About one in 25 people imprisoned under a death sentence is likely innocent, according to a new statistical study appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And that means it is all but certain that at least several of the 1,320 defendants executed since 1977 were innocent, the study says. More: bigstory.ap.org.

Yes, and I believe this study Yes, anyway, and by the way I don't believe this study Yes, because I don't believe this study No, this study changed my opinion I don't support the death penalty just for this reason I don't support the death penalty anyway see voting resultssaving...
12 opinions, 9 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted I don't support the death penalty anyway.
5 votes
Mar 31, 2015

I have several reasons for not supporting the death penalty. The possibility that we might accidentally kill even ONE innocent person is enough to give me pause...but there are other reasons to consider.

1. Citizens tend to internalize the morality that is embodied in the laws of the State. Hence, if the government uses killing as a solution to problems, people in a general way accept that killing people is also an answer to their own problems. Macro level policies have a way of being reflected in the microcosms within.

2. Laws change too fast. Legal reasons for killing may seem clear now, but suppose our government was out of control? What if laws were passed and changed so quickly that the government suddenly allowed itself to kill citizens for any number of reasons, without trial, in other countries, or without the knowledge of the populace at large? The power to kill for political reasons is a very dangerous slippery slope, and especially tempting for those drunk with power looking to move their own agendas forward.

3. There is no evidence that the death penalty acts as a true deterrent. In fact, statistics bear out the opposite effect. For this reason, killing people as a punishment seems ineffectual and unnecessary. deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-p...wer-murder-rates

I believe the study linked in the initial question, and because of the reasons I expressed above, I do not support the Death Penalty.

subscribe
100
User voted I don't support the death penalty anyway.
3 votes
Mar 31, 2015

As imperfect beings, we will ALWAYS make mistakes within our justice system. If an imprisoned man is later found innocent, we can free him. But if an innocent man is executed, we cannot bring him back to life. I do not believe that an inherently imperfect justice system should be allowed to hand out such an irreversible punishment.

And it isn't just the innocent. Blacks and Hispanics are far more likely to receive the death penalty for the same crime than their white counterparts. It might be due to racism. It also might be that there are more affluent white people than affluent blacks and Hispanics, so more white people are able to afford good defense lawyers who are far better at negotiating plea deals than their public defender counterparts. Should the criteria for being executed vs. being sentenced to life in prison be how much money you have in your bank account, or what color your skin is?

subscribe
100
1 vote
Mar 31, 2015

While killing someone is sometimes in the best interest of society(from a pure cost/benefit perspective), I don't think it's worth maintaining the death penalty in our current justice system, as the cost and time spent on all the appeals outweighs the cost of life imprisonment and whatever extra risk society would incur from the potential for escape and recidivism.

subscribe
100
User voted I don't support the death penalty anyway.
1 vote
Mar 31, 2015

I've never supported killing people.

It's funny, so to speak, that the government of this land tells the citizenry that it's illegal to kill people and then kills them when and if they deem it "necessary".

Makes the whole argument for "the law" kind of silly when the people who are supposed to make and uphold the laws don't bother actually following, or working within the confines, of the law.

subscribe
100
User voted Yes, anyway, and by the way I don't believe this study.
1 vote
Feb 23, 2016

I support the death penalty as long as it is only used on people that have committed mass murder or if the criminal has a lengthy criminal history.

subscribe
75
User voted Yes, because I don't believe this study.
4 votes
Mar 31, 2015

Using their number 1,320 people put to death since 1977 that would mean about 52 of them were innocent, yet we don't have one case where it was proven that an innocent person was put to death since 1977. We have almost endless appeals, where lawyers are given every chance to bring up almost anything to stop the sentence. Even in their article they point out that 138 were exonerated and that 60 percent of prisoners sentenced to death re-sentenced to life, to me that is saying the system works. We are finding cases where there might be some remote doubt or something that according to the law didn't warrant the death penalty.

Now, you could take the death penalty off the books if Life WithOut the Possibility of Parole meant just that, you go to jail and stay there until you die. But we have cases where people given LWOPP were let out of jail only to kill again. In some states LWOPP means we'll look at your care again in 20 years and then decide if we'll let you out. If LWOPP meant just that, no pardons, no hardship, no medical release, no nothing then I would say we could get rid of the death penalty, but in general LWOPP means you'll get out at some point.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Mar 31, 2015

While I believe there are totally innocent people on death row and I hope the Innocence Project get everyone of them out of jail. There are cases that are beyond a shadow of a doubt who killed other people that should be put to death. An example is the young man that shot two Alaska State Troopers in the back when they tried to arrest his father. The local policeman saw the young man shoot them and was almost shot himself. Fix the legal system don't throw out the death penalty.

To me life in prison would be a death sentence.

subscribe
50
4 votes
Mar 31, 2015

As a practicing Catholic, I will not support the death penalty as this goes against the Church's teaching, which essentially states that "the case in which an inmate should be executed is very rare if not completely nonexistent." So, if the prisoner is guilty of an especially heinous crime, then yes, the death penalty might be acceptable. But, we also have to take in the family of the inmate. Did they do anything wrong? What about his little daughter who is ten years old. What did she do to deserve this? Or the inmate's brother or sister? Why is the family being punished while the family of the victim just gets to see the inmate suffer, along with his family who did nothing wrong? While I can sympathize with the victim's family to some extent, we should never wish another human to suffer death so that we can feel some fulfillment. Also, if the person is innocent, that just contributes to the suffering on our planet.

