Scott Peterson Poll: Life or Death?

[TillEulenspiegel]

Keeping them alive, making them listen to the cries and sorrows of the relatives of their victims, each and every day, is just punishment. It is much, much harder than merely offing them, in a procedure that precious few have the guts to experience.

That's prosaic CF but the reality is that the majority of the people we're discussing are amoral and really don't think the way You or I do.
Ted Bundy didn't, John Wayne Gacy didn't neither did Aileen Wuornos.
The idea that keeping them alive at a huge cost somehow preserves our own sense of humanity is a mistake , it is not reciprocated. Look to Iraq and see a very public example.

These organisms serve no purpose and there dangerous. I have the same view of killing a rabid dog that has bitten or attacked a Human.

 

[Bearguin]

I'm against the DP for the very simple reason that I'd rather have 1000 criminals jailed for life than 1 innocent man put to death.

In Canada, we have the David Milgaard case.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-74-713/people/milgaard/

He would have been put to death if Canada had the DP. He was later proven innocent (and railroaded by the police at the time).

There are plenty more cases of innocent people being convicted. And more cases of possibly guilty people not being given a fair trial and on death row.

Until our trial system is 100% perfect, no DP.

 

[WildCat]

Apparently, the local paper already has the verdict out in a special edition. Surreal.

 

[nightwind]

Peterson

I voted life. Mainly because I don't think that he murdered his wife.

There would have been forensic evidence all over the place if this guy did this like they said. And also I believe some of the eyewitness accounts that she was seen.

Lawyer screwed the pooch, too much ego. Client was allowed to run with no control for too long.

The affair, the pictures, all of that, made the jury hate him. He was going to be found guilty, whether he did it or not. The jury voted because of emotions, and not the science. The guy is such a rotten cad, he never had a chance.

The killer is most likely still out there, or in jail for something else.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Setting a criminal free is even cheaper!

Forgive me, Luke. I don't follow.

TillEulenspiegel insinuated that a death penalty is cheaper than lifetime confinement and I offered that the reverse might be true. Not trying to advocate a particular position as much as correct a misconception (that is, if I'm correct).

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Is it me, or is Dick Cheney always grumpy?

 

[Art Vandelay]

If you think that there are certain people who should receive it, you are *for* the death penalty, not against it.

First of all, you are missing the point that distinctions should be made on basis of crimes, not on people. Second, I disagree with your statement. I am opposed to the death penalty because I think that a complete ban would be better than the situation now, not because I think no crimes deserve the death penalty. There is also the fact that false convictions are a major factor in my position. So the belief that some people have committed crimes that deserve the death penalty is completely different from thinking that the criminal justice system should have the power to declare who those people are. I think that the world is full of people that should die. I just don't pretend to know for certain who they are.

 

[peptoabysmal]

***shrug***

It's California, the death sentence amounts to life in prison. With the death penalty Peterson will just be a little more insulated from the general prison population.

 

[crimresearch]

First of all, you are missing the point that distinctions should be made on basis of crimes, not on people. Second, I disagree with your statement. I am opposed to the death penalty because I think that a complete ban would be better than the situation now, not because I think no crimes deserve the death penalty. There is also the fact that false convictions are a major factor in my position. So the belief that some people have committed crimes that deserve the death penalty is completely different from thinking that the criminal justice system should have the power to declare who those people are. I think that the world is full of people that should die. I just don't pretend to know for certain who they are.

That sounds like being 'partially pregnant'.

If one agrees that it is a acceptable for the state to to kill some people, they are for the death penalty, no matter how much they qualify their pro-DP views, or wish for a hypothetical perfect system.
At the end of all the hypotheticals, someone can be executed...

At the end of the 'No DP' position, nobody gets executed, no matter how guilty they are proven, or how heinous their crime.

 

[varwoche]

My understanding is that life without parole is less expensive than death as things now stand. However, being an impression I picked up long ago, I don't have figures to back it up.

It's definitely a truism, if not true. DP proponents counter that the reason it's so expensive is because of all the appeals that are allowed.

 

[Luke T.]

I am against it. Always. Nobody deserves death. To most it is a relief.

Clear enough?

I don't know where you get the idea that the death penalty is a relief to the condemned. Most of them fight it tooth and nail all the way to the end.

 

[Luke T.]

Forgive me, Luke. I don't follow.

