Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 07:06:01 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on July 17, 2008, 07:10:15 AM
Quote
The thought of executing an innocent person is not acceptable to me. Executions are final. I realize some people deserve to die for their crimes, that's not the issue. I don't trust the government to get it right, one innocent person executed for a crime they did not commit is too many. At least in prison you're alive, and you can still attempt to prove your innocence. Death is forever.
If a man sees another man rape and kill his wife, and kills him on the spot, I have no problem with it. It's justice. If the state does it after the fact, I just can't trust that they got it right. One innocent person executed as a murderer or child rapist is too many.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 17, 2008, 07:12:25 AM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on July 17, 2008, 07:14:24 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on July 17, 2008, 07:16:48 AM
Post by: Firethorn on July 17, 2008, 07:19:57 AM
Same deal with aggreviating factors, particularly 'heinous' acts, etc... General aggreviating factors: Something like rape&murder of a minor. Torture&murder. Killing an innocent during a robbery, drug deal, etc, could be consider lesser aggreviating factors.
Post by: Paragon on July 17, 2008, 07:22:49 AM
Post by: yesitsloaded on July 17, 2008, 07:23:28 AM
Several eyewitnesses that all corroborate and don't have a common interest, Put em down
Caught in the act, Shoot em on the spot
They brag about doing it, you want to be treated like a killer?, fine, Put em down
They get brought into court five years after the fact on spotty evidence and are given crappy public defense (not a dig at public defenders, they are just so overworked they can't help it) , no way
They "match the description" and are in the wrong place at the right time, no way
I don't like the way it is handled now. I have nothing against the concept of the death penalty, but the way the government handles it just won't allow me to support the current system. I agree some of the people executed in this country should have been, others not so much.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 17, 2008, 07:33:23 AM
1. There must be undeniable proof. Video footage. Admissions. This level of proof.
2. The crime must be absolutely heinous and out of the ordinary. Not just your scumbag bank robber who shoots a cop in the process - but really heinous scumbags. Think this guy..
Post by: HankB on July 17, 2008, 07:39:03 AM
The bar for proof of guilt needs to be set very high for the state to execute someone - but execution should be an option.
Post by: RocketMan on July 17, 2008, 07:45:17 AM
Post by: BridgeRunner on July 17, 2008, 08:13:34 AM
The reasons for my near-absolute rejection of the death penalty are in part religious, in part based on my understanding of the law, in part pragmatic, and in part philosophical.
First, religion. I was raised in the Jewish legal tradition (i.e. Orthodoxy as opposed to modern, philosophically-based variants like Reform and Conservative). In that tradition the death penalty is imposed in response to many crimes, many of which are purely God/Man crimes, such as sabbath-breaking. However the death penalty is not, as a practical matter imposed, because the burden of proof is impossibly high, requiring a level of intentionality and witnesses of utterly unimpeachable integrity that it is never reached in a real case. As a Roman Catholic, the Church has stated that the death penalty evinces an overall lack of value a culture places on human life and is wrong. On the whole, I prefer the Jewish approach and am bound to subscribe to the Catholic belief. As a practical matter, they are the same thing.
Second, the law. I don't like that the death penalty is not imposed equally. Some murders are deemed more heinous than others, for example. If we are going to deal in retributionary justice, then to seek the death penalty for a cop-killer or a child murderer is to say that the life of a cop or a child is worth more than the life of a thirty year old single guy who fixes computers for a living. That doesn't make sense to me. I don't like the death penalty is disproportionately sought and executed in the case or poor people and black people. I don't like that that occurs because public defenders are generally less competent than prosecutors, not only because of skill level, but also because of enormous caseloads. Some of these things are generally unavoidable, but to return to the Jewish concept: until the law is perfect, it shouldn't kill people. It ain't gonna ever be perfect. Ergo, it shouldn't ever kill people.
Third, pragmatism. The death penalty is just too expensive. In our efforts to provide the huge amount of due process of law that we deem necessary before killing someone, we manage to expend insanely huge amounts of money. That money would be better spent on making prisons safer, or on improving public defender services for the rest of the criminal population.
Fourth, philosophy. I think that when people kill other people in a retributionary manner, it brings all of us down to a baser, less civilized level. We should kill when it is the only way to stay alive, as in self-defense. We should kill when it is the only way to save a life, as in defense of others. We should kill when in a larger, political way, t is the only way for us to achieve what our elected officials have determined to be necessary to our security, as in war. We should kill when the exigencies of war demand it to maintain discipline and to prevent war, which hovers on the edge of civility at the best of times, is in danger of devolving in chaos and causing more destruction, as in courts martial. We should not kill when it makes us feel more righteous and satisfied in our ability to right a wrong or to exact revenge or to "delete" a person we find unsatisfactory. There is absolutely no need great enough to justify that sort of killing. Iff, one could show that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to violent crime, then this argument would change (although the other three would not). However, that hasn't happened. The death penalty does not deter criminals from committing violent crimes.
