First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Grim Reaper
2101 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / An Island off the...
Offline
Posted 6/3/16
i dont agree with the death penalty
Posted 6/3/16
I believe humans are stupid, that humans do stupid shit, and that stupid shit happens. This is no different.
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 6/3/16
death penalty is better than a life sentence.
16404 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / east coast. Let t...
Offline
Posted 6/3/16

Sir_jamesalot wrote:

death penalty is better than a life sentence.


Is it though? Some people grow to be quite comfortable in prison even to the point where they'd rather be in prison than be freed.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/3/16
I am against the death penalty. It gives more time for new evidence.




Razor_Girl wrote:

People I've talked to are frequently under the wrong impression. They believe that the death penalty is entirely intended to scare other criminals into avoiding crime. Alternately, they may be under the impression that somehow the death penalty is less expensive than keeping someone in jail for life.

In reality, the entire point of the death penalty is to put a stop to the crimes committed by that individual forever. They never get the opportunity to commit another crime against anyone. There's no possibility that they will escape from prison and terrorize an entire community for weeks or months the way Richard Matt and David Sweat did after escaping from Clinton Correctional in New York. There's no chance they will be running things from inside or corrupting others the way things happened in the Baltimore City Jail http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/sun-investigates/bs-md-sun-investigates-jail-20150711-story.html They won't be able to attack anyone else once they're dead.

In the old days, an execution would be done by hanging, costing the town the expense of one new rope - and if no handy trees were available, the erection of a platform with a trap door. Actually the towns usually recouped the cost of the rope by cutting it into pieces after it was used and selling them as souvenirs. Modern executions in the USA primarily take place by lethal injection, electric chair, and I believe one or two states still have firing squads or hanging on the books although it hasn't been done in years.

I don't have the exact figures because it's been a few years since I looked them up - however if we estimate that 80% of violent crime is committed by 10% of criminals who happen to be repeat offenders, you can see that by eliminating that 10% of the criminal population which has already shown by the repeated nature and increasingly violent nature of their crimes as well as repeated visits to prison during which they did NOT get rehabilitated to society, utilizing the death penalty in those cases would certainly put a large dent in the number of crimes being committed.

Bottom line is, yes I support the death penalty. I personally think it should be used more often than it is - although I understand the reluctance in it's use.


Question for you. If a criminal weren't given a life sentence, what makes you think with the death penalty in place that it would resolve repeat offenses? I'm not sure if you missed that consideration. Our jury system makes mistakes...both ways.
18906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / F / Reston, VA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/3/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


Razor_Girl wrote:

Bottom line is, yes I support the death penalty. I personally think it should be used more often than it is - although I understand the reluctance in it's use.


Question for you. If a criminal weren't given a life sentence, what makes you think with the death penalty in place that it would resolve repeat offenses? I'm not sure if you missed that consideration. Our jury system makes mistakes...both ways.


Obviously if the jury does not give the death penalty but convicts the criminal of the crime then that individual will serve whatever sentence the courts hand down. That might be home monitoring with a ankle bracelet, actual prison time, or dozens of other options depending on the crime committed and the state in which it took place. As long as the individual is alive and interacting with others there is opportunity for him to commit more crimes. So just having the death penalty as an option does not mean it would be used or chosen as the sentence for the individual.

However, in the few states that still have death sentences, it is not taken lightly. I almost wound up on a death sentence case when I did jury duty in California. The only reason I wasn't chosen to serve on that case after they'd eliminated just about all the jurors was because I was the primary bread winner in my family - my husband at the time was a full time student and it would have been significant hardship for me to be sequestered for a trial that was expected to last over a year when my employer would only pay me for 3 days of that time.

Cases where the death penalty is an option often take a long time to work their way through the system. The lawyers make sure that every "I" is dotted, every "T" crossed because they don't want to make a mistake. The jurors also examine every bit of evidence carefully as well as their own conscience to be sure if the sentence is warranted and if it should be passed down. Even after all that, once the sentence is handed down, the case often gets appealed multiple times so the evidence gets examined and reexamined in minute detail for decades before the state will finally implement the death penalty.

So you're right, not every repeat criminal or violent criminal would be stopped from committing more crimes because at some point in the judicial process many of them would be given a different sentence.

