Death Penalty opinions

[Tallpine]

It was said that the vigilantes often got the wrong man.

I wonder if the criminal injustice system really does any better? 

[French G.]

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.

[MechAg94]

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.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I value innocent life.  Therefore I support the death penalty.

[Laurent du Var]

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.





 

[vaskidmark]

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

[mellestad]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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".

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i think civilized it over rated and often come up in conversation with someone who just lost a fight

[mellestad]

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! 

[MechAg94]

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. 

[MechAg94]

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.

[alex_trebek]

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.

[mellestad]

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.

[JN01]

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.

[alex_trebek]

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.

[French G.]

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.

[BReilley]

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.

[Cromlech]

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.

[French G.]

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. 

[vaskidmark]

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

[Perd Hapley]

As long as we can all agree that really abominable murders, like abortions, should be punished by the death penalty.   

[taurusowner]

As long as we can all agree that really abominable murders, like abortions, should be punished by the death penalty.   

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.

[Perd Hapley]

I'll probably draw a lot of fire for this,

From all sides.