Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: alex_trebek on March 19, 2010, 09:25:27 PM
-
I was curious about different views on the US death penalty (both federal and state). Foreign opinions on the subject in general are, of course, welcome.
I am personally on the fence on this issue. I don't like granting the state the authority to take human lives. I do feel no sympathy for rapists/murderers. However, I am of the opinion that it is better to let 100 murderers live than claim the life of a single innocent.
There are very limited protocols for dealing with innocent inmates before and after execution, beyond a non-heartfelt apology. I have a big problem with this, as even someone who is cleared before execution is essentially robbed of their life because they spent 20 years in death row.
I know that there is a lot of appeals processes in place to prevent innocent people from being executed, but it has happened before so I wonder about their overall effectiveness.
-
Nope. People deserve to die, but Americans deserve better than to be killers. If we can afford to imprison stoners and people who write bad checks, we we afford to permanently imprison murderers, even the really heinous ones.
My opinion on this is not popular around here, but I haven't found anything convincing enough to counter the general principle.
An important ancillary issue is the difficulty in knowing when someone is actually guilty. Innocent people have been executed, and as long as there is a death penalty, it is likely that innocent people will continue to be executed from time to time. I'm not simple enough to insist that on a zero tolerance policy for errors; this issue is at best related to my philosophical opposition to it.
-
I know that there is a lot of appeals processes in place to prevent innocent people from being executed, but it has happened before so I wonder about their overall effectiveness.
A prof of mine handled the final appeal of one convicted murderer. He was convicted of stabbing his daughter to death and hiding her body under a bed for a day before 'fessing up.
His conviction and all the appeals and all the evidentiary issues argued at various points all fell back on his confession. Anytime someone couldn't think of an explanation, they simply referred back to the confession.
The guy was retarded. The confession didn't make sense. It basically required that EMTs and ER docs not be able to tell the difference between someone who is mostly-but-maybe-not-quite dead of cardiac arrest from multiple stab wounds and someone who has been dead for over 24 hours and stuffed under a bed in July in a closed, un-air-conditioned apartment. And yet, he was convicted.
-
BW, I apologize for forgetting about your chosen career path. Thank you for your insights, I appreciate them.
Generally I am a fairly opinionated person, I draw conclusions based on the evidence and proceed as my conscious decides.
The death penalty is one of the few things I have bounced back and forth on, sometimes supporting it other times not.
If I had to make a choice today, I would choose against it.
-
I have no problem with it in cases where it's 100% absolutely positive that the guy did it. Such as this case (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/bet-he-feels-a-little-stupid-tonight/).
Unless the person was caught on camera doing it, or there were a bajillion witnesses, or pulled something like the guy in the link did, then I have a problem with it. Confessions can be coerced; they're not always a good indicator unless the guy fails to fight it at all, even during the trial.
-
yea i'd have dropped the hammer on him while eating a samich.
but we REALLY need to tighten up on who and how. we've likely screwed up a few times and come way too close a bunch more
-
Several months ago, we discussed the cost of an average execution, after a study was published and reported on in the New York Times. In some states with a low number of executions, it was upwards of $ 10 million in costs to execute a single inmate. In other states, who doubtless enjoy efficiencies of scale, it was several hundreds of thousands to the low millions. In today's economy, you have to wonder if American society can afford to execute people, and what could be done with the money instead.
Based on my admittedly sparse research, I am gravely concerned over the execution of an innocent person, which has likely already happened; the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the death penalty is sought and imposed; lack of access to competent counsel for the accused in some cases, and the lack of any proven deterrence effect to others.
-
I don't understand why the money spent to prove guilt far enough for execution is higher than lifetime imprisonment (by lifetime I mean until death, not 20yrs + parole).
If someone is locked up until they die, they should be afforded all the same appeals and scrutiny an execution does.
In general, I have no moral reservations about the execution. But I become more convinced that prosecutors/DA are out of control and that there may be a lot of innocent people locked up. Execution needs to be 100% with irrefutable evidence correct every time... and so does forever imprisonment.
-
Several months ago, we discussed the cost of an average execution, after a study was published and reported on in the New York Times. In some states with a low number of executions, it was upwards of $ 10 million in costs to execute a single inmate. In other states, who doubtless enjoy efficiencies of scale, it was several hundreds of thousands to the low millions. In today's economy, you have to wonder if American society can afford to execute people, and what could be done with the money instead.
Based on my admittedly sparse research, I am gravely concerned over the execution of an innocent person, which has likely already happened; the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the death penalty is sought and imposed; lack of access to competent counsel for the accused in some cases, and the lack of any proven deterrence effect to others.
I identify with the last paragraph. I think the penalty choice should be taken away from potentially over-zealous prosecuters trying to make a name for themselves. Of course this could simply be the result of over-exposure to John Grisham's work.
-
Despite all that, when I know that there are people who have raped and murdered children, or serial killers who torture and eat their victims in prison, I ask myself why they are still allowed to be on this planet. And I can't come up with an answer.
-
Based on the economics, possibility of killing innocents and the general low nature that is less than the standards we have for our country I say no.
However, being a father has made me a little more barbaric, I find myself cheering inside when some of these people get the death penalty. Like the little sick man who buried that girl alive in Florida after raping her and his finishing touch is to let her have her favorite stuffed animal to hold? Oh, how many nights have I not been able to get that though out of my head while tucking in my little girl and her security toy. Death is too good for some of these people. Therefore, any state punishment is inadequate. If it's my family member something happens to, I'll probably make the news.
