Originally Posted by VTCruiser

Considering the avg number of capital punishments a year is around 70..... think of the 4000 babies in the womb that arent guilty of any crimes that are everyday being slaughtered through abortion.....

Just putting some things in perspective for you......

Just as many people died in the world trade center attack on September 11th, thats how many babies die from abortion everyday in America....
There have been 2000 soldiers that have died in Iraq... thats only half the number of babies that die everyday from abortion on our own soil....

What a shame for the "land of the free" that has "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...

THERE IS GENOCIDE HAPPENING AND NO ONE IS STANDING UP FOR THE TRUE INNOCENT AMONG US! in fact the ones against the death penalty ARE FOR ABORTION! Truly they are for the life of the innocent right.... ???? (said sarcatically)

just bumping this because it seems to have been overlooked...

Originally Posted by VTCruiser

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."

"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished."

Although I agree with this researcher's opinion, I would be hesitant to consider any of the numbers or researchers cited in this article as reliable. Why? It seems more relevant to ask the opinion of sociologists and criminologists about the death penalty serving as a deterrent. But again, this article was printed by Fox news, who simply provide conservative propaganda and not factual information. And that is not an opinion but an observation after watching several Fox news shows.

Additionally, the fact remains that "Relatively few crimes committed in the U.S. are eligible for the death penalty...[Therefore,] by definition, the death penalty cannot have much of an effect on the overall U.S. crime rate" (Mays & Winfree, 2005, p. 396).

And in regards to the effect the death penalty has on the murder rate in the U.S., "...we simply do not know. The death penalty might be a deterrent, but we have no way of knowing the number of murders that did not occur. However, if executions did lower the murder rate, we would expect Texas [who by far has executed more people than any other jurisdiction in the U.S. since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976] to have the nation's lowest per capita murder rate" (Mays & Winfree, 2005, p. 396). But, it does not!


Source: Mays, G.L., & Winfree, L.T. (2005). Essentials of corrections(3rd edition). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Steve: Is one too many people wrongfully convicted and sent to life in prison where they died behind bars?

Yes.

Originally Posted by snakespit

Name 5 and provide the links.

Here is a link about people who were released prior to the death penalty due to being shown to be innocent (124 people since 1973). It also lists at least seven people who were executed despite strong doubts about their guilt. Of course, it is difficult to officially prove innocence after death since there are no criminal court proceedings for the dead.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=412&scid=6

There is an important point that hasn't been made here yet.

Namely, even if a particular punishment can be proven to reduce certain types of crimes, the punishment itself still has to be analyzed for the morality / ethics of its use. Reducing crime is not a sufficient reason to install a particular punishment. After all, in some repressive countries of this world (ex. in Saudi Arabia), people have their hands cut off if they steal. Certainly, that would reduce the amount of theft, but does that make the punishment right and moral? The bottom line is that reduction of crime (which still has yet to be fully proven for the death penalty) is not enough - the punishment has to be judged on its own merits and morality.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Is one too many people wrongfully convicted and sent to life in prison where they died behind bars?

At least with life in prison, they have the maximum chance of being proven innocent. You can't give them any more time for proving their innocence than their natural lifetime. With the death penalty, you cut short that chance.

Originally Posted by VTCruiser

just bumping this because it seems to have been overlooked...

And perhaps you have overlooked the issue of abortion relating to crime. Who knows if were actually aborting future murderers? Aren't you for crime prevention?

Originally Posted by Another opinion

There is an important point that hasn't been made here yet.

Namely, even if a particular punishment can be proven to reduce certain types of crimes, the punishment itself still has to be analyzed for the morality / ethics of its use. Reducing crime is not a sufficient reason to install a particular punishment. After all, in some repressive countries of this world (ex. in Saudi Arabia), people have their hands cut off if they steal. Certainly, that would reduce the amount of theft, but does that make the punishment right and moral? The bottom line is that reduction of crime (which still has yet to be fully proven for the death penalty) is not enough - the punishment has to be judged on its own merits and morality.

I would say that it has. It seems that there is still a majority in this country who is for the death penalty. Just because you do not agree with the penalty and do not find it to be a moral act does not mean that those of us who support it have not weighed the morality of the issue. Until majority opinion changes, I suspect the death penalty will continue to exist. I give it about 20 more years, as our country slides a little farther left each year.

