Why the death penalty should be abolished

Michael Morton was freed after DNA evidence proved he was not his wife's murderer. According to all accounts, the prosecution in this case mismanaged and withheld evidence in order to get their conviction. Fortunately for Michael Morton he was given life in prison rather than a death sentence, or we may have never known he was innocent.

57-year-old Michael Morton was 32 when his wife Christine was beaten to death in the family’s home. The Innocence Project took on Morton’s case long after he’d been thrown in prison for life because- new lawyers for Morton say- the prosecution deliberately secreted exculpatory evidence to secure a conviction. (For instance, Morton’s toddler son was present at the scene of the crime and said the killer was not his father.)

www.inquisitr.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.texastribune.org...


This is a great example as to why the death penalty should be abolished. Texas has convicted and killed more people than any other state. How many of those do you think were innocent and wrongly killed? If an innocent man is killed by the state for a crime he didn't commit, should that be considered murder? If a case were found where someone was put to death and later proven to be innocent, who should be held responsible for that murder? The prosecution? The state? No one?

Morton is the 45th inmate in Texas to be exonerated. These numbers indicate that many innocent men and women are convicted of crimes the did not commit. This tells us that innocent Americans have been sentenced and put to death.

I believe that the death penalty is a horrible leftover from humanity's barbaric past. How can we call ourselves a civilized society when we are potentially murdering innocent people? Beyond this, I don't even think the guilty should be put to death. What does this accomplish?

How can a society evolve past violence when the state sponsors it!? There is no indication that the death penalty is a deterrent. The death penalty also prevents the defendant from having a chance to clear their name and regain their freedom. Who calls this system "justice?"

If you are a supporter of the death penalty, rather than post saying that evildoers should be punished, please try to offer some justification for the innocent lives that are inevitably taken by this system. Or, better yet, please suggest ways that the system could be improved to assure that no innocents are killed by our flawed justice system.

eye for an eye makes the whole world blind a wise man once said.


I couldn't agree more . Death penalty is barbaric and ancient satanic practice .


Its wrong , and your just as bad as the person who commited the crime.


The ops story is a good reason why we should not have death penalty espically if there is a shadow of doubt..


but this is one of many double standards we have to erase in "civilization" today ...


i would be so pissed if i was locked up that long then come out ... to what ?

i hate how evidence gets tampared with so often . Many of these prosecuteors need to be jailed . to be made an example of

reply to post by TinkerHaus


The death penalty is not justice, it is not a deterrent, it is nothing more than plain old vengeance.

If we want to truly evolve as a species we need to distance ourselves from the simplistic attitude of "put a bullet in them" and we need to look far more closely at what creates "them" in the first place. There are so many social factors involved in criminality that are ignored because people are too lazy and just want the simple quick fix solutions.

Look at this thread...

Victim of 911 hate crime attack campaigns to prevent attackers execution

This guy could have gone on to help other inmates turn their lives around but instead he was executed.

Dead people do not learn from their mistakes and cannot help others.

Peace

What we need is an IQ test for juries.
The Casey Anthony trial is proof of this.

reply to post by Thunderheart


In the case of Casey Anthony; the jury can only go on the proof and evidence put forward from the prosecution, and that was very little at best.

Many in favor of the death penalty site reconciliation, closure, and say that the perpetrator's death is the only way the family can move on.

To those people I would like to bring to your attention Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation.

www.mvfr.org...

Many murder victims' families are against the death penalty as well. Forgiveness, love, and rehabilitation are factors our justice system does not seem to take into account. It is always tragic when a life is taken, but is state sponsored murder really the best answer?

I'm a supporter of the death penalty. However, I don't like how it's done at the moment. Taking someone's life is a HUGE deal to me. I hate the thought of that being a circumstance, but there really are monsters on this planet, and I believe the world is a better place without them. That being said, the prosecution had better be DAMN sure that the person they're killing is guilty of the crimes. To put even ONE innocent person to death is a reason fro me to be very leery of the whole thing.

