WY to Bring Back Firing Squad?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see why the death penalty can’t be used when either DNA or video evidence exists of the act being committed. I also don’t see how life in prison is anything other than a very long death sentence and you could argue lethal injection is much more humane than life in prison. I also think, especially today, the likelihood of someone being wrongfully put to death is pretty small. [/quote]

I agree, but is this something to take a risk with?

With life in prison people CAN get out if they can prove their innocence. This happens. Innocent people get out because they prove their innocence.

You can’t prove yourself innocent when you’re dead.

Below- Death row: Proven innocent.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/justice/louisiana-inmate-exonerated/index.html[/quote]

True, but you are talking about very rare instances. [/quote]

Collateral Damage?
[/quote]

That’s an ugly way to put it, but not untrue. Murder is a shitty thing, so is the death penalty. I don’t have all the answers and I’m not saying it’s okay, but what is the alternative? I would rather see very strict death penalty requirements (like DNA evidence or video evidence) than no death penalty at all. I don’t see the point in letting a guy that raped and killed multiple people live.

22

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see why the death penalty can’t be used when either DNA or video evidence exists of the act being committed. I also don’t see how life in prison is anything other than a very long death sentence and you could argue lethal injection is much more humane than life in prison. I also think, especially today, the likelihood of someone being wrongfully put to death is pretty small. [/quote]

I agree, but is this something to take a risk with?

With life in prison people CAN get out if they can prove their innocence. This happens. Innocent people get out because they prove their innocence.

You can’t prove yourself innocent when you’re dead.

Below- Death row: Proven innocent.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/justice/louisiana-inmate-exonerated/index.html[/quote]

True, but you are talking about very rare instances. [/quote]

Of course they are rare instances. Yet they are instances where the state may take an innocent persons life for a crime they DID NOT DO!

I don’t see how “well that doesn’t happen often” is a good rebuttal in this sense. So we should take the risk of killing innocent people who don’t commit crimes because most of the time we get it right? [/quote]

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

Like I told Blue, I’d would like to see very strict conviction requirement and if met the death penalty is fine with me.

I mean H, I think it’s pretty hypocritical (not you just in general), when people complain about the death penalty, yet we have millions of abortions (who we know are innocent of any crime) every year and of course collateral damage in war zone, which is an atrocity in and of itself.

23

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see why the death penalty can’t be used when either DNA or video evidence exists of the act being committed. I also don’t see how life in prison is anything other than a very long death sentence and you could argue lethal injection is much more humane than life in prison. I also think, especially today, the likelihood of someone being wrongfully put to death is pretty small. [/quote]

I agree, but is this something to take a risk with?

With life in prison people CAN get out if they can prove their innocence. This happens. Innocent people get out because they prove their innocence.

You can’t prove yourself innocent when you’re dead.

Below- Death row: Proven innocent.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/justice/louisiana-inmate-exonerated/index.html[/quote]

True, but you are talking about very rare instances. [/quote]

Of course they are rare instances. Yet they are instances where the state may take an innocent persons life for a crime they DID NOT DO!

I don’t see how “well that doesn’t happen often” is a good rebuttal in this sense. So we should take the risk of killing innocent people who don’t commit crimes because most of the time we get it right? [/quote]

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

Like I told Blue, I’d would like to see very strict conviction requirement and if met the death penalty is fine with me.

I mean H, I think it’s pretty hypocritical (not you just in general), when people complain about the death penalty, yet we have millions of abortions (who we know are innocent of any crime) every year and of course collateral damage in war zone, which is an atrocity in and of itself. [/quote]

I already laid out the differences though. The main difference being people’s arguments about WHEN life begins. Not to mention the difference between a government ALLOWING an individual to do something that some people think is murder, but some people think is not. And KILLING someone (who everyone agrees is murder) who was convicted of a crime full well knowing at times INNOCENT people get convicted of crimes.

