An executioner has lifted the lid on his chilling life in the death chamber and said his experience has made him oppose capital punishment.

Jerry Givens, 55, who has killed 62 prisoners over 17 years, spoke openly about the horrific moment convicts are electrocuted. "It's quick, just like turning your light switch off or on."

Givens - who was chief executioner for Virginia from 1982 to 1999 - told how he prayed with the condemned before they died to help them repent.

The former prison officer said he started to have serious doubts about his job as DNA technology proved people had been wrongly executed.

In a US TV interview, he added: "Taking a life is not pleasant. Then you say this guy is innocent. I performed the execution, I'm going to suffer."

Givens, who left his prison job in 2000, had to keep his post a secret, even from his wife.

The death penalty is still carried out in 36 American states.
go

We have just banned the death penalty in Jersey and the only reason I would agree with the decision, is if there were innocent people on death row....What I don't agree with is those that have been convicted with evidence up the ying yang, being excused from this.......We have two men right now who deserved the death penalty....One was the killer of Megan (Megan's Law), and the other accused and convicted of killing his wife......These two were guilty as hell, and now as taxpayers we can pay for them to have life imprisonment.......I'm sure other States will be following us, but I definitely wonder about Texas..

The death penalty is necessary in some situations BUT only after there is enough uncontestable evidence(ie witness accounts, DNA tests) that the person is guilty without a doubt.

Why is that?

Good question

The "some situations" I'm referring to are the convicted serial killers, serial rapists, and pedophiles. The need(they feel) to commit these crimes can't be rehabilitated. Isn't that what our penal system is about, rehabilitation?

edited to add: if we can't rehabilitate, what are the other options?

But why is the death penalty necessary even then? If they can't be rehabilitated, or if rehabilitation is too risky, why not instutitute a sentence of life with no chance ever of parole and just stick them someplace until they die?

Because my tax paying dollars could be paying for so many different things, like public education. Let's weigh this out
Housing, food, medical and education for a convicted POS for the rest of his life OR
housing, food, medical and education for fellow citizen(s) for a shorter period of time(until they are not in need)

Also, there have been jail breaks in the past from medium/maximum security prisons. When he escapes, what give him chance to commit another crime?

Neo: I almost died at the hands of a really sick person. My opinion on this issue will not change soon, if not EVER.

That's fine. Most who feel how you do are coming from an emotional standpoint and won't change their ideas no matter what the logic.

but allow me to examine your points:


Well, unless you do away with the appeals system
A pillar of the american ideal
it costs as much or more to execute someone in the US
Also, for someone like me who believes in the sanctity of ALL human life, cost will never be an issue that can justify state sanctioned execution




But they are rare. I'll wager that more innocent people have been put to death than guilty people escaped prison.

So it's logical the victim should feel emotions but it's illogical for us to take these feeling into consideration with our concept of Justice?



Or the sanctity of the sanctimonious preaching.



How can you say it's rare, if you don't know.
Also what about those released by the parole boards early, but then go onto re-offend?

Both good points, I must admit.
you said all human life, there are some that don't qualify as human (an opinion)
I also think the punishment should fit the crime. Remember I'm talking about serials here.
Neo, you may view my opinions as extreme, swayed by emotions and somewhat illogical, maybe downright wrong, BUT that's all it is.
But this isn't a debate. Or is it?

Yes.

We've disagreed on this before, and it's a fundamental disagreement we'll just have to acknowledge.

Fortunately, the US justice system functions without emotion.

The law should be administered without predudice or emotion.



Escapes in the US from maximum security prisons are rare.

That's apparently a fundamental disagreement we're going to be stuck on.

But at least I'm learning about your point of view and why you think the way you do, and that's helpfull.



I don't believe in punishment for the sake of punishment either.

Our penal system is based on punishment, rehabilitation for those who can be. With that belief, does that mean we shouldn't have a penal system?
Punishment is an essential concept that must be learned and accepted at a very young age.
An example:
Ok, if my son scribbled all over my walls with crayons(which he knows is against the rules), would I be wrong if I took the crayons away(correction), told him to scrub the mess away with a magic eraser(punishment), ask for an apology(atonement), then showed him the proper materials to scribble on (rehabilitation)?

Fair enough, as long as it's acknowledged, I thought you might not have 'got it.'
Agree to disagree.

No, of course not. I believe that punishment is good as long as it is a part of rehabilitation. When it is simply for the sake of punishment, it is not productive.
I don't believe in punishing simply for the sake of "getting even" or just to punish.




That is part of forming his character and behavior, he is a child. You are using punishment as a part of rehabilitation
If you savagely beat him and locked him in his room for 5 hours and did not teach him how to behave, it would be folly and you would create a worse kid who is now learning how to be angry and violent.

Oh god... it gets worse.
Anyway, I believe the US Justice system is based on the fundamental principle of Punishment. Rehabilitation has nothing to do with it.

Our Penal system has gone through a lot of changes. At one time, it was purely punishment. Then there was a swing towards rehabilitation.

it is pure folly and stupidity to punish a criminal without a real emphasis on rehabilitation if they are ever going to get out.

Punishment without rehabilitation
just makes a harder criminal

Because, I'm sure someone will come along and argue that a life-sentence goes against the 'Sanctity of life' and is a form of torture..
What is 'life,' if the person isn't living a full life?

That's an illogical statement.
You are taking my position
and exaggerating it to an absurd degree
So instead your answer is to kill everyone?
I'm glad that the rest of society disagrees with you
becasue I would not want to live in a society like you describe

You're already living it baby... you just don't realise...

Justice. If someone killed your child or wife, would you not want their life taken. I would.

