Do You Support the Death Penalty?

[Cecilie1200]

I don't support the death penalty. It's expensive. It does not serve as a deterrent. It splits victim's families further apart who are already suffering from loss. It is inappropriate for a civilized society. Innocent people have been executed. The death penalty is unevenly applied, there is a racist component to execution.

As a Buddhist, I do not support the death penalty.

The death penalty is evenly applied. It's the MURDERS that have a racist component. If a much higher percentage of black men commit murder than white men do, is it OUR fault that a higher percentage of black men are executed for murder, or THEIRS? Are we supposed to decide who to execute based on racial quotas instead of actual heinousness of crimes? And wouldn't THAT be racist toward the victims, since it would mean that a higher percentage of white victims would have their murders punished with death than black?

And I'm still waiting for someone to name me ONE of these apocryphal "innocent people executed". You say, you say, you say, but you never substantiate.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It would unit a family in seeing the murderer pay the ultimate penalty.

My sister and I drove together to the death house to see the man who assaulted us executed. It was a very bonding experience for us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No. It does not unite a family. It often divides a family. We are split as Americans on whether we support the death penalty or not--even when we are families of crime victims.

Who is "we"? A 2006 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 65% of Americans favor the death penalty for convicted murderers, versus 32% opposed. Maybe YOUR family is divided over it. Mine thought it was a spiffy idea. On the other hand, MINE was actually victimized by violent crime.

 

[sky dancer]

My sister and I drove together to the death house to see the man who assaulted us executed. It was a very bonding experience for us.

I'm very sorry to hear that you and your sister were assaulted.

 

[sky dancer]

Who is "we"? A 2006 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 65% of Americans favor the death penalty for convicted murderers, versus 32% opposed. Maybe YOUR family is divided over it. Mine thought it was a spiffy idea. On the other hand, MINE was actually victimized by violent crime.

Yes. My family is divided over the death penalty. 32% is a substantial amount of people. That's approximately 3 out of 10 in a family. That's a divided family.

Perhaps in your case, your family was not divided.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm very sorry to hear that you and your sister were assaulted.

I'm over it. You'd be amazed how watching the scum-sucking lowlife take that last IV provides closure.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes. My family is divided over the death penalty. 32% is a substantial amount of people. That's approximately 3 out of 10 in a family. That's a divided family.

Perhaps in your case, your family was not divided.

Like I said, it probably makes a difference when it's not just an academic exercise, but a life reality.

 

[sky dancer]

Like I said, it probably makes a difference when it's not just an academic exercise, but a life reality.

Life reality is that families of crime victims and crime victims don't all heal the same way. There are victims of crime that oppose the death penalty.

It is not an academic exercise for them. They have also suffered as you and your sister have.
Here are some of their stories:
http://www.mvfr.org/?page_id=6

 

[Epsilon Delta]

It's been proven that it's no deterrent? Proven by whom? When?

[...]

A study conducted by Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Chicago in the late 1970s showed that each execution deterred as many as twenty to twenty-four murders. The vast majority of recent research confirms this effect. Each execution saved the lives of 50 to 18 potential murder victims, according to this research, and some studies put the numbers higher. John Lott, the economist, is an example of one such researcher. (Yes, I can provide names and publications for the studies, if you want.)

Sorry about that, just usually looking around for death penalty related stuff, deterrence is usually the weakest link of the argument. Maybe "proven" wasn't the correct word, but since you ask:

THE DEATH PENALTY MEETS SOCIAL SCIENCE: Deterrence and Jury Behavior Under New Scrutiny - Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1(1):151 - Abstract

^ This one talks about the Ehrlich Study, it's from Robert Weiseberg from Stanford University, and it was published in 1 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 151 (2005).

http://preprints.stat.ucla.edu/396/JELS.pap.pdf

^ Study by Richard Burk from UCLA Department of Statistics, published on the UCLA website on July 2004.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FaganDeterrence.pdf

^ Article by Columbia Law Schools' Dr. Jeffrey Fagan, published on the 4 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 255 (2006). Also dismantles the Ehrlich study.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf

^ Article by John Donohue (Yale Law School) and Justin Wolfers (UPenn) published in 58 Stanford Law Review 791 (2005).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Life reality is that families of crime victims and crime victims don't all heal the same way. There are victims of crime that oppose the death penalty.

It is not an academic exercise for them. They have also suffered as you and your sister have.
Here are some of their stories:
Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation

I'm sure they do. I'm equally sure that a large part of their suffering comes from too much indoctrination from sanctimonious "compassion merchants" peddling false information to make them feel guilty.

Fortunately, I also have the facts to back me up.

 

[sky dancer]

I'm sure they do. I'm equally sure that a large part of their suffering comes from too much indoctrination from sanctimonious "compassion merchants" peddling false information to make them feel guilty.

Fortunately, I also have the facts to back me up.

With all due respect, I understand you feel differently. It is not necessary to put down other victims families who oppose the death penalty.

I assure you that these folks had their values come from inside themselves. No one coerced them or indoctrinated them to feel guilty with 'sanctimonious compassion'.

You have said you are 'over it'. If so, why wouldn't you be supportive of other victims healing?

Not everyone heals in the same way. For some people, opposing the death penalty even after suffering the ultimate sacrifice makes them able to cope with their loss easier.

Do you have facts about these other families healing process?