I do find myself cheering for the dumb-ass here in Virginia that dusted off the electric chair last night too. Nothing like getting convicted of murder, but beating the death penalty only to write a taunting letter to the DA with lots of new evidence in it to support a death sentence. He failed double jeopardy, but got to final jeopardy anyway. =D
http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-powell-execution-tonight,0,4141736.story (http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-powell-execution-tonight,0,4141736.story)
-
In general, I have no moral reservations about the execution. But I become more convinced that prosecutors/DA are out of control and that there may be a lot of innocent people locked up. Execution needs to be 100% with irrefutable evidence correct every time... and so does forever imprisonment.
That pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.
I do think there's a way to make it more accurate though. If the executed is later found innocent then the prosecutor goes up for a murder trial. Better be darned sure you got the right guy before you sign off on going for the death penalty there, bub.
-
There are cases where execution is IMHO the only correct punishment, the Fort Hood Shooter is one such case, there are plenty of others.
I am also concerned with over zealous prosecutors. The only thing rare about Nifong is that that his political targets had enough money to beat him.
-
Fort Hood dude is different. My opposition to the death penalty is limited to the civilian world. Courts martial need to be able to use the death penalty.
-
Fort Hood dude is different. My opposition to the death penalty is limited to the civilian world. Courts martial need to be able to use the death penalty.
So is the military somehow always able to get the right person but civilian law enforcement/prosecution is not? Does JAG have some clairvoyance the DA doesn't?
-
Fort Hood dude is different. My opposition to the death penalty is limited to the civilian world. Courts martial need to be able to use the death penalty.
My point about Hassan is not that he was military but that there is no doubt that he is guilty.
-
Failure to execute murderers is a lack of justice. Better one innocent be killed, than a million murderers remain alive.
-
So is the military somehow always able to get the right person but civilian law enforcement/prosecution is not? Does JAG have some clairvoyance the DA doesn't?
Nope, accuracy is not my primary objection to the death penalty. As I stated pretty clearly.
-
Failure to execute murderers is a lack of justice. Better one innocent be killed, than a million murderers remain alive.
So failing to inflict precisely the kind of punishment you favor is injustice?
-
We need to tighten the requirements for the death penalty. Lots of witnesses, caught on camera, a dying utterance by the victim,"Bubba killed me", etc. However, when we do use it, we need to fast track the guilty. Push their cases to the front of the line. I would like to see a death sentence carried out within 6 months of verdict. Let them file all the appeals they want, and put every one of them on an accelerated schedule. Pull witnesses out of bed and keep them in court until it's done if we have to. There is no excuse for a convicted murderer to sit for years on Death Row. It's unfair to the tax payers, and I believe it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, for someone to sit there that long, knowing they're a dead man. But then, I believe life is an unfair sentence, too. If someone is so evil they can never be trusted outside again, we should execute them.
But then, I've been told I'm heartless. I also believe if someone can't be trusted with a firearm, they should be locked away until they can be, or executed.
-
I, for one, am in favor of maintaining the current frequency of capital punishment.
I am also in favor of reducing jail sentences while reinstating alternative forms of punishment. Lashings, stocks, and so forth.
Cheaper to implement, possibly greater effectiveness, possibly marketable.
In order for my ideas to work out the way I'd want, though, the justice system would have to be quick, perfectly accurate, and free from corruption. =| In other words...
"If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak." -The Hero of Canton
-
I'm fine with it, in fact I would argue we don't use it enough. Rapists, child molesters, those who are pathologically violent, and basically anyone that would be subject to a life behind bars. If they are going to be housed for the rest of their life might as well make that life a bit shorter and save some cash.
I do, however, agree with a lot here that there needs to be 100% absolute proof. Caught in the act, caught on camera, lots of reliable witnesses, DNA that has no possibility of being circumstantial, etc. If the evidence lines up that the person is absolutely guilty of the crime, execute him/her. For the sake of efficiency limit those with such evidence to one appeal then put a .22 in the back of their head no later then one year after the conviction to be delayed only if their one appeal is still in process. If there is not such evidence then no death penalty and they can do life on the off chance some evidence comes up in their favor.
-
I think that there ought to be something where if a single innocent person is found to be executed anywhere, that all death sentences in the country are commuted to life and a 5 year moratorium imposed on the death penalty.
I think that the same should apply whenever anyone sentenced to death but not executed is exonerated, but only within the state that sentenced him.
I don't oppose the death penalty in principle for murderers, but I think it should be done in as humane a way as possible, with a large barbiturate overdose, perhaps combined with an opiate overdose.
-
I think that there ought to be something where if a single innocent person is found to be executed anywhere, that all death sentences in the country are commuted to life and a 5 year moratorium imposed on the death penalty.
I'm sorry, but that's crazy. Every moment people like Malik Hasan, Charles Manson, or Ted Kaczynski are allowed to live is a slap in the face to justice and to civilized society. They should be shot. Today. This morning. No pomp and circumstance. Just open the cell doors, put a round in the skull, and dispose of the carcass with the day's garbage.
Letting people like that live is not a tribute to our supposed civility. It's a testament to our stupidity.
-
a slap in the face to justice and to civilized society.
not nearly as big a slap as when we kill the wrong guy and then cover it up
-
So failing to inflict precisely the kind of punishment you favor is injustice?
No, it just happens to be the right thing to do. However, reducing your opponent's point of view to mere personal preference is a time-honored polemical trick.
