Going back to the opening question.

There are two overall reasons for long delays between initial sentencing and execution. One which you don't appear to recognize, is that "prosecuted beyond all doubt" actually takes a very long time, because there are now required appeals in most cases. The reason why there ARE required appeals, is directly because of some rush to judgments having occurred in the past, and the laws were adjusted to try to prevent recurrence of that. Argue if you like, over whether such is justified, but that is why the process is very long.

The second extending element has occurred because the death penalty IS controversial. Politically especially. So some executions have been interrupted by political fights.

It seems to be a lot of fun to some people to talk tough about it, and vent their anger at some genuinely horribly destructive people, by declaring that EVERYONE who is thought to be guilty of certain crimes should die, and die quickly. But that sort of emotional response is exactly WHY the delays were put into place.

I sympathize very much with those who are furious with many of the horrid criminals, don't get me wrong in that. I emotionally want people who have committed vile acts to suffer and often be eliminated from our midst as well. But I also know enough history of real instances where someone innocent was thought to have been the murderer or whatever, and was killed by the legal system, only to discover too late that they were only convicted "beyond all doubt," because very real doubt, had been artificially hidden by everyone's blind fury.

Yes

Since death is not a repeating punishment only one victim is needed to exact punishment. The victim should do the deed if they deem it punishment. I know if someone killed my loved one I would have no problem ending their life. I would not expect someone else to do it for me. If I couldn't do it, then they would live forever in prison at everyone's expense.

If 10 victims choose death, then they should agree on the method, yes. If they couldn't, then the punishment could not be carried out and again, the guilty spends life in prison at everyone's expense until an agreement is reached.

I don't see how it could be complicated?

i fail to see how the victim of a murderer can exact
punishment on the murderer if the victim is deceased...
how does that work ?

If someone kills someone you love are you not a direct victim?
If someone rapes and murders your wife, mother or daughter even if you were not there (so you are not a survivor), doesn't that act make you a victim due to the violation and murder of someone you love?
If you kill someone I love you killed part of me and I am a victim.
Without laws, I would kill you as soon as I saw you.

Before you argue that by killing the murderer you make their loved ones victims I remind you that the murder already did that by taking someone elses life. Their disregard for others made their loved ones victims already.

i would only answer with the christian moral values our country
is supposedly based upon....

vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord...Thou shalt not kill..

When the state kills a convict as a capitol punishment it makes everyone that is part of the state killers. Whether you personally agreed to it or not.

The moral values are not solely Christian that this country is based upon.
Plus, Christianity is not the only source of similar moral values.
Christianity is a religion based on Christ. The 10 Commandments were decreed before Christ was around so even those are not based in Christianity.
Plus, China was established as a civilization long before the Middle East.
Africa is the human exodus point where our species acted together to explore the world so some morals are based on African tribal customs as well.

The sad fact is that if you remove civilization and the morals that are forced upon us then humans are killers. Remove law and order you will see murder all around you because that is the nature of our species when not contained.

who said anything about removing law and order from our
society...i don't see anything wrong with removing those
who commit offences and imprisoning them even for life w/o
parole if necessary...i just don't see the the need to
kill them to appease the crowds thirst for vengeance...

i'm against the death penalty, not law and order...

power can corrupt
juries can misinterpret instructions or definitions
lawyers can suppress information

so we have an appeals process to ensure that the 'beyond a doubt' conviction was truly obtained 'above board'

I hope we never lose it.

Wow, you completely missed the intent of that statement.
I wrote:

It says civilization and morals, law and order is needed.


A crowd is a specific set of people. The state is all people that make up the state. IF...The state of Kansas sets a death penalty punishment law and executes a convicted murderer all of the people of Kansas killed the convict. If the conviction is appealed and taken to federal court and loses, the whole nation is taking part in the Kansas execution.

This is because of the nature of our government. The state entity represents the will of the people of that state. The Federal entity represents the people of the nation. These entities act in accordance with the will of the majority of the pool of people they represent.


