NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html


Associated Press
Tuesday, November 22, 2005; Page A02

HOUSTON -- A decade after Ruben Cantu was executed for capital murder, the only witness to the crime is recanting and his co-defendant says Cantu, then 17, was not even with him that night.

The victim was shot nine times with a rifle during an attempted robbery before the gunman shot the only witness.

That witness, Juan Moreno, told the Houston Chronicle for its Sunday editions that Cantu was not the killer. Moreno said he identified him at the 1985 trial because he felt pressured and feared authorities.

Cantu, who had maintained his innocence, was executed on Aug. 24, 1993, at age 26. "Texas murdered an innocent person," co-defendant David Garza said.

Sam D. Millsap Jr., the district attorney who handled the case, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from a witness who identified a suspect only after police showed him a photo three times.

So, if you support the death penalty, please explain why this is justifiable.

I support the death penalty in EXTREME cases, preferably with plenty of proof. Serial killers, slaveowners, that sort of thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html

So, if you support the death penalty, please explain why this is justifiable.
Who said it was justifiable? The legal system is a human construct and, like anything constructed by humans, is prone to error. Sad, but true.

Have to wonder if the original poster is saying that wrongful sentencing is justified when the sentence is not death.

Who said it was justifiable? The legal system is a human construct and, like anything constructed by humans, is prone to error. Sad, but true.

The point being that if the man had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he would now be a free man. As it is, he is dead. Since humans are prone to error, it would be best to have a justice system that allows the state to redress its errors.

Have to wonder if the original poster is saying that wrongful sentencing is justified when the sentence is not death.

When the sentence is not death a wrongful sentence can be cut short upon discovery that it is wrong, and the person wrongly sentenced compensated.

If you know your justice system isn't infallible it is the height of idiocy to have it hand out irreversible punishments.

Have to wonder if the original poster is saying that wrongful sentencing is justified when the sentence is not death.

No. I'm simply trying to have a thread about capital punishment and the inherent inability to redress a wrongful sentence.

But for a second you made me feel creepy about myself.:eek:

When the sentence is not death a wrongful sentence can be cut short upon discovery that it is wrong, and the person wrongly sentenced compensated.

If you know your justice system isn't infallible it is the height of idiocy to have it hand out irreversible punishments.

If you sentence someone to prison, and let them out after a few years, that doesn't reverse the years they spent there.

So, if you support the death penalty, please explain why this is justifiable.

I don't support the death penalty but this is a weak argument - the same thing happens to people who are put in prison for the rest of their lives and die there - this is a problem with a justice system, not the death penalty

Here we call ourselves a civilized country when we kill men and, when it turns out they're innocent, shrug and say "Well, the system is flawed, but necessary. Now let's fill up that syringe again."

The point being that if the man had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he would now be a free man. As it is, he is dead. Since humans are prone to error, it would be best to have a justice system that allows the state to redress its errors.

And how do you give someone back decades of being locked up in prison, decades of being told when to wake up, when to sleep, when to eat, being raped, beaten, etc.?

If a sentence is wrong, then it's wrong, and cannot be justified or redressed to the satisfaction of the victim of the error.

Obviously, the decade of appeals for this man did not work in his favor.

And why did the witness recant now?

Why not before the guy was executed?

Why wait until ten years after the fact? :(

I would like to have a word or two with that 'witness'...

I support the death penalty in EXTREME cases, preferably with plenty of proof. Serial killers, slaveowners, that sort of thing.

Yeah, people like Saddam deserve it, or life-long incarceration.

Its a problem with the legal system in general. The legal system as it stands is based on an us vs them mentality where both sides are trying to win at all costs, for their entire career is largely dependant on the ratio of wins to losses. Prosecutors are tasked with finding a person guilty regardless of what the truth may be and with having them sentenced to the maximum possible regardless of how much they actually deserve. If the system were focused on uncovering the truth rather than being a battle between the state and the defense, then these types of things could be minimized. The problem is, how do you do that? How do you stack the system in favor of uncovering the truth rather than in favor of encouraging competition?

The point being that if the man had been sentenced to life imprisonment, he would now be a free man. As it is, he is dead. Since humans are prone to error, it would be best to have a justice system that allows the state to redress its errors.

The problem is most people who have been jailed for a long time actually become very violent and transform into criminals.

And how do you give someone back decades of being locked up in prison, decades of being told when to wake up, when to sleep, when to eat, being raped, beaten, etc.?
In no way, perhaps. But every futile attempt will be met by that someone's EXISTENCE. Ponder.

If you know your justice system isn't infallible it is the height of idiocy to have it hand out irreversible punishments.

Yeah, well, mankind is rather known for taking irreversible actions. We create toxins that will outlast our civilization, destroy entire species, and make reality TV programming. Any one of these would qualify us as having reached the "height of idiocy."

Weighed against these and other equally appalling-yet-permanent atrocities, of what consequence is the life of one man? Well, I mean, as long as it isn't me, or someone I like, of course.

Why did the Witness WAIT 12 years before saying that? It's on his hands just as much as it's on the court's hands. It was bound to happen.

Though I am sad that it happened.

Its a problem with the legal system in general. The legal system as it stands is based on an us vs them mentality where both sides are trying to win at all costs, for their entire career is largely dependant on the ratio of wins to losses. Prosecutors are tasked with finding a person guilty regardless of what the truth may be and with having them sentenced to the maximum possible regardless of how much they actually deserve. If the system were focused on uncovering the truth rather than being a battle between the state and the defense, then these types of things could be minimized. The problem is, how do you do that? How do you stack the system in favor of uncovering the truth rather than in favor of encouraging competition?

How about this---the side that obstructs truth must suffer the same penalty as the wrongfully convicted person, up to and including death?

Of course, one would have to prove that either side did not work to uncover truth, but to obscure and obstruct it.

And how do you give someone back decades of being locked up in prison, decades of being told when to wake up, when to sleep, when to eat, being raped, beaten, etc.?

If a sentence is wrong, then it's wrong, and cannot be justified or redressed to the satisfaction of the victim of the error.

Obviously, the decade of appeals for this man did not work in his favor.

The case in question sums up why I'm against capital punishment. So long as there is a possibility of a wrongful conviction, I will not support the death penalty.

As to how you give someone back decades of being locked up in prison, the answer is: You don't. But there is the possibility of economic compensation to repair some of the damage done, even if it would only be a small step.

In this case, Cantu would be 35 years old today. So he would probably have some years left to live, maybe together with his family, if he was freed from prison after this new information came to light - had he not been executed when he was 26 years old.

It's a shame...

Execution? Executing innocent men? In Texas? This is not a news item.

Its a problem with the legal system in general. The legal system as it stands is based on an us vs them mentality where both sides are trying to win at all costs, for their entire career is largely dependant on the ratio of wins to losses. Prosecutors are tasked with finding a person guilty regardless of what the truth may be and with having them sentenced to the maximum possible regardless of how much they actually deserve. If the system were focused on uncovering the truth rather than being a battle between the state and the defense, then these types of things could be minimized. The problem is, how do you do that? How do you stack the system in favor of uncovering the truth rather than in favor of encouraging competition?
Come up with a better one.

If you sentence someone to prison, and let them out after a few years, that doesn't reverse the years they spent there.

Yes, just go right ahead and ignore the first statement I made and pretend like it isn't obvious that I know that.

How about this---the side that obstructs truth must suffer the same penalty as the wrongfully convicted person, up to and including death?

Interestingly, this is similar to Jewish law regarding perjury. A false witness for the prosecution suffers the same punishment he wanted to do to that person (with certain exceptions). If he tried to get the guy executed, he is executed.

I do agree that perhaps we should approach this more from a perspective of trying to find out what happened. But we should keep the "innocent until proven guilty" part. Better to let a guilty man walk free than to condemn an innocent man.

Who said it was justifiable? The legal system is a human construct and, like anything constructed by humans, is prone to error. Sad, but true.
Couldn't have put it better if I tried.

Who said it was justifiable? The legal system is a human construct and, like anything constructed by humans, is prone to error. Sad, but true.

Yes I agree, I still support the death penalty after this case. I think it was an abberation. The ones that lied on the stand need to stand trial for this. Other than lying under oath I dont know what else they could charge them with.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html




So, if you support the death penalty, please explain why this is justifiable.

Because the penalty is not responsible for the error of the conviction.

Yes I agree, I still support the death penalty after this case. I think it was an abberation. The ones that lied on the stand need to stand trial for this. Other than lying under oath I dont know what else they could charge them with.

Simple - murder by proxy. They wilfully performed actions they knew would lead to the mans dead. The fact that they didn't perform the actual termination action themselves is irrelevant: they caused it adn they could have prevented it.

Because the penalty is not responsible for the error of the conviction. It's not hard to understand - had the penalty not been in place, he would be alive today at 35 years old. What is the point of a justice system that executed innocent men? In prison, he would have lost several years of his life - with the death penalty, he lost his whole life, plus the fact that anyone who knew him is permanently affected.

It's not hard to understand - had the penalty not been in place, he would be alive today at 35 years old.

Had the system which convicted him not wrongly condemned innocent people of crimes, he would also be alive. Had the crime not been committed, he would be alive. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

What is the point of a justice system that executed innocent men?

What is the point of a justice system that imprisoned innocent men? You really think thats somehow more just? The fact is, if the punishment is so final and traumatic one must endeavor to make the justice system better so it doesn't fall on the wrong head. Not remove the punishment entirely.

Or are you the sort of guy who thinks policemen should have their hands cut off because a few of them wind up beating people? I

The fact is, if the punishment is so final and traumatic one must endeavor to make the justice system better so it doesn't fall on the wrong head. Not remove the punishment entirely.


Or... you could just not kill people.... :confused:

Or... you could just not kill people.... :confused:

Yeah, we could just keep murderers alive, at taxpayer expense, for their whole lives. Heck why even put them in prison at all? We don't want to wrongly imprison an innocent person. Let's just hope everyone gets along and if they don't, the government will write them a strongly-worded letter!

We don't want to wrongly imprison an innocent person.

Well.....yeah I thought. :confused:

Well.....yeah I thought. :confused:

Right. We don't want to execute the wrong people, so let's do away with executions.

We don't want to imprison the wrong people, so let's do away with prison sentences.

Is that your argument? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Right. We don't want to execute the wrong people, so let's do away with executions.

We don't want to imprison the wrong people, so let's do away with prison sentences.

Is that your argument? :confused: :confused: :confused:
That's a silly thing to say SB. Execution is a bit more final than imprisonment. Being wrongly imprisoned is surely better than being wrongly executed. Then again, with prison sex being the way it is....

Well still.

Oh wait...are you doing one of these things (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9976550&postcount=1)?

Right. We don't want to execute the wrong people, so let's do away with executions.

We don't want to imprison the wrong people, so let's do away with prison sentences.

Is that your argument? :confused: :confused: :confused:

ROFLMAO!

No... no it isn't. This is my argument: We don't want to execute the wrong people, so let's do away with executions

We don't want to imprison the wrong people

How is that so hard to grasp?

That's a silly thing to say SB. Execution is a bit more final than imprisonment. Being wrongly imprisoned is surely better than being wrongly executed. Then again, with prison sex being the way it is....

Well still.

I don't know. Getting raped up the asshole every night and day for 15 years just might not be in any way better than being executed, if you ask me.

No... no it isn't. This is my argument: We don't want to execute the wrong people, so let's do away with executions

We don't want to imprison the wrong people

How is that so hard to grasp?

