Why we should enforce the death penalty
 

I'll update this as often as I can, with articles that give reason to support the death penalty. Feel free to post your own, as well.



First article:


Disabled Marrero Boy Beaten To Death
Thu Apr 29, 6:31 PM ET

A 6-year-old disabled Marrero boy was killed March 22, and his mother and her boyfriend are under arrest.

Doctors said Joshua Bowman, who had cerebral palsy and could not walk or talk, was beaten to death.

"The child had died from a few different causes, but mainly from a severed liver -- from blunt-force trauma," said Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Detective Doug Thornton. "Evidently, someone had delivered a blow of some type into the child's abdomen, sending the liver into the spine and nearly severing it in two."

Joshua's mother, Georzett Bowman, 26, and her boyfriend, Charles Wilson, 22, who is not Joshua's father, each were booked April 23 with first-degree murder.

Police said medical records indicated a history of apparent abuse. They said Joshua previously had been treated for broken arms, legs and ribs.

Police said Bowman is nine months pregnant with Wilson's child.:mad:



(You know....The death penalty isn't as expensive as people think...a powerful enough bullet can go through two people...)


Sidhe

For every cut and dried case there is another that is questionable, look at that child molester who's been locked up for 20 odd years because the cops coaxed allegations out of them under duress. What's more valuable? An eye for an eye or the life of an innocent man?

How much of a life is it, if twenty years are spent in jail?

<blockquote><pre>
It's spring outside, my dear wife, spring.
Outside on the plain, suddenly the smell
of fresh earth, birds singing, etc.
It's spring, my dear wife,
the plain outside sparkles...
And <a href="http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~sibel/poetry/poems/nazim_hikmet/english/letters_from_a_man_in_solitary">inside</a> the bed comes alive with bugs,
the water jug no longer freezes,
and in the morning sun floods the concrete...

-- <A href="http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~sibel/poetry/poems/nazim_hikmet/_About/About2.html">Nazim Hikmet</a>
</pre></blockquote>

If the options are "kill bad people with the risk of killing an innocent" or "don't kill people because you might kill an innocent person", it seems the obvious third option is "figure out more conclusively who is or isn't guilty".

Well, in theory yes, in reality, good luck.

Not only is there the potential that an innocent person could be executed, the moral logic of the death penalty eludes me. "It is wrong to kill, therfore we will kill you." In a way, by imposing the death penalty, the state and courts are saying that its OK to take a life. You do not fight the enemy by becoming him.

Putting the two people to death who killed that poor child will not bring him back to life or undo the suffering he endured. The death penalty for people like that is an easy way out. Let 'em spend the rest of their natural lives in a maximum security prison, so they have lots of time to think over what they did. Even other criminals despise people who kill children. You can be sure those two's existance behind bars will not be pretty.

I have heard it said that one can judge a society by the way it treats its criminals. I dont believe the death penalty does a ny good. The nature of criminality and the prejudices of most societies lead to any such penalty being weighed heavily against the poor. The poor are more likely to commit crimes and having committed them are less likely to be given adequate legal representation
In America youare more likely to be convicted of a murder if you are black. Having been convicted you are more likely to face the death penalty if you are black. . Black and white people are the victims of violent crime in roughly equal numbers, yet 82 per cent of people executed since 1977 have been convicted of killing white victims.

The lawyers and judges who preside over these legal proceedings and the people who write the laws which govern them are generally from a very different class and background to those who face the death penalty. As far as I am concerned its good old fashioned class war, the fact that many people of working class backgrounds have been persuaded to this method of justice is an example to me of how the moneyed classes keep their lessers in order. In Saudi Arabia they chop the hands of thieves.....its just another way that the poor are oppressed. Its the same method that's been used throughout history. Make the masses see that the criminal is an "other" disassociate the criminal from the rest of society.....Sell them a dream of what their society should look like and then tell them that the people who are standing in their way and ruining it for everyone are the criminals. Its almost medieaval. The idea of the Ideal as we should look to it, being held at bay by those who do not follow the programme.....Hence we see such a graphic and violent punishment for those who disturb the balance and in doing prevent us from reaching our goal.


In the UK there have been many prominent cases recently which have led to a worries that our jails are in fact brimming over wiht people who should not be there. There are many parents who have been committed of killing their babies and whose cases are now being reassesed because the "expert witnesses" have been proved to be unreliable. There are examples in the USA too. The "shaken baby syndrome" which convicted the british nanny louise woodward has faced scurtiny and is now considred to be less than sure.

Many of the women ( mainly women though some men) who have served jail time in the UK are now being released after trhe convictions have been deemed unsafe. Trypti Patel is one of the more famous ones over here.

Thats just an example of some of the miscarriages of justice currently in the british news. If we add to that the many many unsafe convictions for other crrimes ( irishmen convicted of political crimes they didnt do for instance ) we see that the justice system simply isnt to be trusted to the degree needed to ensure no innocent is convicted.

Frankly though, even if the person has been caught stood over the bleeding corpse of their victim , knife in hand with an evil grin spread across their murderous face....I still deem capital punishment an act of barbarism and the electric chair in particular is a disgrace to the modern world.

As an aside there are states in th USA which have convicted children who will face the death penalty when they reach maturity. I saw one case with a pair of young lads who seemingly had struck back at their abusive father and his abusive friends by killing their dad.....Both lads were convicted both now face a jail sentence until they are old enough to be put to death. ...in 24 US states people can be sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were children......so thats just you guys and China.

Not to mention of course those who have mental retardation... In 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to execute mentally retarded people. Since then some 30 mentally impaired people have been executed.

I read of one case for instance of a fellow who had schizophrenia .....He was sentenced to die and before he died he was given medication which gave him a temporary measure of normality ( some kind of ati psychotic agent) so that he would fully understand his fate.......

We havent even talked about the brutality ofthe method....The electric chair which so often goes wrong is an abomination. At the very least if you are going to insist on slaughtering your murderers use a method that kills instantly and painlessly (injection ).....Or is it necessary that the condemned suffer mortal agony in order for justice to be served?