This implies that the judgement process is not accurate. That there is doubt in the 'beyond a doubt' judgement. We elect judges and select juries to make a final judgement. The appeals process renders that final judgement null because more judgement is done. However, when a case goes to the highest court the final judgement is then active.
Its like saying the original court is derelict and should never be trusted. So why not just make the final court the only court? What is the point of making a judgement and rendering a verdict if the judgement process is incomplete.
An appeal says, "Hey, wait a minute, something isn't right!" This usually happens AFTER a verdict of "Guilty" is determined. I personally have never heard of an appeal after a verdict of "Not Guilty". That implies that we trust the lower courts sometimes but not all the time.

Personally I am happy we have the ability to appeal to a higher court. It does confirm that the process of judgement is derelict tho. An appeal either confirms the first judgement or over-turns it. If it over-turns the first judgement then that means the defense process was incomplete and that judgement was made on something besides the facts. In contrast, how many 'Not Guilty" verdicts are made without all the facts?

I'm happy we have the safeguard of the appeals process available.
I just feel it should be a matter of "I hope we never need it" instead of "I hope we never lose it".

I have come to learn ... if you have someone that has the death penalty with out parole... then why wait ... should never give the death penalty... when they can appeal it ...
and do not have the death penalty in this case ...

We waste so much on a Person as it is ...
with what should just be a misdemeanor ...

sure their are serial killers out there ...
you find the evidence their should be...
nothing more to think about ...
give them life or mediated death...

but some in up trying to kill them selves...
and succeeded... I say good ...
least their not making the tax payers
...pay anymore for them ...
may sound cold ...

but some prisons are very depressing ...
and a shame they can not get the $ for mental health groups ...
so they throw them in jail ... and not treat them very well ...
I know its not a play ground ... but with some surroundings it makes them feel worse ... and if those get out ... may end up right back in ... becouse they can't get the help they need ... and its not the prisons guards fault either ... and now in certain cities where crime is way up their going in to school seeking those that may want to be a police officer in that city and are shown what the police go through ... never said how many ended up doing the profession ... they thought they wanted to do ...

Agreed

There are homeless people that live in far worse conditions than death row inmates. Three hots and a cot would be pleasant for some homeless people. People that did not commit a crime.

Another thing that gets me is that a convicted killer often has more rights and afforded more dignity than a homeless person on the street. People that did not commit a crime.

In many countries people convicted of crimes lose their rights and their dignity. Their prisons are hell compared to the US.

Prisons exist to remove anti-social people from society. They are no longer citizens of that society. If they are not citizens they should not be afforded the same rights as citizens. As it is, the only right they lose is freedom.

When our rights as citizens are given to non-citizens it cheapens the value of our rights. For some, prison is a step up in their quality of life. That is not much of a deterrent.

A life sentence for a murderer means that the state will foot the bill to make that person comfortable for the rest of their lives. Free food, shelter from the weather and medical care. More than some free, law abiding citizens have. Even when someone gets a death sentence they have more rights than some people.

When you go to trial and are found guilty and sentenced to prison you go to prison as soon as you leave court. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
If you get sentenced to death, you should be killed as soon as you leave court. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. End of story.

I do not believe we should strive to treat people the WORST possible , even if they committed crimes. The way the homeless may be treated is by people who are not being paid and reflects the character of humans interacting with humans,, it is not a structured and paid environment,,,noone is making a career of mistreating the homeless.


I also do not know of any 'right' a killer has over a homeless person has. I believe that having material needs and having 'rights' are not the same thing.