-
I'm sorry, but that's crazy. Every moment people like Malik Hasan, Charles Manson, or Ted Kaczynski are allowed to live is a slap in the face to justice and to civilized society. They should be shot. Today. This morning. No pomp and circumstance. Just open the cell doors, put a round in the skull, and dispose of the carcass with the day's garbage.
Letting people like that live is not a tribute to our supposed civility. It's a testament to our stupidity.
I disagree.
Punishing killers with life imprisonment Is an order of magnitude less unjust than killing an innocent person.
The point of an automatic-moratorium / commutation system is to use the desire to execute killers as an incentive for good honest policework and prosecution.
If a judge or prosecutor cut corners and put an innocent man to death, he would be personally responsible for saving the lives of all death row inmates everywhere.
-
I say we drop them off into the water off Seal Island, South Africa and if they make it to shore they go free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_Island,_South_Africa
and please don't lock the thread it's a joke.
-
Is putting an innocent person in the living hell of prison for the rest of their life any less a taking of their life than execution?
-
For every truely evil inhuman scumbag there are ten people who may be murderers but aren't truely evil.
The Grisham novel "A time to kill" comes to mind. In that scenario, two people were murdered. The two people raped the daughter of the murderer. Most would say they deserved it, and I would probably do the same thing Carl did in that situation.
So let's say that Carl is found guilty, and sentenced to death. How do you feel about it now?
Could you personally throw the switch knowing that Carl was a decent guy forced into a bad decision?
I used to focus on the people like Manson, but I now wonder how many people may not deserve the death penalty, but are sitting on death row.
Furthermore, if I couldn't/wouldn't be willing to throw the switch on someone like Carl, or someone who may be innocent, then I think it is immoral to ask someone to do so in my stead.
-
Is putting an innocent person in the living hell of prison for the rest of their life any less a taking of their life than execution?
At least it's revocable.
-
Umm... not as much as you might think.
The torture, mental anguish, and damage to their life is irrevocable.
Can you imagine trying to recover your life after serving, say, 5 or 10 years of a murder sentence? Your original life would be gone, so what COULD you do?
-
Put them on a deserted island with three days of rations for the rest of their life.
-
I'm sorry, but that's crazy. Every moment people like Malik Hasan, Charles Manson, or Ted Kaczynski are allowed to live is a slap in the face to justice and to civilized society. They should be shot. Today. This morning. No pomp and circumstance. Just open the cell doors, put a round in the skull, and dispose of the carcass with the day's garbage.
Letting people like that live is not a tribute to our supposed civility. It's a testament to our stupidity.
No different than all the rules we like republicans having use of, but then freaking out when the party changes and the rules remain. If we have a culture with a permissive attitude toward the death penalty we are just a regime change or two away from construction cranes and hanging people who disagree with our notion of governance. Our governmental system is already too corrupt to be entrusted the power to kill, if the gov''t gets worse, so will the killings.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2008%2F01_01%2FhangingL_468x318.jpg&hash=b1b4789f3b8d633ecb23c735831c28fc299564f1)
-
At least it's revocable.
Not entirely.
While the death penalty is less revocable than other punishments, it is interesting that many arguments against it fail, just by applying the same arguments to other punishments, then noting how silly they sound. Of course, some arguments pass this test, but many do not, and should be dropped accordingly.
-
You can't ever give somebody N number of years back, even if the error gets eventually rectified.
And you can never give them back their original teeth busted out by real criminals, or un-give them the AIDS that they got from being raped in prison.
Then there are the inmates that get murdered in prison. (probably by somebody who should have been hanged)
-
Another way to reduce prosecutorial misconduct might be to subject all involved in falsifying evidence or whatever other means they might use to wrongfully convict someone to the same punishment they would have inflicted had they been successful.
Using Nifong as an example. ay the men accused of the gang rape could have been sentenced to 20 years. Once it was found out that the "victim" lied and that Nifong was doing all sorts of crap to persecute the accused then he and the lying "victim" could be tried and sentenced to the same penalty they would have wrongfully inflicted on someone else.
-
i like that!
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifong
I think that what's happening to him is worse than any jail time.
-
You can't ever give somebody N number of years back, even if the error gets eventually rectified.
And you can never give them back their original teeth busted out by real criminals, or un-give them the AIDS that they got from being raped in prison.
Then there are the inmates that get murdered in prison. (probably by somebody who should have been hanged)
Agreed.
Eliminating the death penalty because you think the system isn't right IMO is an emotional argument meant only to make you feel better. It does nothing to fix the system that is accused of prosecuting innocent people. It does nothing for the other innocent people you must think are getting lesser sentences.
IMO, the only real constructive solution to innocents getting prosecuted is to look at each of those cases and figure out where the problems are. I have heard a number of good ideas on this thread and on this site in the past. I'm sure more ideas would present themselves. I see a lot of tear-jerker stories of death row people on the news. I rarely see good in depth analysis of the cases.
On separate note, down here at least, it is a jury that determines whether than the death penalty gets applied versus life in prison. Citizens do it, not some judge and not "the state".
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifong
I think that what's happening to him is worse than any jail time.
No, it isn't. He should get worse.
-
Personally, I do not have a problem with capital punishment IF the case is tried in the State courts and the execution is carried out in a state prison. I have a REAL problem with capital punishment in Federal courts.
