The Death Penalty v.2 [Archive] - Chamber of Secrets

OldLupin

December 19th, 2007, 2:29 pm

1. Do you support or oppose the death penalty? If you support the death penalty, under what circumstances do you support it? If you oppose the death penalty, can you envision any exceptions to this?

I support the use of the death penalty in all capital cases. Philosophically, any person who would willfully and deliberately, with premeditation and intent, kill another human-being for any reason of personal gain or similar motive is forfeit and represents a continuing threat to anyone and everyone they may come into contact with either in the society or even in prison. Such utter disregard is not something that is reform able and such action negates the possibility of a person ever re-entering society or being part of a subset society in prison without presenting a risk to anyone they encounter. Putting someone like this away for life without fear of a greater penalty is a license to kill. What more could you do to deter them? In short, they become wards of the state and are left to be cared for and protected by the state until their natural death, a circumstance that can never be afforded their victim(s).
It is said that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent, but that is because it is used so sparsely and carried out so rarely that it has no hope of deterring any behavior. Were it used more liberally it would indeed deter capital crimes successfully. As a caveat, I don't believe in the selective use policy that is often used, it should be pursued in all capital cases and left to a jury to decide as opposed to having prosecutors inequitably use it at their own discretion.

2. Is the death penalty legal in your country? If it is, is it legal in your state or province?

Yes it is and yes it is.

3. Do you think the death penalty will be abolished where it is legal? Why or why not?

I think it will. The inequitible and failed way in which it has been applied, coupled with declining public support (based on these failings) will likely lead to more decisions to abolish rather than reform.

4. Do you think that New Jersey's move will be followed by other states? Do you agree with New Jersey's move?

I don't think New Jersey is a catalyst for abolishion, but yes other states are likely to do similar to Jersey in this reguard.

5. Do you think that the death penalty will be introduced where it is not legal? Why or why not?[/QUOTE]

In the short term, no I don't. In a longer term, probably. If any state were to reform instead of abolish and have positive results, I think that could inspire people to reinstate the Death Penalty.

Yoana

December 19th, 2007, 3:06 pm

Philosophically, any person who would willfully and deliberately, with premeditation and intent, kill another human-being for any reason of personal gain or similar motive is forfeit and represents a continuing threat to anyone and everyone they may come into contact with either in the society or even in prison.

But which philosophical school is this based on? Because there are so many different philosophical schools, which differ greatly, especially in different historical eras.

Another philosophical view (Kantian) maintains that any moral obligation(categorical imperative) must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe the moral law. Meaning that if we accept that killing is wrong, then it is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. This is just an example of a particular philosophical thought which can be used as an argument against the death penalty. That's why I would like to know which philosophical framework you are basing your argument on.

Such utter disregard is not something that is reform able

Again, based on what? Is there a study or something else which has shown such results?

Putting someone like this away for life without fear of a greater penalty is a license to kill.

If this is true, then killing would be much more common in countries which do not have death penalty than in countries which do. As far as I know, this is not the case, because the main reason/impetus for a person to commin murder is definitely not the lack of a fearsome enough punishment. I dare say most people wouldn't kill even if there was no punishment at all.

Anyway, in countries where there is a "license to kill", as you put it, heavy crimes are not significantly more widespread than in countries where executions are carried out.

It is said that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent, but that is because it is used so sparsely and carried out so rarely that it has no hope of deterring any behavior. Were it used more liberally it would indeed deter capital crimes successfully.

I confess this opinion strikes me as rather extreme. Executions were carried out very liberally in the past (before the 20th century) in the whole world, yet crimes were a problem then as well, and not smaller for certain.

USNAGator91

December 19th, 2007, 3:21 pm

I confess this opinion strikes me as rather extreme. Executions were carried out very liberally in the past (before the 20th century) in the whole world, yet crimes were a problem then as well, and not smaller for certain.

I would hesitate calling anyone's opinion "extreme" on this topic, especially considering the fact that in the US, most states still have the death penalty and the federal government has a capital punishment penalty in its quiver.

What segregates the US from its allies is that for the most part, capital punishment has been banned in most of those countries, so the juxtaposition is quite glaring. While I support the option of having a death penalty, I don't necessarily subsribe to the notion that it is a deterrent. The system allows for far too much time to pass before the penalty is rendered and does not serve the deterrent notion, however, there are crimes which transcend simple incarceration. In my opinion, incarceration, even life imprisonment, is a mechanism of rehabilitation. Those who are beyond rehabalitation should pay the ultimate price. This goes back to the old argument, of whether there is absolute evil.

Charles Manson had his death penalty sentence commuted to life imprisonment, yet periodically he comes up for parole. Should he be released if he is deemed "rehabilitated"? Is he redeemable?

Alastor

December 19th, 2007, 3:36 pm

Please don't argue about others' choices of words.

OldLupin

December 19th, 2007, 4:19 pm

But which philosophical school is this based on? Because there are so many different philosophical schools, which differ greatly, especially in different historical eras.

This is personal philosophy. I would site a source were I basing it on someone else's, but as I find no universal agreement with any specific published philosophy, I choose to rely on my own. As I have had a fairly diverse and broad set of experiences and have seen how effective a Death Penalty can be when used effectively, I tend to see it as a viable option.

Again, based on what? Is there a study or something else which has shown such results?

Based on the fact that even those who oppose a Death Penalty generally choose life in prison without parole. This is because once a person has shown himself or herself to be capable of premeditated homicide; they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy in the highest way. Even if they displayed better behavior or even remorse, how can we ever classify them as "reformed" when they are always a danger to repeat that behavior? It takes a certain psychological disconnect to kill in a planned and premeditated fashion, that is why we classify it differently than even other murder. It is conclusive evidence of sociopathic behavior and I have never read anything that shows any chance of reform for a sociopath. If you have, I would be interested to see it.
In the end, why are they kept alive? To be watched and guarded 24/7? If they are ever able to get any freedom or access to a weapon they are a huge danger. Aren’t we risking quite and gaining nothing in that? In cases of killers who are part of organizations, aren’t we risking allowing them to still exert influence while being detained? To some extent, isn’t forcing them to live the rest of their lives in maximum security more cruel and unusual than death?

If this is true, then killing would be much more common in countries which do not have death penalty than in countries which do. As far as I know, this is not the case, because the main reason/impetus for a person to commin murder is definitely not the lack of a fearsome enough punishment. I dare say most people wouldn't kill even if there was no punishment at all.

Actually, as I stated, it isn't just having the death penalty, but actually using the Death Penalty that is what deters behavior. In countries where it exists, but is sparingly used, it may as well not exist for that purpose as there is no real fear of having it applied. In countries where it is an expected consequence there is indeed an extremely lower instance of premeditated homicides.

Anyway, in countries where there is a "license to kill", as you put it, heavy crimes are not significantly more widespread than in countries where executions are carried out.

The "license to kill" I was refering to was for those convicted and in prison. As there is no greater penalty that can be applied than already is applied, they are in no jeopardy of consequences if they kill again. Guards, other inmates or anyone in contact with them would be at serious risk and that would require isolation that does indeed fall under the cruel and unusual heading, IMO.

I confess this opinion strikes me as rather extreme. Executions were carried out very liberally in the past (before the 20th century) in the whole world, yet crimes were a problem then as well, and not smaller for certain.

Do you have any statistics to back that up? I am unaware of capital crime statistics in those periods of time. I would also submit that for any statistics to be conclusive in regards to my hypothesis, they would actually have to include application data to show a correlation with the less liberal use of a death penalty being the first cause of more violent crime as opposed to the time when it was finally abolished as many countries began by restricting the practice before abolishing it.
As to my position being extreme, I suppose that is a matter of perspective. I live in a very populated and diverse country with quite a bit of crime and a large criminal element. This isn't a criminal element built by poverty as some would suggest, but by greed. The only purpose these people present is a danger to everyone around them and their being executed is a benefit to society, IMO.

Yoana

December 19th, 2007, 4:33 pm

I would hesitate calling anyone's opinion "extreme" on this topic, especially considering the fact that in the US, most states still have the death penalty and the federal government has a capital punishment penalty in its quiver.

I meant the idea that the death penalty should be used more liberally and more often in order to make it work as a deterrent.

