sundin13 said:
2. The appeals process isn't constitutional? The process which determines whether a person deserves to be executed (in the eyes of the law) isn't constitutional? 3. Again, the part of the constitution I am referencing is the 8th Amendment speaking about cruel and unusual punishment. As I said, this has been debated by many people, and while the supreme court determined it to be constitution, it is still somewhat of a murky subject. 4. The appeals process isn't for the lawyers, its for the person who is going to be put to death 5. No matter how high you raise the standards, it is difficult to ensure that no one is ever falsely executed. 6. Are you implying that prison rape doesn't happen in real life? Statistics seem to indicate that around 15% of inmates have been sexually assaulted.
|
The death penalty isn't even about the victims. Let me give you a little history on the death penalty.
The fifth amendment in the Constitution states that no person shall, "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Notice how it says a person cannot be deprived of life without due process. This would imply that the death penalty is legal and constitutional as long as due process is followed. The framers of the Constitution based it on John Locke's Social Contract which protects the three natural rights - life, liberty, and property. John Locke stated that, "Whosoever uses force without right, as everyone does in society, who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he uses it, and in that state all former ties are cancelled, [and] all other rights cease, and everyone has a right to defend themselves." (Source: Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, 1690)
When someone has committed a murder, that murderer has taken someone's three natural rights and forfeited his own natural rights. After doing this, he enters a "state of war" against the state and the state must retaliate. A crime is not a violation against an individual; a crime is a violation against the state, and the state has the right to defend itself against the violators of human rights. The framers of the Constitution had this in mind and supported the death penalty, with many even employing it.
Most murderers want to avoid the death penalty. This is another reason it is so necessary - it can be used as a plea bargain to get people to confess. The Green River Killer, who killed 49 women in the 80s, took the plea bargain to avoid the death penalty. In exchange he showed where the remaining bodies were. He has also tried his hardest to avoid being tried in other states he may have committed a murder at because they employ the death penalty. In fact, I cannot think of one case where the defendant asked for the death penalty over life without parole - it's almost ALWAYS the other way around. There are cases, but they are so rare from the studes I have seen show that 95-98% of murderers prefer life without parole over the death penalty.
As I said, you never see defendants asking for the death penalty. They always want to avoid it. Death is the ULTIMATE punishment, this is truism. As long as they are alive, they have hope. Hope one day they may be pardoned. Hope that the prisons will be overcrowded. Hope for an escape. Hope.
The "prison rape" is entirely a myth. Hardly any hardcore murderers face it. Manson has never been raped. Ramirez, Bundy, they were never raped. James Holmes isn't being raped. TJ Lane was never raped. In fact, murderers tend to get RESPECT when in prison. The "they are getting raped!" is only an ASSURANCE of them being punished, not the REALITY. When TJ Lane had his famous "Killer" court room showing, a lot of people were like "Oh yeah this guy is going to get RAPED! He's about to be punished!" Instead, what they found out was he was making enough FRIENDS to ESCAPE from jail, he was able to do drugs (they found marijuana in his cell), and he had TONS of entertainment and education options. So much for the daily rapes and punishment, right?
The appeals process is entirely for lawyers and they know it. For example, Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy, and John Wayne Gacy were able to appeal for decades - you can't tell me they deserved appeals. It's all about money. And when you say the death penalty costs more than life without parole you are basically justifying greed. The appeals process can be great - especially when there is reasonable doubt, but most of the time it is nothng more than a way for lawyers to make money.
According to Smith and Hogan Criminal law by David Ormerod, a criminal "sentence must normally be proportionate to the offence." Ormerod also explains that people choose to be criminals, and that "a person who chooses to commit a crime is responsible for the resulting wrong and deserves punishment." By having the death penalty, it holds the criminal responsible for his or her actions. Capital punishment also serves as an appropriate and equal punishment for murder; if a man decides to commit premeditated murder, then he has forfeited his human rights.
By the way you asked about people who got life without parole but were let go anyway - start with Debra Lynn Gindorf. David Sweat. Richard Matt. Dante Ferrazza. Cornelius Lewis. On and on and on. The death penalty = 0% recividism. Period. End of story.
According to Houston-based Justice For All , Dudley Sharp,102 people have been exonerated from the death penalty since 1976. However, according to Houston-based Justice For All , Dudley Sharp, says 102 people being released is inaccurate because "it combined the factually innocent, such as those cleared by DNA, with those released because of legal errors, thereby fraudulently raising the 'innocent' numbers." (http://www.stopcapitalpunishment.org/coverage/106.html) The vast majority of people (84% according to Sharp) exonerated from death row are exonerated due to legal issues, and not because they are actually innocent of the crime. With modern DNA technology, it is far less likely for an innocent man to be accused. Many juries today are reluctant to convict someone without forensic evidence (this is called the "CSI Effect"), if a suspect is cleared by DNA evidence then it is unlikely that a jury will convict him for the murder. Only 0.2% of people on death row have been exonerated, and this shows the system is good at weeding out the innocent. In fact there has yet to be one case of an innocent man being put to death. Not one.
I also find it funny you complain about the cost of the death penalty being irrelevant. The reason the cost of the death penalty is so high is because of appeals - according to you, life without prison is worse than the death penalty. If that were true...
THEN WHY THE HELL ARE SO MANY MURDERERS APPEALING THEIR DEATH PENALTY SENTENCE?!?!?!
