On January 19th of this year Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allowed the
First death sentence to be served in three years, and the first under
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That is almost copied straight from a
News site (because honestly if I hadn’t, there’s no way I’d have been
Able to spell Arnie’s name!)

Anyway, I recently caught an ad for a movie on Court TV called The
Exonerated. It’s based on true stories of several people who spent
Years on death row for crimes they didn’t commit. The original version
Was a play which inspired my interest in the subject of the death
Penalty. I specifically remember one guy who spent something like 20
Years on death row before finally being cleared.

Now before someone jumps all over me: I’m not saying that the guy who
Was just executed in California was innocent. But does anyone think
It’s acceptable that even one innocent person could be executed? I
Think it’s about time this country joins the rest of the civilized
World and adopts a more humane approach. For those of you still on the
Fence on this issue, I’d check out this movie, because if it’s anything
Like the play the personal stories will astound you. I think it airs on
January 27 (but check courttv.com just in case I’m wrong). And if you
Have thoughts on this issue, I’d like to hear them.

It should be obvious to any reasonable person that anything created by mankind is not going to be perfect, and the criminal justice system certainly falls into this category. As we progress in science and technology we can make it more and more perfect so that less innocent people will receive punishment in the system. Sure, it is wrong that even one innocent person receive a legal sanction of any type, but just like the rare kid who dies from the vaccinations required for school attendance, the good outweighs the bad.

But you need to keep in mind the fact that the persons hurt most by the imperfections of our legal system are those victims whose perpetrators never receive legal sanction at all. Many, many many more people get away with crimes than are unjustly punished. If you had sat through as many trials as I have (I have been in law enforcement all my adult life and am currently a court bailiff), you would realize that the main thrust in a criminal trial is not to seek a conviction or even "justice" for the victims, but rather to insure that the rights of the accused are protected. Don't believe me? Spend some days listening to crimial trials in whatever court you want and you will start to get the picture.

We have the death penalty because most people believe in the concept that the legal sanction, or as some say, the punishment, should fit the crime. People like Ted Bundy, who may have killed as many as 40 people, should not get a $5 fine. You say we should adopt a more humane approach, but the types of crimes we are discussing are not humane by their very nature. The fact should be obvious to anyone not living on the Moon: People are sometimes willing to do incredibly horrible things to other people and the legal system should impose a legal sanction that weighs as heavily on them as their actions did on others.

It should be obvious to any reasonable person that anything created by humans is not going to be perfect, and the criminal justice system certainly falls into this category. As we progress in science and technology we can make it more and more perfect so that less innocent people will receive punishment in the system. Sure, it is wrong that even one innocent person receive a legal sanction of any type, but just like the rare kid who dies from the vaccinations required for school attendance, the good outweighs the bad.

But you need to keep in mind that the persons hurt most by the imperfections of our legal system are those victims whose perpetrators never receive legal sanction at all. Many, many many more people get away with crimes than are unjustly punished. If you had sat through as many trials as I have (I have been in law enforcement all my life and am currently a court bailiff), you would realize that the main thrust in a criminal trial is not to seek a conviction or even "justice" for the victims, but rather to insure that the rights of the accused are protected. Don't believe me? Spend some days listening to crimial trials in whatever court you want and you will start to get the picture.

We have the death penalty because most people believe in the concept that the legal sanction, or as some say, the punishment, should fit the crime. People like Ted Bundy, who may have killed as many as 40 people, should not get a $5 fine. You say we should adopt a more humane approach, but the types of crimes we are discussing are not humane by their very nature. The fact should be obvious to anyone not living on the Moon: People are sometimes willing to do incredibly horrible things to other people and the legal system should impose a legal sanction that weighs as heavily on them as their actions did on others.

I posted this once before and it didn't appear so I hope it doesn't appear twice.

I think death penalty is a good thing... if it's used right. Just like fire. If you can handle it - it's fine, but if you misuse it - you'll burn.

I would sentence those who murder someone (with a clear mind, willingly, planned... ) to a death penalty, without any thought. I agree that every crime should deserve an equal punishment... if you steal something from me, I'll cut your hand off. If you kill someone close to me, I'll kill you. I think world would be a much better place if such things happened, because people would think twice: "Is it worth the risk?". Then again, I know many people steal because they're poor, but if the rich were to help poor, it wouldn't happen. We again come to the problem that everybody could play poor and not do anything and expect aid... it's all so complex. But there's a clear line distinguishing "crime because one is in need" (poor man stealing) and "crime because one's mind is sick" (cold-blooded murderer), and I think the second group should deserve a punishment that's equally horrible to their crime.