However, it is very effective at making sure one at a time that a specific individual will never commit another crime and with most of the repeat offenders whose crimes continue to escalate then sooner or later the jury would resort to the final option if it were available.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/3/16 , edited 6/3/16

Razor_Girl wrote:

Obviously if the jury does not give the death penalty but convicts the criminal of the crime then that individual will serve whatever sentence the courts hand down. That might be home monitoring with a ankle bracelet, actual prison time, or dozens of other options depending on the crime committed and the state in which it took place. As long as the individual is alive and interacting with others there is opportunity for him to commit more crimes. So just having the death penalty as an option does not mean it would be used or chosen as the sentence for the individual.

However, in the few states that still have death sentences, it is not taken lightly. I almost wound up on a death sentence case when I did jury duty in California. The only reason I wasn't chosen to serve on that case after they'd eliminated just about all the jurors was because I was the primary bread winner in my family - my husband at the time was a full time student and it would have been significant hardship for me to be sequestered for a trial that was expected to last over a year when my employer would only pay me for 3 days of that time.

Cases where the death penalty is an option often take a long time to work their way through the system. The lawyers make sure that every "I" is dotted, every "T" crossed because they don't want to make a mistake. The jurors also examine every bit of evidence carefully as well as their own conscience to be sure if the sentence is warranted and if it should be passed down. Even after all that, once the sentence is handed down, the case often gets appealed multiple times so the evidence gets examined and reexamined in minute detail for decades before the state will finally implement the death penalty.

So you're right, not every repeat criminal or violent criminal would be stopped from committing more crimes because at some point in the judicial process many of them would be given a different sentence.

However, it is very effective at making sure one at a time that a specific individual will never commit another crime and with most of the repeat offenders whose crimes continue to escalate then sooner or later the jury would resort to the final option if it were available.


Hmmm. I don't think it be as effective as one would hope. You could say it is my scrutiny of our judicial system that makes it so. Most repeat offenders (I'm assuming here and open to being wrong) are those not given a life sentence. I'm also assuming death sentence is about as difficult to achieve as a life sentence. Perhaps a small few would be prevented from committing another crime because of the death sentence, but I imagine the amount is significantly more minuscule. DNA testing is also not perfect. Such evidence is quite easy to plant. While DNA testing makes it easy to prove innocent old crimes...newer crimes with knowledge of such practices...less so. I do not see the benefit of preventing a likely very small handful of repeat offenses in exchange for possibly killing a rather small handful of innocent by mistake. Seems rather...ineffective.

16404 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / east coast. Let t...
Offline
Posted 6/3/16
I feel like the death penalty is a little bit of vengeance too. Families attend state executions. Some people will say it's closure but I think some people just want to watch someone they hate die. I'm sure that's not the case for everyone and may very well even be the minority of people but I don't approve of revenge.
Posted 6/3/16
It's the system that drags it out and rehabilitation is a joke in cases of rape they get out and due again I already looked into it.
We have dna now! back in the day we did not? blood and hair taken from scene and so on it is just my opinion on this so I support death penalty. below is estimated cost to hold in prison again the figures vary..

> According to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, the average annual cost of incarceration in Federal prisons in 2010 was $28,284 per inmate. That cost is reduced at the Federal Community Corrections Centers; in 2010 the annual cost was $25,838.

again these figures are dated 2010, so who knows maybe it cost even more today..
18906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / F / Reston, VA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/3/16 , edited 6/3/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

Hmmm. I don't think it be as effective as one would hope. You could say it is my scrutiny of our judicial system that makes it so. Most repeat offenders (I'm assuming here and open to being wrong) are those not given a life sentence. I'm also assuming death sentence is about as difficult to achieve as a life sentence. Perhaps a small few would be prevented from committing another crime because of the death sentence, but I imagine the amount is significantly more minuscule. DNA testing is also not perfect. Such evidence is quite easy to plant. While DNA testing makes it easy to prove innocent old crimes...newer crimes with knowledge of such practices...less so. I do not see the benefit of preventing a likely very small handful of repeat offenses in exchange for possibly killing a rather small handful of innocent by mistake. Seems rather...ineffective.



It can only be effective if it is utilized.

As for DNA testing for old crimes are you aware of just how bad the rape kit backlog is across the country? http://www.npr.org/2016/01/17/463358406/whats-being-done-to-address-the-countrys-backlog-of-untested-rape-kits There are plenty of kits that have never been tested that are old enough that when they were collected the police were still doing blood type matching to the semen instead of DNA.

