• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Texas execution - DNA evidence debunked 10 years on

Yes, but so far it doesn't seem like capital punishment is much of a deterrent, specifically because most people don't think before commiting crimes.

It doesn't seem to be a deterrent for any crimes for which it is used. If you're planning to kill someone, you're probably beyond any consideration of consequences. If you're going to risk prison by committing armed robbery, the additional risk of an associated killing and possible death penalty result probably isn't going to make you think twice. It would be an excellent deterrent to jaywalking though. It would prevent me from ever doing it, at least.
 
If you average the number of government executions over the past century or so, Europe's way the hell ahead.


********.

I'd be interested in having a look at your stats for that (I do find capital punishment by country interesting!), I've only looked at the UK's numbers vs US and it doesn't back up what you're saying.

Although I am not sure what you mean by averaging. Do you mean total executions in europe / total countries? You're best naming individual countries in Europe, it's a big place with alot of countries. ;)

Anyway

UK Executions 851 (1900 - 1964)

US Executions 1233 (1976 to date)

Didn't dig much further.

eta sorry source for UK http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/hanging1.html

Source for US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

eta2 - Do you mean the EU or continental Europe? If the latter I'd probably agree with you because of Russia, although I'd still be interested in your research.
 
Last edited:
Look, I doubt you're going to get a detailed, statistically-justified answer from there. Just defining "Europe" is probably a bit much to ask.

Pushing the argument back a century and saying in effect, you were worse than us a hundred years ago, who cares that you got civilised and we didn't, yah boo sucks, isn't much of a contribution to the debate.

Rolfe.
 
I'd be interested in having a look at your stats for that (I do find capital punishment by country interesting!), I've only looked at the UK's numbers vs US and it doesn't back up what you're saying.

Although I am not sure what you mean by averaging. Do you mean total executions in europe / total countries? You're best naming individual countries in Europe, it's a big place with alot of countries. ;)

Anyway

UK Executions 851 (1900 - 1964)

US Executions 1233 (1976 to date)

Didn't dig much further.

eta sorry source for UK http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/hanging1.html

Source for US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

eta2 - Do you mean the EU or continental Europe? If the latter I'd probably agree with you because of Russia, although I'd still be interested in your research.

6 million of Jewish persuasion, for starters.
 
Is there a special prize for Godwinning a thread?

I guess, Hitler gassed six million Jews so it's OK for us to execute innocent men for crimes they didn't commit, is a novel approach, if nothing else.

Rolfe.
 
I find it's rather rash to make sensible assumptions, when debating with Beerina.

Rolfe.
 
As I understand it, we know that he DID commit the crime. The only debate was whether he was the actual trigger-puller, but all parties to the crime can be convicted of the same offenses and given the same sentence, so the DNA evidence doesn't even make him ineligible for the death penalty.

Which is a terrible law in itself. I would have thought that a justice system would be based on being guilty for what you did, not what someone else did. I wouldn't lose any sleep over the guy spending a long time in prison for his crime. I would lose a lot of sleep worrying about a justice system that can find you guilty and punish you for something you didn't do. Because that would include you and me.
 
I personally think the death penalty sucks as a punishment and I oppose it. Not because it is inhumane but because all too frequently the punishment is so pathetic compared to the level of the crime. Does anyone seriously think the Eichmann's death was proportionate to his crimes?

My opposition to the death penalty is based on the idea that it is a good a salutory limitation on state power that the state cannot inflict death. The price of this is that wastes of space will continue to breath our air.

I am also rather annoyed that two bit murderers who murder in small batches get so much hysterical rankor while those who murder wholesale are greeted with less anger.

In Charles Chaplin's movie Monsieur Verdroux you had a man who murdered women for their money (to pay for the care of his very sick wife, who he was quite literally homicidally devoted too), contrasted with the states right to murder people for the states benefit.

I'm just amazed at the excuse mongering for state criminals whether it is Castro, Gautamalean generals, ex-soviet KGB. General Pinochet etc., all of whom have murdered vastly greater numbers than the Gacey's and Bundy's of the world. And don't get me started on Corporate executives who knowingly sell products that can kill. (Ford Pinto anyone?)
 
Which is a terrible law in itself. I would have thought that a justice system would be based on being guilty for what you did, not what someone else did. I wouldn't lose any sleep over the guy spending a long time in prison for his crime. I would lose a lot of sleep worrying about a justice system that can find you guilty and punish you for something you didn't do. Because that would include you and me.

That IS being responsible for what you did. Your analysis is just simpler than the law, or reality. You wouldn't lose sleep over him going to prison? Make up your mind - he's either guilty or not. If you decide to go rob a store with your buddy and he takes a gun and he kills somebody, I see absolutely no reason not to hold you both responsible for the death. Neither does the whole history of U.S., Canadian and European criminal law.
 
IANAL, but I'm reminded of the Willingham case, (as mentioned in the cited article), and horrified that this happened. While I doubt Jones would have been cleared entirely, (he was there specifically to rob this liquor store with his accomplice), there's little question that evidence which should have been considered wasn't. Willingham was clearly innocent, Jones was not, but whether or not he should have been executed is a serious question.

I realize Ron White once got a lot of laughs for noting that while other states were doing away with the Death Penalty, Texas was installing an Express Lane, but I don't find this funny in the least. My personal view is that Tim McVeigh, for one example, should never have been executed, regardless of how evil his crimes were. It's bad enough that he has become a sort of martyr to the homicidal kooks who supported his evil, but that his punishment was so damnably short, that he never really had to own up to anyone -- including himself -- regarding the atrocity he committed makes it even worse.

