MovieChat Forums > Law & Order (1990) Discussion > Let's have a talk/debate about capital p...

Let's have a talk/debate about capital punishment (the Death Penalty)

posted 8 years ago by Homer_Simpson_is_a_Smart-Guy
3 replies | jump to latest

Even though the Law & Order series takes place mostly in New York where they have not executed for years. The franchise still uses the threat of the death penalty to get confessions out of suspects. I remember in one episode Ben Stone says "Whats next we torch the homes of arsonists?, we sexually abuse those who rape?" and Van Buran when pulled into a debate on death penalty always points out there's always criminals who if they thought they'd get the chair wouldn't hesitate in taking a few cops with them. Plus someone once said if criminals thought they'd get the death penalty it would make traffic stops more terrifying if the criminals were wanted for murder and knew they'd get the chair.

So what's everyones views on this topic. Has any crime drama changed your mind on this subject. You can use quotes and episode examples if you want. (P.S I will be posting this topic on other crime drama boards).

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] novastar_6 8 years ago

I'm all for it. People always love to play the 'it's not a deterrent' card, most killers are sociopaths who don't care about anything but themselves and never think they'll be caught anyway, NOTHING is a deterrent for them, they'll do it whether they walk, get life or get the chair because in their mind it's always going to be the first option.

People also love to point out innocent people have been wrongly executed, yes they have, innocent people are also wrongly sentenced to life, wrongly arrested in the first place, people can die in jail while waiting to be convicted, so the only way to make sure NO innocent lives are ruined would be to abolish incarceration altogether and just let all the murderers and rapists walk around free to begin with, does that idea make anybody feel better?

However I do believe there's a right way to go about it, on a national level they need to start by executing the cases where there is NO doubt of their guilt, that you KNOW there's never going to be any evidence magically clearing them. Start with all the Charles Mansons, the Ted Bundys, the Drew Petersons, the Michael Petersons (not the writer who was exonerated but the newer one who not only murdered his wife like the other Petersons, but also shot his own lawyer, just TRY and convince anybody that there's no proof of his guilt then), the Dennis Raders, ALL the pedophiles who killed their victims, all the cases where everybody KNOWS they did it, and they have NO remorse, start with them and by the time all of them are executed a lot of the weaker cases would have time for new evidence to be found to exonerate them. Given the average death row inmate has almost 30 years' worth of appeals before they're executed anyway, that should be PLENTY of time especially with the forensics today.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]