Can we please have a rational, dispassionate discussion about the death penalty?

I'd be inclined to abolish the death penalty if the alternative of life in prison really meant life in prison. You don't leave, except in a zipper bag. You have your "life" ... but that's all you have . No conjugal visits, no mail, no book deals, no cable TV in your cell, no Taco Tuesdays... three nutritionally balanced servings of glop every day.

In my state, in the last 5 years, we have had 6 people on death row freed--because it was proved they were innocent. Incarceration for life can adequately protect society from these types of criminals. But it is not possible to have a totally error-free system of law enforcement. So--if someone advocates the death penalty--they are advocating the killing of at least some innocent people--without even the excuse there is no other way to protect society. And that is not acceptable in a civilized society.

the death penalty is not designed to be vengeful or revenge motivation. No its designed to be a just penalty for the most heinous and sadistic crimes a person can commit. its design is to let a just society to know that we will not tolerate this kind of behavior

It doesn't need to be a "dispassionate" discussion. Murder is murder - whether it is the thug on the street or the government....it is still murder.

I say this: how can we kill others who kill people just to show that killing is wrong? Think about it (for an alternate perspective). Death is also the easy way out of things. And the current death penalty procedures are quick and painless. I'm mean... the possibilities are endless from the Chinese Water Torture Treatment to the electrocution. I personally don't believe in harming others as such. I'm a Hindu who does believe in reincarnation and in karma, so whatever negativity they perform on this life will affect who they are in the next one. They could be born with diseases or be handicapped in certain ways. And they will keep being reborn until they become a good person. I say keep them in prison for life so that no one else is harmed, but don't harm them. Maybe even try to help them, probational facilities for life-sentence members? But that's just my religion and my upbringing.

The death penalty is not an effective way of preventing or reducing crime and risks executing innocent people. Here are answers to questions about the practical aspects of the death penalty system and the alternative, with sources listed below. What about the risk of executing innocent people? 124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening? DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people. Doesn't the death penalty prevent others from committing murder? No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that do not. So, what are the alternatives? Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty. But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison? The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, largely because of the legal process. Extra costs include those due to the complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (involving 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases and appeals. What about the very worst crimes? The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed?? Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims? Not necessarily. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative. So, why don't we speed up the process? Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person. But don’t Americans prefer the death penalty as the most serious punishment? Not any more. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole.

I am in agreement with your statement and hopefully I can contribute. It is interesting that this very subject was discussed in one of my classes last quarter (I am working now towards my Master in Criminal Justice). I agree wholehartedly on the DNA testing of all death row inmates. Like the appeal process, I believe that DNA testing should be a MANDATORY part of that appeal process. Now, regarding the abloshing of the death penalty in regards to the economic inequities. Society has always had, does have and will ALWAYS have this problem. Even Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you". It is my belief that to "put it on hold" till these problems are adequately addressed would be a miscarriage of justice. BUT, I think mandatory DNA testing of these DRI would go a long way in "bypassing" the problem. From a financial standpoint as a tax paying citizen, this is a toss up. Let me explain. First, anyone who receives the death penaly is AUTOMATICALLY GURANTEED to exhaust the appeal process. THIS IS EXPENSIVE! In 2002, the state of Kansas spent almost 4 million dollars on three death penalty cases. The state of Georgia spent over 1-1/2 million on ONE death penalty case. The state of New York NOW spends approximately 1.2 million annualy to train their prosecutors for these appeals and in 2002 spent over 5 million on death penalty appeals. In Texas, the annual average spent on death penalty cases is 500 thousand EACH. And the list goes on. In comparison, the cost to house an inmate for life ranges from $21,000 per year to almost $80,000 per year. So, you do the math. The death penalty inmate costs millions of dollars in appeals and add to that, the cost to house him/her during that process. From the view of faith, what MOST so-called "believers" do not seem to understand is that the death penaly is NOT murder as murder is stated in scripture. The Hebrew translation of murder is taking a life with malice and without cause. The word death when it is used as punishment in scripture translates, due payment, judgement, etc. If those righteous many would stop and look at scripture and KNOW their God, that He DOES NOT change, and if murder were as THEY know it, is wrong, then how could God be God and still allow, order, or set regulations that include death as a form of punishment? Go figure! Finally, I think we need to examine each case individually and more indepth when considering the death penalty. There are some violent offenders that will not, cannot, and are not rehabilitative and as such should be put to death. Although the cost is high, in the long run it would begin to deal with prison overcrowding and thus lower the annual cost of housing more inmates than we have room for.

You have made some very nice objective statements about this practice....Here is my dispassionate answer... I do agree with you 100% about the DNA testing to confirm identitity and guilt. I do not believe that the DP should be abolished....it gives retribution to the victims and their families, and also serves as a crime deterrant. There are some innocent people that have been executed...and this is definitely cause for concern. The DP is so controversial among political agendas. However, taking the politics out of the discussion leaves the raw truth - the DP is the ultimate accepted punishment for ultimate offenders in our society. Furthermore, it takes about 12 years on average to finally execute someone on death row. Therefore, they are serving some prison time before execution. Crime should be punished equally for the damage done on this level. You are absolutely correct that economic conditions play a role in this as well. SES is a very overlooked fact in our world. However, SES is not the only element that contributes to criminal activity. And you seem like you know what I am going to say next.... The death penalty in my opinion has pros and cons just as everything does. Unfortunately it probably is not the most perfected way of punishment nor is it the most efficient or justified. DNA evidence is the key my friend.... Glad to look at both sides of the issue with you....

Eric, There is a thing called respect for life. If someone has no remorse or guilt over something as wild as killing somebody, there's not much you can do to rehabilitate them and put them back on the street without the possibility of it happening again. You can't take a cold blooded killer and factor in his "socio-economic inequality". He either planned to kill and did it, or he is innocent of the crime. I think once DNA has proven beyond a reasonable doubt of 12 jury members that the accused is guilty, he should serve the sentence that fits the crime. No insanity. No excuses. No "medical conditions". You killed someone. You have to pay. That's the consequence. I do believe that if DNA evidence could exonerate somebody, then it should be easier to get a trail to either be exonerated or thrown back in the slammer. I'm more conservative, so I'll address the issues of race history and class. Race: I never owned a slave, and I don't have any animosity towards black people; not anymore than most have for me being white. However, there are black judges sentencing black people to prison too. It's about as equal as it has EVER been in history. History: History has shown us that swift and fair justice prevents crime. Long, drawn out and loophole-filled trials do NOT encourage fairness. Class? Well, if the rich would be treated EQUALLY like the poor, regardless of status or Paris Hiltonesque treatment, justice would also be more respected. I also think rehabs should not take the place of jailtime if a crime is committed. Only the rich have access to the Betty Ford Clinic, and too often, they get a posh "hospital" while the rest of the general public gets a jail cell. One factor I think you should have mentioned was the judge. Not all judges are fair, and some of them do not apply the law or the punishment fairly. Some judges sentence people. Others believe in second chances. In my case, I caught a kid breaking into my car - red handed! I chased him back to his apartment complex, positively identified him and had him served in court. He was arrested, and got out on bail. A day before his court date, he was arrested again for graffitti. The judge said that "he deserved a second chance for both burgularly and graffitti". Of course, I think he should have paid for the window and door of my car he ruined, and the dashboard and stereo he damaged trying to steal from me. Lawyers will hope for certain judges, that will give them a better chance of winning on both sides. So I guess my answer is that if the law is blind on both sides, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with more of the death penalty. But it's not. I hope someday it could be. Great question!