For that matter, I am hopeful that rather than execute Osama Bin Laden, we simply lock him up in a Supermax prison and keep him under deep cover, that eventually, he's forgotten. It's the closest thing we have to an oubliette, and would be a far more effective punishment: He can make all the fatwas he wants, but no one will ever hear them. Nor should they.

Frankly, there aren't too many people I would want to see executed: Richard Allen Davis is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but the evidence used against him, his own behavior, and his complete lack of remorse for the murder of Polly Klaas pretty much seal his fate in my book. Ronald Lee Coleman, who denied committing the murder in Virginia for which he was executed, was eventually damned by the very DNA evidence he claimed would clear him after he died. For me, the only reason to execute is when we have no doubt at all regarding someone's guilt or innocence, and only under very rare circumstances at that. (See above.) I'm not in favor, for example, of Scott Peterson sitting on Death Row for murdering his wife, Lacey, and his unborn son, Conor. I'd be a lot happier if he were forced to spend the rest of his life as a member of the general population at San Quentin. (Trust me: Been there on deliveries, and Peterson would not have it easy.)

Claude Jones may not have been a saint, but he damned well deserved the full protection of the law. That's a constitutional reality. I wouldn't have liked the man, and probably would have enjoyed planting a two-by-four across his head, but jamming a needle in his arm just to sate someone's blood-lust, rather than work towards achieving something that resembles justice, is somewhat perverse. I won't lose much sleep over his absence, but knowing how he wound up going out will.
 
I would lose a lot of sleep worrying about a justice system that can find you guilty and punish you for something you didn't do. Because that would include you and me.

The felony murder rule is simple: If you are part of a group that plans and attempts to execute a violent felony, and someone dies during that event, then you are considered to have murdered them. The group of violent felons as a whole is responsible for any deaths that result from their violent felony, regardless of how deliberate those deaths were and who was most directly the cause of the death.
Since I don't plan to join a group of violent felons anytime soon, this doesn't include me, and I assume it doesn't include you.
There's nothing unjust about holding a group of conspirators responsible for the result of their collective behavior.
 
The felony murder rule is simple: If you are part of a group that plans and attempts to execute a violent felony, and someone dies during that event, then you are considered to have murdered them.

This isn't entirely accurate. The planned felony need not be violent.

For example, two guys, neither of which have a reputation for violence decide to break into a house they think is empty. No violence is contemplated. One is downstairs gathering stuff to steal, one is upstairs. The upstairs guy stumbles upon a sleeping couple, whoops, and then quietly kills one and nearly kills the other (Turns out the upstairs guy was borderline retarded, and unknown to the other guy, on acid). Our guy downstairs has no idea, the upstairs guy doesn't tell him about the the killings. They leave.

The next day, the downstairs guy is stopped by the police, and he decides to come clean that he burgled the house. Because of this confession, he is convicted of murder and winds up doing life without parole eligibility.

(Actually a true story... After he served thirty years I got the guy parole eligibility based on some trial errors and he's free as far as I know.)

This guy is not a model citizen, but to call him a murderer based on this seems quite unjust. Requiring intent to kill, or at least intent to engage in behavior that shows reckless disregard for human life should be required to earn that label.


Another weird one was when a girl illegally procured some methadone for a friend who was undergoing withdrawal. The friend died from an overdose. Since distribution of a controlled substance is a listed felony for felony murder under the rule, and giving a friend an illegal drug qualifies.... she was charged with 1st degree murder. I think there was a plea to something lesser... it wasn't my case and I lost track of it after that. Legally, however, it probably was murder under the felony murder rule.
 
Last edited:
This isn't entirely accurate. The planned felony need not be violent.

Technically no -- but the point is that only a very limited class of crimes that are believed to include an unnecessary risk of death to innocents fall under felony murder law; "violent felonies" is a simplification.
Burglary is the most remote example, but if you decide to commit burglary and someone dies in the process, you murdered them. Don't like it? Be 100% sure no one dies in the process of your burglary. Or, duh, don't break into peoples' houses at all!
 
Another weird one was when a girl illegally procured some methadone for a friend who was undergoing withdrawal. The friend died from an overdose. Since distribution of a controlled substance is a listed felony for felony murder under the rule, and giving a friend an illegal drug qualifies.... she was charged with 1st degree murder. I think there was a plea to something lesser... it wasn't my case and I lost track of it after that. Legally, however, it probably was murder under the felony murder rule.

Certainly under common law "distribution of a controlled substance" doesn't show up on the felony murder list. Another example of the "war on drugs" gone stupid, I suspect.
 
For example, two guys, neither of which have a reputation for violence decide to break into a house they think is empty. ...

Why did they think it was empty, and how much checking did they do to confirm it (phone call, knock on the door, surveillance)?
 
For example, two guys, neither of which have a reputation for violence decide to break into a house they think is empty. No violence is contemplated. One is downstairs gathering stuff to steal, one is upstairs. The upstairs guy stumbles upon a sleeping couple, whoops, and then quietly kills one and nearly kills the other (Turns out the upstairs guy was borderline retarded, and unknown to the other guy, on acid). Our guy downstairs has no idea, the upstairs guy doesn't tell him about the the killings. They leave.

Sounds similar to the Derek BentleyWP case, using the joint enterprise principle.

He was executed in the UK after a policeman was killed by his accomplice Christopher Craig.

Bentley was technically under arrest at the time, but much was made of the words allegedly shouted to Craig during a standoff: "Let him have it" which could mean either "Give him the gun" or "Shoot him!"

Bentley was found to be developmentally retarded but not insane, therefore having medical defence to the murder. He was found guilty and sentenced to death.

Craig, under 18 was also found guilty but could not be executed, and served 10 years at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

This case, and those of Timothy Evans and Ruth Ellis were probably the three most significant in influencing the abolition of capital punishment in the UK.
 

Back
Top Bottom