The system allows for far too much time to pass before the penalty is rendered and does not serve the deterrent notion, however, there are crimes which transcend simple incarceration.

But on what criteria do we decide why a crime surpasses "simple inacrceration"?

In my opinion, incarceration, even life imprisonment, is a mechanism of rehabilitation. Those who are beyond rehabalitation should pay the ultimate price.

These are two things I have a problem with. First, how do we know if a person is beyond rehabilitation? How do we know for certain that s/he cannot be rehabilitated, or, if you take a more spiritual stand, if s/he would not feel genuine remorse in time? There is no means to determine for sure, and therefore an argument involving "beyond rehabilitation" seems incomplete and unconvincing to me.

The second thing is, stating a price. Who is to do it? Who is to set a price for another's deed and on what moral grounds? And something else. It is my personal belief that justice should not eb about revenge or getting even. It should be mainly about prevention and maintaining order. I have this very strong belief that it is not upon any man to decide if another man should live or die, because human judgment is faulty in its essence, being unable to ever achieve full objectivity.

Charles Manson had his death penalty sentence commuted to life imprisonment, yet periodically he comes up for parole. Should he be released if he is deemed "rehabilitated"? Is he redeemable?

Of course he should not be released, and we are not talking about releasing murderers here. This is why there is the "life without parole" option. I don't think anyone is arguing that people guilty of heavy crimes should be given " a second chance" - I know I personally am arguing that they should not be killed. This doesn't automatically mean that I want them released or forgiven.

As fro the second question, whether he is redeemable - who can really answer it? Who can say that for certain? I am convinced no man could do that. This is precisely why I cannot accept "irredeemable" as reason for supporting the death penalty.

purplehawk

December 19th, 2007, 4:37 pm

What segregates the US from its allies is that for the most part, capital punishment has been banned in most of those countries, so the juxtaposition is quite glaring.

I think it runs far deeper than that, Gator. We still have a thing for guns in this country and have probably earned our reputation as a nation of cowboys who never quite outgrew our fascination with violence.

Our rate of violence can't really be disputed when compared to other enlightened nations, and until we realize that we are the problem, things aren't going to get any better.

OldLupin

December 19th, 2007, 4:51 pm

I think it runs far deeper than that, Gator. We still have a thing for guns in this country and have probably earned our reputation as a nation of cowboys who never quite outgrew our fascination with violence.

Our rate of violence can't really be disputed when compared to other enlightened nations, and until we realize that we are the problem, things aren't going to get any better.

Private gun ownership is a different thread, but opinions on "enlightened" in that arena vary. I have some problem with inferring that nations that retain a death penalty are "unenlightened" as well. We aren't a "cowboy" nation and we aren't running around with the old west rule of the gun either. All nations, including the U.S. are unique in some facets of both its laws and its situation that separates it from other nations. This insinuation that "we are the problem" is fine if you believe you are indeed part of "the problem" whatever "the problem" is defined as. In a general sense, I suppose that has to be inherently true of any societal problem in any nation, but it would be more clear what is meant if this were a bit more defined.

Yoana

December 19th, 2007, 5:00 pm

This is personal philosophy. I would site a source were I basing it on someone else's, but as I find no universal agreement with any specific published philosophy, I choose to rely on my own. As I have had a fairly diverse and broad set of experiences and have seen how effective a Death Penalty can be when used effectively, I tend to see it as a viable option.

Fair enough :)

they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy in the highest way. Even if they displayed better behavior or even remorse, how can we ever classify them as "reformed" when they are always a danger to repeat that behavior?

We can't, as we can't classify them as irreformable or irredeemable for sure. We will be taking a chance in both cases, but in the second one, there will be killing involved (an execution).

It takes a certain psychological disconnect to kill in a planned and premeditated fashion, that is why we classify it differently than even other murder. It is conclusive evidence of sociopathic behavior and I have never read anything that shows any chance of reform for a sociopath. If you have, I would be interested to see it.

I haven't. But lack of evidence is not considered grounds for general conclusions. Plus this is not even lack of evidence, it's just lack of information on our part.

In the end, why are they kept alive?

This is the crux of my reasons for opposing the death penalty - I don't think it should be within anyone's rights or authority to "keep" a person alive or to dispose of him/her. The phrasing "keep them alive" is inaccurate, in my opinion, because they would remain alive without our intervention - their lives are not in our control, and I do believe it should remain so.

To be watched and guarded 24/7? If they are ever able to get any freedom or access to a weapon they are a huge danger. Aren’t we risking quite and gaining nothing in that?

My honest answer would be no. Plus there are many "if"s involved - how often do you think a prisoner on life sentence will get his/her hands on a weapon? What percent of them would be able to successfully escape? From thoseestimated as fit to be released, how many would pose a danger again? I don't have the answers here, but I have an inkling that they will be not so many as to make it preferable just to kill them right away. But then again, I don't believe anything could justify killing another person in cold blood.

The "license to kill" I was refering to was for those convicted and in prison. As there is no greater penalty that can be applied than already is applied, they are in no jeopardy of consequences if they kill again. Guards, other inmates or anyone in contact with them would be at serious risk and that would require isolation that does indeed fall under the cruel and unusual heading, IMO.

And killing them is less cruel?

I don't have information on prison security, but I imagine it would be pretty tight. Improvement there, if such is needed, would be preferable to solving the problem by getting rid of the inmates.

Do you have any statistics to back that up?

No. I was referring to the use of the gallows and guillotine (I don't know how to spell it) which I believe were very liberally used.

But if you are suspicious of this, then take other countries nowadays which use the death penalty far more liberally than the USA. China, for example. Recently they sentenced a man to death for corruption. More than 3,400 executions were carried out there in 2004,which is more than any other country in the world (my source here is Wikipedia). This is pretty liberal use of the death penalty, as far as I can see, and yet I don't know if the crime rate is lower there. Unfortunately, China and accurate statistics is not an easy find, so I cannot back this up, but I think it's fairly obvious that they cannot boast record-low murder rates.

OldLupin

December 19th, 2007, 5:40 pm

This is the crux of my reasons for opposing the death penalty - I don't think it should be within anyone's rights or authority to "keep" a person alive or to dispose of him/her. The phrasing "keep them alive" is inaccurate, in my opinion, because they would remain alive without our intervention - their lives are not in our control, and I do believe it should remain so.

This is the core of our separation on this I think. I agree that the life of an individual is the individual's control as a right of humanity. That said, all rights are subject to revocation by law if a person violates said law. It is when the individual becomes a danger that we have to deal with them in ways that restrict their individual autonomy. If they are enough of an immediate danger, or an uncontrollable long-term danger, the society has to make a decision on whether or not they can be allowed to live based on the threat they pose. In immediate danger circumstances, law enforcement or guards can use lethal force to defend themselves or the lives of others, including accomplices in a crime. Similar protection has to be available to employ with those in the society who are a threat continuously.
As to keeping them alive, we have to keep them because of their actions. They could live on their own, but they would most likely keep killing, which means we have to seperate them, lock them up and guard them and in doing so, remove them from society. As they couldn't live on their own in a prison cell, we then have the resposibility to keep them alive or execute them.

My honest answer would be no. Plus there are many "if"s involved - how often do you think a prisoner on life sentence will get his/her hands on a weapon? What percent of them would be able to successfully escape? From thoseestimated as fit to be released, how many would pose a danger again? I don't have the answers here, but I have an inkling that they will be not so many as to make it preferable just to kill them right away. But then again, I don't believe anything could justify killing another person in cold blood.

Escape isn't required. There are guards and other inmates in prison. As to a weapon, if the inmate is allowed to eat solid foods, they have potential access to a weapon. A moment of carelessness by a guard and the potential is now a probability. “Super-Lifers” (those with life without possibility of parole) are notorious in maximum-security prisons for their general disregard for anyone’s safety, including their own. Some have committed “suicide by guard” and a fair number of them continue to commit crimes even in prison. It is a sociopath with no consequences that can even be inflicted on them. That combination makes them very, very dangerous. That isn't killing in cold blood, it is killing in defense. What lands someone in that position is killing in cold blood.

And killing them is less cruel?

