harm or death (Union Carbide-1984-India). We hold those accountable who KILL by design and intent. Even then, those convicted of 2nd degree murder, manslaughter or negligence do not face the ultimate penalty.
Are mistakes made in implementing the death sentence...of course. And to those of questionable certainty, not beyond a reasonable doubt, leniency must go to the accused.
However; in cases of absolute guilt (videotaped, confessed, evidenced beyond doubt)....I'll not state individual cases here, you know who they are; there is no requisite that society, morally or Constitutionally, sustain that individual beyond the constructs of "cruel and unusual" treatment. Methodology has changed; for the better in my opinion; but excecution, historically or as currently administered, does not exceed the confines of "cruel and unusual" punishment.
On the contrary, it should be deemed "cruel and unusual" that a victims family, friends and neighbors should be required to sustain such an individual for the remainder of his/her natural life via taxation.

Thank you, AlphaMale1953. That is exactly what I am attempting to get across as many people both in the US as well as the rest of the world seem to think that the US deals the death penalty sort of "willy-nilly"

How much do you want do bet that many of these people did nothing to deserve the death penalty?
How many of these people are really executed for political reasons?


Regarding the death penalty for true criminals, I'm against it. Death is a easy way out for these criminals. Thats why so many murderers kill themselves after committing the murder. Life in prison with out parole is a far worse and fitting punishment.
Besides murder is murder regardless if it done by the law or a criminal.

War from the beginning of time results in death. It is even blessed and condoned by religions throughout the world throughout history. We, as a "civilized" society, have deemed which forms and circumstances of implimentation of death are exceptable.
As to this topic, I am discussing the implimentation of the death penalty against the individual who solely, intentionally; rationally or not; extinguishes anothers life.
I am not speaking to the issue of refusal of provable medical practices because of one's beliefs; or accidental death resulting from a rifle fired a mountain away during hunting season, I am addressing the issues of a mother drowning her children because they "are possessed" or a man shooting others from a car trunk "for fun", or whatever other excuse. THIS is murder.

why is this "surprising"? Most of those on Death Row never see their fate until decades of legal action, if at all. The ACLU and the attorney racket here makes sure guys caught on video, with confessions, and witnesses, can still avoid the death penalty even when they specifically request to die.

It seems to me, only a dyed in the wool propagandist would find it surprising that the US isn't leading in executions.

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
why is this "surprising"? Most of those on Death Row never see their fate until decades of legal action, if at all. The ACLU and the attorney racket here makes sure guys caught on video, with confessions, and witnesses, can still avoid the death penalty even when they specifically request to die.

It seems to me, only a dyed in the wool propagandist would find it surprising that the US isn't leading in executions.

The "surprise" was that the US is not the leader for the number of executions as much of the media would lead us to beileve.

Two wrongs don't make a right. For a state to murder someone doesn't right the wrong that murderer has committed.

Also, as a supposedly "Christian" society, do we not have an obligation to forgive and try to rehabilitate these people, even to their death?

Matthew 18:21-22:

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Originally posted by supercheetah
Two wrongs don't make a right. For a state to murder someone doesn't right the wrong that murderer has committed.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Better blind and alive then dead.

Christ was not talking about murderer's and rapists. He was also talking about forgiveness, not forgetfulness.

Punishment for the act, not from vengeance

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

Originally posted by supercheetah
Two wrongs don't make a right. For a state to murder someone doesn't right the wrong that murderer has committed.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Better blind and alive then dead.

Christ was not talking about murderer's and rapists. He was also talking about forgiveness, not forgetfulness.

Punishment for the act, not from vengeance

May the blind lead the blind...

Life imprisonment is a fine alternative. Modern prisons do damn good job of keeping the most violent of criminals out of society, and if we later find out that someone was wrongly convicted, something can be done about it. If we find out that an executed person was wrongly convicted, there's nothing we can do about it. You may argue that innocents rarely get executed, but I'd rather not even have the risk. What do you tell the family of an executed innocent? All I'd ask for would be to keep such violent criminals off the streets, even if I were the person murdered. You may cite costs, but what's a life worth to you?

