dp research

[Sunny]

So I'm doing my senior paper on Capital punishment and I have to argue both sides. So I was wondering if y'all could give me specific reasons why you believe the death penalty is right.

[Michael]

Well, I am afraid that, since I am anti, I could only give you the reasons I don´t believe in the dp....
Paramount for me is the belief that the state does not have the right to kill a person. The only exception for me is killing someone in order so save another person. In Germany, where the dp is abolished, we still have the so-called "final rescue shot" in our laws. So if the offender establishes a fatal thread to others he may be shot by the police.
If this fatal thread doesn´t exist anymore, i.e. when the offender is in custody I don´t see a moral justification to kill him/her.

[GlennF]

Hi Sunny, read this:

www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

and this:

w1.155.telia.com/~u15509119/ny_sida_1.htm

Glenn

[Donnie]

The main reason for having a death penalty today is to provide an approach to justice for the victims of murder. I use the phrase "an approach to justice" because even if a murderer were to be struck dead one second after the murder, that would not provide justice for the victim and the victim's family. The murderer, even when executed, always comes out ahead. The murderer always gets what he wanted. Let us look at a simple murder, in which a murderer kills his victim with a knife plunged into his victims heart so that she dies in a few seconds. The murderer wanted his victim dead and has gotten what he wanted. He has gotten what he wanted, even though he had no right to murder and his action was forbidden.
THE MURDERER HAD NO RIGHT TO GET WHAT HE WANTED. YET HE GOT WHAT HE WANTED.

The murder victim just wanted to live and did not get what she wanted, even though she had a right to live and society had promised her that she would be allowed to live. It would not be unusual if she was also providing valuable benefits to society as well as not harming anyone.
THE MURDER VICTIM HAD EVERY RIGHT TO GET WHAT SHE WANTED. YET SHE DID NOT GET WHAT SHE WANTED.
WHO IS AHEAD AT THIS POINT, THE MURDERER OR THE VICTIM?

Can the victim ever catch up with her murderer?

Is it just for the murderer to be better off than his victim?

Is it fair for the murderer to be better off than his victim?

Should we care about justice and fairness for the dead innocent victim?

Once the murderer kills his victim, does he become more important than his victim?

The murderer gains an unfair advantage over his victim the moment he begins to kill her. That is true even if he hasn’t already tortured her or raped her. After the victim dies, every second that the murderer lives increases the murderer's unfair advantage over the victim. That is the situation in a simple murder where the murder was done in a painless way. In such rare cases the murderer is given at least one fair trial, has appeals heard and then is given spiritual counseling and a last meal of his choice before his merciful execution. The victim had none of those things and has been dead for years before the murderer is executed. But the death penalty does provide the closest available approach to justice and stops the injustice from increasing. Of course, many cases of capital murder are much worse than that, with the victim or victims being raped (sometimes many times by different rapists) and tortured, sometimes for hours or days, before a lonely, painful death. Then, often, the victim's family has to go through a period of not knowing if their loved one is alive or dead. Sometimes the victim's family has to watch their loved one die a slow and painful death in a hospital. Then the victim's family has to relive the suffering of their loved one several times during the investigation, trial and appeals. If the murderer is not executed, the family members have to go through this for many years as the appeals and parole requests never stop.

WHEN THE MURDERER IS EXECUTED YEARS AFTER THE MURDER, WHO WAS AHEAD AT THAT POINT, THE MURDERER OR THE VICTIM?

Is it good that the murderer’s unfair advantage has stopped increasing?

Bear in mind that, in many cases, the murderer further benefits over the victim by raping or torturing her or both. The cases of Anita Cobby, Mary Adlay, Wendy Offredo and Heather Muller are instructive, just as a few of many examples. In those cases, the murderer can repeatedly relive the pleasure of the rapes or torture. He can sit with other rapists and murderers in prison and they can share their fond memories of the pleasure they drew from their victims’ suffering. They can laugh and joke about how the victim begged not to be raped for the fourth or fifth time. They can swap stories about how their victims begged for their lives as they lay broken and bleeding. In at least one case a rape-murderer obtained the crime scene photographs of his victim to further increase his relived pleasures. Also, in other cases, the murderer kills many victims. So, in such cases, the murderer gains even largeradvantages over his victim or victims. In no case does the murderer ever suffer as much as his victims.

There are also two beneficial byproducts from adequate use of the death penalty; deterrence and prevention. When the death penalty is used, as many as 20 potential murderers are deterred from murdering for each additional execution. When a murderer is executed, he cannot kill again. Thousands of innocent victims have been killed by previously convicted murderers who were not executed for their first murder. No innocent victim has ever been killed by an executed murderer.

The DP also provides a benefit for the murderer, the opportunity for redemption. A murderer facing execution is given the benefit of a powerful incentive to review his past actions and seek the redemption of his soul.

[crappieboy]

Keep in mind the Federal cases, and states - 50 states...all seem to vary somewhat. But before one qualifies for DP they must meet certain guidelines set by the state. Factors such as prior records, premeditation, more than one person murdered, violent murder, member of police department. You may want to limit the focus on your paper to one state, otherwise the paper could get really long in my opinion.

Now for my reasoning...once this murderer is executed he/she could never murder again. If they receive life in prison - what have they got to lose by by injuring or killing another inmate or guard? Legislation can change every year - legislator decide prisons are too crowded - let them out. They have been good while in prison - let them out.