NationStates Jolt Archive

C'mon! Give me this one! This guy deserves it! If we light him on fire, I mean give him the needle, it does not make us like him! You gotta want this guy to die. :D

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=49186

CANTON -- A Stark County man was jailed Saturday on charges that he raped and murdered his 7 and 1/2-mont

A video of it:
http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=20850&bw=

All murderers and rapists should be excecuted, and I don't care how. Anybody that says the death penalty makes us like them has no idea what right or wrong is and has no opinion worth noting.

I still think life imprisonment is more of a punishment then the death penalty is. Especially for guys like this who will get a VERY warm welcome by his fellow inmates.

I still think life imprisonment is more of a punishment then the death penalty is. Especially for guys like this who will get a VERY warm welcome by his fellow inmates.

Think of the afterlife though. Burning in hell for all eternity > prison rape.

http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=20850&bw=

I still think life imprisonment is more of a punishment then the death penalty is. Especially for guys like this who will get a VERY warm welcome by his fellow inmates.
You have two choices, though. If you put him in Gen Pop you are giving him the dealth penalty anyway so you are no better than if you just sentenced him to death. Or you put him in protective custody in shich case the only people he'll have contact with will be friends and family.

All murderers and rapists should be excecuted, and I don't care how. Anybody that says the death penalty makes us like them has no idea what right or wrong is and has no opinion worth noting.

But you could be opposed to the death penalty because of practical reasons.
I have figured, that if you have killed someone (or the like) and know that you are going to be killed in turn if you are caught, you are literally going to be fighting for your life. Which leads to more killing and so on and so forth.

And killing people is a very silly thing to do, coming down to it.

But you could be opposed to the death penalty because of practical reasons.
I have figured, that if you have killed someone (or the like) and know that you are going to be killed in turn if you are caught, you are literally going to be fighting for your life. Which leads to more killing and so on and so forth.

And killing people is a very silly thing to do, coming down to it.

So you assume that all murderers will turn into Spawn if we enforce the death penalty? Life isn't an action film. They're just sit there in their apartment doing cocaine and waiting for the police to come arrest them. Murderers aren't exactly all-powerful evil beings. They're just drugged up losers who went to far when somebody told a "yo momma" joke.

So you assume that all murderers will turn into Spawn if we enforce the death penalty? Life isn't an action film. They're just sit there in their apartment doing cocaine and waiting for the police to come arrest them. Murderers aren't exactly all-powerful evil beings. They're just drugged up losers who went to far when somebody told a "yo momma" joke.

If they are so harmless why don't we just let them be? :p

In a way, i really want him to die, but then he won't suffer... he needs to be imprisoned for life so that he can really suffer....

You have two choices, though. If you put him in Gen Pop you are giving him the dealth penalty anyway so you are no better than if you just sentenced him to death. Or you put him in protective custody in shich case the only people he'll have contact with will be friends and family.

There is no guarentee of that however. He will just be at risk like any other prisoner. I'm not going to feel some kind of moral qualm that he MIGHT be killed if in the general prison population.

If they are so harmless why don't we just let them be? :p

Because if you kill a murderer, the next coke-fiend will think twice about suffering the same fate.

Oh, you Usians. So cute and backwards.

Because if you kill a murderer, the next coke-fiend will think twice about suffering the same fate.

Yea, right, but my point was originally that if you know that you are going to get killed anyway, isn't there a teeny chance that you would kill your fellow human beings (let's say the cop's coming after you) to protect your miserable existence instead of just letting yourself get caught.
Some people let themselves get caught, of course, but not all.
Therefore my point is: death penalty = more deaths (both "justified" and otherwise)

There is no guarentee of that however. He will just be at risk like any other prisoner. I'm not going to feel some kind of moral qualm that he MIGHT be killed if in the general prison population.
No, you put tis guy in Gen Pop and he's dead. It's a sure thing. The only thing that isn't sure is wether he'll get posted with a broom handle or just shived in the shower. He will die, however. In prison they're called Cho Mos. This guy is not just a Cho Mo, though. He's a Cho Mo who raped and killed his victim and his victim was a 7 month old girl. He's dead in his first week.

No, you put tis guy in Gen Pop and he's dead. It's a sure thing. The only thing that isn't sure is wether he'll get posted with a broom handle or just shived in the shower. He will die, however. In prison they're called Cho Mos. This guy is not just a Cho Mo, though. He's a Cho Mo who raped and killed his victim and his victim was a 7 month old girl. He's dead in his first week.

Is it the added fact that he killed her? Because many child molesters get released from prison alive. They didn't enjoy their stay but they emerged alive. Were these men all isolated?

Somehow i think it would be more cruel to let this guy live and realize what he has done. He would suffer, especially since he would be imprisoned. When he dies in the fullness of time he will most certainly go to Hell, if such a place exists. Everyone is happy, except for him, which is the reason everyone else is happy.

Is it the added fact that he killed her? Because many child molesters get released from prison alive. They didn't enjoy their stay but they emerged alive. Were these men all isolated?
Yes, they usually are. I hang out at a tattoo shop and all three of the artists are ex-cons and they'll tell you that a guy like this will not make it. Also, there's a problem with the definition. Many "child molesters" are actually people who at age 20 had sex with a 16 or 17 year old. While I dont' condone that, its a far cry from having sex with a 7 month old. The guys at the tattoo shop actually say that they put people like this in Gen Pop sometimes because they know exectly what's going to happen.

Think of the afterlife though. Burning in hell for all eternity > prison rape.
Not everyone is that religious.

I still think life imprisonment is more of a punishment then the death penalty is. Especially for guys like this who will get a VERY warm welcome by his fellow inmates.

However, I'd rather such pople were simply excised from the population.

Do I think he needs punishment? I don't see how that helps those who already suffered. Let his 'punishment' be the tool that improves the world for everyone else.... his speedy removal from existence.

This man is a sick, sick, bastard. He should be left in a confined space without food, water, or a means to relieve oneself, and left to starve. That'll be a deterrent to crime.

I still disagree with the penalty. I don't think that vengeance has a place in the making of laws. Or shouldn't. If you don't care about the person convicted, which in this case would be nearly impossible, think about yourself.
I believe it would lower me and mankind in general to kill in the name of vengeace. Why kill a person who kills someone to show that someone is wrong?

All murderers and rapists should be excecuted, and I don't care how. Anybody that says the death penalty makes us like them has no idea what right or wrong is and has no opinion worth noting.


I strongly agree

In a way, i really want him to die, but then he won't suffer... he needs to be imprisoned for life so that he can really suffer....

I would agree with you as long as he was physically and mentally tortured every single day for the rest of his life

I still remain opposed to the death penalty, but in order for the death penalty to go away, I recognize that some serious prison reform is needed.

People that commit atrocities should be put in a 5x5 room with a cot and a toilet, nothing else. Two meals a day, little to no human contact for the rest of their natural lives. I'd say that's a hell of a lot worse punishment than dying. (But then again, I don't believe in a god or hell, so it really is a worse punishment.)

But the death penalty is in no way "justice". It's revenge, and that has no place in the justice system.

Yes, they usually are. I hang out at a tattoo shop and all three of the artists are ex-cons and they'll tell you that a guy like this will not make it. Also, there's a problem with the definition. Many "child molesters" are actually people who at age 20 had sex with a 16 or 17 year old. While I dont' condone that, its a far cry from having sex with a 7 month old. The guys at the tattoo shop actually say that they put people like this in Gen Pop sometimes because they know exectly what's going to happen.

Just curious, why wouldn't they make it. Like, what kind of stuff would happen to them?

My ideal justice system would be this:

A huge warehouse guarded by psychotic gangs of serial killers. The government lets the serial killers murder and torture any of those in the prison in return for not murdering a civilian in the outside world

My ideal justice system would be this:

A huge warehouse guarded by psychotic gangs of serial killers. The government lets the serial killers murder and torture any of those in the prison in return for not murdering a civilian in the outside world

Ah, Irony.

C'mon! Give me this one! This guy deserves it! If we light him on fire, I mean give him the needle, it does not make us like him! You gotta want this guy to die.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=49186

All murderers and rapists should be excecuted, and I don't care how. Anybody that says the death penalty makes us like them has no idea what right or wrong is and has no opinion worth noting.
Both emotional statements with no backing by logic or reason.

It's not about whether criminals "deserve" punishments. It's about what course of action would be most beneficial to society as a whole. Sometimes it's rehabilitation. Sometimes it's life imprisonment. Sometimes, yes, even the death penalty is suitable.

My ideal justice system would be this:

A huge warehouse guarded by psychotic gangs of serial killers. The government lets the serial killers murder and torture any of those in the prison in return for not murdering a civilian in the outside world
Good story. Could use a vampire or two though.

Just curious, why wouldn't they make it. Like, what kind of stuff would happen to them?
Because even prisoners don't like Cho Mos. If the person is a child murderer its likely that some guy who's in for life and has nothing to lose is going to kill him because its no skin off anyone's back. A person who's in for life anyways finds out that this guy raped and murdered a 7 month old girl and all that happens when he kills ths guy is he gets more juice inside. Its a win/win for everyone involved. The cops inside have one less person to deal with, someone that probably turned their stomachs anyway. The person who does it, if he gets caught, gets a life sentence tacked onto his life sentence but also gets more respect from fellow inmates.

Sometimes it's rehabilitation. Sometimes it's life imprisonment. Sometimes, yes, even the death is sometimes suitable.
And in this particular case?

But the penalty is in no way "justice". It's revenge, and that has no place in the justice system.

Exactly

Okay, since many of you anti-death penalty people say you think he should suffer, how about instead of the death penalty we "The Passion of the Christ" this guy? :D

Think of the afterlife though. Burning in hell for all eternity > prison rape.
This is even sillier. We don't know that there is an afterlife, a hell or how God will judge them. It is better to punish them in this life than risk handing them a punishment that will probably never materialise.

And in this particular case?
I don't know enough about this case, or any related field of knowledge (law, psychology, criminology, etc.) to make a judgment and neither do you.

I don't know enough about this case, or any related field of knowledge (law, psychology, criminology, etc.) to make a judgment and neither do you.
All I need to know is that he raped and murdered his seven month old neice. What do you need to know? Are you insinuating there may be some justification? Maybe the baby came at him with a knife and the only weapon he had to defend himself with was his dick? :confused:

I still disagree with the penalty. I don't think that vengeance has a place in the making of laws. Or shouldn't. If you don't care about the person convicted, which in this case would be nearly impossible, think about yourself.
I believe it would lower me and mankind in general to kill in the name of vengeace. Why kill a person who kills someone to show that someone is wrong?

It isn't vengeance, it's justice.

The person who decides not to live as a human being, is allowed to not live as a human being.

It's limiting the risk that that person can ever offend again, also.

It's limiting the risk that that person can ever offend again, also.
Only if you get the right person.

"Since 1973, 122 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004 and three up to December 2005. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt."

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

And killing him does what for the baby?

All I need to know is that he raped and murdered his seven month old neice. What do you need to know? Are you insinuating there may be some justification? Maybe the baby came at him with a knife and the only weapon he had to defend himself with was his dick? :confused:

You a legal expert?

It isn't vengeance, it's justice.

The person who decides not to live as a human being, is allowed to not live as a human being.

It's limiting the risk that that person can ever offend again, also.
At least this viewpoint I can understand
I cant understand the “lets throw them into general population” viewpoint

Why would we rely/let criminals do what society is unwilling to do.

