Capital Punishment

[grizzaholic]

"Personally, I don't give two fucks. You get the death penalty, you die. SIMPLE. But bunny huggers like you wouldn't let that fly."

[JohnStOnge]

I was against it when I was young based on the "if even one innocent person is executed" outlook then changed my mind. But when I changed my mind the caveat was that it should be applied in a way that had a reasonable chance to make it a deterrent. The idea was that if properly applied it could reduce the probability of being a victim of a captial crime and that your probability of being falsely executed would be "made up for" by through reduction in the probability that you'd be a victim of a capital crime.

Lately it's been more difficult because I do not have as much faith in the "accuracy" of the American legal system as I used to. I have come to believe that we have an unacceptably high rate of false convictions. Prosecutors, I think, look at convictions as trophies and I do not trust their objectivity in general. Not saying every prosecutor is suspect but I've seen too many instances in which they do things like try to keep DNA evidence that might exonerate previously convicted people from being examined. I've gotten the impression that some of them are more concerned about not being proven wrong than they are about finding the truth.

The scary thing is that we have absolutely no way to validate the "accuracy" of our judicial system. We have no idea as to the proportion of instances in which the guilty go free or or the proportion of instances in which the innocent are convicted. We all kind of live under the assumption that it is a reliable system. But we don't really know.

What we DO know is that our system has convicted innocent people. Absolutely no doubt about that.

[BlueHen86]

I guess here's the second question... what is the benefit of capital punishment?

We should be allowed to harvest the organs. I'm pretty sure the law currently prevents it, that law should be changed.

[BlueHen86]

The standard to convict is "beyond a reasonable doubt". If we're going to have the death penalty the standard should be beyond any doubt. I also wouldn't trust the decision to a typical jury. Let the jury decide on guilt or innocence, but let a panel of judges review the evidence and make the decision on whether or not to execute.

I respectfully disagree. Juries are properly entrusted with the life- death decision, and defendants are protected if the required vote is unanimity or a supermajority. In Delaware, IIRC, there 's a statute allowing judges to make the decision if the non- unanimous jury vote is at a certain level. It's rarely used. There 's no evidence that judges are better able to evaluate the required " aggravating factors" than a jury. I'm for the death penalty.

After seeing the OJ jury, I no longer trust juries. I realize that were not going to change the entire system, so we should continue to have juries as we do now, but I don't trust them with life and death decisions.

[travelinman67]

Before D1B wanders into this to advocate wanton infanticide...

...again...

...there's no comparing penal-enforced death penalty with abortion.

An aborted child is simple murder of a perfect innocent life.

Unborn infants embody no evil or sin. The taking of their life is premeditated murder.

Criminals who've been convicted of a capital offense harbor evil and sin. The act of taking their life, albeit itself a sin, is merely a punishment fitting their crime: The taking of a life.

In states that expeditiously enforce the death penalty, it has proven to be an effective deterrent. Unfortunately, the legal community (and legislators who oppose), have facilitated a mockery of the punishment through unconstitutionally utilizing "technicalities" to delay or overturn enforcement of the penalty.

Most recently it was the "thiopental" shortages...which when broadly examined, turned out to be a farce (i.e., storage practices were challenged, which, when historically reviewed, had NEVER been utilized in the past, and in fact, Hospira [the manufacturer] had NEVER previously stipulated!!!). The anti-death penalty Hospira, unable to fabricate other excuses, chose to shut down their Italy-based manufacturing facility.

Just a litany of disingenuous bullshit.

Bottomline...one can oppose abortion and still rationally support the death penalty.

[Cap'n Cat]

Bullshit. It is a fetus, nothing more than a gallbladder, inside the body of a voting, tax-paying member of society. It's her body, her choice.

[JohnStOnge]

Bullshit. It is a fetus, nothing more than a gallbladder, inside the body of a voting, tax-paying member of society. It's her body, her choice.

Cap, if you want to argue for establishing some principle whereby a woman can do whatever she wants with whatever is in her body, that's fine. I would disagree with you but that's the way it goes.