Incidentally, I am also staunchly against the wink-wink, nod-non approach many/most people in this country take about prison rape and other prison violence, and I hope that in my final term of school, I'll have the time to volunteer for Prison Legal Services. How we treat the people we hate and despise is an excellent measure of our own morality and as long as we tolerate and even expect and demand that cartain types of criminals be subjected to repeated violent rape we will, as a culture, have a serious gap in our moral code.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 17, 2008, 08:18:09 AM
I could be persuaded to impose a higher standard of proof for capital punishment than for imprisonment.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 17, 2008, 08:22:30 AM
No, in cases of child rape or other heinous crimes.
I voted 'without reservation' because I believe that each death penalty case should stand on 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
Shouldn't every conviction stand on 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?
Post by: taurusowner on July 17, 2008, 08:26:05 AM
Not only should the death penalty apply to those kinds of cases, but it should be carried out today and with 10$ of rope or a single $.30 bullet to the forehead.
Post by: French G. on July 17, 2008, 08:27:59 AM
Quote
The State® does so little right that I am loathe for them to have the power to execute people.
Same opinion here. I think a big problem is evidence now is so technologically beyond the layperson that will sit your jury. So we have a hand-picked expert tell you what to think. Then it all becomes a big smoke and mirrors show of battling witnesses and attorneys. Truth gets lost in the scuffle. Expert witnesses lie based on their own human motivations. I yearn for certain criminals to die, but that's just petty ol' me. I think lock 'em up and leave them is a better idea.
Voted maybe though for cases where direct proof is at hand. Like a video. Eyewitnesses are vexingly wrong often. More maybe is the military, execution is historically rare in our military but in certain cases of treason or battlefield cowardice it should be pretty damn swift. Like the little muslim grenade chucker we had in the US Army a while back.
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 08:28:53 AM
Yes, with two reservations:
1. There must be undeniable proof. Video footage. Admissions. This level of proof.
2. The crime must be absolutely heinous and out of the ordinary. Not just your scumbag bank robber who shoots a cop in the process - but really heinous scumbags. Think this guy..
1. There must be undeniable proof. Video footage. Admissions. This level of proof.
2. The crime must be absolutely heinous and out of the ordinary. Not just your scumbag bank robber who shoots a cop in the process - but really heinous scumbags. Think this guy..
Who decides what's heinous? Shooting someone to death is someone better than stomping them? Does not compute.......
Post by: BridgeRunner on July 17, 2008, 08:32:28 AM
Who decides what's heinous? Shooting someone to death is someone better than stomping them? Does not compute.......
Ditto, to quote a play "I never heard a corpse ask how it got so cold."
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 17, 2008, 08:33:30 AM
Poll amended to reflect compelling non-DNA evidence.
Who decides what's heinous? Shooting someone to death is someone better than stomping them? Does not compute.......
Yes, with two reservations:
1. There must be undeniable proof. Video footage. Admissions. This level of proof.
2. The crime must be absolutely heinous and out of the ordinary. Not just your scumbag bank robber who shoots a cop in the process - but really heinous scumbags. Think this guy..
1. There must be undeniable proof. Video footage. Admissions. This level of proof.
2. The crime must be absolutely heinous and out of the ordinary. Not just your scumbag bank robber who shoots a cop in the process - but really heinous scumbags. Think this guy..
Who decides what's heinous? Shooting someone to death is someone better than stomping them? Does not compute.......
It's like love. You know it when you meet it.
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 08:35:12 AM
Poll amended to reflect compelling non-DNA evidence.
Who decides what's heinous? Shooting someone to death is someone better than stomping them? Does not compute.......
Yes, with two reservations:
1. There must be undeniable proof. Video footage. Admissions. This level of proof.
2. The crime must be absolutely heinous and out of the ordinary. Not just your scumbag bank robber who shoots a cop in the process - but really heinous scumbags. Think this guy..
1. There must be undeniable proof. Video footage. Admissions. This level of proof.
2. The crime must be absolutely heinous and out of the ordinary. Not just your scumbag bank robber who shoots a cop in the process - but really heinous scumbags. Think this guy..
Who decides what's heinous? Shooting someone to death is someone better than stomping them? Does not compute.......
It's like love. You know it when you meet it.
And porn, right? So censorship is ok; we know what's over the line when we see it.....
Post by: roo_ster on July 17, 2008, 08:39:33 AM
The DP is a legitimate punishment that ought to have the same safeguards as others, as explained by firethorn. It is also unarguably Constitutional to any rational literate man.
I do not expect perfection form people or government institutions. The institutions and juries will do their best to mete out justice. To insist on perfection of process is to allow heinous injustice to exist, as it it not just about that one person. Insistence on perfection is a sign of utopianism and a start down the path to dystopia. We will do our best as citizens and let God manage the unknowable.
