UPDATE: 11/14/12

[koolaid]

Personally I don’t like the death penalty, but I think it is a necessary evil. It is a deterrent.
Several years ago, 3 inmates escaped from Huntsville or somewhere, and killed several people on their way to Oklahoma. They knew what they were doing and didn’t care. One of them made the comment “if I get out again I’ll kill another one.”
Last year (I think) a man in the New England area either killed someone or tried. After he was caught he made a statement that, “he checked to see which state had a death penalty so he would be sure not to do it there because he didn’t want to die.”
Then you have the Prosecutors.

The murder rate in non-death penalty states has been lower for the last quarter century at least.

[psijac]

I am anti death penalty here.

The State gets only the rights we grant it Or at least that's how it should work (Forget about the PATRIOT ACT for a second). If I don't have the right to kill a person outside of self defense, in cold blood, how can I grant that right to the government?
Also the Cost of appeals is greater than the cost of life in prison.

My perfect solution would be to Keep the death row inmate in a perpetual coma until he expires. His family and lawyer(s) can keep working to free him while he vegetates.

[Beiruty]

I am anti death penalty here.

The State gets only the rights we grant it Or at least that's how it should work (Forget about the PATRIOT ACT for a second). If I don't have the right to kill a person outside of self defense, in cold blood, how can I grant that right to the government?
Also the Cost of appeals is greater than the cost of life in prison.

My perfect solution would be to Keep the death row inmate in a perpetual coma until he expires. His family and lawyer(s) can keep working to free him while he vegetates.

If someone killed one of my loved ones. Why he should not die? Just limit the appeals to once after a firm conviction supported by hard evidence not just single eye witness conviction. If I am suffering for my loss, those who loved the murder should suffer as well. Social Justice, I seek.

[jmra]

Personally I don’t like the death penalty, but I think it is a necessary evil. It is a deterrent.
Several years ago, 3 inmates escaped from Huntsville or somewhere, and killed several people on their way to Oklahoma. They knew what they were doing and didn’t care. One of them made the comment “if I get out again I’ll kill another one.”
Last year (I think) a man in the New England area either killed someone or tried. After he was caught he made a statement that, “he checked to see which state had a death penalty so he would be sure not to do it there because he didn’t want to die.”
Then you have the Prosecutors.

The murder rate in non-death penalty states has been lower for the last quarter century at least.

Link?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I am anti death penalty here.

The State gets only the rights we grant it Or at least that's how it should work (Forget about the PATRIOT ACT for a second). If I don't have the right to kill a person outside of self defense, in cold blood, how can I grant that right to the government?
Also the Cost of appeals is greater than the cost of life in prison.

My perfect solution would be to Keep the death row inmate in a perpetual coma until he expires. His family and lawyer(s) can keep working to free him while he vegetates.

If someone killed one of my loved ones. Why he should not die? Just limit the appeals to once after a firm conviction supported by hard evidence not just single eye witness conviction. If I am suffering for my loss, those who loved the murder should suffer as well. Social Justice, I seek.

If you don't want to get executed, don't murder people. That's not a hard concept.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Personally I don’t like the death penalty, but I think it is a necessary evil. It is a deterrent.
Several years ago, 3 inmates escaped from Huntsville or somewhere, and killed several people on their way to Oklahoma. They knew what they were doing and didn’t care. One of them made the comment “if I get out again I’ll kill another one.”
Last year (I think) a man in the New England area either killed someone or tried. After he was caught he made a statement that, “he checked to see which state had a death penalty so he would be sure not to do it there because he didn’t want to die.”
Then you have the Prosecutors.

The murder rate in non-death penalty states has been lower for the last quarter century at least.

I'd have to see some proof on this one; it's claimed often by death penalty opponents, but I've never seen proof.

One thing is for sure, the recidivism rate for murderers who are executed is 0%.

Chas.

[Beiruty]

It is nice to compare the murder rate between KSA and USA. Both have death penalty, however, the former execute in public by sword (even kids and teens can watch said execution), the later behind dark curtains where no one see the execution but a handful of "witnesses". Why compare, cause Antis would claim that the execution has no deterrence for murder. Patently false.

Here a quick link:
http://chartsbin.com/view/1454" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

KSA 0.85 per 100K (2007)
USA 5.22 per 100K (2008)

USA:KSA == 6.14:1.00 or 6X to that of KSA.