But it's not the same as the woman's gallbladder. A woman's gallbladder is part of that woman's body. It is not an organism unto itself. Every cell in that gallbladder has her genetic code. It's part of her.

Not the same with a fetus. That is a different organism. It exists within her body but it is not part of her body. It is an entity unto itself. The fetus is NOT part of her body as her gallbladder is.

Now, you can argue that she should be able to kill it. But understand that when she does so she is killing a member of our species with its own life. It's not part of her body.

[grizzaholic]

Bullshit. It is a fetus, nothing more than a gallbladder, inside the body of a voting, tax-paying member of society. It's her body, her orifice.

FIFY

[dbackjon]

T-man - can you show me deterance studies?

[Wedgebuster]

Better yet, really successful rich guys with mega brains could buy the bodies of younger, and maybe better conditioned (quality raises the price)death row inmates, and just have their brains transplanted into the criminals skull, and the abby normal brain could be say, cuisinarted into a protein shake , and there you have it, capitalistic utopia.

[Ivytalk]

I respectfully disagree. Juries are properly entrusted with the life- death decision, and defendants are protected if the required vote is unanimity or a supermajority. In Delaware, IIRC, there 's a statute allowing judges to make the decision if the non- unanimous jury vote is at a certain level. It's rarely used. There 's no evidence that judges are better able to evaluate the required " aggravating factors" than a jury. I'm for the death penalty.

After seeing the OJ jury, I no longer trust juries. I realize that were not going to change the entire system, so we should continue to have juries as we do now, but I don't trust them with life and death decisions.

But a black robe and a law degree guarantee no better decision. From a defense perspective, 12 votes are better than one.

[travelinman67]

Bullshit. It is a fetus, nothing more than a gallbladder, inside the body of a voting, tax-paying member of society. It's her body, her choice.

The Gallbladder will never breath air, learn, live a full life contributing to the tapestry of humanity, unlike the fetus, which miraculously will grow and become a geriatric doctor...

...visiting you on Tuesdays in the care-home for your three-finger prostate exam followed by a firm pimp backhand.

[Ivytalk]

I was against it when I was young based on the "if even one innocent person is executed" outlook then changed my mind. But when I changed my mind the caveat was that it should be applied in a way that had a reasonable chance to make it a deterrent. The idea was that if properly applied it could reduce the probability of being a victim of a captial crime and that your probability of being falsely executed would be "made up for" by through reduction in the probability that you'd be a victim of a capital crime.

Lately it's been more difficult because I do not have as much faith in the "accuracy" of the American legal system as I used to. I have come to believe that we have an unacceptably high rate of false convictions. Prosecutors, I think, look at convictions as trophies and I do not trust their objectivity in general. Not saying every prosecutor is suspect but I've seen too many instances in which they do things like try to keep DNA evidence that might exonerate previously convicted people from being examined. I've gotten the impression that some of them are more concerned about not being proven wrong than they are about finding the truth.

The scary thing is that we have absolutely no way to validate the "accuracy" of our judicial system. We have no idea as to the proportion of instances in which the guilty go free or or the proportion of instances in which the innocent are convicted. We all kind of live under the assumption that it is a reliable system. But we don't really know

What we DO know is that our system has convicted innocent people. Absolutely no doubt about that.

Face it, John: you don't trust any facet of the legal system. None. And your posts prove it. You don't trust judges or juries. The judiciary remains the least dangerous branch. Alex Bickel was right.

[YoUDeeMan]

Kill them. Cook them and feed their parts to the dogs.

The argument that capital punishment is too expensive is absolute bullshit. It has been made expensive by the very tarts that oppose it.

[CID1990]

T-man - can you show me deterance studies?

There is no such thing as a reliable deterrance study. LE academics know this, but you don't, apparently.

Deterrance is generally unmeasurable. For instance, you have a cop sit in front of a bank in his police car. The bank is not robbed while the cop is there. Was his presence the controlling factor in preventing the bank from being robbed during that time?

