Death Penalty

I agree with the death penalty, if it is proven beyond anyone's doubt that the convicted perpetrator did do the crime. I also agree with it for some who are beyond fixing...Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Wesley Allan Dodd from Washington State...these are people that either were put to death or should have been put to death (Charles Manson).

If life in prison is the sentence, then it should be for the remainder of their natural life. My life doesn't end after 20 years!

There are criminals who are fixable...but with the current prison system we have, they are few and far between. And it is real difficult for them to manage life on the outside once they get out.

The murderer of my sister is up for parole next year for the 5th time...he has been in prison since 1978 and he was barely 21 when he was sent there. What does he know about the world now? Only what he sees from the inside looking out. What are his chances for success if he is parolled, which is likely this time?

CB:

So sorry to hear that you had this tragedy in your family.
The shame of our legal system is that there is so little rehabilitation built into the system that the recidivism figures are through the roof. After many years of being incarcerated an individual becomes quite institutionalized, dependent on the system, dependent on the three square meals per day, the discipline, the schedule, etc. and is lost when becoming free, totally unaware of what survival and existence really means on the outside.

I think the death penalty also is somewhat of a deterrent, though not effective because of the lengthy appeal process.

http://comedians.jokes.com/ron-white/vi ... th-penalty

Texas is putting in a death penalty express lane.

We are too stupid to kill anybody, Life is fine with me. If you lived 150 years ago would trust their judgment on who to kill? One hundred years from now that's how they will perceive our ability to be sure. $ does not matter it costs the same. Even if it cost a little more ,who gives a sh**.

I do not support the death penalty because one cannot be sure that the accused was justly convicted, except in very few cases. Consider the Tim Masters case.
Prosecutors do not seek justice, they seek an outstanding conviction record. This is true on the city, county, state, and federal lever.
There have been many cases where the accused person was shown to be not guilty many years after conviction, the guilty person found, but the person in prison could not get his sentence reversed because of politics.

major bean wrote: I do not support the death penalty because one cannot be sure that the accused was justly convicted, except in very few cases. Consider the Tim Masters case.
Prosecutors do not seek justice, they seek an outstanding conviction record. This is true on the city, county, state, and federal lever.
There have been many cases where the accused person was shown to be not guilty many years after conviction, the guilty person found, but the person in prison could not get his sentence reversed because of politics.

I think you are right about prosecutors. The TV show "Frontline" had a very chilling episode earlier this month (OK, it's PBS, but I really urge you conservatives to at least give it a look, you won't believe what happened). It was about four US Navy Sailors who were driven to "confess" to a rape and murder by a very agressive prosecuter in Virginia.

It's too complicated to explain it all here. But the prosecuter grilled them all night. "No need for an attorney if you are innocent". They took lie dectector tests, but he told them they failed the test, even though they passed it, or the test result was "lost".

First just one guy "confessed". But later his confession didn't match the crime scene. So he got grilled again and was shown photos of stuff only the killer would of known about. So he changed his confession to match it (I'll explain why in a minute). Later the DNA test came in, and he didn't match. So did the DA let him go? No, he already had a confession. Must be another person involved. So he got the guy to give him another name.

Same thing happened with the next guy, then the next two. Grilled, fake lie dectector, "confessed", but DNA didn't match. Time for another name...

They later found a guy from another investigation who's DNA did match, but that guy didn't even know the other four and said he acted alone. OK, now you'd think the DA would release the sailors? No, they already confessed. Time to dream up another scenario to explain this. Let's see, the guys that didn't know the killer ran into each other in a parking lot near the apartment, talked, and decided to go rape someone. Plus a couple of others supposedly got involved too. And the DA gave a plea bargain deal to the real killer to accuse the others.

How could this happen? Well, you need to watch it. But basicly the DA grilled them a very long time, lied about the lie detector, and told them that Virginia was a big time death penalty state and that they could face death. But he'd help them out if they'd just tell the "truth". He'd make a deal for them so they wouldn't face the death penalty.

Amazing and hard to believe, the four sailors were grilled to believe it would be better to confess to a crime they didn't commit rather than face the death penalty.

They served something like 13 years before they were finally released. But still, they haven't gotten a full pardon. They are still registered sex offenders. In the meantime, that DA was convicted of other crimes, not related to this case.

You can watch it here, if you are willing to spend an hour and a half...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

There are a lot of reasons to be against the death penalty. Too many mistakes, too expensive, too inhumane. Our justice system is not effective enough to administer such a penalty. We don't even seem to know what we want our justice system to accomplish, rehabilitation? Punishment? Quarantine? It doesn't effectively achieve any of these things.

not in favor of the death penalty -- too many errors.

but have to agree with js that it should be a punishment. and it should also be a rehabilitation and restitution (w/i confines of the setting) so that it isn't a status thing for gang members and others and a real deterrent.

So, the punishment for the crime committed is supposed to either deter others from committing the same or similar crime and/or to deter the perpetrator from committing other crimes or to rehabilitate them to function legally in society...

And the recidivism rate for those released from prison is something like half or more?

I don't believe the death penalty does anything except kill the perpetrator...and as I said earlier, some need to die in order to not commit crimes again. And in more than one case, the perpetrator himself (they've all be men) has asked for the death penalty, but the appeals are mandatory and it has taken quite a while and an amount of money to get them through the system. Both of the cases I'm remembering were confessions...but again, because both were death penalty cases, they couldn't plead it out and be sentenced...it had to go to a jury trial. Again, in both these cases, there was absolutely no doubt that they had committed the crimes...not only did they confess, but there was a whole lot of other evidence, including photographs in one case, that proved beyond a doubt that these guys did the crime. If they want to die, then help 'em.

In some cases, I believe the punishment should fit the crime...you started a fire...you have to go to a burn unit in a hospital and work with those that are seriously burned.

Our current legal system is not working as it is...something needs to change.