Perhaps the only concession to the permanent nature of the DP would be to dedicate more resources to both prosecution, defense, and the courts. This way, all can claim they have proper resources commensurate with the gravity of the punishment. I also would greatly accelerate the process of trial and appeal, using the larger budget to tear through multiple appeals in a single year, versus the current interminable process. After 3-5 appeals and a year, the defendant's wad is shot and so should he.
I am also not a big fan of incarceration. It would be my aim to minimize by means of liberal use of the death penalty, corporal punishment*, public humiliation, and other punishments that do not require the state to take on the care & feeding of offenders. There would be no "life in prison." Prison would be for recidivists that are pose danger to society somewhere below murder, rape, child molestation, treason (which would all be punished by the DP) and above drug use. Prison would ALL be solitary confinement as the default. Any interaction or activity outside the cell would be at the whim of the warden and dependent on the behavior of the prisoner.
My position in favor of the DP is a change from that of my callow youth. Back then, I made many of the same arguments the anti-DP folks are making here. Since then, I have a better understanding of human imperfection, institutional capability, and am more certain that evil exists and walks the land.
* I addressed my view on this in an earlier post. IMO, incarceration is more severe than non-mortal, non-permanent-injuring corporal punishment. I also deplore the abuse of those placed in prison, be it by the warders or other prisoners. Prison rape is not a joke. Nowadays, with AIDS, a convicted thief can get an effective slow-death penalty if raped by an HIV+ prisoner.
Post by: Firethorn on July 17, 2008, 08:42:07 AM
Quote from: fistful
Shouldn't every conviction stand on 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?
What I was trying to say is that each case should stand on it's own merits, sticking extra stuff in there means you're no longer operating solely on the basis of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', such as the proposed requiring DNA evidence to give the death penalty. Consider if we proposed requiring DNA evidence for a rape conviction - all the rapist would have to do is wear a condom*. If DNA is at all likely to be present and have relevance to the case, either for or against the defendant, sure, test it. But if it's a case like the mother drowning her own children in the bathtub- What use is DNA evidence?
It's the same deal as requiring witnesses, video, etc... The murderer has most likely screwed up and left an evidence trail somehow, the specifics of the trail and it's reliability should be determined by the police, court, and jury. Each capital case is generally going to have it's own specifics. I mean, murder goes from 'robbery gone wrong' all the way to 'subtle poisoning of spouse due to infidelity'. (Drug) Deals gone wrong, insurance schemes, serial killers who are wrong in the head, spree killers looking to go out on the news, etc...
A hit by a mafia enforcer isn't likely to leave DNA evidence. A spousal killing might leave DNA evidence all over the place, but the home's likely contaminated by all the concerned parties to the point of uselessness. Is the hubby's DNA skin fragments under the wife's fingernails from her fighting him as he strangled her, or because they liked wild sex?
*And not get scratched...
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 17, 2008, 08:45:52 AM
Quote
Insistence on perfection is a sign of utopianism and a start down the path to dystopia.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good", you say? I say that if nobody ever insisted on the perfect, there'd never be any good. "
Post by: BridgeRunner on July 17, 2008, 08:55:11 AM
My position in favor of the DP is a change from that of my callow youth. Back then, I made many of the same arguments the anti-DP folks are making here. Since then, I have a better understanding of human imperfection, institutional capability, and am more certain that evil exists and walks the land.
Huh. My anti-DP position is a change from my pro-DP position in my callow(er) youth(er). I hope I still qualify as vaguely youthful.
The foundations of my anti approach are of talmudic and canon law origin. I hope that neither the institutions of Jewish law or the Vatican can be accused of youthful callowness!
I suspect that part of the reason behind our current absurdly long arrival into adulthood in this current age is that in many ways we have departed from the old philosophical traditions of appealing to authority to inform us, help us determine our positions, and then develop and defend those positions. People these days tend to rely on how they feel about and what they have perceived about things to make value judgments. That is necessary to a degree, since a whole lotta smart people have disagreed about a whole lot in the history of the world. On its own, it means that younger people or people lacking in more expansive experiences cannot possibly have valuable positions on issues. The trouble with that is that it discounts the contributions of huge proportions of the population simply they are either not sufficiently aged or have, by choice or default, limited their experiences in some ways.
I'll stick with appealing to authority. That at least allows me make informed choices on issues at some point before I'm ten years from dead.
Post by: Firethorn on July 17, 2008, 08:58:36 AM
Second, the law. I don't like that the death penalty is not imposed equally. Some murders are deemed more heinous than others, for example. If we are going to deal in retributionary justice, then to seek the death penalty for a cop-killer or a child murderer is to say that the life of a cop or a child is worth more than the life of a thirty year old single guy who fixes computers for a living. That doesn't make sense to me. I don't like the death penalty is disproportionately sought and executed in the case or poor people and black people. I don't like that that occurs because public defenders are generally less competent than prosecutors, not only because of skill level, but also because of enormous caseloads. Some of these things are generally unavoidable, but to return to the Jewish concept: until the law is perfect, it shouldn't kill people. It ain't gonna ever be perfect. Ergo, it shouldn't ever kill people.
Can't argue about the religious angle, but I WILL say that, generally speaking, I'd value the life of a child over my own(your description fits me to a t, oddly enough). I do object to the cop being more valuable, though.
As for the racial discrimination, I believe that studies have shown that blacks, controlled for the proportion of crime they commit and economic conditions, are within statistical boundries for convictions.
Still, even if you accept this as true, I think it calls for fixing the system - not necessarily throwing it out. After all, blacks also end up in prison more for other things. There are so few executions in the USA each year that a person can individually review each case.
Quote
Third, pragmatism. The death penalty is just too expensive. In our efforts to provide the huge amount of due process of law that we deem necessary before killing someone, we manage to expend insanely huge amounts of money. That money would be better spent on making prisons safer, or on improving public defender services for the rest of the criminal population.
Again, fix the system. Most death row inmates, even if commuted to LiP, are more expensive than the average inmate. Add in the extra lifespan and medical costs...
Quote
Fourth, philosophy. I think that when people kill other people in a retributionary manner, it brings all of us down to a baser, less civilized level. We should kill when it is the only way to stay alive, as in self-defense. We should kill when it is the only way to save a life, as in defense of others. We should kill when in a larger, political way, t is the only way for us to achieve what our elected officials have determined to be necessary to our security, as in war.
And executing klllers can qualify under your points - an executed murderer isn't going to kill again. There IS a murder rate in prison, so even LiP doesn't guarentee that they won't get 'lucky' and kill a prison guard. Or escape and kill again.
Quote
The death penalty does not deter criminals from committing violent crimes.
Doesn't it? I believe I've seen studies that go either way. In any case, going by psychological references, the very slowness of our justice system in executing robs the executions of much of their power. Executing a man in his fifties for crimes he committed as a teen, means that his crimes have long passed public memory - you have people working who weren't even born when the crimes were committed.
Quote
Incidentally, I am also staunchly against the wink-wink, nod-non approach many/most people in this country take about prison rape and other prison violence, and I hope that in my final term of school, I'll have the time to volunteer for Prison Legal Services. How we treat the people we hate and despise is an excellent measure of our own morality and as long as we tolerate and even expect and demand that cartain types of criminals be subjected to repeated violent rape we will, as a culture, have a serious gap in our moral code.
I'll agree with you here. Prison shouldn't be a lark, by any means, but as a correctional facility, it should present an atmosphere where following the rules presents advantages. Allowing an inmate to rape another undermines the whole idea - the rapist learns he can get away with something, the raped learns that the law can't protect him.
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 09:05:07 AM
If the system is so messed up it's a crapshoot whether the convicted is innocnet or guilty, how come you are only opposed to the death penalty?
The basic argument is "We have no idea if you're actually guilty, so we'll just sentence you to a lifetime in a cell dodging gang rape." How humanitarian.
Post by: BridgeRunner on July 17, 2008, 09:10:21 AM
but I WILL say that, generally speaking, I'd value the life of a child over my own(your description fits me to a t, oddly enough).
Of course. But is it just for a panel of impartial third parties to do so? I'd give my life for kid's in the space of half a heartbeat, but I object to a jury deciding that someone else's life is worth more than mine, especially since my life is worth the world to my kid.
Quote
As for the racial discrimination, I believe that studies have shown that blacks, controlled for the proportion of crime they commit and economic conditions, are within statistical boundries for convictions.
But not, I believe, for executions.
Quote
Still, even if you accept this as true, I think it calls for fixing the system - not necessarily throwing it out. After all, blacks also end up in prison more for other things. There are so few executions in the USA each year that a person can individually review each case.
I'll quote another poster: "Insistence on perfection is a sign of utopianism and a start down the path to dystopia."
Of course we should work on fixing the system. But the system cannot be perfect (see my halacha based arguments) and therefore it should not mete out the ultimate punishment.
Quote
Again, fix the system. Most death row inmates, even if commuted to LiP, are more expensive than the average inmate. Add in the extra lifespan and medical costs...
How do you fix the system to make even more safeguards against unjust executions and simultaneously fix the system to make prosecutions and appeals cheaper?
Quote
And executing klllers can qualify under your points - an executed murderer isn't going to kill again. There IS a murder rate in prison, so even LiP doesn't guarentee that they won't get 'lucky' and kill a prison guard. Or escape and kill again.
True, and valid points. And those were the points that were the foundation of my belief in the death penalty. I weigh things differently now, appealing primarily to my first three points, with the fourth as a mere afterthought.