I do not like the idea of the Federal government having that much power. Plus, it opens the door for a "double jeopardy" situation if crimes like murder are even tried in Federal court. A couple years ago there was a case here in Minnesota where some scumbag killed a young woman. It was pretty clear that he was guilty, but the police had made some procedural mistakes in collecting the evidence. There was a big debate whether he should be tried in MN state court or Federal court. The arguement was if he was tried in Federal Court, he could be executed if convicted. But if he was found not guilty because of police misconduct, the MN courts were not allowed to re-try him. However, if he was first tried in MN state court and found not guilty, the Feds were allowed to have a second shot at him. MN does not have the death penalty. As I recall, they chose the state court route first and he is now serving life without parole. But the point is, even scumbags should not be allowed to be tried twice for the same crime.
-
No, it just happens to be the right thing to do. However, reducing your opponent's point of view to mere personal preference is a time-honored polemical trick.
So you want me to argue based on the premise you're already right? =)
-
Despite all that, when I know that there are people who have raped and murdered children, or serial killers who torture and eat their victims in prison, I ask myself why they are still allowed to be on this planet. And I can't come up with an answer.
I agree. Expedite the appeals process as well as having the investigation itself reviewed by an outside source and if all systems are GO after this process, then carry out the deed. Rope, rusty machete, .22 to the back of the head who cares? Just get it done.
-
So you want me to argue based on the premise you're already right? =)
;/ How tedious. If you want to argue against my point of view, fine.
If, on the other hand, you want to single out my opinion as being some kind of arbitrary preference, I'll respond by noting that such a ploy is shallow and meaningless. I'm being just as arbitrary as everyone else here, I just didn't decorate my comment with statistics or cost-benefit analysis.
If it bothers you that I'm not giving any reasons to support my view, I'm sorry. I just get tired of arguing about it. We were asked for our opinions. I gave mine. If you don't agree, that's your right.
-
a slap in the face to justice and to civilized society.
not nearly as big a slap as when we kill the wrong guy and then cover it up
One of the (perhaps the greatest) signs about what we as a society value is by the severity of punishment doled out to those who violate those values.
No punishment for abortion indicates we value unborn human life at the level of chum. Perhaps less, since there are, no doubt, regulations in certain localities about what one can dump in the ocean or how critters are treated in captivity.
The death penalty for murder indicates we value innocent human life more than if we had no penalty whatsoever. Any lesser punishment is just quibbling.
From a practical perspective, the death penalty is society engaging in self-defense. Most murderers who get the DP are not retards who got tripped up by clever interrogators or regular folk who just snapped. They have a long & sordid record that pointed toward bigger & badder crimes.
Execution being final is used as an argument against the DP. Personally, I find finality its greatest argument in favor. Never in recorded history has a man been successfully executed and gone on to commit more crimes, as many who have had life sentences have done. To include murder.
Also, do we not care about those convicted of lesser crimes? Aside from not affording them the panoply of legal resources DP convicts get, locking them up with folks with nothing to lose (life sentence w/o parole and no DP) is a good way to ensure folks who don't deserve the DP get it on the sly via outright murder or by contracting AIDS/hepatitis/etc. Or, even if they don't die from it, tossing on multiple anal rapes on top of a few years in prison seems a heck of a lot more unjust than sending a convicted murderer to Hell (or the underworld of their choice).
WRT prosecutorial misconduct, I think that prosecutors need an IA division as much as police do. Placing them in jeopardy of receiving the same penalty if they hide exculpatory evidence or otherwise knowingly send an innocent man to prison is fair.
I would second the notion of alternative punitive measures rather than time behind bars. Corporal punishment, such as "X lashes for Y crime" would be much preferable.
-
a critical look at what prosecutors do on a regular basis is not pretty.one could look at a couple of states as prime examples. very politicized process. i'm gonna use my state va and texas as too prime examples. in some counties no one ever get the dp. in others its far different. not sure it should be. and the fact that folks are exonerated 20 plus years after trial proves our current system is flawed seriously. in va till a couple years ago you had 21 days to produce new evidence after that oh well
i agree i think subjecting those engaged in misconduct to the same penalty given to those they railroad would help though jailing that many lawyer and judges would seriously lower the morality in prisons.
-
a critical look at what prosecutors do on a regular basis is not pretty.one could look at a couple of states as prime examples. very politicized process. i'm gonna use my state va and texas as too prime examples. in some counties no one ever get the dp. in others its far different. not sure it should be. and the fact that folks are exonerated 20 plus years after trial proves our current system is flawed seriously. in va till a couple years ago you had 21 days to produce new evidence after that oh well
i agree i think subjecting those engaged in misconduct to the same penalty given to those they railroad would help though jailing that many lawyer and judges would seriously lower the morality in prisons.
If things are that bad, it is a tragedy. But it is a tragedy that is taking place in all sorts of cases, not just DP cases. From what I have heard, DNA testing is being used to review all sorts of cases. I've seen some stories on those cases, but I haven't seen any good look at the original cases.
-
Anyone know any groups that pushing for reforms?
-
dna is good it won't compensate for slimey folks. dna testing during doug wilders reign showed earl washington DID NOT commit the crime hes was on death row for. yet wilder only commuted his sentence to life. political move.it was uncovered when the repub did the testing again and set him free. when confronted wilder was unrepentant.
-
It was said that the vigilantes often got the wrong man.
I wonder if the criminal injustice system really does any better? =|
-
Agreed.
On separate note, down here at least, it is a jury that determines whether than the death penalty gets applied versus life in prison. Citizens do it, not some judge and not "the state".
