[Neraphym]

I don't know enough either way to say whether or not it is good enough, but I still agree with the principal behind the death penalty. I cannot agree, however, that what we do is just, if there are innocent people being put to death. Have you any statistics showing how many people have been exhonerated (sp?) after being put to death? It is really a horrible thing...

[Zziggywolf5]

Kaezion, you have a point. However, said cases are thankfully much rarer than before. You should obviously need to not have any doubts, too.
I am actually glad it takes so long before the execution with appeals. If someone is wrongfully convected once, it's less likely to happen twice, a third time, etc.

[Neraphym]

It still happens, though. If there was a way to be 100% sure. I think maybe convicted criminals should go through a series of lie-detecting tests. The convict (has already been declaired guilty by a jury) must first pass a lie detecter. The prosecuter will ask the convict if he or she did it. If the results indicate he did. Then move on to a truth serum (sp?) test. I think sodium pentathol or something like that makes people tell the truth. Only if it conclusively shows in both tests that the convict killed someone, they should be subject to the death penalty. Otherwise, put them in prison for life. That way, if he actually is innocent, he will have his life to reclaim his freedom. Of course, these methods are not 100% effective at proving whether or not someone is lying OR telling the truth, so passing the tests does not overturn the guilty verdict. I don't think either methods should EVER be used in the court of law as evidence for either side, but it is the best method to sort out the best candidates of innocent convicts.

These tests determine (to an extend) whether the convict knows that he is guilty. By only giving the death penalty to those that are shown to think that they are guilty, it will cut down the chances of an innocent person getting the needle/chair/nuse/rabid-gerbil.

I am now thinking of possible implications and reprocussions of this idea, so I'm not 100% behind it myself. I may have a difference of opinion about it later, so please comment on this.

[Traver]

I'd like for you to find a case where someone committed murder and and is now facing the death penalty.  Now go and protest against it on the lawn of the family that survived the victim.  Tell me then that death is not a legitimate punishment for someone who has killed.  Look into the eyes of a mother that had to bury her child because some prick raped then slit his throat, and then tell me that taking the life of the person who did this is unjust.  Your bleeding heart should go to the victim and their family before it goes to a convicted murderer.

But we shouldn't care about the family of the person who is going to be executed?

[Neraphym]

You raise an excellent point. Yes, it is sad that the convicted murderer's family must suffer, but in choosing between the family of the victim and the family of the convicted murderer/rapist, I think we all know who wins out.

[Dragonman]

You raise an excellent point.  Yes, it is sad that the convicted murderer's family must suffer, but in choosing between the family of the victim and the family of the convicted murderer/rapist, I think we all know who wins out.

In the end both are dead, and both families suffer. The victim's family loses a family member due to someone else's decision, and the criminal's family is enknowledged with the fact that this person, either their son/sibling/cousin, etc., killed someone and is now being killed themself for it. I don't think vengeance should have part in justice.

[Zziggywolf5]

It still happens, though.  If there was a way to be 100% sure.  I think maybe convicted criminals should go through a series of lie-detecting tests.  The convict (has already been declaired guilty by a jury) must first pass a lie detecter.  The prosecuter will ask the convict if he or she did it.  If the results indicate he did. Then move on to a truth serum (sp?) test.  I think sodium pentathol or something like that makes people tell the truth.  Only if it conclusively shows in both tests that the convict killed someone, they should be subject to the death penalty.  Otherwise, put them in prison for life.  That way, if he actually is innocent, he will have his life to reclaim his freedom.  Of course, these methods are not 100% effective at proving whether or not someone is lying OR telling the truth, so passing the tests does not overturn the guilty verdict.  I don't think either methods should EVER be used in the court of law as evidence for either side, but it is the best method to sort out the best candidates of innocent convicts. 

These tests determine (to an extend) whether the convict knows that he is guilty.  By only giving the death penalty to those that are shown to think that they are guilty, it will cut down the chances of an innocent person getting the needle/chair/nuse/rabid-gerbil.

I am now thinking of possible implications and reprocussions of this idea, so I'm not 100% behind it myself.  I may have a difference of opinion about it later, so please comment on this.

Wow, that's a good idea. Wish I thought of that..
Unfortunately, you can't really be 100% sure, only nearly 100%. So the more chances to avoid wrongful death, the better.