It's not hard to grasp. It's just illogical. If it's wrong to punish someone for a crime they didn't do - and it is - then do away with that punishment. THAT is your argument. If you're saying it's actually OK to punish someone for the wrong crime when that punishment is "only" a majority of their lifetime and freedom, you're not being consistent.

I don't know. Getting raped up the asshole every night and day for 15 years just might not be in any way better than being executed, if you ask me. Yeah, I kind of agree...then again, you might just learn to like it, and it would stop being rape.

Then again, not all prisoners are raped. So really.



It's not hard to grasp. It's just illogical. If it's wrong to punish someone for a crime they didn't do - and it is - then do away with that punishment. THAT is your argument. If you're saying it's actually OK to punish someone for the wrong crime when that punishment is "only" a majority of their lifetime and freedom, you're not being consistent.
It makes sense to me. The hope being that if you are wrongly imprisoned, you have the chance of having your case retried and voila! You're out, and suing for millions! Execution kind of does away with that possibility. He's not saying it's okay that the wrong person gets imprisoned for life...but executing them removes the chance of fixing the mistake. That's not inconsistant.


Just because it seems logical to read this:

We don't want to execute the wrong people, so let's do away with executions.
We don't want to imprison the wrong people.

And then follow the pattern by tacking on 'so let's do away with prison sentences'...you shouldn't assume that's what he must believe in order for the first statement to be true.

It's not hard to grasp. It's just illogical. If it's wrong to punish someone for a crime they didn't do - and it is - then do away with that punishment. THAT is your argument. If you're saying it's actually OK to punish someone for the wrong crime when that punishment is "only" a majority of their lifetime and freedom, you're not being consistent.

I stated my argument- be so kind as to not rephrase and twist what I said to meet your argument.

If it's wrong to punish someone for a crime they didn't do, then do away with that punishment
And the faulty system that caused such an event shouldn't be changed at all then? Riight.

Death is final- imprisionment is not. Once you take an innocents life away, it cannot be given back. You can at the very least attempt to correct the mistake by releasing the innocent from a lenghty sentence. At the very least they are still alive.

Edit:Sinuhue got in there first. Thank you for realising my point. ;)

I support the death penalty in EXTREME cases, preferably with plenty of proof. Serial killers, slaveowners, that sort of thing.
Ding!

I stated my argument- be so kind as to not rephrase and twist what I said to meet your argument.


Sorry, in the future I will attempt not to apply logical consistency to your argument. ;)


And the faulty system that caused such an event shouldn't be changed at all then? Riight.

No, it SHOULD. THAT is what you should be putting your energy into, not in castrating the justice system on the offchance that it might punish the innocent so we may as well punish the innocent AND the guilty less.


Death is final- imprisionment is not. Once you take an innocents life away, it cannot be given back. You can at the very least attempt to correct the mistake by releasing the innocent from a lenghty sentence. At the very least they are still alive.

I happen to value my freedom as much as I value my life. I don't think it's "oh, at least I'm still alive" if I happen to have no freedom. And imprisonment sure is final if it eats up half your life, your freedom, and your anal virginity.

Once you take an innocent man's freedom away it's taken away. You can release him later but what's gone is gone. And if happens to die in prison? Oh well, right?

Yeah, I kind of agree...then again, you might just learn to like it, and it would stop being rape.

Then again, not all prisoners are raped. So really.


Somehow I bet I'd get a lot more shit if for example, in the women get blamed for rape thread, saying "Maybe women might just learn to like being raped, and it would stop being rape." Oh well.

And it's true that not all prisoners are raped. It's also that true that not all prisoners are innocent.

It makes sense to me. The hope being that if you are wrongly imprisoned, you have the chance of having your case retried and voila! You're out, and suing for millions! Execution kind of does away with that possibility. He's not saying it's okay that the wrong person gets imprisoned for life...but executing them removes the chance of fixing the mistake. That's not inconsistant.

Kind of like a magical wipe-on, wipe-off punishment! Erasable justice! Invisible ink prison! How nice it is that prison is so inconsequential and death is not. Except we all die, but not everyone spends half or more of their life in prison.

Suing for millions doesn't make up for injustice. Nothing does.


Just because it seems logical to read this:

We don't want to execute the wrong people, so let's do away with executions.
We don't want to imprison the wrong people.

And then follow the pattern by tacking on 'so let's do away with prison sentences'...you shouldn't assume that's what he must believe in order for the first statement to be true.

True? No. Consistent? Yes. But as I said I've done away with assuming anyone who argues against the death penalty need be consistent. Let's address the "true" part.

We don't want to execute the wrong people, so let's do away with convicting innocent people.

We don't want to imprison the wrong people, so let's do away with convicting innocent people.

What I'm seeing here from you guys is that you don't think prison is that bad, but you do see death as horrible. Which tells me that you value life far more than freedom. So would you say to the survivors of nazi concentration camps, "Hey, at least they only took away your dignity and freedom and the best years of your life right?"

Yes I agree, I still support the death penalty after this case. I think it was an abberation. The ones that lied on the stand need to stand trial for this. Other than lying under oath I dont know what else they could charge them with.

Let's see...

Perjury
Contempt
Obstruction of Justice
Negligent Homocide

And that's all on the criminal side. Let's not forget the civil courts potential for this. Of course, I'm not a lawyer

So would you say to the survivors of nazi concentration camps
Well you see, now you've just gone and ruined your whole point by Godwining yourself. Sorry mate. ;)

Have to wonder if the original poster is saying that wrongful sentencing is justified when the sentence is not death.
No they are both not jutified ... but one is perminant and the other is not

Well you see, now you've just gone and ruined your whole point by Godwining yourself. Sorry mate. ;)

No. Mentioning a situation in which someone is robbed of life, liberty and freedom is relevant to a discussion in which you are trivializing that robbery by saying it's reversable.

Godwin's law (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/30/33339/3949) does NOT mean "the first person in an argument to refer to Hitler or the Nazis loses the argument."

Nice try though. ;)

Had the system which convicted him not wrongly condemned innocent people of crimes, he would also be alive. Had the crime not been committed, he would be alive. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

But we know that the system is flawed, and we have little (if any) hope of making it perfect. So maybe we should take every precaution to try to make sure that the consequences of a mistake is not irreversible, irreparable and final - like the death penalty is, but a regular jailsentence is not.


The fact is, if the punishment is so final and traumatic one must endeavor to make the justice system better so it doesn't fall on the wrong head. Not remove the punishment entirely.

But you could, as many have indicated, change the type of punishment. I don't see anybody arguing that punishment should be removed in its entirety.


Oh, and I don't normaly do this, but since you brought it up: Have you asked the survivors of concentration camps who are alive today if they would rather have been executed the day they came to the camp, instead of surviving through the horrors and living for 60 years after?

I happen to value my freedom as much as I value my life. I don't think it's "oh, at least I'm still alive" if I happen to have no freedom. And imprisonment sure is final if it eats up half your life, your freedom, and your anal virginity.

Once you take an innocent man's freedom away it's taken away. You can release him later but what's gone is gone. And if happens to die in prison? Oh well, right? No, not oh well. The faint ray of hope is that the mistake would be discovered and the innocent person would be set free. It's not that I think prison is better than death. Wait. Yes I do, because as horrible as prison is, at least you are alive. If you get executed wrongly, there is no more ray of hope.



Somehow I bet I'd get a lot more shit if for example, in the women get blamed for rape thread, saying "Maybe women might just learn to like being raped, and it would stop being rape." Oh well. Hmmm. Well. I apologise for offending you. I made an assumption about the tone of this conversation and was being silly. I'll try not to do that again.





Kind of like a magical wipe-on, wipe-off punishment! Erasable justice! Invisible ink prison! How nice it is that prison is so inconsequential and death is not. Except we all die, but not everyone spends half or more of their life in prison. No...not inconsequential. But there is still hope for those who are wrongly convicted AS LONG AS SOMEONE (like the state) doesn't kill them first.


Suing for millions doesn't make up for injustice. Nothing does. Yeah, well years spent in prison, then absolution, and a bunch of cash is a hell of a lot better than feeding the worms.




True? No. Consistent? Yes. But as I said I've done away with assuming anyone who argues against the death penalty need be consistent. I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can say one's argument must be:

no death penalty = no prisons

I refuse to accept that I must support both these statements in order to support the abolition of the death penalty.

And the rest of your assumption, well...I'll just leave them to fester. Because they certainly aren't my opinions.

Whoops. You know what we have to do now, right? Kill the state. An eye for an eye

But we know that the system is flawed, and we have little (if any) hope of making it perfect. So maybe we should take every precaution to try to make sure that the consequences of a mistake is not irreversible, irreparable and final - like the death penalty is, but a regular jailsentence is not.

I don't agree that being incarcerated, particularly for more than a decade, is somehow reversible, reparable and ephemeral.


But you could, as many have indicated, change the type of punishment. I don't see anybody arguing that punishment should be removed in its entirety.

The punishment is execution. Removing that punishment would be removing the punishment, not "changing it." Changing it would be for example, using lethal injection instead of an electric chair.



Oh, and I don't normaly do this, but since you brought it up: Have you asked the survivors of concentration camps who are alive today if they would rather have been executed the day they came to the camp, instead of surviving through the horrors and living for 60 years after?

I haven't. But I assume you mean would I, theoretically? Sure, I'd ask them that, but then I'm tactless and admit it.

No, not oh well. The faint ray of hope is that the mistake would be discovered and the innocent person would be set free. It's not that I think prison is better than death. Wait. Yes I do, because as horrible as prison is, at least you are alive. If you get executed wrongly, there is no more ray of hope.

A ray of hope that actual murderers do not need to have! BTW, no one's discussed this yet - how many guilty murderers used our wonderful system, after getting their prison sentence, to get out? As much as innocent ones who receive the death penalty, or more, I wonder?

Yeah, well years spent in prison, then absolution, and a bunch of cash is a hell of a lot better than feeding the worms.


I disagree. We all feed the worms. We don't all have our freedom stripped away for much of our lives.

'm sorry, but I don't see how you can say one's argument must be:

no death penalty = no prisons

I refuse to accept that I must support both these statements in order to support the abolition of the death penalty.

You don't, only, as I said, to be consistent.

A ray of hope that actual murderers do not need to have! BTW, no one's discussed this yet - how many guilty murderers used our wonderful system, after getting their prison sentence, to get out? As much as innocent ones who receive the death penalty, or more, I wonder? I'm not sure I understand...how many guilty people get off you mean? Oh I don't argue that many do. Or get off too lightly. Karla Homolka, that skank bitch, for example. BUT I don't think the death penalty is going to change that, whether it's there or not.


I disagree. We all feed the worms. We don't all have our freedom stripped away for much of our lives. So you're saying, if you were convicted of a capital offense, you would be happier knowing you were going to be executed, rather than hold onto the hope that you might get a retrial, and be set free?:confused:



You don't, only, as I said, to be consistent.
It's NOT consistant. It's an illogical conclusion you've drawn. Getting rid of the death penalty is not the same as allowing all criminals to go free. Not even close. I don't know WHERE THE HELL you are getting that idea from. It's no more consistant than saying, "So you support abortion...huh. That must mean you support euthenasia too." NO. They are not the same issue, and a stance on one issue does not translate into a stance on the other.

Constistency. Pah. Hardly.

Edit: freak. *sticks out tongue*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html




So, if you support the death penalty, please explain why this is justifiable.

Police incompetance.(Or maybe corruption) Besides, shit happens.