I’m not trying to play both sides of the fence, I really don’t think they are that similar at all or hypocritical. The pro-life/pro-choice arguments are much more nuanced than any death penalty debate. People debate and question each other on when life starts and what rights a mother has vs. something that some people view as whole vs. not whole. No matter which side anyone is on I think we can agree that it is certainly quite the debate.

No one debates that lethal injection doesn’t end a humans life in death. And I’m not against killing people on a moral level in this instance. I don’t give a flying fuck about keeping convicted serial killers alive or anything like that if we had a 100% perfect justice system.

We simply do not.

As for the stats I already provided two links and I haven’t even really LOOKED yet. Innocent people get wrongly convicted all the time and throughout history. Do we take the chance of killing an innocent person by the government simply because we have a pretty good batting average? I say no.

Some people are against the death penalty in a moral sense. I am not at all. Fuck evil people. I just am against the government taking the chance of killing an innocent person via an imperfect justice system. We have too many people who have had years of their lives removed from them because of our imperfect system. Why take a chance on their life?

24

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see why the death penalty can’t be used when either DNA or video evidence exists of the act being committed. I also don’t see how life in prison is anything other than a very long death sentence and you could argue lethal injection is much more humane than life in prison. I also think, especially today, the likelihood of someone being wrongfully put to death is pretty small. [/quote]

This is how I feel.

I feel the death penalty should have a different standard of proof when applying this during the sentencing phase. It should be “conclusive” proof, not “beyond reasonable doubt”, meaning DNA evidence/video/confession or witnesses WITH corroboration.

It should be rare, be it should be used.

25

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see why the death penalty can’t be used when either DNA or video evidence exists of the act being committed. I also don’t see how life in prison is anything other than a very long death sentence and you could argue lethal injection is much more humane than life in prison. I also think, especially today, the likelihood of someone being wrongfully put to death is pretty small. [/quote]

In cases of such certainty I don’t have a real objection to it.[/quote]

Nor do I, however the number of cases that would result from this are very small. This is where I take issue http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

26

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

[/quote]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

27

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

[/quote]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
[/quote]

And how many people in the past did we wrongly convict and/or kill before things like DNA could help prove innocence. We will never know, but the answer is certainly not 0.

28

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

[/quote]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
[/quote]

312 in 21 years in pretty rare isn’t it?

29

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

[/quote]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
[/quote]

312 in 21 years in pretty rare isn’t it?[/quote]

Isn’t any number above 0 AWFUL? I don’t see how “rare” comes into play here. Not to mention look at how the numbers get higher as DNA gets used more and more. The 2000’s alone are proportionally much higher than the early 90’s. It makes logical sense that the more we know about using this the higher the numbers and the graph follows that line of thinking.

30

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

[/quote]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
[/quote]

312 in 21 years in pretty rare isn’t it?[/quote]

Only if it is not you or your loved ones. How many did they miss?

31

[quote]H factor wrote:
I already laid out the differences though. The main difference being people’s arguments about WHEN life begins. Not to mention the difference between a government ALLOWING an individual to do something that some people think is murder, but some people think is not. And KILLING someone (who everyone agrees is murder) who was convicted of a crime full well knowing at times INNOCENT people get convicted of crimes.

I’m not trying to play both sides of the fence, I really don’t think they are that similar at all or hypocritical. The pro-life/pro-choice arguments are much more nuanced than any death penalty debate. People debate and question each other on when life starts and what rights a mother has vs. something that some people view as whole vs. not whole. No matter which side anyone is on I think we can agree that it is certainly quite the debate.

No one debates that lethal injection doesn’t end a humans life in death. And I’m not against killing people on a moral level in this instance. I don’t give a flying fuck about keeping convicted serial killers alive or anything like that if we had a 100% perfect justice system.

We simply do not.

As for the stats I already provided two links and I haven’t even really LOOKED yet. Innocent people get wrongly convicted all the time and throughout history. Do we take the chance of killing an innocent person by the government simply because we have a pretty good batting average? I say no.

Some people are against the death penalty in a moral sense. I am not at all. Fuck evil people. I just am against the government taking the chance of killing an innocent person via an imperfect justice system. We have too many people who have had years of their lives removed from them because of our imperfect system. Why take a chance on their life? [/quote]

I think, like abortion, there is a gray area. This gray area involved innocents that are convicted of murder being punished by death. I agree it’s a different situation, but not all that different. Like I said in the other thread because of said gray area I understand and would accept abortion in certain exceptional cases (ie rape/health). This debate, for me, is essentially the flip side. I accept exceptions to the death penalty when people are innocent (ie they should never have never convicted). At least, in this case, the innocent was afforded Due Process.

Our legal system will never be perfect. I’m okay with letting convicted murderers sit in prison until they die, it just seems like a waste of money and time to me. Not to mention the victims may never get closure.

32

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

[/quote]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
[/quote]

312 in 21 years in pretty rare isn’t it?[/quote]

Isn’t any number above 0 AWFUL? I don’t see how “rare” comes into play here. Not to mention look at how the numbers get higher as DNA gets used more and more. The 2000’s alone are proportionally much higher than the early 90’s. It makes logical sense that the more we know about using this the higher the numbers and the graph follows that line of thinking. [/quote]

Of course anything above 0 is awful. The last 10 years appear to level off and I think it will go down as time goes on. All I’m saying is that I don’t think it makes sense to not use the death penalty because a very small percentage of people may be convicted wrongly. That’s a problem with the judicial system not the punishment itself.

People are wrongfully convicted of other crimes should we not imprison anyone?

33

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I already laid out the differences though. The main difference being people’s arguments about WHEN life begins. Not to mention the difference between a government ALLOWING an individual to do something that some people think is murder, but some people think is not. And KILLING someone (who everyone agrees is murder) who was convicted of a crime full well knowing at times INNOCENT people get convicted of crimes.

I’m not trying to play both sides of the fence, I really don’t think they are that similar at all or hypocritical. The pro-life/pro-choice arguments are much more nuanced than any death penalty debate. People debate and question each other on when life starts and what rights a mother has vs. something that some people view as whole vs. not whole. No matter which side anyone is on I think we can agree that it is certainly quite the debate.

No one debates that lethal injection doesn’t end a humans life in death. And I’m not against killing people on a moral level in this instance. I don’t give a flying fuck about keeping convicted serial killers alive or anything like that if we had a 100% perfect justice system.

We simply do not.

As for the stats I already provided two links and I haven’t even really LOOKED yet. Innocent people get wrongly convicted all the time and throughout history. Do we take the chance of killing an innocent person by the government simply because we have a pretty good batting average? I say no.

Some people are against the death penalty in a moral sense. I am not at all. Fuck evil people. I just am against the government taking the chance of killing an innocent person via an imperfect justice system. We have too many people who have had years of their lives removed from them because of our imperfect system. Why take a chance on their life? [/quote]

I think, like abortion, there is a gray area. This gray area involved innocents that are convicted of murder being punished by death. I agree it’s a different situation, but not all that different. Like I said in the other thread because of said gray area I understand and would accept abortion in certain exceptional cases (ie rape/health). This debate, for me, is essentially the flip side. I accept exceptions to the death penalty when people are innocent (ie they should never have never convicted). At least, in this case, the innocent was afforded Due Process.

Our legal system will never be perfect. I’m okay with letting convicted murderers sit in prison until they die, it just seems like a waste of money and time to me. Not to mention the victims may never get closure.

[/quote]

I am ok with letting them sit in prison till they die as well. I believe I have read before that putting someone to death is more expensive than life in prison, but that has been a while.

Either way I don’t think you take the risk. People with long sentences ARE proven not guilty sometimes. And how many people do we wrongfully convict that are innocent but lack the DNA evidence to PROVE they are innocent?

It’s bad enough that we have robbed some people of years of their life and then we set them free. At least in those cases we can give them back their freedom. We can’t give back someone’s life.

Any batting average lower than 1.000 is unacceptable to me and not worth the risk. I don’t view this as much of a gray area, but an easy logical decision.

34

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

[/quote]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
[/quote]

312 in 21 years in pretty rare isn’t it?[/quote]

Only if it is not you or your loved ones. How many did they miss?
[/quote]

114 people were added to death row in 2010, how many of the victim’s families do you think miss their loved one?

35

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

[/quote]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
[/quote]

312 in 21 years in pretty rare isn’t it?[/quote]

Isn’t any number above 0 AWFUL? I don’t see how “rare” comes into play here. Not to mention look at how the numbers get higher as DNA gets used more and more. The 2000’s alone are proportionally much higher than the early 90’s. It makes logical sense that the more we know about using this the higher the numbers and the graph follows that line of thinking. [/quote]

Of course anything above 0 is awful. The last 10 years appear to level off and I think it will go down as time goes on. All I’m saying is that I don’t think it makes sense to not use the death penalty because a very small percentage of people may be convicted wrongly. That’s a problem with the judicial system not the punishment itself.

People are wrongfully convicted of other crimes should we not imprison anyone?

[/quote]

I’m not arguing anything of the sort on jail, that is quite the strawman. If YOU are wrongfully imprisoned and alive you may be able to prove yourself not guilty. If we kill you and you were wrongfully imprisoned you are always dead.

36

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I already laid out the differences though. The main difference being people’s arguments about WHEN life begins. Not to mention the difference between a government ALLOWING an individual to do something that some people think is murder, but some people think is not. And KILLING someone (who everyone agrees is murder) who was convicted of a crime full well knowing at times INNOCENT people get convicted of crimes.

I’m not trying to play both sides of the fence, I really don’t think they are that similar at all or hypocritical. The pro-life/pro-choice arguments are much more nuanced than any death penalty debate. People debate and question each other on when life starts and what rights a mother has vs. something that some people view as whole vs. not whole. No matter which side anyone is on I think we can agree that it is certainly quite the debate.

No one debates that lethal injection doesn’t end a humans life in death. And I’m not against killing people on a moral level in this instance. I don’t give a flying fuck about keeping convicted serial killers alive or anything like that if we had a 100% perfect justice system.

We simply do not.

As for the stats I already provided two links and I haven’t even really LOOKED yet. Innocent people get wrongly convicted all the time and throughout history. Do we take the chance of killing an innocent person by the government simply because we have a pretty good batting average? I say no.

Some people are against the death penalty in a moral sense. I am not at all. Fuck evil people. I just am against the government taking the chance of killing an innocent person via an imperfect justice system. We have too many people who have had years of their lives removed from them because of our imperfect system. Why take a chance on their life? [/quote]

I think, like abortion, there is a gray area. This gray area involved innocents that are convicted of murder being punished by death. I agree it’s a different situation, but not all that different. Like I said in the other thread because of said gray area I understand and would accept abortion in certain exceptional cases (ie rape/health). This debate, for me, is essentially the flip side. I accept exceptions to the death penalty when people are innocent (ie they should never have never convicted). At least, in this case, the innocent was afforded Due Process.

Our legal system will never be perfect. I’m okay with letting convicted murderers sit in prison until they die, it just seems like a waste of money and time to me. Not to mention the victims may never get closure.

[/quote]

I am ok with letting them sit in prison till they die as well. I believe I have read before that putting someone to death is more expensive than life in prison, but that has been a while.

Either way I don’t think you take the risk. People with long sentences ARE proven not guilty sometimes. And how many people do we wrongfully convict that are innocent but lack the DNA evidence to PROVE they are innocent?

It’s bad enough that we have robbed some people of years of their life and then we set them free. At least in those cases we can give them back their freedom. We can’t give back someone’s life.