Forcing them to live completely isolated from other people, under constant supervision and requiring them to perform the same routine every day without the slightest hope of ever being free again? That is more cruel than killing them. Any circumstance that eliminates the threat of their continuing to be a danger also includes a life that would be cruel and unusual to inflict on any human being. There are worse things than death.

I don't have information on prison security, but I imagine it would be pretty tight. Improvement there, if such is needed, would be preferable to solving the problem by getting rid of the inmates.

Every day they are alive without anything left to fear is another day they can spend planning and/or attempting to hurt other people. If they were adverse to doing that or weren't predisposed to doing that, they wouldn't be execution candidates.

But if you are suspicious of this, then take other countries nowadays which use the death penalty far more liberally than the USA. China, for example. Recently they sentenced a man to death for corruption. More than 3,400 executions were carried out there in 2004,which is more than any other country in the world (my source here is Wikipedia). This is pretty liberal use of the death penalty, as far as I can see, and yet I don't know if the crime rate is lower there. Unfortunately, China and accurate statistics is not an easy find, so I cannot back this up, but I think it's fairly obvious that they cannot boast record-low murder rates.

They might if it is considered per capita as oposed to actual gross figures as they are the most populated country in the world. We could look at India, Iran, Suadi Arabia, Egypt and some of the old Soviet block nations as compared to equivilent sized populations in Europe and other Western nations that have abolished it. Would that seem a fair analysis?

monster_mom

December 19th, 2007, 10:23 pm

Murder cases do not become death penalty cases on a whim. There must be a specific set of circumstances for an individual case to become eligible for the death penalty and for a prosecutor to attempt to make such an argument.

To me the death penalty is only acceptable when the crime was horiffic. Serial killers, mass murderers, and even serial pedophiles. Those are the cases where I think society is better off when the perpetrators are no longer with us. There is no such thing as life in jail with no opportunity for parole. It just does not exist. Even several thousand consecutive life sentences isn't enough. These monsters do get paroled and when they do, they rape and kill again.

I find that real life examples always help in these instances.

Joe Atkins was paroled after serving 10 years of a life sentenece for murdering his brother. Atkins cut the phone lines to a neighbor's house, entered the home in the middle of the night, and shot and killed the 13 year old girl living there. He chased the girl's parents from their home and then returned to his home to kill his 75 year old father - who had plead with the parole board to release his son on "good behavior".

Robert Massie was sentenced to death for murdering a woman during a home invasion. A few hours before his execution was to take place, a stay was issued so that he could testify against his accomplice in the home invasion. His death sentence was commuted when the California Supreme Court halted executions. He was paroled and eight months later robbed and murdered another person.

Roger Stafford used his wife and an apparently broken down car on the side of the road to ambush and murder another motorist who stopped to help his wife. Several weeks later Stafford and his wife ambushed and killed six people at a steak house

Robert Glen Coe kidnapped, raped, and murdered 8 year old Cary Ann Medlin. The last thing Cary Ann said to her murderer before he killed her was "Jesus loves you". he never apologized or even expressed regret for what he'd done.

I have a difficult time understanding why these specific individuals should not be executed.

Tenshi

December 19th, 2007, 10:32 pm

I understand when someone ask for a death of a person who murdered themself, but I don't understand why a person who hasn't taken a life should be sentenced to death.

purplehawk

December 19th, 2007, 10:33 pm

Tenshi

December 19th, 2007, 10:51 pm

Just because there are multiple ways to handle a problem doesn't mean that they are all equally effective. There is always the possibility of prisoners escaping, so with the most dangerous of them the safest solution is to have them executed.
Yes it can happen, but it doesn't mean it will. There are cases where it happens, but to measure everything by the same yardstick and to say that people should be sentenced to death is a overreaction IMO. There's no definite way to prove that a person will do it again. And to take away a life based on assumptions is not working for me.

I'd give it 20+ years. Our prisions are OK but they let people out too soon and there are a lot of pedoviles who have been able to slip through the system. There have been loads of cases of them working in our schools. It's terrible. For manslaughter you can sometimes get just 6 years and then they're allowed out again.
It's a failure in the system, which should and can be corrected and improved without bringing back the Death Penalty.

monster_mom

December 19th, 2007, 11:29 pm

The same argument could be made for petty crimes for which the perpetrator gained an early release. America tends to dump convicted felons once they are released from prison. They can't get a job. They can't secure a lease on an apartment or a house. There are no programs to help them reintegrate into American society. We expect them to come out of prison with skills they frankly don't have - and then we express surprise and dismay when they become repeat offenders. It never occurs to us that we set them up to fail.

But death penalty cases aren't petty crimes - they cases where the perpetrator has done horrible things. And the thought of these monsters ever being free to walk our streets again terrifies me.

While the vary state by state in virtually every instance the death penalty is imposed in capital murder (intentional murder or first degree murder) with aggravating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances also vary state by state, but in Virginia they include:
(1)The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, cruel or depraved (or involved torture)
(2) The defendant is a future danger
(3)The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person in the commission of abduction when the abduction was committed with the intent to extort money or a pecuniary benefit or with the intent to defile the victim of such abduction
(4) The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person in the commission of, or subsequent to, rape or attempted rape, forcible sodomy or attempted forcible sodomy or object sexual penetration
(5)The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person in the commission of robbery or attempted robbery
(6)The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person by another pursuant to the direction or order of one who is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise
(7)The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person by another in the commission of or attempted commission of an act of terrorism
(8)Murder victim was under the age of 14 and the defendant was 21 years of age of older
(9)The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of a law enforcement officer or any law enforcement officer of another state or the US having the power to arrest for a felony under the laws when such killing is for the purpose of interfering with the performances of his official duties
(10)The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of a pregnant woman by one who knows that the woman is pregnant and has the intent to cause the involuntary termination of the woman’s pregnancy without a live birth

State by state cases eligible for the death penalty:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144#BJS

Aggravating factors:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2356

Quickquill

December 19th, 2007, 11:48 pm

I think the death penalty should be an option for particularly heinous crimes. After all, why should a murderer get any more consideration than he showed to his victims? And mass murderers and serial killers are a menace to society. If they are released, they will kill again. It's true that the death penalty is no deterrent to crime, because the type of person who commits violent crimes doesn't usually think very much before he acts. But at least it enables society to rid itself of particularly violent elements.

The main problem with the death penalty is the difficulty of proving guilt beyond all doubt. There have been too many cases where innocent people were convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

As stated, I don't think that murderers should get any more consideration than they showed their victims. If they're not going to be buried six feet under, they should be "buried" in prison until they die, and not released for reasons of ill health, or allowed conjugal visits. Their victims cannot reproduce, why should they be allowed to?

purplehawk

December 19th, 2007, 11:59 pm

No, death penalty cases are not petty crimes. The point I tried to make is that, as a country, we treat them all the same insofar as rehabilitation and giving them the right skills to survive outside prison are concerned. America creates its own "monsters," I'm afraid.

Texas is probably one of the worst examples of the inequality of American-style justice. More than a few cases from Texas have reached the Supreme Court via bad decisions made by one of the worst federal appeals courts in the nation: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.

In an 8-to-1 decision last year, the Supreme Court instructed the appeals court to rethink its "dismissive and strained interpretation" of the proof in the case, and to consider more seriously the substantial evidence suggesting that prosecutors had systematically excluded blacks from Mr. Miller-El's jury. Prosecutors used peremptory strikes to eliminate 10 out of 11 eligible black jurors, and they twice used a local procedure called a jury shuffle to move blacks lower on the list of potential jurors, the decision said. The jury ultimately selected, which had one black member, convicted Mr. Miller-El, a black man who is now 53, of killing a clerk at a Holiday Inn in Dallas in 1985.

Instead of considering much of the evidence recited by the Supreme Court majority, the appeals court engaged in something akin to plagiarism. In February, it again rejected Mr. Miller-El's claims, in a decision that reproduced, virtually verbatim and without attribution, several paragraphs from the sole dissenting opinion in last year's Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas. ...

Death Sentences in Texas Cases Try Supreme Court's Patience (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/national/05texas.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

This particular case came before the Supreme Court in 2004, for the second time in two years. My Google search of "Texas death penalty U.S. Supreme Court" turned up 181,000 hits.

