NationStates Jolt Archive

Comment: I can certainly understand the position of "Death Penalty = Wrong" but I don't understand the people who take up the cause of egregious scumballs to do it.

Stolen Innocence Death penalty foes make easy marks for vicious murderers.

BY BRIDGET JOHNSON
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

"This man might be innocent; this man is due to die," blared the May 18, 1992, cover of Time magazine. "Roger Keith Coleman was convicted of killing his sister-in-law in 1982. The courts have refused to hear the evidence that could save him." Accompanying the text was a full-cover photo of a shackled Coleman, looking morose in prison garb.

Before Coleman was sent to the electric chair two days later for the rape, stabbing and near-beheading of 19-year-old Wanda McCoy, his protestations of innocence had put an anti-death-penalty PR machine firmly in his corner. This man with a previous history of attempted rape became a cause célèbre telling his woeful tale of justice gone awry. "An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight," he declared before his electrocution.

A dramatic sound bite that proved hollow last week, when new DNA testing ordered by Virginia's Gov. Mark Warner proved Coleman's guilt. James McCloskey of Centurion Ministries, who had spent nearly two decades trying to prove Coleman's innocence, was befuddled, asking the Washington Post: "How can somebody, with such equanimity, such dignity, such quiet confidence, make those his final words even though he is guilty?"(The lament of Liberals everywhere who can only see evil in Corporations not People... :rolleyes: )
It happens all the time. Killers rally sympathetic activists behind them by using the manipulative skills that are integral to their criminal careers.

Kevin Cooper is an inmate on California's death row who escaped execution on Feb. 9, 2004, when the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a last-minute stay to retest evidence. This evidence withstood that retesting, and other defense arguments have been since shot down in federal district court. The appeals process on those findings is now working its way through the courts, and the earliest he may face execution again--if appeals go in favor of the state--may be late this year.

His case has slipped into the background lately as death-penalty foes stole the airways in hopes of clemency for Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Yet the two murderers share many of the same supporters. As the "Save Tookie" campaign gathered thousands of signatures petitioning for the quadruple killer's clemency, the "Save Kevin Cooper" Web site has been championing his cause and featuring his writings.

Cooper's case is one in which it's hard to imagine anyone jumping on his bandwagon. He was an inmate at the California Institution for Men in Chino, serving time for burglary, when he escaped on June 2, 1983. Two days later he broke into the Chino Hills home of the Ryen family as they were sleeping and killed the parents, Douglas and Peggy, along with 10-year-old Jessica Ryen and 11-year-old Christopher Hughes, a friend of Joshua Ryen, who was the only family member to survive. "The first time I met Kevin Cooper I was 8 years old and he slit my throat," Joshua Ryen testified at an April 22 hearing in U.S. District Court in San Diego. "He hit me with a hatchet and put a hole in my skull. . . . I laid there 11 hours looking at my mother who was right beside me."

But Cooper does not lack supporters: the likes of Jesse Jackson, Mike Farrell, Richard Dreyfuss, Sean Penn and Denzel Washington have come to his defense. One would think that appropriate monikers for Cooper would have career-sensitive celebrities running for the hills: Ax murderer. Child killer. Mass murderer.

It's apparently lost on them that the people they're dealing with are master manipulators. Ted Bundy gave a videotaped interview to James Dobson hours before his 1989 execution in which he blamed his crimes on violent pornography. On the tape, Bundy is in the midst of an emotional monologue when a phone rings in the distance. For the slightest second, Bundy breaks from character and his eyes dart in the direction of the phone, perhaps hoping a stay was waiting on the other end of the line. And just like that, he's back into his emotional testimony on the evils of violent porn. This video was shown in one of my college criminology classes as an example of the offender as a manipulator.

"Offenders who have become adept at manipulating can exert complete control over others, especially children," writes renowned criminal psychologist Eric Hickey in "Serial Murderers and Their Victims." Society still has an image, though, of the dangerous offender carrying on in a continuously depraved manner and incapable of rational discourse or "good deeds." Remember "Coed Killer" Ed Kemper's genius IQ, and his ability to convince a court psychiatrist of his excellent progress, even as a victim's head was in the trunk of his car outside; or serial killer John Wayne Gacy's charitable work with the Jaycees and dressing up as a clown at children's parties.

An anti-death-penalty group's Voices From Inside project lets killers such as Richard Allen Davis--whose murder of little Polly Klaas sparked California's "Three Strikes" law--seek pen pals, inviting God knows who into their manipulative world. "Greetings with a smile," reads Davis's introduction. "Could there be anyone who could take the time to see for themselves, just who I really am."

We shudder at the thought of "Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez or Yosemite killer Cary Stayner luring admirers through their court exposure, but how different is that from the flocks who are drawn to the sides of the likes of Williams, Coleman or Cooper to parrot their protestations of innocence despite overwhelming evidence?

And why wouldn't Williams have been a master manipulator? He was a gang leader, which requires a certain arm-twisting ability not only to keep operations running, but to recruit and build ranks. "Save Tookie" coordinator Barbara Becnel became convinced that the convicted murderer was a man on a mission. But was this a mission to save the 'hood or save his hide? Williams refused to cooperate in helping authorities clean up the Crips network. Regardless, like other killers before him, he won over scores who believed in his reformation through his "anti-gang efforts" and prose. "A close look at Williams' post-arrest and post-conviction conduct tells a story that is different from redemption," stated Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's clemency denial. And though not a children's book author, Cooper has been writing from behind bars for several years, essays posted on his Web site with sympathetic titles such as "Suffering in Silence" and "Good vs. Evil."

Death-penalty foes could simply cite their general opposition to capital punishment as sufficient reason why they want the likes of Cooper spared, or why they believed executing Williams and Coleman was wrong. But perpetuating conspiracy-laden arguments of framing and innocence cooked up by the offenders shows that their advocates are just caught up in the manipulation, championing unrepentant killers at the expense of their victims. These murderers know exactly what they're doing in chalking up the sympathy to corral their stable of supporters.

Ms. Johnson is a columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She writes at gopvixen.blogs.com/.

AFAIC, Multiple violent offenders should expect no mercy. Remove them like the Cancer they are.

Edit: BTW - I live in an "Execution" town and have to deal with these "Save the Serial Killer" loonies every time the Prison (which is within walking distance of my office) is told to dim the lights. There is a difference between an isolated "Crime of Passion" and a Sick Bastard. If the Anti-DP folks want to keep a Sick Bastard alive, then they should be obliged to do it in their own home - far away from me.

Yeah I agree, but man, another death penalty thread.

Alright everyone, let's just sound off instead of making speeches. I'll start.

I'm for the death penalty.

Look, some people just can't change, they are just sick in the head (Ted Bundy), and they will never be a part of society. Currently our tax system goes towards to providing for these sick people. Personally if the person committed a hendious crime (serial killer is a good example) then yea, the dude deserves to die by the state.

Yeah I agree, but man, another death penalty thread.

Alright everyone, let's just sound off instead of making speeches. I'll start.

I'm for the death penalty.

And I think you're a barbarian. :p

I staunchly support the death penalty, so long as it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty. I also believe that, the more heinous the crime, the slower and more brutal the execution should be. Rapists should be castrated without anesthesia, child molesters should be castrated, have their arms amputated, and their eyes melted with hot glue (all without anesthesia), murderers should be killed in the exact way they killed their victim, etc.

And I think you're a barbarian. :p

That's Santa Barbarian, thankyouverymuch! :D

If it's practical then I see nothing very wrong with it.

Yeah I agree, but man, another death penalty thread.

Alright everyone, let's just sound off instead of making speeches. I'll start.

I'm for the death penalty.
It's been a while, and the last one was "Why Recuscitate someone on Death Row?"

I just wanted a break from Religion on the Top Page. :D

That's Santa Barbarian, thankyouverymuch! :D

Ahh, my mistake, good sir. Santa Barbarian! *thumbs nose*

If it's practical then I see nothing very wrong with it.

Huh? :confused:

I am for the death penalty, though probably I would alter the way it is currently administered and revise standards of evidence for capital crimes. (Though I am completely comfortable with this case, and I was before they tested the DNA; I mean, look at the guy's history, I am more shocked that addle-pate journos lined up behind this pathological liar.)

Anyway to me it is simple. There are certain individuals - for whatever reason - that are just not fit to live with the rest of us. (Case in point: Linky (http://www.nysun.com/article/25806) - and before you innocent until guilty types get all angry about him not having a trial, he's admitted it). I don't care really what is done with them, kill them, dump them on pitcairn island, shoot them into space, the point is, they are not living here. And that includes in government run facilities.

Sweet elephant's auntie! A quintuple post!

Yippie Jolt! A quintuple hiccough!