There is also no crime I know of that removes a persons citizenship status, besides maybe treason?

the right to FREEDOM is one of the most significant rights citizens have

freedom to 'earn' money with which they can use to purchase needs and WANTS
freedom to 'earn' money and quibble with politicians about how much they can keep
freedom to assemble peacefully with friends or family
freedom to choose a residence
freedom to raise their families
freedom to live their day however they choose

these are MAJOR things most take for granted and HUGE things to be taken away from someone


a life sentence means a person will be kept alive(food shelter and medical) to no longer have their most TANTAMOUNT and distinctive American right,, freedom


humans make mistakes, so leaving the power to end ones life in the hands of one JUDGE or 12 jurors of varying educational levels regarding justice and law is not the best idea

the appeals process that allows a PANEL of people all educated in the constitution is what makes the process 'civilized' ,, without it we lean towards being a culture of mob justice,,,,

I'm fairly cold-hearted about all this. I've looked at how governments and societies deal with destructive people for a very long time. I've had friends murdered and attacked. And I've seen how little good it has ever done to take a "punishment" approach to dealing with any of it.

The kind of crimes which warrant a death penalty, are not committed by the kind of people who are dissuaded by the degree of punishment involved. That is at the core of what I've concluded. So any argument based on using the death penalty as deterrence, seems to be functionless. Similarly, torturing criminals in prison accomplishes nothing either, and causes us to turn law abiding citizens into vile monsters in order to carry out such punishments.

My VERY cold-hearted conclusion, is that our goal should always be to protect as much of our people as we can, from the damage that such people do. Nothing else. The only way to carry out a death "penalty" approach while preserving justice, is to accept very high cost, and long conviction processes. Life in prison is cheaper, and allows us to use criminals for study. So while I would not lift a finger to keep certain criminals alive (I wont protest the death penalty for moral reasons), I also support switching away from it, as functionally ineffective and expensive. I would much rather put the money towards medical exploration of why people kill, and find ways to prevent people from BECOMING candidates for Death Penalties.

DO you think there is a 'why' beyond circumstance, environment, and conditioning?

It is already known that there often is. It still isn't known if there always is.

Brain injuries have been known to cause people to go from nice and peaceful to paranoid and murderous. And there's the infamous double Y chromosome, which last I heard is still a little controversial, but still seriously discussed.

I'm convinced myself, that some things that are attributed to upbringing, are actually genetic. After all, when your parents raise you, and your father or mother is abusive, and you grow up to be abusive as well, is that JUST because you were taught to be, or is it that both you AND your father suffered from the same DNA defect? This isn't known yet. But since many examples exist where several children resulted from a parent who was violent, and all of the children grew up in the exact same environment and had the exact same circumstances and conditioning, but only SOME of them ended up crazy...that suggests to me, that there is logically another factor to consider. I'm betting on subtleties of genetics.

I always figured that even in the same household two people don't have the 'exact' same experience

there are differences in how they are treated, and what they absorb when they are outside the home, they have different and unique experiences even in the same home,,,,with the same parents,,,,

which is why I lean towards an individuals experiences as part of the 'conditioning' that lends to the individual they grow to be

If you have a drug dealer type and a wealthy family and at birth gave them the wrong babies how would they turn out?

that is one of many questions posed in nature vs nurture , isn't it?

I believe strongly that a baby in a wealthy family has an ADVANTAGE, but that advantage alone cannot say for sure how they will turn out.

Just like a baby with all their limbs has an ADVANTAGE over one with a disabled limb, yet because that is only one of so many things that can contribute to who they become,, it is also nothing that can predict the end game for that baby.

As stated above, even within the same family and home, individual children will still life life with unique and individual experiences.

A wealthy drug dealer.

You can blame someone's behavior on any factor you choose but the simple fact is that they chose to do what they did.
Even a lunatic that is homicidal chooses who they kill. Otherwise they would kill everyone they meet, immediately, as long as they live. They wouldn't have selection.

On the argument of nature vs nurture I found this paper
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones.html
Written by Caitlin M. Jones on Genetic and Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior

IMO there should be no waiting period for death sentences.
If they are found GUILTY during TRIAL and SENTENCED to DEATH they need to be ended ASAP. End of story / Done Deal.

I have lived 55 years and never had to defend myself on murder charges. That is because I don't murder people and I don't put myself in situations where someone may think that I murdered someone. If I was set-up, I would make sure my defense was effective enough to exonerate me. My life would depend on it.