Not only that but we then punish the person that carries out the “penalty” that people wanted.
Personally I would consider anyone that makes the decision to put them into general population if there is a well known chance of harm an accessory to the crime.

It's not about whether criminals "deserve" punishments.

Uh, yes it is.

This is why if an innocent man is wrongly convicted, it is said that he did not "deserve" the punishment.

It's about what course of action would be most beneficial to society as a whole. Sometimes it's rehabilitation. Sometimes it's life imprisonment. Sometimes, yes, even the death penalty is suitable.

Also true.

And killing him does what for the baby?

Nothing.

Come to think of it, imprisoning him for life does nothing for the baby either. Or even a heavy fine. Maybe we shouldn't punish ANY child raping murderers, because it doesn't do anything for their victims?

Murder is murder, no matter who commits it. IF it's a person who commits it, they're dirty low-down slime, wihtout a doubt. If it's a government that commits it, it's clearly run by dirty low-down murderers, just like the first one. Why do you justify the murder of human beings in one case, but not it another. Especially after we've had people who were on death row die before evidence came out that they were innocent.

Is the justice system about protecting the population, or murder? Because, in a system where justice is served, he might be killed, but justice is a lie anyway. No person other than the one who commited the crime is capable of choosing a punishment that really fits for the atrocity they have commited. Protection of the population, however, can be carried out in a civilized manner. You put this man away with a life sentence (in confinement, so the barbarians and rapers aren't allowed to work their despicable trade), with next to no chance of parole. You give him a counselor, on the offchance that he might be genuinely reformed, and forget about him. 99.999% of the time he'll remain in prison for the rest of his life. On the offchance that he does appear to reform, you make sure to determine whether or not he's actually reformed (*odds are he isn't*) and if he is, let him out under considerable watch, with rights to privacy suspended.

Murder is murder, no matter who commits it. I
Well duh but what you were TRYING to go for was that all willfull taking of a human life (like the death penalty) is murder

That is not correct

But yes murder is murder ... kind of like water is water or a banana is a banana

Edit:
Is the justice system about protecting the population, or murder?

Really by deffinition the justice system can not commit murder unless it is done ILLEGALY

You a legal expert?
I know, ha. I should be. Not that this case requires one.

C'mon! Give me this one! This guy deserves it! If we light him on fire, I mean give him the needle, it does not make us like him! You gotta want this guy to die. :D

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=49186



A video of it:
http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=20850&bw=

All murders, rapists, sex offenders, child molesters, and pedophiles should die!:mad:

Why do you justify the murder of human beings in one case, but not it another.
Ummmm......

because one of those humans was a seven month old baby girl and the other is a guy who raped and killed a sevent month old baby girl. If you can't see the difference between those two humans beings then you're just plain...

shit...

I don't even know...:confused:

Ummmm......

because one of those humans was a seven month old baby girl and the other is a guy who raped and killed a sevent month old baby girl. If you can't see the difference between those two humans beings then you're just plain...

shit...

I don't even know...:confused:

As terrible as it was, you still don't have the right to decide who lives and who dies.

As terrible as it was, you still don't have the right to decide who lives and who dies.
I know. That responsibility lies with the courts and a jury.

I know. That responsibility lies with the courts and a jury.
Well if you want to be technical it COULD be you ... if you are age 18+ you could surve jury duty

Because if you kill a murderer, the next coke-fiend will think twice about suffering the same fate.

I guess that's why we see lower murder rates in western countries that have the death penalty.

Except that we don't:
United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people, have death penalty
Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people, don't have it.

Finland has the highest murder rate of the western european countries. All western european countries have abolished the death penalty.

Well if you want to be technical it COULD be you ... if you are age 18+ you could surve jury duty
Actually, in my state it couldn't be me. In CA the jury reccomends a sentence, but the judge decides what it will actually be. The jury only decides guilt or innocence.

Actually, in my state it couldn't be me. In CA the jury reccomends a sentence, but the judge decides what it will actually be. The jury only decides guilt or innocence.
Well then why did you say judge AND jury?

I guess that's why we see lower murder rates in western countries that have the death penalty.

Except that we don't:
United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people, have death penalty
Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people, don't have it.


The problem with comparing raw statistics like this is it neglects to take into account any other factors that cause crime. And all the factors that cause crime are not known, so it cannot be assumed that they are otherwise perfectly equal between US and Finland and that the only difference between the two is the death penalty or lack thereof.

And killing him does what for the baby?
And a life sentence does what for the baby?

And a life sentence does what for the baby?
The point is that killing serves no purpose except to satisfy the blood lust for revenge. Surely, you are not basing the law on mere revenge?

Well then why did you say judge AND jury?
Well, its a little wishy-washy. I mean the jury does decide guilt or innocence... I guess it depends how you wanna look at it.

The point is that killing serves no purpose except to satisfy the blood lust for revenge. Surely, you are not basing the law on mere revenge?
Why can't anyone understand the difference between revenge and protecting society? Even the most secure prison can be broken out of. If this guy gets out, he will kill again. I'll watch you pro-lifers when a serial killer who got life in prison gets out and murders twelve people.

The death penatly, though, should only be used when the evidence is clear. Very clear. An innocent man could die for something he didn't do if we don't make sure of that.

The point is that killing serves no purpose except to satisfy the blood lust for revenge. Surely, you are not basing the law on mere revenge?


What should it be based on? Really? Punishment is there for revenge, no other reason. Locking someone up for life? revenge, "You did this, we are locking you up in a room to get back at you"

So, base it on common sense? Right, find ten people who ALL agree on what "common sense" is and maybe.

"Right and wrong"? WHOSE "Right and Wrong"? right.

Revenge IS why it should be done, becuase knowing that if you do a wrong you will have vengeance unleashed upon you (okay, slightly apocalyptic sounding words there, but I like the sound of them :P) is a way of ensuring that most people wont do the crimes.

Now, onto the use of the death penalty itself? If you want him to suffer, that is wrong. Make it quick and painless, he might rape little girls but you dont.

Now if you DONT want the death penalty because it is "inhumane" and then harp on about how he should be locked in a room and all that because it is worse, stop and think about what you are saying.

And if you dont want it because it brings us down to the level of the murderer, possibly an argument there. But when all is said and done, why NOT kill him. He has done something downright unpleasant, and as long as it is clear which crimes will get the death penalty, he should have known better before he did it, so he has no-one to blame but himself. Sometimes extermination is the best way. Try explaining to a grieving family that you think he deserves food and board for the next fifty years in exchange for him killing their child.


Onto the justice system as a whole.

Now, Obviously the death penalty cannot be used indiscriminately. Because there are lots of criminals, and even at 1 in a million chance that the bastard actually didnt do it (although finding the defendants semen six inches up a dead baby's rectum pretty much eliminates the chance it wasnt him) some people might have been innocent. So there needs to be an absolute whangload of evidence before the use of the death penalty can be used.


Now then, Death penalty for Murder, Noncery (paedophilia) and rape (real rape, not where both parties were pissed as newts and the woman doesnt like the thought of having had sex with whatever she wakes up next to) And dealing Class A drugs.


I honestly cant see a downside.

Because if you kill a murderer, the next coke-fiend will think twice about suffering the same fate.

Excuse me? Coke Fiend, think? Can you name anyone famous who's actually made clear, rational decisions when coked up? Is there anyone who was afraid of getting killed while high?

But the point is, that the death penalty has a history of being dispropotionately handed down to people too poor to hire competent defense attorneys and (are often) later found out to have been innocent.

Keep him extremely healthy so he lives to 100, then pay other inmates to rape him every day.

Only if you get the right person.

"Since 1973, 122 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004 and three up to December 2005. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt."

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

And....?

How many have been executed (one assumes correctly) that were NOT that 122?

Personally I would consider anyone that makes the decision to put them into general population if there is a well known chance of harm an accessory to the crime.

I agree.

And....?

How many have been executed (one assumes correctly) that were NOT that 122?
How can you seriously dismiss a state execution system that has sent people to their deaths without total and utter proof of their guilt as "and...?"

Until there is not the slightest chance of an innocent person being wrongly executed, I think all arguments in favour of the death penalty fall down.

Ugh. This is beyond disgusting. I cant imagine what that poor baby experienced. God this enrages me. Horrible.

The problem with comparing raw statistics like this is it neglects to take into account any other factors that cause crime. And all the factors that cause crime are not known, so it cannot be assumed that they are otherwise perfectly equal between US and Finland and that the only difference between the two is the death penalty or lack thereof.

Okay, how about between American states?

Okay, ignore that unless you can find a comparison. I remember seeing one but I can't find it anymore and without facts, I can hardly back up my argument, can I?

However, I will claim that American states with death penalty have higher rates of homicide than states without the death penalty.

How can you seriously dismiss a state execution system that has sent people to their deaths without total and utter proof of their guilt as "and...?"

Until there is not the slightest chance of an innocent person being wrongly executed, I think all arguments in favour of the death penalty fall down.

I entirely disagree.

I think that the fault is in the legal system, not the penalty system.

I don't think there should be a death penalty in cases like the Peterson case, where the evidence that convicted was basically circumstantial... but when you have a clear case, I think the system should be streamlined.

Like in this case... I would happily see the injection chamber, electric chair or firing range situated directly below the courtroom.... and the criminal party taken straight downstairs as soon as the sentence was declared.

Okay, how about between American states?

Okay, ignore that unless you can find a comparison. I remember seeing one but I can't find it anymore and without facts, I can hardly back up my argument, can I?

However, I will claim that American states with death penalty have higher rates of homicide than states without the death penalty.

Or maybe, those with higher rates of homicide have the death penalty?

That's the problem with statistics... what you read as effect, could actually be cause... and, indeed, the homicide rate MIGHT have been even higher, without the death penalty...

I entirely disagree.

I think that the fault is in the legal system, not the penalty system.

I don't think there should be a death penalty in cases like the Peterson case, where the evidence that convicted was basically circumstantial... but when you have a clear case, I think the system should be streamlined.

Like in this case... I would happily see the injection chamber, electric chair or firing range situated directly below the courtroom.... and the criminal party taken straight downstairs as soon as the sentence was declared.
Where the legal system and the penalty system are so completely intertwined I don't think you can seperate the two.

And there have been far too many times when 'clear cut' cases have been found later to be anything but clear cut. I don't think "er...sorry about that" really covers it when innocents are executed. And remember, innocents don't have to be dodgy people - they are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and could just as easily be you or I.

Or maybe, those with higher rates of homicide have the death penalty?

That's the problem with statistics... what you read as effect, could actually be cause... and, indeed, the homicide rate MIGHT have been even higher, without the death penalty...

Regardless, if you find that states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates, you can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Hypothesis: death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide. Prediction: states with death penalty should have lower homicide rates. Observation: states with death penalty don't have lower homicide rates. Therefore, the hypothesis is wrong.

Maybe my logic is faulty, but that's how I learnt science.

Or maybe, those with higher rates of homicide have the death penalty?

That's the problem with statistics... what you read as effect, could actually be cause... and, indeed, the homicide rate MIGHT have been even higher, without the death penalty...

Still, a major issue with this is that as its social, it can take years, if not decades or maybe even a century for anything to change.

So I guess some places are just stuck with higher homicide rates.

Or maybe they could give it a try and eliminate the death penalty. It seems more humane to do that than to introduce it elsewhere.

What we really need is something that tells us of the changes in a state that eliminated/adopted the death penalty, compared to one that remained static. Then we need to use mathematics to determine the probability that death penalty was the cause for this (fortunately, I am learning this atm. Unfortunately, I have no numbers).

