Death Sentence VS. Life Sentence

[Mr. X]

Not really useful since it is not using up to date information.

But still, as the article says, wrongful convictions are not as frequent as they were back when those people were orginally convicted due to more usage of DNA testing. As this article IS over 9 years old its a good assumpting that DNA testing is even more common place then it was back then.

Thanks for trying, but find a article that is more updated. Perhaps one that is about wrongfully convited criminals convicted by DNA tests within the last two or three years?

 

[Livewire]

"Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living."

There are fates much, much worse than death. Rotting in prison until the end of time is a much more fitting punishment than a quick death.

 

[2Cool4Mewtwo]

It's a bit off-topic, I know, but what decides whether a criminal serves a life sentence or death penalty?

 

[twocows]

Not really useful since it is not using up to date information.

But still, as the article says, wrongful convictions are not as frequent as they were back when those people were orginally convicted due to more usage of DNA testing. As this article IS over 9 years old its a good assumpting that DNA testing is even more common place then it was back then.

Thanks for trying, but find a article that is more updated. Perhaps one that is about wrongfully convited criminals convicted by DNA tests within the last two or three years?

The article was meant to support a point, not to provide evidence of something that I thought was obvious. If you'd really like a more recent story, though, here's one that's only a few months old. I recall hearing another case along these lines on NPR less than a month ago. I've heard stories like this every few months since early high school (which was when I started paying attention to the news). People get false convictions overturned all the time.

But the point was that people do get false convictions. The point wasn't that they're still getting them overturned (though they are). A conviction does not mean someone did something. Assuming that a conviction means someone actually did something is pretty short-sighted; even the most ultra-authoritarian person will admit there are false convictions (rather, they'll argue that it is an insignificant number and that they are sacrifices that must be made).

This is all irrelevant, though. People should be allowed to choose between a life conviction or the death penalty if they are sentenced to either, whether they did something wrong or not. The right to life is an inalienable human right that should only be infringed when no other course of action is viable or when the subject chooses to surrender it. This is especially in a system where there's never a 100% correlation between conviction and actual crime committed.

Should people not commit crimes to begin with? That would be nice. Should we try and work more on preventing crimes from occurring? Sure. Should we perhaps spend more time trying to reform people? Probably. But none of that matters. Crimes happen. And yet, even those who have definitively done the most horrific of acts should be allowed to choose between life imprisonment and the death penalty (and be allowed to change their mind at any point). This is something I will likely never change my mind on because it is derived directly from moral beliefs that I, at one time, believed to be self-evident.

 

[Mr. X]

And my point is that with modern DNA testing wrongful convictions don't occur.

Hows that search for people who were wrongly convicted due to DNA evidence within the last three years coming along?

Also, that story is about a person convicted in 92, and as the article said, DNA testing wasn't as advanced as it is now.

 

[twocows]

And my point is that with modern DNA testing wrongful convictions don't occur.

Hows that search for people who were wrongly convicted due to DNA evidence within the last three years coming along?

Also, that story is about a person convicted in 92, and as the article said, DNA testing wasn't as advanced as it is now.

Oh, I see, you're saying wrongful convictions haven't happened in the past few years. I was talking about convictions being overturned.

If you honestly believe wrongful convictions still don't occur, you understand very little about the criminal justice process. There are plenty of things that can go wrong with DNA testing. Of course I haven't found any wrongful convictions from the past year or two; it takes that long just to start the appeals process, let alone explain things like contaminated sources to a judge with no scientific background.

 

[Mr. X]

Most of the issues you are refering to are NOT issues with DNA testing but rather issues with contaminated materials.

You know that saying rather let a hundred criminals go free then to convict a innocent man? I'd rather get the hundred criminals and let the innocent man go free on appeal. Much safer that way.

 

[Guy]

How about letting them choose? I would rather serve out a life sentence than get the death penalty, and would prefer if I was ever in that situation that I wasn't put to death because "Winter Wonderland" and "lollypop1997" thought that it was a fate worse than death. I'm sure others might disagree, so let them choose their fate.

I disagree with this. Say they murdered or molested someone, why should they be given a choice of life and death when the victim itself was never given a choice to live at all?

 

[twocows]

Most of the issues you are refering to are NOT issues with DNA testing but rather issues with contaminated materials.

You know that saying rather let a hundred criminals go free then to convict a innocent man? I'd rather get the hundred criminals and let the innocent man go free on appeal. Much safer that way.

I hope you don't live in America or you are breaking the spirit of the law (and the word of it if you ever rule that way on a jury). The standard in our country for guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt." America is founded on the believe that it is better to let a thousand criminals go free than to put a single innocent man behind bars.

I disagree with this. Say they murdered or molested someone, why should they be given a choice of life and death when the victim itself was never given a choice to live at all?

People should never be forced to surrender their right to life, no matter what their crimes. What you are advocating is revenge, plain and simple. Two wrongs do not make a right.

What we need to do is pay more attention to the circumstances that lead people to commit crimes like murder and work to prevent them in the future, and try to reform those who have already commit such crimes into productive, non-violent members of society (at least those who are receptive to reform). We should not base our criminal justice system on revenge, we should base it on prevention and reform.

I do not believe a man should be sentenced to death no matter his crimes unless he takes that sentence willingly. It is state-condoned murder and it is unacceptable.

 

[Seki]

Death sentence is obviously better, why bother to suffer in jail for your rest of your life when you could end your misery in jail. Life sentence is just wasting your precious time, making you plotting to escape.

