In the United States, thirty-eight states have crimes punishable by the Death Penalty and Florida is one of them. In Florida, crimes that are punishable by the Death Penalty are first degree murder, felony murder, capital drug trafficking, and capital sexual battery. The three methods of executions used in recent years are via gas chambers, lethal injection, and electrocution.
Recently, the Florida Supreme Court reduced death sentence to life without parole for people with mental illnesses.
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144&scid=10)
* Should all the states abolish the Death Penalty or keep it?
* Should people with mental illnesses receive the Death Penalty?
I have read numerous articles on the death penalty, and I found many pros and cons on this issue. There are many who agree that the death penalty should be dissolved, and there are some who feel that it is a just punishment for the people who deserve it. However, who is to say that the person who is condemned as a murderer is actually guilty or innocent? I found myself wondering, what if the person is innocent? Like the case with Byron Halsey who escaped a death sentence in New Jersey in 1988. Officials found DNA evidence that proved his innocence and found the perpetrator to the sexual assault and murder of the two young children, Halsey's supposed victims. I also came across stories of Jeffrey Dahmer, a notorious serial killer who admitted to his crimes and was not placed on death row but was later killed in jail by his inmates. Police found plenty of proof to condemn him to the death penalty, yet they did not. I found it unlawful that they would allow such a murderer to continue to live in this world after all of the innocent lives he took. I feel he deserved to die... and his inmates obviously felt the same way. I honestly feel that if a person can truly be proven guilty, as in the case with Dahmer, then the death penalty is the only fair thing to do, but if there is a reasonable doubt, then we should definitely not kill someone who might have a chance to be proven innocent. (Shirley R.)
My opinion on the death penalty is open. I believe that it depends on the situation and if the perpetrator really committed the crime. I think that it shouldn’t be taken lightly, for it is a serious matter. I don’t think that those who suffer from mental illnesses should get the death penalty because they don’t know what they are doing. They should be under close moderation to make them well, so that they could either get the death penalty or serve the time they should get when they are in a reasonable state of mind. (Shelby McGahan)
I do not believe in the death penalty. I personally find it immoral and unethical to kill someone when he or she can be removed from society without resorting to capital punishment. Sure, there is the possibility of escape or granting a parole due to an overlooked clerical error.
Many states still practice the death penalty. This surprises me considering the costs involved in bringing the accused through the court system to become the inmate on death row. Trial, sentencing and execution sound simple enough, but there is a lot more to it than that. There is the appeals process, which usually takes years and costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. Conversely, life imprisonment without parole will cost only hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, “The (Timothy) McVeigh case cost taxpayers more than $100 million (the defense spent nearly $20 million, and the government spent more than $80 million)” (Bloom 70). DNA is not infallible, so there is that small percentage of erroneous test results. A tiny fraction of those tests could be correct but mistakenly prove that the accused is guilty. DNA is often critical in post-trial testing to prove the innocence of inmates with a death sentence.
“The (Innocence) Project has represented or assisted… including several death penalty cases, where convictions have been reversed or overturned.” (189). More information about the Innocence Project can be found at their website. http://www.innocenceproject.org/. (Mark Wheeler)
I believe that the Death Penalty should be in every state; however, I think that people who murder are the only people who should receive the death sentence. If you murder someone, you should be murdered. I think the same about people with mental illnesses. It is a sad thing, but I think you should get what you deserve.
(Travis White)
28 comments:
This topic is most definitely an iffy one for me. I have seen an extensive amount of research on both sides of the spectrum, and I'm still left bereft of my own decision. Too many mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm a humanist. I don't like the idea of anyone having ultimate control of another's life, whether it remains as is or ends. I don't believe in the adage "Let the punishment fit the crime" either. As Shirley and Mark have indicated, our crime detection system is hardly perfected -- what of those unjustly deemed guilty according to a crime lab error or little credible, tangible evidence. What then?
However, it makes me cold all over to think about sociopaths living among us. Those who have no conscience whatsoever cannot be placed into mental rehabilitation and then be expected to become "better." That's simply impossible to expect. One has to actually have a conscience in order to become emotionally stable in the first place. You cannot work with what you don't have.
