How do we make the death penalty unnecessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter whichwaytogo47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pope Francis has already revised the stand of the Catholic Church regarding Capital Punishment.
 
Aquinas11 said:
Now if parole review, was modified to have the same level of scrutiny as death penalty review (for those convicted of murder, etc), that would greatly reduce the level of risk to society of imprisonment.
Click to expand...
I’d concur. If we could increase the standard to absolute proof and eliminate the politicizing of the criminal justice system, it would be a far more effective and fair system and far more civilized with or without the death penalty. Whether someone dies in prison or is executed and than it is found out that they were innocent that is still life that had been robbed from them.

Making sure to have a proper parole review is essential to making sure they are not a danger to the outside community. If they commit murder again, than we didn’t respect the dignity of the human person as we cared more about the criminal who was a proven offender than the victim. It is more immoral for a guilty person to be released than a guilty person to be executed.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t say there weren’t “countless cases of people killed by reoffenders”, but in general in USA, for many years now, if you committed a death penalty crime and didn’t get death you get LWOP which is Life Without Parole which means you are not getting out at least until you are a 65-year-old disabled feeble person and sometimes not even then.

The “reoffending” is not being done by people who would have been put to death but instead were let out. The “reoffending” is being done largely by people for whom death penalty was not even an option.

As for the dozens of levels of review, not everybody automatically gets them and there are at least a couple of cases where it looks like an innocent man was executed despite reviews. A couple lives wrongly taken is a couple too many.

I don’t expect you or anybody else to agree with me on this but as a lawyer who spent some years doing pro bono in this area I feel okay with not having a death penalty. Just LWOP the worst offenders, make them live out their lives under lock and key and don’t let 'em out.

I will now leave the thread because in my experience on many forums, discussing the death penalty often leads to very bad outcomes on threads.
Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
So where is the justice for someone wrongfully convicted and executed? I would have no problem with the death penalty, if, in the event, a person already executed is found to have been innocent, the prosecutor, jury and judge were taken out back and summarily shot.
 
niceatheist said:
So where is the justice for someone wrongfully convicted and executed?
Click to expand...
Same place where justice is for someone killed by murderer who was released early by parole board. The key is which is safer for society, not which is perfect justice since neither are. Death penalty has far more scrutiny and levels of review, thus far safer
niceatheist said:
I would have no problem with the death penalty, if, in the event, a person already executed is found to have been innocent, the prosecutor, jury and judge were taken out back and summarily shot.
Click to expand...
You also support same treatment of a parole board if convicted murderer released prematurely and kills again?
 
Last edited:
ShrodingersCat said:
What about mercy for repentant sinners? Why should they all spend a lifetime behind bars?
Click to expand...
Neither mercy nor the repentance which enables it eliminates the punishment one is due because of his actions. It may be appropriate in certain situations, but it is not automatic that because one repents his punishment is excused.

At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” (Ex 34: 6-7). (JPII)
whichwaytogo47 said:
We all have an obligation to forgive those whom have harmed us but that does not require the society to reduce their sentence.
Click to expand...
The individual has an obligation to forgive and is forbidden to exact vengeance. The state, however, is obligated to punish. What is forbidden to one is the obligation of the other.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
The “reoffending” is not being done by people who would have been put to death but instead were let out. The “reoffending” is being done largely by people for whom death penalty was not even an option.
Click to expand...
About 1.2% of murderers who are released from prison repeat that crime. This works out to about 30-40 recidivist murders a year according to a study done for the Bureau of Justice Statistics a decade or two ago.
 
20 years is a decent sentence for rape and murder, but I would agree with considering mitigating circumstances like mental illness, level of intoxication, etc., when sentencing.
 
Fair enough, I assumed that you wouldn’t get parole for very serious crimes if you weren’t rehabilitated. I was thinking of crimes warranting 15-20 years or so.
 
So if I am to understand you correctly, your policy is that all convicted murderers and rapists be executed?
 
ShrodingersCat said:
20 years is a decent sentence for rape and murder, but I would agree with considering mitigating circumstances like mental illness, level of intoxication, etc., when sentencing.
Click to expand...
20 years in that instance would be a very light sentence and would put the public at grave risk. While 1.25% of those whom commit 2nd degree murder may kill again, the number would be a lot higher if you were a premeditated killer and/or a murderer who’s a sex offender.

I might agree with you if that includes all credits, good behavior, etc and I’d say rape OR 2nd degree murder, not both. I don’t think 20 years for rape and murder is a reasonable sentence and is the real reason why there’s still a necessity for the death penalty. While the death penalty is not a deterrent for one’s crimes, it is a deterrent against overly light sentencing that does indeed put the public at risk.

In other words, it’s not a deterrent for a person who commits their first crime, but those whom have committed crimes are being released putting the public at grave risk.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top