In any case, I support the death penalty for all violent crimes.

So, if you support the death penalty, please explain why this is justifiable.

Better that ten innocent people should die unjustly, than that ONE truly evil person should live.

(Although, obviously, one would HOPE that ten innocents wouldn't HAVE to die, to remove each one bad apple).

Better that ten innocent people should die unjustly, than that ONE truly evil person should live.


Yes. A ten to one ration is certainly acceptable. Hell, even twenty or thirty. As long as we kill all the evil bastards out there! HALLELUJAH!!!!!:D

Better that ten innocent people should die unjustly, than that ONE truly evil person should live.

(Although, obviously, one would HOPE that ten innocents wouldn't HAVE to die, to remove each one bad apple).

I'm assuming you'd happily apply that principle to yourself, if wrongfully convicted? That you would go to your death with a smirk, and say "I'm glad to die, so that a guilty person may die also. I have no complaints."?

Heck, I'm glad I live in a civilised country with no death penalty... *shudders*

Oh, and yes, I believe that being wrongfully imprisoned then set free is not quite as bad as being wrongfully executed. That doesn't mean it's a good thing (I hasten to add, before someone gleefully jumps on my words to twist them). It's awful, but saying "Well, if we can't prevent innocent people being locked away, we may as well execute them" is poor logic indeed. In the case at hand, the man would have had another fifty or so years of life ahead of him after being released from jail.

Ahhh. That's a yuck story. Oh well, thankfully we don't have death penalty here. Don't know much about it.

Who said it was justifiable? The legal system is a human construct and, like anything constructed by humans, is prone to error. Sad, but true.

Perhaps a fallible human system should not make decisions that are irrevocable and unremedialbe -- like executing someone

Because the penalty is not responsible for the error of the conviction.

1. You don't actualy know the penalty didn't effect the conviction. A death-qualified jury is one that is more likely to convict. There are many other reasons why one accused of a capital crime might be more likely to be convicted -- whether or not the accused is guilty.

2. The penalty makes it impossible to correct the error of the conviction.

3. I've seen you make the "but being imprisoned is as bad/worse" argument. Bullshit. Tell that to all the prisoners on death row that are appealing their sentence, as well as their conviction. They are seperate legal issue for appeal.

It isnt ok to kill the innocent.
But the Death Penalty isnt bad.

It isnt ok to kill the innocent.
But the Death Penalty isnt bad.


1. Killling the innocent is bad.

2. The fallible human system of the death penalty inevitably kills innocents.

Therefore, 3. The death penalty is bad.

Better that ten innocent people should die unjustly, than that ONE truly evil person should live.

(Although, obviously, one would HOPE that ten innocents wouldn't HAVE to die, to remove each one bad apple).

What smug, complacent, glib idiocy is this?

I'll tell you what. When a member of your family is found guilty of a violent crime they didn't commit and are later found to be innocent, please be sure to come back and tell us that it's OK, a necessary evil.

The death penalty was done away with in the UK years ago. Since then, we've had the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, all of whom would have died at the hands of the State for crimes they didn't commit. There's your ten. Not a principle. Living walking examples of how despicable the whole notion of talking about someone's life as if it were "collateral damage" in the context of maintaining a system of state sponsored murder.

A truly vile argument.

What smug, complacent, glib idiocy is this?

I'll tell you what. When a member of your family is found guilty of a violent crime they didn't commit and are later found to be innocent, please be sure to come back and tell us that it's OK, a necessary evil.

The death penalty was done away with in the UK years ago. Since then, we've had the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, all of whom would have died at the hands of the State for crimes they didn't commit. There's your ten. Not a principle. Living walking examples of how despicable the whole notion of talking about someone's life as if it were "collateral damage" in the context of maintaining a system of state sponsored murder.

A truly vile argument.

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Although it does seem to be an almost completey accurate summation of some other people's arguments on this thread.

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Although it does seem to be an almost completey accurate summation of some other people's arguments on this thread.

Ooooops. And there was me all self righteously indignant and all. :D

Apologies grave_n_idle. Will take my sarcasm recognition pills from now on.....

I don't agree that being incarcerated, particularly for more than a decade, is somehow reversible, reparable and ephemeral.

I agree with you if what you continue to say is that "you cannot re-live the years you spent in jail". I disagree with you if you say that for example an economic compensation in no way repairs some of the damage of wrongfully serving a jail-sentence, at least compared to being wrongfully executed.

The punishment is execution. Removing that punishment would be removing the punishment, not "changing it." Changing it would be for example, using lethal injection instead of an electric chair.

No. One form of punishment is execution. Another form of punishment is jail. Yet another is a fine. The courts must punish those who break the law, but the courts also chooses how - within the limits imposed by law. If you remove execution as a form of punishment, you still have other forms of punishment at your disposal, and thus crime would not go unpunished.

I've always hated the death penalty. Not because of the risk of an innocent man being killed, nobody should be killed.

I'm assuming you'd happily apply that principle to yourself, if wrongfully convicted? That you would go to your death with a smirk, and say "I'm glad to die, so that a guilty person may die also. I have no complaints."?

Heck, I'm glad I live in a civilised country with no death penalty... *shudders*

Oh, and yes, I believe that being wrongfully imprisoned then set free is not quite as bad as being wrongfully executed. That doesn't mean it's a good thing (I hasten to add, before someone gleefully jumps on my words to twist them). It's awful, but saying "Well, if we can't prevent innocent people being locked away, we may as well execute them" is poor logic indeed. In the case at hand, the man would have had another fifty or so years of life ahead of him after being released from jail.

I'm an Englishman, by birth... and the topic came up on several occasions during the course of conversations...

I was always about the only person in whichever group, that favoured a pro-gun law, and return to capital punishment.

I was always asked, did that mean I applied the same logic to myself... and people always seemed somewhat surprised that I did include myself in the potential innocent victims category. Strangely, people usually seemed MORE surprised when I said I would be willing to be the executioner, if nobody else would do it.

There is NOTHING 'civilised' about letting the truly guilty live.

What smug, complacent, glib idiocy is this?

I'll tell you what. When a member of your family is found guilty of a violent crime they didn't commit and are later found to be innocent, please be sure to come back and tell us that it's OK, a necessary evil.

The death penalty was done away with in the UK years ago. Since then, we've had the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, all of whom would have died at the hands of the State for crimes they didn't commit. There's your ten. Not a principle. Living walking examples of how despicable the whole notion of talking about someone's life as if it were "collateral damage" in the context of maintaining a system of state sponsored murder.

A truly vile argument.

Smug... maybe. Hardly complacent. What gives you the right to call my opinion 'idiocy'?

I suggest you moderate your tone, my friend... the Moderators here disapprove of direct insults.

How do you KNOW that the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four would have been given the death penalty? This is flawed logic... sure, they MIGHT have got the death penalty, but one hopes that such sentencing relies on even MORE stringent evidence, than would be required for a regular 'life sentence'.

Perhaps you disagree with my conclusion? Does that make my argument vile? No - it makes my persepctive different, perhaps.

Every day, people die... as victims of some truly evil criminals. Those criminals are not worried about whether their actions are 'civilised', or how they are going to be perceived by the moderates in government.... those people kill, for pleasure... and will keep on doing so until they are stopped.

Did the West's limit themselves to ten innocents, for every evildoer? Did Hindley?

Wouldn't it be worth risking some innocents suffering, to put an end to people like Hindley, or the Wests? After all - when those people are allowed to continue... innocent people die, anyway.

Perhaps you would like to consider how the families of THOSE innocents feel. Don't you think THEY wish that something could be done to remove such evil, permenantly?

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Although it does seem to be an almost completey accurate summation of some other people's arguments on this thread.

Actually... no. I was being absolutely sincere.

Ooooops. And there was me all self righteously indignant and all. :D

Apologies grave_n_idle. Will take my sarcasm recognition pills from now on.....

Apologies would have been happily accepted, except that I was not being sarcastic.

However, I don't see that you have any 'right' to be 'self righteously indignant', regardless.

It is my perception that those who oppose the death penalty, are usually the same people that have never had to kill for food.

So... is it a moral highground? Or do they just lack the stomach for the harsh realities?

Actually... no. I was being absolutely sincere.
Oh. Holy shit.

It's better that ten innocents die than one guilty person go free?

Wow. No. Cripes.

Better that ten innocent people should die unjustly, than that ONE truly evil person should live.

(Although, obviously, one would HOPE that ten innocents wouldn't HAVE to die, to remove each one bad apple).
But there is no such thing as evil, especially "truly evil". There is a degree of wickedness in everyone.

So you're saying, if you were convicted of a capital offense, you would be happier knowing you were going to be executed, rather than hold onto the hope that you might get a retrial, and be set free?:confused:

Well, if I'd *committed* a capital offense, I certainly would be happier knowing I would never be executed. It would in fact please me on a perverse level that your love of protecting the innocent would help protect me, the guilty.


It's NOT consistant. It's an illogical conclusion you've drawn. Getting rid of the death penalty is not the same as allowing all criminals to go free.

It WOULD BE consistant. But I don't know how else to explain it to you.


2. The penalty makes it impossible to correct the error of the conviction.

So does dying in prison, but "oh well" right?


3. I've seen you make the "but being imprisoned is as bad/worse" argument. Bullshit. Tell that to all the prisoners on death row that are appealing their sentence, as well as their conviction.

Okay, I will. Maybe I took a step off the wrong bus now that I'm arguing with Canadians and neo-liberals who couldn't give a shit about the concept of freedom. But I do. You imprison me, you may as WELL kill me, the only difference is the slowness of death in each case.

1. Killling the innocent is bad.

2. The fallible human system of the death penalty inevitably kills innocents.

Therefore, 3. The death penalty is bad.
Actually, that should read:

3. The fallibility of the death penalty system makes it unfair and potentially a major source of civil unrest.

4. In order to be able to justify using the death penalty safeguards would have to be engineered.



The only real way you could classify the death penalty as 'bad' or 'good' is if you had a rational morality for your classification. At which point the state of the current death penalty is irrelevant to the concept of the government usage of a death penalty.

Actually, that should read:

3. The fallibility of the death penalty system makes it unfair and potentially a major source of civil unrest.

4. In order to be able to justify using the death penalty safeguards would have to be engineered.



The only real way you could classify the death penalty as 'bad' or 'good' is if you had a rational morality for your classification. At which point the state of the current death penalty is irrelevant to the concept of the government usage of a death penalty.

As to point #4 - safeguards HAVE BEEN engineered. Trial by jury. Appeals.

They DIDN'T WORK. We have safeguards, and they DON'T WORK some of the time, which is the whole problem.

How do you KNOW that the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four would have been given the death penalty? This is flawed logic... sure, they MIGHT have got the death penalty, but one hopes that such sentencing relies on even MORE stringent evidence, than would be required for a regular 'life sentence'.
Considering they were convicted of bombing and killing innocent civilians, then I'd be willing to bet that they would have definitely been given the death penalty if it had been still in effect.

As for the other argument that is washing through this thread (that doing away with the death penalty somehow equates with doing away with prisons)...Could someone please tell which countries which have no death penalty also have no prisons? For the life of me, I can't think of any.

I live in Texas. I am pro death penalty. I am because I feel that people who have commited outrageous crimes agaisnt humanity should be executed. An innocent man was killed and that sux. But it has happened before, and while this is unfortunate i believe that the death penalty is a "necessary evil"

I'm in Texas, too. I think it's unfortunate that the man was killed, but I think in a lot of cases, the death penalty is good. In this case, the witness as well as the coercive police and DA need to be punished for it. Period end. It's their fault and they conspired to kill an innocent man.