Considering that every day jurors are given illegal jury instructions, that juries are cherry-picked to eliminate any semblance of intelligence, that people who have something going for them usually get exemptions from jury duty, that prosecutors making a name grandstand and appeal to the jury's feelings, well, no thanks. All the more reason to not give capital punishment as an option. Back in the day when our Constitution was written a jury of your peers meant something. Can't have that now, too much baggage associated with classism, sexism, etcism. If I ever do something seriously bad I think I'd have to just skip the jury and go for the bench trial. Nothing like being judged by a bunch of people who have been ripped away from their daytime TV.
-
Don't forget the people who try to opt out because they don't want to be on a death penalty trial.
That still points toward reform of the system, not eliminating punishments.
On my own jury service, I've been lucky to serve under decent judges I think.
-
I value innocent life. Therefore I support the death penalty.
-
The question should be: are we as human society in favor of submitting fellow
human beings to an un-natural, violent death?
So far the answer has to be yes in all the countries all over the world.
There are the guns, the bombs, the needles, crazy drivers, people winning all you can eat contests for many years, the abortion clinics and some unfortunate human being is going to die because we've decided so or because of collateral damage. Too bad.
I don't expect a burglar entering the home of a member of the APS talk
much about the experience after the break-in. Why focus on the death penalty if there
are a gazillion different ways to shorten ones life span? It's a media thing.
Just compare the coverage of an execution to media exposure concerning one
of the many fallen heroes coming home in a box.
I'm for it. And I'll be against it the day gouvernments take a leave of the killing business but
I don't expect that any time soon. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
-
I usually stay out of the POlitics area, but wandered by to look at some other stuff and saw this thread and peeked in.
First of all, to all of you who are decrying the absolute horribleness of incarceration - a question and a comment. Q -- what about incarceration is horrible? Even for the innocent who is deprived of their liberty, what is so all-fired intolerably horrible? C -- Partly in response to my own question, I remind some, and expound as news for the others: "Criminals don't think like you and me."1
While there is some restriction on personal liberty, a written ban on engaging in any commercial enterprise, a relative paucity of cable TV channels to choose from, and some limitation on the amount and type of healthcare provided, incarceration is not physically punishing. Incarceration for life does get rather routine and boring rather quickly, but then again so does incarceration for 30 days. The difference is the absence of a determinable light at the end of the tunnel. The number of inmate-on-inmate assaults is, relatively speaking, low -- much lower than in the free population. The reason I suppose such events get so much news coverage is because they occurr in an environment where conduct is supposed to be rigidly controlled.
Even today, some 40 years after Samenow and Yokelson wrote about their study of the criminal personality the greatest amount of their findings still remain valid. Over the years the biggest change I have witnessed is that the desire to get locked up has increased, while the reasons for desiring to get locked up remain the same. Getting locked up "proves" you are a person to be reckoned with. Getting further locked up (segregation, isolation) while incarcerated just further "proves" you are one to be reckoned with.
One does not need to be a deranged Charlie Manson, or a misled/misguided Sirhan Sirhan, to want recognition.
For those of you who say that the death penalty does not deter crime - I ask you to point out one executed individual who has ever committed another crime following execution. No, I'm not being funny. Even when pirates were hanged in public and their bodies left to rot at the gates of the city, that did not deter any other pirates that there is historical record of such. Yes, it made the general public queasy to see the condemned twitching until they strangled to death, and the rotting body added somewhat to the existing stench and disease (meaning both illness and uncomfortableness) of living.
At one point the death penalty was "justice" in its purest form. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life" prevented blood fueds and allowed civilization such as it was to progress and develop into a more "civilized" form. In the not so distant past in Western, Eastern, and Middle Eastern culture the use of incarceration was quite rare. Also, the number of offenses that were considered "capital" crimes were so few you could count them on the fingers of your hands. Just this past legislative session the Virginia General Assembly passed laws creating three new capital offenses. I'm opposed as the next guy to allowing folks to go around murdering other folks, but what makes the murder of a county water meter reader more significant than the murder of my grey-haired old granny? But kill a meter-reader and you qualify for the death penalty, while granny only gets you life unless there were specified aggravating circumstances.
Once people started getting squeamish about executing folks in public, where the act of execution might have actually had some deterrent effect on those witnessing the event, society started looking for "humane" ways to kill those it did not want. Dr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin played both the "humane" and "equality" cards with his invention. Review the history of lethal injection as oppopsed to using the electric chair, hanging, or the firing squad.
The pendulum of criminal sentencing swings between incapacitation, with the death penalty at the far extreme of that line, and reform, with "restorative justive" http://www.restorativejustice.org/ at the extreme on the other side. That pendulum will continue to swing back and forth as the monetary and social costs rise and fall, for incarceration is a cost that can neither be made popular nor eliminated (if you wish to do without pure anarchy).
My own opinion is that the death penalty ought to be swift, sure and certain. Carried out no later than sunrise the next day if sentencing occurs after dark. The standard should not be "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "with absolute certainty". You get convicted there is no alternative, no mercy, no commutation of sentence, no pardon. All that being said, the reason for the death penalty needs to be scaled waaaay back. Treason. Dessertion in the face of the enemy in time of declared war. Assination of the King -- oh, wait! We don't have a King. Nevermind.
Everybody gets three bites at reform. After that 3rd bite bite is permanent incapacitation. Absolute life. However, in oder to carry this out sucessfully I am going to bring back corporal punishment -- starting with public humiliation - the Scarlet Letter. Belling. http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/67.html
If that does not work we go to the stocks/pillory. No throwing of spoiled fruit/ vegetables at the miscreant. Just some serious time out and some discomfort added to the peer pressure, if you will.