I would, however, recommend a more strict prison system. If an inmate is justly convicted of murder, then they should be given solitary confinement for many years, with very limited social interaction.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes, because I don't believe this study.
main reply
2 votes,
Mar 31, 2015

"What about his little daughter who is ten years old. What did she do to deserve this? "

And what of the family of the person who they killed, did they deserve to die? Did they even get a trial, a lawyer a jury or a judge? We gave that and almost endless appeals to the killer, while the victim got none of that.

Also along those same lines, little daughter etc. wouldn't they also be "punished" if you lock the person up in solitary, after all she can't see her father, can't interact with him, same with wife, brother etc. What you're suggesting is perhaps even more cruel than the death penalty.

Now as a catholic you should know that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in cases of extreme gravity. The Church teaches that capital punishment is allowed if the "guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined" and if the death penalty is the only way to defend others against the guilty party.

Yes there are many victims when someone commits a crime, yet we as a society must punish and deter people from committing crimes, and in some cases the only way to do that is the death penalty.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Mar 31, 2015

Hello again. You have some very good points here.

While the victim most certainly did not deserve to die, what does more bloodshed solve? We are essentially using murder (for lack of a better term) to show that murder is wrong. That is like someone's parents swearing to show that swearing is wrong. It just seems like a vicious cycle to me; where if we kill someone to show that killing is wrong, then what have we accomplished besides causing more death?

About solitary confinement, have you seen the National Geographic documentary "Russia's Toughest Prisons"? You might recall that the convict was in a sort of solitary confinement where they were cut off, but allowed to see their family, and speak to them without a pane of glass or bars between them. I believe they were even allowed to dine together. That is what we need; a prison system that is tough, yet not truly cruel (as the justice system is probably seen as "cruel" by at least a few convicts).

I am familiar with CCC 2267; in fact, I just finished a project on the Church's stance on the death penalty. But, the Catechism of the Catholic Church also says (in the same "verse", again, fir lack of a better term) that "...the teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." (CCC 2267) That said, the Church will only agree with the use of the death penalty if there is not other way.

While sadly we do have to resort to the death penalty, there main problem I have with it is that it seems that the death penalty is too easy for the convict. In other words, they don't have to live with that decision for too long. If we kept the convict alive and had had a slightly harsher prison system (not to say it isn't harsh to begin with), I feel that this would deter other cases from occurring because they would have to live with that decision for the rest of their life.

Also, from a strictly religious standpoint, we could also say that God is the Master of life and death, as He is the Creator of all things. God gave us life, and He alone has the power (and the right) to take it away. We as humans do not have this power. This goes back to the old phrase "God giveth and God taketh away." Again, this is from a strictly religious standpoint and is just another reason why I don't support the death penalty in extreme cases.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes, because I don't believe this study.
1 vote,
Mar 31, 2015

What does more bloodshed solve? Well we know for certain that the convicted person will never kill again.

While I haven’t seen the National Geographic documentary what you’re describing isn’t solitary confinement, what you’re describing is basically jail, a high security jail, but a normal jail in the US.

We have people on death row, who have little or no compassion for other people. I heard of a case where a killer buried a person alive and begging for their life. What would you do with a person like that? I personally feel a people like that can never be reformed, and can never be trusted to be out in public again and if LWOPP meant that I would say fine we can get rid of the death penalty. But even LWOPP is under attack, we have people who are saying LWOPP is cruel and that everyone should be given a chance of parole, they are even say twenty years is too long. So a mass killer, think Norway, who killed 77 people and was sentenced to 21 years in prison, is that justice? Is that fair to the victims?

"...they don't have to live with that decision for too long...."

Given the amount of time a person spends on death row they have plenty of time to reflect, before they are put to death. After all we need to make sure the person is guilty, had no mitigating circumstances and we do change about 60% of death sentences are commuted to LWOPP because of the reviews and appeals.

Now even assuming we have LWOPP what do we do if they kill again while in jail? November 9, 1983 Associate U.S. Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen told a Senate subcommittee that it is impossible to punish or even deter such prison murders because, without a death sentence, a violent life-termer has free rein "to continue to murder as opportunity and his perverse motives dictate." In another words what else could we do to them they are in jail already and won’t get out.

Maybe I look at this differently than you, I look at like this a person who has already killed someone has proven they will kill, said person is given a trial, given a lawyer, has a jury to judge them, and if the crime falls within those where the death penalty is an option, the jury not only have to find the person guilty, but they feel the person is such a danger or the crime was so heinous that this person need to die. Then the person almost endless appeals.

“Also, from a strictly religious standpoint,..”

So do I get to pick the religion? You should also ask what religion before you use that for laws and punishment, as we have seen from all over the world, religion and government don’t mix well. Once you let religions leads take charge and can overrule the government then it’s not long before draconian laws are in place.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Mar 31, 2015

Hello.