In Europe we consider Capital Punishment to be barbaric and unfair.

I would think that that would be a choice best left up to the convicted innocent.

In Europe, you get many things wrong.

Life in prison is never life in prison. "Life" generally means seven years, then parole.

Why should I have to support these people? Why should I have to pay for their cable, their medical treatment? I can't afford cable for myself, and I can't even afford medical insurance for myself, but I have to pay for theirs??



"I dont believe the death penalty does any good."

I guarantee you that an executed murderer will never kill again. 0% recidivism rate.



"one can judge a society by the way it treats its criminals"

It would seem that a better way to judge society would be by the way it treats the victims of its criminals....



"The nature of criminality and the prejudices of most societies lead to any such penalty being weighed heavily against the poor. The poor are more likely to commit crimes and having committed them are less likely to be given adequate legal representation"


You know what? That's not my problem. I'm poor, and I don't use that as an excuse to go out and commit crimes. And I once WAS accused of something I didn't do. I had to use a public defender. I won.

The question is not, "is the offender poor?", but "did s/he do it?" That's what matters. Using race or economic disadvantage does not absolve one of guilt. Sure, the rich may elude punishment more, but I think that's more of an axiom that the liberals have said so many times that everyone believes it without question. I don't want to risk becoming a victim of a crime, or someone in my family becoming a victim, because a defendant was given a slap on the wrist, got out early because of time served and good time, just because he was poor.

I've read a shitload of true crime (it comprises most of my rather extensive personal library), and murderers tend toward recidivism. They get let out, and just go on killing.



"The lawyers and judges who preside over these legal proceedings and the people who write the laws which govern them are generally from a very different class and background to those who face the death penalty. As far as I am concerned its good old fashioned class war, the fact that many people of working class backgrounds have been persuaded to this method of justice is an example to me of how the moneyed classes keep their lessers in order. In Saudi Arabia they chop the hands of thieves.....its just another way that the poor are oppressed. Its the same method that's been used throughout history. Make the masses see that the criminal is an "other" disassociate the criminal from the rest of society.".


Class war, my tailfeathers! It's a war between law-abiding society and criminal society. You notice how little crime they have in Saudi Arabia, don't you? That's because justice is swift and sure. There also have to be three witnesses to the act. I know someone who was in Saudi when a thief got his hand cut off in the market. He saw the whole thing. The criminal IS the "other." The criminal is a predator. If you had a henhouse, would you just let the fox kill all your chickens because it was easier for him than hunting?



"Frankly though, even if the person has been caught stood over the bleeding corpse of their victim , knife in hand with an evil grin spread across their murderous face....I still deem capital punishment an act of barbarism and the electric chair in particular is a disgrace to the modern world."


I agree. Electricity is too expensive. You can reuse a rope.



"As an aside there are states in th USA which have convicted children who will face the death penalty when they reach maturity. "


I agree with that. Murderous children often become murderous adults. Sociopathy is usually in evidence by age 15, and it cannot be cured. Some sociopaths can live in society fine, but for those who can't, why should I have to worry that one may kidnap my daughter, rape her, strangle her, and throw her body in the bushes because he was let out at age 18?


"Not to mention of course those who have mental retardation... In 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to execute mentally retarded people. Since then some 30 mentally impaired people have been executed."

The question is dangerousness. If they are a continuing danger to society, then they should be eliminated rather than warehoused. Not all mentally retarded people are like Forrest Gump. I've worked with retarded children who are cunning and sneaky, and would jump you at the drop of a hat. One of those retarded children sent a psychiatric worker to the hospital in an ambulance. Why? The PA woke her up. There are varying degrees of retardation, some so slight as to be unnoticable, but the media jumps on the word, and people see Forrest Gump.



"I read of one case for instance of a fellow who had schizophrenia .....He was sentenced to die and before he died he was given medication which gave him a temporary measure of normality ( some kind of ati psychotic agent) so that he would fully understand his fate."

The public is told that mentally disturbed people aren't dangerous. That was the same drivel they fed us in training for the psychiatric ward. BULLSHIT. If you've got a schizophrenic who refuses to take his meds, odds are you're going to feel the impact of his psychosis sooner or later. The fact is, some of them ARE dangerous, and if they commit a violent crime, they should pay for it. If they refuse meds, they're refusing to control the illness, and thus have a built-in excuse for any dangerous acts they commit. In the psych ward, we had several patients who refused meds. We had to watch our backs constantly if we wanted to walk off our shift under our own power.


"We havent even talked about the brutality ofthe method....The electric chair which so often goes wrong is an abomination. At the very least if you are going to insist on slaughtering your murderers use a method that kills instantly and painlessly (injection )."


How about the brutality of a strangling? It takes five minutes to die from strangling. Hold your breath for five minutes and tell me that isn't brutal. How about the brutality of a rape and murder? How about the brutality of knowing that you'll never see a family member again? I couldn't give a rat's ass LESS if they suffer. They deserve it. No, they should not die painlessly. Odds are, their victim(s) did not die painlessly, and the victim's family and friends will live with the pain of their loss forever. We should be more concerned with the victims. It seems to me that anyone who takes the side of the murderer is by default taking the side AGAINST the victim.


"Or is it necessary that the condemned suffer mortal agony in order for justice to be served?"


IMO, YES, it IS necessary. Not only is the death penalty justice, it's society's revenge. The only problem I see with the death penalty is that it isn't used swiftly enough, and it isn't sure enough.

Society must be protected from predators, or it won't survive. Warehousing them and providing them with all the amenities that many law-abiding citizens can't afford is a slap in the face.

And how about in England, where those children lured the little boy out of the mall and killed him on the railroad tracks? That deserves the death penalty, as far as I'm concerned. If children that young are killing already, all they're going to learn is that they can get away with it. They lured an innocent child to his death. For the fun of it. I have no sympathy for them. They deserve to die. A life for a life. It may not bring the little boy back, but it may save someone else's life in the future. That's what's important, not the feelings of the poor killer.