TillEulenspiegel insinuated that a death penalty is cheaper than lifetime confinement and I offered that the reverse might be true. Not trying to advocate a particular position as much as correct a misconception (that is, if I'm correct).

I just think economics should not be part of the equation in this case in determining what is right and wrong. That's all.

 

[BPSCG]

To most murderers, death is hardly a punishment. Far too often, it is a relief.

How do you know this?

 

[seayakin]

I have always been opposed to the death penalty simply because if you make a mistake there is nothing you can do to correct it.

On the question of costs, I have always been curious because I have read death penalty proponents say the death penalty is cheaper and death penalty opponents who say incarceration is cheaper.

To this end, I found one web site that looks promising.

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

From this site includes this quote:

"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )"

"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."
(The Geography of Execution... The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood 1997 p.6)

There are other analyses of cost benefits not just on the costs of incarcarceration but the cost benefit to society which weighs more in favor the the death penalty. However, these costs are more difficult to figure.

 

[seayakin]

The other question people seem to be dancing around is what is the purpose of the criminal justice system (and therefore life imprisonment or the death penalty).

In my view I see three potential purposes (with the caveat that these purposes sometimes change depending on the crime and overlap):

-Rehabiliation
-Punishment (which can relate to rehabilitation in the form of negative reinforcement or is it simply about revenge)
-Removal of dangerous individuals from society

Where does the death penalty fall in these? For some it appears to be about punishment (I don't see how it can be about rehabilitation unless you believe in an after life.) However, for me, it only makes sense when you are talking about reducing costs and removing dangerous individuals from society.

 

[Ed]

The other question people seem to be dancing around is what is the purpose of the criminal justice system (and therefore life imprisonment or the death penalty).

In my view I see three potential purposes (with the caveat that these purposes sometimes change depending on the crime and overlap):

-Rehabiliation
-Punishment (which can relate to rehabilitation in the form of negative reinforcement or is it simply about revenge)
-Removal of dangerous individuals from society

Where does the death penalty fall in these? For some it appears to be about punishment (I don't see how it can be about rehabilitation unless you believe in an after life.) However, for me, it only makes sense when you are talking about reducing costs and removing dangerous individuals from society.

There is a fourth, I think. That is that inflicting death reflects the outrage of a civilized society at their acts. It says, in effect, "Get thee gone, leave my sight, thou accursed". Or words to that effect. It represents a complete repudiation and abhorrance by the gravity of the act itself. It is analogous to excommunication.

In this context I am sympathetic to it.

 

[CFLarsen]

How do you know this?

From what I've read. E.g., Albert Fish was thrilled to experience the electric chair.

Most killers have led terrible lives, with abuse from childhood. Beatings, rapes, drug abuse, violence.

 

[Number Six]

After seeing the jurors talk on TV last night I feel a bit bad for Scott Peterson. They said that Peterson's lack of emotion was a factor in their decision. I guess he should've been an actor instead of a fertilizer salesman. Why don't the jurors just look at and listen to the evidence? Maybe they'd have come to the same decision anyway but it just seems kinda dumb to find a guy guilty because he didn't show the kind of emotions you thought he should show.

 

[seayakin]

There is a fourth, I think. That is that inflicting death reflects the outrage of a civilized society at their acts. It says, in effect, "Get thee gone, leave my sight, thou accursed". Or words to that effect. It represents a complete repudiation and abhorrance by the gravity of the act itself. It is analogous to excommunication.

In this context I am sympathetic to it.

This in my terms is still about either revenge or removing the dangerous individual from society. However, it might be the fourth category which I failed to include:

deterrance

 

[seayakin]

After seeing the jurors talk on TV last night I feel a bit bad for Scott Peterson. They said that Peterson's lack of emotion was a factor in their decision. I guess he should've been an actor instead of a fertilizer salesman. Why don't the jurors just look at and listen to the evidence? Maybe they'd have come to the same decision anyway but it just seems kinda dumb to find a guy guilty because he didn't show the kind of emotions you thought he should show.

This didn't necessarily make me sad but I think it points to a flaw in the jury system that allows emotion to influence a decision. There could be many reasons why someone does not demonstrate emotion in these situation and only one of them is that they are simply cold blooded killers. Regarding the jury systme, I do not have another system to offer that I would consider better than a jury system.