Sometimes people do really bad stuff... and they need to be punished for it... I don't think life in prison does that. They get to chill and watch tv... get 3 nice meals a day... get a nice bed... There's thousands of Americans who don't get it as good as prisoners do...

I understand the people who say that when an error is made, people should be compensated, but if the guy had spent 20 years in prison (imprisoned 1985, executed 1995, found innocent 2005) he would've gone through all sorts of stuff... If I commited a crime and had to choose between life or death... I'd wanna end my life rather than be put in prison for 20 years.

Rape, assault, harrassment isn't worth it... 20 years worth of that? How is the goverment going to repay you for that? They can't. How can anyone say that a monetary award for being in prison for DECADES is compensation? Especially if you have to deal with some of the gruesome stuff that goes on there...

I live in Texas. I am pro death penalty. I am because I feel that people who have commited outrageous crimes agaisnt humanity should be executed. An innocent man was killed and that sux. But it has happened before, and while this is unfortunate i believe that the death penalty is a "necessary evil"
Sure in theory killing evil people is good. BUT the number of innocent people (that is found innocent after conviction) in the US is incredibly high. Well it seems to be from where I sit anyway. Untill you have absolute proof of guilt, well beyond reasonable doubt, not that I'm sure reasonable doubt is actually applied in a lot of these cases. Untill the system that finds people as such is perfect, death is not a option. As any person that has been released from prison after being found innocent if they would have like to have had the death penalty. Or think about this I could go to where ever you live, commit a horrific crime and frame you for it perfectly, so long as I don't fuck up this is easy to do. Then you get tried and convicted. What do you want them to do?

Innocent people get arrested - oh well
Innocent person goes through an extensive trial that's lasts months on end - oh well
Innocent person spends 5 years in jail until he is proven innocent - oh well
Innocent person has their life exterminate with out just cause because of either incompetence or corruption - this is the worst of crimes and the greatest of evils.
Don't talk to me about the money spent keeping prisoners. What price do you put on your life? What about your brothers fathers or sons?
Claiming that innocent people have to die inorder the save money is vile in the extreme.


Rape, assault, harrassment isn't worth it... 20 years worth of that? How is the goverment going to repay you for that? They can't. How can anyone say that a monetary award for being in prison for DECADES is compensation? Especially if you have to deal with some of the gruesome stuff that goes on there...
How can prison be too good and worse then death at the same time?

This will be a bit long. Apologies in advance.Smug... maybe. Hardly complacent. What gives you the right to call my opinion 'idiocy'?

I suggest you moderate your tone, my friend... the Moderators here disapprove of direct insults.

Well now. If you really consider that the death of ten innocents is justifiable to get one guilty party, I think that qualifies as idiocy. However, I accept that my words were harsh, and that they are inappropriate for such a forum. I will not use such language in future. Your words were most certainly smug, utterly complacent (in that your argument amounts to "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs) and definitely glib.

How do you KNOW that the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four would have been given the death penalty? This is flawed logic... sure, they MIGHT have got the death penalty, but one hopes that such sentencing relies on even MORE stringent evidence, than would be required for a regular 'life sentence'.

So what you are saying is that there are degrees of guilt. In other words, if we're not absolutely sure, we'll jail you, but if we are we'll kill you. Are you familiar with the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt"? You are guilty or innocent under English law. The only exception in UK law is in Scotland, where a "not proven" verdict allows the option of avoiding double jeapordy. There are no degrees of guilt my friend.

Perhaps you disagree with my conclusion? Does that make my argument vile? No - it makes my persepctive different, perhaps.

Yes, it makes it as vile as the notion that West or Hindley can kill ten innocents. No more, no less.

Every day, people die... as victims of some truly evil criminals. Those criminals are not worried about whether their actions are 'civilised', or how they are going to be perceived by the moderates in government.... those people kill, for pleasure... and will keep on doing so until they are stopped.

Did the West's limit themselves to ten innocents, for every evildoer? Did Hindley?

Wouldn't it be worth risking some innocents suffering, to put an end to people like Hindley, or the Wests? After all - when those people are allowed to continue... innocent people die, anyway.

Perhaps you would like to consider how the families of THOSE innocents feel. Don't you think THEY wish that something could be done to remove such evil, permanently?

Forgive me for presuming here, but I get the feeling that there is something more personal in your arguments than you are happy to let on. I sincerely hope not, and I apologise in advance if my presumption is incorrect. However, I can't see how having innocent people executed by the state, and leaving their families to grieve, is in any way preferable to having the victims of crime grieving. And in addition, I don't think it would help. I suspect very strongly that if an innocent person is executed, the chances of proper reinvestigation of cases is less likelyto take place (in general). The example we are discussing, in fact, shows this. This crime wasn't reivestigated because of a pressure group, but only because a witness decided to change their testimony.

Also, in the cases of West and Hindley, they would have had to commit the crime and been caught before any kind of sentencing would have taken place. your arithmetic doesn't add up.

1. Killling the innocent is bad.

2. The fallible human system of the death penalty inevitably kills innocents.

Therefore, 3. The death penalty is bad.
1.Only if you kill the innocent.
D.So The Death Penalty can be bad.

So does dying in prison, but "oh well" right?

But dying in prison is not a likely or intended consequence of the punishment. Unlike with an execution. There is a significant difference between the two.

But I doubt that you will not agree with me on this one. To me, it seems that your position is that if anybody is put in jail they might as well be dead because they have to live without freedom, even if they at a later date will have that freedom restored to them. If I have understood you correctly, our philosophies differ too much to try to come to an understanding.

Okay, I will. Maybe I took a step off the wrong bus now that I'm arguing with Canadians and neo-liberals who couldn't give a shit about the concept of freedom. But I do. You imprison me, you may as WELL kill me, the only difference is the slowness of death in each case.
This tells me that you don't actually know what freedom truely is.

Well, if I'd *committed* a capital offense, I certainly would be happier knowing I would never be executed. It would in fact please me on a perverse level that your love of protecting the innocent would help protect me, the guilty.


Fine, and we then compare this with:



Okay, I will. Maybe I took a step off the wrong bus now that I'm arguing with Canadians and neo-liberals who couldn't give a shit about the concept of freedom. But I do. You imprison me, you may as WELL kill me, the only difference is the slowness of death in each case.

So either imprisonment is an easy way out or it's the same as capital punishment. I think you need to have another look at the logic book my friend.

So either imprisonment is an easy way out or it's the same as capital punishment. I think you need to have another look at the logic book my friend.
This seems to be a common mistake pro-death people make. "Life imprisonment is too easy - but if I an innocent that got convicted I'd prefer to die then spend my life in prison."

I understand the people who say that when an error is made, people should be compensated, but if the guy had spent 20 years in prison (imprisoned 1985, executed 1995, found innocent 2005) he would've gone through all sorts of stuff... If I commited a crime and had to choose between life or death... I'd wanna end my life rather than be put in prison for 20 years.
Hence, life imprisonment is the harsher punishment. And don't we want to punish these horrific crimes as harshly as possible? Why do you advocate what you've admitted is the lighter sentence? Why let murderers and such get off easy with the death penalty when there are punishments more feared and therefore -- *gasp!* -- more likely to deter crime?

Oh. Holy shit.

It's better that ten innocents die than one guilty person go free?

Wow. No. Cripes.

That was my reaction, I still cant beleive he thinks that, which was why i was almost sure he was being sarcastic.

There is NOTHING 'civilised' about letting the truly guilty live.
There is nothing civilised in executing an innocent person either.

Sometimes people do really bad stuff... and they need to be punished for it... I don't think life in prison does that. They get to chill and watch tv... get 3 nice meals a day... get a nice bed... There's thousands of Americans who don't get it as good as prisoners do...
.Tell that to Santa Barbara...who seems to think that it's better to be executed than be in prison, even if you're innocent.

Let me put it this way. I do not support the death penalty, because I do not have faith that our judicial system is capable of preventing innocents from being executed. I don't have faith that our government can do ANYTHING right, much less manage something that is literally, a life or death situation. So forgive me if I don't entrust our government with the power of life or death in this manner. The fact that you, Santa Barbara, seem to take that as meaning that I do not support freedom...is simply weird. But whatever. You can kiss my freedom-loving hiney.

The criminal justice system is just a game anyway. Innocence and guilt does not really matter just who you are, what you look like, how much money you have and the quality of your lawyer and the prosecuter. Juries are sheep really will follow whichever lawyer has the most charisma or by their own biases. A "fair trial" is impossible. With that in mind, executing someone in this system is unfair.

As to point #4 - safeguards HAVE BEEN engineered. Trial by jury. Appeals.

They DIDN'T WORK. We have safeguards, and they DON'T WORK some of the time, which is the whole problem.
Nature of evidence. Witness testimony without lots of physical evidence should never be used as a reason to give someone the death penalty.

Nature of evidence. Witness testimony without lots of physical evidence should never be used as a reason to give someone the death penalty.
I think I would be able to possibly...just possibly support the death penalty, were it only used when the evidence was irrefutable...Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo taping their crimes, for example. No deal...just death. That's the only case I could consider.

However, I would consider a REAL prison sentence of life...as in you die in jail, to be much, much worse. For that reason alone, I'd support life in prison (not 15 years, not 20, not 25...you actually must be dead before you leave) for truly heinous, irrefutable crimes.

I think I would be able to possibly...just possibly support the death penalty, were it only used when the evidence was irrefutable...Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo taping their crimes, for example. No deal...just death. That's the only case I could consider.

However, I would consider a REAL prison sentence of life...as in you die in jail, to be much, much worse. For that reason alone, I'd support life in prison (not 15 years, not 20, not 25...you actually must be dead before you leave) for truly heinous, irrefutable crimes.

I would rather have the death penalty inflicted over time in various ways.

Say, give them a life sentence in prison, but infect them with HIV and give them no treatment at all.

Or give them a prefrontal lobotomy - there's nothing quite as horrifying as knowing you'll be turned into a vegetable and spend the rest of your life not being able to do anything except drool.

I would rather have the death penalty inflicted over time in various ways.

Say, give them a life sentence in prison, but infect them with HIV and give them no treatment at all.

Or give them a prefrontal lobotomy - there's nothing quite as horrifying as knowing you'll be turned into a vegetable and spend the rest of your life not being able to do anything except drool.
Um, no. This I would not agree to. *shudders*

At the end of the day, all members of a democratic nation need to understand that the freedoms they enjoy come with a price.

In some cases, the price is that an innocent is executed.

In others, it's that a high-speed chase results in a innocent's death.

Sometimes, freedom requires that we go into combat.

Life is a zero sum exercise. Everything we do - every decision we make - has a price.

The price of freedom is the death of innocent people.

W.

Oh. Holy shit.

It's better that ten innocents die than one guilty person go free?

Wow. No. Cripes.

It really depends on how guilty that one person is, and what they are guilty of.

They stole a loaf of bread? We shouldn't be talking death penalty, anyway...

They are a mass bind/torture/kill-type murderer? Sounds like a small price.

But there is no such thing as evil, especially "truly evil". There is a degree of wickedness in everyone.

I disagree.

There is no wickedness in myself... I have never inflicted pain for anything resembling pleasure, I have never forced sexual attentions against my companion's will, I have never killed another individual.

On comparison, perhaps an individual like the UK's Myra Hindley, would be an example of a 'truly evil' person.

Considering they were convicted of bombing and killing innocent civilians, then I'd be willing to bet that they would have definitely been given the death penalty if it had been still in effect.


Pure speculation.

Now, if, on the other hand, you had a transcript of a case, where the judge SAID "If there were still a death penalty, you'd be getting it, bucko"... or something to that effect... your 'argument' would be more than hollow rhetoric.

There is nothing civilised in executing an innocent person either.

And yet, every moment that a repeat-offender spends at liberty, is another moment that 'civilised' policy (of NOT executing the offender) has granted for that offender to 'execute the innocent' for us.

Not executing habitually bad people, is being ACCESSORY to re-offence.

If society cannot stomach the idea that blood would be on their hands if they executed, they should AT LEAST be aware that blood IS on their hands, every time the repeat offender offends.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html




So, if you support the death penalty, please explain why this is justifiable.

Law, order, and punishment are all tools made by man, for man. What happened here is the failing of a man and not the ystem. A man lied under oath and may have cost an innocent man his life. However, there was MORE EVIDENCE presented and none of us know if he was really guilty. We do not know if this as a failing of the judicial system or if it was a success through a tough situation. The fact is, a jury of his peers found him guilty, and he was executed. The man is dead, and nothing you say or do can bring him back. We do not know what really happened so any spculation is nothing more than just that, speculation without any evidence.

Now, if you want to debate the merits of the death penalty, I'm open to that. I will admit that sometimes innocent people get executed. Its just a fact of life. However, it is also a fact of life that the good, brave, and innocent people in the world die when they shouldn't. Nothing i nthe world is immune from it, incuding the death penalty. I, personally, believe that if someone does a heinous crime (rape/molestation, murder, piracy, etc.) then the only way to prevent them from reommitting that crime is to end their life. The three crimes I mentioned above are, IMHO, the most heinous crimes in the world. You can bitch and complain that nobody deserves death or we'll sink to their level. Whooptie-freakin-do! We are not sinking to their level because we KNOW why we are doing this and why it is justified. And, yes, people DO deserve death. Look at Osama bin Laden. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people whose only crime was being living in NYC.

And then what about Hitler, Stalin, and other dictators with the blood of millions on their hands? Do they deserve death. Remember, if there's a way into the prison, there's a way out. There are certain people we can not let back into society, and that is exactly why we have the death penalty.

Well now. If you really consider that the death of ten innocents is justifiable to get one guilty party, I think that qualifies as idiocy. However, I accept that my words were harsh, and that they are inappropriate for such a forum. I will not use such language in future. Your words were most certainly smug, utterly complacent (in that your argument amounts to "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs) and definitely glib.


Again - you call me an idiot, because of my opinions... I suggest you resist in future.

You attach some special sanctity to 'human life' that I do not... that does not make me an idiot... it makes my perspective DIFFERENT to yours.

Do I think anyone should be harmed... for fun, or for profit, or for convenience? No... and I would resist such actions.

Do I think there is sometimes need for innocent people to risk suffering? Yes... I believe that MAY be one of the costs of a society.

I'm still not sure I was smug - and I'd argue with your calling me complacent... I don't remember ever saying anything as glib as a comparison between execution and omlette preperation....


So what you are saying is that there are degrees of guilt. In other words, if we're not absolutely sure, we'll jail you, but if we are we'll kill you. Are you familiar with the concept of "beyond reasonable doubt"? You are guilty or innocent under English law. The only exception in UK law is in Scotland, where a "not proven" verdict allows the option of avoiding double jeapordy. There are no degrees of guilt my friend.


"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is NOT the same as absolute certainty... now is it? If there is pretty good evidence of guilt, you can be asserted to have committed a crime 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

On the other hand, if you were caught at the crime scene, locked into a room with the bodies of half a dozen victims, and halfway through your second bowl of infant-heart-soup, the degree of evidence is somewhat more convincing.

And, please don't patronise me by attempting to lecture me on my OWN nation's law. Being condescending and sanctimonious is not a valid debate technique.


Yes, it makes it as vile as the notion that West or Hindley can kill ten innocents. No more, no less.


So - you are saying that: if one supports a death penalty, and considers it worth the 'risk'... that person is the equal of a woman who tortures small children to death for pleasure?

I think perhaps YOU should re-evaluate YOUR perspective, my friend.

At the end of the day, all members of a democratic nation need to understand that the freedoms they enjoy come with a price.

In some cases, the price is that an innocent is executed.

In others, it's that a high-speed chase results in a innocent's death.

Sometimes, freedom requires that we go into combat.

Life is a zero sum exercise. Everything we do - every decision we make - has a price.

The price of freedom is the death of innocent people.

W.


Given your premise, remember that the price can be reduced. By aborting that high-speed chase when it gets too dangerous, or if there are alternative ways of capturing the person chased. Or abolishing the death-penalty, and thereby removing the risk of killing innocent people.

Freedom at any cost is not freedom anymore, all that would remain is a corrupted version.

Given your premise, remember that the price can be reduced. By aborting that high-speed chase when it gets too dangerous, or if there are alternative ways of capturing the person chased. Or abolishing the death-penalty, and thereby removing the risk of killing innocent people.

Freedom at any cost is not freedom anymore, all that would remain is a corrupted version.

But you haven't considered the costs to your response:

The abandoned car chase can encourage other criminals to engage in a chase when confronted...which can lead to more "successful" crimes - more chases, and potentially even higher innocent deaths.

By abolishing the death-penalty...one could be removing a powerful deterent (though, I understand this could be a debate topic all its own).

I agree that freedom at any cost is not necessarily the best option for an orderly society - there must be a balance, and, part of the cost of balancing freedom with authoritarian reign, is the loss of life.

And yet, every moment that a repeat-offender spends at liberty, is another moment that 'civilised' policy (of NOT executing the offender) has granted for that offender to 'execute the innocent' for us.

Not executing habitually bad people, is being ACCESSORY to re-offence.

If society cannot stomach the idea that blood would be on their hands if they executed, they should AT LEAST be aware that blood IS on their hands, every time the repeat offender offends.

So you hate repeat offenders, we get that. However it has nothing to do with the debate. Unless you are willing to lock up for life or execute every criminal convicted there will always be repet offenders. In the instances where you would have a criminal executed you could merely lock them up for life and have the same number of repeat offenders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html




So, if you support the death penalty, please explain why this is justifiable.
i only support the death if they r people who have murdered2 or more people i dont support it for any thing else:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

But you haven't considered the costs to your response:

The abandoned car chase can encourage other criminals to engage in a chase when confronted...which can lead to more "successful" crimes - more chases, and potentially even higher innocent deaths.

Actually, I have considered that. That's why I mentioned "alternative ways" of capturing the person chased. Thus he would be captured anyway. It could work the other way: Other criminals not seeing the point in risking their lives to get away only to get caught in the end.

By abolishing the death-penalty...one could be removing a powerful deterent (though, I understand this could be a debate topic all its own).

I agree, that would be a seperate debate, and I fear we would be on opposite sides in that one. But for now I suppose it's best to agree to disagree concerning the preventive effects of the death-penalty. ;)

i only support the death if they r people who have murdered2 or more people i dont support it for any thing else:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

So if someone killed your wife or mother you would say let's give them another chance because they have not reached there 2 person quota???

rhetorically yours

And yet, every moment that a repeat-offender spends at liberty, is another moment that 'civilised' policy (of NOT executing the offender) has granted for that offender to 'execute the innocent' for us.

Not executing habitually bad people, is being ACCESSORY to re-offence.

If society cannot stomach the idea that blood would be on their hands if they executed, they should AT LEAST be aware that blood IS on their hands, every time the repeat offender offends.
Why must it be, with both you and Santa Barbara, and either/or proposition? It's not either execution or freedom. You don't have to kill someone to keep them from reoffending...you can put them in a place where it is impossible to reoffend. You know...like prison?:rolleyes:

So you hate repeat offenders, we get that. However it has nothing to do with the debate. Unless you are willing to lock up for life or execute every criminal convicted there will always be repet offenders. In the instances where you would have a criminal executed you could merely lock them up for life and have the same number of repeat offenders.

First: I have already established that there are DEGREES of offence... the shoplifter probably doesn't deserve a death sentence... the rapist/murderer most assuredly does.

Second: Since there are DEGREES of offence, it can be seen that there are also degrees of RE-offence. Is it that big a deal that the person arrested for possession of marijuana, is caught, 2 weeks after release, doing the same thing?

Third: In the case of serial violent crimes, I am MORE than willing to see criminals executed. Every time. Thus, no reoffence.

Fourth: I realise you are trying to prove a point, but you are either being sarcastic, or naive. Within the last few weeks, a multiple murderer walked out of a (Texas?) prison... passing security positions on the way, in civilian dress. Prison ONLY works for AS LONG as you can keep the criminal contained.

Execution = no reoffence, ever.

Why must it be, with both you and Santa Barbara, and either/or proposition? It's not either execution or freedom. You don't have to kill someone to keep them from reoffending...you can put them in a place where it is impossible to reoffend. You know...like prison?:rolleyes:

Sarcasm?

One has to hope... either that or you HONESTLY believe that prisoners never escape.

Oh... and that nobody ever gets hurt in prison...

Actually - since THAT thought just entered my mind... those who choose prison over execution, are condemning lesser criminals to the violent (often violently 'sexual') predations of the lowest common denominator.

And ME, they call uncivilised....

Sarcasm?

One has to hope... either that or you HONESTLY believe that prisoners never escape.

Oh... and that nobody ever gets hurt in prison...

Actually - since THAT thought just entered my mind... those who choose prison over execution, are condemning lesser criminals to the violent (often violently 'sexual') predations of the lowest common denominator.

And ME, they call uncivilised....
You'll note that in another thread, I am specifically against that.

But never mind. I honestly can not understand your argument.

You'll note that in another thread, I am specifically against that.

But never mind. I honestly can not understand your argument.

How is my argument capable of being misunderstood?

There are bad people in the world.

They hurt and/or kill other people.

There is a 'cost' in human lives, to the existence of the bad person.

If we EXECUTE the bad person, he/she is not going to hurt and/or kill other people.

Therefore, we can reduce the 'cost' in human lives, by executing the bad person.

And - if the system has a slight attrition rate - at least THOSE people were spent in a good cause... and could well be a LOWER 'cost' than that of the 'bad person' at large.

How is my argument capable of being misunderstood?

There are bad people in the world.

They hurt and/or kill other people.

There is a 'cost' in human lives, to the existence of the bad person.

If we EXECUTE the bad person, he/she is not going to hurt and/or kill other people.

Therefore, we can reduce the 'cost' in human lives, by executing the bad person.

And - if the system has a slight attrition rate - at least THOSE people were spent in a good cause... and could well be a LOWER 'cost' than that of the 'bad person' at large.

Very hypothetical... What if the cost is higher? How can we know?

I call this "scary math". And it's scaring me. And I fail to see how this is an arguement for capital punishment, as that "bad person" also would be kept of the streets if he or she was in prison.

Not really, Gravlen. The Infantry has an old saying, "If there's a way in, there's a way out, and vice versa..." Anyone can escape from jail as long as they try hard enough. Jail is not the deterrent it once used to be, but death still is. I live in Alabama, and when the National moretorium on the death penalty was instated crimes that had once ben capital cases went up over 200%. Back in the olde days when they had Sunday hangings, there wasn't as much crime as there is now because everybody knew what would happen to them if they committed such a crime and at least understood the gravity of what they were doing. People don't know what they are doing simply because we fail to say, "You do this, we kill you." In all this "progress", we have truly degressed due to our want to make things softer for future generations.

