It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
purplemer
reply to post by shaneslaughta
The Death Penalty needs to be removed....You should never become a monster to fight a monster...
zeroBelief
I think that if a jury finds you guilty of certain crimes (murder, rape, etc)
jrod
Cold blooded murder and child rape are the only two crimes that deserve capital punishment.
Galvatron
reply to post by TheRegal
I don't think it's juvenile. I think it's an attempt at justice where other options are almost completely unethical. The death penalty is often the least unethical possibility for someone convicted of an offense severe enough to warrant it.
Society convicts a murderer. The solution is to separate the individual from society so they no longer have any influence or presence in it whatsoever. Our people and laws demand it.
You can't just dump your problems on another society through deportation. It's unethical, no country in their right mind would accept the asylum of a convicted murderer (although I'm beginning to wonder), and the possibility of re-immigration still exists.
You can't merely imprison them for the rest of their lives passing the cost of such an act on to the very citizenry who through due process has declared that their society wants nothing to do with the murderer anymore, this ought to include paying for what amounts to a relatively comfortable living. It's unethical to plop the burden on the citizenry like that.
I think the death penalty is very much so warranted. It's society saying, "you took one of our lives unlawfully, unfairly, and unilaterally, so we will take yours lawfully, collectively, and as fairly as possible." Juvenile? I disagree. In many cases it's taking the high road.edit on 20-1-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated.
If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole*, which costs millions less and also ensures that the public is protected while eliminating the risk of an irreversible mistake, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on: education, roads, police officers and public safety programs, after-school programs, drug and alcohol treatment, child abuse prevention programs, mental health services, and services for crime victims and their families.
More than 3500 men and women have received this sentence in California since 1978 and NOT ONE has been released, except those few individuals who were able to prove their innocence.
California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.
crazyewok
I dont get the lethal injection. It seems a elaborate and expensive way to off someone.
Why not just give them a Morphine OD? Or a General anaesthesia then whatever.
TheRegal
.
Ever wonder why other developed countries got rid of the death penalty decades ago and did just fine? It's because you're wrong and your arguments are awful. Accept it.edit on 20-1-2014 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)
TheRegal
I'd hang out with a convicted rapist over someone this enthusiastic about killing people any day.
Galvatron
reply to post by TheRegal
I don't appreciate the ad hominem attack suggesting that I can't read and insinuating that I am infantile and pathetic.[
I expect you think you know what's good for other people.
What you're describing requires perfect justice, and like you I don't think it exists. I think however, that you are focusing merely on the money and not the ethics.
Cheaper it may be, but is it ethical to pay for someone to live life in prison? www.aclunc.org...
Victims' families prefer LWOP
Because death is different and mistakes cannot be corrected, a death sentence results in years of mandatory appeals that often result in reversal. In a sample of 350 death sentences, 118, or nearly one-third, were reversed in part or in whole. Further, nearly 60 percent of the cases in this sample were still in various stages of appeals as of 2002. For each of the last three executions in California, more than 25 years had been spent in appeals before the executions finally occurred. The current average for appeals is 17 years—and getting longer every day.
Unlike death penalty cases, however, LWOP sentences receive no special consideration on appeal, which limits the possibility they will be reduced or reversed. A person sentenced to die in prison receives only one automatic appeal, not several, and is not provided any court-appointed attorneys after this appeal is complete, usually within two years of the initial sentence.
California has the largest death row in the country with more than 660 prisoners. But more than four times as many prisoners have died of other causes while awaiting execution than have actually been executed. In contrast, when prisoners are sentenced to prison until death, they begin serving their sentence immediately. LWOP allows victims’ survivors to move on, rather than keeping them trapped in decades of court hearings and waiting for an execution to occur.
For these reason, the survivors of murder victims often feel that the death penalty system only prolongs their pain and does not provide the resolution they need, while the finality of LWOP sentences allows them to move on, knowing justice is being served.
However in practice the death penalty regularly violates many other human rights:
• The death penalty disproportionately affects the poor
• The death penalty disproportionately affects visible minorities and other marginalised groups
• Death sentences in many parts of the world routinely result from evidence extracted through torture
• Innocent people have been executed and nothing short of abolition can guarantee that no innocent person will be executed
• Capital punishment is often used for crimes or circumstances which international law or standards say should not have a death penalty such as against those who were under the age of 18 at the time of the offence, following an unfair trial and for non-lethal crimes such as drug trafficking or political offences.
Furthermore, study after study has shown the death penalty is:
• Ineffective at deterring crime
• Extremely costly, draining resources that could more effectively be used to solve and prevent crime
TheRegal
purplemer
reply to post by shaneslaughta
The Death Penalty needs to be removed....You should never become a monster to fight a monster...
Or to kill someone who you were led to believe was a monster and turned out not to be.
...amphotericin B... costs a prohibitive $600,000.00 per year licence fee
Galvatron
reply to post by TheRegal
The section you highlighted form the ACLU website really reveals your sense of justice.
You would have a victim's family's grief assuaged in return for the criminals ability to appeal under due process. LWOP means one appeal without the state's assistance. You consider this justice? LWOP and the death penalty, from a practical standpoint are identical, the difference is LWOP doesn't allow for adequate appeal and therefore justice if the person was indeed unjustly convicted, while the other does. Hence why 1/3 of death penalties get reversed. Lawyers even push for LWOP over the death penalty because of the reduced likelihood of a successful appeal as well as saving the state money.
I'm an animal lover, and if my dog mauled a toddler, perish the thought, I would rather the dog be put down than live the rest of its life meagerly in some blasted wasteland of a kennel for the next 10 years.
To summarize how you look from a logic standpoint. You say Death1 is better than Death2 because Death1 (LWOP) is justified because victim's families FEEL as though justice is done whether or not it is, and because it restricts the convict's ability to escape death than Death2.edit on 20-1-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)