I to have wrestled in my mind about my stance on the death penalty. At first I believed that I was a supporter of the death penalty, then I have seen several cases where people who were condemned to death, and were later found innocent with the help of DNA testing. These numbers are small, but none the less important. So, I somewhat agree with Mark, that if there is reasonable doubt the courts should error on the side of the defendant. However, if there is no doubt the defendant is guilty then he or she should be put to death as soon as possible. The appeal process should be limited to a five year limit, at which time all appeals should be heard. This would cut down on the cost of incarceration.
There is no if, than's, or but's in my decision. I'm all for the death penalty. You have someone who has confessed or has been caught in the act of murder there should not even be a process. They should be sent straight to the death. Why wait years to kill the person? So they can later say "Oh I'm a born again christian", right! The only cases I would look into is if there were no witnesses to convict, but the obvious cases, man you better beleive I would pull the switch, stab the needle, or hang them from the post.
Here is the citation for the book cited in the original blog.
Bloom, Robert M. “Deathquest II: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States.” Second Edition. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. 2003.
Sorry, I'd posted something, then edited it, then simply deleted it as I'm wont to do as a perfectionist. It was just in acknowledgement to your citation, Mark. Thank you for the info!
Here’s the thing…if you’re going to have the death penalty, USE IT! A lot of places do but people sit there on death row until they die of natural causes (or someone in jail kills them first). You even deal with the issue from the jury selection process. Defending attorneys will “search” out people you won’t go for the death penalty. So even if that’s the only penalty, you run the risk of having a dead lock jury because someone won’t put a person to death. If there is undisputable evidence, you get one year to find someone to find you innocent. If there was somewhat of doubt, you get five. After that tough luck. And on top of that, don’t think your going to sit your sorry ass in jail and get a college education on MY tax money while I have to pay for my own. Kiss my @$%!!!
With resources for the mentally ill depleting quickly, in some ways we’re doing it to ourselves to put these people on the streets. How can you fully blame them when we’ve had a part? We’re either going to pay for them to sit in jail or in a mental institution. In my opinion, most murders have something mental wrong with them to do what they do. I fear that if we give special exemptions, we run the risk of everyone saying they have a mental defect. This would tie up the court processes while the individual is tested, tested again, and then re-tested.
To answer the group’s questions, yes, I think every state should have the death penalty in place and operational as needed. Mental illness cases are iffy to me right now. I can be swayed either way in this situation. But the death penalty is a must in my opinion. If the crime fits the punishment, then so be it. That is why we have rules and laws to live by. I believe “an eye for an eye.” If you are destructive to society then society should take you out. The only exception would be in cases that are not 100% proven guilty. If there is any reasonable doubt, this person should wait it out until proven guilty, just in case the wrong person was convicted.
Death Penalty? Yes. It is a just punishment for the person who found it fitting for a fellow human. As for mental illnesses, if a person knows enough to know that killing another human is wrong and still does it knows enough to be punished like any other person. If they cannot comprehend that their actions were wrong, then we cannot honestly accuse them, but at the same time, should have a way of keeping them and the people areound them safe from them.
As for Mr. Wheeler's comment on DNA testing being unreliable... he's right, no test is never wrong. Sir I do not wish to downplay your education since I don't know how much you have, but if your education about DNA and DNA testing ends with last week's episode of CSI, then I have a few things to say. DNA testing may not be perfect (as no test is), but it is pretty REDICULUSLY acurate. Yes we have cases that have been turned around by DNA, but how many do we really have? OR have the ones we ahve been over publicised? The base pairing or ant organism is incredibly precise and uniquie. The processes we have to replicate and test the base pair sequences in DNA are exteremely acurate. As you may know, results come back as percentages. They are really the percent of base pairs that match in a particular sequence. Even with natural mutation and altarations in a person's genome, DNA from a crime scene would still be a VERY close match. Yes, can can use DNA to prove innosence, but we much prefer to use it to, normally beyond probably doubt, prove guilt. That's my two cents, take it or leave it. Once again, I appologise if I've been harsh or offended you or your education.
"The base pairing or ant organism is incredibly precise and uniquie."
Should read...
The base pairing of any organism is incredibly precise and unique.
Sorry, I really should proofread better before I post.
I do believe the death penalty should be used in every state. But since the penalty is rarely seen through, it doesn’t seem like a deterrent. I think the death penalty is used as a way to ease our own conscience....to make us feel like we as a society are being proactive in stopping the violence. As far putting the mentally ill to death, I feel they should be treated the same. If a mentally ill person is allowed to live in civilized society, but then commits a heinous crime, why should he or she be treated differently than any other criminal? They committed the crime and should be punished. I do not believe they should receive special treatment because they are “mentally ill”. If they are truly insane they are not going to contribute anything to society anyway and they are obviously a danger to themselves and others.