 

[Guy]

People should never be forced to surrender their right to life, no matter what their crimes. What you are advocating is revenge, plain and simple. Two wrongs do not make a right.

What we need to do is pay more attention to the circumstances that lead people to commit crimes like murder and work to prevent them in the future, and try to reform those who have already commit such crimes into productive, non-violent members of society (at least those who are receptive to reform). We should not base our criminal justice system on revenge, we should base it on prevention and reform.

I do not believe a man should be sentenced to death no matter his crimes unless he takes that sentence willingly. It is state-condoned murder and it is unacceptable.

I'm not advocating revenge at all. In no way was that my intention or initial thought on the issue. I'm saying it shouldn't be fair in the nature of life and death to give a murderer the choice of life and death when he or she themselves did not offer the same for their victim. Honestly, that's just being too kind to someone who committed such an ill action.

Please keep in mind though, that in the matter of the death penalty, my thought is it should only be used in the case of extreme criminal actions and that the proof is completely evident that this man or woman did indeed commit the crime. I don't believe it should just be used on the whim. That said, under normal circumstances when one is issued the death penalty ─ as far as I'm aware ─ it can usually take months or a couple of years in order for preparations to take place as well as given time in case new evidence is brought up to repeal the action.

Trust me, I'm all for putting more attention on the prevention of criminal acts and helping those who can be helped from committing any illegal actions in the future. But the point of fact is, no matter how much you teach and help others, there's always going to be those who still commit crimes. If you want that to change, you have to give them a good enough reason to think twice about it. You have to really put down the law on people and have it known, their offense will be taken seriously. Otherwise, people getting away with a slap on the wrist ─ for example: The Casey Anthony trial; not enough evidence, fine. However, little to no punishment after that or further looking into who really killed Caylee? There was no justice at all ─ will just have others believe, "Oh yeah, I can do that and get away with it too."

As far as the Life Sentence goes, then it should be just that. For life. I don't see the point in people getting off just because of good behavior, having a parole or what have you when they were sentenced to life in prison. I don't mind people looking into their case again for further evidence that can prove their innocence, but if they get life, then it shouldn't mean "10 years, you were a good mate; you're now free to go."

 

[Margot]

I am all for the death penalty. Living is a privellage we get once (not to get religious, but what's proven thus far) and if someone takes that away from someone else by murdering them, they have absolutely no right to sit in prizon and "think about what they did" for the rest of their life. Because even if it is a mundane, horrible existence, it's more than their victim will ever get. In my opinion, a life sentence is a slap in the face to the loved ones of the victim. The person they love has been taken away and the person who did it gets to go on living.

Yes, I do have exceptions: I think it's okay if the person who killed did so in self defense if someone tried to harm them and people who wouldn't have killed if it weren't for their medical/mental condition. For example: A guy around here was extremely loving to his mother, so long as he was on his medication but if he forgot to take it he would turn violent. He forgot to take it one day and killed his mom. To me, those cases are different then someone who kills out of hatred or spite.

Someone brought up a good point (but I don't remember who since it was one of the other pages) by saying what about the criminals who don't necessarily kill but still damage someone else beyond repair by torture, repeated abuse, etc. I say save the life sentences for people like that and save the death penalty for the murderers.

 

[twocows]

I'm not advocating revenge at all. In no way was that my intention or initial thought on the issue. I'm saying it shouldn't be fair in the nature of life and death to give a murderer the choice of life and death when he or she themselves did not offer the same for their victim. Honestly, that's just being too kind to someone who committed such an ill action.

Please keep in mind though, that in the matter of the death penalty, my thought is it should only be used in the case of extreme criminal actions and that the proof is completely evident that this man or woman did indeed commit the crime. I don't believe it should just be used on the whim. That said, under normal circumstances when one is issued the death penalty ─ as far as I'm aware ─ it can usually take months or a couple of years in order for preparations to take place as well as given time in case new evidence is brought up to repeal the action.

Trust me, I'm all for putting more attention on the prevention of criminal acts and helping those who can be helped from committing any illegal actions in the future. But the point of fact is, no matter how much you teach and help others, there's always going to be those who still commit crimes. If you want that to change, you have to give them a good enough reason to think twice about it. You have to really put down the law on people and have it known, their offense will be taken seriously. Otherwise, people getting away with a slap on the wrist ─ for example: The Casey Anthony trial; not enough evidence, fine. However, little to no punishment after that or further looking into who really killed Caylee? There was no justice at all ─ will just have others believe, "Oh yeah, I can do that and get away with it too."

As far as the Life Sentence goes, then it should be just that. For life. I don't see the point in people getting off just because of good behavior, having a parole or what have you when they were sentenced to life in prison. I don't mind people looking into their case again for further evidence that can prove their innocence, but if they get life, then it shouldn't mean "10 years, you were a good mate; you're now free to go."[/FONT]

When I refer to "life" I mean "life without parole." I should have specified.

I don't see it as unfair at all giving a convicted murderer a choice between life in prison or the death sentence (compared to the alternative of not offering a choice). Neither of those is a very good option, I just feel that people should always be allowed to decide when they live or die irrespective of their past actions.

 

[ArcanineGaming]

It's not like it matters anyways, when your on death row you can be there for 20+ years, it should be instant. Thats my opinion i guess i have a No BS mentality.I think the American justice system is a joke.Take john wayne gacey the man confessed to 33 murders and took 14 years to kill him...Thats my two cents.