Death row final statements

Craterloads said:
Just something I picked up on.

It's a reason given by many who oppose capital punishment, which goes along the lines of an innocent being put to death and then later being exonerated. "People need to accept that one wrongful conviction and execution is one too many."

Doesn't that apply on the opposite side as well? One unnecessary death due to the release of an "rehabilitated" murderer is one too many?

Haven't got any statistics to hand but I'm sure reoffending rates are incredibly high, why risk the general public's safety with the release of a convicted murderer, who may go on to kill again?

One unnecessary death due to the release of an "rehabilitated" murderer is one too many?
Click to expand...

It is highly unusual for a murderer to be released in the US to begin with, and the charge specific recidivism rates for a released murderer are very low, about 1.2% of Murderers who are released from prison go on to be arrested for a further murder (note arrested and not necessarily convicted).

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

In any case, what we are concerned with regarding the State is Justice, and capital punishment means that justice cannot be given to a wrongly convicted innocent person once a sentence of death has been carried out, particularly when there are alternatives available that both ensure that Justice is upheld, prevention of re-offending is mitigated by lifetime imprisonment and wrongful convictions can be overturned if necessary. This is something the State has total control over, recidivism is not and therein lies the difference between an innocent person being killed by the State and an innocent person being killed by a private individual.

The State should fulfil it's obligations in the least harmful, invasive and restrictive way possible, and while the State does have an obligation to punish crime, it should do so in the most ethical way possible and as Capital Punishment is the most harmful way possible then the State should always use available alternatives that can fulfil the States obligations that do not require use of the most harmful and restrictive positions. In the case of murder for example, lifetime imprisonment would fulfil the State obligation for punishment while maintaining it's obligation for justice and upholding an ethical position.

Ethically can you teach that Killing is wrong, by more Killing?

And if we take your argument at it's face value, if we kill the killer simply because they may re-offend and the risk is therefore unacceptable, then what about other crimes where the re-offending rates are far higher, do we kill people for convictions other than murder simply becasue they may do it again, or remove their ability to re-offend in other ways such as removal of the Hand of a Thief, or the castration of Sex Attacker and so on? Do we brutalise the State simply just in case a convicted criminal may re-offend? Should the State judge on the future conduct of the individual and pass judgement on what they may do, or only what they did do?
 
Last edited:
RagingBull said:
The best way to lower crime is to get rid of the people who commit the most crimes. Israel are doing it why can't we?
Click to expand...

Yes, because those countries that have the death penalty rather than focus on rehabilitation have vastly lower crime rates! :rolleyes:
 
Castiel said:
It is highly unusual for a murderer to be released in the US to begin with, and the charge specific recidivism rates for a released murderer are very low, about 1.2% of Murderers who are released from prison go on to be arrested for a further murder (note arrested and not necessarily convicted).

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

In any case, what we are concerned with regarding the State is Justice, and capital punishment means that justice cannot be given to a wrongly convicted innocent person once a sentence of death has been carried out, particularly when there are alternatives available that both ensure that Justice is upheld, prevention of re-offending is mitigated by lifetime imprisonment and wrongful convictions can be overturned if necessary. This is something the State has total control over, recidivism is not and therein lies the difference between an innocent person being killed by the State and an innocent person being killed by a private individual.

The State should fulfil it's obligations in the least harmful, invasive and restrictive way possible, and while the State does have an obligation to punish crime, it should do so in the most ethical way possible and as Capital Punishment is the most harmful way possible then the State should always use available alternatives that can fulfil the States obligations that do not require use of the most harmful and restrictive positions. In the case of murder for example, lifetime imprisonment would fulfil the State obligation for punishment while maintaining it's obligation for justice and upholding an ethical position.

Ethically can you teach that Killing is wrong, by more Killing?

And if we take your argument at it's face value, if we kill the killer simply because they may re-offend and the risk is therefore unacceptable, then what about other crimes where the re-offending rates are far higher, do we kill people for convictions other than murder simply becasue they may do it again, or remove their ability to re-offend in other ways such as removal of the Hand of a Thief, or the castration of Sex Attacker and so on? Do we brutalise the State simply just in case a convicted criminal may re-offend? Should the State judge on the future conduct of the individual and pass judgement on what they may do, or only what they did do?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you know my views on Capital Punishment by now so I won't bore you with them again. Just reading your post though has left me feeling that you are more concerned with the offender than the victim(s). There's no true justice under your system. A person can commit the most heinous crime imaginable and the worst that will happen is they'll be locked away for the rest of their life. That's not good enough.

Going on a slight tangent for a moment and reflecting on a previous life in DPM, it's never sat well with me that in conflict I could slot whoever I like (subject to ROE blah blah blah) because the Government says so, but I can't do so in civilian life. War is state sanctioned murder, the line between being locked up and walking free is what the Government says it is.

Bizarre.
 
George Hincapie said:
Why not find some stats and post a link to them to illustrate your point. Educate, don't belittle.
Click to expand...

Why bother? It has been done so many times in the past and is still ignored. Considering the posting history of the person I was replying to trying to reason him out of a position is possibly a bit pointless too. :D
 
RDM said:
Why bother? It has been done so many times in the past and is still ignored. Considering the posting history of the person I was replying to trying to reason him out of a position is possibly a bit pointless too. :D
Click to expand...