I highly recommend that documentary, it seems like you would enjoy it very much (it's on Netflix if you're interested). Back to the issue at hand:

"We have people on death row who have..." As I said, the death penalty is acceptable in some circumstances. I feel that that might be one such circumstance, seeing as the crime is especially heinous. I can agree with you when you say that LWOPP meant just that, it would be acceptable. However, why it is "cruel and unusual", I will never understand. Crucifixion is cruel and most certainly unusual, but life in prison? No, the person in Norway did not receive a just punishment. Remember, I am against the death penalty and believe that our prison system isn't hard enough on the people who were found guilty of murder, but are not executed. While we shouldn't treat them as anything less than human, I think life without parole and very limited human contact is perfect, but sadly, this is not the case.

"what if they kill again in jail?" I believe the death penalty is acceptable in this scenario, as we know that they won't stop. But, obviously we should look at his motivation. Obviously if he was acting in self defense, then he shouldn't be executed. So, I can agree with you for the most part on this part of the issue.

"So I get to pick the religion?"
I meant Catholicism; I probably should have said that. Sorry. As far as draconian law goes, I'm not so sure that that would happen. Of course, it depends on the religion and the leader of said religion. Take Pope St. John Paul the Great, who visited his shooter while in prison so he could forgive him. The shooter was also present at his canonization. Then again, there is a reason why he is a saint. But still, Vatican City doesn't have extreme punishments for broken laws. But, the Muslim world does. While I realize that Vatican City is extremely small, it has been around for centuries. (Since the Donation of Pepin, I believe).

subscribe
load further replies (2)
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Mar 31, 2015

I respect your religious objections but while we are a fundamentally Christian (founded) nation, we are also not governed under "sharia law". And if "heinous crimes" are the benchmark, who then decides the definition of what that means since, in my opinion, every murder is "heinous". Although you mention them,, the one group you neglected to "ask" is the family of the victim whom you apparently feel have no say in the debate if death is the answer! If you are advocating that the "rights of the victims family" be included, then so too should it in every case and not just death penalty eligible since a family "suffers" when a tax cheat (aka "the provider") goes to jail. I recognize that there have been cases where DNA have exonerated some who (emphasis the following) "were sentenced using the best evidence available at the time" but I think that, based on this, it is better to improve evidence gathering rather than commute everybody; let DNA both free them from being convicted and exonerate those convicted using 'antiquated' evidence. Finally, there are those whom would consider solitary "cruel and inhuman punishment" also so that alternative is debatable. If you notice, this argument is rapidly beginning to sound like the abortion debate... no winners with a segment unhappy with the final results.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Mar 31, 2015

Does the family of the inmate suffer? Sure, but it provides a strong lesson for violating the most sacred laws of one's society. The family of the inmate recognizes the value of the penal system, that punishment for wrongdoing is important to maintain a stable society. Yes, it hurts to see their family incarcerated/executed, but they also understand why that individual is being punished.

You argue against the death penalty for an inmate as inhumane to the inmate's family but then, in the same breath, call for solitary confinement of the inmate. What's more inhumane to the inmate's family: to execute a murderer, making visitation *impossible*, or putting the inmate in solitary, making visitation *possible* but *inaccessible*?

subscribe
50
2 votes
Mar 31, 2015

Screw everyone's opinion, why because my life isn't a game for people to play politics. I figure if you do something bad to me then you gave me permission to retaliate. I see the death penalty as same thing, you kill me I want you to die, but more than that I want it to be made a public execution. I'm sick everyone taking the most viscous, permanent crime so lightly and to put them in jail gives them hope and I for one do not want them to have it. As for the innocent.. innocent of what exactly; even back in 1977 there was always a connection and I bet if you looked at the statistic these people were violent anyway. Maybe those "innocent" people should warn others how not to be accused of a crime they didn't do, hey maybe straighten your life out and stop doing stupid crap and hanging out with the wrong people. This study doesn't tell you where, is this global statistics or just the USA? Stop looking at the execution as a eye for an eye, its' should be more about keeping people from killing each other. You show them there is no reward worth taking another's life, you show them the punishment of it. It seems to me the people that don't like the death penalty may want comfort in knowing they won't be executed when they plan to kill someone... as if this may be an option some day and they're covering their butt now.

subscribe
-1
1 vote
Mar 31, 2015

24/25 death-penalty recipients are apparently still guilty.

subscribe
0
User voted I don't support the death penalty anyway.
0 votes
Apr 6, 2015

Let them suffer their own guilt its a fait worse than death.

subscribe
0
User voted I don't support the death penalty anyway.
0 votes
May 3, 2015

I don't believe any race of beings calling themselves "civilized" should be considered above animals as long as said beings kill each other because they kill each other.

Even most animals have gotten past that insanity.

subscribe
0
User voted I don't support the death penalty anyway.
0 votes
Aug 9, 2015

I'm pro-life and that applies here, too. No matter what somebody does, they are still human and have a right to life. That right is inseparable from human nature. Killing someone else is only justifiable iff a second, innocent human's right to life is being threatened (i.e. self defense)

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: