Death Penalty...Yes, No or Undecided?

bush_mouth.jpg

First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill. Then I went for a run with the other dog and just walked. And I started thinking about a lot of things. I was able to - I can't remember what it was. Let me put it to you this way, I am not a revengeful person. I understand the emotionality of death penalty cases. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. I do not believe we've put a guilty ... I mean innocent person to death in the state of Texas. Those of us who spent time in the agricultural sector and in the heartland, we understand how unfair the death penalty is.
Click to expand...
 
I'm a mild no.

So anyone other than President Bush (or more precisely former Govenor Bush) want to defend the death penalty for mentally-retarded individuals or for people who are under 18 when they commit a crime?

Countries which execute minors:
Pakistan,
China,
Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Iran,
United States
 
Easy one: no.

If you lock a man up for a crime and then discover that he didn't do it, at least you can let him go. If you've iced him, what are you going to do?
 
Moliere said:
we can't make any exceptions because there have been too many people released years later when new evidence came out or technology improved to prove their innocence.
Click to expand...

But after Illinois issued a moratorium on executions (after discovering that almost half the people on death row were innocent), George Bush went on record in March 2000 as saying that there are no innocent people on death row in Texas and Texas has never executed any innocent people. Moliere, how can you doubt the word of George Walker Bush? Oh, and John "activist judges may cause courtroom violence" Cornyn issued a press release saying the same thing.

Of course, his latter claim is difficult to challenge because state law requires all DNA evidence related to a case be destroyed after an execution.
 
sackett said:
Easy one: no.

If you lock a man up for a crime and then discover that he didn't do it, at least you can let him go. If you've iced him, what are you going to do?
Click to expand...

Cover it up of course!

O.
 
Some people are just plain defective. The problem is executing them in a timely, fair, and cost effective manner.

These days with advances made in investigation technique, I see no reason not to execute violent criminals who are arrested/convicted due to extraordinary evidence (for instance, a murderer/rapist whose DNA is found inside his victim).

I think if you limit death penalty to extraordinary or overwhelming evidence cases, you reduce the cost of the practice since most appeals would probably be denied.
 
First, let's refer to it correctly: Sanctioned murder. It's putting people to death because you think you have the right to do so. So let's call it the death sentence, instead of "capital punishment", which is simply a PC correct term, to avoid negative sentiments.

  • You can't trust anyone with the responsibility of taking another human life as punishment.
    This whole "Bad, Untrustworthy Gubmint" issue is irrelevant. If not the government, who else would you get people to agree on could take other people's lives? The local church? You - a skeptic? We know damn well how little some believers think of skeptics. Think you'll get a fair trial? Can you spell "Auto-da-fe"?

    Additionally, if people believe in the death penalty, and are also in favor of less government, how can they accept that the government take anyone's most "priced possession": Their lives? I find that highly contradictory.
  • Death sentences are not given for the same crime.
    Some criminals will be sentenced to death, while others committing the same crime will not. That alone makes it highly unjust.
  • The death sentence is far too volatile and emotional.
    You run the very real risk of putting an unpopular criminal to death in the heat of the moment. Lynch-mobs are hardly an unknown occurrence.
  • The death sentence is irreversable.
    True, you can't get back the 25 years you spent unjustly in jail, but at least you can get some form of compensation. You can't get your life back.
  • The death sentence is Biblical to demand "an eye for an eye".
    To skeptics, this alone should be a barrier. It's primitive.
  • Nobody deserves to die for any crime.
    Quite contrary, keep the buggars alive for as long as possible. To some, death is even a relief (Look up Albert Fish). Sure, by keeping them locked up forever, they can watch TV and read books, while sucking on the government tit. Know what? I got two words for you: Cavity searches. (I also got two more: Bubba's Bitch) Think that's a life? Anyone here want to swap their lives for that kind of life?
  • There is no evidence that it serves as a deterrent.
    If people think it should act as a deterrent, then the deaths should be as gruesome as possible. But people don't want to see it when people die, and it has to be as painless as possible. It is hypocritical.
 
Ladewig said:
I'm a mild no.

So anyone other than President Bush (or more precisely former Govenor Bush) want to defend the death penalty for mentally-retarded individuals or for people who are under 18 when they commit a crime?

Countries which execute minors:
Pakistan,
China,
Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Iran,
United States
Click to expand...

So if you are against the death penalty, why don't you support your position with truthful statements, instead of blatant lies?
 
corplinx said:
Some people are just plain defective. The problem is executing them in a timely, fair, and cost effective manner.

These days with advances made in investigation technique, I see no reason not to execute violent criminals who are arrested/convicted due to extraordinary evidence (for instance, a murderer/rapist whose DNA is found inside his victim).
Click to expand...


How about because the techniques can be no more reliable than the people performing them? Paying too much attention to the science leads to Fred Zain...

Fred Zain was a West Virginia State Police forensics expert who testified in hundreds of criminal cases. He presented himself well. He appeared to know his subject so well that judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys didn't question the laboratory results Zain said he obtained. Juries believed him. They convicted the defendants when Zain testified that his laboratory conjuring showed they were guilty, even when other evidence conflicted with his testimony, and especially when no other incriminating evidence existed. Fred Zain became something of a forensics "star," sought after by prosecutors who wanted to win convictions in difficult cases. His stature in West Virginia led to a better job offer, chief of physical evidence for the medical examiner in Bexar County, Texas, and he did for Texas what he had done for West Virginia. He lied.
Click to expand...

http://www.truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htm

Three cases discussed in this report involved expert scientific testimony by Fred Zain. Mr. Zain was a forensic serologist in the West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory for a number of years; he then worked briefly as a forensic serologist for the Bexar County (Texas) Medical Examiner's Office. Mr. Zain's conduct as a forensic serologist was called into question when the results of a DNA test freed Glen Woodall. At Mr. Woodall's original trial, Zain testified that Woodall's ABO, phosphoglucomutase (PGM), glyoxalase (GLO), and secretor types matched those found in the semen sample. Such an event is possible but highly unlikely given that Woodall was unambiguously excluded by subsequent DNA tests. A special commission convened by order of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals investigated Zain and the West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory. As a result of this investigation, the State Supreme Court ruled that none of the testimony given by Zain in more than 130 cases was credible. 2 The court further ordered that Zain be indicted for perjury. 3 It is sobering to reflect that but for the adventitious appearance of DNA typing, Glen Woodall would still be languishing in prison and Fred Zain might still be sending innocent persons to prison.
Click to expand...

http://crimemagazine.com/dna.htm

We are still cleaning up this jerk's mess. The only thing that saved his victims is the fact that technology progressed. If he would have been able to fabricate the DNA in the first place, then there wouldn't be the better technology to prove that he lied.

The problem isn't technology, it is the failure to face the fact that these things will happen, and blind trust in those that carrry out the tests is the height of foolishness... Until the whole chain of custody of samples is fully documented and all defense attorneys are educated in how to parse through raw data (and vigerous enough to ask for said data in the first place) this will be a problem...



I think if you limit death penalty to extraordinary or overwhelming evidence cases, you reduce the cost of the practice since most appeals would probably be denied.
Click to expand...

The cost of an appeal has little to do with it being granted or denied. Most of the expense is the investigation, research, and actual writing that goes into the appeal. In a way, a denial increases expense because then the appeal goes to the next stage. Plus, there is a great expense in that the original trial is usually done very carefully in anticipation of the close scrutiny the appeals court will apply in reviewing a death sentence.
 
crimresearch said:
So if you are against the death penalty, why don't you support your position with truthful statements, instead of blatant lies?
Click to expand...

Point out where the lies are, instead of merely claiming it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty...Yes, No or Undecided?

gnome said:
I completely agree with you about some people deserving to die. Where I have to differ is that I can't imagine any legal standard for "absolutely sure" that doesn't cause more problems than having a death penalty is worth.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you may be right about that. I remember reading an argument once that it was actually more expensive to put someone on death row and execute them (apparently multiple appeals get expensive) than it was to have them in prison for the rest of their lives. I'm not sure if that's true, but I find it plausible and something to consider.