"The death penalty is about revenge and hate, and revenge and hate is why my daughter and those 167 other people are dead today."
Bud Welch, father of Julie Marie Welch,
victim in the Oklahoma City bombing

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry about that, just usually looking around for death penalty related stuff, deterrence is usually the weakest link of the argument. Maybe "proven" wasn't the correct word, but since you ask:

THE DEATH PENALTY MEETS SOCIAL SCIENCE: Deterrence and Jury Behavior Under New Scrutiny - Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1(1):151 - Abstract

^ This one talks about the Ehrlich Study, it's from Robert Weiseberg from Stanford University, and it was published in 1 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 151 (2005).

http://preprints.stat.ucla.edu/396/JELS.pap.pdf

^ Study by Richard Burk from UCLA Department of Statistics, published on the UCLA website on July 2004.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FaganDeterrence.pdf

^ Article by Columbia Law Schools' Dr. Jeffrey Fagan, published on the 4 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 255 (2006). Also dismantles the Ehrlich study.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf

^ Article by John Donohue (Yale Law School) and Justin Wolfers (UPenn) published in 58 Stanford Law Review 791 (2005).

Do you know what I find interesting about your first reference, just off the top of my head? In the beginning summary, it mentions Ehrlich's first study, and then says "the debate still rages because some studies omit the entire state of Texas", clearly trying to imply that Ehrlich's study did so. But Ehrlich's study wasn't the one that omitted data from the state of Texas. Your SECOND reference was the study that did so, and Texas apparently wasn't the only state Berk left out in order to achieve his results.

Your first reference also curiously neglects to mention that Ehrlich's original study eventually met with so much acclaim and agreement that it spawned an even more indepth follow-up study from him in the Journal of Law and Economics in 1999. One wonders why a study published in 2005 saw fit only to discuss his data from the late 1970s, and not much more recent and complete data.

In addition to Berk's decision to leave entire states out of his figures, his study also suffers from another interesting flaw, one he shares with your third reference. Both studies, rather than looking at the percentage of murders that result in execution, measure the number of executions per prisoner incarcerated. There is no clear reason to believe that jails filling up with people convicted of drug possession and car theft would make the risk to murderers from execution decline. There is, in fact, no clear reason to believe that the two statistics have any relation to each other whatsoever, so it's not surprising that this pointless "research" cannot identify any benefit from the death penalty.

Next time, read the studies, rather than their press releases. It's one thing to CLAIM to "dismantle" someone's argument. It's another thing to actually do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While I was waiting for the board software to update or whatever it was doing, I wandered off to grab a shower and gave some more thought to this discussion. It occurred to me that there are some other points that should probably be clarified, while I'm at it.

The victim family that was quoted lost someone in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Please understand, I'm not belittling anyone's loss of a loved one when I say this. It's always hard to have someone die, particularly by violence. However, just as it's very different psychologically to have your loved one die in a war versus in a car accident, for example, so is it also very different psychologically to be the victim of a terrorist or mass murderer from being the victim of a more standard sort of murderer.

To start with, even the studies that show that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder also say that it is no deterrent whatsoever to terrorists, school shooters, that sort of thing. This is because, nine times out of ten, the person committing the crimes expects to die in the commission anyway. So this can often make it easier for the families of the victims to take what they feel is the moral high road.

Second, in a weird sort of psychological way, it's not . . . personal, if you understand what I mean. Yes, it's a human being causing violence that results in the death of your loved one, but in a way, it's like being struck dead by a meteorite or being caught in an earthquake.

Third, and this is sort of related, there are others going through this with you, in a way that just isn't true of regular violent crimes, even when the criminal has multiple victims. And the entire nation is mourning with you, and watching you on live TV and reading you in the newspaper, like as not.

Fourth, and this is a big one, everyone with a teaspoonful of brains knew that the Oklahoma City bomber, when caught, was a dead man. On the incredibly long chance that he was NOT given the death penalty, they were going to put him UNDER the prison, not just in it. It makes it easier to talk about forgiveness and not giving in to revenge when you know perfectly well that the rest of society is going to handle it for you, no matter what you say. It's a whole 'nother kettle of fish when the guy actually stands a chance of being paroled or escaping because he isn't a celebrity.

And yes, I'm sure there are people who are victims of more regular, run-of-the-mill violent crimes who still don't like the death penalty. That brings us back to the fact that my primary support for it is and always has been the deterrent factor and the inescapable fact that executed murderers have a zero rate of recidivism.

 

[mightypeon]

I mainly oppose the death penatly on the reason that any state errs.
I figure it would err quite a lot, at least mine (Germany) does.
From what I heard about the US system, a number of things may be even worse there.
If a state wrongly incarcerates someone, he or she can at least be monetary compensated.
This opportunity does not exist with death penalty.

On another matter, I have been seriously wounded during a fairly determined assualt on my life, while I would have absolutly no reservations about killing the attacker in self defense, sentencing him to death would, to an extent, put me on the same level as him.

 

[Diuretic]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't God also very clearly lay down the death penalty as the punishment for specific crimes in the Old Testament? So "vengeance is mine" doesn't appear to have been a society-wide restriction, but an individual one.

Well to get any juice out of that you'd have to prove god. You can't. No juice. Just an appeal to superstition.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I do not support the death penalty.

 

[Silence]

yes, I support the death penalty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well to get any juice out of that you'd have to prove god. You can't. No juice. Just an appeal to superstition.

CrimsonWhite, I disagree about your reference to "vengeance is mine," because I can point to other references in the Bible that could be interpreted as otherwise.

Diuretic, What you said doesn't jibe. Religion is based entirely on belief not on absolute proof.

 

[strollingbones]

as for no one being executed being cleared by dna...i wonder how far the state goes to prove that killed an innocent man??

 

[Shogun]

I support the death penalty and I think we should be killing more killers than we do right now.