The way I see it, people in America know the penalty for certain crimes; therefore, if you commit a crime for which the punishment is death, you're taking your chances. You KNOW what the penalty will be if you're caught, therefore, don't whine when you get it. It's not like we sprung it on you unawares. You took the chance, and you lost. Poor baby.

The high cost of the death penalty isn't the execution--it's the endless appeals. If DNA testing were mandatory, I think we'd find a lot fewer innocent people convicted; but it's NOT mandatory. And I feel that a lawful execution is no more murder than lawful confiscation is stealing.




Sidhe

[through clenched teeth]
T..R..Y..I..N..G H..A..R..D N..O..T J..O..I..N E..N..D..L..E..S..S D..E..B..A..T..E..
[/through clenched teeth]

Go DanaC go!

Chicken.:haha:

Go Lady Sidhe, go...

(There are two kinds of justice: Regular or Extra Crispy)

I do believe that the death penalty system needs to be revamped in this country, but that's in the name of efficiency. There need to be limitations on the appeals process ... many "death row" prisoners are dying of old age or natural causes rather than lethal injection.

Oh, and why do they have them on suicide watch ... anyone ever wonder about that one? They'd be saving the state the money.

Therein lies the problem.

You've been reading our webpage haven't you? (crispy or extra crispy):haha:

And the suicide watch thing....I never thought of that...lol...that DOESN'T make a whole lot of sense, does it? It'd save us the price of electricity, or lethal injection dose.....



Sidhe

Actually, I had a tee shirt that said that, um, like 20 years ago.

It was sold through Soldier of Fortune magazine. They probably still have it.

And what's the problem with revenge? I feel it's a necessary part of the recovery of the victim's friends and family, to know that the guilty party paid for the victim's life with his own. Justice and revenge aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I've found that many death-penalty opponents change their tune when someone close to them is murdered.

I had a friend whose aunt was killed while in a phone booth, by a Crip. Why? He wanted her car. Guess what? The car had a coded lock, so he couldn't use it anyway. She died for nothing (as if dying because someone wants your car is a good reason) People like the one I just mentioned need to die. They might target YOU next. Or your parents. Or your child. Or your partner.

I just don't feel sorry for them at all. If you kill someone, intentionally, in cold blood, and it's not in self-defense, or defense of other people or your property, then IMO, they can't execute you fast enough for me. I don't see the point in us having to pay for you for the rest of your life. We have our own bills to worry about, without having to pay yours, too.


Sidhe

I'll have to find that tee shirt. I WANT ONE!!


Sidhe

How about the innocent peoplel who are executed? Feel sorry for them? A necessary evil to save us money, I suppose.

Jag

What's more valuable? An eye for an eye or the life of an innocent man?

The life of an innocent man, but if 100 murderers are released in protecting the innocent man how many more innocent people may die?

Skunks

How much of a life is it, if twenty years are spent in jail?

If the options are "kill bad people with the risk of killing an innocent" or "don't kill people because you might kill an innocent person", it seems the obvious third option is "figure out more conclusively who is or isn't guilty".

For violent crimes my sympathy quotient is pretty low. That being said, the quality of life of the violent offenders should be just enough that they can survive. I'm a fan of reducing the duration of sentences if you increase the discomfort of the conditions. Today's prisons are not feared, thus reducing their preventative effectiveness. Prison is supposed to be a punitive measure. I don't believe that a prison's job is to rehabilitate someone. Rehabilitation can only come from within.

Marichiko

Not only is there the potential that an innocent person could be executed, the moral logic of the death penalty eludes me. "It is wrong to kill, therfore we will kill you." In a way, by imposing the death penalty, the state and courts are saying that its OK to take a life. You do not fight the enemy by becoming him.

Putting the two people to death who killed that poor child will not bring him back to life or undo the suffering he endured. The death penalty for people like that is an easy way out. Let 'em spend the rest of their natural lives in a maximum security prison, so they have lots of time to think over what they did. Even other criminals despise people who kill children. You can be sure those two's existance behind bars will not be pretty.

The state does not operate on the same moral compass that its citizens do. It can't. The problems that a state has to deal with are on a much larger scale and their responsibilities are as well. Execution is not murder. Execution is an immune system, murder is predation.

DanaC

1) The lawyers and judges who preside over these legal proceedings and the people who write the laws which govern them are generally from a very different class and background to those who face the death penalty.

2) The poor are more likely to commit crimes

3) Frankly though, even if the person has been caught stood over the bleeding corpse of their victim , knife in hand with an evil grin spread across their murderous face....I still deem capital punishment an act of barbarism and the electric chair in particular is a disgrace to the modern world.

4) Not to mention of course those who have mental retardation... In 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to execute mentally retarded people.

5) I read of one case for instance of a fellow who had schizophrenia .....He was sentenced to die and before he died he was given medication which gave him a temporary measure of normality ( some kind of ati psychotic agent) so that he would fully understand his fate.......

6) We havent even talked about the brutality ofthe method....The electric chair which so often goes wrong is an abomination. At the very least if you are going to insist on slaughtering your murderers use a method that kills instantly and painlessly (injection ).....Or is it necessary that the condemned suffer mortal agony in order for justice to be served?

7) In Europe we consider Capital Punishment to be barbaric and unfair.

1) I agree, but I also believe that they have to be. Without the ability to devote the time, effort, and study necessary to the study of law (and in the larger context, ethics) justice can not be fully served. Most innovation comes from the leisure classes.

2) Not true, reasearch is beginning to show that white collar crime is just as prevalent as blue (or no) collar crime. White collar crime doesn't catch the news the way rape, battery and murder do.

3) Under that set of conditions, execution would not only be just but prophylaxis.

4) Retardation is an incurable state. If that person has shown themselves to be a danger then they should be treated accordingly. If they are violent, lock them up; if they are murderous, execute them.