Maybe there wouldn't be as many messages to crash the server if the server didn't breed its' own spam? Hmm? :rolleyes:

Huh? :confused:
I don't see it in the emotive way that most other people seem to. If there is a practical reason why the criminal cannot be permitted to continue to inhabit the same planet as the rest of us, for example if he's incredibly dangerous, then execution would be justified. I don't think that it's much of a punishment, and I believe that pure justice is better served by life imprisonment.

Well if he's incredibly dangerous use him- don't kill him.

Think of the most dangerous jobs in the world- make the fucker work :D

I staunchly support the death penalty, so long as it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is guilty. I also believe that, the more heinous the crime, the slower and more brutal the execution should be. Rapists should be castrated without anesthesia, child molesters should be castrated, have their arms amputated, and their eyes melted with hot glue (all without anesthesia), murderers should be killed in the exact way they killed their victim, etc.

You sick fuck.




Jesus Christ forgive you... rapists, molesters, and murderers often start out with specific, twisted fantasies of sadism like this.

Well if he's incredibly dangerous use him- don't kill him.

Think of the most dangerous jobs in the world- make the fucker work :D
Nice as that sounds, putting him to work would probably give him too much of an opportunity to escape and/or hurt more people.

Well if he's incredibly dangerous use him- don't kill him.

Think of the most dangerous jobs in the world- make the fucker work :D

Right---put him in a dangerous job where he can kill everyone else on the job site with an "accidental" slip-up...

Just kill them. I will be glad to pull the switch. It may be hard, but it's the right thing to do.

Right---put him in a dangerous job where he can kill everyone else on the job site with an "accidental" slip-up...


Nah nah nah. I mean dangerous as in...... replacing the light bulb on the top of the Eiffel Tower sans harness, via helicopter...or.....test driving new Bridgestone tires in a four wheel drive :D :D

Meh ... I'm anti death penalty across the board ... not because a particular criminal is an "egregious scumball", rather in spite of it.

I'm against the death penalty, not because I want mercy for these people, but because there a lot of dangerous and unrewarding types of work they could be put to. Just because they forfeit the right to life doesn't necessarily mean we can't use them.

I'm against the death penalty, not because I want mercy for these people, but because there a lot of dangerous and unrewarding types of work they could be put to. Just because they forfeit the right to life doesn't necessarily mean we can't use them.
Perhaps, but then we have to pay for the extra-arm-removal and cancer treatment when they go and clean up the Toxic Waste Dump.

No thanks. If Society can't remove cancers, why should doctors be alowed to?

Just kill them. I will be glad to pull the switch. It may be hard, but it's the right thing to do.

care to explain how it is right to kill a person who has already been captured and disarmed and does not pose a threat to anyone anymore?

But Cooper does not lack supporters: the likes of Jesse Jackson, Mike Farrell, Richard Dreyfuss, Sean Penn and Denzel Washington have come to his defense. One would think that appropriate monikers for Cooper would have career-sensitive celebrities running for the hills: Ax murderer. Child killer. Mass murderer.
Now that pissies me off.
I'm against the death penalty.. But for that guy, meh. A killer with high-profile supporters deserves to die.

Strongly against the death penalty. I don't wanna be the part of a society which solves problems that way.

I'm from Hungary (EU), we've got no death penalty here but we used to have it some 15 years ago. No significant change in murder cases since then.
And the state should be exemplary in this case by not killing anyone.

In the British Virgin Islands,
if you kill someone, someone will kill you,
if you shoot someone to death, someone will shoot you to death,
if you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death slowly,
if you strangle someone to death, someone will strangle you to death,'
if you rape someone, interesting question?

Rapists should be castrated without anesthesia, child molesters should be castrated...

Explain to me how you castrate a woman, would you?

Against it. It serves no purpose except base vengeance. We are supposed to be above that as a society, and where I live, we are. *hugs Swedish constitution and European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms*

I don't care if someone's innocent or guilty. Murder is murder. Just because twelve people in suits make the cold blooded decision, doesn't make it any less wrong.

I'm against the death penalty because i dont think its a true penalty. When someone is dead, (s)he's dead, the end. The years spent on deathrow before the actual execution migth be the worst kind of punishment there is, but the deed itself serves no purpose beyond petty vengeance. Better to have them spent the rest of their natural lives locked up in a small cell.

Besides, murder is murder, whether comited by a civilian or a state-sponsored hitman, its the same thing.

Explain to me how you castrate a woman, would you?
removal of ovaries? without anaesthesia, of course, mmm... that'll be fun :eek:

I'm against the death penalty because i dont think its a true penalty. When someone is dead, (s)he's dead, the end. The years spent on deathrow before the actual execution migth be the worst kind of punishment there is, but the deed itself serves no purpose beyond petty vengeance. Better to have them spent the rest of their natural lives locked up in a small cell.

Besides, murder is murder, whether comited by a civilian or a state-sponsored hitman, its the same thing.


You have hit the crux of the matter. Is the death penalty simply murder condoned by a government?

I disagree, and I'll explain why.

Look at all legal systems, when a criminal is put on trial and convicted, he is subject to the punishments that the law says befits his crime.

BUT

If the death penalty is murder condoned by the government, isn't the time criminals spend in jail something equivalent of kidnapping condoned by the government?

You realise, that with this assumption, all criminal punishments set by a country can therefore be considered illegal. Caning is physical assault, community service is forced labour, and fines are extortion.

Therefore, we must conclude that for a system of criminal punishment to work, the government has the right to implement whatever punishment that has been laid down in the law.

Naturally, we should never condone unfair laws that place heavy punishments on minor crimes or stating a political opinion. But by using the death penalty for murderers, the punishment befits the crime. Furthermore, it acts as a deterrent against other would-be murderers and makes them think twice before committing the crime and risking the punishment.

The word "barbaric" has been over-used in the death penalty debate, and is in fact irrational and counter-productive.

What is worse than being "barbaric", is to allow convicted criminals to avoid punishment that they deserve, and the rest of society to suffer for it.

But by using the death penalty for murderers, the punishment befits the crime.

No, it does not. "Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." Just 'cause it is vengeful, does not mean it is fitting or acceptable for a modern society.

Furthermore, it acts as a deterrent against other would-be murderers and makes them think twice before committing the crime and risking the punishment.

The death penalty is infamous in its failure to deter crime. It has never been a good deterrent. Just look at the US.

The word "barbaric" has been over-used in the death penalty debate, and is in fact irrational and counter-productive.

I find it eerily fitting. "Eye for an eye" is a barbaric practice.

What is worse than being "barbaric", is to allow convicted criminals to avoid punishment that they deserve, and the rest of society to suffer for it.

And death is not deserved by anyone. Society suffers less under a ban on capital punishment than not, it has been my experience as living in a place where it is banned. There are boundaries to what is acceptable action for a government to take - just because they can legislate to make their actions legal, does not make their actions ethical, moral or tolerable.

Not only am I for the death penalty. I am for the expansion of the death penalty. It should include crimes such as grand theft, rape and child molestation. Also if the time that a criminal is to serve far exceeds their expected life expectancy, than it should also be a mandatory hanging.

I am also for the resurrection of public executions like they were back in the day. They should be turned into a spectacle that everybody can enjoy where food and beverages can be served while we sing songs and wait for the time of execution. :)

Not only am I for the death penalty. I am for the expansion of the death penalty. It should include crimes such as grand theft, rape and child molestation. Also if the time that a criminal is to serve far exceeds their expected life expectancy, than it should also be a mandatory hanging.

I am also for the resurrection of public executions like they were back in the day. They should be turned into a spectacle that everybody can enjoy where food and beverages can be served while we sing songs and wait for the time of execution. :)

Sickening.

Sickening.
yeah, that's going a bit far, i'd only do that in my nationstate

Sickening.
I assume you have a point to make?

The death penalty should not be used, not for any moral reason but because it is the only wholly irreversable punishment.

For example, in the '50s a drugs gang was brought down in the US (I forget where) and one man was excecuted eight years later for three counts of murder. In the '80s, they found the gang was still flurishing, as some had escaped justice thirty years earlier. The only witness they could have used was the man they had excecuted, so the gang walked free.

I assume you have a point to make?

There is no reasoning to be done here. Executions like a spectator event. Really, now. How about public stonings where we all rent a rock and pelt the adulterer? Cut the hands off the thief? Genitally mutilate the menstruating 12-year-old girl on prime time? Sodomise the faggots with red hot pokers?

My, my, Saudi Arabia, Khmer Rouge Kambodia and Sudan à la mode. There is nothing else to do than be sickened.

There is no reasoning to be done here. Executions like a spectator event. Really, now. How about public stonings where we all rent a rock and pelt the adulterer? Cut the hands off the thief? Genitally mutilate the bleeding 12-year-old girl on prime time?