I think the biggest problem we face is that the justice system seems more interested in having a verdict, a person they can point a finger at, someone to blame, etc., rather than finding the true killer. The movie Law Abiding Citizen is a fine example of how corrupt the system is. I watched that movie, and to be honest, I was saddened by the ending. I had hoped the entire corrupt establishment had been wiped out. Jamie Fox's character was no hero in my eyes. He merely allowed the problem to persist.

If someone is TRULY guilty of a heinous crime, I support them riding the needle. If the conviction was made on trumped up evidence, fabrications, or anything of that nature, then the convicted should not face the death penalty. If, however, an innocent person is put to death, I think it would only be fair that every police officer, prosecutor, and the judge face the same punishment. I also hold this opinion to innocent convicts that "merely" serve time. With DNA freeing so many nowadays, I think that anyone involved in the prosecution of those men and women should serve day for day what the innocent served.

That's my 2 cents.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


There's no too many cases of those who have received the electric chair or lethal injection found innocent years later.

I too think it's time for America to abolish the death penalty.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3


navy_vet: The problem is that prosecutors will ALWAYS seek a conviction. They are more concerned with their career that true justice. In a way, they are just as evil as any murderer or rapist. With this in mind, how do you propose the system be fixed to trump this sad reality?

reply to post by TinkerHaus


The death penalty may not be a deterrent but it definitely saves us the hassle of dealing with repeat criminals who have no interest in joining legitimate society. What do we do with those people? The ones that go back to prison time and time again?

There are criminals that dont respect themselves or anyone else. They simply cause problems, fight and kill guards and other inmates. Solitary confinement is not a deterrent either.

When people go back in to prison time and time again its time to put that rabid dog down. There are people who are just too violent and abusive to themselves and others, who don't WANT to be rehabilitated and rejoin society. These are the criminals that mock the prison system by completely sidestepping the purpose: rehabilitation into society. These are the criminals that should be executed and its blatantly obvious to prison officials who these men are.

Death penalty should be used but sparingly and only on those unwilling to better themselves.

I do think that it's time that the death penalty be put to rest.

There have been too many people who have been freed after spending long periods of time in jail. You can't free someone that you've killed.

However, I do think that there should be a sentence where you spend the rest of you life in a small cell and you never get out. That of course would be for violent crimes.

While you're changing the penal code how about changing not guilty by reason of insanity to guilty but insane. Then when (if ever) the court finds you sane, you can spend the rest of your sentence in a jail rather than a mental health facility.

I do believe the penalty of equal punishment should be upheld to some degree, the system that decides who is guilty and who is not is what is screwed up, I'd have no problem with it other than this factor

that being said I believe science or something must come up with a much better way to determine who is rightly guilty without 1 degree of doubt, then the right punishment can be given without error or influence of emotions

you do X you get Y, no sympathy to emotion, its no ones fault but the guilty...also lessor crimes should not be grouped with purely evil acts, this is another big problem with the whole system


and while he is a much smarter man then I, the quote eye for an eye leaves us all blind..... its sounds good, but eventually all that is left is good people that are blind

reply to post by doctornamtab


I agree with you that not all people can be rehabilitated. Absolutely. I believe part of the reason is the environment they were brought up in, an environment where the establishment believes that state sponsored murder is the answer.

What is the greater punishment? Release, via death, from this world or a life time to think about it?
After extended time in prison many become criminalized and end up being worse people than they were before entering the system. If the system itself promotes and propagates these violent criminals, how can the same system be trusted to dispense justice? The entire system needs reform, from the top down.

You equate violent, repeat offenders with rabid dogs.. Could the state be considered a rabid dog as well? They have killed more people than any single person they have put to death.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


The only way to fix it is if the prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement have to serve whatever penalty the falsely convicted had to serve. Whether it's 1 year or 25 years (like in THIS story).

Aside from that, I don't know. If those prosecutors, judges and law enforcement had thought they may wind up serving 25 years, maybe they would have looked for the real killer. Not like OJ is looking for the "real killer", but you know what I mean.

Originally posted by Muckster
The death penalty is not justice, it is not a deterrent, it is nothing more than plain old vengeance.

