Defending the Truth

The death penalty should be abolished, simply because the administering of the death penalty teaches vengence and violence? Who could argue that the death penalty is violent, inhumane and sets a bad example and contributes to a culture of violence that is present in America?

Criminals who commit heinous crimes of murder should not have the right to life.

Check out this site:
U.S. Executions since 1976
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm

Sure is a long list...but look at the crimes each person has committed. We don't need people like this in our society.

Some of these people have committed terrible crimes, but the moral and just question is this: Do two wrongs make a right? In this case, the death penalty is committing a second wrong and it is not righting the situation.

Sure two wrongs don't make a right, but who determines that Capital Punishment is truly a "wrong thing" to do?

The death penalty encourages violence? You can't actually believe that can you? I can just see it now: So John what do you think about the death penalty? John: It makes me mad and it makes me violent. If you believe that the Death penalty has anything to do with violence then you are far beyond help. You would be more accurate if you would blame the media in general. The media sells fear. I have never heard anyone blame the death penalty for encouraging violence, this is definately a first for me.

If its one thing the human race should have learned by now, is that "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," to quote Ghandi.

I don't think ManOfTrueTruth was saying the death penalty encourages violence. I don't think he said that at all. What he said is it teaches vengence; the United States is supposed to be a role model for freedom, democracy, and humanism. And yet its the only industrialized nation on Earth that continues to execute its prisoners. He's saying that the US is setting the wrong example of a brutal way of punishment that we're supposed to be opposed to in this "War against dictatorships". The fact that the US is the only major industrialized country to continue the death penalty certainly tells you about the level of standards of decency in society, which has been a determining factor in certain court cases that make exeptions in the death penaltly. Such as Atkins v. Virginia, which outlawed the execution of the mentally retarded, or Roper v. Simmons which outlawed the execution of minors under the age of 18.

I've been studying the death penalty rigurously for months now including stacks of case law, and I can tell you a lot about it; mainly because I am an attorney in a mock trial case which is a capital case. We're determining if people who suffer from paranoid schizophrenia should be safe from the death penalty. But no matter how much I tell you about it, understand one thing. The reason why the United States executes its prisoners, is for retribution and deterrence. Those are the two legal reasons why it is still carried out in the United States. Anything falling out of that realm, although might be important and deserves mention in court, has no weight in the courtroom and wouldn't be a determining factor in outlawing the death penalty if such were to be argued. And so far I haven't heard an arguement about either of these two legal justifications for the death penalty in this thread.

I'm telling you right now that I am an attorney for the prosecution in this mock trial case. Consequently, I have to argue for the state, and argue in support of executing paranoid schizophrenics. But I must urge that I am strongly against the execution of these types of individuals in real life, and strongly against the death penalty all together; despite having to argue for the contrary. I know the State's arguement for the death penalty like the back of my hand, and let me tell you, it is completely without merit. They will argue that killing our prisoners serves retribution, which is just a fancy word for revenge. They will also say that the death penalty serves deterrence, meaning criminals in the street suddenly decide not to kill someone because of the death penalty.

Studies have been done, which concluded that the death penalty does not serve as an effective form of deterrence. Not nearly as effective as the punishment of life without possibility of parole. Being locked up in a windowless concrete block for the rest of your life, surrounded by morons that will probably end up fighting or sometimes raping you, is much more of a deterrence than being put to death. The human mind is not designed for killing other humans, in fact it is against our nature to do so. The amount of anger and hatred it takes to murder another human being in cold blood far overshadows any thought of the death penalty in the back of the murderer's mind. Criminals don't stop and think about the consequences before they murder someone. Its just like all of the teen pregnancies you hear about. They're so grasped by their emotions, and their lust, that they don't stop and think "Jeeze, now that I think about what my DARE officer said, I don't think I want to have sex with you." It does not work like that. And with murder cases, doubly so.

And to parafraze Atkins v. Virginia, unless the imposition of the death penalty to our criminals measurably contributes to one or both of these goals, its 'merely a purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering, and hence an unconstitutional punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.' The evidence and studies are against the death penalty.

Another aspect which plays a decisive role in determining whether or not the death penalty is unconstitutional under the 8th Admendment, is whether or not the death penalty being 'pain and suffering' reaches a national consensus, and is true to the current evolving standards of decency. "The basic concept underlying the Admendment is nothing less than the dignity of man.. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," (Atkins v. Virginia). And thus, it really is up to the humanity of the American people to determine exactly whether or not the death penalty should be legal. Its like what Lennon said, "War is over, if you want it". And we as the American people, and also the courts must look at the facts. The United States is the only industrialized nation on Earth that continues to carry out the death penalty. First we outlawed the execution of mentally retarded, then the execution of minors under 18, and what is next on the road in the evolving society? The execution of everyone.