In another thread, he said, if he was in that positon.. then yes he would want to take their life!.. but only because he's emotional, and those emotions must be disregarded because he's thinking irrationally.. Nothing will bring his wife back.. so those feeling are worthless.. the only important thing is whether the guy who killed his wife is treated with dignity and respect and the vague notion of the 'sanctity of life' is upheld.

A killer deserves no "sanctity". These people who believe in no death would all sing different tunes if the tables were turned. I say lets cut the time on death row down to 6 months.

Death Penalty should stand, its the judges that are held with that responsibilty to see if someone is deserving of living or dying. But it should be held on a case by case basis and not on the peoples' emotions or a moral outrage to abolish it. Some maybe deserving death cause they show no signs of remorse or willingness to stop.

I believe if a person shows remorse of his terrible act and realizes the lives he has effected and knows that he can never forget the error of his ways and knowing life is precious. Then deserves to live in prison for the rest of his life or less depending on his sentence and act.

agreed!
It annoys me, some people can't imagine how other people feel who have experienced the murder of a member of their family.

I can imagine it. It's not an issue of not understanding how people feel.

But the law is applied without emotion or regard to emotion.


And to clarify, if GOD FORBID, someone did something to my wife, I would FEEL a desire to kill them. But I would not be coming from a logical place any longer. When I hit my head on an open cabinet, I want to slam the cabinet and maybe even punch it. but thost are illogical and emotional responses. I hope that I would be able to see clearly through the cloud of my grief and still oppose the death penalty. I don't know if I could overcome the emotions for such a horrible event, though. Which is why the law is applied without prejudice or emotion.



It amazes me how some people consider themselves patriots while attacking the very foundations of our free society.

I guess my love of my wife would make me seek justice. The ulitmate justice.Heck, I would pull the lever Of course, I believe in the death penalty.

At least you admit it. I will give you this, you are consistent. You don't believe in abortion or the death penalty. If a person believes that life should not be taken it has to apply to everyone.

i would prefer unemployment .. to that job.

I wonder how he didn't like being an excecutioner, and yet he was on the job for about 17 years.

It's always bothered me that some people want to place such a high value on Life that they would eliminate the death penalty.
To me, eliminating the death penalty actually cheapens the value of Life.
Isn't the death penalty actually placing a very high value on Life -- the life of the victim(s).
In effect, it's saying, "The life (or lives) you cut short, that you ended with terror, torture or pain, with no regard, are so highly valued that the only atonement you can possibly offer is to forefeit your own life."
The death penalty makes the offender pay with their life for taking the life of another. Sounds like a very high value is placed on Life --- the life of the victim.
At the same time, those who hide or manufacture evidence that results in a man being wrongfully executed should also be executed. This would apply to police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, lab technicians, etc.
It must be a willful act. They must KNOW that their action will result in a conviction with the possibility of execution. Mistakes should be punished, but not with execution. People make mistakes. But again, if the act was done willfully and with the knowledge that you may be sentencing someone to die, then you should also pay with your life if that person is wrongfully executed.
Similarly, I have never understood the concept of a reduced sentence for attempted murder. Attempted murder only means that either you screwed up, or were thwarted in your plans, but if you had been successful your victim would be dead. So let's impose the same punishment for attempted murder as we do for murder --- and if the murder you plan is particularly heinous, you should foreit your life.
Amy Fisher went to Joey Buttafuco's house and, when Joey's wife answered the door, shot her in the face. The woman was left paralyzed. Amy spent a mere 7 years in prison. She's out now, trying to garner sympathy. She should have been executed. Perhaps Joey should have been executed too, since he planned the crime with Amy.
As for method of execution, I prefer the firing squad. It's quick, simple and foolproof.
When the mass killer Gary Gilmore was executed here in Utah in 1976, it was done by firing squad. Six Utah Higwhay Patrolmen stood before him, each with a .30-30 rifle. Gary was strapped to a chair, a hood over his face and a target pinned over his heart. The officers fired at command, in unison.
Witnesses reported that at the blast, Gilmore straightened up in his chair and slumped over.
The .30-30 has probably killed more deer (a man-sized animal) than any other cartridge. Having six bullets slam into your heart simultaneously would effect instant death. Because of massive shock to the system, I don't believe you'd have time to register pain.
Combat veterans often report nothing more than a blow when they're hit. The pain seeps in moments later.
For Gary Gilmore there was no later moment.
Those who fond of saying that capitol punishment in the U.S. does not deter crime conveniently fail to point out one fact: It doesn't work as it's currently applied. A prisoner, no matter the preponderance of evidence, will sit on death row for years, perhaps decades. In the meantime, he gets a college degree, files endless appeals and switches lawyers time and again.
He's bored. He's got nothing else to do. Filing endless appeals keeps him occupied.
If there is absolutely no doubt of the murderer's guilt, he should be executed within six months, or sooner.
This would re-instill the fear of the death penalty in would-be murderers.
There is no fear of the death penalty today because so relatively few are actually executed.
There is little fear of actually being executed, but there is another fear that U.S. criminals today must face: an armed citizenry.
Approximately 35 states in the U.S. allow law-abiding citizens to obtain a concealed weapon permit, so they may carry a handgun on their person.
States who have adopted the Right To Carry concept have seen a significant reduction in violent crime, according to U.S. Department of Justice statistics.
It makes sense, after all. Would you prey on the local citizens if you might find yourself looking down the business end of a .38?
The police cannot be everywhere to protect you, or it may take them precious minutes to respond. Self-protection is not only an age-old concept, it's a right.
Let's protect society and we law-abiding citizens by making the criminals pay, with their lives if it is justified.