My, my, Saudi Arabia, Khmer Rouge Kambodia and Sudan à la mode. There is nothing else to do than be sickened.
*Takes away Fass's jump to conclusions mat*

If you cant learn to use this thing responsibly, than I'm just going to have to take it away from you.

*Takes away Fass's jump to conclusions mat*

If you cant learn to use this thing responsibly, than I'm just going to have to take it away from you.

You are the one who wants executions not only to be expanded, but also turned into entertainment à la pelt the adulterer, or feed the Christians to the lions. That people like you still exist in this day and age is astounding.

*Holds up the jump to conclusions mat*

Do you have more of these things hidden under your bed or something?

You are the one who wants executions not only to be expanded, but also turned into entertainment à la pelt the adulterer, or feed the Christians to the lions. That people like you still exist in this day and age is astounding.
hey, what's wrong with feeding christians to lions? :p

Not only am I for the death penalty. I am for the expansion of the death penalty. It should include crimes such as grand theft, rape and child molestation. Also if the time that a criminal is to serve far exceeds their expected life expectancy, than it should also be a mandatory hanging.

I am also for the resurrection of public executions like they were back in the day. They should be turned into a spectacle that everybody can enjoy where food and beverages can be served while we sing songs and wait for the time of execution. :)
Sadist huh? Oh well. Whatever floats your boat.

Sadist huh? Oh well. Whatever floats your boat.
water, normally. though the blood of christians does a pretty good job aswell :D

hey, what's wrong with feeding christians to lions? :p
Because Detroit needs to do good next season

Sadist huh? Oh well. Whatever floats your boat.
I'm actually more of a masochist, but we seem to be getting off topic a little.

Because Detroit needs to do good next season
i don't get it. they're quite nutritious, you know.

I'm actually more of a masochist, but we seem to be getting off topic a little.
Sorry, my mistake.

Against the death penalty.

Reasons:
* The risk of executing an innocent person is present, and that is unacceptible.
* An inhuman form of punishment.

Sorry, my mistake.
See how easy it is to jump to the wrong conclusions?


Although sometimes I do like to switch things around a little bit. Any ladies here want to volunteer to be put on the wooden horse?


i don't get it. they're quite nutritious, you know.
True, but you have to get good Christians. Bad Christians are no good and can actually cause serious illness. It's much harder to tell the good Christians from the bad, than it is to tell who is actually guilty in the court of law.

Against the death penalty.

Reasons:
* The risk of executing an innocent person is present, and that is unacceptible.
* An inhuman form of punishment.
actually, it's a very human form of punishment, considering we've been doing it for so many years.
did you mean inhumane, maybe? though i don't really know why humane should mean what it does

When a person in his or her private capacity kills another person in cold blood, that person has already chosen the death penalty for themselves. If a government chooses not to exercise the death penalty on a convicted killer, they are avoiding their duty as protectors of the people. The punishment ought to fit the crime. It will rid society of those who prey on it, and also serve as a deterrent for those plotting to do so. A sense of action and consequence is required to make a society function normally and responsibly.
It also is a deterrent against people wishing to take the law into their own hands to exact vengeance on the perpetrators.

See how easy it is to jump to the wrong conclusions?


Although sometimes I do like to switch things around a little bit. Any ladies here want to volunteer to be put on the wooden horse?
It wasn't 'jumping' to a conclusion.. It was just me getting it wrong.

care to explain how it is right to kill a person who has already been captured and disarmed and does not pose a threat to anyone anymore?


I'll take this one on:

1) I don't know how it works in other countries, but in the U.S., "life in prison" doesn't always mean life in prison. Unless you sentence a criminal to 30 consecutive life sentences (and this has been done in some cases) it's hard to keep someone in prison, simply because there's a lot of people in prison, and as new ones come in, eventually you have to make room, so it's either kill them or let them go.

2) Just because someone's in prison doesn't mean they can never kill again. They could kill another inmate. If a guy's in for a non-violent crime for a couple of years, it's not just for that person to die at the hands of a scumbag that should be dead anyway.

3) Even if you stipulate that the person won't kill another inmate, it's still not justice. Justice demands someone who commits the ultimate crime should pay the ultimate price (preferably dying in the same way they killed their victim(s)). It is inherently unjust that someone who commits murder doesn't share the fate of his/her victim.

Now, in the U.S., we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment, so you would only be able to take the manner of execution so far. (i.e., you wouldn't be able to hack someone to death because that's how they killed their victim.) In other words, ours is not a perfect system...

3) Even if you stipulate that the person won't kill another inmate, it's still not justice. Justice demands someone who commits the ultimate crime should pay the ultimate price

No, no it doesn't. That is a warped sense of justice.


It is inherently unjust that someone who commits murder doesn't share the fate of his/her victim.
That is vengeance not justice.


Now, in the U.S., we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment, so you would only be able to take the manner of execution so far.

Cruel and unusual? You don't think killing a person is cruel in itself?

Cruel and unusual? You don't think killing a person is cruel in itself?

It's also unusual, seeing as the only developed nations apart from the US that still have the death penalty are Japan and South Korea.

Dictionary definition of vengeance :

ven·geance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vnjns)
n.
Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.

Dictionary definition of Justice :

jus·tice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jsts)
n.
The quality of being just; fairness.

The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Law. The administration and procedure of law.
Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
Abbr. J. Law.
A judge.
A justice of the peace.

Vengeance is just a specific form of Justice.

No, it does not. "Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." Just 'cause it is vengeful, does not mean it is fitting or acceptable for a modern society.

"Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" makes a nice bumper sticker, but it doesn't reflect the reality, when you're talking about the death penalty. The reality is, when you commit murder, society needs to remove you -- permanently. This isn't just about justice for the families of the murder victim (although that's also important). It's more about protecting society from people without empathy or human compassion. Furthermore, if the state refuses to kill someone for the commission of a murder, they are, in effect, saying that the murderer's life is more important than the victim's.

Secondly, "an eye for an eye" rests on a very simple premise: If you (the criminal) hurt me (the society), and I exact the same punishment on you, then the cycle ends. The criminal gets his punishment, the society gets cleansed, and everyone (except the criminal) is better off for it.

Strictly speaking, though, the death penalty as practiced in the U.S. isn't "an eye for an eye" at all. See below.


The death penalty is infamous in its failure to deter crime. It has never been a good deterrent. Just look at the US.

The death penalty does deter crime. I can guarantee you that once you execute someone, they will never commit the crime again.



I find it eerily fitting. "Eye for an eye" is a barbaric practice.

In some sense, you might be right. To be precise, the death penalty as practiced in the U.S. isn't actually "an eye for an eye" justice. Rapists aren't raped. Arsonists aren't burned to death. People who dismember their victims aren't dismembered themselves...etc. Therefore, in its strictest sense, the death penalty doesn't represent "an eye for an eye".



And death is not deserved by anyone.

That's just nonsense. However high you might set the bar, and even if you didn't want to carry it out for philosophical reasons, it's undeniable that there are certain people who just deserve to die for their crimes. Certainly you wouldn't want to spare Hitler or Stalin from the fates they deserved. If anything, the list of capital crimes needs to be expanded. I can't, for the life of me, figure out how rapists and child abusers (i.e., murderers and/or molestors and people who beat their kids) escape the death penalty. That's a no-brainer, in my book.



Society suffers less under a ban on capital punishment than not, it has been my experience as living in a place where it is banned.

How are you measuring how society suffers?

There are boundaries to what is acceptable action for a government to take - just because they can legislate to make their actions legal, does not make their actions ethical, moral or tolerable.

I'll agree with you there. We're just arguing about where the boundary is.

in what way could it ever be right to kill a person who has already been captured and disarmed and does not pose a threat to anyone anymore

In what way could it ever be right to force a victim to support a victimizer for the rest of their lives? Lifetime incarceration costs what? $30,000/yr+? I don't make that as a productive member of society - yet my tax money goes to keep Societal Cancers alive.

Execution is no more vengeance than excising a Tumor is vengeance. A PROVEN (or recidivist) violent criminal is a cancer. Removing him may or may not prevent others from becoming cancerous, but it will prevent him from being either a drain on society or killing more.

But hey, have it your way. I hereby renounce good financial policy and refuse to save for my old age... Remind me to swing by and whack your entire family so I can have room, board and medical care at your expense when I get too old to care for myself. (sure beats many nursing homes I've seen...) :rolleyes:

Lifetime incarceration costs what? $30,000/yr+? I don't make that as a productive member of society - yet my tax money goes to keep Societal Cancers alive.

Compare how much of your taxes go to that every year and how much go to.... Iraq.

I know where the bulk of my taxes would go, and I know where I'd want to get them back from..

No, no it doesn't. That is a warped sense of justice.

Justice is served only when the punishment is proportional to the crime. If someone commits rape, and is convicted of the offense, and you send them off with a $10 fine, would you call that justice?



That is vengeance not justice.

Merriam-Webster defines "vengeance as "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense":

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=vengeance

So if vengeance is punishment in retaliation for an injury or offense, tell me something: How do you have justice without vengeance? The only way to avoid vengeance would be to not have a punishment inflicted on the perpetrator, and that can hardly be called justice by any resonable definition.





Cruel and unusual? You don't think killing a person is cruel in itself?

"Cruel" in this context has a very precise definition, relating to the causing of undue pain in the person to be executed. That's why the Supreme Court rules on specific forms of execution and either rules them in or out. In lethal injection executions, for example, a person is simply strapped on a gurney, given one drug to anaesthetize them, and another to stop their heart and lungs. In terms of ways to die, it's more gentle than most natural deaths. On the other end of the spectrum, you have the electric chair, which I believe is still used in some states. I'm not sure what pain is involved in that process (because I'm not sure how long after the juice starts a person is conscious). But either one of these ways to die is a good deal better than what they allowed their victims

Justice is served only when the punishment is proportional to the crime. If someone commits rape, and is convicted of the offense, and you send them off with a $10 fine, would you call that justice?


No, but I wouldn't rape them in return... as befits murder/execute.

No, but I wouldn't rape them in return... as befits murder/execute.

With that example, I was just getting to the question of reciprocity as a function of justice. As I've noted in another post, strictly speaking, our system isn't "eye for an eye". Under current U.S. law, prison is the place for rapists.

The problem I see with anything less than capital punishment for murderers is that nothing less comes even close to providing reciprocity, because taking someone's life is so far above and beyond anything else you could do to them. No other punishment could possibly suffice.

It's also unusual, seeing as the only developed nations apart from the US that still have the death penalty are Japan and South Korea.

That's not how the U.S. legal system works. We don't compare our laws to foreign laws. We compare our laws to other U.S. laws, as well as the English common (not current British law) law that U.S. law grew out of. "Unusual" in this context would mean outside the scope of U.S. jurisprudence and punishment. Examples of things that would be unusual in this context are things like beheadings, stonings, throwing the condemned to wild, ravenous beasts, etc.

actually, it's a very human form of punishment, considering we've been doing it for so many years.
did you mean inhumane, maybe? though i don't really know why humane should mean what it does

Just because it's been done for many years, doesn't mean it measures up to the ideal standards we place on humanity today. It is a barbaric and monstrous practice, best left behind in the world today.

*It is truly irreversible and irreparable if an innocent is wrongfully executed.
*It is disputed if and how much of a deterrent capital punishment actually is.
*It is disputed which costs more, life imprisonment or executions.

Just to repeat some points...

Just because it's been done for many years, doesn't mean it measures up to the ideal standards we place on humanity today. It is a barbaric and monstrous practice, best left behind in the world today.

*It is truly irreversible and irreparable if an innocent is wrongfully executed.Which won't happen if the system is designed around executing only recividists or dna-provable cases.
*It is disputed if and how much of a deterrent capital punishment actually is.Deterrance is immaterial. You don't deter cancer, you excise it.
*It is disputed which costs more, life imprisonment or executions.It is only "disputed" because the system is currently an appeals-heavy process rather than having clearly defined procedures and criteria for application.

Yeah I agree, but man, another death penalty thread.

Alright everyone, let's just sound off instead of making speeches. I'll start.

I'm for the death penalty.

Im against Death penalty:headbang:

Which won't happen if the system is designed around executing only recividists or dna-provable cases.
And unfortunently, these systmes are not 100% certain today. And even so, with juries you still may get a wrongfull conviction - every system that relies as much on human beings as the legal system are also subject to human imperfections.


Deterrance is immaterial. You don't deter cancer, you excise it.
On the contrary. Deterrance is very relevant. It is one of the basic principles of all western law conserning punishment, and it is the primary theory of criminology shaping the criminal justice system of the United States today.


It is only "disputed" because the system is currently an appeals-heavy process rather than having clearly defined procedures and criteria for application.
Maybe so, but the arguement that execution saves tax-payers money is nevertheless disputed under the current system. And also, the true economic consequenses are difficult to measure.

*It is truly irreversible and irreparable if an innocent is wrongfully executed.
*It is disputed if and how much of a deterrent capital punishment actually is.
*It is disputed which costs more, life imprisonment or executions.

Just to repeat some points...

I would say that

*It is truly irreversble and irreparable if an innocent is wrongfully imprisoned. (You can let them out, if they're still alive, but you can't give them back their lost freedom, or time.)

*It is disputed if and how much a deterrent imprisonment really is.

*It is disputed which costs more, wrongfully convicting a man, or letting a guilty criminal escape just punishment.

Except I know you'll dispute the irreversability of imprisonment, because people against the death penalty tend to place a low value on freedom compared to life anyway. Which is why I usually tend to avoid these pointless arguments because no one even shares premises, so the conclusions always disagree.

But, perhaps imprisonment - or hey, convicting anyone of a crime - is barbaric. I mean you never know - as in Possession of God's Infallible Knowledge - if ANYONE is guilty. They MIGHT be innocent! There MIGHT be new evidence that turns up sometime between now and the next ten billion years which MIGHT overturn the conviction, yes?

Why convict anyone if you're not willing to stand by it's being a CONVICTION? Why even call it a conviction if you're saying that, because a few convictions are incorrect, no convictions are a sound basis to judge someone on?

And unfortunently, these systmes are not 100% certain today. And even so, with juries you still may get a wrongfull conviction - every system that relies as much on human beings as the legal system are also subject to human imperfections.


On the contrary. Deterrance is very relevant. It is one of the basic principles of all western law conserning punishment, and it is the primary theory of criminology shaping the criminal justice system of the United States today.


Maybe so, but the arguement that execution saves tax-payers money is nevertheless disputed under the current system. And also, the true economic consequenses are difficult to measure.
And as the system currently stands, I am against the death penalty. But I am not conceptually against the death penalty because, if the PTB had a pair, they would make a system that works.

Unfortunately, there is too much money and publicity to be made in Eternal Appeals and Execution Media Circuses to ever reform the system.

it's hard to keep someone in prison, simply because there's a lot of people in prison, and as new ones come in, eventually you have to make room, so it's either kill them or let them go.

don't lie, that's not how it works.

Just because someone's in prison doesn't mean they can never kill again. They could kill another inmate. If a guy's in for a non-violent crime for a couple of years, it's not just for that person to die at the hands of a scumbag that should be dead anyway.

ah, so we must kill unarmed people that aren't currently attacking anyone because running a prison properly is hard. and we have to kill people who are unarmed and not posing an immediate threat because they might do otherwise at some point in the future. that's just insane.

Justice demands someone who commits the ultimate crime should pay the ultimate price

evidence? reasoning? you don't get anywhere in an argument by assuming your conclusion.

Now, in the U.S., we have laws against cruel and unusual punishment...In other words, ours is not a perfect system...

dude, you scare the crap out of me.

ah, so we must kill unarmed people that aren't currently attacking anyone because running a prison properly is hard
No, we do it because it is EXPENSIVE, and it is immoral to force (through taxation) victims to support their victimizers.

and we have to kill people who are unarmed and not posing an immediate threat because they might do otherwise at some point in the future. that's just insane. Is it? Then YOU take one into your home. Give them, out of YOUR pocket, room, board and medical care. In the meanwhile, I will enact laws to make YOU responsible for their actions.

dude, you scare the crap out of me.
I hope so. After all, it was you who came up with my new retirement plan.

PLease wxcuse me, but I'm going to have to rearrange your post a bit to best adress it.
I would say that

*It is truly irreversble and irreparable if an innocent is wrongfully imprisoned. (You can let them out, if they're still alive, but you can't give them back their lost freedom, or time.)
...
Except I know you'll dispute the irreversability of imprisonment, because people against the death penalty tend to place a low value on freedom compared to life anyway. Which is why I usually tend to avoid these pointless arguments because no one even shares premises, so the conclusions always disagree.

I think I understand what you are saying, and I thought tha arguement would come, that's why I used the word "irreparable". If it is discovered that someone has been wrongfully imprisoned, an economic compensation can go some way towards repairing the suffering he has endured. Of course you cannot get the time or your freedom back,

Obviously, we differ a great deal on this arguement, as I don't understand those who value their freedom far above life. I don't know who it was, but someone posted (in a previous thread) something about rather wanting to die than having their freedom taken away for any length of time. I find that to be a quite extreme point of view.

Anyway, with an execution there is nothing to do if the person executed is later found to be innocent. Therefore, and irreparable mistake.