Not only that, but when my home was broken into two years ago, the police indicated that DNA testing has advanced to the point where anything the crooks touched or even got a drop of sweat on would provide enough DNA for them to use as evidence. They don't need to find a drop of blood when he cut himself breaking in or a gob of spit.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/3/16

Razor_Girl wrote:

It can only be effective if it is utilized.

As for DNA testing for old crimes are you aware of just how bad the rape kit backlog is across the country? http://www.npr.org/2016/01/17/463358406/whats-being-done-to-address-the-countrys-backlog-of-untested-rape-kits There are plenty of kits that have never been tested that are old enough that when they were collected the police were still doing blood type matching to the semen instead of DNA.

Not only that, but when my home was broken into two years ago, the police indicated that DNA testing has advanced to the point where anything the crooks touched or even got a drop of sweat on would provide enough DNA for them to use as evidence. They don't need to find a drop of blood when he cut himself breaking in or a gob of spit.


I'm well aware of that issue, I live near Detroit. Keep in mind rape kits don't prove rape, they prove sexual intercourse...

Indeed DNA evidence is quite advanced now, and it makes persecution more accurate...but not without error...



18906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / F / Reston, VA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/3/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

I'm well aware of that issue, I live near Detroit. Keep in mind rape kits don't prove rape, they prove sexual intercourse...

Indeed DNA evidence is quite advanced now, and it makes persecution more accurate...but not without error...





Did I mention my ex-husband spent weeks researching proper rape kit procedure before presenting his first Grand Rounds at the hospital on what is required from the doctor to properly collect the evidence that is required in court? Since I'd never had any reason to know what was involved I found it shocking. Some of the steps can be terribly invasive and demeaning even though they aren't meant to be and I have no idea how someone who had just been through the trauma of being raped could put up with the required process to actually collect a full kit.
665 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/3/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


Razor_Girl wrote:

It can only be effective if it is utilized.

As for DNA testing for old crimes are you aware of just how bad the rape kit backlog is across the country? http://www.npr.org/2016/01/17/463358406/whats-being-done-to-address-the-countrys-backlog-of-untested-rape-kits There are plenty of kits that have never been tested that are old enough that when they were collected the police were still doing blood type matching to the semen instead of DNA.

Not only that, but when my home was broken into two years ago, the police indicated that DNA testing has advanced to the point where anything the crooks touched or even got a drop of sweat on would provide enough DNA for them to use as evidence. They don't need to find a drop of blood when he cut himself breaking in or a gob of spit.


I'm well aware of that issue, I live near Detroit. Keep in mind rape kits don't prove rape, they prove sexual intercourse...

Indeed DNA evidence is quite advanced now, and it makes persecution more accurate...but not without error...





>Judar Just curious can you tell me what your definition is of rape? somebody forcing themselves onto you
against your will? just want know what your thoughts are on defining rape?

22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/3/16

Razor_Girl wrote:
Did I mention my ex-husband spent weeks researching proper rape kit procedure before presenting his first Grand Rounds at the hospital on what is required from the doctor to properly collect the evidence that is required in court? Since I'd never had any reason to know what was involved I found it shocking. Some of the steps can be terribly invasive and demeaning even though they aren't meant to be and I have no idea how someone who had just been through the trauma of being raped could put up with the required process to actually collect a full kit.


Sometimes that trauma is less than the trauma of perpetrator walking free. It is terribly invasive, but I'm not sure how this is related. It's wrong rapekits do not get tested, but that's a separate issue.

18906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / F / Reston, VA, USA
Offline
Posted 6/3/16 , edited 6/3/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

Sometimes that trauma is less than the trauma of perpetrator walking free. It is terribly invasive, but I'm not sure how this is related. It's wrong rapekits do not get tested, but that's a separate issue.



It's important because any evidence used in any case that can carry the death penalty needs to be properly handled. I was actually shocked to find out that at no point in medical school or residency are doctors taught how to properly do a rape kit so that it will hold up legally in a court. Apparently dozens of these kits end up thrown out as evidence because the doctor botched the job and therefore they can't be used legally.

Police technicians are trained to collect evidence at crime scenes and to properly log it and track the chain of evidence. Doctors are not. Yet when someone's body is the crime scene and evidence needs to be collected the doctor is expected to do the job.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.