<p>UCLAri, I agree. Capital punishment might be a feasible penalty if it deters future criminals, but study after study shows it makes little difference. If it's not stopping criminals, I think it is inconceivable that we should murder people just because they seem to deserve it by our standards. Not to mention the fact that someone will always disagree with these standards if we have some formula for deciding which murderer is worse than other murderers.</p>
<p>it's a double edged sword. i fully agree that some crimes simply deserve the death penalty, and our prisons are getitng terribly full as it is. however, as many already mentioned in this forum, there tends to be instances where the accused turns out to be innocent, but only after it was too late. so honestly, i'm not sure where i stand on it. but perhaps looking at the problem of our prisons being so full, would help to allieve the problem of us being so quick to jump to the death penalty as well.</p>
<p>How about instead of wonder who we can kill to free up our prisons, we work on the reasons as to why they're so full to begin with?</p>
<p>then i think we should charge the criminals for their jail time to cover all expenses...would that make everyone happy? :)</p>
<p>Some prisons in Pasadena, CA have already done that.</p>
<p>wow, thats actually an ingenius idea.is it going over well in pasadena?</p>
<p>That is a horrible idea. For one, it penalizes common people who might just make one mistake (ex. DUI) into paying more and more for a minor crime. Most criminals don't have money anyways, so there would have to be a waiver. This would also put people right back in the pen, as criminals would have to pay this fee, in addition to restitution and back child support. No convicted felon would ever be able to back into regular society.</p>
<p>what about the lifers?</p>
<p>I wrote that two weeks ago. I'm not a journalist. Your paragraph only repeats what I just said.</p>
<p>it is sad that some innocent people die with the death penalty, but I think the positives outweigh the slight chance that the person is innocent. And hey, they had their chances in all of their appeals.</p>
<p>It's unfortunate, but I can live with a few innoncent people being killed as long as almost always the people are guilty. I know "what if it was your family who had the innocent person killed" then I would be angry, but in the scheme of things, me being angry doesn't affect society at all.</p>
<p>Some question the</a> Liebman Study, but I think that his findings are very interesting for those who think that capital punishment "rarely" fails.</p>
<p>"You kill someone else, you kill yourself"</p>
<p>-Kant</p>
<p>I think the occasional mistake in capital punishment more than equates out the number of people at risk should someone in prison for life escape, like the recent one's in washington...</p>
<p>That's easy to say until it's you getting ready to have the poison pumped into your veins.</p>
<p>But hey, most of the people who are mistakenly killed are either poor, black, or poor and black, so why should we care? [/sarcasm turned to 11]</p>
<p>You just can't say he is right because the paper is extremely opinionated: Conservative topic given to a professor... Result: Will come out very messed up</p>
<p>Who are you talking to?</p>
<p>My thoughts on capital punishment. Currently in order for the death penalty to be carried out you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That has been the standard in criminal courts for many years. I believe that we should allow that to remain the same in criminal cases. However when one comes up for the sentencing phase of a trial, and Capital Punishment is one of the options, then I think we need to reconsider this standard. Require clear and convincing evidence (DNA, several witnesses with the same story, a gun with fingerprints, a recorded phone message bragging about the crime and so on) of guilt.</p>
<p>Best example I can currently think of, of somebody who should not be on death row is Scott Peterson. Do I believe he is guilty? Yes absolutely I think he committed the crime. However all the evidence in that case was circumstantial. I just don't think that's enough to send a man to his death.</p>
<p>In the case Stanley "Tookie" Williams there is clear and convincing evidence of his guilt. In his case I've got no problem seeing this form of justice used, since we can be assured an innocent man is not being put to death.</p>
<p>Anyways that's just my 2 cents.</p>