|
|
Post by tufta on Nov 8, 2010 21:00:55 GMT 1
One of shocking differences between Europe and USA...November 8, 2010 In U.S., 64% Support Death Penalty in Cases of Murder Half say death penalty not imposed often enough by Frank Newport PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's annual Crime Survey finds that 64% of Americans continue to support the use of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while 29% oppose it -- continuing a trend that has shown little change over the last seven years. Americans' views of the death penalty are particularly significant at this time, with several high-profile cases involving the death penalty in the news, including the imminent sentencing of convicted murderer Steven J. Hayes in Connecticut, a state in which only one person has been executed in the last 50 years. Opponents of the death penalty continue to point out that DNA tests and other evidence have shown on numerous occasions that individuals sentenced to the death penalty were in fact innocent. Despite the continuing controversy over the use of the death penalty, the attitudes of the average American on this issue have hardly changed in recent years. The current 64% support level is roughly equal to what Gallup has found through most of this decade. This question about the death penalty in cases of murder is one of Gallup's oldest trends -- stretching back to 1936, when 59% of Americans supported the death penalty and 38% opposed it. Despite the similarity between today's attitudinal structure and what was found in 1936, there have been significant changes in the decades in between. At one point in 1994, 80% of Americans favored the death penalty, the all-time high on this measure. In 1966, 42% supported it, the all-time low. continued - www.gallup.com/poll/144284/Support-Death-Penalty-Cases-Murder.aspx
|
|
Hellrazor
Just born
Some things will never change...
Posts: 21
|
Post by Hellrazor on Nov 8, 2010 21:11:49 GMT 1
in total I think that the death penalty is not a good idea. Sometimes it happens that people are innocent and then what? killed an innocent person?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Nov 8, 2010 21:24:12 GMT 1
in total I think that the death penalty is not a good idea. Sometimes it happens that people are innocent and then what? killed an innocent person? Exactly. There have been many cases of convicts who were released from prison after 20, 25 years. The DNA examination proves they are innocent, as the article says. Innocent people sentenced to death can`t be released after 25 years and live free for the rest of their lives. tufta, what is the survey result in Europe? |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Nov 8, 2010 21:31:44 GMT 1
in total I think that the death penalty is not a good idea. Sometimes it happens that people are innocent and then what? killed an innocent person? Exactly. There have been many cases of convicts who were released from prison after 20, 25 years. The DNA examination proves they are innocent, as the article says. Innocent people sentenced to death can`t be released after 25 years and live free for the rest of their lives. tufta, what is the survey result in Europe? I havent seen a recent one. What I remember from the past ones the results were opposite in Poland, while in "old Europe' something like 80 percent against. But I don;t guarantee precision of my memory  |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Nov 8, 2010 21:34:54 GMT 1
in total I think that the death penalty is not a good idea. Sometimes it happens that people are innocent and then what? killed an innocent person? Exactly! And the problem becomes even more complicated if we take into account the problematic moral stance of taking away life even if someone IS guilty. |
|
Hellrazor
Just born
Some things will never change...
Posts: 21
|
Post by Hellrazor on Nov 8, 2010 21:59:34 GMT 1
My grandfather had a bad case of long time ago ...
Two people attacked a man and knock out an his eye ... He rushed to the rescue ...
then after it turned out that aid is the main suspect ... but fortunately the man wake up in hospital after some time and confirmed the fact that my grandfather should not be accused of ... What if this man did not survive?
|
|
uncltim
Just born
I oppose most nonsense.