LB 0.56 per 100K

[Charles L. Cotton]

Personally I don’t like the death penalty, but I think it is a necessary evil. It is a deterrent.
Several years ago, 3 inmates escaped from Huntsville or somewhere, and killed several people on their way to Oklahoma. They knew what they were doing and didn’t care. One of them made the comment “if I get out again I’ll kill another one.”
Last year (I think) a man in the New England area either killed someone or tried. After he was caught he made a statement that, “he checked to see which state had a death penalty so he would be sure not to do it there because he didn’t want to die.”
Then you have the Prosecutors.

The murder rate in non-death penalty states has been lower for the last quarter century at least.

I'd have to see some proof on this one; it's claimed often by death penalty opponents, but I've never seen proof.

One thing is for sure, the recidivism rate for murderers who are executed is 0%.

Chas.

Here's a link to a site I know nothing about, other than it claims to take the data from FBI reports. It appears to be an anti-death penalty site. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder- ... -and-state" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the numbers are correct, it disproves the argument that non-death penalty states have a lower overall murder rate. Many states with very low murder rates per 100,000 are also very small states and this is significant. You can't compare tiny states to Texas, California, New York and other much larger states.

For purposes of this discussion, note that California has the death penalty, but it isn't used. The 2011 murder rate was 4.8 and that's the lowest in many years. It was 9.1 in 1996. Compare that to Texas with a 4.4 murder rate.

I'm not arguing that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime in the U.S.; I simply don't know, nor do I care. If someone is philosophically against executing murderers then that's fine. That's their belief and their opinion and we disagree. I'm not going to try to change their mind and they are wasting their time trying to change mine. I believe that, in most cases, murderers deserve to die.

For those who argue the murder rate in non-death penalty states is lower than in death penalty states, the stats seem to disprove this argument. Plus, many states have a death penalty statute, but is rarely if every used. That certainly is no deterrent, but again, I don't care.

Chas.

[koolaid]

Here's a link to a site I know nothing about, other than it claims to take the data from FBI reports. It appears to be an anti-death penalty site. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder- ... -and-state" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the numbers are correct, it disproves the argument that non-death penalty states have a lower overall murder rate. Many states with very low murder rates per 100,000 are also very small states and this is significant. You can't compare tiny states to Texas, California, New York and other much larger states.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from, because looking at the stats on that page:

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9

For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8

For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3

You can click around that site and find other stats comparing neighboring states with different policies, and detailed breakdowns of the rates.

For purposes of this discussion, note that California has the death penalty, but it isn't used. The 2011 murder rate was 4.8 and that's the lowest in many years. It was 9.1 in 1996. Compare that to Texas with a 4.4 murder rate.

I'm not arguing that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime in the U.S.; I simply don't know, nor do I care. If someone is philosophically against executing murderers then that's fine. That's their belief and their opinion and we disagree. I'm not going to try to change their mind and they are wasting their time trying to change mine. I believe that, in most cases, murderers deserve to die.

For those who argue the murder rate in non-death penalty states is lower than in death penalty states, the stats seem to disprove this argument. Plus, many states have a death penalty statute, but is rarely if every used. That certainly is no deterrent, but again, I don't care.

Chas.

Here is where we differ, I guess. I'm not opposed to executing murderers, rapists, and various other criminals. But the fact of it is that innocent people are convicted of crimes they didn't commit all the time. Our justice system isn't perfect, and it never can be. Having the state kill someone doesn't leave any room for mistakes, and having the state murder an innocent person is a (in my opinion) a far more heinous crime than letting a murderer rot in prison.

[Keith B]

I'm not sure where you are getting this from, because looking at the stats on that page:

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9

For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8

For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3

You can click around that site and find other stats comparing neighboring states with different policies, and detailed breakdowns of the rates

Looking at these numbers your statement earlier is disproven. While there was a drop in 2009 from 2008, the rate has steadily climbed since then, however the rate has declined in states with the Death Penalty

Here is where we differ, I guess. I'm not opposed to executing murderers, rapists, and various other criminals. But the fact of it is that innocent people are convicted of crimes they didn't commit all the time. Our justice system isn't perfect, and it never can be. Having the state kill someone doesn't leave any room for mistakes, and having the state murder an innocent person is a (in my opinion) a far more heinous crime than letting a murderer rot in prison.

The thing to remember is there is an appeal process and I don't know of any people who were actually put to death that did not have multiple appeals and were still found guilty. Not saying there may have been an innocent person (95% of the inmates will tell you they are not guilty), but think the process is pretty solid and the best we can do. I will say with new technology available that it should be used by law enforcement to prove as best possible that they either have or do not have the right person. The cost to run these tests would potentially be far less than the cost of trying an innocent person multiple times.

[koolaid]

Looking at these numbers your statement earlier is disproven. While there was a drop in 2009 from 2008, the rate has steadily climbed since then, however the rate has declined in states with the Death Penalty

Huh? My earlier statement that the murder rate in non-death penalty states is lower, and has been for years, matches the numbers. I'm honestly confused as to what you feel is being disproven?

The thing to remember is there is an appeal process and I don't know of any people who were actually put to death that did not have multiple appeals and were still found guilty. Not saying there may have been an innocent person (95% of the inmates will tell you they are not guilty), but think the process is pretty solid and the best we can do. I will say with new technology available that it should be used by law enforcement to prove as best possible that they either have or do not have the right person. The cost to run these tests would potentially be far less than the cost of trying an innocent person multiple times.

I totally understand your point of view, but in my personal opinion there have been enough close calls and questionable executions that it isn't worth it, especially when the only benefit to execution vs. life with no parole is punitive revenge. It is more expensive, leaves no room for error in an error prone system, and shows no appreciable deterrent effect. But that is just that. My personal opinion.

It isn't going to be abolished in this state anytime soon, so it is really a moot point.

edit: I also apologize for derailing the thread. It wasn't my intention and I'm going to drop it.

[Keith B]

Looking at these numbers your statement earlier is disproven. While there was a drop in 2009 from 2008, the rate has steadily climbed since then, however the rate has declined in states with the Death Penalty

Huh? My earlier statement that the murder rate in non-death penalty states is lower, and has been for years, matches the numbers. I'm honestly confused as to what you feel is being disproven?

I see what you were saying that the rate was lower in those states vs. a death penalty state. I don't think the death penalty is that much of a deterrent, but I, like Charles, know those that are executed are not repeat offenders any more.

[Beiruty]

Looking at these numbers your statement earlier is disproven. While there was a drop in 2009 from 2008, the rate has steadily climbed since then, however the rate has declined in states with the Death Penalty

Huh? My earlier statement that the murder rate in non-death penalty states is lower, and has been for years, matches the numbers. I'm honestly confused as to what you feel is being disproven?

I see what you were saying that the rate was lower in those states vs. a death penalty state. I don't think the death penalty is that much of a deterrent, but I, like Charles, know those that are executed are not repeat offenders any more.

How about KSA? Why the murder rate is just below 1 per 100k?

[The Annoyed Man]

The death penalty, IF the accused is guilty, serves justice; and that is all the justification it needs. The founders very well understood the concepts of cruel and unusual punishment, or they would not have written the term into the Constitution (8th Amendment). And yet, capital punishment has existed in the United States going all the way back to the ratification of the original document and the Bill of Rights, and beyond. For those who have Biblical objections, the various definitions of homicide and its punishments are clearly and unequivocally stated in the Old Testament; and it makes clear distinctions between accidental homicide, negligent homicide, passion killings, and premeditated murder. The 6th Commandment even translates properly as "you shall not murder" (not "you shall not kill"). And as far the the New Testament is concerned, Jesus himself said he came to complete the Law, not to abolish it.

I'm not trying to make a religious argument here, but I think that it is safe to say that our society and culture is (or at least was before the commies took over) based primarily on Judeo-Christian principles, and even those who are totally secularized benefit from much of those principles. One doesn't have to be a religious person to believe that it is wrong to murder, to steal, to lie, to disrespect one's parents, etc., etc.

Koolaid, with all due respect, do you think it is more or less costly to the taxpayers to keep a person in a medically induced coma than it is to lock up and keep alive a convicted murderer for life? The standards used will be the same standards used to keep you or me in a medically induced coma for any given particular reason, and the cost of it will run into the thousands of dollars a day. Don't the taxpayers have any rights in the matter? Also, and I'm not asking for your reasons, but simply your stance, are you for or against a "right" to abortion, and do you admit to any inconsistency between your view of a murderer's right to life and an unborn baby's right to life? I ask these things because I sometimes find that people who oppose one but not the other have not thought their philosophical positions all the way through.

[koolaid]

How about KSA? Why the murder rate is just below 1 per 100k?

Comparing against other countries doesn't really tell you much because of the other factors involved.

For instance, Sweden has no death penalty and a murder rate of 1 per 100k.