If that does not work we go to flogging. Maximum of 30 stripes well laid on with a cat o' nine tails - water-soaked leather with straight unfeathered edges and tips. Right out of the Royal Navy manual. Third
What we have here is essentially parenting for those that missed it the first time around. Time out. Go stand in the corner. The single swat on the backside to get your attention. If that and hearing from everybody you meet that you should not do it again, then a spanking. If you still don't get it, then permanent time out. Grounded for life. Banished from the playground. Prison will not be a place where you lose all of civilization's privileges and amenities - it will just be a place where all the rules are enforced all the time. Disobey and you get sent to your room for the rest of the day. Otherwise you go to school (go learn something - anything. I prefer offering the liberal arts as opposed to small engine repair.), go to work - there are lots of things that need to be done to make the place run without allowing you near anything that could seriously hurt the place. Appropriate (notice I did not call it "good") behavior earns you privileges such as dessert after dinner, extra time for recreation, extra time for visits. Again, feel free to add what you believe should be there.
Seriously, does anybody have a better idea?
stay safe.
skidmark
1 Samenow & Yokelson, The Criminal Personality, Vols I, II & III
-
To the OP:
Just use life imprisonment. It isn't any more expensive than the execution process and I don't see any net benefit to utilizing executions.
If there were some magic way of deducing with perfect clarity:
1) That a person would re-offend 2) Rehabilitation is impossible 3) No good would ever come of keeping the person around
Then I wouldn't have any moral qualms about execution. However, since 1, 2, 3 are impossible I prefer to just get rid of the death penalty and lock them up in super max.
-
I don't see any net benefit to utilizing executions.
the inability to see is mankinds most common failing.
you fail to consider those folks who have to guard or share domicile with the psychopaths
3) No good would ever come of keeping the person around
what good has come from keeping charlie manson around?
-
what good has come from keeping charlie manson around?
It allows people to pat themselves on the back, thinking they're more "civilized" or "humane".
-
i think civilized it over rated and often come up in conversation with someone who just lost a fight
-
I don't see any net benefit to utilizing executions.
the inability to see is mankinds most common failing.
you fail to consider those folks who have to guard or share domicile with the psychopaths
3) No good would ever come of keeping the person around
what good has come from keeping charlie manson around?
Hey, all those people have jobs! :P
-
i think civilized it over rated and often come up in conversation with someone who just lost a fight
I agree with the sentiment.
I think most here would have no problem shooting to kill a person who broke into their house and started shooting the place up. The 'use of deadly force' laws are not perfect in most parts of the country yet none of us would advocate getting rid of legalized deadly force.
-
vaskidmark, I think you hit something thinking about "reasonable doubt" versus "absolute certainty". I think many would love to go to the higher level of evidence, however, there will always be those who claim doubt exists. "He might have a twin separated at birth who everyone saw kill that man!". I shudder at the way lawyers could twist that one.
-
I agree with the sentiment.
I think most here would have no problem shooting to kill a person who broke into their house and started shooting the place up. The 'use of deadly force' laws are not perfect in most parts of the country yet none of us would advocate getting rid of legalized deadly force.
It depends on your view, but many believe the right to self defense is a right and not a priveledge granted by the government. Therefore the government executing it's right (given by the people) and a person exercising their rights (natural born) are not comparable.
-
It depends on your view, but many believe the right to self defense is a right and not a priveledge granted by the government. Therefore the government executing it's right (given by the people) and a person exercising their rights (natural born) are not comparable.
Also, it would be easy to argue that self defense involves an immediate threat, where execution does not. Typically you are not allowed to kill someone after they no longer pose an immediate danger.
-
For the most part, those who merit the death penalty have committed particularly heinous acts. Most have long histories of violent behavior and have no intention or interest in changing. They are like rabid dogs that need to be put down.
Nothing is gained by keeping them alive. Alive, they still have the potential to victimize correctional employees, fellow inmates, and if they manage to escape or are later released by some bleeding heart, members of the general public.
Much is made of the cost of keeping someone on death row, but the cost of keeping them alive is grossly underestimated. If kept in "super max security" which some suggest, the daily cost is much higher than a general population inmate. Inmates are entitled to medical treatment. How much does it cost to treat an inmate for 40-50 years? Figure in costs for security and transportation to medical facilities. Figure in the cost of all the latest and greatest diagnostic procedures, medications, surgeries, etc, etc, etc. Many inmates have expensive chronic care issues. As they become elderly, the costs are even higher. What is the cost to future victims of this inmate? Medical treatment, disability/unemployment benefits, etc. What cost do you place on another life lost to this animal?
The use and availability of DNA evidence can make a wrongful conviction virtually impossible. The criteria for imposing the death penalty could take this into account to avoid any future miscarriages of justice.
-
You are assuming that DNA evidence is available in most, or at least a lot, or cases. If DNA was missed or not left at the scene then so much for that.
Depending on what you choose to believe, the death penalty can be more expensive than life imprisonment. It's hard to cite cost analysis because most of them are biased one way or another. That said, I think the death penalty process isn't exactly a model of efficiency.
One of my main issues with the death penalty is its portrayal as somehow just. I think the notion of killing a killer in a nonlife or death situation is hard to justify as being "seeking justice."
I think it is seeking vengence. Which is understandable, because if someone I cared about was victimized I would want vengence. The problem is it is a slipery slope to write policy/law based on human emotion. Laws need to be objective and factual, emotions are anything but objective and factual.
-
DNA evidence and other complex science proves exactly what who can buy the best expert witnesses want it to prove. I just wish that every murderer and rapist died in the commission of their crime so we wouldn't have this debate.