It is also good, solid genetic planning, for whatever that's woth.
When a member of the herd goes rogue and starts killing it's neighbors, the rogue is killed to remove the abberation, and prevent it from reproducing, for the betterment of the rest.

Dead people do not learn from their mistakes and cannot help others.

100% true, which is why we need a severe penalty for those who kill people.
3 hots and a cot for life is not a severe enough penalty, IMO.

I have no issue with the death penalty for violent offenders. I do, however, have issues with the system that decides the guilt. Obviously, with such a serious penalty on the line, we have to be damn sure of the (alleged) criminal's guilt. Maybe capital trials need some sort of oversight to ensure that everyone involved is acting above board, all evidence is presented, and all due dilligence is performed. Perhaps a second jury with a team of investigators at their disposal.

I know I don't have all the answers (obviously), but I know that if someone can't live in society without attacking, raping, or killing others, I don't want them around.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by doctornamtab

 

I agree with you that not all people can be rehabilitated. Absolutely. I believe part of the reason is the environment they were brought up in, an environment where the establishment believes that state sponsored murder is the answer.

What is the greater punishment? Release, via death, from this world or a life time to think about it?
After extended time in prison many become criminalized and end up being worse people than they were before entering the system. If the system itself promotes and propagates these violent criminals, how can the same system be trusted to dispense justice? The entire system needs reform, from the top down.

You equate violent, repeat offenders with rabid dogs.. Could the state be considered a rabid dog as well? They have killed more people than any single person they have put to death.

Right. The state itself has killed more people but have they killed more innocent people? No. The criminals have killled more innocent people than the state ever could. And the thing is, WE may think about our crimes and have remorse for them but not everyone does. We have empathy, many criminals do not.

And the effect of the death penalty is not merely a punishment on the prisoner. It frees you and me, the law abiding citizens, from having to deal with repeat criminal offenders. I dont want someone who cannot control their criminal behavior to be alive on this planet where my friends and family live. Do you? There are people who CANNOT control themselves or have no motivation to.

Yes, a lot of that blame gets put on society. But to call criminals the victims of society absolves them of their crimes and perhaps contributes to the mentality you descibe above.

While I do not agree that those who are proven to be 100% guilty of violent crimes should be put to death, I do agree that the major problem lies in the legal system and the methods used to determine one's guilt.

Until a system can be devised that can assure us that someone is absolutely guilty, the only answer is to abolish the death penalty.

reply to post by doctornamtab


In the event that one of my family members or myself (god forbid) were the victim of a violent crime, I do not think I would feel any better knowing that the person had been put to death.

I don't care if that person inhabits the same planet as I do as long as they are behind bars and cannot hurt anyone else. I do not need revenge to move forward in my life.

In fact, I would hope that the offender would eventually feel remorse and seek forgiveness for his crimes. Not feel sorry for themselves, but truly see that what they have done is wrong and have a chance in life to make what amends they could.

For me, seeing that someone was truly sorry for the pain they caused would be a much more satisfying closure than seeing them die.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
While I do not agree that those who are proven to be 100% guilty of violent crimes should be put to death, I do agree that the major problem lies in the legal system and the methods used to determine one's guilt.

Until a system can be devised that can assure us that someone is absolutely guilty, the only answer is to abolish the death penalty.

The system that has been devised is DNA evidence, confessions and witness testimony. If you are put to death without at least two of these three evidences against you then you are wrongly put to death. But how many times have these three methods of guilt been used where the criminal ends up innocent? My guess is not many. If judges and juries decide to convict someone without this evidence then thats on them, not the death penalty.

Our courts are a money making system now, just like everything else (thanks capitalism). Private prisons, prosecutors wanting to make the front page of the paper, and on and on. True court reform can never occur without the abolition of capitalism, which turns even a prison sentence into a financial profit for a private company.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


It only takes one inocent person to be executed and the whole of society is guilty of murder and are no better than the criminals.
What would be interesting is if prossecuters had to face the same punishment as the accused if there was found to be a misscarage of justice.
You can bet there would less mistakes if this was the case.