Originally Posted by Shooterandproud

Wait, so lemme get this straight. You think that we should cherish every single embryo out there even if it means denying a woman a right to her own body, but you have no trouble executing people that actually exist? Wow, you conservatives are very intelligent thinkers. How can I deny your impeccable logic?

You can't. Do you not understand the difference between punishing the guilty and not punishing the innocent?

Originally Posted by Another opinion

Here is a link about people who were released prior to the death penalty due to being shown to be innocent (124 people since 1973). It also lists at least seven people who were executed despite strong doubts about their guilt. Of course, it is difficult to officially prove innocence after death since there are no criminal court proceedings for the dead.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=412&scid=6

So again, this points to the fact that the appeals system is effective at preventing "innocent" people from being executed? I had asked for 5 examples of innocent people who were executed. Chemist99a stated that "we execute too many innocent people". Someone has yet to give me 5 examples of innocents that we have executed.

And by the way: The information about the seven "potentially innocent" people that have been executed is quite laughable in some cases.

Originally Posted by snakespit

So again, this points to the fact that the appeals system is effective at preventing "innocent" people from being executed? I had asked for 5 examples of innocent people who were executed. Chemist99a stated that "we execute too many innocent people". Someone has yet to give me 5 examples of innocents that we have executed.

And by the way: The information about the seven "potentially innocent" people that have been executed is quite laughable in some cases.

The web site which I referenced did site those eight cases that were executed despite strong doubts about their guilt. What specifically makes you think some of those cases are laughable? Also, what proof of innocence would be sufficient for you? Do you claim that there are trials for the dead that can officially determine innocence after execution? I have heard of no such trial.

Also, if I remember correctly, I believe you were in favor of executing almost immediately after sentence - which would have left those 124 innocent people dead (~10% of those executed, as I remember).

Originally Posted by snakespit

I would say that it has. It seems that there is still a majority in this country who is for the death penalty. Just because you do not agree with the penalty and do not find it to be a moral act does not mean that those of us who support it have not weighed the morality of the issue. Until majority opinion changes, I suspect the death penalty will continue to exist. I give it about 20 more years, as our country slides a little farther left each year.

My main objection against the death penalty is that the major reason which I hear coming out of supporters is basically the desire for state sponsored vengeance. The reasons given most often for supporting the death penalty are emotional reasons of retribution for the heinous acts of the criminal. I continue to feel very uncomfortable basing a system of morality on vengeance.

Originally Posted by Another opinion

The web site which I referenced did site those eight cases that were executed despite strong doubts about their guilt. What specifically makes you think some of those cases are laughable? Also, what proof of innocence would be sufficient for you? Do you claim that there are trials for the dead that can officially determine innocence after execution? I have heard of no such trial.

The DPIC is also a strongly biased anti-death penalty site. And yes, I saw the 8 "executed but possibly innocent", however I have still not been given 5 examples of innocents executed.

And no, I do not claim that there are trials that can determine innocence after execution...we hold those while they are alive, and before they are sentenced to death. In the absense of being able to examine all evidence, and hear all testimony in a death case, I am forced to defer to the decision of the jury who was presented with all the evidence and heard all of the testimony. I don't sit back and try to Monday morning QB death cases when I don't have all the facts.

Also, if I remember correctly, I believe you were in favor of executing almost immediately after sentence - which would have left those 124 innocent people dead (~10% of those executed, as I remember).

Originally Posted by snakespit

3. Eliminate the rediculous appeals that have no new evidence lending to the innocence of the convicted. This only serves to delay the just and prescribed punishment, and wastes taxpayer money.

4. Anyone awarded a second trial who is found guilty a second time should be executed the same day as the verdict.

Is that what you are referring to?

Originally Posted by Another opinion

My main objection against the death penalty is that the major reason which I hear coming out of supporters is basically the desire for state sponsored vengeance. The reasons given most often for supporting the death penalty are emotional reasons of retribution for the heinous acts of the criminal. I continue to feel very uncomfortable basing a system of morality on vengeance.

How nice for you.

I look at it as punishment, not vengeance. And as for everyone's reasons for or against the death penalty...I could care less. I like to...wait for it...THINK FOR MYSELF, and I personally have no moral objection to punishing someone, even if that punishment is death.