Quote
Doesn't it? I believe I've seen studies that go either way. In any case, going by psychological references, the very slowness of our justice system in executing robs the executions of much of their power. Executing a man in his fifties for crimes he committed as a teen, means that his crimes have long passed public memory - you have people working who weren't even born when the crimes were committed.
Again: "Insistence on perfection is a sign of utopianism and a start down the path to dystopia."
You cannot make it more perfect by making it faster while also making it more perfect by making it less frequently imposed incorrectly. The only way I can see of doing that is expediting evidentiary processes, in implementing systems that create more evidence in the first place (like general surveilence), and other dystopian measures.
I think it is a mistake to insist on perfection in a government process. However, that particular process warrants perfection. Therefore, that process should be eliminated.
Post by: Firethorn on July 17, 2008, 09:20:18 AM
The basic argument is "We have no idea if you're actually guilty, so we'll just sentence you to a lifetime in a cell dodging gang rape." How humanitarian.
The way I look at it. If you're actually innocent you're far more likely to have that discovered in a DP trial than a LiP trial.
Quote from: BridgeWalker
But not, I believe, for executions.
Them too, however, the conviction rate for them are so low as to be statistically unreliable. In addition, given the multi-decade gap, we DO have issues with people having been convicted back in the days before DNA evidence and the clearing out of all the jim crow laws still being around waiting for execution.
Quote
How do you fix the system to make even more safeguards against unjust executions and simultaneously fix the system to make prosecutions and appeals cheaper?
Primarily make it faster. Have a dedicated defense team to mount a *good* defense in capital cases - whether they be DP or LiP in nature. The extra expense now will save money in the future. Really stress the integrity of police - that means getting rid of any, and having a history of getting rid of any that show a willingness to lie, especially in court.
I'm not insisting on perfection - if a prosecuter can't assemble a DP worthy slam-dunk case he can always fall back and punt for a LiP one.
It's going to be expensive either way - because I don't support sentencing innocents to LiP any less than I do executing them. In many/most cases, like I said, they're denied resources the DP convictee would have to help prove their innocence.
edit: Can I change my vote? I noticed that the poll's been edited, Now that it's changed from DNA evidence to 'utterly compelling', I'd go for the second option.
Post by: BridgeRunner on July 17, 2008, 09:22:31 AM
If the system is so messed up it's a crapshoot whether the convicted is innocnet or guilty, how come you are only opposed to the death penalty?
Public safety. We generally have a very, very good idea of who is guilty and who is innocent, and when there is a significant good to be weighed against the possibility of an error, we have to go with public safety.
There is no significant public good to weight against the death penalty.
Quote
The basic argument is "We have no idea if you're actually guilty, so we'll just sentence you to a lifetime in a cell dodging gang rape." How humanitarian.
My point is not to be humanitarian. My point is to be just. I don't, personally, give a damn about every Tom, Dick, and Harriet on death row. I care about me. I think it is better for me to belong to a culture that doesn't impose death as a punishment.
And I think that we'll greatly reduce prison rape when we stop demanding it. This is actually the third thread (I think) in which I've almost randomly mentioned my opposition to prison rape. I have a tendency to talk about the problem of our culture demanding/expecting prison rape whenever I can reasonably work it into conversation. It's my small way of working to change what many people take for granted as a normal expectation of what the penal system has in store for certain categories of prisoners. The penal system will never be perfect, just like life isn't perfect. The problem there is the widespread expectation/demand that it does/should occur. That can be rectified.
In the meantime, I think that current statistic is that 10% of women will be raped at some point. I'd rather live with the risk of rape than be killed by the state. Heck, I'd even rather up my odds by going running at night than stay home and keep the odds lower. Life is risky. Life is riskier in prison. We don't kill people to make their lives less risky.
Post by: BlueStarLizzard on July 17, 2008, 09:49:16 AM
and to top it off, prisons should bring back hard physical labor. i don't get the whole idea of rehibilitation among the hard core criminal element. if you break the law knowingly, then you should go break rocks with bigger rocks. honestly, i think never wanting to go back is a better determent for criminal activity.
Post by: BridgeRunner on July 17, 2008, 09:55:00 AM
Primarily make it faster. Have a dedicated defense team to mount a *good* defense in capital cases - whether they be DP or LiP in nature. The extra expense now will save money in the future. Really stress the integrity of police - that means getting rid of any, and having a history of getting rid of any that show a willingness to lie, especially in court.
The former would be a good approach, although there does yet need to be the possibility of appeals. I agree that those appeals should be expedited. The latter seems impractical. I'm not sure that there's a good way of ensuring that every cop with have integrity. I'm all in favor of booting any cop who tells a lie, but who would be left? The human element mucks up the evidentiary process, and the human element can't be made utterly reliable and pure.
Post by: Firethorn on July 17, 2008, 10:11:08 AM
and to top it off, prisons should bring back hard physical labor. i don't get the whole idea of rehibilitation among the hard core criminal element. if you break the law knowingly, then you should go break rocks with bigger rocks. honestly, i think never wanting to go back is a better determent for criminal activity.