5) If a schizophrenic is murderous and not medically compliant then execution is warranted to protect the citizenry. If it is unethical to force medication on people then how do you tend to a murderous schizophrenic? Where do you find health-care people who are willing to risk their lives for this person? I think making him take medication to drive the message how is a bit much though.

6) Much to the chagrin of Lady Sidhe, I'm not one for revenge. Whatever method is most efficient should be used. Quick and sure.

7) This isn't Europe. That's like comparing our gun statistics with Japan.

Lady Sidhe

1) I guarantee you that an executed murderer will never kill again. 0% recidivism rate.

2) It would seem that a better way to judge society would be by the way it treats the victims of its criminals....

3) I agree. Electricity is too expensive. You can reuse a rope.

4) I couldn't give a rat's ass LESS if they suffer. They deserve it. No, they should not die painlessly.

5) Society must be protected from predators, or it won't survive. Warehousing them and providing them with all the amenities that many law-abiding citizens can't afford is a slap in the face.

6) The way I see it, people in America know the penalty for certain crimes; therefore, if you commit a crime for which the punishment is death, you're taking your chances.

7) Not only is the death penalty justice, it's society's revenge.

1) I agree. You have to decide what you are trying to achieve with the execution. Deterrence or prevention?

2) Again, I agree. Just treatment of the criminal will result in just treatment of the victim.

3) Justice for the criminal means avoiding unnecessary or excessive punishment. If the ultimate punishment has been decided then do it as quickly as possible.

4) See my #3

5) Agree. Also there is the thought that one of the reasons many people can't afford the amenities is that they are paying to provide the amenities for the prisoners.

6) Short of insanity or almost complete seclusion, committing a crime in today's times is done with full knowledge of the consequences and full consent of the will and thusly deserving of the full measure of the consequences.

7) Society isn't supposed to be in the revenge business.

Wolf

Oh, and why do they have them on suicide watch ... anyone ever wonder about that one?

Attempted Suicide is a crime. Also, if it becomes known that you can circumvent justice by taking your own life then the process becomes tainted.

Happy Monkey

How about the innocent peoplel who are executed? Feel sorry for them? A necessary evil to save us money, I suppose.

I would feel sorry for them, but to expect 100% efficiency from anything the size of the state is to be deluded. And to believe that the state should not punish people at all because it might punish someone who is innocent is also wrong.

As far as I'm concerned revenge and justice are mutally exclusive. When you start straying into revenge you've lost the point of justice, being just. When you cross that line I think you loose any moral authority, you're no better.

Lock the fuckers up and make them break rocks for the next 20 years, they don't have the opportunity to reoffends and if they are innocent, they can still get out. Make prisons factories, reduce the cost to the taxpayer, it seems to me that prisons need to be both more human and less generous.

Here in the Heartland, three young me have turned themselves in to police. They are suspected of having gang raped a young girl in an abandoned drug house in KC, then driving to St. Joseph, breaking into a house and killing, execution style, the young couple who lived there.

It seems they thought the occupants of the St. Joseph home were drug dealers whom they were either seeking to rip off or from whom to extract revenge. Unfortunately, the young couple were not the drug dealers the trio sought; they were instead merely a young couple who had moved into the apparent drug dealer's former residence.

So...if guilty, *why* should these three psychopaths not die, exactly? I mean, assuming they are indeed guilty (it is unclear yet whether they have confessed, but they turned themselves in despite the police having broadcast only that they were looking for the responsible parties. No names were named, no specifics on age, race, gender or number of suspects...they just knew the heat was on, and they turned themselves in via a prominent community activist).

If the people involved were *my* family members, innocent victims of stupid, blind, degenerate criminality, I not only would want them executed, but I would campaign to be allowed to pull the switch/push the button/pull the trigger/whatever it took to make it happen.

And I'm a peace-loving Pagan sort of guy, too. I am, however, enough of a realist to know that you do not leave a cancer untreated, and such criminals are indeed cancers on society. They need to be excised.

The only sure fire guarantee that murderers won't kill again is the death penalty. I'm okay with that, most especially in cases where confessions or DNA evidence makes for conclusive evidence.

We've already got problems keeping our factory workers employed without moving to China...how exactly is turning our prison population into slave labor going to help that? And if we did so, wouldn't that be an incentive to get more people locked up so that the cost of production would be further reduced for manufacturing concerns?

Those in favor of the death penalty here seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that innocent people get executed when you have a death penalty. If new evidence comes to light that would exonerate the innocent, there is no appeal from the death penalty once it has been implemented. If they are in prison for life, you can always release them.

Life in prison means just that. Life. Gone are the days of getting out in 7 years.

Yes, you need to protect society. If someone commits murder, remove them from society for the rest of their lives. Put them in prison.

I have no problem with having the prisoners work to earn their keep. Manual labor, skilled labor, makes no difference to me.

**Hands Yelof a guinness and a Camberwell carrot**

.....except in Europe where many of the families of murder and rape victims dont change their tune. They usually start wanting life to mean life. We are just as prey to violent crime we fear the murderer and the rapist just as you do, European parents face the demons that lie in wait for their children just as much as american parents.

No indeed. Nobody wishes to invite risk into their lives. Personally I dont want to risk getting falsely accused and convicted or any of my loved ones getting falsely accused and convicted in a legal system which allows for my and any other citizen's death. Nor frankly would I be thrilled at the idea of a loved one of mine losing control or becoming psychotic and finding themselves on deathrow for a moment of madness......In fact....given that any one of us could find ourselves related to someone who has committed a terrible crime, i dont much like the idea that if such a thing were to happen the state wold have the right to kill my loved one, no matter what they have done.

As a citizen I expect to see those who have committed serious crimes brought to book and placed somewhere secure until such a time as they are no longer a risk to society. If that means they never get out then thats unfortunate. ....

I do not wish to live in a society where anybody, be it the criminal with murderous intent or the High Court , has the right to kill me.