Hi,

I think that the death penalty is a bad idea because sometimes those that kill are not entirely aware of what they are doing. An example of this is a man who killed someone who was put to death, this man probably did not fully understand his actions as he had a mental age of 11.

When you were 11, did you know that it was wrong to kill someone? It is ridiculous to say that a person at that age doesn't understand the nature of their actions-sure the person is far from full mental maturity but even a child at that age will tell you that killing somebody is wrong-just ask them if it is OK for you to kill them and see what kind of response you get!!

An adult with the mental capacity of an 11 year old that was executed would have to meet the means re standards. Meaning he knew right from wrong yet committed the act anyway. The death penalty is necessary component of the criminal justice system. However, there are flaws. If sentences were carried out more swiftly and surely then it perhaps would actually be a deterrent.
I am not sure how many are familiar with Project Innocence. It is a project in which law school students and criminal justice masters students retrace the evidence and reinterview witnesses to help exonerate persons who feel they are wrongly accused of a crime. You have to be serving 15 years to life for murder, sex crimes, or other lengthy felonies to be applicable. I worked with this program in grad school. You would be amazed at the number of person who are feel they are wrongfully imprisoned. Of all the case worked over the last few years in KY one person was exonerated. He didn't rape the girl he was convicted of raping. He however did rape several other women, but there isn't enough evidence to go forward. Just boasting after he was released.
I for one am glad he reinstated the death penalty in California. If it were sooner perhaps we wouldn't have to watch the Charles Manson Circus every time he comes up for parole.

We prove ourselves worthy to judge the actions of others when we show mercy to the most reprehensible among us. The death penalty may serve us on an emotional level, but places us in history with other primitive cultures. The money spent on death penalty prosecutions (woefully expensive) would be better spent on measures to lower crime on the streets. The argument that the death penalty ensures the person will never commit another offense is ignorant in light of the technology we now possess to harbour and track the most serious criminals. There was a time when we stopped burning witches at the stake as well - we became more enlightened and reacted to our newfound knowledge.

This makes me glad that Canada abolished the death penaltiy a long time ago.

These gang bangers will give you the death penalty for simply wandering off the wrong freeway offramp in LA. If you think that a person that thinks like that deserves to live then I am begging YOU to please go drive around LA for a while. At least until you find the wrong offramp.
People, we have to kill these evil bastards or they will take over. Violence is all they know and yes... they have visions of taking over your street.

I would say that if that was your wife, sister or brother or father that was killed while they were lying on the floor begging for their life, you may feel completely different.

Often we see the killer in his suit or sitting on a chair in his prison outfit and you can feel sorry for them. But if you often look at the victims pictures, look at the pictures of their kids who were left with out afather or mother because of these killers

And really why should we judge our legal system by those of other nations, we started our nation to be free of their rule.
We have our rules and laws, decided by the people of this nation.

If any person needed the death penalty it was this killer who never said he was sorry, never showed any remorse. And actually continued to be dangerous while in prison attacking many other inmates.

He was not the kind changed man that the media wanted everyone to see.

Hello tflon,

I am replying to your post from my own personal point of view only.

'Legal' executions are an extremely emotive issue and from those I have discussed the subject with, very few are 'fence sitters'. Most are definitely in favour or, against. However, I suppose I must consider myself somewhat of a fence sitter though.

The last execution in the UK took place on 13 Aug 1964. This I believe was the simultaneous double hanging of Peter Anthony Allen and John Robson Walby. The hangings took place at 8.00 am, at Walton Prison, Liverpool and Strangeways Prison, Manchester respectively.

Although I believe the methods which are and have been used in executions, hanging, gassing and lethal injection are barbaric, I do believe that someone who takes the life of another without justification deserves to have their lives taken as punishment. However I wish a better method of execution could be found. I feel, though very bloody, Madame Guillotine is the most effective method as death is instantaneous.

