The Death Penalty

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:46 am

OK I am going way off Topic here, but with the events in the Peterson Murder trail I have
been -a- think'n. What is your opinion on the death penalty. I am not looking to change
anybody's mind here just canvas some opinions/point of views on the topic. After all
Montana has always been a very pro-death penalty state!

Believe it or not, I really feel there is a place for the death penalty in a civilized society.
Growing up catholic I was very anti-DP up until about my senior year in Highschool.
What changed my mind was after hearing some ex-cons talk and Police officers talk.
Since then I have read quite a bit about the pro's and con's of the DP and have formed a
pretty clear understanding of my belief of it. First I do not believe in the Death Penalty
as punishment, it has been proven over and over that it does nothing to prevent murders
and does nothing to make us safer, furthermore the DP as a punishment actually does
(according to some) harm to society as a whole, more than good. My view of the DP is
that it is a necessary evil that we must do protect society from some individuals. I hate to
say it but some times we must put down dangerous animal that could harm others
(whether it be citizens or their fellow prisoners). Now from this definition I could be
considered more "liberal" if you will because I would not consider Scott Peterson for the
DP, but more "conservative" in cases of sexual predators who may not kill their victims,
but yet have a very high rate of recommitting. Now this is just my opinion of what your
opinion of the right or wrongs of the Death Penalty.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:36 am

I'll go first. I am in total favor of the death penalty. The benefits of it as a deterrent to crime can be debated (and I will save everyone from giving my thoughts on this matter) but I will instead, base my statement on two things. First and foremost, some people just need to be killed. The Ted Bundy's of the world are not worth saving and can never be rehabilitated. What good does it serve to keep someone behind bars for 50 years? Personally, I would rather be dead than in prison for life so in a way we are doing them a favor. My second reason is financial. It costs our country a lot of money to feed, clothe, educate, house, etc. a prisoner. I can't see the benefits to spending that kind of money annually that could go to far better things on someone who will never enter society again.

wbtfg · Post by **wbtfg** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:47 am

My second reason is financial. It costs our country a lot of money to feed, clothe, educate, house, etc. a prisoner

I agree with your first reason (some people just need to be killed), but it actually costs the taxpayers MORE money to execute a person than it does to keep them in jail for life.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:03 pm

I assume you are speaking of the legal costs incurred during the multiple appeals process? That is a big time problem I have with the system and opens the door for a whole other debate. I will keep this short but if we simplified the process where someone is found guilty, sentenced to death, maybe given one appeal and then terminated I don't think it would cost that much. A nurse's time and a few quarts of killer juice can't cost that much. As with many things in this country the legal costs account for a huge portion of the final bill.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:22 pm

The cost to keep someone in Jail for life is no where near the cost of what it takes to give them the death penalty. The cost involved with death penalty cases is two fold on is the legal expences, as you mention, but the cost to keep prisoners on death row is enormous. Individual cells, special construction for a rising population, guard to prisoner ratios, feeding arrangements, medical attention etc. there is ironically a huge cost associated with the stress the prisoners go thru keeping their bodies heathy so we can kill them! The answer is obviuosly to speed up the process of the sentence, but in order to do that ratio of innocent to guilty prisoners that will be put to death will rise. Then as a society what is the "acceptable" ratio we can live with. Is it 1 innocent person may die so we can execute 100 guilty person, is that acceptable? Or is it 1 to50, 1 to 10 maybe 1 to 3? Anyway it is a very interesting question. With an innocent bank robber the hope is that with time we can exonerate him, but a death row inmate, time is not on his side.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:30 pm

I used to be for the death penalty, partly because it saved housing somebody for life.

I am now against it. For one reason, it's not less expensive. For another, most all civilized countries have banned it.

The biggest problem is that our justice system is not as infallible is we might have thought. Lots of people have been falsely convicted. Also, the fact that most death penalty applications are not against white people and occur in Texas tells me that our justice system is not fairly applied.

To put an innocent person in prison is terrible; to execute them is completely inexcusable.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:45 pm

Velo wrote:

I used to be for the death penalty, partly because it saved housing somebody for life.

I am now against it. For one reason, it's not less expensive. For another, most all civilized countries have banned it.

The biggest problem is that our justice system is not as infallible is we might have thought. Lots of people have been falsely convicted. Also, the fact that most death penalty applications are not against white people and occur in Texas tells me that our justice system is not fairly applied.

To put an innocent person in prison is terrible; to execute them is completely inexcusable.