The death penalty will never be infallible, swift, or fairly applied here in this country.
-
One of the (perhaps the greatest) signs about what we as a society value is by the severity of punishment doled out to those who violate those values.
Indeed. Consider the severity of punishment in relation to the severity of the crime. What's the penalty for, say, petty theft? Compensate for the stolen goods, plus pay $500-1000 in fines, plus community service, plus probation? The offender comes out much the worse than the victim, at least monetarily. Compare that to first-degree murder. The offender goes to jail, *maybe* for a significant chunk of his life, and the victim is dead. Dead dead. Family suffers tremendously, friends suffer, employer or employees suffer... on and on. Who comes out the worse?
If a person is truly evil enough to plot the rape or murder of an innocent, particularly a child, then why does society owe them another chance, on my dime? Why allow them to take resources away from the society whose laws they broke - resources which could be better used nearly anywhere else? Why do they get to "rehabilitate", find God, and get out early for good behavior when the state gets into financial trouble and needs to cut expenses? I support the death penalty in certain circumstances, this among them.
To me, this is an extension of another debate which others have brought up - the debate as to whether justice is better served by punishing crimes or rehabilitating criminals(and also whether certain kinds of criminals should be released back to society). A crime was once committed against someone close to me. I am not interested in the fate of the offender, beyond that he was sufficiently punished for what he did. Many years later, he is out of prison, my family has moved on, and we will probably never run into him again. I don't care if he has a good job, or can interact with people. That's his problem, not mine, and not society's.
Oh, hard labor would be cool too. I am of the belief that idleness has no place in jail/prison. If I'm paying for their food, water, shelter, health-care, media access, education, etc. then they'd better be making license plates, breaking rocks, or something. Even painting their cell walls over and over... no armed service member should have to work as hard as a prison inmate. :)
The use and availability of DNA evidence can make a wrongful conviction virtually impossible.
Or virtually inevitable, if we continue to treat it as the end-all, be-all of evidence. I understand your point, but DNA evidence can be manipulated(not as in falsified, but as in misconstrued) as easily as any other kind of evidence.
Edited to add hard labor paragraph.
-
I'm more in favour of hard labour in places where people would normally have to be paid a whole lot to want to do the job. I'm not sure what that could be, or how feasible, but I do find it somewhat more palatable.
Not that I'd be too concerned at some criminals being killed. In a clear cut case where some guy with a flamethrower snuck into the Superbowl and was also seen live on TV by millions burning both teams to death, then I think we would be safe to say that he is guilty beyond any doubt and can be 'put down'.
Ridiculous, I know, but it is a (somewhat imaginative) example of a clear cut case, which not all are.
-
Not that I'd be too concerned at some criminals being killed. In a clear cut case where some guy with a flamethrower snuck into the Superbowl and was also seen live on TV by millions burning both teams to death, then I think we would be safe to say that he is guilty beyond any doubt and can be 'put down'.
That depends. Did he get all the Patriots fans? If so a promotion might be in order. =D
-
vaskidmark, I think you hit something thinking about "reasonable doubt" versus "absolute certainty". I think many would love to go to the higher level of evidence, however, there will always be those who claim doubt exists. "He might have a twin separated at birth who everyone saw kill that man!". I shudder at the way lawyers could twist that one.
Which is pretty much why I differentiated the two. Absolute certainty is difficult to achieve, even with the Pope, Mother Teresa and Baby Jeebus his self as eyewitnesses. That being the case, the death penalty would be utilized only rarely while permanent incapacitation would be more prevalent.
Nothing is gained by keeping them alive. Alive, they still have the potential to victimize correctional employees, fellow inmates, and if they manage to escape or are later released by some bleeding heart, members of the general public.
I say we are going to have to assume those risks, but the longer we keep them off the streets the more difficult it will be for them to return to their brand of evil. It's a phenomenon known as "aging out."
Much is made of the cost of keeping someone on death row, but the cost of keeping them alive is grossly underestimated. If kept in "super max security" which some suggest, the daily cost is much higher than a general population inmate.
Very few of the inmate population will actually require supermax status, and as they age they can in most cases have their security level reduced. For those that are not aware, most residents of supermax prisons are there because they annoy the administration by repeated/constant breaking of mostly petty rules. A little corporal punishment may resolve that problem with the majority of this population.
Inmates are entitled to medical treatment. How much does it cost to treat an inmate for 40-50 years? Figure in costs for security and transportation to medical facilities. Figure in the cost of all the latest and greatest diagnostic procedures, medications, surgeries, etc, etc, etc. Many inmates have expensive chronic care issues. As they become elderly, the costs are even higher. What is the cost to future victims of this inmate? Medical treatment,
Essentially the Supreme Court has said that inmates are entitled to the exact same treatment that folks at the lowest level of society get. This works out to be somewhere between what Medicaid (the state-run program) provides and what "the homeless" can get a free clinics. Prison health care is pehaps the worst example of managed care, with more treatments and procedures being designated as "beyond immediate necessity" or simply "not approved" than the worst HMO nightmare you have ever had. Not that I'm bragging or anything, but I currently have 13 daily prescriptions to address chronic conditions, as well as a pacemaker/defibrillator that is checked 4 times a year along with weekly telemonitoring. If I were incarcerated in Hawaii - perhaps the best correctional system for inmate health care - I would get 2 or possibly 3 of my current meds and my pacemaker checked once a year to see if the battery was running down. And I'd have to pay (admittedly at a rate discounted to take into consideration the amount of money an inmate can earn each month via institutional labor) what would be the equivalent of 75% - 85% of my income for my meds.