Regardless, if you find that states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates, you can say that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Hypothesis: death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide. Prediction: states with death penalty should have lower homicide rates. Observation: states with death penalty don't have lower homicide rates. Therefore, the hypothesis is wrong.

Maybe my logic is faulty, but that's how I learnt science.

Your hypothesis is flawed, because it assumes constants that cannot be verified, and requires a 'closed system' where there are no 'interferences'.

Example...

If more people are murdered in Dallas than Denver and neither has the death penalty, what effect does the death penalty have?

If more people are murdered in Dallas than Denver, and Denver has the death penalty, what effect does the death penalty have?

If more people are murdered in Dallas than Denver, and Dallas has the death penalty, what effect does the death penalty have?


You COULD come up with a different answer in the case of each question... but the only scientifically 'honest' answer MIGHT be... we can't tell.

After all... there could just be more people with guns in Dallas...

Where the legal system and the penalty system are so completely intertwined I don't think you can seperate the two.

And there have been far too many times when 'clear cut' cases have been found later to be anything but clear cut. I don't think "er...sorry about that" really covers it when innocents are executed. And remember, innocents don't have to be dodgy people - they are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and could just as easily be you or I.

Of course you can separate the two.

If you have a case where there is reasonable doubt, you do not allow the death penalty.

If you have a repeat offender, serial rapist, with DNA evidence and a roomful of witnesses... you allow the death penalty.

If you have a healthy, happy child at the start of the evening, and a dead, violated child at the end of the evening... and only one person in the room with that child... you allow the death penalty.

If you have a case where there is reasonable doubt, you do not allow the death penalty.Isn't that how it's supposed to be right now?

Your hypothesis is flawed, because it assumes constants that cannot be verified, and requires a 'closed system' where there are no 'interferences'.

Example...

If more people are murdered in Dallas than Denver and neither has the death penalty, what effect does the death penalty have?

If more people are murdered in Dallas than Denver, and Denver has the death penalty, what effect does the death penalty have?

If more people are murdered in Dallas than Denver, and Dallas has the death penalty, what effect does the death penalty have?


You COULD come up with a different answer in the case of each question... but the only scientifically 'honest' answer MIGHT be... we can't tell.

After all... there could just be more people with guns in Dallas...
You can deny or twist the statistics all you like; the simple fact of the matter is that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Even without statistics this fact is plain common sense. Most crimes are committed by people in the heat of a moment; it is not planned or thought out, and so the punishment is irrelevent.

In the cases where it is pre-planned, it is reasonable to assume that the person does not expect to be caught. If they do, then they either care more about killing the person than the penalty, or, they are suicidal.

It is foolish to think that penalties stop crimes. They do not; they punish, not prevent. When someone does not plan something then they do not think about the consequences; when they do plan it they do not expect to face these consequences. The only effect state murder has is to send the message that murder is acceptable; to tell our children that "two wrongs don't make a right, at least until you're a grown up."

You can deny or twist the statistics all you like;


How rude! I have neither denied, nor twisted, any statistics.

I have pointed out that statistics are not a precise tool, and VERY open to interpretation. Weighing the 'reliability' of your data is only responsible.

the simple fact of the matter is that the death penalty is not a deterrent.


It is neither that 'simple', nor proven to be a 'fact'.

Even without statistics this fact is plain common sense.


It is uncanny how uncommon 'common sense' is, and how infrequently it makes sense.

But, I am not willing to accept 'Everyone Knows That" as a logical argument.

Most crimes are committed by people in the heat of a moment; it is not planned or thought out, and so the punishment is irrelevent.


I ask for your sources. I very much doubt that your assertion is true, even for homicide alone.


In the cases where it is pre-planned, it is reasonable to assume that the person does not expect to be caught. If they do, then they either care more about killing the person than the penalty, or, they are suicidal.

It is foolish to think that penalties stop crimes. They do not; they punish, not prevent.


Of course penalties stop crimes. The fact that a person might not speed, for fear of a speeding ticket, shows that penalty CAN be a dis-incentive.

Also - of course, if you execute a murderer, you DEFINITELY 'prevent' him from re-offending.

When someone does not plan something then they do not think about the consequences;


Again... I'd question how accurate this is. Even when a person acts on impulse, that doesn't mean they don't CONSIDER the results of their actions.

when they do plan it they do not expect to face these consequences.


Jack the Ripper planned to carry out crimes (although he may not have planned the details of each individual action), and then sent taunting missives to the investigators. He planned, and accepted the risk of consequence.

The only effect state murder has is to send the message that murder is acceptable;


Murder is a crime, specifially, if you check the definition, the ILLEGAL taking of a human life. State execution is legal, and thus, not murder.

to tell our children that "two wrongs don't make a right, at least until you're a grown up."

It isn't about punishment. It is about removing the chaff.

Isn't that how it's supposed to be right now?

One would hope so... I can't vouch for it's actual application in practise.

One would hope so... I can't vouch for it's actual application in practise.Then what makes you think such a system would even be possible under the circumstances?

How rude! I have neither denied, nor twisted, any statistics.
I have pointed out that statistics are not a precise tool, and VERY open to interpretation. Weighing the 'reliability' of your data is only responsible.
It is interesting that you have not posted any counter statistics to prove this point; you have simply dismissed that validity of the facts.

It is neither that 'simple', nor proven to be a 'fact'.
It has repeatedly been proven to be a fact. You have simply denied these facts.

It is uncanny how uncommon 'common sense' is, and how infrequently it makes sense.
I agree with that.:D

But, I am not willing to accept 'Everyone Knows That" as a logical argument.
I didn't say "everyone knows that" at all. If everyone did know that, the barbaric punishment would have been ended long ago.

I ask for your sources. I very much doubt that your assertion is true, even for homicide alone.
Of course penalties stop crimes. The fact that a person might not speed, for fear of a speeding ticket, shows that penalty CAN be a dis-incentive.
"It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crimes are highly unstable or mentally ill -- the execution of Larry Robison, diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, in the USA on 21 January 2000 is just one such example. In none of these cases can the fear of the death penalty be expected to deter. Moreover, those who do commit premeditated serious crimes may decide to proceed despite the risks in the belief that they will not be caught. The key to deterrence in such cases is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction."
From http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/dp_qa.html

Also - of course, if you execute a murderer, you DEFINITELY 'prevent' him from re-offending.
You also prevent the innocent man wrongly convicted from continuing to be innocent.

Murder is a crime, specifially, if you check the definition, the ILLEGAL taking of a human life. State execution is legal, and thus, not murder.
A definition is a word, not a fact. Just because state execution is legal in your country does not mean it is not murder.

It isn't about punishment. It is about removing the chaff.
So you are now doubling back on your own argument. If it is about 'chaff' then the deterrent is irrelevant; they are people who are going to commit crimes no matter what. If it is about the deterrent, then they are not 'chaff,' but people who would not have committed the crime with the death penalty in place.

And, of course, this is all ignoring the fact that the US death penalty is racist in its application and actually costs more than life imprisonment.

Then what makes you think such a system would even be possible under the circumstances?

Well - the reason I say I can't vouch for it in practise, is that I have SEEN contraventions of the very idea.... but they are aberrations, and should not have happened. It's the problem when we allow 'trials by media'.

Example: Scott Peterson... evidence is ALL circumstantial. Scott Peterson should not have ended-up on death row.

Maybe he 'did it'.... but the court case failed to come CLOSE to proving it.

Personally, I think that in cases like this, where the jury and judge decisions fail to meet the requirements of proving 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', there should be a punitive mechanism for judge and jury.

And a life sentence does what for the baby?

Nothing. A life sentence does protect society, though.

If the death penalty were a deterrent, why hasn't all crime ceased in Texas? We execute you for stealing grapes from the grocer's.

Okay, how about between American states?

Okay, ignore that unless you can find a comparison. I remember seeing one but I can't find it anymore and without facts, I can hardly back up my argument, can I?

However, I will claim that American states with death penalty have higher rates of homicide than states without the death penalty.

Even if that were true, which is the cause and which is the effect?

And again this assumes that we have a perfect lab condition here where we can test for one variable while all other variables are equal. But even with American states that just isn't true.

It is interesting that you have not posted any counter statistics to prove this point; you have simply dismissed that validity of the facts.


I haven't 'dismissed' the validity of the statistics, I have 'questioned' the validity... which is the scientific approach to data.

There are too many (FAR too many) factors involved for an objective deduction based on the statistics.


It has repeatedly been proven to be a fact. You have simply denied these facts.


Not at all... as I state, I just do not concur with the interpretation of the data.


I didn't say "everyone knows that" at all. If everyone did know that, the barbaric punishment would have been ended long ago.


I didn't say those were your exact words, I used that phrase to 'characterise' the type of statement. "Even without statistics this fact is plain common sense"... not only does this phrase effectively contradict itself (basically, saying 'even without evidence, this 'fact' is evident'), but it also is a logical fallacy. (An 'appeal to authority').


"It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crimes are highly unstable or mentally ill -- the execution of Larry Robison, diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, in the USA on 21 January 2000 is just one such example. In none of these cases can the fear of the death penalty be expected to deter. Moreover, those who do commit premeditated serious crimes may decide to proceed despite the risks in the belief that they will not be caught. The key to deterrence in such cases is to increase the likelihood of detection, arrest and conviction."
From http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/dp_qa.html


First - you source is an 'anti-death-penalty' site... so may contain some bias.

Sedond - "It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences..." This is true... it IS incorrect to 'assume' it. However, the 'assumption' doesn't always fit the reality.


You also prevent the innocent man wrongly convicted from continuing to be innocent.


That is the fault of the trial mechanism, not the punitive mechanism.


A definition is a word, not a fact. Just because state execution is legal in your country does not mean it is not murder.


Actually, it does.


So you are now doubling back on your own argument. If it is about 'chaff' then the deterrent is irrelevant; they are people who are going to commit crimes no matter what. If it is about the deterrent, then they are not 'chaff,' but people who would not have committed the crime with the death penalty in place.


The 'deterrent' was not my argument. My initial platform was that execution removes destructive elements from the picture, a platform I still claim.

I have only been sidetracked onto the 'deterrent' issue because claims have been made about the 'deterrent' effect that are not necessarily true.


And, of course, this is all ignoring the fact that the US death penalty is racist in its application and actually costs more than life imprisonment.

Actually, the death penalty costs next to nothing. The big costs are incurred in holding the guilty on death row, and paying for appeals. Of course, neither of these issues are a factor, if the guilty party is executed immediately upon the conclusion of the trial.

Nothing. A life sentence does protect society, though.

If the death penalty were a deterrent, why hasn't all crime ceased in Texas? We execute you for stealing grapes from the grocer's.

I suspect you are being more than a little tongue-in-cheek.

Sometimes, crime might be perceived as 'worth-the-risk'.

Even if that were true, which is the cause and which is the effect?

And again this assumes that we have a perfect lab condition here where we can test for one variable while all other variables are equal. But even with American states that just isn't true.

Exactly.

The 'deterrent' was not my argument. My initial platform was that execution removes destructive elements from the picture, a platform I still claim.

I have only been sidetracked onto the 'deterrent' issue because claims have been made about the 'deterrent' effect that are not necessarily true.
Life imprisonment removes them as well.