Nearly the entire justice system is based on vengeance. We put people in prison so they suffer as much as to keep them away from us.

[Neraphym]

The justice system is meant for reform. They go to prison in order to suffer. By suffering, they know what they did is wrong, and so they don't do it again. Some crimes are so bad that we must make sure that they CAN NEVER do it again. The only solutions are life in prison or death.

[Kaezion]

lie detectors dont work against people who have even a little training. sodium thiopental is unreliable, as are all of the other drugs in the "truth serum" line. the truth is, there's no way to be 100% sure.

Only if it conclusively shows in both tests that the convict killed someone, they should be subject to the death penalty.  Otherwise, put them in prison for life.  That way, if he actually is innocent, he will have his life to reclaim his freedom.

so, kill them if they fail tests that don't really count for anything, and throw them in prison if there's still doubt as to their innocence?

Of course, these methods are not 100% effective at proving whether or not someone is lying OR telling the truth, so passing the tests does not overturn the guilty verdict.

any sort of test that is geared toward determining a suspect's culpability is done before the verdict is reached.

the main flaw with your reasoning here is this: once the suspect is convicted, then officially, there is no doubt as to his guilt - he is officially guilty. you can't perform additional tests on him to try to determine if he did the crime for sure, because his trial already determined if we are sure of it or not.

and then there's the issue of the tests themselves. if the convict passes the tests, then what? we throw him in prison anyway?

what i'm trying to say is that guiltiness is absolute. you can't try to measure a criminal's culpability. by this, i mean that you can't try to see whether he did this crime with 100% or 90% certainty or whatever to try to determine what his sentence is, especially after he's convicted. if the jury determines the criminal to be 100% guilty, he gets the guilty sentence as determined by the judge, and if the jury is any less certain than that, the suspect is acquitted, and he walks.

[Neraphym]

The tests would not be administered with the intent of finding whether or not the subject is guilty, but whether or not the subject 'thinks' he or she is guilty. This means that if the subject thinks he/she is guilty, than there is much less of a chance that he/she actually is innocent, and therefore is safer to kill. If the subject thinks he/she is innocent, but the evidence and testimony has convinced a jury that the subject is, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, guilty, then the subject should be given life in prison because of the chance that he may indeed be innocent.

The purpose is to lower the odds of an innocent person being executed by adding another requirement to be applicable to the death penalty. Once again, I'm not 100% behind this idea, but as of right now, it is the best way I've got.

[Zziggywolf5]

The justice system is meant for reform.  They go to prison in order to suffer.  By suffering, they know what they did is wrong, and so they don't do it again.  Some crimes are so bad that we must make sure that they CAN NEVER do it again.  The only solutions are life in prison or death.

Prison can make a criminal worse about as easily as reforming them. It's likely they want revenge and things of the such.

More trials and tests would just trim off the chances of an innocent.

Also, is life in prison that great? Spend 20 years with a bunch of violent criminals and then someone comes and says, "We, uh, made a mistake. Sorry we took a large chunk of your life away. And stuck you with people who could have killed you. Okay, bye! Enjoy the last 10-20 years you have left to live!"

We don't really just do what the victims family wants. If we did, people would be getting ripped into fourths by trucks.

[oh dear]

Good debate (Y)

[Kaezion]

The tests would not be administered with the intent of finding whether or not the subject is guilty, but whether or not the subject 'thinks' he or she is guilty.  This means that if the subject thinks he/she is guilty, than there is much less of a chance that he/she actually is innocent, and therefore is safer to kill.  If the subject thinks he/she is innocent, but the evidence and testimony has convinced a jury that the subject is, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, guilty, then the subject should be given life in prison because of the chance that he may indeed be innocent.

The purpose is to lower the odds of an innocent person being executed by adding another requirement to be applicable to the death penalty.  Once again, I'm not 100% behind this idea, but as of right now, it is the best way I've got.

as soon as we admit that the suspect has a chance of being innocent, we put his culpability back into the shadow of reasonable doubt.

[Neraphym]

That was my biggest concern about using that. That'll feed reasonable doubt like gasoline feeds a fire.

[Zziggywolf5]

Good point...
All the choices of what to do suck. Let them go, hold for life, or death?