Yes, I could refuse to work and they's still have to give me my meds, but I would be running up a debt to the state that my estate would be charged for. Even if I died peniless the state would use the debt as a writeoff for budget purposes.
disability/unemployment benefits, etc. What cost do you place on another life lost to this animal?
Which animal specifically are you referring to? The actual number of uncontrollable psychopathic killers who are a constant danger to their fellow inmates and the correctional staff who have to deal with them is so low as to be satatistically insignificant, even when you work with just the number of inmates at the single facility where they are kept. And if they are so bad, or you are so worried about them, we can always rehab Devil's Island, or a rock in the Galapogos chain, and just dump them there to see if they can survive. Bikini Atoll also works for me.
Remember, the system I am proposing is not "civilized" or "humane" in the modern sense of those words. But it does reduce the use of the death penalty to almost nonexistence.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
As long as we can all agree that really abominable murders, like abortions, should be punished by the death penalty. [popcorn]
-
As long as we can all agree that really abominable murders, like abortions, should be punished by the death penalty. [popcorn]
I'll probably draw a lot of fire for this, but that is one point I seriously agree with. I consider abortion to be the same as injecting a child in the maternity ward with cyanide. If a new mother tells me to go down the hall and poison her baby, I would be a murderer, and she would be conspiring to commit murder. I think abortion is no different. But that's somewhat off topic.
-
I'll probably draw a lot of fire for this,
From all sides.
-
[
color=navy]Nothing is gained by keeping them alive. Alive, they still have the potential to victimize correctional employees, fellow inmates, and if they manage to escape or are later released by some bleeding heart, members of the general public. [/color]
I say we are going to have to assume those risks, but the longer we keep them off the streets the more difficult it will be for them to return to their brand of evil.
Why? I say we kill them.
Very few of the inmate population will actually require supermax status, and as they age they can in most cases have their security level reduced. For those that are not aware, most residents of supermax prisons are there because they annoy the administration by repeated/constant breaking of mostly petty rules. A little corporal punishment may resolve that problem with the majority of this population.
Prisons are in some ways like day care centers populated with overgrown children. If you cannot maintain order and discipline in a cell block, the inmates will soon learn you are soft. You will very quickly lose any semblance of control of the area. Problem inmates, those who repeatedly refuse to obey commands to lock in their cells when required to, who constantly get into fights with other inmates, who are verbally aggressive toward staff, or who physically assault staff members are candidates for super max. Not because they "annoy" the administration, but because they pose a threat to maintaining the security of an institution. A "little corporal punishment" is called assault and battery and will result in termination and prosecution.
Essentially the Supreme Court has said that inmates are entitled to the exact same treatment that folks at the lowest level of society get. This works out to be somewhere between what Medicaid (the state-run program) provides and what "the homeless" can get a free clinics. Prison health care is pehaps the worst example of managed care, with more treatments and procedures being designated as "beyond immediate necessity" or simply "not approved" than the worst HMO nightmare you have ever had. Not that I'm bragging or anything, but I currently have 13 daily prescriptions to address chronic conditions, as well as a pacemaker/defibrillator that is checked 4 times a year along with weekly telemonitoring. If I were incarcerated in Hawaii - perhaps the best correctional system for inmate health care - I would get 2 or possibly 3 of my current meds and my pacemaker checked once a year to see if the battery was running down. And I'd have to pay (admittedly at a rate discounted to take into consideration the amount of money an inmate can earn each month via institutional labor) what would be the equivalent of 75% - 85% of my income for my meds.
The Ohio Dept of Rehabilitation and Corrections has a contract with Ohio State University Hospital in Columbus. All the inmates from the 30 institutions throughout the state are taken there for advanced treatments, surgeries, diagnostic tests, etc. The inmate pays nothing. OSU is paid by the State of Ohio with their big checkbook, so inmates are given every test known to man. The biggest item on prison budgets is medical and mental health expenditures. In fact, it is so bad that not long ago, a couple inmates were released early due to the huge amount of money (over $1 million) spent on their medical treatment alone.
disability/unemployment benefits, etc. What cost do you place on another life lost to this animal?
Which animal specifically are you referring to? The actual number of uncontrollable psychopathic killers who are a constant danger to their fellow inmates and the correctional staff who have to deal with them is so low as to be satatistically insignificant, even when you work with just the number of inmates at the single facility where they are kept. And if they are so bad, or you are so worried about them, we can always rehab Devil's Island, or a rock in the Galapogos chain, and just dump them there to see if they can survive. Bikini Atoll also works for me.
Actually, I was referring to those who would be imprisoned for life in lieu of the death penalty.
Remember, the system I am proposing is not "civilized" or "humane" in the modern sense of those words. But it does reduce the use of the death penalty to almost nonexistence.
Cruel and inhuman punishment is constitutionally prohibited, therefore your proposed system has no chance of being implemented. The death penalty is permissible (at least for now). I say that those who have earned it should be quickly and humanely put to death. No more worrying about them. They are permanently incapacitated.
-
I'll probably draw a lot of fire for this, but that is one point I seriously agree with. I consider abortion to be the same as injecting a child in the maternity ward with cyanide. If a new mother tells me to go down the hall and poison her baby, I would be a murderer, and she would be conspiring to commit murder. I think abortion is no different. But that's somewhat off topic.
Well, I don't. I have my issues with abortion and would not care much if it was outlawed or restricted, but I don't think it is murder.
-
In favor, where the crime warrants it.