The murderer steps beyond society's bounds when he kills another ....and that is not to be tolerated. But he and I are the same animal. I walked my road and it brought me to the place I now sit. S/he has walked a different road and I cannot say with utter conviction I would have walked that road and not ended it at the place they find themself.

So....in a way my stance against capital punishment is not just a poltical one....On a purely selfish level I feel safer ( for me and my loved ones) in a society that doesnt have the right to take my life for any reason.

How does the process become tainted? The condemned dying by their own hand saves the state money.

Incarceration costs between $50 - 100/day, not counting the costs related to a capital case including appeals filings, attorneys' and experts' fees, court time, etc.

The only thing the state and victims lose out on is witnessing the execution of sentence.

Incidentally, attempting suicide is not a crime, although it is sometimes a shame.

(mental health law is civil, not criminal law ... you aren't arrested by police and you don't go to jail for a suicide attempt, but you can be examined against your will and committed to a hospital. How does that differ from incarceration? You retain the right to refuse treatment, among other rights.)

Punish? Correct. Kill? I don't think so. If there is a chance someone is innocent, they should not be executed. While someone is alive, there is always the chance that they could be exonerated. Once they're dead, it's too late.

This links in with the idea of revenge as being compatible with justice, or "treating the victims well". If the wishes of the victims are given high priority in law enforcement/trial/sentencing, the system is easily corruptible. Victims are less capable of being impartial, and are likely to latch on to whoever is first tried for the crime, and resist any evidence to the contrary. I have seen several death penalty cases being overturned, where the victims are interviewed, and they are angry that old wounds are being reopened. Revenge, being exceedingly emotional, can be satisfied as long as somebody pays.

I see in may debates "you'd feel different if your child were murdered". That may be correct, and that is the reason that certain jurors are excluded from certain trials. One of the fundamental concepts of the modern Western judicial system is that justice, not revenge, is to be served.

**Hands Happy Monkey some peanuts** Couldnt agree more. If someone close to me is murdered I am the LAST person whose views should be taken into account when punishing the offender.

Very true ! *smiles* I certainly wouldnt hold Europe up as the "right" way forward for anyone except Europeans....I do however think its interesting that we who share so much of our cultural expectations/norms and basic assumptions should differ so drastically on this issue and at such a continental level

Oh....and yeah I think we are right on this one :king: :king:

Death is a perfect solution that can only be implemented in an imperfect justice system. We know, we ADMIT, that the justice system is imperfect. It's run and implemented and overseen and reported on by people, and people are imperfect. You can argue whether the penalty is fair but you have to take into account the imperfections of the system. If we are to err on the side of caution anywhere in the system, this is where.

Skunk...I just read that poem. I hadnt followed the link before. Damn thats beautiful.

It is easy in all this debate to forget the humanity of the killer. They didnt cease to think and feel. I find it strange that an atheist like me can feel a stranger on deathrow to be as much my brother in life as anyone else.....and yet I have heard so many who walk with Jesus find comedy in the death of a human.....seek as much pain as they can inflict on that human. .....not seeking to inflict pain and death upon another human being is what makes me different from the killer....if I am party to inflicting it upon the killer I am little better than he.

*Chuckles* I suspect if I even attempt to argue that one out I would either get a) shot by one of the gunowning members of the Cellar or b) so frustrated that I steal one of your guns and shoot myself.

Since we were all talking and thinking about this issue I went off to see if I could find anything interesting about it online. ....And I found this, which I thought was an interesting angle on it.

Royal Institute of Philosophy article: Capital Punishment and Realism

DNA evidence has recently been used to absolve some death row inmates. It is a fact that there have been innocent people waiting to die by the government's hands. How are we to be sure it won't happen again? There probably are innocent people right now on death row.

The only way to be sure not to execute an innocent person is to not execute anyone at all.

Life in prision, w/ no parole may not sound like enough punishment for some people, but at least it can be cancled if the person is found innocent later.

UT, I think that's a great point. There are two different issues here. There is the question of the death penalty as an idea, as a morally defensible tool of justice, and then there is the question of our ability to use it in a way that is morally defensible.

I am in support of the death penalty as morally allowable in an ideal setting, but I have no confidence in our system being able to use it in an accurate, and thereby morally defensible way.

-sm

The odds of an innocent person actually being executed are low. Why? Because they're more likely to spend the rest of their lives in prison, due to endless appeals. Besides, the odds of the death penalty being sought nowadays is getting lower and lower. You practically have to rape and kill a busload of teenage nuns in front of a cop and ten other witnesses, then say "I DID IT!" before they'll call for the death penalty. And all this comes from the social work crowd who blame everyone and everything for the criminal's behavior EXCEPT the criminal himself.




"Lock the fuckers up and make them break rocks for the next 20 years, they don't have the opportunity to reoffends and if they are innocent, they can still get out. Make prisons factories, reduce the cost to the taxpayer, it seems to me that prisons need to be both more human and less generous."


We can't do that. Breaking rocks is cruel and unusual punishment, and the second one is exploitation.




"Those in favor of the death penalty here seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that innocent people get executed when you have a death penalty. If new evidence comes to light that would exonerate the innocent, there is no appeal from the death penalty once it has been implemented. If they are in prison for life, you can always release them."


See my answer to #1



"Life in prison means just that. Life. Gone are the days of getting out in 7 years."


Wrong. A "life" sentence is seven years, give or take, before the individual comes up for parole. What you're thinking of is "life without possibility of parole," which is rarely handed down.


For all of you who think the death penalty is cruel, or abhorrent, or just wrong, imagine an experiment: we'll build a little community and give you a house there. Then we'll release all the poor little death row inmates and give THEM houses there, and YOU can watch over them for us and make sure that they not only remain only in that community, but that they don't commit further crimes. It'd be your job, and you'd get paid for it. The catch is, you have to bring your kids and partner along, too. Of course, if someone gets killed, you can't complain....


And another question: if there were no doubt that the offender was guilty, and that he wasn't a bit sorry--if you heard it from his own mouth, how many of you who oppose the death penalty would then say, "ok, fry him."?