Beth
 
CFLarsen said:
First, let's refer to it correctly: Sanctioned murder. It's putting people to death because you think you have the right to do so. So let's call it the death sentence, instead of "capital punishment", which is simply a PC correct term, to avoid negative sentiments.

  • You can't trust anyone with the responsibility of taking another human life as punishment.
    This whole "Bad, Untrustworthy Gubmint" issue is irrelevant. If not the government, who else would you get people to agree on could take other people's lives? The local church? You - a skeptic? We know damn well how little some believers think of skeptics. Think you'll get a fair trial? Can you spell "Auto-da-fe"?

    Additionally, if people believe in the death penalty, and are also in favor of less government, how can they accept that the government take anyone's most "priced possession": Their lives? I find that highly contradictory.
Click to expand...
  • "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson.

    I trust others with taking human life. I trust the army if we are invaded, the police if there is a severe criminal attack, and so forth.

    Furthermore, the death penalty is part of the criminal law sphere. It is perfectly consistent for a fan of limited government to approve of death as a punishment for murder while objecting to government involving itself in other matters. Fighting violent crime is beyond question a legitimate governent function. Other government acts may not be.




    [*]Death sentences are not given for the same crime.
    Some criminals will be sentenced to death, while others committing the same crime will not. That alone makes it highly unjust.
    Click to expand...
    No it doesn't. Could be that the first person cannot be rehabilitated and poses a great danger even in prison, while the second is less dangerous. Would "justice" require that these people be punished the same, or is it OK with you if we consider the whole set of circumstances?


    [*]The death sentence is far too volatile and emotional.
    You run the very real risk of putting an unpopular criminal to death in the heat of the moment. Lynch-mobs are hardly an unknown occurrence.
    Click to expand...
    Part of the idea of allowing a government to punish is to remove the need for lynch mobs. Your point may point to more procedural safeguards, but it doesn't really argue against the punishment itself.



    [*]The death sentence is irreversable.
    True, you can't get back the 25 years you spent unjustly in jail, but at least you can get some form of compensation. You can't get your life back.
    Click to expand...
    "Some form of compensation?" Again, the 25 years are not reverseable either. A few bucks? Whoopee...


    [*]The death sentence is Biblical to demand "an eye for an eye".
    To skeptics, this alone should be a barrier. It's primitive.
    Click to expand...
    That a principle appears in the bible is hardly evidence that the principle is somehow primitive and wrong.


    [*]Nobody deserves to die for any crime.
    Quite contrary, keep the buggars alive for as long as possible. To some, death is even a relief (Look up Albert Fish). Sure, by keeping them locked up forever, they can watch TV and read books, while sucking on the government tit. Know what? I got two words for you: Cavity searches. (I also got two more: Bubba's Bitch) Think that's a life? Anyone here want to swap their lives for that kind of life?
    Click to expand...
    Lets see... you claim an eye for an eye is primitive, but then go on to hope that people are raped.

    Never mind that the person might be innocent or be the one that winds up raping the innocent and having a good time... Somebody has to be the Bubba for you and people like you to happily suggest that rape is a legitimate part of the punishement. Here's a clue... it usually has nothing to do with the magnitude of the crime... if anything it seems reasonable to speculate that the worse the crime the more likely the prisoner will be getting the better half of the rape deal.

    Advocating for any kind of rape is reprehensible behavior.

    But since they might get a few bucks if it turns out they are innocent I guess it is all just wonderful, eh?



    [*]There is no evidence that it serves as a deterrent.
    If people think it should act as a deterrent, then the deaths should be as gruesome as possible. But people don't want to see it when people die, and it has to be as painless as possible. It is hypocritical.
    Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but so what? People don't like for animals to die and then go eat a burger. There are other reasons for the death penalty besides detterence, such as removing a future danger. Merely pointing out that as applied one facet of our system (lack of grusomeness) doesn't seem to further that one reason(detterence) isn't really persuasive.
 
corplinx said:
Why do you startoff your post with this thinly veiled emotional appeal?
Click to expand...