The mere presence of a controlling factor (like the cop in front of the bank) is generally accepted to be a deterrent, but you cannot ask all the potential bank robbers to stand up and be counted in a survey as to whether or not they would have robbed the bank if the cop had been there.

As for the death penalty, you can have a control group but you cannot have a blind. In other words, you cannot identify potential killers who were refrained from killing because they were afraid of the death penalty. Crime of passion do not count because capital murder cases always include premeditation.

[BigSkyBears]

Never understood people who are pro-life but in favor of the death penalty, or pro-choice but against the death penalty.

I don't shed tears when cop killers or baby killers or the OK City bomber or the DC sniper (experienced that one first hand) are executed, but:

Fundamentally since I'm pro-life I'm against the death penalty.
Pragmatically, if even 1 innocent person is executed that's too many.
Spiritually, where do you draw the line between a person who can redeem/rehabilitate themselves and a mad dog that you put down?

I say replace the death penalty with a cell at ADX Florence...

Yeah, I'm pro-life so I have a hard time voting for republicans who support the death penalty but I can't support Democrats who want to keep abortion legal.

[grizzaholic]

Kill them. Cook them and feed their parts to the dogs.

The argument that capital punishment is too expensive is absolute bullshit. It has been made expensive by the very tarts that oppose it.

I agree.

[Skjellyfetti]

What a fucking shame.

[Vidav]

Kill them. Cook them and feed their parts to the dogs.

The argument that capital punishment is too expensive is absolute bullshit. It has been made expensive by the very tarts that oppose it.

I agree.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I'm against it. On general principle. I don't believe there is any justice in vengeance. While personally there are times where I'd love nothing more than to see someone die for the horrible things they've done, I cannot justify society killing someone for a crime - no matter how heinous, as a matter of principle.

While that can be tough to accept sometimes, especially when the emotions of a particular case run high - those are the moments when we need to turn to a system that is rooted in a principle of justice rather than vengeance.

It's all fine and well to talk tough and adopt a Dirty Harry attitude about it all, because in the abstract you are never the one standing accused, perhaps falsely, of a crime.

[YoUDeeMan]

What a fucking shame.

A fucking shame that you don't have an opinion, can't properly express an opinion, or that you dismiss any opinions that don't agree with you?

[ODUsmitty]

Bullshit. It is a fetus, nothing more than a gallbladder, inside the body of a voting, tax-paying member of society. It's her body, her choice.

Not when her choice infringes on the liberty and incomes of others.

Most bastards are born to lower-class no net income tax paying pieces of parasitic human excrement. Those women gave up their choice when they decided to become a burden on society.

Kill the mother, harvest her organs to pay for her debts and send the babies to la casa de Smitty....I have some 1920's era sewing machines that are just wonderful at nibbling off little 6-year old fingers.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'm against it. On general principle. I don't believe there is any justice in vengeance. While personally there are times where I'd love nothing more than to see someone die for the horrible things they've done, I cannot justify society killing someone for a crime - no matter how heinous, as a matter of principle.

While that can be tough to accept sometimes, especially when the emotions of a particular case run high - those are the moments when we need to turn to a system that is rooted in a principle of justice rather than vengeance.

It's all fine and well to talk tough and adopt a Dirty Harry attitude about it all, because in the abstract you are never the one standing accused, perhaps falsely, of a crime.

Who are you to justify what "society" does based on your matters of principle? You only have to justify your own actions. And sweetie, justice is all about vengence...punishment in retaliation for an injury or offense.

You decide to jail people for life their offenses...others prefer that those guilty of the worst of crimes be executed. Different strokes, but don't pretend that you are not handing out a form of vengence.

Without justice/vengence, one would just turn the other cheek.

JSO once posted some quip about a person making a pact with the Devil about not being able to die...so that person spent eternity in prison...and the story went that he would rather die than spend his life in a box. Oddly enough, JSO says he is against the death penalty. The way I read his story is that life in prison is worse than death...so it is more cruel to keep a person caged than it is to end his life, so if the guy is innocent or guilty, you are doing him no favors in keeping him alive.