[edit on 4/6/2005 by supercheetah]

Originally posted by supercheetah
May the blind lead the blind...

Life imprisonment is a fine alternative. . . . You may cite costs, but what's a life worth to you?

I don't cite costs on death versus life imprisonment.

Read wht you are posting- you come off and quote 'forgive him 70 times' but want to send someone away for life? That makes no sense.

If you want to forgive then forgive. Three or four murdered and raped children- no big thing. Just watch out when they get up to what 68?

I don't buy the no death penalty line. Some people and some crimes earn it.

I also don't buy the lethal injection stuff. Hanging in public. Leave the body up for three weeks.

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Read wht you are posting- you come off and quote 'forgive him 70 times' but want to send someone away for life? That makes no sense.

If you want to forgive then forgive. Three or four murdered and raped children- no big thing. Just watch out when they get up to what 68?

I don't buy the no death penalty line. Some people and some crimes earn it.

I also don't buy the lethal injection stuff. Hanging in public. Leave the body up for three weeks.

Putting someone away for life is a way to protect society. Forgiveness doesn't mean that you throw all sense out the door. Forgiveness entails trying to rehabilitate a person back into a contributing member of society. If that cannot be done with a person, c'est la vie, and let that person live out their remaining days locked away from society.

Public hangings only promote a lack of respect for death. Murderers aren't discouraged by it since many of them are mentally ill anyway. It also promotes mob mentality, which, as history shows, only leads to the destruction of a society.

Originally posted by supercheetah
Public hangings only promote a lack of respect for death. Murderers aren't discouraged by it since many of them are mentally ill anyway. It also promotes mob mentality, which, as history shows, only leads to the destruction of a society.

Ahh, but no. Respect for the dead is what you are getting to. I disagree completely.

Public hangings make government punishment 'ominous.' Leaving a body to rot could have some beneficiary effects.

I'm not for executions for most crimes. There are a few that are so far beyond societies ability to delude itself that execution is the only punishment. Hitler comes to mind as do serial killers and child rapists. Mass murders as well- maybe even those attempting mass murder- have to think on this some more.

Public hangings may (and I disagree here but to keep from arguing I'll acquiesce) lead to mob mentality but hidden executions lead to public forgetfulness. Not just the evil doers benefit from knowledge.

We are NEVER going to agree on this unless you change your mind, which I don't think will happen in my lifetime
.


.

JoeDoaks and supercheetah, I would tend to agree with you that Life imprisonment would seem to be the ideal solution but for one problem that I mentioned in the first posting. Not counting the overall cost to the taxpayer to keep these people in prison for life there is another major problem with doing this. Yes, this would keep these people off our streets but it does not protect our society nor it's citizenery. Let me explain. You place these people in prison for life, all well and good. Now though instead of preying on "normal" civilians they now inflct themselves on their fellow prisoners. Making these other prisoners (who are not serving Life) more dangerous to people once they are released. It has been well documented many many times the past 4 decades that prison time does not rehabilitate but in fact teaches criminals more / better techniques to further their criminal activities once released. Also due to the tortures that many endure while in prison, makes them more likely to inflict these same on others once they are reintergrated with society.

Think of it this way, sort of like the movies "Silence of the Lambs" engendering "Red Dragon"

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
JoeDoaks and supercheetah, I would tend to agree with you that Life imprisonment would seem to be the ideal solution but for one problem that I mentioned in the first posting. Not counting the overall cost to the taxpayer to keep these people in prison for life there is another major problem with doing this. Yes, this would keep these people off our streets but it does not protect our society nor it's citizenery. Let me explain. You place these people in prison for life, all well and good. Now though instead of preying on "normal" civilians they now inflct themselves on their fellow prisoners. Making these other prisoners (who are not serving Life) more dangerous to people once they are released. It has been well documented many many times the past 4 decades that prison time does not rehabilitate but in fact teaches criminals more / better techniques to further their criminal activities once released. Also due to the tortures that many endure while in prison, makes them more likely to inflict these same on others once they are reintergrated with society.