I believe the majority of people are against capital punishment, but I feel I must consider those who have to suffer after someone is brutally murdered. The child left motherless and/or fatherless, the parents of a murdered child. The list is legion. These people are also victims and will never be able to recover, replace or forget what has happened to their loved ones. It would be interesting to know what those people feel about capital punishment as they are the most affected. I feel sure that those who are opposed to the death penalty would charge their minds if they were affected by the murder of a loved one. I am equally convinced that some who are for capital punishment would change their minds also.

Before passing the death penalty those passing it must be sure that the perpetrator was mentally capable that he/she was aware of what he/she was doing at the time the crime was committed.

It is very sad that the human race is fallible and do make mistakes. This is very evident in the number of people who have been legally executed only to be found innocent later. I do believe that this is the exception rather than the rule. Having said that, one execution of an innocent person is one too many. This is why I say I am sitting on the fence, but if every person given the death sentence is guilty, I have no hesitation in saying "You knew the punishment you were facing and still committed the crime, therefore it is your responsibility".

With the tremendous and ongoing advances in forensic science it is becoming far more unlikely that an innocent person will be executed, but is still likely to occur.

When capital punishment was legal in the UK, anyone having the death penalty passed on them were executed very quickly, normally within a few weeks. In the US however it can and does take many years between sentencing and execution. With such a lengthy appeals procedure etc in the US, I consider there is more time for the innocence of a convicted murderer to be established. Also, in the UK it was not for the different counties or countries to decide whether they will use the death penalty, it is a national law and must be obeyed by the whole of the UK. Unlike the US where the different states decide.

I believe that there is much evidence that suggests that the threat of execution of anyone convicted of murder does nothing to cut down the numbers of murders that are committed.

The world is becoming lawless and I feel there is precious little regard for human life anymore. Those who commit murder often show no remorse or care about the lives they have destroyed or the misery or heartbreak they have created.

Well, that's my two penny/cents worth.

Poseidon

The death penalty is definitely a thing of the past. I don't agree with America and they way they still enforce it. America should move with the times and take a different approach. It's so very wrong and innocent people who are wrongly convicted would still have a chance to prove their innocence and still have some sort of a life.

I watch a British programme based of a real life story. The story goes back a fair few years now. But a family was wrongly convicted of being terrorists. They were all sent down - even the children.

By the time a women lawyer had looked into the case and proved their innocence, which was as a result of a hidden file. The Police knew they had arrested the wrong family but did not want to go back on it - so hid the files away. But by the time this lawyer found them the farther was dead, the children now adults. They had lost the best part of their lives - but they still had a chance to live their remaining years. The farther innocence never got proven but the family fought as hard as they could to clear his name. If the death penalty had been in force, just think how wrong it would have been to kill all of those innocent people. It would have been near on murder!!

Looking back through the history of Capital punishment so many mistakes have been made, The last man to hang here in the United Kingdom was a man called Evans, He had been charged with the murder of his wife and child, twelve good people sat on the jury and proclaimed him guilty, He still proclaimed he was inocent of this crime right up to when the rope was put round his neck, even the priest said at the time he felt they had just hung an inocent man. It was after hanging was abolished that a man called christie who was arrested for other murders confessed to murdering Evans family.
People make mistakes but these are mistakes that can not be rectified at least those living 20 years on death row and found to be inocent have walked out to freedom the best they could offer Evans was to have his body exhumed from within the prison walls and properly bury him in a graveyard.
There should be some sort of capital punishment but I think it should only be used if they are 100% that in years to come new evidence will not be brought that proves the person was inocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tyieka

Looking back through the history of Capital punishment so many mistakes have been made, The last man to hang here in the United Kingdom was a man called Evans, He had been charged with the murder of his wife and child, twelve good people sat on the jury and proclaimed him guilty, He still proclaimed he was inocent of this crime right up to when the rope was put round his neck, even the priest said at the time he felt they had just hung an inocent man. It was after hanging was abolished that a man called christie who was arrested for other murders confessed to murdering Evans family.
People make mistakes but these are mistakes that can not be rectified at least those living 20 years on death row and found to be inocent have walked out to freedom the best they could offer Evans was to have his body exhumed from within the prison walls and properly bury him in a graveyard.
There should be some sort of capital punishment but I think it should only be used if they are 100% that in years to come new evidence will not be brought that proves the person was inocent.

---

I just rated you. I agree with you totally. They need to abolish the death penalty to allow the innocent a chance of a life.