Kill them and be done with it. There is zero chance of escape, no chance for the person to commit another crime, no chance that the creep will spread his craft to other prisoners who will get out on parole, and there is less of an expense to the taxpayer.

We executed Bin Laden...yes we did...and most people cheered.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I'm against it. On general principle. I don't believe there is any justice in vengeance. While personally there are times where I'd love nothing more than to see someone die for the horrible things they've done, I cannot justify society killing someone for a crime - no matter how heinous, as a matter of principle.

While that can be tough to accept sometimes, especially when the emotions of a particular case run high - those are the moments when we need to turn to a system that is rooted in a principle of justice rather than vengeance.

It's all fine and well to talk tough and adopt a Dirty Harry attitude about it all, because in the abstract you are never the one standing accused, perhaps falsely, of a crime.

Who are you to justify what "society" does based on your matters of principle? You only have to justify your own actions. And sweetie, justice is all about vengence...punishment in retaliation for an injury or offense.

You decide to jail people for life their offenses...others prefer that those guilty of the worst of crimes be executed. Different strokes, but don't pretend that you are not handing out a form of vengence.

Without justice/vengence, one would just turn the other cheek.

JSO once posted some quip about a person making a pact with the Devil about not being able to die...so that person spent eternity in prison...and the story went that he would rather die than spend his life in a box. Oddly enough, JSO says he is against the death penalty. The way I read his story is that life in prison is worse than death...so it is more cruel to keep a person caged than it is to end his life, so if the guy is innocent or guilty, you are doing him no favors in keeping him alive.

Kill them and be done with it. There is zero chance of escape, no chance for the person to commit another crime, no chance that the creep will spread his craft to other prisoners who will get out on parole, and there is less of an expense to the taxpayer.

We executed Bin Laden...yes we did...and most people cheered.

We live in a civil society - we make collective decisions based on shared interest. When we as a society tell people not to commit murder, then sanction murder and call it "justice" we undermine that message.

I disagree completely with your assertion conflating vengeance and justice... they are two entirely different things - vengeance is a violent revenge by one who has been wronged. justice is about meting out a deserved punishment based upon moral rectitude. While you may see state-sanctioned killing as morally righteous, I don't.

More to the point - it's all fine and well to say "just kill them" - however, given that justice is not always perfect, and innocent (or at least not guilty) people are wrongly convicted from time to time... the specter of putting just one innocent person to death ought to be enough to give anyone pause.

As for bin Laden... if I'm honest with myself, I wasn't disappointed to hear he was gunned down - I would have preferred to see him tried and sent to prison... but there was no way he was going to let that happen. He is, in my view, no different than anyone else who drew a weapon on arresting officers. Those people aren't being executed by the state, they are being shot by law enforcement attempting to bring them to justice. Some may not see a distinction, but I do, and I think it's a very important one.

[ASUG8]

If you aren't in Texas, by the time you exhaust your appeals it can be 15+ yrs until your execution which for some equals a life sentence. I was once on a jury where we convicted a guy for murder and recommended lethal injection and he's still around today and I've never felt a moment's remorse for voting that way. After seeing how long it takes despite how horrific his crimes I'm not sure if my stance has maybe softened a bit.

One thing I really don't get are the concurrent life sentences or consecutive life sentences.

Here's how our jury scenario was laid out:
Jury phase:
* Guy is accused of murder
* Guy admits to murder to authorities on tape
* Guy never refutes his own admission, nor takes the stand
* All twelve of us find him guilty - quickly

Sentencing phase:
* Now we're told he's already on death row
* He also admitted to and was convicted of killing two other women, and was suspected in two other killings
* It took us 90 minutes to recommend the death penalty

Why the charade and costs with this particular trial if he'd already been convicted and sentenced twice before? Better yet, this was '96 for our trial, and he's still kicking, alive and well in NC's prison system getting three hots and a cot every day on the taxpayer dime.