What do people here think about the death penalty?

Dr mario In war there are always innocents that die called collateral. Killing an innocent would be considered collateral here as well. There are lots of places where the police force is corrupt, and others where evidence is created in order to create an arrest just to end a high level crime that is in the public eye. I think these are the bigger problems when it concerns falsely accused individuals. But how do you solve a department of justice from making an injustice? Normally by having a hierarchy and other departments of justice keeping an eye on them but the system is inefficient, and exploitable. So in the end innocent.people will always have a chance for being found guilty of a crime they did not commit. As for mental illness card, well sorry buddy there ain't no fixing you and you are a danger to society ... have better luck in your next life.

Except this isn't war. Killing an innocent through the justice system is not collateral. You lose all integrity as an establishment for protecting citizens by doing that. If you think people went crazy because of Michael Brown, wait until an innocent black man (or one who the public believes to be innocent) is executed by the justice system. And even in war, while collateral will inevitably occur, doesn't mean that it is acceptable. There are many mental illnesses that are treatable - my example was a bit extreme to make a point. The U.S. legal system must currently account for mental illness. Lordragna37 never said he wanted to change the system to allow for death penalties for the mentally ill (his most recent post did make that clear, but not prior to my post). He only said to require undeniable evidence, which I said was probably not possible and listed examples where subjective conclusions could not be avoided. Obviously there are numerous problems including the ones you brought up, but if executing an innocent person isn't near the top of the list of injustices in this world, then there is a problem with how the world perceives injustice.

Nobody is saying that it is to be considered acceptable. It is just something that is bound to happen. Let's just put it in a way that relates to the secoond part. The individual found guilty of a murder is the spouse of the victim. The spouse is suffering from a progressive mental illness that does not allow them to communicate in A way in which he can defend himself. He is found guilty because of lack of other suspects, and the inability of the accused to be able to defend himself in court. He gets sent to jail, and suffers for years to maybe let's say a couple of decades until a person is arrested for murder and confesses to have been guilty of that other crime. The person who was sent to jail do you think after spending so much timein jail does not change, and/or suffered through all those years? Will they ever become what they used to be? Is it acceptable that this person went through all that? As for the mental illness that is treatable, well then does the entire system need to include psychiatric evaluations during high school to see potential illnesses? But wouldn't that also be a violation of your right to.say no to obligatory tests, and also invasion of privacy ... and so forth. Many solutions to problems are actually stopped because of other laws created so that the government does not have too much power over the people. Finding a PC solution for every problem is the work of a madman. Singapore (I always revert to these guys legal system since it works) in the case of a treatable mental.illness they will send the person to a mental health clinic most times for life. As for those that are not treatable, they are either used for medical research (signed paperwork) while living in jail or get hanged. Killing an innocent in war is seen badly, killing an innocent during a robbery is seen worse, the government killing an innocent person even if it was by one individual workong for the government and by accident, and a whole bunch of people go bananas.

Sorry, I don't get where you're going with this part. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your example in the second paragraph. And why are you asking about screening for mental illnesses prior to a crime being committed? But on a related note to what you said in the third paragraph, if you ever go to the doctor you are being observed for possible mental health problems (and other possible problems too). Part of the general examination is to observe the patient for their speech patterns, how well they take care of themselves, mood, expression of emotions, etc. But even if there are suspicions you couldn't be tested without permission (unless you've completely lost it) and of course you have confidentiality (to a certain extent).

Does anyone think that the borderline cases are worse under the death penalty? The normal people won't commit a crime for fear of the penalties. The crazies don't care and will do what they will. But would those who commit a crime and now think they face death fight harder to escape or go to greater extremes? Does it go through someone's mind that if I don't get away, I can give up and face a long sentence rather than death?

@ dr mario The example was to portray loopholes to the logic that one solution is better than the other. They both suck for an innocent individual. In one case your life gets ended. In the other you suffer for an amount of time, and if you get found innocent, comes the question of whether you will be able to reintegrate to society or not. As for the screening, its because that would be the solution for the mental illness case. But like I wrote, too many other things gets in the way. As for your explanation, that even if you do identify a possibility of a disorder, without approval you can not test. Meaning the person is free. So the question goes back to ... is the system to.blame? @ jinsei In countries with a wide consoderation for death penalties you actually see very little violent crime since they fear death. Those that do commit them are very few, and don't care about consequences, they rather die trying to escape than giving up. Which is why the police force is equipped almost as well as the military. What is most common is organized crime (drugs, extortion, gambling, etc) in other words mostly vices and white collared crime that depending on severity might also be accounted for death.

Adopt a more draconian death penalty, keep what we have, restrict or ban it... It's just so tricky to extrapolate what would happen here. While there are numbers supporting this or that conclusion, the big X factor is that americans are a different animal altogether.

Danggg @Jinsei. That last sentence was pretty powerful lol. As for that, the death penalty, I'm not sure if I already said this or not, but I don't think it is practical. The death penalty is imposed to drag the condemned criminal to hell faster, and that implies the use of religion for a reason to use the death penalty. I don't think anyone ever deserves to die. If they're already in a controlled "environment," there should be help for them. If the government insists on involving religion (which I am extremely extremely against), they should help the sinner reach God, not Satan. No one should decide whether you live or die. I get it, the condemned criminal might've been a murderer, but there are other ways. When people commit a felony that can land them a death penalty, I'm more than sure they're ready to die for it. The death penalty is just state sanctioned murder.

@boundbyluck Okay, I see. Certainly both scenarios are bad, but if you get out of prison you have an opportunity to do something. If you never get out and die in prison that would be an equivalent scenario in theory. Of course different people will react to each in different ways, but it does seem that the people who are proven innocent and get out are glad they made it out alive. I was just mentioning that just for the sake of clarification. But in certain instances a doctor can force a dangerous patient to be hospitalized. Nothing's perfect, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to reach for improvement. For almost anything that goes wrong, the system carries at least some blame. That's where root cause analysis and systems-based approaches come in to play. Again not perfect, but I won't leave an innocent person hanging (pun intended) just because it's inevitable. @jinsei That's something I've wondered also. A lot of people in a standoff right now will give up eventually even if they've killed a person or two. It's a hard to question to answer and it's also hard to compare what might happen here with what has happened elsewhere. Edit: it seems you already reached that conclusion. @Sunbae Can you explain why you are associating the death penalty with hell and religion? There are many athiests and some non-religious governments that support/operate with the death penalty.

In some American States, as you know, a priest would be allowed to enter and ask if the condemned criminal have any last confessions. In court, some states also force you to put your hand over a bible and swear in, although many most states abolished this requirement recently. Some executions act out of line and say things along the lines of "I hope you burn in hell." The majority of the case, although I am a religious man, religion and government cannot mix under any circumstances, or extremists will eventually rise to power.