Who says that making big rocks into little rocks isn't a rehabilitation process?
A: It's a deterent.
B: Keeps the convicts healthy but tired out(cause less trouble)
C: You can sell the gravel
I'd also offer option B: Learn & practice a trade. Leatherworking, welding, weaving, basketry, whatever. If it pays more than rock breaking, and is useful on the outside world, bonus.
The former would be a good approach, although there does yet need to be the possibility of appeals. I agree that those appeals should be expedited.
I agree, have the appeals - but they shouldn't be for major things, not little procedural nits.
Quote
The latter seems impractical. I'm not sure that there's a good way of ensuring that every cop with have integrity. I'm all in favor of booting any cop who tells a lie, but who would be left? The human element mucks up the evidentiary process, and the human element can't be made utterly reliable and pure.
They can't be made utterly reliable, but I was talking about those caught deliberately lying, not those that simply make a mis-statement. Looking at overturned DP cases, all shared deceptive, not just deficient or mistaken, police work - that's what I'm utterly against.
Post by: 41magsnub on July 17, 2008, 10:21:15 AM
edit.. I'm not the first person to say this on here it seems.
I am also in favor of strong job training/GED resources for the folks that will get out of jail at some point. If they have the skills to get a real job upon release I have to think they would be much less likely to end up back in prison. There are exceptions to this of course but for the kid who hung out with the bad crowd and never learned how to do anything an opportunity to have a real life would be huge and ultimately less expensive for the state.
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 10:29:48 AM
Post by: K Frame on July 17, 2008, 10:37:43 AM
I don't care if it's 10 times more expensive than keeping someone in jail for the rest of their natural life.
There are some instances where the perpetrator should, and MUST, die to be punished for his crimes.
Post by: roo_ster on July 17, 2008, 10:43:18 AM
My position in favor of the DP is a change from that of my callow youth. Back then, I made many of the same arguments the anti-DP folks are making here. Since then, I have a better understanding of human imperfection, institutional capability, and am more certain that evil exists and walks the land.
Huh. My anti-DP position is a change from my pro-DP position in my callow(er) youth(er). I hope I still qualify as vaguely youthful.
The foundations of my anti approach are of talmudic and canon law origin. I hope that neither the institutions of Jewish law or the Vatican can be accused of youthful callowness!
...
I'll stick with appealing to authority. That at least allows me make informed choices on issues at some point before I'm ten years from dead.
I have no problem with appeals to authority, given relevance to the issue.
The talmud and RC* canon law mean diddly to me, concerning the Constitutionality and appropriateness of the DP. Neither is youthful or callow, just nearly as irrelevant as the Koran. I'll appeal to secular authority (COTUS) and call it good.
* As a non-RC, I would hope that it would one day again be true to Augustine and get right again, vis a vis Just War doctrine and the relation of the church to the state.
Post by: BridgeRunner on July 17, 2008, 10:53:04 AM
I have no problem with appeals to authority, given relevance to the issue.
They are relevant to the issue of whether I am for or against the death penalty and why.
The constitution is a document that frames a government and that limits certain government actions. I agree that the death penalty is legal under the constitution. Still, that don't necessarily make it right.
My explanation of how and I was using those particular authorities was not to demand that anyone else find them relevant to their own positions. It was to take exception to your implication that holding a position other than your is somehow indicative of youthful callowness.
* As a non-RC, I would hope that it would one day again be true to Augustine and get right again, vis a vis Just War doctrine and the relation of the church to the state.
Quote
They are relevant to the issue of whether I am for or against the death penalty and why.
Quote
Neither is youthful or callow, just nearly as irrelevant as the Koran. I'll appeal to secular authority (COTUS) and call it good.
The constitution is a document that frames a government and that limits certain government actions. I agree that the death penalty is legal under the constitution. Still, that don't necessarily make it right.
My explanation of how and I was using those particular authorities was not to demand that anyone else find them relevant to their own positions. It was to take exception to your implication that holding a position other than your is somehow indicative of youthful callowness.
* As a non-RC, I would hope that it would one day again be true to Augustine and get right again, vis a vis Just War doctrine and the relation of the church to the state.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 17, 2008, 11:07:23 AM
I don't particularly understand why people think life in prison is somehow more humane or better. I just think it appeals to the mushiness of people who don't like making hard decisions. That concerns me in that I really hope people are not accepting a lower standard of evidence just because no Death Penalty is involved. Beyond a reasonable doubt applies to all criminal cases.
In Texas at least, appeals in DP cases are automatic. The judge doesn't decide if DP is applied, the jurors do. The state only decides if they will try to prosecute for it.
Sure, the state is not perfect, but any system created and run by humans is not perfect and never will be. You try, but to expect perfect results in reality is foolish. You just have to build in the reviews and checks to allow the best opportunity for mistakes to be found.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on July 17, 2008, 11:09:08 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 17, 2008, 11:18:07 AM
I just don't agree with your viewpoint. You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims?
Post by: ilbob on July 17, 2008, 11:22:29 AM
I think all criminal convictions should hold to the same standard for conviction.
I also understand the reluctance of some to trust that government will get it right when there are a number of fairly recent cases where government got it wrong. Granted, most of those cases where cases where they knew the truth and for whatever reason chose to try and execute someone they knew was not guilty, or at least knew there was a lot of doubt.
Post by: Balog on July 17, 2008, 11:23:58 AM
Post by: BridgeRunner on July 17, 2008, 11:27:37 AM
You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims?
I don't see how an execution fixes anything. Also, vengeance =/= justice.
And, I wasn't remotely focused on "what if we're wrong".
Post by: MechAg94 on July 17, 2008, 11:40:04 AM
You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims?
I don't see how an execution fixes anything. Also, vengeance =/= justice.
And, I wasn't remotely focused on "what if we're wrong".
I was referring to dasmi's post. No system is perfect. I find it unusual that people would accept a flawed system if it only put people in prison, but would not if it actually meant the death penalty. Throwing people in prison is no big deal apparently.
If there are flaws in the system, then they affect all cases, not just DP cases. They need to be corrected. I would hope that none of you would get rid of DP because the system isn't perfect and then go home happy that we are not killing innocent people, only throwing them in prison.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 17, 2008, 11:46:18 AM
I also support giving prosecutors who wilfully convict an innocent the same or harsher penalty as that which was suffered by the convicted. See: Mike Nifong.
Absolutely.
Post by: Lennyjoe on July 17, 2008, 12:28:38 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 17, 2008, 12:36:48 PM
"as long as it is cheaper than life imprisonment."
I don't care if it's 10 times more expensive than keeping someone in jail for the rest of their natural life.
There are some instances where the perpetrator should, and MUST, die to be punished for his crimes.
I don't care if it's 10 times more expensive than keeping someone in jail for the rest of their natural life.
There are some instances where the perpetrator should, and MUST, die to be punished for his crimes.
Indeed. Murder is such an instance. We are always reminded of the danger of convicting the innocent. We are seldom reminded of the danger of failing to deliver justice to the guilty.
You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims?
I don't see how an execution fixes anything.
God disagrees with you. See his commandments to Noah. While it could be argued that the Bible does not demand the death penalty for murder, it most certainly authorizes it.
Quote
Also, vengeance =/= justice.
It is curious to me that the death penalty is frequently described as vengeance, while other common punishments (imprisonments or fines) are rarely so described. Even though exacting stolen money from a thief could fit the notion of vengeance just as well as killing a murderer. In other words, the death penalty is not vengeance any more than a fine for littering is.
Post by: PTK on July 17, 2008, 12:51:51 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 17, 2008, 01:02:56 PM
We are always reminded of the danger of convicting the innocent. We are seldom reminded of the danger of failing to deliver justice to the guilty.
That sums up part of what I wanted to say very well. Thanks.
Post by: Waitone on July 17, 2008, 01:03:05 PM
Let's just say I think the death penalty is justified and should be implemented even though the system delivering that penalty is far from perfect.
The value a society places on human life is defined by how that society punishes attacks on that human life.
The death penalty will continue long after the state abandons its implementation. The only issue is who will implement it and under what conditions.
Post by: RocketMan on July 17, 2008, 01:18:05 PM
Quote
You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims?
"We executed an innocent man? Well, sucks to be him."
The justice system is flawed because it is comprised of human beings trying to administer justice. It will never be perfect, because human beings are flawed.
In the mean time, I suppose we will just have to go on executing the occasional innocent person. At least we mean well...
Post by: seeker_two on July 17, 2008, 01:19:06 PM
1. Compelling, no-reasonable-doubt evidence = DNA, video, confession, etc.
2. Individual or multiple prison sentences equalling more than 20 years without parole automatically become death sentences.....life w/o parole is cruel to the prisioner and a drain on society's resources.
3. Executions are carried out within two calendar years from the initial sentence....only SCOTUS can rule a stay or delay...and only up to 90 calendar days...then either free them or fry them.....
Post by: vaskidmark on July 17, 2008, 02:20:22 PM
My reason for that vote has nothing to do with religion, morality, the effectivness of forensic science, or "closure" for the relatives/close friends/absolute strangers to the victim(s) of the convicted defendant.
I voted NO for three simple reasons:
1) although the death penalty is an absolute deterrant as regards the recently departed, it is useless in preventing anyone else from commiting a similar crime. Therefore, it is merely revenge carried out by the state. Any sort of revenge that does not make the object of such revenge suffer long and hard to the point of forever wishing they had never committed whatever crime it was is not, in my very considered opinion, useful to society or the the object ofthe revenge.