Posts: 73
|
Post by uncltim on Nov 9, 2010 1:00:26 GMT 1
Interesting discussion. Let me start by offering this statement- A certain percentage of prisoners in any prison, anywhere in the world, are innocent. We live in an imperfect world. In the US, the decision to provide for the death penalty or not is delegated to the individual states. An example would be the state that I grew up in (Wisconsin) does not have the death penalty. The state that I currently live in (Ohio) does. The DNA argument really only applies to past cases and not current ones. Recently procecuted cases that have DNA evidence involved would be assumingly tried correctly using that evidence. Its a nice emotional argument, but it has a use-by date. It is a subject that has many unsatisfactory solutions. My solution is quite simple. Occams razor en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor states that all things being equal, the simplest answer is the correct one. What I mean by this is that the criminal who dies in the act of their crime has received proper justice. This is why I carry a weapon most of the time. After all, Justice delayed, is justice denied. I believe you've learned something about some Americans right here.  Another situation that occurs frequently is that people who are sentenced to life imprisonment simply want to die instead of serving the next 30 years in prison. What do you do with them? Is it cruel to delay the death sentence of a person who admits their crime and simply wants to be finished, yet some do-gooder manages to get their sentence delayed for 20 years or so? Its a situation with no good answers. My personal opinion is this: The State does not have the right to take the life of a citizen for any reason. I include the military draft in this statement. The citizen of the state however has the right to defend themselves with deadly force If neccesary. A reasoned argument may conclude that the death penalty is infact the agreement of a jury of 12 citizens concluding that the best defense of the society would be to end the life of the convicted. The power lies in the citizenry to invoke this penalty, not the state. The state can only kill with the express permission of the people. I hope that makes some sort of sense to you. Wendy, In the US we have what is called the "Good Samaritan Law". Basically what it states is that if you cause injury or harm to another while trying to provide aid to them or defending someone you cannot be held liable. What your grandfather presumed as he happened upon the scene was what any reasonable person would have done. The goal of the law was to not let people be discouraged from rendering aid to a stranger. I had the misfortune of performing CPR on a person where I broke several ribs and cracked their sternum. It all ended well but I was protected by law from the damage I inflicted whilst rendering aid. |
|
|
|
Post by valpomike on Nov 9, 2010 5:44:09 GMT 1
But after all the test, and court hearings, remember, a Eye for a Eye. And do onto others, as they do onto you.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Nov 9, 2010 9:34:00 GMT 1
Uncltim, thanks for providing the arguments of the other side. I hope you don't mind if I proceed with the discussion.
You say: people who are sentenced to life imprisonment simply want to die instead of serving the next 30 years in prison.
And: death penalty is a decision of 12 citizens concluding that the best defense of the society would be to end the life of the convicted.
The two combined imply that the jury does not necessarily choose the death sentence because it is the best defence but because it does not want to make the prisoner suffer additionally.
And more points which make me wonder if indeed the death penalty is the best way. It is not 'the best way' but surely the cheapest way because equally good way of defence is the isolation. These 12 people did not give life (which to me - a believer, God did) so they don't have the right to take it away from a person who is no longer directly dangerous. By taking away the life at the point when a person is in really great trouble, they inhibit the possibility that this man could change and 'swap the teams from the powers of the darkness to the powers of the light ;D ;D That is again not their job.
I find it hard to include Ockhams razor principle into moral issues, beacuse it is a handy tool in logic. Moral code is not about logic but about ethics. But if we do include, it may as well work in the opposite direction. There is nothing like a death penelty in the natural world. Introducing a new assumption into our reasoning - the death sentence, is exactly what we don't need to do, to act in concord with the pronciple.
I
|
|
uncltim
Just born
I oppose most nonsense.
Posts: 73
|
Post by uncltim on Nov 9, 2010 12:26:12 GMT 1
I understand the Idea of letting the convicted live in order to allow them an opportunity of repentance. Its a hard position to argue from in a secular state. There are cases of the state applying the death penalty in both testaments. It really is one of the most difficult dilemmas.
Btw, The state can petition for the death penalty. The jurists ultimately decide if the state will be allowed to execute someone. It can be very counter productive for a prosecuter to specify capital punishment. A jury would not typically allow it without an admission of guilt from the defendant. A prosecuter who needlessly asks for the death penalty is likely to get a deadlocked jury or even an accquittal. The jurists have ultimate say in the matter.
|
|