Sidhe

That's silly. If you hadn't referred back to it later, I would have written it off as a joke.

For that "argument" to have any meaning, the following would have to be true:

1) Most people who appeal all the way are innocent.

2) Most innocent people can and do appeal all the way.

3) The appeal process takes long enough for most people in it to die of old age.

The likelyhood of a full appeal process is only partially based on guilt - an innocent person is less likely to give up. Primarily, it is based on whether the first trials were handled correctly, how much and what sort of public attention the trial received, and how much money is available for the appeal. All of these are weighted against the poor and minorities.

LS: having watched from the sidelines on a number of debates you have participated in, I'm going to make the observation that you have a tendency to mingle facts and opinions and extrapolate sweeping generalizations from single or a small handful of anecdotes.

There is a place in any debate for feelings, opinions, beliefs and facts provided they are not disguised as one another.

No disrespect intended, just an observation.

Are these your own actual personal beliefs?

Upon what information are you basing this?

In 2000, the Govenor of Illinois put a moratorium on all executions due to alarming revelations about the number of prisoners on death row in Illinois who were later found to be innocent.

Imposing the death sentence costs the tax payers thousands if not millions of dollars because of the lengthy appeals process involved which has to be done by law. You note this lengthy appeals process yourself when speaking of an innocent man, above. The cost of life imprisonment is probably about equivalent of all the costs of the long appeals process.

There is also the suffering of the victim's families to be taken into account. No matter what is done to the murderer, the family's loved one is still dead. When the death sentence is imposed, the families often have to go through 20 years of legal and court maneuvering before they get some kind of closure. LWP gives the families closure and the comfort that the murderer is being punished and will never again be free to comit further atrocities.

Life without parole is becoming a very common sentence. In Oregon the number of such sentences has risen 47%, and the sentence means just what it says - those guys are in for life.

Making prisoners work is not exploitation. Prisoners are commonly assigned productive work in our prison systems today.

Just because I am against the death penalty does not mean I feel sorry for sociopathic killers and want them released back into the population. Killers should be locked up for good.

I don't know where you get the idea that murders get to have their own cable TV. There may or may not be a single TV available in some prison common areas. Such TV's are shared by 100 - 200 inmates and may be watched for limited periods only - often this priviledge is taken away by the guards for discipinary reasons.

marichko, you have a lot more energy than I do. Good post.

I can conceive of no circumstance whereupon I would say "ok fry him".

Nope.


And the "fry him" was an expression, meaning, is there ANY situation in which the anti-death penalty group would think that the death penalty was warranted?


"LS: having watched from the sidelines on a number of debates you have participated in, I'm going to make the observation that you have a tendency to mingle facts and opinions and extrapolate sweeping generalizations from single or a small handful of anecdotes."


I've done many papers on the death penalty schoolwise, so I've looked up both pro- and con- opinions. Yes, my opinion itself is that I favor the death penalty. Knowing the arguments against it, I tend to look for information that can contradict those arguments. As far as the anecdotes go, I was just giving examples that I know of personally.

And, no offense taken. I do tend to get opinionated when it comes to something I believe in.

The truth is, the death penalty is used so little that information concerning its deterrent effect is not able to be ascertained. The pros will say that there's a 0% recidivism rate, and the cons will say "innocent people...." All we know for sure is that it costs a hell of a lot of money to keep a death row inmate in prison for the entire time that his appeals are running. I resent the fact that law-abiding and innocent people have to lock their doors and bar their windows and can't walk the streets after dark. I resent the fact that children are being abused to death, raped, and/or murdered, and the person who did it gets cable, medical, dental, clothing, food, and a roof over his head for the rest of his life.

The victim, most people forget, IS innocent. No maybe about it. The victim's family and friends are innocent. What about them? If a criminal is found guilty, and I think DNA should be mandatory, then eliminate him. Society is more important than one who preys on society.

I sincerely believe that there are those who are such a danger to society that they deserve to be eliminated. I resent having to pay their bills. What's the point of warehousing them if we're not going to use them? Give them a choice: Death or the Lab. Either way they pay society back, rather than just getting a free ride.



Sidhe

Then you shouldn't use them to support your argument.

You are in effect saying that the system can't change because of the way the system is.

If we are talking about changing one part of the system, then we can certainly assume that other parts of the system can change as well.

I don't use them to support my argument...maybe I should start indicating when sarcasm is being used. The liberals use that as a support for their arguments, and I was being sarcastic by quoting them....

The system can't be changed because even after conviction, the system sides with the criminal. The victims are lost in the shuffle, and basically have no rights, whereas the criminal can sue the state because he's not allowed to sacrifice animals to Satan (sarcastic reference to prisoners who claim to be Satanists, and that their right to freedom of religion is being violated because they're not allowed to sacrifice animals). Yes, that has happened. More than once.


Sidhe

Do you really want to open the door to broad generalizations?

.

Good catch. I guess what I meant to say was that that was the maximum effect, if any, that guilt or innocence could have on how far the process went.

I think that it is valid, though. A certain number of people on death row do not want to appeal, and I suspect that a majority of them are guilty.

Good one, Bruce!!:haha:

Serial Killer Receives Life Sentence While 3,500 Others Face Execution
In a plea agreement reached with Washington state prosecutors, Gary Ridgway, a Seattle-area man who admitted to 48 murders since 1982, will serve a sentence of life in prison without parole. Prosecutors spared Ridgway from execution in exchange for his cooperation in leading police to the remains of still-missing victims. (Associated Press, November 5, 2003) The state's plea agreement raises questions of proportionality in sentencing when compared with the other inmates on the state's death row. The arbitrary and unpredictable application of capital punishment once led the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the death penalty was unconstitutional in 1972. In Furman v. Georgia, one of the concurring Justices described receiving the death penalty as random as being "struck by lightning"--the facts of the crime carried little weight in predicting who would receive capital punishment.



THIS is part of the problem with the death penalty.


I have a suggestion that would make the debate moot: tax only the anti-death penalty folks for the upkeep of death row prisoners. That way, us pro-deat penalty folks will have one less thing to bitch about. Create death-row prisons, which will only house death-row inmates--only instead of death row, it will be life imprisonment, for however long that turns out to be, and if they end up getting paroled, they will be sent to the aforementioned little town.



Sidhe

The bio I linked to isn't the greatest, or isn't the story I've heard; I was reminded of it because he was imprisoned for a significant chunk of his life after a mostly-faked trial on sort of bullshit charges.



LS:

Judging from your general stance on the issue and the example you quoted, your rationale presently seems to be "because one guy isn't going to be executed while a bunch of others will, we should just execute them all."

That seems a little silly. I think someone else pointed it out earlier, but using one flaw of the system as your reason for fixing a different flaw of the system doesn't make much sense. The toilet's running, so we should remodel the bathroom?

Why we should enforce the death penalty
 

In Europe we consider Capital Punishment to be barbaric and unfair. [/quote]

No in Europe only some people think Capital Punishment to be barbaric and unfair.

If it went to a public referendum in the UK it would be voted back in no question.

Amen.

They arrested Travis, Shawna and Ron, and Travis confessed to the whole thing, as long as Shawna got off (she was there, and under Oregon law, if you're there and don't report it, you get indicated just like you did it. Which is a good thing.). So, since Travis copped a plea, they decided not to fry him.

He is comfortable in his new home. He got life without possibility of parole. So the good people of Oregon have to pay to make sure he has cable, and has a great set of weights and activities to keep him occupied. This is a convicted, confessed murderer. He never has to work another day in his life, and he gets 3 squares, a cot, cable, exercise equipment, a sexual partner (voluntary), free medical and letters from stupid people who believe his bullshit and "feel sorry" for him.

I say fry his ass, and if they need someone to pull the switch, and they are willing to pay my airfare, I'll be happy to oblige. In addition, even if he DID get the chair, it would not be close to matching up to the suffering and torture he put Steven through. I say we put hundreds of little cuts all over HIS body, and rub salt water and lemon juice into them, and then cut HIS leg off at the knee and let him bleed to death, taunting and humiliating him until he blacked out from blood loss.

THAT is justice. Do unto that fucker as he did to the victim.

That just warms my heart, Onyx....I knew I could count on you. ;)


Sidhe

Oh, Bruce, btw...we have one more here in La., in addition to regular and extra crispy....Cajun injector.

Hahahahahahahahahah!



For those who don't get lethal injection joke...


Sidhe

While that may be a reasonable assertion is it possible that there has been a study to that effect?

Depends on the state or jurisdiction.

Guarantee that no mistakes will be made in administering the death penalty.

Would you say that we treat them badly, and if so, could you provide some examples/evidence?

Do you think the poor deserve adequate representation at trial?

Good for you in your situation...it doesn't always work like that though.

Broad generalization...back it up.

Are you saying that you think they let people out early or let people off light because they are poor?

Sad, isn't it? Too bad our society is so reactive and less proactive...maybe we wouldn't have such high recidivism rates.


Apples and oranges: Saudi Arabia is a completely different society from the US.

So, if a sociopath cannot live in society, they should be killed, even if they've never killed? Not to mention, the brain is still developing at age 15.

This is essentially eugenics. Why are some of those retarded kids cunning and sneaky and unruly? Ummm, gee, could it be because their brain is fucked up?

If a person is a danger without being on meds, and those meds will not produce life-threatening side effects, then I think they should be forced to take them. Or they should be committed to an institution.

The term "revenge", to me, hints of a lack of impartiality...it seems to be based on emotion, not logic.

When you fuck up and break the law, society deems that one should be punished (and hopefully) rehabilitated. It's not about revenge...it's more like penance.

Again, you're making a broad generalization...not all prisoners live in luxury. Most of them don't, actually.

As I see it, we rely too much on the law to protect us. We must be more proactive in stopping crime before it starts. This is easier said than done though...I think it would take a massive overhaul of society to accomplish this.

Link, please?

And do you really think the death penalty has been that strong of a deterrent?

DNA testing, if relevant to the case, should be mandatory. But until that happens, a person condemned to death should have every possible legal avenue open to them. Better safe than sorry, right?

There is life without parole, which the most heinous crimes do get as penalties.

As far as the $20-30K we spend on each prisoner. Talk to your Congressman. Tell them to decriminalize non violent drug offenses and make room for the violent felons.

"Guarantee that no mistakes will be made in administering the death penalty."


Not possible, until and perhaps if, DNA testing becomes mandatory in death penalty cases, which I think it should be.



"Would you say that we treat them badly, and if so, could you provide some examples/evidence?"

Yes, I do think we treat them badly. Just look at the way the court system titles trials: "The STATE vs. the murderer," not "THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES vs. the murderer." Look at how the victims of rape are dragged through the mud by defense attorneys; look at how dead victims are dragged through the mud--all in an attempt to prove that the victim brought it on themselves. The rights of the victims/victims' families are practically nonexistent, because everyone is so worried about the rights of the accused, and after conviction, the rights of the criminals, that the people who have been destroyed are further destroyed in the process.





"Do you think the poor deserve adequate representation at trial?"

Yes, I do. However, I don't think that someone should get a slap on the wrist because of race or economic status. What should matter is not race or economics, but GUILT.




"Are you saying that you think they let people out early or let people off light because they are poor?"

I think that people are more vocal when a poor person is convicted, yes. It's one more way to exacerbate the resentment between the classes. When a poor person is convicted, the first thing that people jump on is "he wouldn't have been convicted if he were rich." Not necessarily true.



"Sad, isn't it? Too bad our society is so reactive and less proactive...maybe we wouldn't have such high recidivism rates."

And what would you suggest to be proactive? How can one be proactive with a sociopath? Sociopathy cannot be cured. Period.



"Apples and oranges: Saudi Arabia is a completely different society from the US."

I was referring to the "Swift and sure"





"So, if a sociopath cannot live in society, they should be killed, even if they've never killed? Not to mention, the brain is still developing at age 15."

I didn't say that. I said that people who murder in cold blood should be eliminated so that they can no longer prey on society. They serve no purpose, and we should not have to pay for their upkeep. And sociopathy is evident by age 15 through a group of behaviors. This isn't something that was pulled out of someone's ass...this information is the result of study of these individuals. Sociopaths cannot be cured.



"This is essentially eugenics. Why are some of those retarded kids cunning and sneaky and unruly? Ummm, gee, could it be because their brain is fucked up?"

No. It's not because their brains are fucked up. I.Q. and cunning don't necessarily go together. Ask Troubleshooter about some of these kids; I'm sure Wolf has had to deal with her share. Retardation is not always as debilitating as people think. Severe retardation is one thing. Mild retardation does not prevent violence, sneakiness, or cunning.



"If a person is a danger without being on meds, and those meds will not produce life-threatening side effects, then I think they should be forced to take them. Or they should be committed to an institution."


You can't force them. It's a violation of their rights. Most of them ARE in an institution. That doesn't change their dangerousness. They can escape, or they're let out because they seem to be doing better (ie, they take meds long enough to even out, then quit once they're released.)


"The term "revenge", to me, hints of a lack of impartiality...it seems to be based on emotion, not logic."

Hell yes. If someone I loved was a victim, I'd pull the switch myself. The law says "if you do this, this will happen." That's the logic part.

"When you fuck up and break the law, society deems that one should be punished (and hopefully) rehabilitated. It's not about revenge...it's more like penance."

Penance my butt...they don't get punished, and they don't get rehabilitated. They just learn how to be better criminals.


"Again, you're making a broad generalization...not all prisoners live in luxury. Most of them don't, actually."

They have more amenities than I do. I can't get health care if I get sick. If my eyes go, I can't go to the eye doctor. I don't have cable. Any of the downsides are not my problem. They got themselves into it. They knew the penalty if they got caught.

"As I see it, we rely too much on the law to protect us. We must be more proactive in stopping crime before it starts. This is easier said than done though...I think it would take a massive overhaul of society to accomplish this."


That's what the law is THERE for. People will be people, and some people will be predators. We kill rabid dogs. Why do we hesitate to do the same to rabid humans? At least the rabid dog has an excuse for his behavior....


quote:And how about in England, where those children lured the little boy out of the mall and killed him on the railroad tracks? That deserves the death penalty, as far as I'm concerned. If children that young are killing already, all they're going to learn is that they can get away with it. They lured an innocent child to his death. For the fun of it. I have no sympathy for them. They deserve to die. A life for a life. It may not bring the little boy back, but it may save someone else's life in the future. That's what's important, not the feelings of the poor killer.



"Link, please?"

These are just two of the many articles on the Bulger Murder:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bulger/art...5276%2C00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...103494,00.html

Here's one if you want more articles:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/...pe=all&tab=www

"And do you really think the death penalty has been that strong of a deterrent?"

If used swiftly and surely on those who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, YES. But we don't use it swiftly and surely. You're more likely to rot in jail than you are to get fried.


Here's another website, this one on murderous children. Notice the ages, and notice their attitudes.

http://www.petercoad.co.uk/033.htm



Sidhe

"Tell them to decriminalize non violent drug offenses and make room for the violent felons."


I SO agree with that!


Sidhe

OK, I'll buy your arguments. I have just declared myself winner in the next presidential election. My first action as president will be to order everyone on death row to be executed at once. I will also order that their deaths be as long drawn out and brutal as possible. Naturally, the families of the victims will get front row seats, so they can enjoy every scream, every moan, every spasm of agony. They will also be given their very own video-tape of the event to take home, so they can relive the experience again and again. These are good, moral people and they need their revenge, so they can continue to be noble, upstanding members of society.

The next item on my agenda will be to make our streets safe for our citizens. Those retards are potential killers. Everybody with an IQ less than 80 gets the death sentence. Same for the mentally ill - they are out of their minds, after all. God knows what they might do. Anybody with a mental disorder, please get in line with the retards. Let's see, in the US, one out of three of every young black males between the ages of 18 and 32 is currently incarerated. Now this has nothing to do with poverty or lack of a good lawyer since in your experience you were poor and unjustly accused and got off. Since poverty has no bearing on crime in our culture, then neither does racism. After all, look at all those orientals who don't commit crime. In the case of young black males, its probably a case of bad genetics. Let's get rid of them! Young black men, please line up behind the crazies. And while I'm at it, I think I'll rid the country of the disabled - bunch of useless eaters sitting around watching cable at the tax payer's expense. Everyone in a wheel chair, line up behind those black gang members, thank you. One of my advisors has just informed me that homosexual males may have a proclivity for episodes of senseless rage. That's good enough for me. All you people with limp wrists and attending acting school, get over there behind those yucky handicapped people. That should do for a start. Oh! Wait! Almost forgot those Godless pagans with their satanic rituals. They're the worst! Witches, please go stand behind the guys in tights. There.

I will then direct that the execution of hese people be done publicly and I will pass a law making it mandatory for the public to attend. Anyone who tries to close their eyes will be executed along with the rest. I want the American people to be satisfed that this is a just country and I want them to go to bed at night content that the evil doers suffered a suitable end. This should go a long way to induce in the populance a peaceful, contented out look. We will then live in Nirvana, at last.

"All deeds are led by mind, created by mind.

If one acts and speaks with a corrupt mind,
suffering follows
As the wheel follows the hoof of an oxen pulling a cart.

If one speaks and acts with a serene mind,
happiness follows,
As surely as one's shadow.

'He abused me, mistreated me, defeated me, robbed me.'
Holding on to these thoughts keeps hatred alive.

'He abused me, mistreated me, defeated me, robbed me.'
Letting go of these thoughts destroys hatred for all time.

Hatred does not win over hatred
Only by love is hate defeated.
This is the law which is true for all time."

- The Buddha