Because it makes you a better person? People tend to have polarised views on a topic like this, it's still good for each side to present full and logical arguments where possible.
 
George Hincapie said:
Because it makes you a better person? People tend to have polarised views on a topic like this, it's still good for each side to present full and logical arguments where possible.
Click to expand...

Just for you then;

US Death Penalty

Comparing the US only so we can reduce (if not ignore) cultural and economic differences states with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than the states without.
 
George Hincapie said:
I'm sure you know my views on Capital Punishment by now so I won't bore you with them again. Just reading your post though has left me feeling that you are more concerned with the offender than the victim(s). There's no true justice under your system. A person can commit the most heinous crime imaginable and the worst that will happen is they'll be locked away for the rest of their life. That's not good enough.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your position is. But I'm neither concerned with the victim or the offender....I'm concerned with Justice. You are confusing justice with retribution and they are not the same.

George Hincapie said:
Going on a slight tangent for a moment and reflecting on a previous life in DPM, it's never sat well with me that in conflict I could slot whoever I like (subject to ROE blah blah blah) because the Government says so, but I can't do so in civilian life. War is state sanctioned murder, the line between being locked up and walking free is what the Government says it is.

Bizarre.
Click to expand...

What I find bizarre (as well as difficult to believe) is that you could slot whoever you liked, and the idea that War is State sanctioned murder is a nonsence as the use of deadly force doesn't constitute murder as murder is a legal term and it must be framed in a legal framework......killing is not necessarily Murder. As a Soldier or a Police Officer you are subject to the law as is anyone else and if you commit murder of an innocent (a non combatant) with intent then you are as liable to the law as you would be as a civilian (more so in some cases). If what you say has any validity then the civilian who defends themselves from a potentional murderer woud be a murderer themselves if they killed the person in self defence.....

Homicide is not necessarily murder, it can be justified, as in Self Defence, War (State Self Defence), Policing and from a States perspective (and presumably yours) Capitial Punishment.

I am also aware that personally if it were a member of my family victim to a murderer than nothing short of killing that person would ever be considered justice to me, however then I would be concerned with the victim and the offender rather than justice, and I would not want the State to kill them in any case, I would want to do that myself.

To me the State is required to act ethically and that taking someone's life should be a last resort, when all else has been exhausted, this includes War, we should not be going to War if there are alternatives, equally we should not be killing our citizens if there are viable alternatives. The State should never be about retribution and revenge, but about prevention and justice.
 
Last edited:
George Hincapie said:
There's no true justice under your system. A person can commit the most heinous crime imaginable and the worst that will happen is they'll be locked away for the rest of their life. That's not good enough.
Click to expand...

People with your view frighten me really. Essentially you're saying that you're not satisfied without death. People that wish for death on other people are not right.
I also hold the opposite view with regards to 'punishment'. Someone that is locked away for a long long time has to reflect on what they've done. Death just gives them a quick and easy way out.

Very bizzare are the people that seem to get excited about execution. There always seems to be an angry mob style lynching mentality about it. I can't point at specific people but these threads always seem to bring out the Right wing oxygen thieves everytime.
 
opethdisciple said:
This dude is obviously not a nice guy, but the crimes he committed dont deserve death...
Click to expand...

There was actually a program about people on death row not so long ago on channel 4 and this guy was the focus of one of the episodes. Extremely intelligent guy, and came across as actually kinda friendly you'd never know what he got up to. He'd committed a HUGE string of robberys over quite a few years but always made a point not to hurt anyone. In the end a cop did end up getting shot and they pinned every 'hostage' involved on him with kidnapping sentences so he had like a 500year sentence in total. Think they even put on 100years just for stealing a car. Highly recommend watching that series, fascinating stuff..

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/death-row/episode-guide/series-1
 
All these horrific crimes keep occurring and why one human would do these things to another to me is beyond comprehension. It is quite clear also that killing these people provides no deterrent whatsover and is being committed purely in the interest of vengeance which will never give the victims families any closure and most likely teach everybody the wrong message all around. The answers to crime revolve around reducing inequality, poverty and increasing education - something strangely our government is actively doing in the opposite direction.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather these people were just sentenced to a lifetime of hard labour, doing something useful in all honesty. At least they'd be productive and spending the rest of their lives in a mine or doing something similarly taxing might prove to be more of a deterrent than an injection and quick exit.
 
opethdisciple said:
This dude is obviously not a nice guy, but the crimes he committed dont deserve death...
Click to expand...

No clearly not!!
13 counts of aggravated kidnapping with a deadly weapon,
4 counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon,
1 count of burglary of a habitation
Robbed a store at gunpoint where A police officer was murdered outside..

Inject inject inject!!
 
Soe of them are interesting to read, especially the ones whop plead innocence, i could never watch one and hear them saying those kinds of things :(
 
Fuzz said:
No clearly not!!
13 counts of aggravated kidnapping with a deadly weapon,
4 counts of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon,
1 count of burglary of a habitation
Robbed a store at gunpoint where A police officer was murdered outside..

Inject inject inject!!
Click to expand...

Certainly not inject, what an appalling statement. I find it shocking that you can put such a low value on someone's life as to joke about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom