Should There Be A Death Penalty?

I do appreciate your insight on the subject as well as your argument to my response. To answer a few of your questions,

"What would you do if you found out that one of your close friends or family memebers was accused of a capital crime and was now facing the Death Penalty? What would you do if your loved one was convicted of that crime and subsequently executed? What would you do if just days or even years after than execution, it was discovered that the witnesses against him lied, or that the evidence presented against him was flawed, or that corrupt policemen or prosecutors fabricated the case or witheld vital evidence? What would you do if new evidence was discovered that completely exonerated your already deceased loved one? How would you feel upon learning that The State killed your loved one, even though he was innocent?"

First, I would be appalled at the thought of any one of my family members or close friends getting mixed up in the criminal justice system. But if it so happens that one of them does, and they do face the death penalty, I would do everything in my power to get them acquitted. However, not everything is "cakes and candy" and if they are executed by the state, I can not lie and say that I would be filled with utter dismay and pain, as well as rage and fury at the state. Especially if I were to find out a couple days after their execution, that they were charged with a crime that they did not indeed commit because of a false testimony, and tampered evidence. What would I do if I found new evidence that exonerated my already deceased loved one? What more can I do? I can't bring back the dead, however, I would make sure that every official on that case that contaminated the case would lose their jobs, be disbarred, and I would make sure the whole world knows of it. And as far as how I would feel if the state killed my loved one, even though he/she was innocent, I would be outraged! Like every other individual! I would fight, and fight, and fight until my last day has come upon me.

With that being said, I still would not choose to eliminate capital punishment. Like I said, I believe it is there for a reason. However, I can not say that if that happens, I would INDEED continue to be pro-death penalty. Things can happen, but I hold my views and beliefs to be very strong.

Indeed, one can not justify allowing an imperfect system to impose a death sentence which can not be reversed, but our system as well as our people, will never be perfect. As much as we try to strive for perfection, it is impossible. I always like to point out the stereotypes of police brutality and criminals. I have seen criminals complain on numerous occasions regarding police brutality, and harrassment "even though I wasn't doing anything but standing here" yet they have dope on them and a gun in their pants. Criminals have helped shaped these hard-core no-mercy officers into who they are. And officers have shaped these smart, sophistacted-thief criminals into who they are. Maybe if these criminals hadn't given these young officers such a hard time, and an experience they will never forget, like oh say, trying to kill them or beat them, these young officers wouldn't grow up to be bitter old officials "just doing their job."

I've heard that quote, "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death" before. My criminal law professor said that to our class numerous times. But when I asked him of his views on the death penalty, he said, "I stand for the death penalty. It is what keeps our criminal justice system balanced."

Though you may find Justice Scalia's arguments useless, I find his words pleasing in that he speaks in reference to the law, and not on his beliefs. We all do have different opinions, but that is what makes our nation so powerful.

Thanks!

Kimberlee Hanamura

I'm not quite understanding what you're trying to imply. To me, it doesn't make sense, if you can please elaborate a bit more.

"And it cost so much more to keep a person on death row then to let them rot in prison."

My interpretation of letting them "rot in prison" is quite frankly, haha, keeping them on death row.

"What makes the man giving the injection any better than the man getting punished."
The man giving the injection is justified in the "murder" for it is he who is seeking justice for the victim, you know, the one that he killed for GOD KNOWS WHAT REASON.

Capital punishment is NOT like saying "I'm not a real killer, I'm an imaginary killer." Capital punishment is "like" saying there are consequences for your crime, and you will be served with JUSTICE!

Kimberlee Hanamura

but maybe "guilty as hell" only becomes obvious after the evidence has withstood the test of time - say, several years. Most times new evidence will not surface, but it doesn't cost that much to keep somebody alive for a few years. Some cold cases get reversed decades later, but those are exceptions. It is always possible for innocent people to be wrongly convicted, but if we're careful and if we can improve the appeals process like you suggest, the savings may be worth the risk.

"It is true that the death penalty is more expensive then life in prison. That speaks to a problem with the justice system, not the punishment."

Along with a farcical appeals process, there is an almost insurmountable advantage for those that can afford the very best legal council.

The complexity and ambiguity of our ridiculous array of often conflicting laws and precedents has given rise to an oppressive class of elitist lawyers. Since their craft is as much art as science there is a vast difference between the best and worst practitioners. This results in a situation where High (for the rich) and Low (for the rest) justice is in clear violation of the equal protection clause of The Constitution. To make the situation even worse we are conned into electing most of our leaders from within this arcane class. Once they hold the reigns of power they have consistently conspired to make the situation (our justice system) even worse. Which has led to an even tighter grip on power by their cabal.

So...as far as the death penalty...

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II) King Henry VI
William Shakespeare

There are numerous factors as to why I am against the death penatly. The population of death role (and prison in general) is not reflective of the general populatioin of the United States. An overwheling majority of the persons in prison are minorities.

The death penalty is subjective. Biases arise from the prosecutor, judge, and jury. It is too subjective to serve justice best.

The ability to obtain equal and qualified representation is determined by money. Those who have the most money get the best representation. Not only to they get the best representation they also have the ability to call in more experts, examine critical forensic evicence in independent labs, and any number of other factors.

The overwhelming problems we face with our justice system is that it is too reactive and not proactive enough. If more effort was spent on poverty, education, and the equalization of opportunity, upward social mobility, and any number of other factors crime would drop dramatically.

I'm assuming that what was referred to here is the oft cited argument that the death penalty should be continued because it is a deterrent to crime. Since that is, quite obviously, not the case, it stands to reason that continuing to cite deterrence as a reason to continue using the death penalty is faulty. Certainly, those who are put to death are deterred from committing future crimes, but people tend to cite deterrence on a larger scale than that; believing that if one criminal is put to death, others will be deterred. That's where the problem lies.

Countries that have abolished the death penalty in favor of life imprisonment and other forms of punishment have lower crime rates, in some cases quite drastically lower, than in countries in which the death penalty is currently practiced. Whether that is because life imprisonment is actually a more effective deterrent than is the death penalty is open to interpretation. What is obvious, however, is that the longer we sit around debating whether the death penalty has any deterrence ability or not... the less time we actually spend on overhauling the criminal justice system and finding punishments that will prove more effective in the long run than evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the death penalty has.

-----
"Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that they contain the whole truth, or the only truth." - Dana

"We live as if the world were as it should be to show others what it can be." -Angel
-----

I think that more largely depends on what you want to be an attorney in, and what your goals as an attorney are.

Attorneys are actually fairly specialized. Corporate attorneys specialize in suits that affect how a business is run. Family advocacy attorneys specialize in family law and parental rights. Special victims attorneys specialize in sex offense cases. Do you see a pattern forming here?

The thing with law school, and any school, for that matter, is that they teach generalities. For example, even if you want to be a family advocacy attorney, you still have to take one or two Torts classes and probably a Copyright and a Constitutional Law class.

If your goal was to become a family advocacy attorney, then a good undergrad major might be psychology or some form of social services. If your goal was to become a corporate attorney, then those majors wouldn't make as much sense as a business degree, because a business degree would give you a better idea of how a business operates.

I actually find it kind of funny that you seem to think that a business degree is completely useless, especially for an attorney. Many attorneys end up going into their own practice, or into partnerships with another attorney. Who better to know how to get it going successfully (other than someone who has already started a new company) than someone with a business degree?

I also disagree that pre-med and pre-law degrees are useless, particularly if you still plan on furthering your education. Even if you don't make it into med school, or law school, that degree can still help you in other ways. For example, you could switch to veterinary medicine, which would still benefit from the concepts learned in pre-med. Or you could go for a teaching degree in something such as anatomy. Or go for a nursing certification, which would still springboard you into a higher position later on.

With pre-law, you could switch majors completely and go for pretty much anything. You may not be an attorney, but you would still know your way around legal documentation and could use that to do something like start your own company. Or, you could go do something like court reporting until you can get into a law school.