I ask you, sir, if you have ever been on both sides of the barrel of a gun. And if you have, then you know exactly why I say what I am. Society needs to define what exactly it expects out of people and what to expect when they break society's rules. In my opinion, the only true deterrence in our society today to keep someone from taking another's life is to take th life of the guilty. Sometimes, a few innocent people get caught up in the mix, but innocent people die in everything and we can not help that except for trying to minimize such events.

I disagree.

There is no wickedness in myself... I have never inflicted pain for anything resembling pleasure, I have never forced sexual attentions against my companion's will, I have never killed another individual.

On comparison, perhaps an individual like the UK's Myra Hindley, would be an example of a 'truly evil' person.
Yes you do have wickedness you believe that there are circumstances in which you would like to see innocent people murdered without resonable oportunity for the crime to be detected and the murderers to be punished.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/21/AR2005112101384.html




So, if you support the death penalty, please explain why this is justifiable.


I feel for the family of the innocent man... That's complete bullshit. But I still believe in the death penalty.

Why?

To hang the bastard who lied. That's what the little shit deserves. Not even hang, electrocute.

Why? Murder in the 1st Degree.

How is my argument capable of being misunderstood?

There are bad people in the world.

They hurt and/or kill other people.

There is a 'cost' in human lives, to the existence of the bad person.

If we EXECUTE the bad person, he/she is not going to hurt and/or kill other people.

Therefore, we can reduce the 'cost' in human lives, by executing the bad person.

And - if the system has a slight attrition rate - at least THOSE people were spent in a good cause... and could well be a LOWER 'cost' than that of the 'bad person' at large.

Hypothetical. If I could promise you I could end crime, forever and always, no catch except one, if I get to kill your parents, your (hypothetical) children, and any person who was ever close to you, then flay you alive while feeding their remains to you, would you agree? Would I have a right to do so if it would end crime, forever, without your consent?

I live in Alabama, and when the National moretorium on the death penalty was instated crimes that had once ben capital cases went up over 200%.
I would want to see figures for this. I would also want to see other factors such as economic variables and population growths of the same period. These types of statistics usually are a flat number statistic and don't include a per-capita factor.
Innocents convicted (http://www.randomhouse.com/rhpg/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679440567)
In 1986, Joseph Roger O’Dell was convicted of murder in Virginia despite highly circumstantial evidence from a jailhouse snitch. For twelve years, O’Dell sought DNA testing on the forensic evidence, which he claimed would exonerate him, but the courts refused. After his execution on July 23, 1997, the state destroyed the evidence. As a result, its conviction of O’Dell could never be scrutinized.
To date, 113 wrongfully convicted persons have been freed from death row. If constitutional protections–due process, assistance of counsel, and equal justice under law–are truly being respected, how is it possible that these people were convicted in the first place? And how can we accept a system so rife with error?
This is a system that does not work, and has never worked, will never work. It is extremely easy to pin a crime on another person, especially when the community already dislike that person.
The innocents that get the death sentence are not one or two they are many SOME of whom manage to get their cases reviewed.
If 113 people on death row have been found innocent, how many others don't get the chance before the needle. The courts make damn sure no one can find out after the execution by destroying the evidence. If the witness in the case we are talking about had not come forward we would not know the victim was innocent.

Your arguments that it is better that 10 innocent people die then 1 truly evil person live? I can use that to justify a murder spree, I'll kill every person that gets in to a public brawl, obviously they are prone to violence and may commit violent crimes. I'll also kill every person that acts strange and reclusive. Some of them turn out to be the worst serial murderers so that's justified.
Yes we should just do away with the court process, it doesn't really work anyway. Mob rule that's how we should do it. Lynch everyone we don't like and that looks or acts weird or smells funny. Then we'll be safe. Then we have true freedom.

You've convinced me let's forget justice vengeance is the punishment of the future.

Hypothetical. If I could promise you I could end crime, forever and always, no catch except one, if I get to kill your parents, your (hypothetical) children, and any person who was ever close to you, then flay you alive while feeding their remains to you, would you agree? Would I have a right to do so if it would end crime, forever, without your consent?

Yes. The Greater Good always counts.

So either imprisonment is an easy way out or it's the same as capital punishment. I think you need to have another look at the logic book my friend.

Imprisonment is the easy way out for government since they can always just tax people more to pay for it. It's as punishing as capital punishment in the case I was talking about because I happen to value freedom just about as much as life. And it's an injustice when a murderer gets to live life in prison because the state is afraid, literally, to stand behind it's own convictions.

Why must it be, with both you and Santa Barbara, and either/or proposition? It's not either execution or freedom. You don't have to kill someone to keep them from reoffending...you can put them in a place where it is impossible to reoffend. You know...like prison?

Right, they can't reoffend... except by killing or raping other prisoners. Or you know, since our fallible justice system apparently needs a way to reverse convictions (your main argument for imprisonment versus death penalty), it's thus inevitable that guilty people get their convictions reversed and go free... where they can kill again.

Going by your logic then, here's a summary.

1. Our justice system is fallible, thus the innocent may be unjustly convicted.
2. Because of #1, it's best not to execute anyone who is convicted on the offchance that they're innocent.
3. Our justice system is fallible, thus the guilty may be unjustly set free.
4. Because of #3, it is better to execute those guilty of capital offenses so that they don't have a chance to be set free (or escape).

So basically your logic seems to lead to two different conclusions. One for and one against capital punishment. Which is why I'm arguing this radical solution:

5. Make the justice system less fallible and be damn sure of your convictions.

But I guess thats a bit too idealistic of me.

If you really believe that someone has done something wrong enough that they should die for it, I propose that you take their place in prison. You get them out of humanity's population and heal your karma at the same time.

But dying in prison is not a likely or intended consequence of the punishment. Unlike with an execution. There is a significant difference between the two.


True. And innocent people getting executed is not a likely or intended consequence of the punishment.

To me, it seems that your position is that if anybody is put in jail they might as well be dead because they have to live without freedom, even if they at a later date will have that freedom restored to them. If I have understood you correctly, our philosophies differ too much to try to come to an understanding.

I'm an American! I may not be from New Hampshire, but I agree with the statement, "Live free or die."

This tells me that you don't actually know what freedom truely is.

Oh it does then? Maybe you could enlighten me, Mr Merriam-Webster, or do you just pop into threads just to point out when you think someone else is ignorant?

5. Make the justice system less fallible and be damn sure of your convictions.

But I guess thats a bit too idealistic of me.

Well, wouldn't that be the solution then?!?

"Hmmm.... the system doesn't really work that well.."
-"So what should we do?"
"I dunno... lets just stick to what we know."
-"You mean the system..."
"Yep"
-"..that doesn't really work that well?"
"Yep"
-"So... we keep executions then..."
"Seems like sound logic to me"

FIX THE DAMN SYSTEM!

Countries that don't have the death penalty, don't have the above problem.

Well, wouldn't that be the solution then?!?

"Hmmm.... the system doesn't really work that well.."
-"So what should we do?"
"I dunno... lets just stick to what we know."
-"You mean the system..."
"Yep"
-"..that doesn't really work that well?"
"Yep"
-"So... we keep executions then..."
"Seems like sound logic to me"

FIX THE DAMN SYSTEM!

:headbang:

You're trying to make it like "the system" can be "fixed" by removing a specific punishment not acceptable for innocent people. No, brainiac. I mean fixing it by making sure innocent people are not punished, because ANY punishment for an innocent man is by definition unjust and something to be "fixed."


Countries that don't have the death penalty, don't have the above problem.

Big deal. This is the US *I* am talking about. Don't try to make out like one single statistic is all thats different about the US and some other country, and that the reason for that statistic is of course your point. Correlation does not equal cause.

The Death Penalty is good for two reasons, which are both in and of themselves excellent reasons for its existance.

1) It's Permanent. Like the Embroidered A on Hester Prynne's breast in the Scarlet Letter, such a permanent punishment is meant to REMIND not just the person but society in general that we consider the actions that person committed WRONG and therefore punishable. Also, it's not like a Prison, which 'removes' the obsenities. By putting such obsenities in front of us, it affronts us, and wants us to mend our ways. I say bring back public punishment. It works. And it works god-damned well.

2) It removes the burden on society. Why should we have to pay to keep people alive who have hurt society. We now have to pay for these people. Unless they are self-sufficient, we shouldn't have to pay to keep them alive. They aren't deserving of such courtesy. It's another way for society to push away our problems and not deal with them.

And man kills another man. That's a problem. You kill the man. Problem no longer exists. Problem solved.

:headbang:

You're trying to make it like "the system" can be "fixed" by removing a specific punishment not acceptable for innocent people. No, brainiac. I mean fixing it by making sure innocent people are not punished, because ANY punishment for an innocent man is by definition unjust and something to be "fixed."

Well 'brainiac', the 'fixing' I'm referring to would go somewhere along the lines of this:

"Wait, hold on. Innocent people are getting executed here guys. D'ya think we should investigate why?"

"Hmmm... yeah, I suppose that would be in keeping with the legal principles of our country, yeah."

"Ok. So, we should probably stop executions till we find out what the problem is or at least till we've identified where it lies, right?"

"Yeah, I suppose. But what if the fault is so deep in the system that it cannot be fixed?"

"You mean, like, the system might be fundamentally flawed?"

"Yeah."

"Huh... well, maybe we should have a look see and try and find out? in the meantime, we should probably stop executing people till we have this little problem solved."

Well 'brainiac', the 'fixing' I'm referring to would go somewhere along the lines of this:

Let me guess, a dialogue between two retards.


"Wait, hold on. Innocent people are getting executed here guys. D'ya think we should investigate why?"

"Hmmm... yeah, I suppose that would be in keeping with the legal principles of our country, yeah."

"Ok. So, we should probably stop executions till we find out what the problem is or at least till we've identified where it lies, right?"

"No. The problem is obviously identified. In this case, its some asshole coming out 15 years after a trial and saying 'oops, this guy was innocent actually. My bad!'"


"Yeah, I suppose. But what if the fault is so deep in the system that it cannot be fixed?"

"You mean, like, the system might be fundamentally flawed?"

"Yeah."


"You're right, it's not perfect. But it's better than any other system we have - for example, a system which lets 10 guilty men go free rather than condemn 1 innocent man. Numerically that's not a very good thing. Or a system where we condemn people, but don't really believe their condemned."

"Innocent until proven innocent, and innocent even after proven guilty, I say!"

"Er, no. Look, we HAVE established that more guilty people are punished than innocent ones. This minority occasion in which an innocent man is executed is just that - a minority. We don't get rid of taxes just because some people don't pay them."

"No! The system is flawed! Fuck the system! We need a new system which doesn't punish ANYONE! Because fuck, ANYONE *might be innocent*!"

"...or we could just use the current system whereby each state's democratically elected government gets to choose what it wants to do. Since that would be in line with the whole democracy thing, right?"

"No! I'm right, I don't care what the people of Texas say! Down with the state! Yay anarchism!"

"..."

"See? I win! Lolz0rz!"

Let me guess, a dialogue between two retards.
Hey, *looks around* I don't see anyone else here right now, do you? :D

Numerically that's not a very good thing.

Ahhh... so the morality of killing innocents has nothing to do with your logic, merely numbers.

I see, and I am glad I don't live in such a society.

Good night.

Hey, *looks around* I don't see anyone else here right now, do you? :D


Speak for yourself. :p


Ahhh... so the morality of killing innocents has nothing to do with your logic, merely numbers.

I didn't say that. But yeah, 10 injustices is worse than 1 injustice. That's how this whole "greater good" thing works out. And my logic is impeccable!

The Death Penalty is good for two reasons, which are both in and of themselves excellent reasons for its existance.

1) It's Permanent. Like the Embroidered A on Hester Prynne's breast in the Scarlet Letter, such a permanent punishment is meant to REMIND not just the person but society in general that we consider the actions that person committed WRONG and therefore punishable. Also, it's not like a Prison, which 'removes' the obsenities. By putting such obsenities in front of us, it affronts us, and wants us to mend our ways. I say bring back public punishment. It works. And it works god-damned well.

2) It removes the burden on society. Why should we have to pay to keep people alive who have hurt society. We now have to pay for these people. Unless they are self-sufficient, we shouldn't have to pay to keep them alive. They aren't deserving of such courtesy. It's another way for society to push away our problems and not deal with them.

And man kills another man. That's a problem. You kill the man. Problem no longer exists. Problem solved.
1) Have you read the Scarlet Letter?
Also a country that agrees with you: http://bareknucklepolitics.com/?p=197

2) Executing someone is more expensive than putting them in prison for life. Why should we have to pay more to give someone relief from punishment?

And man kills another man. That's a problem. You kill the man. Problem no longer exists. Problem solved.
Man kills another man you take the wrap while he runs off and does it again, while we all think we've done good by killing you. Everyone is Happy! YAY

1) Have you read the Scarlet Letter?
Also a country that agrees with you: http://bareknucklepolitics.com/?p=197

2) Executing someone is more expensive than putting them in prison for life. Why should we have to pay more to give someone relief from punishment?

Yes, I have read the Scarlet Letter. Pearl is my favorite character :) Little Devil child :D

It's only more expensive because of how long they languish in prison, all of their damned appeals, and how we kill them. Those chemicals cost money. When 1 bullet to the brain will do the job nicely.

Man kills another man you take the wrap while he runs off and does it again, while we all think we've done good by killing you. Everyone is Happy! YAY

Which is unfortunate. He should never have been executed in the first place. We should execute the man who commited perjury. Show him the error of his ways.

And make sure he remembers the lesson in such a way it's permanently engraved upon his brain. ;) :eek: :sniper:

All right, I will admit, in this case the man should not have been executed, yet this does not mean ALL murders should not be executed. people have done years(20+) of hard time then be found to be innocent. Does this mean we should not have prisons? No, so I dont see how this is a strong antideath penelty argument. The death penelty deters people, and the last thin g we need is for you anti death penelty people to win!

Edit: Also to the perso n who said that it takes more mon ey to do the death penelty then put them in prison, how about instead of stopping the death penelty, lets take away thier 50 years of appeals instead! Or take away their tennis courts and basic cable!

Edit: Also to the perso n who said that it takes more mon ey to do the death penelty then put them in prison, how about instead of stopping the death penelty, lets take away thier 50 years of appeals instead! Or take away their tennis courts and basic cable!
Yeah! Lets just kill them and let God sort them out! Why have prisons at all?

Yes, I have read the Scarlet Letter. Pearl is my favorite character :) Little Devil child :D

It's only more expensive because of how long they languish in prison, all of their damned appeals, and how we kill them. Those chemicals cost money. When 1 bullet to the brain will do the job nicely.
So if you were wrongly put in prison, you would go to the chair willingly without a fight... because hey, why muck up a system that works?

Yeah! Lets just kill them and let God sort them out! Why have prisons at all?

Because some people just don't commit crimes to warrant death. And not only that, prisons do have that kind of aesthetic beauty that I always want to see in my country side...

And, if we didn't have prisons, what would we model Urban schools after?

Because some people just don't commit crimes to warrant death. And not only that, prisons do have that kind of aesthetic beauty that I always want to see in my country side...

And, if we didn't have prisons, what would we model Urban schools after?
Points for high comedy but that's about all.

So if you were wrongly put in prison, you would go to the chair willingly without a fight... because hey, why muck up a system that works?

They just have too many. I say give them only 3. Like the three strikes law. It's very American thing. Of course I woudn't want to go to the chair if I was wrongly imprisoned. I wouldn't want to if I was rightly imprisoned.

Perjury should really be a crime punishable by death.

Yeah! Lets just kill them and let God sort them out! Why have prisons at all?
Points for high comedy but that's about all.

Dido

Dido

Nah, I don't like her.

Nah, I don't like her.

lmao... well, she was pretty good when she worked with Eminem on "Stan". Or at least when he sampled her.

Which is unfortunate. He should never have been executed in the first place. We should execute the man who commited perjury. Show him the error of his ways.

And make sure he remembers the lesson in such a way it's permanently engraved upon his brain. ;) :eek: :sniper:
That don't work.
Humans are bias and innocent people will always be convicted, that is why the only solution that is acceptable is to incarserate them. I'm actually against having sentences, no matter what you go to prison for you should ONLY be realsed once you have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you have been rehabilitated.
After all that is supposed to be the intent of prison in mordern sociaty. Ther are crimes for which a judge could declare there is no chance for rehabilitation. These people go to a place like death row but they just die of old age. Always having the chance of re-establishing their innocence. I think we can all agree that there are people currently getting away with these crimes while there are innocent people being killed for them. I think it's vital that a case is never left to rest while ther is a chance the real killer is out there some where.

And as a side note death does not scare these people, they usually have something wrong with them mentally.They don't think about the repacussions. The argument that the punishment will deter the criminals only works if the people working this crime are infact completely sane. (and there is a difference between deminished capasity and criminal insanity.)

That don't work.
Humans are bias and innocent people will always be convicted, that is why the only solution that is acceptable is to incarserate them. I'm actually against having sentences, no matter what you go to prison for you should ONLY be realsed once you have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you have been rehabilitated.
After all that is supposed to be the intent of prison in mordern sociaty. Ther are crimes for which a judge could declare there is no chance for rehabilitation. These people go to a place like death row but they just die of old age. Always having the chance of re-establishing their innocence. I think we can all agree that there are people currently getting away with these crimes while there are innocent people being killed for them. I think it's vital that a case is never left to rest while ther is a chance the real killer is out there some where.

And as a side note death does not scare these people, they usually have something wrong with them mentally.They don't think about the repacussions. The argument that the punishment will deter the criminals only works if the people working this crime are infact completely sane. (and there is a difference between deminished capasity and criminal insanity.)


... If there is no chance for rehabilitation, why waste the money keeping them alive when we can spend it on people who deserve it, like poor people who don't commit crimes and need the help of society?

Very hypothetical... What if the cost is higher? How can we know?

I call this "scary math". And it's scaring me. And I fail to see how this is an arguement for capital punishment, as that "bad person" also would be kept of the streets if he or she was in prison.

Nobody reoffends if they have been executed.

On the other hand, violent offenders usually continue to offend in jail, and upon release, when and if they are released/escape.

Yes you do have wickedness you believe that there are circumstances in which you would like to see innocent people murdered without resonable oportunity for the crime to be detected and the murderers to be punished.

How very judgemental of you... and nothing akin to anything I have actually said.

I have not said I would "like to see" innocent people murdered, in any shape or form. I said NOTHING about "reasonable opportunity for crime to be detected"... and my only comment about "reasonable opportunity for murderers to be punished", was that those who were 'positively' guilty, should be punished to the ultimate extent.

But - mostly, what I object to is your strawman assumption that I said I "would like to see innocent people murdered". There is a big difference between being able to RATIONALISE a cost in human lives, and actively LIKING to see people suffer.

Also - of course, we are not talking about innocents being 'murdered' by the system... since it cannot be 'murder' if it is legal... what you are doing, my friend, is an Appeal to Emotion.

Hypothetical. If I could promise you I could end crime, forever and always, no catch except one, if I get to kill your parents, your (hypothetical) children, and any person who was ever close to you, then flay you alive while feeding their remains to you, would you agree? Would I have a right to do so if it would end crime, forever, without your consent?

I wonder how you feel the deliberate and arbitrary attack on one person, that one person's family, and the continued and deliberate torture of that same individual... has anything to do with the debate?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that my support of a death penalty had, at ANY point, ANY connotation of torture, flaying, or enforced cannibalism.

Your histrionics do not help the debate.

On the other hand, if your question had been along the lines of "There are going to be casualties, although as few as possible... but some people will be executed who did not 'deserve' it... and one of them MAY be you... are you willing to take that chance"?...... which would have been relevent to the debate... my answer would have been "Yes". I'd be willing to be put at risk, along with every other, in order that society collectively would be better off.

I find it hard to believe how many people consider their own mere existence, so MUCH more important than their society.

Nobody reoffends if they have been executed.

On the other hand, violent offenders usually continue to offend in jail, and upon release, when and if they are released/escape.

A good point- you can't reoffend if you are dead. Also, you can't prove your innocence either. wasn't that what this thread was all about in the first place- INNOCENTS being executed?

I'm actually shocked at the lack of general morality here- the attitude of "Ah well. Another innocent got executed. Whoops, whaddya gonna do? So long as we keep the criminals locked away, I'm sure our system will weed out the bad uns BEFORE they get to the Chair... and if not? Too bad."

How very judgemental of you... and nothing akin to anything I have actually said.

I have not said I would "like to see" innocent people murdered, in any shape or form. I said NOTHING about "reasonable opportunity for crime to be detected"... and my only comment about "reasonable opportunity for murderers to be punished", was that those who were 'positively' guilty, should be punished to the ultimate extent.

But - mostly, what I object to is your strawman assumption that I said I "would like to see innocent people murdered". There is a big difference between being able to RATIONALISE a cost in human lives, and actively LIKING to see people suffer.

Also - of course, we are not talking about innocents being 'murdered' by the system... since it cannot be 'murder' if it is legal... what you are doing, my friend, is an Appeal to Emotion.

Too be honest I don't see any difference.

... If there is no chance for rehabilitation, why waste the money keeping them alive when we can spend it on people who deserve it, like poor people who don't commit crimes and need the help of society?
I'll use the text for the post you are refering to.
Always having the chance of re-establishing their innocence.

That don't work.
Humans are bias and innocent people will always be convicted.

Then the SYSTEM is flawed, not the death penalty.

So - you catch the wrong guy, and he languishes in a cell for thirty years, being brutally raped pretty much every day (because he really was such a gentle soul)... until you find out he was innocent.

You have either sentenced a man to hell, or you have CREATED another problem... depending on how that person 'survives'.

On the other hand, a quick clinical injection is minor suffering.

If you aren't CERTAIN you are convicting the evil-doer, then what good is the system?

A good point- you can't reoffend if you are dead. Also, you can't prove your innocence either. wasn't that what this thread was all about in the first place- INNOCENTS being executed?


But the innocent that is executed, does not suffer any more... inncoent or not. And, surely the WHOLE point is that the SYSTEM is what is failing? If you are executing the wrong man, it is because the system has CONVICTED the wrong man. Saying execution is, therefore, the problem, is blaming the tool.


I'm actually shocked at the lack of general morality here- the attitude of "Ah well. Another innocent got executed. Whoops, whaddya gonna do? So long as we keep the criminals locked away, I'm sure our system will weed out the bad uns BEFORE they get to the Chair... and if not? Too bad."

Nobody has said anything like that. Strawman.

I'll use the text for the post you are refering to.

You're point is kind of contradictory. If they have no chance of being rehabilitated, they must exude some kind of sociopathy, so how would we ever find a sociopath innocent?

Too be honest I don't see any difference.

You don't see any difference between being able to ACCEPT that people die, and actively WISHING for it?

Numerous studies have shown that capital punishment does not serve as an effective deterrant. I don't have the statistics on hand, but I can probably find them given some time (unfortunately, my books with the studies in them are currently several hundred miles away and will be for about two months).

Ideally, yes, our criminal justice system would be incapable of error. But that is certainly idealistic. It doesn't seem possible that any system could ever be that truly infallible. So I agree, let's change the system, let's try to find a better process to ascertain guilt. As someone metioned earlier, one of the problems with our system is its adversarial nature. There are nations, I believe, where the justice system is seen as cooperative, with the state and the "defense" as it were working together to uncover the truth rather than trying to win. Germany springs to mind, though I may well be mistaken. If I am, please do correct me.

That being said, I also agree with the point that has been made saying that in the meantime, until we have that better system, as near infallible as we can make it, it is (in my mind) criminally irresponsible to send people to their deaths. If the decision were mine, I would suspend all executions except those in the very rare cases where the burden of proof shifts to the defense until such a time as a better system is set up. At that point, as by the will of the people, any person fully proved to have committed a capital crime could be executed.

For the record, I am strongly anti-death penalty generally from a philosophical point of view. I feel that no person should ever be executed, whatever their crime. However, I realize that in any form of a democratic system the voice of the people must at least inform the policy of the nation.

snip

It is interesting to note that you responded to two of my three points, but specifically ignored my explaination of how the penalty can influence the likelihood of conviction. Perhaps this was too difficiult a concept for you or was simply too damaging to your views.

[QUOTE=Santa Barbara]So does dying in prison, but "oh well" right?

*sigh* In a system without a death penalty there may still be a few innocents that die in prison from natural causes. BUT this will be vastly reduced. We will no longer have a fast-track system for puposefully killling convicts as quickly as possible. We can instead devote our time to ensuring the correctness of the conviction of all the prisoners.

[QUOTE=Santa Barbara]Okay, I will. Maybe I took a step off the wrong bus now that I'm arguing with Canadians and neo-liberals who couldn't give a shit about the concept of freedom. But I do. You imprison me, you may as WELL kill me, the only difference is the slowness of death in each case.

I pointed out that inmates on death row are challenging their sentence as well as their convictions. They want to live. They are real people faced with the real choice. ... But I guess they just don't understand freedom.

Apparently, if you get pulled in and held for the weekend on a DUI charge, you are going to break out of jail or die trying. Good luck.

Yeah, we could just keep murderers alive, at taxpayer expense, for their whole lives. Heck why even put them in prison at all? We don't want to wrongly imprison an innocent person. Let's just hope everyone gets along and if they don't, the government will write them a strongly-worded letter!

There is an obvious difference, particularly in finality, between a government executing a prisoner and a government imprisoning a prisoner.

We imprison people before they even have a trial on the basis of probable cause. If they are not convicted, they are released.

We can remedy as best as we can the wrongful imprisonment of a prisoner. We can do little for one we have incorrectly executed.

All your "give me liberty or give me death" sword rattling is really off-point and silly.

You're point is kind of contradictory. If they have no chance of being rehabilitated, they must exude some kind of sociopathy, so how would we ever find a sociopath innocent?
Because there is a difference between a judge and jury from a particular region and thus most likely faith believeing you are a sociopath and you actually being one. If you are found to be guilty (regardless of whether or not you are) of a sociopathic crime then people are predisposed to believe you are sociopathic (regardless of whether or not you are.)

You don't see any difference between being able to ACCEPT that people die, and actively WISHING for it?
I don't see the difference between being able to accept something and being happy or content with it.

First: I have already established that there are DEGREES of offence... the shoplifter probably doesn't deserve a death sentence... the rapist/murderer most assuredly does.

Second: Since there are DEGREES of offence, it can be seen that there are also degrees of RE-offence. Is it that big a deal that the person arrested for possession of marijuana, is caught, 2 weeks after release, doing the same thing?

Third: In the case of serial violent crimes, I am MORE than willing to see criminals executed. Every time. Thus, no reoffence.

Fourth: I realise you are trying to prove a point, but you are either being sarcastic, or naive. Within the last few weeks, a multiple murderer walked out of a (Texas?) prison... passing security positions on the way, in civilian dress. Prison ONLY works for AS LONG as you can keep the criminal contained.

Execution = no reoffence, ever.

Jeez, sarcastic or naive is it? What ever shall i choose? Ever consider the possibility that people who argue against you arent merely cretins or having a laugh?

Anyway now i've got that crap out of the way i shall chose a third option. Yes, I know that criminals escape and after they do that will probably reoffend. But unless you've got some way of showing that this happens with a larger degree of regularity (preferably from Britain) than once in a blue moon, then I'll have still have to side with keeping the death penaly banned and not executing a large number of innocents just to catch a few guilty ones as being the side that incurs the lower cost on society in terms of innocents killed.

I ask you, sir, if you have ever been on both sides of the barrel of a gun. And if you have, then you know exactly why I say what I am. Society needs to define what exactly it expects out of people and what to expect when they break society's rules. In my opinion, the only true deterrence in our society today to keep someone from taking another's life is to take th life of the guilty. Sometimes, a few innocent people get caught up in the mix, but innocent people die in everything and we can not help that except for trying to minimize such events.

And again I have to say that we have different viewpoints on how effective capital punishment is as a deterrant.

Other than that, the difference is that I cannot accept that the state executes innocent people. Wrongfull convictions happens, that is an inherrent flaw in any justice system. We have to work to better the system, but it will never be perfect. As such, I am still against death as a punishment because we have alternatives (prison) where the state does not kill any innocent people.

True. And innocent people getting executed is not a likely or intended consequence of the punishment.

Yes, actually, it is, because the punishment is blind to the existence of guilt. Once convicted, the punishment does not take into consideration if a person is truly innocent or guilty.

And, once again: I do not advocate the removal of punishment in general, just this kind of punishment, because of the danger of killing innocent people - a price that is too high.

I don't see the difference between being able to accept something and being happy or content with it.

First - that is not what you said...

Second - do you really not? I HAVE to pay taxes... I accept that. Am I happy to pay taxes? No. Am I content to pay taxes? No.

Do I wish to pay taxes (which is closer to your FIRST reply)? No.

But, do I accept it? Yes... and I pay them, because it is the nature of the beast.

Jeez, sarcastic or naive is it? What ever shall i choose? Ever consider the possibility that people who argue against you arent merely cretins or having a laugh?

Anyway now i've got that crap out of the way i shall chose a third option. Yes, I know that criminals escape and after they do that will probably reoffend. But unless you've got some way of showing that this happens with a larger degree of regularity (preferably from Britain) than once in a blue moon, then I'll have still have to side with keeping the death penaly banned and not executing a large number of innocents just to catch a few guilty ones as being the side that incurs the lower cost on society in terms of innocents killed.

Second time in as many weeks: "YAKIMA, Wash. - Four maximum security inmates, including one murder defendant, were at large Saturday after they and five other men used a rope made of bed sheets to escape from the Yakima County Jail, authorities said".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/ap_on_re_us/yakima_jailbreak

Anyone who would SERIOUSLY contend that NOBODY EVER escapes from prison, must be being sarcastic, don't you agree? Or else, less charitably, live in a rose-tinted world?


And, yes - both the cases I have referred to have been American criminals escaping from American confinement... but I live for a decade within half a mile of the prison in Leicester, and there were fairly regular security breaches... as well as the occassional 'fugitive'.

They just have too many. I say give them only 3. Like the three strikes law. It's very American thing. Of course I woudn't want to go to the chair if I was wrongly imprisoned. I wouldn't want to if I was rightly imprisoned.

Perjury should really be a crime punishable by death.
I don't see how that would quicken the process towards execution. How many appeals are inmates usually given. Three seems like an awful amount of tax dollars directed to three different appeals processes. Much easier and cheaper just to get rid of the death penalty.

As far as perjury being punishable by death... errr...
How many people do you want to kill anyway? Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and lets take it for granted: Bush the Sequel (This Time It's Personal) would all be dead under that law...

One more difference pro-death penalty people and the non-death crowd have is their philosophy on convictions. I am pro-death penalty, and I believe that it is better to convict and execute ten guilty men and risk one innocent person. Others believe that the one innocent man is worth letting the ten go and sin again. I believe letting a guilty free is worse than letting an innocent die. As I have said, innocents die and guilty live.

Let's put this in the context of a firefight where a civillian is in the way. There are ten enemies shooting at you and one innocent in the general are to where they can be killed. You are shooting at the enemies, but face a dielemma. Shoot and possibly kill the civillian or not shoot and face certain death? Be quick, you only have two seconds.

I choose to live. After all, its not my fault that the civillian is there. Now, it is your choice to die or to live, but who chooses for society? Neither one of us can, and changing how things are now is choosing for someone else. I say let each state choose and make no national act about such. If a State's people delieve the death penalty is justified, then let them do so.

Another situation. Let say, hypothetically, I go to Massachussets(sp) and kill everyone in the state only to be captured later. Would I deserve death for such, or would I just go to prison for the rest of my life and you take the chance I escape and kill again?

Second time in as many weeks: "YAKIMA, Wash. - Four maximum security inmates, including one murder defendant, were at large Saturday after they and five other men used a rope made of bed sheets to escape from the Yakima County Jail, authorities said".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/ap_on_re_us/yakima_jailbreak

Anyone who would SERIOUSLY contend that NOBODY EVER escapes from prison, must be being sarcastic, don't you agree? Or else, less charitably, live in a rose-tinted world?.

Well obviously they would be apart from the fact that I have twice stated that i dont believe that to be the case!

Yes, I know that criminals escape and after they do that will probably reoffend...


And, yes - both the cases I have referred to have been American criminals escaping from American confinement... but I live for a decade within half a mile of the prison in Leicester, and there were fairly regular security breaches... as well as the occassional 'fugitive'.

Any stats on how many murders have been committed by escaped inmates?

I'm very anti-death penalty, why should us humans determine the fate of somones life. Even if they have done something wrong, we should place them in prison for life rather then death. Afterall I think some prisoners would refer death rather then have to sit in a jail cell for the rest of their life.

I don't think that the death penalty should be revocted, but I think the standerds of proof should be higher than they are now. Also, the man who identified him should be arrested for perjury, sent to jail, and possibly excueted for proxy murder.

Well obviously they would be apart from the fact that I have twice stated that i dont believe that to be the case!

Any stats on how many murders have been committed by escaped inmates?

Surely, ANY re-offences are more than enough?

I don't think that the death penalty should be revocted, but I think the standerds of proof should be higher than they are now. Also, the man who identified him should be arrested for perjury, sent to jail, and possibly excueted for proxy murder.
While I think punishment should be sanctioned, he was not the one that decided death was appropreate

As such he was more guilty of manslaughter then murder ... the punishment guidlines should follow suit

Yeah, we've had a tendancy to do these sorts of things...

*Walks out of trailer home, puts keys in a worn-down pickup, grabs .45, takes a bite out of a big mac, heads to a GOOD Baptist church while listening to country music*

But really though, even if we didn't have the death penalty, people will die anyway, such as the case was in Oregon, or maybe it was Washington...
Well anyway a cannibal was sent to clean something or another with the most dangerous inmate while all the guards coincidentally took a break at the same time.