One case where capital punishment is definitely wrong

[DeathByTheSword]

100% certainty doesnt exsist...and if it does you already are saying that there are people on death row that maybe not committed the crime they are sentenced for...which means the reviewboard can let them go by and MURDER an inoccent

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No one revokes their right to life. They may, however, put themselves in situations where that right may be temporarily ignored. Your right to life can only be taken from you by due process of law.

If a person has put himself in a situation in which his right to life can be temporarily be ignored by another person, then that person has, in effect, temporarily revoked his "right" to life for that period. The due process element of that revocation of life comes later, when the jury upholds the defendant's self defense claim.

As for DP, the states have established what the proper due process standards are for administering it.

[DeathByTheSword]

but i am done with 'working' so can post until tomorrow morning...

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
100% certainty doesnt exsist...and if it does you already are saying that there are people on death row that maybe not committed the crime they are sentenced for...which means the reviewboard can let them go by and MURDER an inoccent

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.

Besides, 100% certainty does exist. There was no doubt that John Wayne Gacy commited his crimes. None at all. He was a proper candidate for the DP, and he was in fact executed. My only complaint is that he wasn't executed more quickly. He wasted 14 years worth of state resources.

John Wayne Gacy

[chequita guevara]

Gacy is certainly a poster boy for the DP, but he didn't kill any more people while he was in prison those 14 years. He ceased to be a threat to society and became a nobody. There was no useful purpose in executing him, as I've never heard of any serial killers not killing cuz of the death penalty. True, Dahmer made sure to committ most of his crimes in a non-DP state, but he did most of his hunting in Illinois, where he could have been caught.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Gacy is certainly a poster boy for the DP, but he didn't kill any more people while he was in prison those 14 years. He ceased to be a threat to society and became a nobody. There was no useful purpose in executing him, as I've never heard of any serial killers not killing cuz of the death penalty.

It's good that he didn't kill anyone while in prison, but it's offensive to me that he's getting government food and shelter for 14 years. Why does he deserve it, especially since everyone knew he did it? To me, it's not an issue whether the DP is deterrent or not, as people who intend to commit and do commit capital crimes know that what they are doing will warrant major punishment. They just don't care, and are willing to commit the crime regardless of the punishment. Potential capital criminals would likely be deterrent proof, regardless of whether the punishment is death or life in prison.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Is it more immoral to swiftly execute someone that you have total proof of their crime, or to keep that person alive and fed in jail for 40 or 50 years while there are homless people or starving people in the society? What is the point of keeping that man alive, and why does he deserve state resources more than a law abiding citizen? All punishment has some element of revenge.

There are reports which say that it is less expensive to keep someone in prison for his whole life (without parole) than to execute him,
mostly because the case are reviewed over and over again before the execution takes place (to be sure that the right person is executed)
And I doubt you would want less reviews of a case (which would make DP cheaper and let it take place sooner) as it would also mean that much more innocents get executed.

So you can say it is much more immoral to have a Death penalty as the money it costs more could be used to better protect the citizens or pay rent and food for homeless or starving people

See also here for example:

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm?ID=5

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect15.htm

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Wycoff

1. What makes it barbaric?

Well, I´d like to think that we have evolved beyond capital punishment in the last 100 or so years...

2. You can set an evidentiary bar high enough to have certainty. DP shouldn't be used without plenty of solid evidence, and should never be used in cases in which the only evidence is circumstantial.

Why should we use DP at all? Killing people doesn´t solve the problem, it only kills the symptom. If you have an infected finger you don´t chop it off. You treat it with antibiotics.

3. Life is not an inviolable right. If you are trying to rape or maim me, and I have no other way to escape, I can legally kill you. The attacker revoked his right to life in the same way that a heinous criminal revokes his right to life.

You have a right to defend yourself. But even so, killing in self defence isn´t a "get out of jail free" card. And when you divide people into those who have the right to live and those that deserve to die, you´re on a slippery slope of fascism. In a civilized society no one can revoke your right to life, no matter how heinous the crime.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No one revokes their right to life. They may, however, put themselves in situations where that right may be temporarily ignored. Your right to life can only be taken from you by due process of law.

Not even then I´d say. If the law says you forfeit your life then the law is wrong and must be changed.

[Az]

because life is a inviolable human right

incorrect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Not even then I´d say. If the law says you forfeit your life then the law is wrong and must be changed.

So self-defense isn't a valid defense in your perfect legal system? If a guy with a knife is charging at you, you will be found guilty if you kill him?

[Flubber]

I have seen the studies that indicate that the death penalty is generally not a deterrent but I wondered if it might be a deterrent for folks that are alreay in jail for the rest of their life anyway.

I seem to recall a story about lifers who had no qualms about killing again and again since "what will they do, put me in jail for another life?" I just don't recall where I saw it but it would make sense

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So self-defense isn't a valid defense in your perfect legal system? If a guy with a knife is charging at you, you will be found guilty if you kill him?

I didn´t say that. I merely reacted to Wycoffs redneck "It´s coming right at us" attitude...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Az

because life is a inviolable human right

incorrect.

Why?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kamrat X

I didn´t say that. I merely reacted to Wycoffs redneck "It´s coming right at us" attitude...

Nice to see you're resorting to ad hominems so quickly. Life is not an inviolable right; I've provided a clear example of when it isn't. You have nothing to say, so you use ad hominems.