At what point do even anti-death penalty people start supporting capital punishment? ?

Question

I am wondering where the point is that even those against the death penalty see capital punishment as the only resort.

In other words, how many people would an individual have to murder, and in what circumstances, before they deserve to pay with their life? Timothy McVeigh killed 168 men, women and children in a pre-meditated attack - is this really a man that should spend life in prison? How about those convicted at Nuremberg?

It seems like those support abolishing the death penalty usually rely on the argument that an innocent man could be convicted and then killed.

But what if the killer admits his guilt? Or if the evidence is just so overwhelming that it's obvious they are guilty?

I can't bring myself to believe anyone is 100% against the death penalty - there has to be some cost/benefit calculation in there.

Answer 1

It's a moral stance, to do with civilisation and society.

Personally I think there are many people who would not be missed, who have no chance of redemption, for instance if a child murderer says they have repented and seen some sort of light, then they would surely have to kill themselves? Of those, and many more, I think society would be better off with them dead.

However I am strongly opposed to the state being given that power, even if it means that millions of dollars are spent on keeping people alive, who would be dead by natural justice, it is a price worth paying, simply as an affirmation of civilisation.

.

I'd be happy to see a serial killer die, but not by the hand of the state. So by your criteria, I am 100% against it, in all cases- at the same time as believing some "deserve" it, it is not the place of the state to impose it.-regardless of any proof or admission.

I wonder what I think about those who request the death penalty, rather than life in prison? not sure,yet.

Answer 2

Serial killers. Other than that i am anti-death penalty.

Answer 3

Plenty of people are unconditionally opposed to the death penalty, for practical reasons and not because we are soft on criminals.  You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid terrible punishments for terrible crimes to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime, to look at alternatives and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. Your question deserves facts with credible sources, not sound bites.

129 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.  Even innocent people have confessed to murder.  Eyewitness mistakes (and outright perjury) have led to the convictions and death sentences of innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.

Life without parole, on the books in 48 states, also prevents  reoffending. It means what it says, and spending 23 of 24 hours a day locked in a tiny cell is not a picnic. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.

The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs of legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. (upfront=before and during the initial trial)

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members have testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.

Sources:

Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org,  for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members.

FBI   http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/tab...  

The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.org

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcostte... page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive

http://www.njadp.org/forms/signon-surviv... for statements of victims’ families

Answer 4

"But what if the killer admits his guilt?"

The four teens convicted of gang-raping and beating the "Central Park Jogger" almost to death in New York in 1989 all admitted their guilt. They were all innocent, and were proven so by DNA evidence AFTER they had served their time. They admitted their guilt because the cops promised them that if they didn't, they'd make sure that they'd be placed in General Population in prison where - as young blacks who'd gang-raped and tried to kill a white woman - they'dbe raped and killed within months.

"Or if the evidence is just so overwhelming that it's obvious they are guilty?"

Many of the most egregious miscarriages of justice are cases where it was "obvious" that the defendant is guilty - SO obvious that even his own lawyer didn't bother trying to give him a decent defense, and therefore missed something that proved he didn't do it after all.

"I can't bring myself to believe anyone is 100% against the death penalty"

Beleive it.

"there has to be some cost/benefit calculation in there."

No, there doesn't. Death penalty cases are VERY expensive to prosecute. The savings achieved by executing someone instead of keeping them in prison for life rarely even reach the amount spent on the trial. (BOTH sides of  which are usually paid for by the taxpayer, because people with enough money to pay for their own defense never face the death penalty anyway)

Even if they do, the money saved by executing someone - who's already typically been in prison for 15 or 20 years, plus after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on trials and appeals - is NOT worth the risk of executing an innocent man.

Richard

Answer 5

To me, the death penalty is an escape. It's not having to live through the guilt, it's getting a free pass...so I will always be anti-death penalty in every situation!

Yes, it does concern me that there are innocent men in jail, and god forbid one of them get put to death! It'd be a terrible crime itself.. an innocent man killed for something he didn't do... there have also been men who have confessed to crimes because there was all the evidence there that they did it and then years later, you find out, whoops, they just did not do it! They were drunk, or something, blacked out, and didn't remember. It does happen.

As for evidence being overwhelmingly obvious that they're guilty... I have a few family members that are cops and even they have admitted to me that 99% of the time, what most cops do at crime scenes is, they get a suspect, and then they go through the evidence and make it fit that suspect. They can make anything fit... they can make it look like you have killed a man you didn't even know, if that's what they really wanted to do.. lets not forget that dirty cops DO exist.

Also, someone stated if it had been someone they loved...

well, my sisters best friend (and she was like a sister to me, as well) was murdered a few years back. I don't want the death penalty for her killer, and I am thankful that he is in jail living with the guilt instead of getting the easy way out...

and as much as I love Stephanie, two wrongs do not make a right... murder is murder, legal or not. the death penalty is still and will always be just flat out murder.

Answer 6

people confess to things they didn't do all the time.

even murder.

especially even serial murder.

do some research.

not only that, but killing anyone does not deter anyone else.

can you point to anyone that was deterred from blowing up a building like McVeigh did, just because he was killed?

I can't even imagine anyone standing up and saying - if he spent life in prison, I am gonna do it man! what a great deal that would be! But they killed him, so... on second thought...

Can you?

Answer 7

I've always supported the death penalty. But I agree that almost everyone has a breaking point where they would support the death penalty if the crimes were bad enough, and the evidence was strong enough.  

Answer 8

Want to punish someone for heinous crimes - life in an American max security prison is far worse than death!

Answer 9

There may be rare individual cases where you can say that guilt is "obvious," but from a public policy standpoint, there is simply no way to achieve a 100% error-free judicial system.

In the last 30 years in the U.S. alone, over 100 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases.

So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much guaranteed to occasionally execute innocent people.

BUT - that is NOT the only reason to oppose it:

- Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, separate sentencing trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting a DP case, and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

- The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty jurisdictions. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

- There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death. In his words, "I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time."

- Most governments are supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 10

I think if the crimes committed were against someone they loved, they would have a different view on capital punishment.