*It is disputed if and how much a deterrent imprisonment really is.

Of course, as are all forms of punishment. But it seems to work acceptably, so why impose such a drastic form of punishment as execution if that type of punishment is not vastly more effective as a deterrent?


*It is disputed which costs more, wrongfully convicting a man, or letting a guilty criminal escape just punishment.

Not really - maybe in purely economic terms? Because it seems that most people subscribe to the idea that it's better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man get convicted. Of course, this idea is not (and should not be) implemented fully in the western criminal justice systems, but it is due to this principle that there is such a thing as "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" as a requirement for conviction.



But, perhaps imprisonment - or hey, convicting anyone of a crime - is barbaric. I mean you never know - as in Possession of God's Infallible Knowledge - if ANYONE is guilty. They MIGHT be innocent! There MIGHT be new evidence that turns up sometime between now and the next ten billion years which MIGHT overturn the conviction, yes?

Maybe, but I think I might be more practical than you give me credit for ;)


Why convict anyone if you're not willing to stand by it's being a CONVICTION? Why even call it a conviction if you're saying that, because a few convictions are incorrect, no convictions are a sound basis to judge someone on?
What I'm saying is not anything regarding the conviction itself, really. It's more concerning the punishment imposed upon the convicted.

One way we determine the punishment for thieves is by the value of what was stolen.

In the case of the death penalty, we punish according to how we value what was taken.

I value the life of the innocent victim more highly than the life of the perpetrator. Since the perpetrator cannot return what was stolen, he forfeits his right to keep his own life.

Keeping a murderer alive shows that we value his life more than the life of the innocent victim.

That is why some have advocated killing the murderer the same way the crime was committed, burning arsonists, strangling stranglers, etc...Justice demands that the punishment fit the crime.

For the crime of taking an innocent life, the life of the not-so-innocent murderer is forfeit.

And they should stop the endless years of appeals. There should be a quick conduit for filing appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court. And once everyone has reviewed the case and turned down all appeals, deter the perpetrator from committing the crime ever again.

*hugs ... European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms*

Well at least someone cares for it. Affording prisoners electoral enfranchisement indeed, the logic and rationale is impeccable.

I think I understand what you are saying, and I thought tha arguement would come, that's why I used the word "irreparable". If it is discovered that someone has been wrongfully imprisoned, an economic compensation can go some way towards repairing the suffering he has endured. Of course you cannot get the time or your freedom back,

Obviously, we differ a great deal on this arguement, as I don't understand those who value their freedom far above life. I don't know who it was, but someone posted (in a previous thread) something about rather wanting to die than having their freedom taken away for any length of time. I find that to be a quite extreme point of view.

Anyway, with an execution there is nothing to do if the person executed is later found to be innocent. Therefore, and irreparable mistake.

Well, could not economic compensation go "some way" towards repairing the suffering of the wrongfully executed? Compensating the family, for example.

The fact is nothing in our human world is 100.00% perfect. It is for example, also an irreparable mistake when a man is sentenced to life in prison, and lives his life in prison, and dies in prison - but is later found to be innocent. What to do about that? Make prisons, prison health systems safer, better? But they'll still be less than 100% perfect. We have to, - and already do - accept the imperfections in the justice system without compromising justice. Where we disagree is that you do not think it is justice to execute a man, and I do. Both of us agree that executing, or punishing, the innocent is a miscarriage of justice.


Of course, as are all forms of punishment. But it seems to work acceptably, so why impose such a drastic form of punishment as execution if that type of punishment is not vastly more effective as a deterrent?

Because deterrance is not the *sole* purpose of punishment.

And how does imprisonment work as a deterrant 'acceptably?' In the US, we have the highest prison population in the world (686 per 100,000 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf)), AND one of the highest rates of crime.

Not really - maybe in purely economic terms? Because it seems that most people subscribe to the idea that it's better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man get convicted. Of course, this idea is not (and should not be) implemented fully in the western criminal justice systems, but it is due to this principle that there is such a thing as "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" as a requirement for conviction.

I don't know about how "most people" feel about this. I personally take the view that it is NOT better that 10 guilty men go free just so one innocent gets convicted. And I suspect that the ratio of innocents executed to guilty executed is nowhere near 1:10.


What I'm saying is not anything regarding the conviction itself, really. It's more concerning the punishment imposed upon the convicted.

Well, I've seen the reasoning against death penalty that does go like: convictions make mistakes, therefore it's bad to punish [to that degree] those who are convicted since they might be innocent. To me that indicates a complete lack of faith in the system of conviction, combined with the notion that it's unacceptable to punish [the innocent] by death, yet it is acceptable to punish [the innocent] by life imprisonment or anything else.

But I would agree that we should have conviction in our verdicts. Otherwise what's the point?

We most likely just disagree about the fundamental issue in this whole debate: is it just for the state to kill a man, who kills a man.

don't lie, that's not how it works.

That's exactly how it works. We put people in the parole system so that the prison system doesn't get over-crowded. Why do you think judges sometimes sentence criminals to multiple life sentences? Those sentences make no sense, if "life" actually meant "life".



ah, so we must kill unarmed people that aren't currently attacking anyone because running a prison properly is hard. and we have to kill people who are unarmed and not posing an immediate threat because they might do otherwise at some point in the future. that's just insane.

Okay, you're kidding, right??? Do you really think punishment should be based upon an ongoing crime?? What the blazes does the fact that they're not "currently attacking anyone" have to do with anything?? Lacking proper time travel technology, we punish people for crimes they've already committed.

evidence? reasoning? you don't get anywhere in an argument by assuming your conclusion.

For thousands of years, the justice system in the Western world has been based on the idea of reciprocity. The punishment must fit the crime. It must not be more severe than the crime, but it must also not be less. Any murder that does not result in the execution of the offender is inherently unjust (with the caveat that we make allowances in the system for varying levels of culpability (e.g., self-defense, insanity, etc.)



dude, you scare the crap out of me.

You might want to consider cutting down on your coffee. You scare way too easily. ;)

it is EXPENSIVE, and it is immoral to force (through taxation) victims to support their victimizers.

so then you favor instantaneous execution for theft, assault, noise violations, etc. after all, punishing those crimes costs money too, and it would be immoral to force victims pay for that through taxes, right?

of course, the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment anyway, so this is pretty much a dead point. unless you favor eliminating due process in capital cases. and if so, well, i'd like to point you in the direction of this little place we call 'reality' where all of the available evidence says that we need even more protections for defendants than we currently offer. unless your idea of 'justice' involves killing and incarcerating innocents, at which point we will have nothing to talk about.

so then you favor instantaneous execution for theft, assault, noise violations, etc. after all, punishing those crimes costs money too, and it would be immoral to force victims pay for that through taxes, right?

of course, the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment anyway, so this is pretty much a dead point. unless you favor eliminating due process in capital cases. and if so, well, i'd like to point you in the direction of this little place we call 'reality' where all of the available evidence says that we need even more protections for defendants than we currently offer. unless your idea of 'justice' involves killing and incarcerating innocents, at which point we will have nothing to talk about.
Ffft!

Anyone attacks me and I open them up. They are guilty the instant they attack me. I don't need a Jury to tell me that. I will not be declawed.

As much as I like Herring, you smell of it Red. Restitution is possible for non-violent crime, so imprisonment make sense. No restitution is possible with Violent Crime, so your argument basically smells.

Perpetual Appeal is not due process - it's a way for Lawyers and other rodents to make money off of the Government. Execution is cheap. Incarceration ans years and years of specious defense is expensive.

That's exactly how it works. We put people in the parole system so that the prison system doesn't get over-crowded. Why do you think judges sometimes sentence criminals to multiple life sentences? Those sentences make no sense, if "life" actually meant "life".

provide evidence that when the jails get full they let out prisoners who the authorities feel ought to remain in prison.

Okay, you're kidding, right??? Do you really think punishment should be based upon an ongoing crime?? What the blazes does the fact that they're not "currently attacking anyone" have to do with anything?? Lacking proper time travel technology, we punish people for crimes they've already committed.

you don't recognize a difference between killing somebody in self-defense (or defense of others) and killing somebody who has already been detained and disarmed?

the death penalty isn't a punishment, it is premeditated murder. killing a person when it isn't necessary to prevent them from harming someone else can never be an example of justice. in every other context doing so is itself clearly and obviously wrong, and so it is in this context too.