Think of it this way, sort of like the movies "Silence of the Lambs" engendering "Red Dragon"

I agree with you on what prisons do to people, but I think that has more to do with mishandling than anything else, and that's not a good reason for capital punishment. There are a number of prison programs out there that have been proven to be successful in rehabilitating prisoners, but a vast majority of prisons and their wardens don't even know about them, and so the implementation of these programs is extremely rare.

I know from people I know personally who work in prison that many people come out of prison worse than they went in. Many also become dependent on prisons, and cannot survive outside of prison, so many end up committing a crime just to get back in. That's not a reason to justify capital punishment, though. It means that our prison system needs overhauling, with emphasis on rehabilitation and education (so they don't become dependent on the prison system). It also means that some people should never be in prison, particularly if their crime isn't violent. Perhaps some sort of social isolation centers where people can still work, but they must be closely monitored. Some prisoners simply need to be isolated from the rest of the prison population due to any negative influence they may cause (as in your example). Right now, our prison system is too focused on punishment, but that doesn't help anybody, as I've pointed out. Perhaps prisons need to start implementing miniature controlled economies so that prisoners learn to work peacefully with people, but of course that's not the only idea. Our politicians refuse to listen to such ideas because, to them, prison is only meant for punishment.

What a sad state of affairs that we live in. All our prison system does is trap people into a life of crime, and does little to nothing to break them out of that trap.

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

Originally posted by supercheetah
Public hangings only promote a lack of respect for death. Murderers aren't discouraged by it since many of them are mentally ill anyway. It also promotes mob mentality, which, as history shows, only leads to the destruction of a society.

Ahh, but no. Respect for the dead is what you are getting to. I disagree completely.

Public hangings make government punishment 'ominous.' Leaving a body to rot could have some beneficiary effects.

I'm not for executions for most crimes. There are a few that are so far beyond societies ability to delude itself that execution is the only punishment. Hitler comes to mind as do serial killers and child rapists. Mass murders as well- maybe even those attempting mass murder- have to think on this some more.

Public hangings may (and I disagree here but to keep from arguing I'll acquiesce) lead to mob mentality but hidden executions lead to public forgetfulness. Not just the evil doers benefit from knowledge.

We are NEVER going to agree on this unless you change your mind, which I don't think will happen in my lifetime

We most likely won't agree, but I'll keep fighting this fight against the death penalty because I think it's barbaric. I don't think even Hitler would have deserved the death penalty. By putting someone to death means that you've completely given up on the person to become enlightened/forgiven.

To be honest, I'm a spiritual atheist, which means that I believe in a spiritual reality without deities. I believe that a person is much harder to rehabilitate spiritually than if they were still alive. If they die a violent person, then they continue on as a violent person, spiritually, which I think is a very bad thing.

Since we live in a "Christian" nation, I like using Christians' favorite book to enlighten them on this issue and others since it seems to be the only thing they understand. I've studied Christianity and the Bible long enough to know that Jesus would lament us giving up on anyone, even the most violent of individuals.

Luke 15:7
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

For those people who argue about the fact that murderers shouldn't have money spent on them, ie jailing them.

Please know that keeping people on death row is actually more expensive.

"A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison. (1)

Source of above article

For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. [3] In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million. [4] In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment. [5] The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually.[6]

2nd source

I just thought this is something that people should take into account, killing someone is actually more expensive then keeping them alive.

Now, wouldn't it then be a good idea to spend less money to keep them alive, and if a mistake happens (ie. they innocent), they would still be alive.