In the Jessica Lunsford trial, John Cooey suddenly began to act like a small child in the court room…cowering in his seat and coloring with crayons and markers. I am sure he was encouraged to do this by his attorney, in an effort to make the jury feel sorry for him. I believe he knew exactly what he had done and would do it again if the opportunity presented itself.
I believe in the dealth penalty for those who have actually CONFESSED to murder. In regards to people with mental illnesses, if they have enough to sense to "murder" someone, then yes; but if it were accidental manslaughter, something like a drowning or anything of a subjective nature, then no. I also believe if we're gonna sentence someone to death, schedule the execution immediately. Having someone wait 10, 15, 20 years to be executed is not only unfair to those seeking justice, but tax-payers as well. Besides, the longer it takes to excute a confessed murderer, the bigger the loop-hole for them to be "let off the hook" so to speak.
I believe in the death penalty. If you have killed someone else you get what you deserve. We have a legal system in this country and sometimes it is not perfect when it comes to convictions. Thankfully, with the appeal process a court case can last a long time, enough in some cases to get a ruling overturned. I believe the truth will set you free. If someone is not guilty the true will come out. But if a person is guilty he or she should get the punishment derserved.
I think that every state should have the death penalty and that they should use it. If the persn is found guilty then why aren't we using it. They should have 30 days to appeal and then after that time is up then the sentance should be carried out. That would help out with prison over crowding. I am really why should we be letting people convicted to die live off our taxes?
I believe in the death penalty even as a Christian. The Bible is one of the most scared books on earth. In the Bible it will show that many people where sentence to death for breaking certain laws. Today some people may think that it is immoral to take a life. I believe that it is immoral to take a life that God didn't call for. Man does not have the right to take a life, thereby you take a life you give a life. As for people with mental problems this should be look at differently than murderers who don't have mental problems. I do believe a person should be tried and proven innocent unless the evidence points clearly to them. Trinell
Death penalty is a must. If you take someones life yours deserves to be taken as well. As for the mental illnesses idk i guess it depends on the disability. I work with a girl that is 6 and has down syndrome. She does have a disability but is well capable of thinking and knowing what is right and wrong. That is a hard one im not really sure if the person completly understands that they did wrong. Im undecided on that.
I have no concern for people who don't respect life, the right to life is the most sacred right we as people have. Those who take away life should not be left to happily live out their days with a good meal and evening tv privalages.....It is not right....So many people just don't care for life anymore....it is truly sickening....I know that sometimes innocent people are put down when innocent, but that is why I think that Crime labs should do many extensive tests, because when they screw up and put some one innocent to death, their mistake makes them the ones who are wrong....but the murderers I feel are very wrong...andf I think that letting them live the rest of the days with a good free meal...
I believe in the death penalty as long as there is evidence without a shadow of a doubt that a person committed a murder in cold blood, such as: witnesses, DNA, or most importantly- a confession. As for whether or not it should apply to "mentally ill" people, I realize there are some people without the mental capacity to understand what they have done. However, I believe the label of mentally ill is sometimes applied too lightly and a lot of people are skilled at knowing exactly what to say to work the system.
I am kind of caught in the middle in deciding my side on this issue. It doesnt really sit well with me that this is still an issue nowadays. But anywho...the death penalty...its in a very flawed system (innocent people have been sentenced and not proven to be until after theyre put to death). Also there are a lot of sick people out there who dont know right from wrong and need help, but shouldnt the rest of society be able to be rest assured there is not some psycho out there trying to do harm (whether he/she knows right from wrong or not).
I think the death penalty should be an option in all states. It would, of course, depend on the case and circumstances involved to determine if the option would be a sutible resolution. Mental illness is not an aceptable excuse for murder in my opinion, and I do not feel that those with such illnesses should be exempt from the consequences. Each crime is unique though and the death penalty is not something to be handed out lightly.
I believe in the death sentence is in order for frist degree murder,felony murder,captial drug trafficking and captial sexual battery.The individual who committed these crimes often intentionly take the lives of their victims. We must consider the cost to the victims and their family and friends.The cost involved in bringing the accused through the justice system for trial and the appeal process which uaully take years as convinced me that society is offering a fair chance to the accused.This is more than what the accused offered his/her victim.I also agree with life imprisonment with out parole for those persons with a mental illnes.