Actually, the death penalty costs next to nothing. The big costs are incurred in holding the guilty on death row, and paying for appeals. Of course, neither of these issues are a factor, if the guilty party is executed immediately upon the conclusion of the trial.
This actually makes me shudder a little. There is no such thing as conclusive proof; even where the case seems clear cut justice demands a fair trial and a right to try and clear your name. Considering how many people get released after appeal, and how many convictions on death row in America are considered to be unsafe, I think instant execution is a horrific idea. I can think of several people off the top of my head here in the UK who would be dead now after their 'clear cut' trials were the death penalty carried out. Fortunatly, life imprisonment gives us the chance in cases such as these to correct our mistakes.

Life imprisonment removes them as well.


Not permanently.

There is always the prospect for them to harm others in captivity, or to escape back into the world.

Add to which, I'd rather not support the cost of sustaining Wests, Sutcliffes or Hindleys.


This actually makes me shudder a little. There is no such thing as conclusive proof; even where the case seems clear cut justice demands a fair trial and a right to try and clear your name. Considering how many people get released after appeal, and how many convictions on death row in America are considered to be unsafe, I think instant execution is a horrific idea.

You are, again, fogging the issue.

Those convictions that are 'unsafe' should not be death penalty convictions, I have already said.

But, there are cases where, short of supernatural intervention, there is pretty much NO doubt about the guilt of the violent criminal. And, in those cases, I advocate a swift merciful end.


I can think of several people off the top of my head here in the UK who would be dead now after their 'clear cut' trials were the death penalty carried out. Fortunatly, life imprisonment gives us the chance in cases such as these to correct our mistakes.

You are preaching to an Englishman about the 'value' of the English law. Again, though, the problem you highlight is at the TRIAL, not at the carrying out of the sentence.

If you lack the stomach for rough justice, that doesn't make it any less 'right' or 'necessary'.

Again, though, the problem you highlight is at the TRIAL, not at the carrying out of the sentence.

If you lack the stomach for rough justice, that doesn't make it any less 'right' or 'necessary'.
No, you simply cannot seperate trial and sentencing. The two are intertwined; you do not get a sentence without a trial. Therefore, if the trial is faulty, the sentence is as well. There is no way to escape this simple fact; if you do seperate the two, you are advocating summary executions.

'Rough justice' is pure vengence, and, as I said before, is simply two wrongs trying to make a right.

People should just be allowed to punch eachother again. Without intervention. Without repercussions. It would solve a lot of problems.

For convinience I am forgetting the fact people nowadays have forgotten have far they can go with this. I.e. not beating another person to death.

Nothing. A life sentence does protect society, though.

If the penalty were a deterrent, why hasn't all crime ceased in Texas? We execute you for stealing grapes from the grocer's.Thankyou.
If the penalty deters people, why isn't the rate lower in those states? Since when is revenge equated with justice?
Wrong is wrong. When we stop people who kill people to show them people is wrong, then we might be able to call ourselves civilized.
Don't let your outrage over the heinousness of the crime make us all killers.

No, you simply cannot seperate trial and sentencing. The two are intertwined; you do not get a sentence without a trial. Therefore, if the trial is faulty, the sentence is as well. There is no way to escape this simple fact; if you do seperate the two, you are advocating summary executions.


First - IF the trial is faulty.

I advocate reform of the trial process. If the trial is just, the sentence can be just.

Second - I'd be interested to see the 'violent crime' statistics from Stalin's Russia. I'm inclined to believe that 'summary execution' could actually be shown to have a pronounced 'deterrent' character.



'Rough justice' is pure vengence, and, as I said before, is simply two wrongs trying to make a right.

No - I'm not talking vengeance, I'm talking about excision. If I were being vengeful, I'd say that torture should be the allowed method of execution for individuals like Hindley. Instead, I'm talking about a rational removal of waste.

Second - I'd be interested to see the 'violent crime' statistics from Stalin's Russia. I'm inclined to believe that 'summary execution' could actually be shown to have a pronounced 'deterrent' character.
Are you seriously suggesting that the way democracy should go is down the line of Stalinist Russia?

It isn't vengeance, it's justice.

The person who decides not to live as a human being, is allowed to not live as a human being.

It's limiting the risk that that person can ever offend again, also.

I totally agree so long as our courts never mistakingly convict someone.

See, if they get life in prison, there is a possiblity for redress if it turns out they didn't do it. If they don't, there is no possibility of redress. If there is no reason to worry about redress, kill them. However...

Thankyou.
If the penalty deters people, why isn't the rate lower in those states?

If Mexico has such tight gun law, why does it also have the fifth highest "Murders with firearms (per capita)"?

If Belarus law requires "guns to be stored securely, unloaded and with the ammunition stored separately"... (http://www.iansa.org/women/bulletin6/fact-sheet.htm)... why does it have the sixth highest "Murders with firearms (per capita)"?

Given the tight gun laws in the UK and Ireland, why are they still 32nd and 26th on the table of the world's "Murders with firearms (per capita)" biggest offenders?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap

First - IF the trial is faulty.

I advocate reform of the trial process. If the trial is just, the sentence can be just.

Second - I'd be interested to see the 'violent crime' statistics from Stalin's Russia. I'm inclined to believe that 'summary execution' could actually be shown to have a pronounced 'deterrent' character.




No - I'm not talking vengeance, I'm talking about excision. If I were being vengeful, I'd say that torture should be the allowed method of execution for individuals like Hindley. Instead, I'm talking about a rational removal of waste.

Come on, GnI, you aren't actually suggesting that effect of a punishment in a free society and a non-free society are equivalent. Saudi Arabia has great crime statistics. They are also willing to punish the innocent to make sure they get all the guilty. Do you suggest this as well? It's an important addition to statistics to note why the same action in another country might not have the same effect in the US.

If Mexico has such tight gun law, why does it also have the fifth highest "Murders with firearms (per capita)"?

If Belarus law requires "guns to be stored securely, unloaded and with the ammunition stored separately"... (http://www.iansa.org/women/bulletin6/fact-sheet.htm)... why does it have the sixth highest "Murders with firearms (per capita)"?

Given the tight gun laws in the UK and Ireland, why are they still 32nd and 26th on the table of the world's "Murders with firearms (per capita)" biggest offenders?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap

Because gun laws don't prevent gun crime. Next question.

Are you seriously suggesting that the way democracy should go is down the line of Stalinist Russia?

Not at all. I'm just showing that your throwaway 'summary execution' comment, though flippant, might make a liar of your own 'not a deterrent' argument.

I totally agree so long as our courts never mistakingly convict someone.

See, if they get life in prison, there is a possiblity for redress if it turns out they didn't do it. If they don't, there is no possibility of redress. If there is no reason to worry about redress, kill them. However...

So - you and I agree, it is the trial that is the problem?

Personally - I don't see a whole world of difference. Someone who spends 30 years appealing a wrongful verdict has lost 30 years of his (her) life... and nothing is going to make up for that.

Not at all. I'm just showing that your throwaway 'summary execution' comment, though flippant, might make a liar of your own 'not a deterrent' argument.

In the US, there is no reasonably sound evidence that the death penalty deters criminals. There is evidence that if it were applied equally that it would deter criminals, but the problem is, it isn't. It's like a parent that might kick the crap out of you for forgetting to clean your room, but ignores it if you smack your brother in the head with a bat. The death penalty should be applied after we've found a way to apply it equally and with less mistakes, not before with the hopes we'll clean it up somewhere along the way.

Not at all. I'm just showing that your throwaway 'summary execution' comment, though flippant, might make a liar of your own 'not a deterrent' argument.
So, you are essentially confessing that the only way it is a deterrent is if it is done as a summary execution?

Come on, GnI, you aren't actually suggesting that effect of a punishment in a free society and a non-free society are equivalent. Saudi Arabia has great crime statistics. They are also willing to punish the innocent to make sure they get all the guilty. Do you suggest this as well? It's an important addition to statistics to note why the same action in another country might not have the same effect in the US.

First - actually, I can see an argument for a "punish the innocent to make sure they get all the guilty" approach.... in as much as, I don't see accidental wrong verdicts as sufficient reason to NOT have a death penalty.

Second - "It's an important addition to statistics to note why the same action in another country might not have the same effect in the US"... this is part of what I've been saying about the 'deterrent' statistics... there are SO many variables, there is almost no meaning to the raw data.

So - you and I agree, it is the trial that is the problem?

Personally - I don't see a whole world of difference. Someone who spends 30 years appealing a wrongful verdict has lost 30 years of his (her) life... and nothing is going to make up for that.
They still have the rest of their lives to enjoy, however. This is something denied to the executed - while their families may clear their name, they will never be able to enjoy their own freedom and innocence.

First - actually, I can see an argument for a "punish the innocent to make sure they get all the guilty" approach.... in as much as, I don't see accidental wrong verdicts as sufficient reason to NOT have a death penalty.
This really is quite a frightening argument. Always bare in mind when you say this that you might be that innocent person one day.

In the US, there is no reasonably sound evidence that the death penalty deters criminals. There is evidence that if it were applied equally that it would deter criminals, but the problem is, it isn't. It's like a parent that might kick the crap out of you for forgetting to clean your room, but ignores it if you smack your brother in the head with a bat. The death penalty should be applied after we've found a way to apply it equally and with less mistakes, not before with the hopes we'll clean it up somewhere along the way.

It certainly deters the criminal you execute...

On the other hand, there is no reasonably sound evidence that the death penalty does NOT deter criminals...

As I've said... the trial system needs reform. But that is a fault with the trial system, not something 'wrong' with the death penalty.

So, you are essentially confessing that the only way it is a deterrent is if it is done as a summary execution?

No.

That's not even close to anything in the comment you responded to.

That, my friend... is what we call 'a Strawman'.

No.

That's not even close to anything in the comment you responded to.

That, my friend... is what we call 'a Strawman'.
Right...

So what exactly did you mean, then?

They still have the rest of their lives to enjoy, however. This is something denied to the executed - while their families may clear their name, they will never be able to enjoy their own freedom and innocence.

I suspect 'enjoy' is a relative term.

Also... one of the problems of long-term incarceration, is that people adapt to it. They become unable to function properly outside of the institution.

So - overall... who got off 'lighter'?

So - you and I agree, it is the trial that is the problem?

Personally - I don't see a whole world of difference. Someone who spends 30 years appealing a wrongful verdict has lost 30 years of his (her) life... and nothing is going to make up for that.

Not make up for it, but they are not denied the remainder of their life. That's the point.

I find no problem with applying the death penalty when trials are not a problem. Currently, they are.

In 1 in 4 death penalty cases in Texas, the state with the most executions by a LONG SHOT, the attorneys for the defendents have since been disbarred or sanctioned in some way by the ABA or convicted of a crime. The vast majority of death penalty convictions have public defenders. The statistics skew very far towards men and minorities. They are applied much more fiercely in certain counties and not in others.

All of these are a violation of the of the fourth amendment in that they are arbitrary. The Supreme Court did not find the evidence compelling but I do. How could you not? There is no question that where you commit a crime, how much money you have, your gender and your sex all affect the outcome of your case.

Also, it should be noted that 123 death penalty cases have involved defendents who were convicted and then later found to be INNOCENT when new data surfaced. Not just not guilty. There was evidence of innocence. It has been found time and again that often the prosecuter withheld evidence that the person was innocent or that the evidence that convicted the defendent was ludicrously faulty.

All of these should staggering problems in placing such a final solution on a problem. 123 innocent in comparison to only a little over 1000 put to death in that time frame. Isn't that worrisome to you at all?

This really is quite a frightening argument. Always bare in mind when you say this that you might be that innocent person one day.

I appreciate that. I think, however, that maybe there can be an argument made for the 'needs of the many' outweighing the 'needs of the one'... and I'm not about to let squeamishness make my decision for me.

Yeah, why don't you just lynch him! Way to go America! F*ck yeah! Send him to that christian hell you so avidly believe he will burn in. Rest assured I am really truly enjoying watching you economy deflate until you eventually lose your economic loop-hole entirely as it gurgles down the oil drain. You backwardsy backwards-heads!

Right...

So what exactly did you mean, then?

I had thought it self-evident.

If summary execution DOES have a sobering effect on violent crime, then there is an argument that 'death penalties' CAN be deterrents.

I appreciate that. I think, however, that maybe there can be an argument made for the 'needs of the many' outweighing the 'needs of the one'... and I'm not about to let squeamishness make my decision for me.
The needs of the many never outweigh the needs of the one. This thinking gives rise to 'logic' such as the one you have put forward, and justified murder, torture and all sorts of crimes against the individual 'for the greater good.' You may see the desire not to be wrongly executed as 'squeamishness,' but fortunatly for the rest of us, democracy and justice do not.

I suspect 'enjoy' is a relative term.

Also... one of the problems of long-term incarceration, is that people adapt to it. They become unable to function properly outside of the institution.

So - overall... who got off 'lighter'?

So your argument is that it's better to kill innocent people than to later find them innocent and release them from jail? Am I getting that right?

Keep in mind that judges are rarely willing to see cases for those already put to death so it is unlikely that even posthumously they will ever get the conviction expunged. That means the child of the innocent man will never see the proof that their father wasn't a murderer/rapist. The family doesn't get the resolution of knowing that their brother/father/son was innocent. Most importantly, that person goes to their death knowing that everyone thinks they committed that heinous crime. There is more to redress than simply giving the remainder of their life back. How about the dignity of knowing you were found innocent?

The needs of the many never outweigh the needs of the one.

Man ... Spock is gonna be pissed.

Not make up for it, but they are not denied the remainder of their life. That's the point.

I find no problem with applying the death penalty when trials are not a problem. Currently, they are.

In 1 in 4 death penalty cases in Texas, the state with the most executions by a LONG SHOT, the attorneys for the defendents have since been disbarred or sanctioned in some way by the ABA or convicted of a crime. The vast majority of death penalty convictions have public defenders. The statistics skew very far towards men and minorities. They are applied much more fiercely in certain counties and not in others.

All of these are a violation of the of the fourth amendment in that they are arbitrary. The Supreme Court did not find the evidence compelling but I do. How could you not? There is no question that where you commit a crime, how much money you have, your gender and your sex all affect the outcome of your case.

Also, it should be noted that 123 death penalty cases have involved defendents who were convicted and then later found to be INNOCENT when new data surfaced. Not just not guilty. There was evidence of innocence. It has been found time and again that often the prosecuter withheld evidence that the person was innocent or that the evidence that convicted the defendent was ludicrously faulty.

All of these should staggering problems in placing such a final solution on a problem. 123 innocent in comparison to only a little over 1000 put to death in that time frame. Isn't that worrisome to you at all?

Worrisome? I don't know about 'worrisome'.

I think it is clearly wrong, if that is wht you are asking.

But, THAT is the problem... the arbitrary nature of justice in this country (and, no doubt, everywhere else). The ONLY reason I can see for a NATIONAL 'constitution', is to set rules that apply nationally.

If that is not being done, then the constitution is just paper.

I advocate HEAVY reform of the application of law. Justice should be blind.

I had thought it self-evident.

If summary execution DOES have a sobering effect on violent crime, then there is an argument that 'death penalties' CAN be deterrents.
No, that is an argument that summary executions reduces crime (which there is no evidence of). We do not live in a totalitarian state, so why is this relevant?

The needs of the many never outweigh the needs of the one. This thinking gives rise to 'logic' such as the one you have put forward, and justified murder, torture and all sorts of crimes against the individual 'for the greater good.' You may see the desire not to be wrongly executed as 'squeamishness,' but fortunatly for the rest of us, democracy and justice do not.

On the contrary, the simple fact that we live in societies makes a liar of this argument. Taxation is 'the need of the many outweighing the needs of the one'. Compulsary Purchase (Eminent Domain) is 'the need of the many outweighing the needs of the one'. Every law, every ordinance... even building codes, are ''the need of the many outweighing the needs of the one'.

It is the entire basis of 'civilisation'.

If you preach that the needs of the one outweigh those of the many, then you stand in opposition to the very principles on which conventional western society stands.

I appreciate that. I think, however, that maybe there can be an argument made for the 'needs of the many' outweighing the 'needs of the one'... and I'm not about to let squeamishness make my decision for me.

Not in terms of our legal system. The system was designed with the idea that the one is more important. That is why "innocent until proven guilty" is so important. From the standpoint of the needs of the many one can't help but reach the conclusion that it is better the other way around.

The majority are innocent. That's why protecting the innocent even if it's one is protecting the needs of the many.

Also, religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc. are all predicated on the idea that the needs of the many, the majority, cannot be the only consideration or the biggest consideration, that certain things in this country are more important that simply appeasing the majority. Those things are the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. A faulty trial affects the second, but it can be addressed. A fault death penalty affects the first and it can never be addressed.

Worrisome? I don't know about 'worrisome'.

I think it is clearly wrong, if that is wht you are asking.

But, THAT is the problem... the arbitrary nature of justice in this country (and, no doubt, everywhere else). The ONLY reason I can see for a NATIONAL 'constitution', is to set rules that apply nationally.

If that is not being done, then the constitution is just paper.

I advocate HEAVY reform of the application of law. Justice should be blind.

Agreed. The problem is you are willing to allow it to abuse people until it finally is righted. I totally believe in the death penalty. But without blind justice, I can't advocate it. And as you say there is not blind justice at this time.

So your argument is that it's better to kill innocent people than to later find them innocent and release them from jail? Am I getting that right?

Keep in mind that judges are rarely willing to see cases for those already put to death so it is unlikely that even posthumously they will ever get the conviction expunged. That means the child of the innocent man will never see the proof that their father wasn't a murderer/rapist. The family doesn't get the resolution of knowing that their brother/father/son was innocent. Most importantly, that person goes to their death knowing that everyone thinks they committed that heinous crime. There is more to redress than simply giving the remainder of their life back. How about the dignity of knowing you were found innocent?

If I were innocent of a crime, it would not be keeping me up, night after night, after 30 years in prison for that act... that it was not 'public knowledge' that I was innocent.

Again though... we arrive at the flaws in the current system, which I have said is poor.

On the contrary, the simple fact that we live in societies makes a liar of this argument. Taxation is 'the need of the many outweighing the needs of the one'. Compulsary Purchase (Eminent Domain) is 'the need of the many outweighing the needs of the one'. Every law, every ordinance... even building codes, are ''the need of the many outweighing the needs of the one'.

It is the entire basis of 'civilisation'.

If you preach that the needs of the one outweigh those of the many, then you stand in opposition to the very principles on which conventional western society stands.
There are reasons why the individuals voice may be overruled; this is completely and utterly different to ignoring the needs of the one. As I say, when you start to think of the individual as subordinate to the 'group' you can justify exactly what you are trying to justify; executions of the innocent as being for the 'greater good.' This is abhorent in a civilised society.

Only if you get the right person.

"Since 1973, 122 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004 and three up to December 2005. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt."

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng
That's bullshit. 122 prisoners were not released because they were found to be innocent. Most were released because of some technicality like they found th dead woman's bloody panities in the guy's gym bag but the search warrent didn't cover his gym bag. Also, the fact taht all these people were released from death row means the system is working. Find me evidence of someone being executed that was later found to be innocent. You keep saying that liek its a fact and I have read from reliable sources that no one who was actually executed was ever later foudn to have been innocent. Someone posted some stories in another thread and i was going to check them out but I can't find the thread. Please post a story or evidence that an innocent person was actually executed, not let go from death row because they means the system of checks we have against wrongful execution is working, but actually executed.

Another thing, you also said that a person commits murder in teh heat of the moment and doesn't plan it. Well that person will not get the death penalty because the death penalty is for 1st degree mruder. 1st degree murder is by definition, planned. If its a heat of teh moment thing he will be charged with 2nd degree murder or volutary manslaughter. Neither are capital crimes.

That's bullshit. 122 prisoners were not released because they were found to be innocent. Most were released because of some technicality like they found th dead woman's bloody panities in the guy's gym bag but the search warrent didn't cover his gym bag. Also, the fact taht all these people were released from death row means the system is working. Find me evidence of someone being executed that was later found to be innocent. You keep saying that liek its a fact and I have read from reliable sources that no one who was actually executed was ever later foudn to have been innocent. Someone posted some stories in another thread and i was going to check them out but I can't find the thread. Please post a story or evidence that an innocent person was actually executed, not let go from death row because they means the system of checks we have against wrongful execution is working, but actually executed.
http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/25casesdraft.html

On the contrary, the simple fact that we live in societies makes a liar of this argument. Taxation is 'the need of the many outweighing the needs of the one'. Compulsary Purchase (Eminent Domain) is 'the need of the many outweighing the needs of the one'. Every law, every ordinance... even building codes, are ''the need of the many outweighing the needs of the one'.

No, it isn't. Taxes affect everyone. It's the needs of the many outweight the wants of the many. Most of the programs that taxation is used for are the needs of the few. This is because of the very basis of our system of government.

It is the entire basis of 'civilisation'.

Again, no. To make this argument you have to deny personal rights.

If you preach that the needs of the one outweigh those of the many, then you stand in opposition to the very principles on which conventional western society stands.

Sorry, GnI. That's completely false. Conventionaly western society is the first modern societies where we have finally begun recognizing INDIVIDUAL rights. Would a national relgion fit within the constitution if the majority of the country believed in it? Nope. Why not? Because of individual rights to liberty, to justice, to life.

Conventional western society holds that protecting the one is individually protecting each of the many, not just protecting a majority.

That's bullshit. 122 prisoners were not released because they were found to be innocent. Most were released because of some technicality like they found th dead woman's bloody panities in the guy's gym bag but the search warrent didn't cover his gym bag. Also, the fact taht all these people were released from death row means the system is working. Find me evidence of someone being executed that was later found to be innocent. You keep saying that liek its a fact and I have read from reliable sources that no one who was actually executed was ever later foudn to have been innocent. Someone posted some stories in another thread and i was going to check them out but I can't find the thread. Please post a story or evidence that an innocent person was actually executed, not let go from death row because they means the system of checks we have against wrongful execution is working, but actually executed.

Another thing, you also said that a person commits murder in teh heat of the moment and doesn't plan it. Well that person will not get the death penalty because the death penalty is for 1st degree mruder. 1st degree murder is by definition, planned. If its a heat of teh moment thing he will be charged with 2nd degree murder or volutary manslaughter. Neither are capital crimes.

It's best to actually do a little research before opening your mouth so you don't humiliate yourself.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109
In many of these cases the actual guilty party was found. These are rarely a case of a technical mistake.

No, that is an argument that summary executions reduces crime (which there is no evidence of). We do not live in a totalitarian state, so why is this relevant?

If it were just a matter of totalitarianism, the point could be simply 'proved' (in as much as statistics can ever prove anything), by seeing if nations considered to be 'more totalitarian than the US', for example, had more murders per capita.

So - for example, if China, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia(?)... had LOWER murder rates than the US, the connection could be assumed to be 'true'.

US = 24th highest murders per capita.

Saudi Arabia = 61st highest murders per capita.

China, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan... don't even make it onto the table.

It looks like totalitarianism DOES equate to a 'deterrent' effect.

If it were just a matter of totalitarianism, the point could be simply 'proved' (in as much as statistics can ever prove anything), by seeing if nations considered to be 'more totalitarian than the US', for example, had more murders per capita.

So - for example, if China, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia(?)... had LOWER murder rates than the US, the connection could be assumed to be 'true'.

US = 24th highest murders per capita.

Saudi Arabia = 61st highest murders per capita.

China, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan... don't even make it onto the table.

It looks like totalitarianism DOES equate to a 'deterrent' effect.
So you are happy to use statistics when it suits. Interesting how people claim 'statistics can prove anything' when they don't suit their interests but will throw them up as evidence when it is in their interest.

If you read my point, you'll see that I said we don't live in a totalitarian state, so unless you are advocating a move to totalitarianism, I still fail to see the relevance.

Incidently, all Western European states manage a lower murder rate than the US. They do this without totalitarianism, without the death penalty and with gun control. Funny that.

Not in terms of our legal system. The system was designed with the idea that the one is more important. That is why "innocent until proven guilty" is so important. From the standpoint of the needs of the many one can't help but reach the conclusion that it is better the other way around.

The majority are innocent. That's why protecting the innocent even if it's one is protecting the needs of the many.

Also, religious freedom, freedom of speech, etc. are all predicated on the idea that the needs of the many, the majority, cannot be the only consideration or the biggest consideration, that certain things in this country are more important that simply appeasing the majority. Those things are the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. A faulty trial affects the second, but it can be addressed. A fault death penalty affects the first and it can never be addressed.

I dispute your interpretations.

Innocent until proven guilty is a protection for ALL... the 'needs of the many'... it is this assumption that stops the rounding up and punishment of the 'potentially guilty'.

Similarly, freedom of worship is specific down to one person, but it is based on the needs of the many. It is a freedom bought for ALL men (or women).

It's best to actually do a little research before opening your mouth so you don't humiliate yourself.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109
In many of these cases the actual guilty party was found. These are rarely a case of a technical mistake.
Oh, no. It's you. Are you gonna call me a racist for being pro death penalty? :p

If I were innocent of a crime, it would not be keeping me up, night after night, after 30 years in prison for that act... that it was not 'public knowledge' that I was innocent.

Again though... we arrive at the flaws in the current system, which I have said is poor.

Well, if I were, it would be. Being the man that I am, yes, it would be very important to me that my innocence be known primarily by those that I love. And while they may attempt to cling to faith in me, you cannot compare that to unequivocable truth.

Second, there is the interest of justice. And justice is not generally found once the execution occurs.

Third, how can we argue that murder of one innocent on behalf of a civilian is justification for the death penalty, but the avoidable killing of another innocent on behalf of the government isn't even something we should avoid. The death penalty has not been proven to save lives. It hasn't really been shown to have any advantage other than excision. For me, excision isn't defensible if we are willing to include innocent life.

Oh, no. It's you. Are you gonna call me a racist for being pro death penalty? :p

No, I'm going to accuse you of talking out of your butt rather than putting an ounce of effort into finding out that what you said is provably false.

No, it isn't. Taxes affect everyone. It's the needs of the many outweight the wants of the many. Most of the programs that taxation is used for are the needs of the few. This is because of the very basis of our system of government.


My taxes do not affect everyone. It is just me paying them. Because my society has 'a need'. The needs of the many clearly outweigh the needs of the one.


Again, no. To make this argument you have to deny personal rights.


'Rights' are not empirical. They are conveniences allowed to us by our societies.


Sorry, GnI. That's completely false. Conventionaly western society is the first modern societies where we have finally begun recognizing INDIVIDUAL rights. Would a national relgion fit within the constitution if the majority of the country believed in it? Nope. Why not? Because of individual rights to liberty, to justice, to life.

Conventional western society holds that protecting the one is individually protecting each of the many, not just protecting a majority.

I said nothing about majorities. The 'many' is just a large number of 'the one'.

It's best to actually do a little research before opening your mouth so you don't humiliate yourself.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109
In many of these cases the actual guilty party was found. These are rarely a case of a technical mistake.
Its alos best to read the question so you don't come across as such a stupid boob. I clearly said to post a story about a person who was later found to be innocent you imbecile. I didn't feel like reading the whole thing because its clearly a site with an agenda as is the one posted by Philosophy, but a glance says its all people who were let go. Go back, read the question again, slowly if you need to, and post an answer from a reputable news site, dumb ass.

Oh, no. It's you. Are you gonna call me a racist for being pro death penalty? :p

No, I'm going to accuse you of talking out of your butt rather than putting an ounce of effort into finding out that what you said is provably false.

Its alos best to read the question so you don't come across as such a stupid boob. I clearly said to post a story about a person who was later found to be innocent you imbecile. I didn't feel like reading the whole thing because its clearly a site with an agenda as is the one posted by Philosophy, but a glance says its all people who were let go. Go back, read the question again, slowly if you need to, and post an answer from a reputable news site, dumb ass.
Actually, it's people who were released at the top, and then a very long list of people who were executed underneath.

No, I'm going to accuse you of talking out of your butt rather than putting an ounce of effort into finding out that what you said is provably false.
Hey, I'm pro death penalty. You're the one saying innocent peopel get put to death. It's up to you to prove it. And not by directing me to a page by "People For The Ethical Treatment of Pedophile Murderers." I have nothing to prove.

Well, if I were, it would be. Being the man that I am, yes, it would be very important to me that my innocence be known primarily by those that I love. And while they may attempt to cling to faith in me, you cannot compare that to unequivocable truth.


First - I'm not sure we can ever debate "unequivocable truth" in this context.

Second - If I were innocent, those that I love would KNOW I was innocent. It makes no difference to me what others might choose to believe.


For me, excision isn't defensible if we are willing to include innocent life.

What about if it were one innocent for every nine guilty?

Its alos best to read the question so you don't come across as such a stupid boob. I clearly said to post a story about a person who was later found to be innocent you imbecile. I didn't feel like reading the whole thing because its clearly a site with an agenda as is the one posted by Philosophy, but a glance says its all people who were let go. Go back, read the question again, slowly if you need to, and post an answer from a reputable news site, dumb ass.

Since you're not interested in actually doing the work, I'll do it for you. Claim the site is biased all you like, but these are ACTUAL cases and their outcomes not something they made up. The outcomes of cases are not subject to bias unless of course you admit we have a flawed court system.

122 prisoners were not released because they were found to be innocent. Most were released because of some technicality like they found th dead woman's bloody panities in the guy's gym bag but the search warrent didn't cover his gym bag.

Now, let's see if this is actually the reasoning. I'll just list the reasoning for the first ten that were released after the death penalty was reintroduced thirty years ago. Keep in mind that all of these cases are available on-line if you wish to try and continue to uphold your assertion that the majority of these men were release on technicalities.

David Keaton, FL - They found the actual murderer.

Samuel Poole, NC - It was found that there was no evidence tying him to the breakin that resulted in murder. He couldn't be found to be there. At all.

Wilbert Lee and Freddie Pitts, FL - Another man confessed to the crime after their conviction and the State Attorney General admitted they had evidence of the innocence of the men and surpressed it. The real murderer was found.

James Creamer, GA - The real murderer was found.

Christopher Spicer, NC - The court found that there was no evidence on which to try Spicer, let alone convict him.

Gladish, Greer, Keine and Smith, NM - the real murderer was found..

Let's see the first 10 convictions that were overturned - In 8 they found the actual murderer. In 2 they found there to be no evidence that the person was involved in the crime at all. Look up the cases and stop making things up.

Actually, it's people who were released at the top, and then a very long list of people who were executed underneath.
Doesn't change the fact that its a website with an agenda. Here's a website with an agenda, too:

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm

First - I'm not sure we can ever debate "unequivocable truth" in this context.

Second - If I were innocent, those that I love would KNOW I was innocent. It makes no difference to me what others might choose to believe.



What about if it were one innocent for every nine guilty?

Makes no difference to me. The death penalty is not necessary. I find no benefit that makes the killing of that innocent life worthwhile.

Doesn't change the fact that its a website with an agenda. Here's a website with an agenda, too:

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Innocence.htm
I'm sorry, but that site simply claims that the people are wrong. The proof it offers is much like the 'proof' being offered in this thread - "I don't like it that the facts don't back me up, so I'm just going to deny it."

Perhaps you could point the authors to the list Jocabia has provided above?

Hey, I'm pro death penalty. You're the one saying innocent peopel get put to death. It's up to you to prove it. And not by directing me to a page by "People For The Ethical Treatment of Pedophile Murderers." I have nothing to prove.

Really? You asserted that the majority of the innocence claims are by people getting off on technicalities. That's an assertion we proved wrong.

See, here's how debate works. We make assertions and when challenged we show evidence of those assertions.

Now, here is how you debate. You make an assertion. We ask you for evidence. You react with hyperbole, change the subject or just make stuff up. You make more assertions. Rinse. Repeat.

Even the link you posted doesn't uphold your assertions, it only tries to invoke technicalities in order to dispute the numbers. It doesn't even offer a number of its own.

For example, one of the arguments your site lists is that some of those convictions are prior to the reallowance of execution in 1973. All of the people on that list were sentenced to death and your site doesn't dispute that. It simply tries to mangle the numbers by claiming that the SCOTUS case meant they wouldn't have been killed. It doesn't change that the system that sentenced them to death is PROVEN to include innocents in those sentences.

Since you're not interested in actually doing the work, I'll do it for you. Claim the site is biased all you like, but these are ACTUAL cases and their outcomes not something they made up. The outcomes of cases are not subject to bias unless of course you admit we have a flawed court system.No, but the interpretations are. Anti death penalty people lie all the time. For example, "Tookie Williams was sentenced to death by an all white jury and on the testimony of a jailhouse informant."

He was sentenced to death by a jury of 7 white people, several hispanics, a couple Asians and a black man and the jailhouse informant only testinfied in relation to an escape plot Tookie hatched. He did not have anything to say about the three murders he committed. I have a hard time swallowing anything from sites like that. You should learn to be a little more critical about where you get your information.



Now, let's see if this is actually the reasoning. I'll just list the reasoning for the first ten that were released after the death penalty was reintroduced thirty years ago. Keep in mind that all of these cases are available on-line if you wish to try and continue to uphold your assertion that the majority of these men were release on technicalities.

David Keaton, FL - They found the actual murderer.

Samuel Poole, NC - It was found that there was no evidence tying him to the breakin that resulted in murder. He couldn't be found to be there. At all.

Wilbert Lee and Freddie Pitts, FL - Another man confessed to the crime after their conviction and the State Attorney General admitted they had evidence of the innocence of the men and surpressed it. The real murderer was found.

James Creamer, GA - The real murderer was found.

Christopher Spicer, NC - The court found that there was no evidence on which to try Spicer, let alone convict him.

Gladish, Greer, Keine and Smith, NM - the real murderer was found..

Let's see the first 10 convictions that were overturned - In 8 they found the actual murderer. In 2 they found there to be no evidence that the person was involved in the crime at all. Look up the cases and stop making things up.
All just proof that the system worked. You took these examples from a site that deliberatly lists cases like this. That's like me saying all pit bulls attack people and listing a bunch of cases from a site called "www.banpitbullsnow.com." Of course the examples they list are gonna be the worst case scenarios.

I dispute your interpretations.

Innocent until proven guilty is a protection for ALL... the 'needs of the many'... it is this assumption that stops the rounding up and punishment of the 'potentially guilty'.

Similarly, freedom of worship is specific down to one person, but it is based on the needs of the many. It is a freedom bought for ALL men (or women).

See, that's what you are missing. Protection for ALL, means protection of each and every one. That's the point. Rights are individual so that they protect all. When you argue needs of the many, you argue that individual rights should be superceded by the needs of the many. That's the very substance of the difference between rights for all and majority rule.

No, but the interpretations are. Anti death penalty people lie all the time. For example, "Tookie Williams was sentenced to death by an all white jury and on the testimony of a jailhouse informant."

He was sentenced to death by a jury of 7 white people, several hispanics, a couple Asians and a black man and the jailhouse informant only testinfied in relation to an escape plot Tookie hatched. He did not have anything to say about the three murders he committed. I have a hard time swallowing anything from sites like that. You should learn to be a little more critical about where you get your information.

Don't lump me in with them. Tookie Williams was guilty and I won't cry a tear for him.

I support the death penalty if it's applied equally. The problem is that it isn't. There is a mount of evidence that you are more likely to get the death penalty as a poor, male minority defended by a public defender, and if the victim was white, well that greatly increases your chances as well. Where the crime is committed greatly affects the penalty. All of these call the validity of the sentence into question under the fourteenth amendment and its due process clause. Due process requires that there be no arbitrariness in punishment.

All just proof that the system worked. You took these examples from a site that deliberatly lists cases like this. That's like me saying all pit bulls attack people and listing a bunch of cases from a site called "www.banpitbullsnow.com." Of course the examples they list are gonna be the worst case scenarios.

The problem is these worst case scenarios exist. In absense of a benefit by the death penalty, keep in mind I support the death penalty if applied more fairly, how can we justify these scenarios?

I didn't say ALL cases are faulty or even most. I said too many are. There is a significant difference.

Really? You asserted that the majority of the innocence claims are by people getting off on technicalities. That's an assertion we proved wrong. You didn't prove Jack. You posted "evidence" from a site that has a very clear agenda.

See, here's how debate works. We make assertions and when challenged we show evidence of those assertions.

Now, here is how you debate. You make an assertion. We ask you for evidence. You react with hyperbole, change the subject or just make stuff up. You make more assertions. Rinse. Repeat. .The only assertion I made is that I am pro death penalty. You keep making assertions that innocent people are executed. Back that up with a reputable source. Here's an idea, why don't you post the actual case file from a legal site rather than getting it from www.antideathpenalty.com?

*snip worthless bable*
I didn't even read that site. I posted it as an example of a biased site. What it says is imaterial to me for the same reasons the links you post are.

Don't lump me in with them. Tookie Williams was guilty and I won't cry a tear for him.

I support the death penalty if it's applied equally. The problem is that it isn't. There is a mount of evidence that you are more likely to get the death penalty as a poor, male minority defended by a public defender, and if the victim was white, well that greatly increases your chances as well. Where the crime is committed greatly affects the penalty. All of these call the validity of the sentence into question under the fourteenth amendment and its due process clause. Due process requires that there be no arbitrariness in punishment.



The problem is these worst case scenarios exist. In absense of a benefit by the death penalty, keep in mind I support the death penalty if applied more fairly, how can we justify these scenarios?

I didn't say ALL cases are faulty or even most. I said too many are. There is a significant difference.
Then what was yoru argument? I said "most people released from death row get released as a result of a technicality." You were arguing that that isn't true. You posted a list of people that some anti deat penalty site says were innocent and now you're admitting that these cases are not representative of the majority.

All murderers and rapists should be excecuted, and I don't care how. Anybody that says the death penalty makes us like them has no idea what right or wrong is and has no opinion worth noting.
Why not use them for genetic engineering? Then we can use their bodies as testing grounds for cures to cancer to better the innocent civilian population.

Makes no difference to me. The death penalty is not necessary. I find no benefit that makes the killing of that innocent life worthwhile.

The death penalty IS necessary, if you consider it important that those who prey on others are removed, for the greater good, permanently.

Why not use them for genetic engineering? Then we can use their bodies as testing grounds for cures to cancer to better the innocent civilian population.
I like it. Then no one can say that the death penalty doesn't solve anything.

See, that's what you are missing. Protection for ALL, means protection of each and every one. That's the point. Rights are individual so that they protect all. When you argue needs of the many, you argue that individual rights should be superceded by the needs of the many. That's the very substance of the difference between rights for all and majority rule.

On the contrary... if the needs of one outweighed the needs of the many, you would be able to show DETRIMENT to the many... rather than a simple perspective shift between 'one' and lots of 'ones'.

Eminent Domain is an example of the needs of the many, to the detriment of the needs of the one.

The death penalty IS necessary, if you consider it important that those who prey on others are removed, for the greater good, permanently.
I might have missed it but I have not yet seen it proved that such a thing is for the greater good (by that I mean shown that it overall contributes to the good of everyone)

In a symplistic way it is obvious

Just like triming outliers ... you have a low value that effects other values you remove it and the average improves.

But humans are not that simplistic and I have not seen personaly that it as a sociatal benifit

And in this case there are two methods for triming the outlier

You can get rid of it or lock it up.

I personaly would like to see strong evidence that geting rid of it is the better method to overcome my personal misgivings at taking a human person

The death penalty IS necessary, if you consider it important that those who prey on others are removed, for the greater good, permanently.

I have yet to see the significant improvement in any society becuase they have and use the death penalty.

I have yet to see the significant improvement in any society becuase they have and use the death penalty.
When they kill this guy our society will, by definition, be better.;)

When they kill this guy our society will, by definition, be better.;)
I don't see how. *shrug*

I don't see how. *shrug*
because we'll have one less child molesting baby killer.

because we'll have one less child molesting baby killer.
But you will have just killed someone.... How does that make your society 'better'?

But you will have just killed someone.... How does that make your society 'better'?
Because the guy we killed is a child molesting baby killer. Having one less of them makes society better. I realize this si an objective assessment, but I think that a society imrpoves in reciprocal relationship to the number of child molesting baby killers it has.

Because the guy we killed is a child molesting baby killer. Having one less of them makes society better. I realize this si an objective assessment, but I think that a society imrpoves in reciprocal relationship to the number of child molesting baby killers it has.

So what if he was? You still just killed someone. *shrugs*

You didn't prove Jack. You posted "evidence" from a site that has a very clear agenda.

The only assertion I made is that I am pro death penalty. You keep making assertions that innocent people are executed. Back that up with a reputable source. Here's an idea, why don't you post the actual case file from a legal site rather than getting it from www.antideathpenalty.com?


I didn't even read that site. I posted it as an example of a biased site. What it says is imaterial to me for the same reasons the links you post are.

So what you are saying is that you can make BS assertions like most cases that are overturned are overturned based on technicalities and you don't have to do any work to support your BS assertion? Fine.

I'm not going to post every case, but here's a recent one. They refused to review any of the evidence. The system didn't work. It got lucky. Had they not captured the perpetrator for other crimes, they would have never found out this man was innocent. EVER. He died in prison of cancer.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/eight/

because we'll have one less child molesting baby killer.

How many children can he molest and kill in prison, just out of curiosity?

On the contrary... if the needs of one outweighed the needs of the many, you would be able to show DETRIMENT to the many... rather than a simple perspective shift between 'one' and lots of 'ones'.

Eminent Domain is an example of the needs of the many, to the detriment of the needs of the one.

Free speech is an example of the needs of one over the needs of the many. Remember that innocence is assumed. Why can't the government break into your home and tear the place apart looking for evidence? Because even though they would catch more criminals this way, hell, you could even be caught breaking the law this way, it would be a violation of your rights as an individual.

When one can be convicted and killed for a crime they did not commit, preventing that occurrence doesn't protect ONE, it protects ALL. That's the point. We have to respect EVERY person's life, liberty, etc. or we cannot claim to respect ALL. We can only claim to protect most. If rights aren't for all, then they're just priveleges that can be taken away at an time.

The Death Penalty is immoral, who is to say it is our right to judge a man's right to life? Exile those who deserve death. It is wrong and immoral to answer death with death! In a culture filled with death (abortion, namely), we must not promote it! Answer their cries of death with exile! March them, stripped of all possesions, across the border!

Why not use them for genetic engineering? Then we can use their bodies as testing grounds for cures to cancer to better the innocent civilian population.

Mengele imageries aside, won't society love to hear of genetically enhanced rapists and murderers running amuck?

I'd kill that guy if he ever did anything to someone I loved but I wouldn't want the state to kill him.

I'd kill that guy if he ever did anything to someone I loved but I wouldn't want the state to kill him.

I think I'd be dangerous to his well-being also were I closer to this case, but the state is meant to be more rational.

When they kill this guy our society will, by definition, be better.;)
Oh? what is the deffinition of "better" Personaly I think society will be better when they lock him a way forever

Not only is he taken out of the picture we also dont have to stoop to his level

Oh? what is the deffinition of "better" Personaly I think society will be better when they lock him a way forever

Not only is he taken out of the picture we also dont have to stupe to his level
*stoop

Exactly. I'm not even worried about stooping so much as where does this suggestion that killing him is necessary to remove him from society come from. I don't know about you, but I've never encountered a lifer in the general population of a prison. You know why? I don't live in a PRISON.

Because the guy we killed is a child molesting baby killer. Having one less of them makes society better. I realize this si an objective assessment, but I think that a society imrpoves in reciprocal relationship to the number of child molesting baby killers it has.
There are babies in prison society???!!!! I'm off to protest....

Oh? what is the deffinition of "better" Personaly I think society will be better when they lock him a way foreverAs I said, it's objective. I think it makes society better because that's my opinion.

Not only is he taken out of the picture we also dont have to stupe to his level
Society is not stooping to this guy's level by giving him the chair. You're equating killing a child molesting baby killer after a fair trial and all the appeals with raping and killing a 7 month old baby. The two acts are not morally equivalent.

That's also objective, BTW.

As I said, it's objective. I think it makes society better because that's my opinion.


Society is not stooping to this guy's level by giving him the chair. You're equating killing a child molesting baby killer after a fair trial and all the appeals with raping and killing a 7 month old baby. The two acts are not morally equivalent.

That's also objective, BTW.
First of all I think you mean subjective.
Second, you can try to justify institutionalized murder all you want, but I really think it is equivalent. Killing is killing no matter what tag you put on it.

As I said, it's objective. I think it makes society better because that's my opinion.


Society is not stooping to this guy's level by giving him the chair. You're equating killing a child molesting baby killer after a fair trial and all the appeals with raping and killing a 7 month old baby. The two acts are not morally equivalent.

That's also objective, BTW.

The problem is the assumption of a fair trial is not valid. There are dozens of flaws in the system. There is a mountain of evidence that system is skewed toward making people pay a higher price if they are poor or black or have an appointed attorney or the victim was white, etc. Fair means that the same crime gets the same penalty. There is little evidence that this actually occurs. Anywhere. Ever.

The problem is the assumption of a fair trial is not valid. There are dozens of flaws in the system. There is a mountain of evidence that system is skewed toward making people pay a higher price if they are poor or black or have an appointed attorney or the victim was white, etc. Fair means that the same crime gets the same penalty. There is little evidence that this actually occurs. Anywhere. Ever.
But as someone noted, that is a problem with the trial, not the penalty. Just to pin you down, given a fair system would you have a problem giving this guy the chair?

