How I feel about death penalty...

[Carol]

Death penalty is the worst kind of punnishment there are. violence creates violence, it all comes back in a circel of death and murders. we are no better than the killers if we do the same to them. let them rot in jail for the rest of their lifes, but do not kill them!! No on has the right to take anyones life, no matter what!! someone has to take the first step on the way to a society where no one gets killed! Take that step!

[Donnie]

That is an interesting theory Carol, but I couldn't help but notice that you provided nothing to back it up. If your theory were correct, there wouldn't be any violence in Washington DC or Detroit, Michigan. They both took the first step long ago. What has gone wrong in those places?

When we mercifully execute a brutal murderer we are much better than the murderer.

Your claim that nobody has the right to take a life is quite weak. That means that killing in self-defense or to defend others should be forbidden. Do you consider such killing to be taking a life?

Guest-Carol said:

Death penalty is the worst kind of punnishment there are. violence creates violence, it all comes back in a circel of death and murders. we are no better than the killers if we do the same to them. let them rot in jail for the rest of their lifes, but do not kill them!! No on has the right to take anyones life, no matter what!! someone has to take the first step on the way to a society where no one gets killed! Take that step!

[Jodie]

"We mercifully execute a few brutal murderers to help show that killing innocent victims is wrong."

I noticed that you had this quote - but can I make the point that there is no evidence that the death penalty deters people from killing - so how can you say that we exceute to show people killing innocent people is wrong.
People know it is wrong, but they do it anyway - so you can't say that the death penalty is successful in what its purpose is supposed to be.

Just as a side point - I live in Australia where we do not have the death penalty. Taking into account obviously that America has a larger population, we do not have nearly the amount of murders as America does and we do not have the death penalty. Australia is not an isolated case either, we can't just put it down to "well Australians must be different."

Shouldn't we look at WHY there are so many murders committed in America each year and then try and look at ways to prevent this rather than just killing the murderes out of 'mercy'. Sure it prevents that particular murderer from ever killing again, but it won't deter someone else from ever killing. Just look at all the people who have been executed and look at how many people are being murdered still every day.

So i just would like to know if we are killing them for the sake of getting 'revenge' , a kind of 'eye for an eye' or are we working towards fixing the problem.


I know that was a long spiel - but it is a passionate topic

[Jodie]

sorry in all my passionate talk, i forgot to address who it was I was responding to properly, which is Donnie.

[Donnie]

There is ample scientific evidence that the DP deters people from killing. We did a human experiment on that concept in the US to help prove that. That experiment resulted in the deaths of hundreds of murder victims. In addition, there are many individual criminals who have commented on the deterrent effect the DP had on them. There are also murderers who have stated that they killed because they knew there was no DP in their jurisdiction.

Your passion has apparently debilitated your reading comphrension. My quote says "to help show", which is quite different from "to show". Most potential murderers know that murder is wrong. However, part of the way that they know that is from their knowledge that people have been and are executed for murder.

I also noted that, in your passion, you neglected the concept of the pursuit of justice. That important concept is the primary purpose of the DP. Executing a murderer doen't fully provide justice for the victim, but it is the closest acceptable approach to justice. Of course, the murderer always is allowed to triumph over his victim. As for revenge, the DP doesn't even come close to revenge for a murder, and it certainly isn't an "eye for an eye". That is because simply murdering someone is not enough to allow the just application of the DP. The murderer must do certain specific acts to qualify for the DP. In addition, it must be proven that the murder didn't have an acceptable excuse for the murder.

Perhaps you could explain how the execution of the murderer of Mary Alday and her family or the murderers of Heather Muller and her friends could be considered "an eye for an eye" or revenge.

As for comparisons of murder rates, your implication is not clear. It appears that you are not aware that there are different jurisdictions in America with different DP laws and different murder rates. For example, murderers in Washington, DC are exempt from the DP while murderers in San Antonio, Texas are subject to the DP. You might want to compare the murder rates of those two cities and see how well your comparative murder rate theory holds up. You could also compare Sourth Dakota with Michigan.

What makes you think that researchers are not looking at why there are so many murders in some places in the US? Executing murderers doesn't prevent anyone from looking for the causes of murder. How could it? But failing to execute murderers does prevent other innocent victims from living. The failure to execute also encourages some potential murderers to become actual murderers. Being a murderer is not a good thing for the murderer, even if he is not executed.

Guest-Jodie said:

"We mercifully execute a few brutal murderers to help show that killing innocent victims is wrong."

I noticed that you had this quote - but can I make the point that there is no evidence that the death penalty deters people from killing - so how can you say that we exceute to show people killing innocent people is wrong.
People know it is wrong, but they do it anyway - so you can't say that the death penalty is successful in what its purpose is supposed to be.

Just as a side point - I live in Australia where we do not have the death penalty. Taking into account obviously that America has a larger population, we do not have nearly the amount of murders as America does and we do not have the death penalty. Australia is not an isolated case either, we can't just put it down to "well Australians must be different."

Shouldn't we look at WHY there are so many murders committed in America each year and then try and look at ways to prevent this rather than just killing the murderes out of 'mercy'. Sure it prevents that particular murderer from ever killing again, but it won't deter someone else from ever killing. Just look at all the people who have been executed and look at how many people are being murdered still every day.

So i just would like to know if we are killing them for the sake of getting 'revenge' , a kind of 'eye for an eye' or are we working towards fixing the problem.


I know that was a long spiel - but it is a passionate topic

[splitp]

Actually there is no evidence whatsoever- scientific or otherwise.

Donnie said:

There is ample scientific evidence that the DP deters people from killing.