This is an uncomfortable topic for me. I don't believe any human has the right to take another's life, but the death sentence for murder has been around for thousands of years and seems to be the only way to make justification. As far as those with a "mental illness" -well what is considered a mental illness? A person suffering from depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder certainly may do things out of the ordinary as a result, but many, many of them can be helped and ultimately should be held responsible for their decisions/actions. So many these days can find some doctor to diagnose an "illness" if it will lessen their responsiblities. That makes me sick. So, where to draw the line? Well it can't be somewhere in the middle because then there will be to many healthy people being tested and re-tested for illnesses.
This is an uncomfortable topic for me. I believe no human has the authority to take another's life, however, the practice of the death sentence for murder has been around for thousands of years and it seems to be the only thing that brings justification.
As for those with "mental illnesses" - well, what is considered a mental illness? A person suffering from depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder may do things out of the ordinary as a result but they usually can improve with the right treatment and should be held responsible for their decisions/actions. Now it has become so much easier to receive pity and to find a physician who will diagnose an illness if the attorney encourages it in order to lessen the individual's basic responsibility to society. This just makes me sick. We can't draw the line somewhere in the middle.
If the death penalty is the way we are going to go, then DO IT! and don't take a whole lifetime! There are so so so many issues now that can prolong a court case - So many wrong motives - no one is focused on what matters...
Mr. Sheumaker, I appreciate your tact. In all honesty, my only education on DNA is from Survey of Biology here at PCC and the only time I watch TV is when I am too tired to do anything more constructive. (OK, OK, so I watch the Simpsons almost every day as soon as I get home from work.) I guess my point with the DNA is that there is the possibility of error, more likely from a lab mishap than the actual test process, and it scares me to think, “what if it were me?”
The economic examples I gave were sensationalized cases. The purpose was to really make one take notice. The majority of cases where appeals continue for years actually do cost the taxpayer in the millions of dollars versus the hundreds of thousands of dollars incurred by keeping the prisoner alive. Although my examples were to appeal to one’s emotional and economic sensibilities, my true motive is that I just don’t believe we have to result to legalized murder.
All of the responses held a common theme: string ‘em up! Some said to do it right away. I even read a suggestion to reevaluate the appeals process and impose a time limit which at least would give a person a chance to prove his innocence, but what if the proof comes too late? I can’t agree with killing someone, even if they are guilty of a heinous offense. I feel that it would put me on a level with them, that I was just getting even. It disturbs me deeply that anyone could have the wherewithal to commit cold blooded premeditated murder, including a court of law.
I think that anyone that kills on purpose has something seriously wrong with their head, even if they aren’t mentally deficient? I’m not proposing that anyone condone their actions on the grounds that they must have a screw loose. I’m saying that we should forgive them – for the sake of our own psyche, not to make them feel better about themselves – allow them to live out their natural lives in solitary confinement where they will never again have the opportunity to harm anyone.
I was reminded of this blog when I saw on the news that Kelsey Smith, 18 yrs old in Kansas was murdered this week. She was pushed into her car by a stranger in the Target parking lot. It was captured on Target's security camera. It showed him driving into the parking lot in his truck. And when she returned to her car, he pushed her into her car and drove off. He probably raped her before killing her. He is caught because a neighbor recognized his truck and his composite drawing. He will probably get a plea deal or some sort of bargaining like most of the murderers. I don’t understand how a criminal can negotiate with the law or that the law or court system allows it.
I looked up Kansas death penalty law. It says “murder of a victim of rape” is provision for death by lethal injection. I hope that is what he gets for taking such a young, vibrant life out of this world.
I think that all the states should not abolish the death penalty. But I think that is is stupid to give someone the death penalty for trafficking drugs. By the way, I am pretty sure you can't get the death penalty for capital drug trafficking but I have to look that one up and let you all know.
Cassie, that sounded odd to me too...so I looked it up...
Check it out at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144&scid=10
It says it is....
I was looking in the newspaper the other day and i had noticed there was a case in there about the death penailty which made me wonder the so called criminal they have no evidence that he did the crime and still he is getting the death penalty because he was the only suspect. I think that is very worng for them to do that espically if they have no evidence.
Post a Comment