For thousands of years, the justice system in the Western world has been based on the idea of reciprocity. The punishment must fit the crime. It must not be more severe than the crime, but it must also not be less. Any murder that does not result in the execution of the offender is inherently unjust (with the caveat that we make allowances in the system for varying levels of culpability (e.g., self-defense, insanity, etc.)

for thousands of years the justice system was also based on trial by ordeal and oath taking. just because it's old doesn't mean it's good. if anything, the opposite tends to apply.

if the punishment should "fit the crime", and the only punishment that "fits" murder is death, then how does one assign numerical values to prison terms for other crimes? are all prison terms for thieves unjust, because the only punishment that fits their crimes would involve stealing from them? And what about murders that are not judged to be worthy of even life imprisonment, but merely a number of years in prison - are all such cases inherently unjust? which murders are worthy of death? how does one determine the difference?

Perpetual Appeal is not due process - it's a way for Lawyers and other rodents to make money off of the Government. Execution is cheap. Incarceration ans years and years of specious defense is expensive.

so what are we to make of the disturbingly high number of cases where the 'perpetual appeal' process was used up before independent investigations proved the convict's innocence? all of the available data says that we need even more appeals and higher standards at the original trials, because we are sending innocent people to death row. in fact, people are being exonerated at an increasing rate in the united states as more time and effort is being put into checking old cases.

so, do we save on costs by killing innocent people? is that your idea of justice? and if we're so worried about costs, why not worry about the real things government blows money on first?

you don't recognize a difference between killing somebody in self-defense (or defense of others) and killing somebody who has already been detained and disarmed? And yet, when I talk about self-defense and gun ownership you are against that too... go figure.:rolleyes:
the death penalty isn't a punishment, it is premeditated murder. killing a person when it isn't necessary to prevent them from harming someone else can never be an example of justice. But keeping them in jail IS harmful, and releasing them is too (Willie Horton anyone?)

How about this guy?

Serial killer dies day after suicide attempt

Tribune staff reports
Published January 20, 2006, 8:42 AM CST


Convicted serial killer David Maust died this morning in a Lake County, Ind., hospital, one day after hanging himself in his jail cell, authorities said.

Maust was pronounced dead at 7:34 a.m. at St. Anthony Medical Center in Crown Point, Ind., according to Lake County sheriff's spokesman Mike Higgins. Maust's body will be taken later today to the county coroner's office.

Higgins could not say whether Maust ever regained consciousness before he died. Maust, 51, who admitted killing three teenagers in Hammond in 2003 and burying their remains in the basement of his rented home, was found hanging from a braided bedsheet about 4 a.m. Thursday.

He was unconscious, and corrections officers administered CPR before Maust was taken to St. Anthony.

Thursday was the day Maust was to be transported to prison to serve his life sentence. In a sprawling, seven-page handwritten suicide note, the contents of which were provided by the county prosecutor's office, Maust apologized repeatedly for his crimes. He also was convicted in 1981 of killing an Elgin teen and was imprisoned for manslaughter while he served in the U.S. Army in Germany.

Ooooo. Doesn't look like he stayed in prison the FIRST TWO TIMES he was CONVICTED of violent killings. At leeast he had the decency to finally off himself.

As for the implementation of the Death Penalty, I don't want it applied to first offenders at all - except in circumstances such as where they catch the guy in the process of stabbing the fourth family member in a multiple homicide.

But I DAMN sure want recidivists like the bozos listed in this thread offed. No more appeals. They don't deserve to get fed by me. If you want to take them in, be my guest, but recidivists are simple cancers that need permenant removal.

so what are we to make of the disturbingly high number of cases where the 'perpetual appeal' process was used up before independent investigations proved the convict's innocence? all of the available data says that we need even more appeals and higher standards at the original trials, because we are sending innocent people to death row. in fact, people are being exonerated at an increasing rate in the united states as more time and effort is being put into checking old cases.True of old cases, maybe, but not so true any more. I would also like you to show some proof of your assertion. any bit of DOJ or other reputable source scrap paper dropped in my basket will do.

so, do we save on costs by killing innocent people? is that your idea of justice? and if we're so worried about costs, why not worry about the real things government blows money on first?
I say we save costs by disemboweling attckers before they get to the trial process in the first place.

And yet, when I talk about self-defense and gun ownership you are against that too... go figure.:rolleyes:

evidence?

Well, could not economic compensation go "some way" towards repairing the suffering of the wrongfully executed? Compensating the family, for example.

The fact is nothing in our human world is 100.00% perfect. It is for example, also an irreparable mistake when a man is sentenced to life in prison, and lives his life in prison, and dies in prison - but is later found to be innocent. What to do about that? Make prisons, prison health systems safer, better? But they'll still be less than 100% perfect. We have to, - and already do - accept the imperfections in the justice system without compromising justice. Where we disagree is that you do not think it is justice to execute a man, and I do. Both of us agree that executing, or punishing, the innocent is a miscarriage of justice.

Well, I've seen the reasoning against death penalty that does go like: convictions make mistakes, therefore it's bad to punish [to that degree] those who are convicted since they might be innocent. To me that indicates a complete lack of faith in the system of conviction, combined with the notion that it's unacceptable to punish [the innocent] by death, yet it is acceptable to punish [the innocent] by life imprisonment or anything else.
Huzzah!
But I would agree that we should have conviction in our verdicts. Otherwise what's the point?

We most likely just disagree about the fundamental issue in this whole debate: is it just for the state to kill a man, who kills a man.
Better, is it Just for the State to force the Innocent to support the Guilty - especially Multiply Guilty in perpetuity versus Excising the incorrigble from the Body Politic?

3 (violent) strikes and you're dead.

True of old cases, maybe, but not so true any more.

evidence? cause it seems to me that a significant number of recent exonerations were for people convicted in the late 90s

I would also like you to show some proof of your assertion. any bit of DOJ or other reputable source scrap paper dropped in my basket will do.

which assertion? that we are sending innocent people to death row, or that exonerations are increasing in rate? they are both easily found bits of info, and i'll assume you mean the latter, as it would be strange indeed to have missed out on the former.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ExonsByYear.gif


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Exons-8yrBlock.jpg

(taken from the dpic's 2004 report (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=1149))

(taken from the dpic's 2004 report (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=1149))
Ok, like, that's an impartial, non advocacy group's data. Makes for good kitty litter. How about from a non-biased source?

How many were actual exonerations (proof of innocence0 vs. technicality releases (we've had 37 trials and somebody screwed up in one of them. You're Free!")

evidence?
Sigh. Time to go gravedigging. :rolleyes:

Edit: Oh, Bravo! Demand proof when the Search function is inoperative. How sporting of you. :rolleyes:

Ok, like, that's an impartial, non advocacy group's data. Makes for good kitty litter. How about from a non-biased source?

How many were actual exonerations (proof of innocence0 vs. technicality releases (we've had 37 trials and somebody screwed up in one of them. You're Free!")

yeah, that's not how this game works. while it may have worked for getting the mainstream media to favor rightwing talking points over reality, i don't cave so easily. my source provides a list of exonerated individuals and the circumstance of those exonerations. now it's up to you to demonstrate an actual problem with that list rather than just shouting "bias! bias!".

Instead of the death penatly, murderers (etc.) should have to work for the party they have harmed. i.e. The family of the dead person. If the family feels that it would be too overwhelming to have their loved one's murder in their home, the murder can work for the state shoveling coal or something

Similarly, politicians that have embezzeled funds can work for the state.

Why kill someone that society has put so much effort into raising when you can make them work for the rest of their life

provide evidence that when the jails get full they let out prisoners who the authorities feel ought to remain in prison.

"Authorities" often let prisoners out, despite some of them believing they should remain in prison. Parole boards vote, and the results aren't always unanimous.

you don't recognize a difference between killing somebody in self-defense (or defense of others) and killing somebody who has already been detained and disarmed?

Hell, no! Not in this context. The point of the death penalty isn't only about defense. It's also about punishment.


the death penalty isn't a punishment, it is premeditated murder.

No, it's not. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. The death penalty is a legal punishment carried out by the state.


killing a person when it isn't necessary to prevent them from harming someone else can never be an example of justice.

Again, it's not only about prevention. it's also about punishment.


in every other context doing so is itself clearly and obviously wrong, and so it is in this context too.

In every other context, the condemned doesn't have access to courts, due process, or any other legal protection. In every other context, the people doing the killing are acting completely outside the law. Therefore, it can be wrong in other contexts, and not be wrong in this one.

for thousands of years the justice system was also based on trial by ordeal and oath taking. just because it's old doesn't mean it's good. if anything, the opposite tends to apply.

I didn't say Good = Old. What I was getting at is that the concept of reciprocity is well-established and has been reaffirmed and debated for hundreds, if not thousands of years. My point isn't that it's old, but that it's well-tested and agreed-upon.


if the punishment should "fit the crime", and the only punishment that "fits" murder is death, then how does one assign numerical values to prison terms for other crimes?

That's what judges and juries are for. And they make those decisions based upon the severity of the crime.


are all prison terms for thieves unjust, because the only punishment that fits their crimes would involve stealing from them?

No. As a matter of fact, thieves are often made to pay restitution, if they can.


And what about murders that are not judged to be worthy of even life imprisonment, but merely a number of years in prison - are all such cases inherently unjust?

Not necessarily. There are different types of killing that don't rise to the level of first-degree murder (e.g., manslaughter, reckless endangerment, vehicular homicide). The law rightly makes the distinction between those who intentionally kill and those who kill through self-defense, negligence, stupidity, or just plain bad luck.

yeah, that's not how this game works. while it may have worked for getting the mainstream media to favor rightwing talking points over reality, i don't cave so easily. my source provides a list of exonerated individuals and the circumstance of those exonerations. now it's up to you to demonstrate an actual problem with that list rather than just shouting "bias! bias!".
Ah, you mean this scrap you threw at me:
(Since 1973 - 33 YEARS)

EXONERATIONS BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE 14 - Good. But refer to the OP and the article.

BASIS FOR EXONERATION

Acquittal 40 - Acqitted on Appeal. Why? Were they Innocent, or was there an exploitable trial mistake?

Pardoned 7 - You can be guilty as sin and still get pardoned. That's Politics.

Charges Dropped 69 - You can't drop charges after a conviction.

Now, again from your own site:

VI. WHAT CAN BE DONE?


In its 1997 report on innocence, DPIC noted that recent legislative changes in the death penalty system were likely to increase the risk of executing the innocent. Many states were cutting back on appeals. The federal death penalty was expanded and two new states (NY and KS) were added to the death penalty column. The passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the defunding in 1995 of the death penalty Resource Centers that assisted with appeals around the country meant that new evidence of innocence could easily be ignored or ruled inadmissible on procedural grounds.

Fortunately, the emergence of DNA testing has dramatically shown the danger of such cutbacks. The problem of innocence and the death penalty has now been addressed by numerous organizations and committees, and pivotal recommendations have been proposed. Most notably, the blue-ribbon commission appointed by Governor George Ryan in Illinois studied the problems in that state over a two-year period and released a series of 85 recommendations in 2003. Among their proposals for change were the following:

Videotaping of all interrogations of capital suspects conducted in a police facility.

Reducing the number of crimes eligible for a death sentence from 20 to five (cases in which the defendant has murdered two or more persons, where the victim was either a police officer or firefighter, where the victim was an officer or inmate of a correctional institution, when the murder was committed to obstruct the justice system, or when the victim was tortured in the course of the murder).

Forbidding capital punishment in cases where the conviction is based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness.

Barring capital punishment in cases where the defendant is mentally retarded.

Establishing a state-wide commission -- comprised of the Attorney General, three prosecutors, and a retired judge -- to confirm a local state's attorney's decision to seek the death penalty.

Intensifying the scrutiny of testimony provided by in-custody informants during a pre-trial hearing to determine the reliability of the testimony before it is received in a capital trial.

Requiring a trial judge to concur with a jury's determination that a death sentence is appropriate; or, if not, sentence the defendant to natural life. [59]

About 20 of these recommendations were passed by the legislature and have now been adopted by the state. [60] Death sentences have dropped considerably, but the critical step of reducing the broad scope of the state’s capital punishment law was not adopted.

On a national level, the Constitution Project, which is based at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute and which seeks consensus solutions to difficult legal and constitutional issues, also convened a blue-ribbon study commission of judges, former prosecutors and other national figures to address the crisis surrounding the death penalty. Their recommendations are broader, and would have a dramatic effect if adopted across the country.

The recommendations of the Project’s report, Mandatory Justice, that most directly relate to the issue of innocence, include the following:


Effective Counsel - Every jurisdiction that imposes capital punishment should create an independent authority to screen, appoint, train, and supervise lawyers to represent defendants charged with a capital crime. It should set minimum standards for these lawyers’ performance.

Expanding and Explaining Life without Parole (LWOP) - Life without the possibility of parole should be a sentencing option in all death penalty cases in every jurisdiction that imposes capital punishment. The judge should inform the jury in a capital sentencing proceeding about all statutorily authorized sentencing options, including the true length of a sentence of life without parole. This is commonly known as “truth in sentencing.” i.e. it isn't really "life".
Protection Against Wrongful Conviction and Sentence - DNA evidence should be preserved, and it should be tested and introduced in cases where it may help to establish that an execution would be unjust.

All jurisdictions that impose capital punishment should ensure adequate mechanisms for introducing newly discovered evidence that would more likely than not produce a different outcome at trial or that would undermine confidence that the sentence is reliable, even though the defense would otherwise be prevented from introducing the evidence because of procedural barriers.

Duty of Judge and Role of Jury - If a jury imposes a life sentence, the judge in the case should not be allowed to “override” the jury’s recommendation and replace it with a sentence of death. The judge in a death penalty trial should instruct the jury at sentencing that if any juror has a lingering doubt about the defendant’s guilt, that doubt may be considered as a “mitigating” circumstance that weighs against a death sentence.

Role of Prosecutors - Prosecutors should provide “open-file discovery” to the defense in death penalty cases. Prosecutors’ offices in jurisdictions with the death penalty must develop effective systems for gathering all relevant information from law enforcement and investigative agencies. [61]

Unfortunately, the widespread adoption of these reforms is still only on the distant horizon. The same can be said for the recommendations for reform of the system of representation in capital cases issued by the American Bar Association. A year after the guidelines were overwhelmingly approved and issued, no state had adopted the ABA’s standards. [62]

Especially assuming the Bolded Bits, which they seem to endorse, What is so wrong with a properly handled Death Penalty?

Instead of the death penatly, murderers (etc.) should have to work for the party they have harmed. i.e. The family of the dead person. If the family feels that it would be too overwhelming to have their loved one's murder in their home, the murder can work for the state shoveling coal or something

Similarly, politicians that have embezzeled funds can work for the state.

Why kill someone that society has put so much effort into raising when you can make them work for the rest of their life
Because they have proven that they can't function in society without attempting to destroy memers of it?

evidence?
Why should I give you evidence (that you know I can't retrieve right now anyway) when you ignore the cases of recividisim (let out of prison to kill again) in the articles I posted?

Is is possible for an innocent to be wrongly convicetd? Yes. But it is essentially IMPOSSIBLE for any particular innocent to be convicted of multiple, seperate events - which is when I advocate executing them.

Killing a criminal serves no purpose. Some say that it gives the victim's family relief, but if people gain any sort of relief from the death of others, that is a sad reflection on our society. That type of thinking should in no way be encouraged.

if people gain any sort of relief from the death of others, that is a sad reflection on our society.

Not really, sure people could feel safe if the criminal is just simply locked away. But if they were really brutal in the way they went about their crime there will still be that lingering though in the back of your mind that somehow they may get out and do something to the rest of the family. Even though their chance of escape may not be all that good the thought is still there. Even worse would be if another member of your family witnessed the event and helped put them away by testifying. Knowing that the murderer out of the picture helps to take that away. The family may still experience some sort of fear if the murder is executed. That fear will be negligible compared to thinking of the possibility that they may escape.

Well, could not economic compensation go "some way" towards repairing the suffering of the wrongfully executed? Compensating the family, for example.

Hehe... No, not in my opinion. The compensation would only go some way towards repairing the suffering the wrongful execution has caused the family/other loved ones. The wrongfully executed would still be dead and could not enjoy any economic compensation granted to him post mortem.


The fact is nothing in our human world is 100.00% perfect. It is for example, also an irreparable mistake when a man is sentenced to life in prison, and lives his life in prison, and dies in prison - but is later found to be innocent. What to do about that? Make prisons, prison health systems safer, better? But they'll still be less than 100% perfect. We have to, - and already do - accept the imperfections in the justice system without compromising justice. Where we disagree is that you do not think it is justice to execute a man, and I do. Both of us agree that executing, or punishing, the innocent is a miscarriage of justice.

I agree with much of what you are saying. I would, however, change a small part of it. You see, I agree that execution is a form of justice. Where I feel we disagree is whether or not it is a kind of justice "civilized" nations should embrace and utilize.

Also, since we do not have a 100% perfect system, I want to minimize the consequences of a mistake by not having the kind of punishment that I have called "truly irreversble and irreparable".


Because deterrance is not the *sole* purpose of punishment.
No, but it is a very dominant one, if not the primary. Vengeance is arguably also a purpose of punishment, but is not and should not be a principal purpose.


And how does imprisonment work as a deterrant 'acceptably?' In the US, we have the highest prison population in the world (686 per 100,000 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf)), AND one of the highest rates of crime.

Well, I would think that without punishment like imprisonment you would have even higher crimerates?