I agree with much of what you said except, wonder what do we do with those folks who will not stop killing, albeit mostly in prison, with the additude that says "what are you going to do sentence me to, two life sentences" I believe there is a point where you need to stop putting other people at risk and you say this person needs to be put down to protect others.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:39 pm

I agree the risk of smoking an innocent person would go up but I think those kind of stories are overdone. I don't have any statistics but am guessing not very many innocent people are executed in a year. The number of appeals they get before even getting close to the needle has to wead out most, if not all, questionable cases. I am willing to risk the 1 in a bunch to get rid of the ones that need to go. In regards to the cost to house an inmate on death row those costs could be greatly reduced if we could speed up the process as you mentioned. Being on death row for 20+ years is a joke. No process, no matter how in depth, should take that long.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:52 pm

If we had perfect information, then I would be gung-ho for the death penalty. Unfortunately, since it is irreversible, I have to lean against it.

DNA evidence is helping bring us closer to the point where I would support the DP, but it has also exonerated a lot of guys already on death row. So while providing us with better evidence going forward, it has already proven just how poorly our legal system has sometimes worked in the past.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:58 pm

Even one innocent executee is way too many. I think the Illinois governor did the right thing. Maybe when he's sure the system works they'll execute somebody. The fact is a black person who commits the exact same crime as a white person is much more likely to be executed, so something is rotten. A black person in Texas is in big trouble. DNA testing is finding a lot of people innocent of major crimes. Eye witnesses are not necessarily reliable. It would save everybody a lot of trouble to just forget about the death penalty. I personally think life in prison would be worse than death.

billingscat · Post by **billingscat** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:58 pm

A little off subject, but going back to the original post. Dont you all find it interesting that Scott Peterson was charged and found guilty of killing his unborn child, where if a doctor would have done the same thing (abortion) it would have been totally legal. Little bit of a contradiction in the legal system dont you think??

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:20 pm

Ya'll done a good job covering all aspects of the death penalty; I'm now dead set against it because of all the death row people DNA has proved innocent--but somebody already covered this. How about this topic: I'm against the present 1-AA, DII and DIII playoff method simply because of the homefield advantage. That is why our ancestors went to the bowl system in the first place, e.g., I'll play your team on a neutral field half way from our school to your school with an even number of fans from both schools in attendance. Same reason I can't stand the present membership of the Big Sky. Asking a coaching staff to take a group of kids into Flagstaff one week where they probably flew to Phoenix, bussed up to Flagstaff, return to Bozo and then turn around and fly to Sacramento? But that's another digression; the homefield advantage is even worse today (again) because of the bid process. Hated to see the NCAA bring that back.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:45 pm

A little off subject, but going back to the original post. Dont you all find it interesting that Scott Peterson was charged and found guilty of killing his unborn child, where if a doctor would have done the same thing (abortion) it would have been totally legal. Little bit of a contradiction in the legal system dont you think??

Thanks, Billingscat...I had wondered many times if anyone else had noticed this. No mention in the mainstream (pro-abortion) media about it, though...go figure.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:56 am

billingscat wrote:A little off subject, but going back to the original post. Dont you all find it interesting that Scott Peterson was charged and found guilty of killing his unborn child, where if a doctor would have done the same thing (abortion) it would have been totally legal. Little bit of a contradiction in the legal system dont you think??

But to compare apples to apples... if the theoretical doctor murdered the mother in the process, and the mother had not requested an abortion procedure... he would be charged with murder as well.

I think the "pro-choice" thing ends when someone other than the mother makes the choice to kill the mother and abort the fetus.

That is an interesting legal approach, though. Conservatives have been using this case as an end-around argument against abortion since the case hit the news, so I'm sure some conservative (meaning liberal, in this instance, but that gets confusing) D.A. will try to use it as a precedent against a legal abortion at some point. I'm guessing in Alabama or Georgia -- the really interesting cases always seem to pop up down there.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:02 am

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
A little off subject, but going back to the original post. Dont you all find it interesting that Scott Peterson was charged and found guilty of killing his unborn child, where if a doctor would have done the same thing (abortion) it would have been totally legal. Little bit of a contradiction in the legal system dont you think??
Thanks, Billingscat...I had wondered many times if anyone else had noticed this. No mention in the mainstream (pro-abortion) media about it, though...go figure.

Outside of eugenists, I don't think there are many people who are truly "pro-abortion." I think everyone would be happy if they ceased to exist. However, some people would rather that happen through the expanded use of contraception and education, while others would simply expand the role and size of government by criminalizing the procedure (and many within that group would ironically discourage the use of contraception in the process) and/or eliminating sex except for purposes of procreation. The end goal is the same for all parties, though -- they are just greatly different paths to the same place.