Plus an illogical one that contradicts itself.

A murder is an illegal killing with malice aforethought (or similar depending on which jurisdiction we are discussing)

You can't have a sanctioned (legal) murder any more than we can have a married batchelor or a square with 6 sides.

"Sanctioned killing" or "sanctioned homicide" would at least not be a total contradiction...
 
Quote Corplinx
Why do you start off your post with this thinly veiled emotional appeal?


Because that is how woos work?

Never mind that 'murder' is a legal determination (unless of course, Claus has converted to a fundamentalist Baptist church that insists upon a literal reading of King James).

It sounds more impressive to spout wooisms with emotionally laden terms such as 'murder', rather than stick to objective terminology such as 'death penalty' from the OP.
 
CFLarsen said:
First, let's refer to it correctly: Sanctioned murder. It's putting people to death because you think you have the right to do so. So let's call it the death sentence, instead of "capital punishment", which is simply a PC correct term, to avoid negative sentiments.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. It is sanctioned murder. So is abortion. So is euthanasia. So is war. I think there are situations where it's reasonable to saction murder.

[*]Death sentences are not given for the same crime.
Some criminals will be sentenced to death, while others committing the same crime will not. That alone makes it highly unjust. [/b]
Click to expand...

I don't feel this necessarily makes it unjust. Every crime has unique circumstances. I don't think the death penalty is appropriate for any but the most violent and henious of crimes. Even so, I consider myself undecided about the death penalty. While I think there are crimes that if we can be absolutely certain we have the right person, the perpetrator deserves to die, but I think there are good arguments against the death penalty as well.

I should have read the entire thread before posting. If you define murder as illegal killing, then none of the examples above are murder. I think of murder as the deliberate killing of a human by another human. I'm not sure of the precise definition though.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Death Penalty...Yes, No or Undecided?

Beth said:
Actually, I think you may be right about that. I remember reading an argument once that it was actually more expensive to put someone on death row and execute them (apparently multiple appeals get expensive) than it was to have them in prison for the rest of their lives. I'm not sure if that's true, but I find it plausible and something to consider.

Beth
Click to expand...

You can jumble the numbers to make it look any way you want, but it seems obvious to me... If we look at the way California does things, it is really obvious as they rarely manage to kill anyone... Texas not so much, but then again Texas is a bit scary when it comes to being casual with the Death Penalty with the sleeping lawyers and all that...

If we can posit the following:

Costs saved by execution:

1) Cost of incarceration for the remainder of the life of the criminal.

Extra costs incurred:

1) Better lawyers at trial / longer and more careful trial in anticipation of great scrutiny on review.
2) Legal/Court costs for extra mandatory appeals
3) Extra costs for security for Death Row inmates while waiting to be executed.
4) Actual cost of execution in overtime, security, media interests, cost of the drugs and so on...
5) All of the above costs where applicable not only in cases where the person is executed, but even when acquitted, given a lesser sentence, died on death row, and so forth.... This doesn't all of a sudden make the trial cheaper...


The only way to make the DP cost-effective is to reduce the costs of 1-4 below the savings of killing the prisoner. It can be done, but then we run into problems with inadequate review and so forth...
 
I am against the Death penalty. Not because of any fundamental objection to the state-sponsored murder of a criminal, but because none of the arguments in favor of it hold water, and the idea of an innocent man executed is a major downside.

Death penalty supporters in the United States like to say that no innocent men have executed in the US since the death penalty was reestablished, but that is not entirely accurate. There have no demonstrably innocent men executed since the Death penalty has been reestablished. I am unaware of any cases where we looked at the evidence after the execution had been carried out and proved conclusively that the condemned man had not committed the crime, but there have been plenty of cases where the execution had been carried out with evidence that makes me say “wait a minute”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom