Death row: Is it really necessary?

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Death row, for those who don't know, is keeping a prisoner in jail until his/her execution. It is usually given out to the worst criminals.

BUT...

Is it really necessary? We have life sentence, which seems a lot less painful and easier on the prisoners. Do we really need another option of their death?

As for the opposing arguments, then is life sentence necessary?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

No death row is not necessary especially because to kill some one is not a complicated matter and that we can keep them were they already are (Jail) until their execution date arrives.

Do not get me wrong I support execution of criminals all the way but the need for death row (form my view) seems to appeal to physiological reasons rather than logical ones for I can not think of a reason to have a "death row".

And the ONLY way for life in prison to be worse than an execution is IF thier life in jail was non-stop hell and a person was tortured all the time, the problem with life in jail is that, for the hard core criminals, are jails are to *** ***** comfortable, or they have an emo disposition (as in the only other way for an execution to be less painful.)

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Why should we care how painful an execution is? If we were to err on one side, I would say more painful is preferable, as murder is one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit. But about death row...

No, it is not necessary. Like Dragoon said, killing someone needn't be time-consuming or costly. Over in the Murder thread, the idea of a guillotine was brought up. This would be a cost-effective, efficient, and quick way of dealing with the problem of so many people just sitting on death row.

However, whereas a guillotine would be the best objective way to deal with it, I am actually in favor of letting the victim's family determine how a murderer is killed (of course, with the judge's consent).

lol Wow DH, you and your death topics...

 

[Maniclysane]

I am actually in favor of letting the victim's family determine how a murderer is killed (of course, with the judge's consent).

I think this is the most demented thing I have ever read in the DH.

Why should we care how painful an execution is? If we were to err on one side, I would say more painful is preferable, as murder is one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit. But about death row...

A painful execution is revolting and inhumane. We live in a modern society. Torturing and prolonging a death, or making it worse than it should be is the sickest of crimes, and is pure sadism that belongs in another time. Making a humans death more painful than it should be is worse than murder.

No, it is not necessary. Like Dragoon said, killing someone needn't be time-consuming or costly. Over in the Murder thread, the idea of a guillotine was brought up. This would be a cost-effective, efficient, and quick way of dealing with the problem of so many people just sitting on death row.

If we're so quick to kill someone sentenced to death, what happens if new evidence is found? He's already dead. No human should be able to dictate who can and cannot live.

An eye for an eye has never worked.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Making a humans death more painful than it should be is worse than murder.

Manic, how painful should a murderer's execution be?

If we're so quick to kill someone sentenced to death, what happens if new evidence is found? He's already dead.

This could be easily prevented by making sure the person is guilty before sentencing them.

A painful execution is revolting and inhumane.

No sir. Murder is revolting and inhumane. Painful execution is just.

I take it from your posts that you are against corporal punishment altogether?

 

[Maniclysane]

Manic, how painful should a murderer's execution be?

It should never happen in the first place.

This could be easily prevented by making sure the person is guilty before sentencing them.

How can you be any more sure than a guilty verdict?

No sir. Murder is revolting and inhumane. Painful execution is just.

Executing isn't any less revolting. People learn their lesson in jail. People get parole. They become better people and can operate in society and understand what they've done wrong.

take it from your posts that you are against corporal punishment altogether?

Hurting someone or killing someone is beyond crude. Jails are meant to punish. Through punishment, you get correction. There is no correction in killing someone.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

It should never happen in the first place.

We try to show respect for prisoners. We should at least let them choose their way to die.

How can you be any more sure than a guilty verdict?

Because we can double and triple check him before execution.

Hurting someone or killing someone is beyond crude. Jails are meant to punish. Through punishment, you get correction. There is no correction in killing someone.

A life sentence is probably enough correction. We don't need to gun him down with a firing squad.

 

[Dre89]

Manic has a point, it is inhumane to intend a painful execution.

Doing so is to stoop to the standard of the criminal being executed.

 

[Maniclysane]

Btw, I'm probably going to end up messing your colors up.

We try to show respect for prisoners. We should at least let them choose their way to die.

What kind of prisoner would choose anything more than painless? A murderer could be mentally ill, or they could be pressured and confused, and ask for something that's worse than it could be. Nobody can know how painful death is until it happens.

Because we can double and triple check him before execution.

What would be doube checking? The evidence? We need death row to give the prisoner more time for evidence to come up.

A life sentence is probably enough correction. We don't need to gun him down with a firing squad.

I think we're on the same page here. Life sentence is enough. Once they've learned their lesson, they can prove it during a parole hearing.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

What kind of prisoner would choose anything more than painless? A murderer could be mentally ill, or they could be pressured and confused, and ask for something that's worse than it could be. Nobody can know how painful death is until it happens.

Does it really matter how painful the death is? The prisoner would still be dead, and that's all that matters.

What would be doube checking? The evidence? We need death row to give the prisoner more time for evidence to come up.

Actually, death row is not to check wether the person's guilty or not. Wrongful Execution has only recently been addressed.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I, as far as I can tell we are in disagreement but NOT in weather death row is necessary or not (you know the subject of the opening). I think both pro and anti execution sides of the debate can agree that setting aside a special part of the jail for people waiting to get executed is not necessary and it is NOT a debate if everyone agrees on the subject.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

But this isn't everyone. In the bullfighting thread, everyone except for NaCl was against buulfighting.

The thread's pretty active.

 

[Maniclysane]

Does it really matter how painful the death is? The prisoner would still be dead, and that's all that matters.

A painful death is inhumane. Nothing is corrected by killing someone. They can't learn from their mistakes if they are dead. Making their death painful is unnecessary and wrong. You're forgetting there's still a person in someone, whether or not they've killed someone.

Actually, death row is not to check wether the person's guilty or not. Wrongful Execution has only recently been addressed.

Of course that's not what it's meant for, but by giving someone sentenced to time in death row, that gives opportunity for evidence to come up.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

A painful death is inhumane. Nothing is corrected by killing someone. They can't learn from their mistakes if they are dead. Making their death painful is unnecessary and wrong. You're forgetting there's still a person in someone, whether or not they've killed someone.

The Death penalty and Permanent Life in prison imply the exact same thing, that there are some crimes that are truly unforgivable. Further more you keep saying that they can't learn there lesson if there dead well they frankly can't learn there lesson when they are alive, I say this because it is beaten (figuratively) in to us that Murder is Wrong, thieving is Wrong, ect is Wrong. Even in a house holds void of all morals the children that go to foster care and go to school still are taught the basic Rights form Wrongs, and unless you are truly incapable of telling the different of right from wrong do to some mental reason, In our culture there should be no reason to at least not heard of the concept of killing being wrong.

Of course that's not what it's meant for, but by giving someone sentenced to time in death row, that gives opportunity for evidence to come up.

And?...Can they go look for evidence while he/she is setting in regular old jail?

But this isn't everyone. In the bullfighting thread, everyone except for NaCl was against buulfighting.

The thread's pretty active.

Actually, a while back I was about to post the "Its not a debate if everyone agrees" in the bullfighting thread, but at the time I though *Sigh it is late I will post in the morning* and when I checked the post the next morning NaCl posted her/his opinion on the subject and I thought to myself *Never Mind*. On topic the devils advocate better hurry up he/she is late.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

@Manic: There is one thing that is corrected by executing a murderer. That's removing a person from this world who is a constant threat to the lives of anyone who crosses him (assuming, of course, that that was his reason for murder in the first place). It also serves as a warning to others; if you kill, you will be killed. It may be a scare tactic, but it mostly works. If we give every murderer a chance at parole, they could kill again, and others will feel as if they can get away with it.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

A painful death is inhumane. Nothing is corrected by killing someone. They can't learn from their mistakes if they are dead. Making their death painful is unnecessary and wrong.

I'm with you on the part were you say execution shouldn't be painful. However, you can pay them back with their own death.

Is it just me, or did you switch sides halfway through this?

You're forgetting there's still a person in someone, whether or not they've killed someone.

There was a person in the victim too, and it got taken away.

Of course that's not what it's meant for, but by giving someone sentenced to time in death row, that gives opportunity for evidence to come up.

But they don't. People have been wrongly accused have been killed by execution. Your fighting with a flawed argument. This might work in theory, but they aren't actually using death row to check.

 

[Sieguest]

But this isn't everyone. In the bullfighting thread, everyone except for NaCl was against buulfighting.

The thread's pretty active.

Morality has always been a touchy subject for me. I do have my beliefs on what is right and what is wrong, but when I think that somethings that upset others do not upset me and so on, I choose not to judge the action as right or wrong more so than gauge it in whether or not it is in the best interest of the parties in question.

The Death penalty and Permanent Life in prison imply the exact same thing, that there are some crimes that are truly unforgivable. Further more you keep saying that they can't learn there lesson if there dead well they frankly can't learn there lesson when they are alive, I say this because it is beaten (figuratively) in to us that Murder is Wrong, thieving is Wrong, ect is Wrong. Even in a house holds void of all morals the children that go to foster care and go to school still are taught the basic Rights form Wrongs, and unless you are truly incapable of telling the different of right from wrong do to some mental reason, In our culture there should be no reason to at least not heard of the concept of killing being wrong.

I would think because they don't see killing the same way as others do. Did Hitler not think he was right when he acted upon his "Final Solution"? If he didn't, why did he do it?

Actually, a while back I was about to post the "Its not a debate if everyone agrees" in the bullfighting thread, but at the time I though *Sigh it is late I will post in the morning* and when I checked the post the next morning NaCl posted her/his opinion on the subject and I thought to myself *Never Mind*. On topic the devils advocate better hurry up he/she is late.

I'm actually on the fence about the needs of Death Row, but I suppose there are some things I could bring up.

@Manic: There is one thing that is corrected by executing a murderer. That's removing a person from this world who is a constant threat to the lives of anyone who crosses him (assuming, of course, that that was his reason for murder in the first place). It also serves as a warning to others; if you kill, you will be killed. It may be a scare tactic, but it mostly works. If we give every murderer a chance at parole, they could kill again, and others will feel as if they can get away with it.

Doesn't life in prison achieve the same end? (Taking a dangerous person out of civilian life.) A life sentence without chance of parole isn't out of reason.

Also if you think about it in another light, the death penalty kind of makes the country that does it look hypocritical.We stress that killing another human is wrong and shall be punished, yet in following the death penalty, we do the exact thing we just said not to do.


Anyway, some things to consider about maybe keeping Death Row. This is the amount of people on death row in the U.S. by state as the past October. It's a space that keeps these guys separated from other convicts who may only be in there for something such as involuntary manslaughter. And it's impractical to try and kill 300+ people in a day.
One could argue "just make a sticker for those who are sentenced to death. Then it doesn't change much, either way money is going to the upkeep of prisoners+ something else (tidying up the space or getting stickers) That and there is nothing stopping someone who knows they are going to be killed later anyway from wreaking havoc among the other convicts if they could come into contact with them. There's too many to kill in one day and it's a liability to stick them with other convicts given that they're on death row for a good reason.

 

[1048576]

Okay, first some random thoughts:

If you convict anyone at all, you're going to convict some innocent people. That's a rule of statistics.

Of course states with higher crime rates have the death penalty. That's why they put the death penaly in the first place, as a crime deterrent. If you don't have a crime problem, then you wouldn't introduce the death penalty. It's like saying Switzerland has less gun crime than the Bronx because Switzerland doesn't have gun control laws. Perhaps some more useful data would be to compare crime rates before and after the law, in the same region.

My reason in support of the death penalty is that, intuitively, it should cost less to administer one lethal injection than to provide 20,000 meals. The court reform necessary to meet that floor is another topic, but you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also, if you put someone in prison for life, they can kill other inmates while in prison for virtually no consequence.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Perhaps some more useful data would be to compare crime rates before and after the law, in the same region.

Then you run into the problem of whether the time period made a difference. Better to compare The Bronx to Philly (or wherever), if one has gun control laws, and one does not.

 

[1048576]

Well, you could measure right before and right after the law was enacted, as opposed to hunting down two different places and trying to piece together all the lurking variables (how high is the population density? What is the racial composition? How else do the laws differ? Do both places have gangs?)

 

[Maniclysane]

@Manic: There is one thing that is corrected by executing a murderer. That's removing a person from this world who is a constant threat to the lives of anyone who crosses him (assuming, of course, that that was his reason for murder in the first place). It also serves as a warning to others; if you kill, you will be killed. It may be a scare tactic, but it mostly works. If we give every murderer a chance at parole, they could kill again, and others will feel as if they can get away with it.

If murder is punishable by death, then should the judge be killed for putting him to death? Two wrongs don't make a right.

It doesn't work either. You're making that up.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

 

[1048576]

Good lord I just went over why that stat is misleading and disingenuous. I can see not reading an ten page thread, but can you at least go over the most recent 3 posts?

Murder is a subset of killing, so no, putting a murderer to death is not murder.

 

[Maniclysane]

Murder is a subset of killing, so no, putting a murderer to death is not murder.

It's still killing though. The circumstances don't matter, the second you put someone do death you're playing god. Whether you're the murderer or the judge.

Good lord I just went over why that stat is misleading and disingenuous. I can see not reading an ten page thread, but can you at least go over the most recent 3 posts?

I ignored your post because it wasn't worth mentioning. You keep pointing out that the Death Penalty is a crime deterrent when clearly it is not.

http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php

Canada's homicide rate dropped 27% after they abolished the death sentence.

 

[1048576]

If your assertion is that all killing is always wrong, as in, the circumstances don't matter, then I can draw some absurd conclusions. Care to clarify?

Your source says that the conviction rate for first degree murder went up 10-20% in the decade that followed the abolition of the death penalty. Taking the data from right after is better because fewer other socioecomic factors would have changed in that time.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

****!!!! Not another capital punishment thread. We've had like 3 of these. U want my input check the "when is killing good?" and "public executions" thread.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@bob saget

Please refrain from posting until you actually bother to read the OP.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

They should give the criminals the option if they want the death penalty or not. If they know they are going to be in prison for life, why not atleast give them the choice to end it? They know there mistakes and costs, there is no need for them to suffer anymore. Death isn't suffer, living with guilt is.

 

[Crazy Cloud]

I believe that the Death Penalty isn't necessary, in it's current form. There are quite a few studies out there about the current Death Penalty. They show trends that the color of your skin plays a big role in determining a death row sentence. As of June 2010, there are 164 Residents in Ohio's Death Row with 150 of them being convicted. There are 70 Caucasians (69 Male; 1 Female), so what race makes up the rest? African-Americans, there are 86 [1]. A death penalty statistical study by David Baldus found that for identical crimes committed by similar defendants, blacks recieve the death penalty at a 38% higher rate than all others [2].

So I'm automatically less likely to be put to death for a murder, based purely off the color of my skin. That's not fair. Instead, I think a system to request the death penalty should be in place. If someone is serving a life sentence in prison, they're free to request being put to death. This would clear the debate of morality of criminals being put to death. It also give the innocent a chance to appeal their case, without a time limit.

As it stands, I do not support the Death Penalty. I think that time is a fate worse than death. There's a very small possibility of someone being falsely convicted, and that innocent person to later be murdered. Even if it is small, why leave the risk of taking an innocent life? However, morally, I do not feel complicated by the death penalty itself.

[1] - DEATH PENALTY PROPORTIONALITY STATISTICS - http://www.opd.ohio.gov/dp_Residentinfo/dp_Proportionality.pdf
[2] - The Death Penalty in Black and White - http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/racism.htm

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I believe that the Death Penalty isn't necessary, in it's current form. There are quite a few studies out there about the current Death Penalty. They show trends that the color of your skin plays a big role in determining a death row sentence. As of June 2010, there are 164 Residents in Ohio's Death Row with 150 of them being convicted. There are 70 Caucasians (69 Male; 1 Female), so what race makes up the rest? African-Americans, there are 86 [1]. A death penalty statistical study by David Baldus found that for identical crimes committed by similar defendants, blacks recieve the death penalty at a 38% higher rate than all others [2].

So I'm automatically less likely to be put to death for a murder, based purely off the color of my skin. That's not fair. Instead, I think a system to request the death penalty should be in place. If someone is serving a life sentence in prison, they're free to request being put to death. This would clear the debate of morality of criminals being put to death. It also give the innocent a chance to appeal their case, without a time limit.

As it stands, I do not support the Death Penalty. I think that time is a fate worse than death. There's a very small possibility of someone being falsely convicted, and that innocent person to later be murdered. Even if it is small, why leave the risk of taking an innocent life? However, morally, I do not feel complicated by the death penalty itself.

[1] - DEATH PENALTY PROPORTIONALITY STATISTICS - http://www.opd.ohio.gov/dp_Residentinfo/dp_Proportionality.pdf
[2] - The Death Penalty in Black and White - http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/racism.htm

They should give the criminals the option if they want the death penalty or not. If they know they are going to be in prison for life, why not atleast give them the choice to end it? They know there mistakes and costs, there is no need for them to suffer anymore. Death isn't suffer, living with guilt is.

If your assertion is that all killing is always wrong, as in, the circumstances don't matter, then I can draw some absurd conclusions. Care to clarify?

Your source says that the conviction rate for first degree murder went up 10-20% in the decade that followed the abolition of the death penalty. Taking the data from right after is better because fewer other socioecomic factors would have changed in that time.

This thread is about is death row necessary not is the death penalty wrong but is death row nessessary (you know the area reserved for murders before they are executed.)

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

This thread is about is death row necessary not is the death penalty wrong but is death row nessessary (you know the area reserved for murders before they are executed.)

It really is only nessecary in the eyes of the victims relatives / friends in my opinion. I honestly doubt the prison would care wether the killer is alive or dead, hence, the commands, "I want him dead or alive".

 

[Crazy Cloud]

This thread is about is death row necessary not is the death penalty wrong but is death row nessessary (you know the area reserved for murders before they are executed.)

Should have paid more attention I guess . Hmm.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about Death Row. On one hand, I feel like every person has feelings and Death Row is not very humane. On the other hand, the people who are there have been sent there for a reason.

If I were to make a judgement, I'd say it's probably for the best. Murders who have been sentenced to death, sort of have nothing to lose at that point. What's it to someone who's already been convicted of a murder, to go ahead and kill another inmate or a guard? I think it's a case of, better safe than sorry. Are some of them truly sorry? I'm sure they are. But is it worth risking another life being taken in the process? Definitely not. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", that quote fits perfectly in how I feel about Death Row.

Maybe in the future, there could be something like a psyche evaluation to determine if a person on Death Row could be released into the general population before their execution. But that's going to come down to a Warden who's going to take a chance like that. I doubt there would be many takers to pioneer the idea. Or maybe there has been, and it just hasn't been successful. If it's not general knowledge that's easily known, then it must not be widespread and/or very successful.

Also, you have to worry about the safety of the Death Row inmates. If they were released into gen. pop., maybe it wouldn't be them that is the problem. Maybe there's a guard or another inmate who was linked to the murder commited. Sure, you could go ahead and cross reference all the inmates with the death row inmate, to see if there was a family link between the victim and everyone incarcerated/employeed. Who is going to go through all that trouble, just for one person who is going to die? It's sad, but true. Also, that system isn't full proof, because it's impossible to tell, besides from word of mouth, who is friends with who. So okay, there's no connections between any of the inmates or guards, with the victim that mr. death row killed. However, the victim turns out to be one of the inmate's best friend's fiancee. Things like that, you just can't find out via database. And now Mr. Death Row is in jeopardy, and may have an early funeral.

Overall, I'm sure people have experimented with releasing these death row inmates into gen. pop. in the past, however for reasons stated earlier that likely contributed, it wasn't a success. There's too many risks involved. The main concern is with the inmate having nothing to lose by killing more people. There's no possible way to be 100% percent certain that something like that will not happen.