MY MESSAGE FOR PEOPLE AGAINST IN DEATH PENALTY:
in reality, people are not rational all the time. we should accept our limitation. be considerate as long as we can but if someone killed, ate, and raped our loved ones. i dont think we can be rational. you can say that is ok the killer stay in the prison while he is alive. if that happened to other people and not in your loved ones. logically, we can be rational to the situation if we are not involved but if we are. i doubt it, if you can be rational. if you can. you are too rational and logical person all the time. in reality, there is no person that fully logical that's why i agree in death penalty. im thinking the people who cant sleep and live normal because someone killed, ate, and raped their loved ones. i know killing a criminal cannnot make their loved ones alive but even you admit it or not. a victim's family get feel better a bit after the person died that's why i realized let the heinous criminals work in prison but killed them when they are already old and weak for the family that they hurt.
When mental anguish is ruled to be "cruel and unusual punishment," your argument might have a leg to stand on. As it is, mental anguish at one level or another could be said to be an integral part of the business of being in prison.
Moral: don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
The death penalty might work in the sense of giving the victim's relatives a sense that justice was done.
There were discussions earlier on A/N where we were talking about atheism being more popular in societies where people have a sense of security - and part of that security is a sense of secular justice.
This thought doesn't make me a believer in the death penalty - after all, some of the socialist democracies where atheism is popular do not have the death penalty.
And, life w/o parole isn't exactly a pleasant fate.
I might have less of a problem with the death penalty if we had a way to reverse it in those cases where it was applied inappropriately. In the state of Texas alone this would probably result in several hundred resurrections.
Reversing the victims' deaths, or other "untimely" deaths, such as from disease or accidents, would be a nice fantasy.
I remember a Star Trek (Generations?) episode where a planet had the technology to recover a murder victim's last horrified memories. The convicted murderer wasn't executed or even incarcerated; their punishment was to be forced to relive those memories over and over, about twice a day.
I say Americans should continue to kill people. It's as much a part of American culture as the Queen of England is to British culture. Shoot, hang, gas, poison or electrocute them, it's up to your elected representatives to decide on behalf of you, the electorate.
You are not peasants. You live in a democracy. It is not true that America is largely a nation of peasants ruled by an elite.
So let your voice be heard on this issue. The American predisposition to killing people should be maintained indefinitely for the sake of the economy. Here in Britain we didn't realise our Queen, a bastion of our culture, was good for the economy straight away but we know it now. Americans, embrace your culture now for posterity and continue to kill people for your country.
crucifixion is a traditional death too.
I'm talking about historical American methods of execution and I forgot incineration.
Killing for America
Our legal system is much too biased to be dispensing death. The difference between an attorney who has been retained and a 'public pretender' who has been 'assigned' is exactly what you'd expect -- you get what you pay for. Public defenders often work hand-in-glove with district attorneys, and district attorneys are often more concerned with their conviction records than justice (though this is not always the case).
When the wrong person is executed simply because "someone" has to pay, or a witness thinks all (fill in the blank) ________ people look alike and they identify the wrong person, there are no do-overs. The person is dead. I'm not saying it's any less cruel to incarcerate someone (guilty or innocent) for life, but at least they can go through the appeals process if they're innocent. And the "saving money" argument doesn't work. We've been executing innocent people for years and I haven't seen any positive reports about "all the money we're saving."
And let's face it, after people motivated to work for The Innocence Project, it's people who have been wrongly accused and/or incarcerated, or those who lost an innocent loved one to a botched investigation who are doing most of the work in the field of wrongful convictions because most people really don't care about such things until it happens to them, or to someone they love. This is evidenced by a system in which men and women who are finally exonerated find that they have yet another legal battle to try to have their felonies expunged (one would think this would be a given), or to get decent financial compensation for all they've lost.
Many people would rather die than spend the rest of their lives locked up -- particularly if they're guilty. In such cases, death is no "punishment." But when it is "we," the "justice system" who murder someone (an innocent someone), this goes beyond heinous. And it's conceivable that this happens more than we know.
The death penalty costs MORE than life without parole. Not less! That's because of all the court costs associated with the death penalty. It's also more expensive to keep prisoners on death row than in maximum security prisons where life without parole prisoners are kept. In California, death row costs $90,000 per year per prisoner MORE than maximum security prison!
My answer to this question is simply, if a convict wants to die, then kill them. This would not involve a lot of court costs. There would be a waiting period and they would only get to make this choice twice a year (say).
If they don't want to die, give them life without parole.