First of all I think you mean subjective.
Second, you can try to justify institutionalized murder all you want, but I really think it is equivalent. Killing is killing no matter what tag you put on it.
And that's what it comes down to. Fine, you can make that argument. To me there is no moral equivalency. I do not feel bad for the person being executed and I do not have a problem with the fact that we, as a society, have decided that certain crimes should be punishable by death. You're fre free to try to convince society otherwise and thus get the death penalty abolished, but I shoudl warn you you'll need better moral arguments because the ones you presented here did nothing to convince me. A good place to start is to abandon the "it makes us just like him" angle. No one buys it.

A good place to start is to abandon the "it makes us just like him" angle. No one buys it.
I'm afraid "I won't buy it" is quite different to "no one buys it." If no one bought it, then we wouldn't be death penalty free in Western Europe.

C'mon! Give me this one! This guy deserves it! If we light him on fire, I mean give him the needle, it does not make us like him! You gotta want this guy to die. :D

Every time I start to think we should do away with the death penalty, something like this pops up. If he is guilty maybe we should just throw him in a pit full of half-starved lions and aligators. :mad:

But as someone noted, that is a problem with the trial, not the penalty. Just to pin you down, given a fair system would you have a problem giving this guy the chair?

Not at all. I wouldn't lose sleep over giving this guy the chair with the system as it is. The problem is that we know the trials are flawed and we can't apply the DP equally. If we can't do it equally then we shouldn't do it all. If you're a cop and you don't know how to aim your gun, then someone better give you a taser and you have to take your chances. Learn to aim the gun and then I'll have no problem with you firing it at someone when that level of force is necessary. Until you can be sure that you won't hit some random person sitting in their car, put the gun away.

Every time I start to think we should do away with the death penalty, something like this pops up. If he is guilty maybe we should just throw him in a pit full of half-starved lions and aligators. :mad:

Actually, that's exactly what would happen if he doesn't get the death penalty. This guy won't make it a week in GP.

I'm afraid "I won't buy it" is quite different to "no one buys it." If no one bought it, then we wouldn't be death penalty free in Western Europe.
That was not meant to be taken literally, obviously. The point is that it is a hard sell in the U.S.

As I said, it's objective. I think it makes society better because that's my opinion.
Um is that not the deffinition of SUBJECTIVE? being it is your opinion

sub·jec·tive Audio pronunciation of "subjective" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.

1.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.



[/snip]
Society is not stooping to this guy's level by giving him the chair. You're equating killing a child molesting baby killer after a fair trial and all the appeals with raping and killing a 7 month old baby. The two acts are not morally equivalent.

That's also objective, BTW.
No thats also subjective

I think you need a refresher of what subjective and objective mean

Just declaring it objective does not make it so

No thats also subjective

I think you need a refresher of what subjective and objective mean

Just declaring it objective does not make it so
Okay, you got me. I mixed up my objective and subjective. Doesn't change my argument. You know what I mean.

And that's what it comes down to. Fine, you can make that argument. To me there is no moral equivalency. I do not feel bad for the person being executed and I do not have a problem with the fact that we, as a society, have decided that certain crimes should be punishable by death. You're fre free to try to convince society otherwise and thus get the death penalty abolished, but I shoudl warn you you'll need better moral arguments because the ones you presented here did nothing to convince me. A good place to start is to abandon the "it makes us just like him" angle. No one buys it.
No but it brings us within a stones through ... Just because what he did was horrid does not give us the green light to do something just not quite as bad.

No but it brings us within a stones through ... Just because what he did was horrid does not give us the green light to do something just not quite as bad.
I don't think it's bad.

Ain't no fuckin ballpark neither! Now look, [insert overdub]murdering and raping a baby[end overdub]aint the same ballpark, it aint the same league it aint even the same fuckin sport[insert overdub] as executing a man who has murdered and raped a baby[end overdub]

I don't think it's bad.
I do ... and when in conflict I would personally I would err on the side of life or human rights every time unless there was a clear provable benefit.

All murderers and rapists should be excecuted, and I don't care how. Anybody that says the death penalty makes us like them has no idea what right or wrong is and has no opinion worth noting.

Even statitotory rape or manslaughter? :eek:

I have yet to see the significant improvement in any society becuase they have and use the death penalty.

As another poster pointed out, the removal of someone who finds himself capable of raping an infant, would be PLENTY justification enough.

Okay - it 'costs' that person their life... but then - if they are that eager to act outside of 'humanity', why should we include them IN 'humanity'?

As another poster pointed out, the removal of someone who finds himself capable of raping an infant, would be PLENTY justification enough.

Okay - it 'costs' that person their life... but then - if they are that eager to act outside of 'humanity', why should we include them IN 'humanity'?
The death penalty isn't needed to remove a person from society. And as to your second statement. Why should we as a society act outside of humanity?

As another poster pointed out, the removal of someone who finds himself capable of raping an infant, would be PLENTY justification enough.

Okay - it 'costs' that person their life... but then - if they are that eager to act outside of 'humanity', why should we include them IN 'humanity'?

But doesn't prison remove them? The important thing of note is that we cannot address a miscarriage of justice when we've killed the defendent. Unless our courts do not have miscarriages of justice (and come on) then we shouldn't be seeking so final of a solution.

Personally, I think there should be four verdicts -
Innocent
Not Guilty
Guilty
So guilty only a crazy person would not be willing to fry this person.

Personally, I don't just guilty is enough to be confident that justice was served particularly given that it's been shown many times over that 'justice' is only available to a select few.

The death penalty isn't needed to remove a person from society.

Yes, it is. It is the only certain way. The only permanent way.

You pay attention to the news?

"Thompson escaped a week after he was resentenced to death for the 1998 shooting deaths of his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend.

Thompson told investigators he had been planning his escape for up to two years, the sheriff said.

He smuggled a key from the state prison system to slip out of his handcuffs, ditched his orange prison jumpsuit for the clothes he wore to court, then waved a fake ID badge as he talked his way past at least four deputies and walked out the front door, Thomas said.

"He was a very cunning individual," the sheriff said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/21/texas_deputies_punished_in_prison_escape/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News



And as to your second statement. Why should we as a society act outside of humanity?

I don't see how acting in the interests of the preservation of collective humanity, is acting 'outside of humanity'.

I also don't see ANY level of comparison between the state execution of a criminal as vile as the one being discussed.... and the crimes THAT person commited.

But doesn't prison remove them? The important thing of note is that we cannot address a miscarriage of justice when we've killed the defendent. Unless our courts do not have miscarriages of justice (and come on) then we shouldn't be seeking so final of a solution.

Personally, I think there should be four verdicts -
Innocent
Not Guilty
Guilty
So guilty only a crazy person would not be willing to fry this person.

Personally, I don't just guilty is enough to be confident that justice was served particularly given that it's been shown many times over that 'justice' is only available to a select few.

I think there should be a 'death penalty' level of guilt. When you are THAT sure, that person gets the death penalty.

I think it is a mockery of the US judicial system, that Scott Peterson, for example, can possibly be on 'death row'.

I also think that 'death row' is a bad idea.... and totally illogical.

Bad idea, because I think where THAT level of guilt has been decided, there should be no delay between sentencing and execution.

Illogical, because.... if the person claims they DON'T deserve the death penalty, they have the right to appeal. If they DO appeal... are they not saying they didn't deserve the punishment? The way I see it... if you are saying you don't deserve the death penalty... you should be in with the 'general population' of the prison.

I don't see how acting in the interests of the preservation of collective humanity, is acting 'outside of humanity'.

I also don't see ANY level of comparison between the state execution of a criminal as vile as the one being discussed.... and the crimes THAT person commited.
Yep. That's my whole point. The moral equivalency argument just doesn't work for me here. Giving someone a trail, convicting them, allowing them automatic appeal after appeal and then finally putting them to sleep and then killing them in their sleep is not the same thing, and its not a tone's throw from, raping a 7 month old baby to death.


Period.


It's not.


Don't even want to hear it you'll never convince me otherwise. Some people simply deserve killing. Pol Pot, Hitler, Amin, Saddam and anyone who rapes a baby to death.

Personally, I think there should be four verdicts -
Innocent
Not Guilty
Guilty
So guilty only a crazy person would not be willing to fry this person.


Okay, you and I can agree here. In England I understand they have three levels:
1. Guilty
2. Innocent
3. Not proven

Personally, I think there should be four verdicts -
Innocent
Not Guilty
Guilty
So guilty only a crazy person would not be willing to fry this person.


Oh, but one more thing, then. If someone's "So guilty only a crazy person would not be willing to fry this person." then they should get maybe one appeal and if they lose its from the courtroom to the chair.

I think there should be a 'death penalty' level of guilt. When you are THAT sure, that person gets the death penalty.

I think it is a mockery of the US judicial system, that Scott Peterson, for example, can possibly be on 'death row'.

I also think that 'death row' is a bad idea.... and totally illogical.

Bad idea, because I think where THAT level of guilt has been decided, there should be no delay between sentencing and execution.

Illogical, because.... if the person claims they DON'T deserve the death penalty, they have the right to appeal. If they DO appeal... are they not saying they didn't deserve the punishment? The way I see it... if you are saying you don't deserve the death penalty... you should be in with the 'general population' of the prison.

You and I agree that there should be a specific level of guilt before one can receive such a permanent sentence. Let's face it, in some cases there is a mountain of evidence against a person. In Texas, if there were more than three eye-witnesses, you get on the express lane of the death penalty. I have no issue with that. But some people are getting the death penalty and the ability to show reasonable guilt is questionable, let alone assured guilt.

You and I agree that there should be a specific level of guilt before one can receive such a permanent sentence. Let's face it, in some cases there is a mountain of evidence against a person. In Texas, if there were more than three eye-witnesses, you get on the express lane of the death penalty. I have no issue with that. But some people are getting the death penalty and the ability to show reasonable guilt is questionable, let alone assured guilt.

I agree the system is fatally flawed... and I would dearly love to see it 'fixed'.

The one I keep coming back to, is Scott Peterson. I don't know if he 'did it'. He might well have done. Looking at the profile of the guy, the consumate liar, the cold-hearted cheat, etc... I really wouldn't be too surprised.

But, that's not the point... there was nothing pesented throughout the trial, that was NOT 'circumstantial'. And, I don't think you can convict (and shouldn't be able to) on 'circumstance'... certainly not to the level of 'certainty' that I feel SHOULD be required for a death penalty.

But - where such certainty CAN be reasonably argued... I'd argue there is no good reason why sentence and the execution should not be within minutes of each other.

I agree the system is fatally flawed... and I would dearly love to see it 'fixed'.

The one I keep coming back to, is Scott Peterson. I don't know if he 'did it'. He might well have done. Looking at the profile of the guy, the consumate liar, the cold-hearted cheat, etc... I really wouldn't be too surprised.

But, that's not the point... there was nothing pesented throughout the trial, that was NOT 'circumstantial'. And, I don't think you can convict (and shouldn't be able to) on 'circumstance'... certainly not to the level of 'certainty' that I feel SHOULD be required for a death penalty.

But - where such certainty CAN be reasonably argued... I'd argue there is no good reason why sentence and the execution should not be within minutes of each other.
That's the thing. Most of the overturned death penalty cases were similar. In this case, one could argue that it's reason doesn't allow me to think he's not guilty, but a lack of guilt is certainly possibly. It's kind of like the difference between saying if I see a tree outside its side and kid standing next to it with an axe, I'd say I wouldn't reasonably doubt his guilt, but if five of use were standing around watching him chop down the tree then I'd have to say I can't find his not being guilty possible.