Ahh yes the cruel and unusual punishment phrase of the Eighth Amendment. You say that the death penatly does not serve as a deterrent, well the Eighth Amendment is the reason why.

Lets look back at the manner in which the Death Penalty has been applied in this country...

Hanging. The prisoner shall be hung from his neck until he is dead. Standing there on the platform with a hood over your head, feeling the noose being placed over your head and then adjusted, and then waiting for the executioner to pull the lever dropping the floor board, and suddenly you feel yourself falling only to be snapped back upward by the neck. Hopefully if done properly the neck breaks immediately and you are out of your misery, if not, then you slowly twitch and kick as your body is deprived of oxygen, your heart racing and then all consciousness leaves your body. Ahh but this is cruel and unusual so we can no longer use this method.

Firing Squad. Being placed in a chair bound by your arms and legs while a blindfold or a hood is placed over your head, feeling as the guard places the target board around your neck and over your heart. Hearing the words of the warden as he gives the orders Ready, Aim, Fire. Feeling the hot lead tearing into your flesh, your heart sputtering as the bullets tear through the muscle and hopefully the aorta as you are killed. But again this is cruel and unusual.

Gas Chamber. Being led into a room and strapped into a chair, hearing as the guards slam close the air tight doors, slowly hearing as the gas begins to be pumped into the chamber, at first you try to hold your breath, but you cannot last long, your heart starts to race as you suddenly have to breath in the deadly fumes. You feel your chest constricting and you begin to cough as your body's supply of precious oxygen is replaced with a deadly poison, and suddenly you are no longer breathing and then you are dead. But again, this is too cruel and unusual.

Electric Chair. Slowly being led into a room and strapped into a chair, feeling as the wet sponge is placed over you head and the skull cap is strapped unto your head. Your arms and legs are strapped with metal to the chair. Hearing the generator firing up and the sound of it is deafening. Then the switch is pulled and tens of thousands of volts of electricity soar through your body, as the skin slowly begins to burn and that awful smell feels the room, your body begins to shudder violently and the electricity overwhelms your system stopping your heart. Yes, once more this is cruel and unusual.

So today you are taken into a room and strapped to a gurney. An IV is inserted into your arm by a trained medical professional, slowly drugs are administered and you lose consciousness, nice, quiet peacefully, never to wake again. That's the ticket, nothing cruel or unusual, it perhaps the most humane way to die, and no it does not serve as a deterrent.

Perhaps if we executed our prisoners in the same manner that they killed their victims it might serve to be a better detterent. I can just see it, in the case of Simmons, ah yes, the young 17 year old who with two accomplices beat a woman, bound and gagged her and then threw her off a bridge where she drowned, all the while bragging that the state won't execute him because he is a minor. Why not execute him in the same manner, have three guards beat him until he is unconscious, bound and gag him and then stuff his body into a bag and then throw him off a bridge into the river until he drowns, all the while the guards can joke how they are able to do this because it is sanctioned by the state. Perhaps a few more juveniles will then think twice before wanting to kill someone, knowing that if they are caught they will be executed by the state in the same manner in which they committed their crime.

Or what about good old Tookie. Why didn't we execute him in the same manner he killed one of his victims. Forcing him to lie face down on the ground, and then hearing the pump of the shot gun as the first round is chambered, only to have that round shot into the back of his head, followed by a second round to the back of the head, with two more to his body just for good measure. Perhaps knowing that if you kill someone, your life will be terminated in exactly the same manner as you terminated theirs, a little light will go off and a few less people will try to get away with murder.

As far as those who still commit the crimes, all society would be doing is putting to death those who have respect for another's rights in the first place.

And that noble position you quoted from Atkins:

The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," And thus, it really is up to the humanity of the American people to determine exactly whether or not the death penalty should be legal.

Well, the state had the death penalty so it would seem that the people had made their decision. But despite what they wrote, ulitmately it was 9 who decided. So much for the noble idea of it being up to the American people. No the changing standards of decency have been decided by nine and not the people. Words have meanings, and the justice have clearly justified their actions by ignoring or better lying about the meaning.

As far as for ManofTrueTruth, well, if the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent as Katczinsky has stated and which the studies support, then it cannot be the contribute to the culture of violence in this country.

dmk

In an ideal world, human violence would not exist and there would be no need for vengeance. Unfortunately, all of civilization is based upon the premise that those who are able to control others through the threat of violence are the ones in control, rather than those who are the most rational and just. The death penalty is a natural consequence of such a backward system.

But such principles is what creates terrorism and helps to drive the human species towards extinction. The death penalty is an example of true injustice and it is injustice that helps to drive mankind to it's own destruction.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. What I was saying, is that unless we are able to restructure the whole idea of civilization, morally and ethically, we will have to deal with the fact of the death penalty.
Are we ready as a species to do this?