Any batting average lower than 1.000 is unacceptable to me and not worth the risk. I don’t view this as much of a gray area, but an easy logical decision.
[/quote]

Compromise:

If convicted with DNA or video evidence the death penalty is authorized.
If convicted otherwise life in prison is the max sentence.

37

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

It’s not like it just doesn’t happen often though, it is extremely rare for a person convicted of murder t o be found innocent. I can’t find any stats to the contrary, maybe you can?

[/quote]

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/
[/quote]

312 in 21 years in pretty rare isn’t it?[/quote]

Isn’t any number above 0 AWFUL? I don’t see how “rare” comes into play here. Not to mention look at how the numbers get higher as DNA gets used more and more. The 2000’s alone are proportionally much higher than the early 90’s. It makes logical sense that the more we know about using this the higher the numbers and the graph follows that line of thinking. [/quote]

Of course anything above 0 is awful. The last 10 years appear to level off and I think it will go down as time goes on. All I’m saying is that I don’t think it makes sense to not use the death penalty because a very small percentage of people may be convicted wrongly. That’s a problem with the judicial system not the punishment itself.

People are wrongfully convicted of other crimes should we not imprison anyone?

[/quote]

I’m not arguing anything of the sort on jail, that is quite the strawman. If YOU are wrongfully imprisoned and alive you may be able to prove yourself not guilty. If we kill you and you were wrongfully imprisoned you are always dead. [/quote]

I’ll give you that. See my other post please.

38

I would have no problem if we had someone who we undeniably saw on video do something and it was clear enough that no one could possibly think it was not this person. I would rather just scrap the death penalty and have everyone sit in jail because it’s quite the risk currently in some states.

For all these people who are innocent who got off we need to keep in mind they WERE convicted by our justice system and they had to gain their freedom by proving themselves innocent. That sentence right there is easily enough for me to believe I’m on the correct side of this one.

39

[quote]H factor wrote:
I would have no problem if we had someone who we undeniably saw on video do something and it was clear enough that no one could possibly think it was not this person. I would rather just scrap the death penalty and have everyone sit in jail because it’s quite the risk currently in some states.

For all these people who are innocent who got off we need to keep in mind they WERE convicted by our justice system and they had to gain their freedom by proving themselves innocent. That sentence right there is easily enough for me to believe I’m on the correct side of this one. [/quote]

Here is my take on a more philosophical level. A murderer has ended their victims ability to feel. They will never again feel happy, loved, etc… To me, letting that murderer breathe one more second is a slap in the face of the victim and the victims family. Even in prison they can feel happiness, love, etc… How is that “fair” in the vast majority of cases where the person convicted committed the crime. That to me is why it’s a gray area.

40

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I would have no problem if we had someone who we undeniably saw on video do something and it was clear enough that no one could possibly think it was not this person. I would rather just scrap the death penalty and have everyone sit in jail because it’s quite the risk currently in some states.

For all these people who are innocent who got off we need to keep in mind they WERE convicted by our justice system and they had to gain their freedom by proving themselves innocent. That sentence right there is easily enough for me to believe I’m on the correct side of this one. [/quote]

Here is my take on a more philosophical level. A murderer has ended their victims ability to feel. They will never again feel happy, loved, etc… To me, letting that murderer breathe one more second is a slap in the face of the victim and the victims family. Even in prison they can feel happiness, love, etc… How is that “fair” in the vast majority of cases where the person convicted committed the crime. That to me is why it’s a gray area.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree with your assessment of the murderer ending that persons ability to feel. However the answer is not let’s have the government kill people and hope they are right because we want to make sure the families feel good about it.

Life in prison or dead is irrelevant. Nothing brings back a murdered family member. Nothing lets them “feel” again. No punishment erases that fact. Knowing that let’s not have the government gamble on getting it right through our justice system and if they get it wrong and we kill an innocent person well hey it’s pretty rare.

I see both sides on abortion. I do not see both sides on this. I think it’s obviously not worth the risk when we know we have made numerous mistakes throughout our history in convictions.

Just my opinion of course.