2) as our current system operates, those under a death sentance get at least 1 automatic appeal, and may end up with numerous appeals. All of these appeals take time and cost money. Since the convictred defendant usually does not have sufficient funds to mount their appeal, the state (me and you) end up paying for it.
3) If the death penalty had any meaning, it was because at one time it was swift, sure, and certain (see #1 above), and it was carried out in public (again, see #1 above). Now, executions are usually so far removed in time from the conviction (average time on death row = ~17 years) that the media must remind us who the person to be executed is and what their crime was. If the public's long-term memory cannot span much beyond the commercial breaks, how can executing someone years afterwards, have any meaning except to the object of the exercise?
For me, the bottom line is exactly that - the bottom line Incarcerating someone for 45 years @ $27K/yr = $1,215,000. The average cost of death penalty appeals is ~$5,000,000 (not counting the cost of incarceration). It's just cheaper to keep them locked up.
There is a chance that they could have their sentence commuted, or be pardoned. But the odds of that happening in the first 20 or so years is small. I'm willing to take the risk to save the $3.7+ million.
All this from someone who spent almost 20 years working in the prison system, including with inmates on death row.
stay safe.
skidmark
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 17, 2008, 07:56:03 PM
Post by: vaskidmark on July 18, 2008, 02:31:27 AM
The automatic appeal process can be streamlined. The appeals court looks to see if any errors were made at trail and if anyone else could have committed the crime. If both answers are no then carry on the execution.
It's not the automatic appeal that delays the execution - it's all the appeals that drag on afterwards.
Right now our system permits those appeals, and I've never been convinced I would want to eliminate that.
stay safe.
skidmark
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 18, 2008, 02:33:51 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 18, 2008, 04:54:36 AM
Quote
You are focused on "what if we are wrong?" instead of what brings justice to the victims?
"We executed an innocent man? Well, sucks to be him."
The justice system is flawed because it is comprised of human beings trying to administer justice. It will never be perfect, because human beings are flawed.
In the mean time, I suppose we will just have to go on executing the occasional innocent person. At least we mean well...
Does that really sound better?
If you think the system is flawed enough that we can't execute criminals after many appeals and reviews, how can you justify any punishment? Especially when cases of imprisonment are often appealed very little.
Post by: Werewolf on July 18, 2008, 07:03:11 AM
Premises:
1. Self-defense is a natural right. Quite often self-defense means killing a threat because that is sometimes the only way to eliminate a threat.
2. Man is a social animal. He evolved as a social animal. The long term (and probably even the short term) survival of an individual depends upon the group within which he lives. Without the group mankind, living as individuals wouldn't last long. That is as true today as it was 100,000 years ago; more so in all probability.
3. It is imperative that the society upon which man is so dependent, be able to defend itself against the mad-dogs within it. This assures the continuation of society and the survival of individuals within it.
4. If it is OK for an individual to kill in self-defense, then it is completely logical for it to be OK for the group within which the individual lives and is dependent upon for his continued survival to kill in self-defense.
Conclusion:
The death penalty is a logical extension of self-defense and is therfore an acceptable group practice.
Everything else is just the rules behind how the defense of society is implented. Who decides, what level of anti-group behavior rates the DP, what level of evidence is required, etc etc etc - it's just rules and it seems most here are more focused on the rules than whether or not the death penalty it self is an acceptable practice.
Regarding the innocent being executed (which is one of the things that put me in the undecided category for awhile):
That's little more than a cost/benefit relationship. What cost is society willing to accept in order to assure it's continued existence? Is society willing to execute 1 innocent man to make sure a million guilty are put away? 10 innocent men, 100 innocent men, 1000. That's a decision made by the group. Some societies on this planet don't consider the cost of executing an innocent man high at all and executions are common. Others do consider the cost high and executions are rare to non-existent. It still all boils down to the rules for implementing the practice and not the practice itself.
In the final analysis, though, I for one have no doubt that society has the right to defend itself from the mad-dogs within it by killing them and that justifies the death penalty.
The implementation of and the rules behind the DP are another matter entirely.
Post by: Phyphor on July 18, 2008, 12:30:00 PM
Post by: RocketMan on July 18, 2008, 12:41:03 PM
Post by: RevDisk on July 18, 2008, 12:53:49 PM
Theoretically, I have no problem with the death penalty from a moral or legal standpoint.
I do have a problem with the way it is currently implemented. Too many times folks on death row have been cleared. Incompetent counsel, biased juries, suppressed evidence, DNA evidence, etc etc. If 99.9999% of the convictions stuck, I'd say sure. If a sizeable percentage are shown to have been falsely imprisoned, it's not worth it. And let's face it, if you have any money, you're not going to death row. Our legal system is set up in mind that it is better to let a dozen evil men free than falsely imprison one innocent man. It's a good system. Far from perfect, but much better than it's converse. We would not want to live in a country that presumed guilt instead of innocence.