Don't lose sight of my arguement, however. My point was that if execution is not a type of punishment that is vastly more effective as a deterrent than just imprisonment, I see no reason to utilize that form of punishment when there are other methods of punishment that have less inherent risks. (This is again linked to the finality of the death penalty, and my arguements above concerning the posibility of wrongful convictions.)


I don't know about how "most people" feel about this. I personally take the view that it is NOT better that 10 guilty men go free just so one innocent gets convicted. And I suspect that the ratio of innocents executed to guilty executed is nowhere near 1:10.

I note that we seem to have different philosophies here. However I would like to emphasise that I do not believe that the "slogan" above should be taken literally.

And no, I do not believe that there is such a ratio either. But I am concerned that there is a possibility for wrongful executions (I'm sorry if I'm starting to repeat myself here ;) ), and strongly believe that precautions should be taken to ensure that the consequenses of a wrongful conviction is as little as possible - without making the entire system inefficient, of course.


Well, I've seen the reasoning against death penalty that does go like: convictions make mistakes, therefore it's bad to punish [to that degree] those who are convicted since they might be innocent. To me that indicates a complete lack of faith in the system of conviction, combined with the notion that it's unacceptable to punish [the innocent] by death, yet it is acceptable to punish [the innocent] by life imprisonment or anything else.

But I would agree that we should have conviction in our verdicts. Otherwise what's the point?

We most likely just disagree about the fundamental issue in this whole debate: is it just for the state to kill a man, who kills a man.
I think you might be right about this, too. Aah, all this philosophy! :p But I guess that's why these threads keeps reappearing, there are a lot of different views, opinions and perspectives on the issue. Honestly, I'm just glad the few times I see a calm debate that is to the point.

Killing a criminal serves no purpose. Some say that it gives the victim's family relief, but if people gain any sort of relief from the death of others, that is a sad reflection on our society. That type of thinking should in no way be encouraged.

Killing a criminal does serve a purpose: the same purpose exterminating any other vermin does: It eliminates it. Imagine this: You somehow find a rattlesnake in your bathroom. Do you:

a) Try to talk to it and ask it to behave?
b) Try to trap it in a box, feeding it, hoping it never gets out, and never bites you when you try to feed it, knowing that your family is right outside the bathroom door?
c) Step on it and crush its head the first chance you get?

These are the choices society is left with in death penalty cases. (And before someone complains that I compare these "people" to animals, please understand: Through their behavior, they turned in their membership card to the Human Race a long time ago.)

I disagree with the death penalty because I do not believe that anyone is "evil." In my opinion, there are two criminals: those who make horrible mistakes and need an education to help them make better desicions (rehabilitatable), and those who suffer from mental/personality disorders and need proper care, but should be kept away from society for safety reasons.
Lately, I've been developing an extensive revision of Canada's judicial system. I will spare you the entire piece, but will provide my suggestions for the fate of murderers:

a) The "Rehabilitatable Murderers": (Those who are ruled mentally sane)
-put into Rehabilitation centres
-attend daily classes in "emotional management", Canadian culture, basic skills (reading, writing), career planning, etc.
-after a set period of time, will pass exams to gain admittance into society. Exams will centre around Canadian culture/history and basic skills. A career and life plan will also be presented for evaluation. Those who do not pass will be allowed to retake exams every two weeks.
By doing this, people who lived difficult, limited lives, will be given a second chance to become useful, respectful members of society.

b) The "Non-Rehabilatable Murderers": (Those ruled criminally insane)
-put into "secure care facility"
-all sentances will be permanent
-be given basic, but not extravagant, care (healthcare, access to pyschologists/psychiatrists, food, clothing, entertainment, etc.)

These people deserve our pity, not our scorn. They are unlucky to lack our sanity and judgement, and need help. In addition, more money will be focussed on preventing crime through education and the fight to end poverty.

in fact, people are being exonerated at an increasing rate in the united states as more time and effort is being put into checking old cases.

I've never really understood this as an objection. Exonerating more innnocent people is a good thing, right? One could certainly argue that this points to a past flaw in the system, but one could also argue that this shows that the system is improving and more reliable than ever. Now, that obviously doesn't help anyone convicted under the "old" system, but it does speak strongly against the idea that DNA evidence proves that the system is flawed. It's DNA analysis that's fixing the system. Rather than banning execution (which would guarantee that some people would not receive their full measure of justice), the proper course is to demand DNA (or similar ironclad forensic) evidence in all capital cases. (If you've got a DVD-quality video, bloody fingerprints, or DNA evidence, you can be pretty sure you got the right guy.)

so, do we save on costs by killing innocent people? is that your idea of justice? and if we're so worried about costs, why not worry about the real things government blows money on first?

I can't think of a worse way to save costs than to execute someone who's innocent. But I can't think of a worse waste of money or time than to give someone years of appeals and filing of motions when you've got them dead to rights. It takes years to execute someone, even if they say they committed the crime. John Wayne Gacy admitted to killing over 24 people, and he still lived 14 years on death row!

http://crimemagazine.com/boykillergacy.htm

I disagree with the death penalty because I do not believe that anyone is "evil." In my opinion, there are two criminals: those who make horrible mistakes and need an education to help them make better desicions (rehabilitatable), and those who suffer from mental/personality disorders and need proper care, but should be kept away from society for safety reasons.
Lately, I've been developing an extensive revision of Canada's judicial system. I will spare you the entire piece, but will provide my suggestions for the fate of murderers:

a) The "Rehabilitatable Murderers": (Those who are ruled mentally sane)
-put into Rehabilitation centres


I think there's a problem with your assumption here. I don't know how it works in Canada, but here in the U.S., being ruled mentally insane means you can't appreciate the fact that what you did was wrong, meaning you have lower culpability. Therefore, when someone is ruled mentally sane, it doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have some glaring personality defect -- like a complete lack of compassion or empathy. You'd have a hard time rehabilitating such a person, because they'd be completely indifferent to anything you'd try to teach them. Yes, they'd know that society believes what they did was wrong, but no, they wouldn't care.

I think there's a problem with your assumption here. I don't know how it works in Canada, but here in the U.S., being ruled mentally insane means you can't appreciate the fact that what you did was wrong, meaning you have lower culpability. Therefore, when someone is ruled mentally sane, it doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have some glaring personality defect -- like a complete lack of compassion or empathy. You'd have a hard time rehabilitating such a person, because they'd be completely indifferent to anything you'd try to teach them. Yes, they'd know that society believes what they did was wrong, but no, they wouldn't care.

Personality disorders, the cause of apathetic behavior, would be considered mental illnesses.

So far I'm seeing...We shouldn't have the DP because of the off chance an innocent gets executed, so we gotta let everyone be a drain on society, (Why not worry about something that kills more innocents, like swimming pools.), and te DP is state sanctioned murder, despite it being exacted on those who have basically forfieted the right to life...


Oh, and Terrorist Cake's world, where everyone is either insane or stupid, no one can really be "evil" and we can always fix them.

So far I'm seeing...We shouldn't have the DP because of the off chance an innocent gets executed, so we gotta let everyone be a drain on society, (Why not worry about something that kills more innocents, like swimming pools.), and te DP is state sanctioned murder, despite it being exacted on those who have basically forfieted the right to life...


Oh, and Terrorist Cake's world, where everyone is either insane or stupid, no one can really be "evil" and we can always fix them.

A few corrections to your assumption:
A) not everyone is stupid or insane. Those who commit crimes are either poorly educated, or insane. Those not convicted of crimes are a whole other issue.
B) we can't always fix people. That's why people who are CANNOT be rehabilitated are permanently taken away from society and put into secure facilities.

So far I'm seeing...We shouldn't have the DP because of the off chance an innocent gets executed, so we gotta let everyone be a drain on society, (Why not worry about something that kills more innocents, like swimming pools.), and te DP is state sanctioned murder, despite it being exacted on those who have basically forfieted the right to life...

Hmm... So criminals have forfeited their right to life, you say? Interesting. You want to narrow it down, or are you talking about everyone, even drunk drivers, shoplifters etc? Or are you only talking about the not-so-homogeneous group of murderers? And do you accept that the state has a unilateral prerogative to choose when a person have forfeited their right to life?

As for the rest of your post, it's an apples-and-oranges arguement. This discussion is about a type of punishment. You are talking about the inherent dangers and risks of a swimmingpool, which is quite irrelevant here.

What I have never understood about the death penalty, is that we say that these people have committed a heinous crime (which they have) by killing a person without the ability to defend themselves in cold blood. Our suggested punishment: do the exact same thing to them as they did to their victim/s.

Does that not place us as a society on the same level as these killers?

Personality disorders, the cause of apathetic behavior, would be considered mental illnesses.

But would a mental illness alone be enough to declare someone insane? My understanding is they would have to lack the ability to tell right from wrong. In the case above, they do know right from wrong. They just don't care.