DancingMaenid

December 20th, 2007, 1:25 am

That said, all rights are subject to revocation by law if a person violates said law. It is when the individual becomes a danger that we have to deal with them in ways that restrict their individual autonomy. If they are enough of an immediate danger, or an uncontrollable long-term danger, the society has to make a decision on whether or not they can be allowed to live based on the threat they pose. In immediate danger circumstances, law enforcement or guards can use lethal force to defend themselves or the lives of others, including accomplices in a crime. Similar protection has to be available to employ with those in the society who are a threat continuously.

The chief difference I see between freedom and life is that life is something that, once we're born, will continue for as long as we're able to sustain it. Freedom, sociologically, never fully exists. We're always bound to something.

Forcing them to live completely isolated from other people, under constant supervision and requiring them to perform the same routine every day without the slightest hope of ever being free again? That is more cruel than killing them. Any circumstance that eliminates the threat of their continuing to be a danger also includes a life that would be cruel and unusual to inflict on any human being. There are worse things than death.

While I agree with you, this isn't always the case. Not all life prisoners are exactly the same. You have some extremely dangerous ones, but you have others who are able to maintain relationships from prison, publish books, and even get degrees, depending on the kind of facility they're in.

flimseycauldron

December 20th, 2007, 12:26 pm

The main problem with the death penalty is the difficulty of proving guilt beyond all doubt. There have been too many cases where innocent people were convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

I think that you missed a word here :) Reasonable. Reasonable doubt. It angers me that there are many cases which the defendant is guilty and yet they get off on a technicality or one person on a jury decides for himself what is reasonable and what is not. (I mean if you are the only one are you really being reasonable?) With the advent of DNA and other forensic testing the number of innocent men actually convicted are slim to none.

The death penalty has always scared me. Not because of the rights of the felon but because of the damage to ones own soul/psyche. On the one hand I don't like seeing my tax dollars wasted on the sick twisted psychos out there, and yet I don't want to see them free, and yet I don't want to be a murderer as well....I used to be anti-death penalty...but now I come to view violent criminals more like rabid dogs. They are dangerous, you put them out of their misery. You do it quickly, with no malice, and realize that you are also doing them a favor by putting them out of their misery.

I have to stress the quickly part. I am tired of the appeals. The decades of waiting on death row, putting off the inevitable. There are men in their fifties carrying out their death penalties for crimes they commited in their twenties...

I suppose if it wasn't so complicated, as with all things, it wouldn't be so difficult.

USNAGator91

December 20th, 2007, 12:54 pm

purplehawk

December 20th, 2007, 2:01 pm

I would prefer a life sentence if no rehabilitation is possible, yes.

Chris

December 20th, 2007, 2:06 pm

Pearl_Took

December 20th, 2007, 2:11 pm

1. Do you support or oppose the death penalty? If you support the death penalty, under what circumstances do you support it? If you oppose the death penalty, can you envision any exceptions to this?

- I oppose it. Reluctantly, maybe, but I still oppose it.

- The only exceptions I can possibly envisage are those like the Nuremberg Trials, in which Nazi war criminals were executed for the mass genocide of Jewish people. I find it hard to disagree with Nuremberg, because of the enormity of the crimes. All the same, I don't want the death penalty reintroduced in the UK.

2. Is the death penalty legal in your country?

- No.

3. Do you think that the death penalty will be introduced where it is not legal? Why or why not?

- I don't think it will be re-introduced here, because we are part of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights would never pass such legislation.

USNAGator91

December 20th, 2007, 2:47 pm

Contrary to CSI (and a whole slew of other shows), DNA testing isn't an option in every case. However, where DNA evidence is available, it's led to the charging of several people who would otherwise have walked free, and it's led to the freedom of several convicted people. So it's a great tool when it works.

Without going too much into my own position on the death penalty, do you think that DNA evidence for guilt should be a prerequisite for the death penalty?

I think that states, when they abolish the death penalty / commute sentences to "life in prison", should change their laws further to include a "zero chance of parole" option for those who were formerly on death row. It does seem ridiculous that the same state that once thought that someone was worthy of death now would think them "OK to go out in society".

Last thought (for now): currently it costs more to keep an inmate on death row and execute them than it does to keep them in prison for life. I don't have the source for this, but I do remember the reason: the appeals process is expensive. So, under the current setup, a cost savings analysis actually doesn't work, due to the high cost of defending the state's decision to execute someone.

I think it should be a trade off where the DNA analysis must be provided, but on the condition that the results would have to shorten the appeals process. In any regard, as a society, we would be duty bound to ensure that every possible evidentiary means was exhausted to confirm guilty verdicts, then the punishment should be meted out expeditiously. I was in college when the Ted Bundy fiasco was in play, and I can honestly say that the whole scenario was very sickening to watch as he manipulated the appeals process to exacerbate the injury he'd already caused the families of his victims.

Charlie Manson's annual parole circus is something to behold, and yet the prosecuters and victim's families who are ever vigilant in fighting against his release are slowly getting older and will either lack the energy to continue the fight or will eventually die off. Mr. Manson has the benefit of a state-funded medical plan and three squares a day. Who's to say that the man will not eventually outlast his opponents, and be let free by an unsuspecting or uncaring parole board?

Chris

December 20th, 2007, 3:22 pm

In the interest of fairness I should point out that a quick google search for "death penalty cost" revealed mostly links from anti-death penalty organizations. However, it is a widely cited figure, and I was able to find only a few links that contest the figure. And, the cost analysis was for the United States only.

purplehawk

December 20th, 2007, 3:34 pm

do you think that DNA evidence for guilt should be a prerequisite for the death penalty?

I sure do.

What with death sentences overturned because the wrong man was charged and convicted, prosecutors stacking juries, forensic lab workers playing loosey goosey with evidence, policemen planting "evidence" to make a case, and so many other travesties, I think the burden of proof needs to be quite a bit higher than it is now.

MasterOfDeath

December 20th, 2007, 3:59 pm

purplehawk

December 20th, 2007, 4:39 pm

I oppose the death penalty 100%. I don't believe any human has the right or the wisdom to judge to end the life of another human being even if that human being has killed another themselves, there are other more fitting punishments. I feel killing is wrong on all accounts.

Nice one.

The United Nations General Assembly voted Tuesday for a global moratorium on the death penalty. The resolution was nonbinding; but its symbolic weight made barely a ripple in United States.

The vote was 104 to 54, with 29 nations abstaining. Progress has come in Europe and Africa, with nations like Senegal, Burundi, Gabon - even Rwanda - rejecting the death penalty as official barbarism.

The United States, self-proclaimed land of the free and the brave, lined up as usual with Iran, China, Pakistan, Sudan and Iraq, the brotherhood accounting for more than 90% of world's executions according to Amesty International.

New Jersey's sensible decision to abolish the death penalty wasn't much of a big deal here in the U.S., but it resounded around the world. The Colosseum in Rome was bathed in Golden Light, a tradition to mark victories against capital punishment.

United Nations: Assembly Calls for Freeze on Death Penalty (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/world/19briefs-deathpenalty.html)

It makes one wonder why the U.S. is so often on the wrong side of any debate involving human rights.

USNAGator91

December 20th, 2007, 6:37 pm

It makes one wonder why the U.S. is so often on the wrong side of any debate involving human rights.

It does? So often? Basically, you've made my argument for me on so many levels, PH. The US still has the death penalty, making this country so much less enlightened than rest of the, I suppose. I'll sign off because my emotional response would not pass moderator scrutiny. I'm simply amazed.

Alastor

December 20th, 2007, 7:32 pm

Anyone interested in the global situation may take a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation#Europe).

DancingMaenid

December 20th, 2007, 8:29 pm

I have to stress the quickly part. I am tired of the appeals. The decades of waiting on death row, putting off the inevitable. There are men in their fifties carrying out their death penalties for crimes they commited in their twenties...

While I agree that it can be cruel to make people wait for years, without the option to put it off and appeal, many innocent people would have been killed.

As for it being humane to kill people at all, what if the criminals don't feel the same way? What if they don't want to be "put down"? Unlike animals, they have more developed cognitive abilities and can think about this stuff more. Who are we to decide if their life is worthless?

Yoana

December 20th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Who are we to decide if their life is worthless?

Very good question. I guess this is where my main problem lies. I can't really find good enough reasons for a person to be granted the right and authority to decide on another person's life. For me the value of life is greater than any other value existing in the world.

purplehawk

December 20th, 2007, 10:40 pm

Very good question. I guess this is where my main problem lies. I can't really find good enough reasons for a person to be granted the right and authority to decide on another person's life. For me the value of life is greater than any other value existing in the world.

Hi Yoana. Great to meet you once again in this debate. :)

I just looked at Alastor's link (thanks for it, Ole Grumpy One). I'm not at all comfortable with the company my country is keeping on those maps, as well as in the earlier article I posted about the U.N. Moratorium. Being a part of that bloody brotherhood flies in the face of our oft-repeated claim to be the moral leader of the world.

The value of a human life cannot be tagged with a price sticker.

ETA:

Here's another good reason to abolish the death penalty: Court Voids Conviction in 1988 Murders (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/nyregion/21cnd-tankleff.html?hp).

The ruling, by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, was not only a vindication for Mr. Tankleff, but it also raised questions about police and prosecutorial methods in Suffolk County.

“It is abhorrent to our sense of justice and fair play to countenance the possibility that someone innocent of a crime may be incarcerated or otherwise punished for a crime which he or she did not commit,” four appellate justices — Reinaldo E. Rivera, Gabriel M. Krausman, Anita R. Florio and Mark C. Dillon — wrote in a unanimous, 21-page decision.

monster_mom

December 21st, 2007, 8:51 pm

purplehawk

December 21st, 2007, 9:45 pm

Rehabilitation isn't a concern for people who are up for the death penalty, and providing those "people" with skills to survive on the outside world isn't either. Criminals whose crimes are such that the state seeks the death penalty are sufficiently dangerous that they will never see the light of day again outside prison walls.

Sometimes, yes. Yet recent history has shown that a state seeking the death penalty doesn't necessarily prove anything. There have been too many rogue policemen, prosecutors, lab technicians - not to mention the FBI's forensic gaffes, and so much more.

There is no "creating" involved. They are who they are and the events which landed them in jail facing the death penalty are of their own doing.

Again, sometimes.

katsumi

December 22nd, 2007, 3:00 pm

This has come up a bit in this thread (and in other discussions about the death penalty), and I was wondering what the word is on sexual assaults and the death penalty. Do people get executed for sexual assaults that don't end in murder? Do pedofiles get the death penalty in any states where there is a death penalty?

I only ask because it comes up often enough that people support the death penalty for particularly gruesome crimes, like murder and sexual assault of children. As far as I know (and I could very well be wrong), there aren't any states that execute pedofiles unless the pedofile murders their victims. Does anyone know if this is true?

I'm very hesitant to use the scare quotes for people on death row. As much as we want to view murderers and rapists as monsters, they are people as much as the rest of us are people. There are countless factors that could have led to any one "monster's" criminality, including previous psychological trauma, socio-economic factors, drug/alcohol abuse, or psychopathy/sociopathy.

I'm not saying and would never suggest that murders be let off the hook for their crimes. But a lifetime in prison without any possibility of parole seems plenty harsh, considering what the conditions of most prisons are. And keeping them alive does allow for rehabilitation in certain cases. Psychopaths obviously can't really be helped, but someone who turned to a life of crime because of psychological trauma incurred when they were young, or someone who committed a particularly gruesome killing because they were on a three-week drug bender -- those people could be rehabilitated.

But I think that a lifetime of being left to suffer for what they have done is more suitable than killing them. Killing them makes us no different than them.

Chris

December 22nd, 2007, 3:09 pm

WitchHunter

December 22nd, 2007, 5:25 pm

As much as we want to view murderers and rapists as monsters, they are people as much as the rest of us are people. There are countless factors that could have led to any one "monster's" criminality, including previous psychological trauma, socio-economic factors, drug/alcohol abuse, or psychopathy/sociopathy.

Part of being human is the ability to judge right and wrong. Regardless of what factors are involved, short of a certifiable mental deficiency, murderers and rapists are responsible for their own actions. They lost any right to sympathy or compassion by commiting some of the worst crimes imaginable. Such people are a danger to society and the government has not only a right, but an obligation to do whatever is takes to protect innocent citizens from them, including execution.

purplehawk

December 22nd, 2007, 7:42 pm

Part of being human is the ability to judge right and wrong. Regardless of what factors are involved, short of a certifiable mental deficiency, murderers and rapists are responsible for their own actions. They lost any right to sympathy or compassion by commiting some of the worst crimes imaginable. Such people are a danger to society and the government has not only a right, but an obligation to do whatever is takes to protect innocent citizens from them, including execution.

You speak as if there is certainty that "government" is always the "good guy" in any murder trial. I don't think any of us could make that argument. How many cases are now being reviewed because our own FBI didn't bother telling the locals that their forensic tests were fatally flawed? How many black men have been executed after being convicted by all-white juries of their "peers?"

I've mentioned just two of the travesties that have passed as justice in this country. There are loads more than I have time to research at the moment.

Yoana

December 22nd, 2007, 8:36 pm

Hi Yoana. Great to meet you once again in this debate.

Thanks! Nice to see you, too :)

Part of being human is the ability to judge right and wrong.

This is a very complex territory. "Right" and "wrong" are extremely subjective notions. Who is to decide what is wrong, and what is wrong enough to deserve death sentence? Who is to determine the legal bounderies in this vague moral ground? In some contries they sentence people to death because of homsexual relations - in these value and moral systems, being homosexual is wrong, and obviously very wrong, too. So is it ok, in your opinion, to kill a person because of his/her sexuality, just because this is considered wrong in the value system of the society (and therefore legislation) he belongs to?

This is what I mean when I say that if we accept that killing is wrong (and as far as I know, all modern societies do), then it is always wrong. If we can maintain that murder is a good enough reason to sentence someone to death, because we believe in the utmost value of human life (now isn't it a paradox??), then they can claim that homosexuality is a good enough reason to sentence a person to death, because they believe that it's a terrible sin.

I don't think there is a good enough reason to kill.

They lost any right to sympathy or compassion by commiting some of the worst crimes imaginable.

Sympathy and compassion are not feelings ruled by rights. They are bestowed by the free will of the one feeling them. You can't just say that they lost that right, and speak for the whole society, or insist that this is a universal truth. What is more, you cannot just throw this very general statement, as though the particular circumstances can be fully disregarded, and as though all the cases are the same.

Such people are a danger to society and the government has not only a right, but an obligation to do whatever is takes to protect innocent citizens from them, including execution.

This can be done without including execution. I have never heard of a case where this was the only option for protection of society. They can always be sentenced to life without parole, and the society will be rid of them just as efficiently.

monster_mom

December 23rd, 2007, 12:31 am

It does? So often? Basically, you've made my argument for me on so many levels, PH. The US still has the death penalty, making this country so much less enlightened than rest of the, I suppose. I'll sign off because my emotional response would not pass moderator scrutiny. I'm simply amazed.

You took the word right out of my mouth Gator. Thank you!

WitchHunter

December 23rd, 2007, 12:44 am

You speak as if there is certainty that "government" is always the "good guy" in any murder trial. I don't think any of us could make that argument. How many cases are now being reviewed because our own FBI didn't bother telling the locals that their forensic tests were fatally flawed?

If a person's guilt comes into question then of course the execution needs to be postponed until a decision can be reached, but in many cases there is more than enough evidence to safely determine if someone is guilty.
How many black men have been executed after being convicted by all-white juries of their "peers?"
That's quite an accusation. If you have any evidence to support the claim that men have been executed for their skin color I would be very interested in seeing it.
This is a very complex territory. "Right" and "wrong" are extremely subjective notions. Who is to decide what is wrong, and what is wrong enough to deserve death sentence?
I'll agree that morality is subjective in most cases, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument defending the morality of murder. As for being wrong enough to deserve execution I would say that by taking an innocent persons life one forfeits their own right to life.

So is it ok, in your opinion, to kill a person because of his/her sexuality, just because this is considered wrong in the value system of the society (and therefore legislation) he belongs to?

Absolutley not. The death penalty is needed to permanently remove the most dangerous criminals from society, not to enforce vague moral concepts.
This is what I mean when I say that if we accept that killing is wrong (and as far as I know, all modern societies do), then it is always wrong.
"Killing" is not always immoral. When done in self defence or in defence of others, as with execution, it is acceptable. Murduring innocent people is different.

Sympathy and compassion are not feelings ruled by rights. They are bestowed by the free will of the one feeling them. You can't just say that they lost that right, and speak for the whole society, or insist that this is a universal truth. What is more, you cannot just throw this very general statement, as though the particular circumstances can be fully disregarded, and as though all the cases are the same.

I suppose you're right.

This can be done without including execution. I have never heard of a case where this was the only option for protection of society. They can always be sentenced to life without parole, and the society will be rid of them just as efficiently.

There is always the risk of prisoners escaping, even from the most secure prisons. The safest way to handle the most dangerous criminals is execution.

purplehawk

December 23rd, 2007, 2:05 am

That's quite an accusation. If you have any evidence to support the claim that men have been executed for their skin color I would be very interested in seeing it.

We have a long history of lynching blacks in this country. You might read up on it. The U.S. Congress officially apologized for not banning the practice less than two years ago.

Here's a good link for information on state-sanctioned executions in this country: The Death Penalty in Black and White (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=539&scid=)

And, finally, there is the story of Lena Baker (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/lena_baker/index.html) - a black woman who was convicted by an all-male, all-white jury for killing a white man who had repeatedly abused her. The jurors were home in time for dinner. Her court appointed attorney filed an appeal and then mysteriously dropped the case. The courts threw out the appeal as there was no longer an attorney of record. The details of her execution by electrocution are too gruesome for the forums.

Sixty years later, the State of Georgia pardoned (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/national/16pardon.html) her.

WitchHunter

December 23rd, 2007, 3:26 am

We have a long history of lynching blacks in this country. You might read up on it. The U.S. Congress officially apologized for not banning the practice less than two years ago.

And, finally, there is the story of Lena Baker (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/lena_baker/index.html) - a black woman who was convicted by an all-male, all-white jury for killing a white man who had repeatedly abused her. The jurors were home in time for dinner. Her court appointed attorney filed an appeal and then mysteriously dropped the case. The courts threw out the appeal as there was no longer an attorney of record. The details of her execution by electrocution are too gruesome for the forums.

Sixty years later, the State of Georgia pardoned (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/national/16pardon.html) her.

I will admit that the United States has not had the best history in this issue, but that is in the past. In order to debate whether or not we should use the death penalty now, in the 21st century, we must use recent evidence.

Here's a good link for information on state-sanctioned executions in this country: The Death Penalty in Black and White (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=539&scid=)

The Death Penalty Information Center has a rather notable anti-death penalty bias, and I have a few of problems with this particular article. Some of their source citations are less than perfect, particularly source number 11. I was unable to find the statistics based on the information provided, so if anyone does know where to find them other than at the DPIC itself I would appreciate the information. Also, after providing statistics (from the 11th source) showing that blacks are more likely to be executed than whites, they make a particularly large assumption when they state that a defendents race influences a jury's decision regarding the death penalty. There are a number of factors which may influence a jury's decision other than race, but the article does not even momentarily entertain the possibility that those may have played a part. The article also uses isolated incidents as if they are the rule rather than the exception. It "proves" the racism inherent in our legal system by mentionig a single DA who tried to keep blacks off of the juries.

We could argue about racism in American courts all day, but I don't think this is the thread to do it in. Even assuming there is racism present it would mean only that action must be taken to remedy that particular problem; it does not mean that the death penalty itself is flawed.

purplehawk

December 23rd, 2007, 3:45 am

Even assuming there is racism present it would mean only that action must be taken to remedy that particular problem; it does not mean that the death penalty itself is flawed.

I think the death penalty is indeed flawed. One has only to read the newspapers to see the truth in that. And America's racism is a "particular problem" for which there exists no easy remedy. It has been with us from our beginnings more than four centuries ago.

The ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/capital/general/10441pub19971231.html) has some interesting statistics of more recent cases.

Racial discrimination was one of the grounds on which the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in Furman. Half a century ago, in his classic American Dilemma (1944), Gunnar Myrdal reported that "the South makes the widest application of the death penalty, and Negro criminals come in for much more than their share of the executions." A recent study of the death penalty in Texas shows that the current capital punishment system is an outgrowth of the racist "legacy of slavery."18 Between 1930 and the end of 1996, 4,220 prisoners were executed in the United States; more than half (53%) were black.19

Our nation's death rows have always held a disproportionately large population of African Americans, relative to their percentage of the total population. Comparing black and white offenders over the past century, the former were often executed for what were considered less-than-capital offenses for whites, such as rape and burglary. (Between 1930 and 1976, 455 men were executed for rape, of whom 405 - 90 percent - were black.) A higher percentage of the blacks who were executed were juveniles; and the rate of execution without having one's conviction reviewed by any higher court was higher for blacks.20

In recent years, it has been widely believed that such flagrant racial discrimination is a thing of the past. However, since the revival of the death penalty in the mid-1970s, about half of those on death row at any given time have been black.21 Of the 3,200 prisoners on death row in 1996, 40% were black. This rate is not so obviously unfair if one considers that roughly 50 percent of all those arrested for murder were also black.22 Nevertheless, when those under death sentence are examined more closely, it turns out that race is a decisive factor after all.

mariebeth83

December 23rd, 2007, 3:46 am

This seems to be a pretty credible link from The Clark County prosecuting attorney (http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/dpusa.htm), which shows that of the numbers of people executed since 1977, as of July 06, 57% were white and 34% black.

And witchhunter - you're right, this isn't the place to argue about racism in American courts - this thread is about the death penalty so can we please all stay on topic?

purplehawk

December 23rd, 2007, 3:58 am

I'm not sure how one can separate the two in this country. If racism exists in the court system, it has direct impact on the death penalty.

The link Mariebeth provides also shows the percentage of death row inmates by race. Blacks represent 42% of the condemned; yet just 12% of the overall population. Given that so many groups keep tabs on this kind of data, I'm surprised it isn't better known.

mariebeth83

December 23rd, 2007, 4:03 am

I'm not sure how one can separate the two in this country.

I guess I'm able to be more objective, not being American, so I can see that the overall issue of the Death Penalty has to be separated from other issues in order that it be looked at properly and hopefully people would decide for themselves that the death penalty isn't something that should be continued with.

Pegasus

December 23rd, 2007, 4:49 am

And witchhunter - you're right, this isn't the place to argue about racism in American courts - this thread is about the death penalty so can we please all stay on topic?
Yes, please.

DancingMaenid

December 23rd, 2007, 6:13 am

Part of being human is the ability to judge right and wrong.

Not only is right and wrong very subjective, and sometimes changes with time, but what about small children? Are they not human? Personally, I find calling any person not human pretty offensive, to be honest.

"Killing" is not always immoral. When done in self defence or in defence of others, as with execution, it is acceptable. Murduring innocent people is different.

This can be subjective, as well. Not to mention, "murder" is not defined by killing an innocent person. Self-defense only counts if you kill someone because they are an immediate threat to you. I don't feel that killing in any other circumstance is usually right, but when I hear about children killing their parents or women killing their husbands after years of abuse they didn't feel they could escape from or take anymore, it's hard for me to see people like that as being inhuman monsters.

mariebeth83

December 23rd, 2007, 7:33 am

A quick search showed the situation is in flux in the United States:

Coker v Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coker_v._Georgia)

It appears that murder is a prerequisite for the Death Penalty for crimes involving adults, but some states are exploring the legality of the Death Penalty for crimes involving children.

That's an interesting article. For those people who support the death penalty would you approve of the move to add this crime to the list of crimes that people can receive the death penalty for?

As I'm anti-death penalty, I would suggest instead that the people who carry out crimes of sexual abuse or any kind of abuse against children be left in the mainstream areas of the prisons and have it made publicly known what they did. Personally, I would feel that it would be a much harsher and a much more deserved punishment than the death penalty.

Yoana

December 23rd, 2007, 11:51 am

Absolutley not. The death penalty is needed to permanently remove the most dangerous criminals from society, not to enforce vague moral concepts.

This is a different argument than the one I responded to - the post I responded to supported the idea that the death penalty is not murder and acceptable because the people sentenced to death cannot be called human, since they can't properly distinguish between wrong and right. That's why I said that using concepts like these in defending the use of the capital punishment is a rather shaky territory, and not a really convincing case.

As for this argument - that it is needed to remove dangerous criminals - I can offer nothing more than what I've already offered as grounds for objection - I don't believe there is anything which stands above human life; and I don't believe there can be good enough reason to kill in cold blood.

Another reason is the possibility of a mistake, which, however small, is always there.

"Killing" is not always immoral. When done in self defence or in defence of others, as with execution, it is acceptable. Murduring innocent people is different.

We already agreed that morality is subjective, and I do see it differently. In my understanding of morality, killing is always wrong. Self defence is choosing one life over another. Of course I am aware this is what everyone would do in this situatation, myself included, and nobody would just give up their life to an aggressor, but this doesn't make it right. It only makes it understandable.

As for murdering "innocent" people - I don't believe there is difference between murdering innocent people and murdering a a non-innocent ones, to be honest - to say there is would be to put a price tag on human life, as purplehawk put it. Speaking about cold-blood killing here, of course, not about self-dfence.

There is always the risk of prisoners escaping, even from the most secure prisons. The safest way to handle the most dangerous criminals is execution.

I can only reapeat what I said earlier - the way I see it, if we value human life above everything else, then there can be no reason sufficient to excuse killing.

And there is another explanation about why this is generally a faulty logic, but it's philospophical and it's difficult for me to phrase it. I believe it was Kant, but I'm not sure. It was something to do with predictability - since we are never able to know the future 100%, we have no grounds to make decisions based on predictions, as those decisions will be indefensible. If someone is acquainted with this, please elaborate.

chica2k8

December 23rd, 2007, 11:00 pm

personally, i'm totally for the death penalty. i'm texan nd it's been used MANY a times. to me, it's perfectly acceptable in cases of murder. If the criminal had the audacity to take some one else's right to live, then they dont have the right to live. :]]

WitchHunter

December 24th, 2007, 1:08 am

Not only is right and wrong very subjective, and sometimes changes with time, but what about small children?

There is nothing subjective about killing innocent people. Small children are still learning, which is why they are not subjected to the same punishments as adults.

This can be subjective, as well. Not to mention, "murder" is not defined by killing an innocent person. Self-defense only counts if you kill someone because they are an immediate threat to you. I don't feel that killing in any other circumstance is usually right, but when I hear about children killing their parents or women killing their husbands after years of abuse they didn't feel they could escape from or take anymore, it's hard for me to see people like that as being inhuman monsters.

Nor would I consider them monsters. They killed to protect themselves, which is acceptable. The death penalty acheives the same thing by killing dangerous criminals.

This is a different argument than the one I responded to - the post I responded to supported the idea that the death penalty is not murder and acceptable because the people sentenced to death cannot be called human, since they can't properly distinguish between wrong and right. That's why I said that using concepts like these in defending the use of the capital punishment is a rather shaky territory, and not a really convincing case.

Perhaps I should clarify. Killing an innocent person is very clearly wrong, and those who are unable to recognize that are a danger to society. A person's sexual preference, which you used as an example, does not harm anyone, so the "morality" of it is not as clear. That is what I meant when I said that the death penalty is not meant to enforce vague moral concepts. It can and should be used to enforce the idea that killing an innocent is wrong.

Another reason is the possibility of a mistake, which, however small, is always there.

Which is why the death penalty should only be used for the most dangerous of criminals, those who present an obvious threat.

And there is another explanation about why this is generally a faulty logic, but it's philospophical and it's difficult for me to phrase it. I believe it was Kant, but I'm not sure. It was something to do with predictability - since we are never able to know the future 100%, we have no grounds to make decisions based on predictions, as those decisions will be indefensible. If someone is acquainted with this, please elaborate.

I can't say I'm familiar with it, but I think I understand the reasoning. But while we can't predict the future with 100 percent accuracy, we can make an educated guess based on past experience. In the case of dangerous criminals, past experience reveals that the criminal in question is capable of commiting terrible crimes, and that prisoners can escape from even the most secure facilities.

As for murdering "innocent" people - I don't believe there is difference between murdering innocent people and murdering a a non-innocent ones, to be honest - to say there is would be to put a price tag on human life, as purplehawk put it. Speaking about cold-blood killing here, of course, not about self-dfence.

I can only reapeat what I said earlier - the way I see it, if we value human life above everything else, then there can be no reason sufficient to excuse killing.

This all comes down to personal values, so I suppose we will simply have agree to disagree.

Tenshi

December 24th, 2007, 11:19 am

For all those who say that dangerous people need to be eliminated. Do you feel safer knowing that the worst of them are? Is it a better world now that they are gone?

I life in a country were the death penalty is abolished for centuries and where even life imprisonment, isn't was it's supposed to be. Anything from 15 years onwards falls under that, the average "life imprisonment" is 20 years here. Even the worst people and murder are free again after that years. And yes I don't mind it. I prefectly feel safe here.

Yoana

December 24th, 2007, 12:10 pm

Perhaps I should clarify. Killing an innocent person is very clearly wrong, and those who are unable to recognize that are a danger to society. A person's sexual preference, which you used as an example, does not harm anyone, so the "morality" of it is not as clear. That is what I meant when I said that the death penalty is not meant to enforce vague moral concepts. It can and should be used to enforce the idea that killing an innocent is wrong.

I strongly disagree that killing should be used to enforce morals. The very sentence sounds paradoxical and, frankly, absurd.

But I agree that murder is considered wrong in every society (that I'm aware of at least) and therefore can be seen as universal "wrong".

I can't say I'm familiar with it, but I think I understand the reasoning. But while we can't predict the future with 100 percent accuracy, we can make an educated guess based on past experience. In the case of dangerous criminals, past experience reveals that the criminal in question is capable of commiting terrible crimes, and that prisoners can escape from even the most secure facilities.

But still, it's based on presumption and not fact. I don't find this a good enough reason to kill someone, prevention of something which may happen. Human life is a high price for this, in my opinion.

This all comes down to personal values, so I suppose we will simply have agree to disagree.

Yes :)

monster_mom

December 24th, 2007, 2:32 pm

I happen to agree with several other posters on this thread that people who commit horiffic crimes do deserve the death penalty. What constitutes horiffic in my book is pretty bad. Just so those of you who have villified us understand, here are several people currently serving on death row in various states whose crime are such that I have no qualm whatsoever with them being put to death. You can check out high level overviews of the crimes death row inmates comitted to be sentenced to death on the web site linked below. The overview is just of the crime they committed to end up on death row,not a list of all of the other crimes they've been charged with.

CHAPMAN, MARCO ALLEN, convicted of murder, 2 counts; attempted murder, 2 counts; rape I; burglary I; robbery I and PFO II. He was formally sentenced on 12-14-2004 to death. In the early morning of August 23, 2002, Marco Chapman murdered a 7-year old girl and a 6-year old boy in their home in Warsaw, Kentucky. Both the children's throats had been slit and they had multiple lacerations and stab wounds on their bodies. Their 10-year old sister played dead after being stabbed several times. The children's mother's hands were bound with duct tape and she was tied to a bed frame. She was raped and stabbed in the chest with a knife that broke off in her chest. She was later stabbed with a larger knife and left for dead. After stabbing the victims, Chapman burglarized the home and left the scene.

EPPERSON, ROGER D, sentenced to two separate death sentences for three different murders. The first was for the murder of Tammy Acker. The murder occurred when Epperson and two accomplices entered the home of a Fleming-Neon, Kentucky physician on the night of August 8, 1985. They choked the man unconscious, and stabbed his daughter, Tammy Acker, to death while robbing him of $1.9 million, handguns and jewelry.

The second death sentence was for the murder of Bessie and Edwin Morris in their home in Gray Hawk, Kentucky on June 16, 1985.

FOLEY, ROBERT, given two separate death sentences for the murders of 6 people in two separate incidents. On September 23, 1993 Foley was sentenced to death in Laurel County for murdering two brothers, Rodney and Lynn Vaughn, during an argument at his residence on August 17, 1991 in Madison County.

On April 27, 1994 he was given a second death sentence in Madison County for the murders of Kimberly Bowersock, Lillian Contino, Jerry McMillen, and Calvin Reynolds. He shot the four victims on October 8, 1989 because he thought one of them had reported him to his parole officer. Foley had previously been imprisioned and released for drug trafficing, rape, assault, attempted murder, and gun violations.

http://www.corrections.ky.gov/inmateinfo/deathrow.htm

Tenshi

December 24th, 2007, 2:54 pm

Ones could post 100 times a list of murderer who took away a whatever amount of people's life, that doesn't change anything on the fact that I do not think that those people deserved to be killed on the hand of another person.

What does it make right that an authority takes away lives? Is it just the fact that they simply can do it? Would a normal person take away a bad persons life, they would be punished for sure. Why not praising them as well?

purplehawk

December 24th, 2007, 3:19 pm

CHAPMAN, MARCO ALLEN, convicted of murder, 2 counts; attempted murder, 2 counts; rape I; burglary I; robbery I and PFO II. He was formally sentenced on 12-14-2004 to death. In the early morning of August 23, 2002, Marco Chapman murdered a 7-year old girl and a 6-year old boy in their home in Warsaw, Kentucky. Both the children's throats had been slit and they had multiple lacerations and stab wounds on their bodies. Their 10-year old sister played dead after being stabbed several times. The children's mother's hands were bound with duct tape and she was tied to a bed frame. She was raped and stabbed in the chest with a knife that broke off in her chest. She was later stabbed with a larger knife and left for dead. After stabbing the victims, Chapman burglarized the home and left the scene.

EPPERSON, ROGER D, sentenced to two separate death sentences for three different murders. The first was for the murder of Tammy Acker. The murder occurred when Epperson and two accomplices entered the home of a Fleming-Neon, Kentucky physician on the night of August 8, 1985. They choked the man unconscious, and stabbed his daughter, Tammy Acker, to death while robbing him of $1.9 million, handguns and jewelry.

The second death sentence was for the murder of Bessie and Edwin Morris in their home in Gray Hawk, Kentucky on June 16, 1985.

FOLEY, ROBERT, given two separate death sentences for the murders of 6 people in two separate incidents. On September 23, 1993 Foley was sentenced to death in Laurel County for murdering two brothers, Rodney and Lynn Vaughn, during an argument at his residence on August 17, 1991 in Madison County.

On April 27, 1994 he was given a second death sentence in Madison County for the murders of Kimberly Bowersock, Lillian Contino, Jerry McMillen, and Calvin Reynolds. He shot the four victims on October 8, 1989 because he thought one of them had reported him to his parole officer. Foley had previously been imprisioned and released for drug trafficing, rape, assault, attempted murder, and gun violations.

http://www.corrections.ky.gov/inmateinfo/deathrow.htm

Interesting. What do they have in common?

Guns.

flimseycauldron

December 24th, 2007, 4:41 pm

They can always be sentenced to life without parole, and the society will be rid of them just as efficiently.

I know that I would not let a convicted murderer or rapist into my home, feed him my food, or use my money, even if I had nothing to fear from him/her physically. So why would prison be any different? It is my tax dollars that run the prison, no? The prison is not my personal residence but in broader terms America is my home and I have the right to not want to give these criminals room and board, just as much as I have the right to not want to house them in my own house. So society is not rid of these people, they are hidden away but always there. A brooding presense that people are forced to accept...and pay for. I often wonder, if the victims families had to bear the sole responsibilty for for sparing the criminals life (and not share it amongst other tax payers) if they would forgive at all, or be accepting of a life sentence. That being said I also wonder if people would be so quick to seek out the death penalty if they were the ones who had to pull the switch or fire the gun or push the needle. It is a double edged sword that makes me uncomfortable. And I am glad that it makes me uncomfortable...it means that I am not blind to either side of the arguement...

LoonyMagic

December 24th, 2007, 5:15 pm

I have mixed views on the Death Penalty issue. On one hand I can see that people who have done terrible crimes should be punished accordingly for what they have done. Then, on the other hand, I think it's a horrible way to uphold justice and to get rid of criminals.

My overiding feeling is that the Death Penalty is wrong. Sure, these criminals have done horrific, terrible crimes, including mass murder and rape, but is killing them really the best way to tackle them? I would much rather have them in a prison cell and let them throw away the key - let them realise and come to terms with what they've done, how it's affected everybody else and let them rot in prison. IMO Killing isn't the answer. What if they get it wrong? What if they have the wrong person? The whole Death Penalty just doesn't sit comfortably with me at all.

DancingMaenid

December 24th, 2007, 7:59 pm

What does it make right that an authority takes away lives? Is it just the fact that they simply can do it? Would a normal person take away a bad persons life, they would be punished for sure. Why not praising them as well?

That's how I see it. I don't think there's anything that makes the courts inherently more moral than the average person.

monster_mom

December 24th, 2007, 8:23 pm

Interesting. What do they have in common?

Guns.

The first guy, MARCO ALLEN CHAPMAN, used a knife. Two, apparently, as the first one broke off in the mother's chest and then he went and got the second which he used to stab her several more times and then slit the throats of two of her children (her third child survived by playing dead).

Ones could post 100 times a list of murderer who took away a whatever amount of people's life, that doesn't change anything on the fact that I do not think that those people deserved to be killed on the hand of another person.

What does it make right that an authority takes away lives? Is it just the fact that they simply can do it? Would a normal person take away a bad persons life, they would be punished for sure. Why not praising them as well?

I respect your position, Tenshi, I just don't agree with it. Life with no opportunity for parole simply doesn't mean life with no opportunity for parole. All to often people sentenced to death do end up eligible for parole and get released. As an example, look at Charles Manson and Squeaky Fromme.

Fromme was orignally sentenced to life in prison for pointing a gun at then President FOrd. She escaped from a federal maximum security prison in 1987 because she believed Manson had cancer and she wanted to be with him. She was recaptured several days later. Fromme has consistently waived her right to a parole hearing, but she is still eligible for parole every 5 years.

Manson, on the other hand, has gladly accepted each opportunity. Manson was orignially sentenced to death but his sentence was changed to life in 1972 when California placed a moratorium on the death penalty. As a result, he is eligible for parole every 5 years. His last parole hearing was in May of this year where he was again denied parole. Manson still has a cult like following. The parole board stated that they were denying parole because manson "continues to pose an unreasonable danger to others and may still bring harm to anyone he would come in contact with."

In the US, unless a person is charged as a sexual predator there is no legal method of tracking where they go once they're released. The thought of a person like MARCO ALLEN CHAPMAN, Squeaky Fromme, or Charles Manson living next door to my children terrifies me.

victoriakrum

December 24th, 2007, 9:40 pm

1. Do you support or oppose the death penalty? If you support the death penalty, under what circumstances do you support it? If you oppose the death penalty, can you envision any exceptions to this?
I don't support the death oenalty under any circumstances. I don't think that capital punishment is ever appropriate, as I don't think anyone should have the power to end another's life based on a crime. I don't think it is a deterrant, as it is meant to be, and it is very costly. Although it is rare, I know that some people have been released from prison because of wrongful sentencing of the innocent. Upon review of DNA or other evidence, a few people have been set free. Even the theoretical thought that anyone could be wrongfully sentenced to death makes me cringe.

2. Is the death penalty legal in your country? If it is, is it legal in your state or province?
It's legal in the US, but not in New Jersey, where I live.

3. Do you think the death penalty will be abolished where it is legal? Why or why not?
Now that NJ has abolished it, I think other states will follow in the next few years. I don't really see states like Texas and Florida abolishing it where the rate of execution of inmates on death row is higher. I think more people are seeing that there are alternate punishments for criminals who commit violent, heinous crimes, like murder. Life without parole can seem to some people as a worse punishment than death.

4. Do you think that New Jersey's move will be followed by other states? Do you agree with New Jersey's move?
I do, as I stated above.

5. Do you think that the death penalty will be introduced where it is not legal? Why or why not?
I don't think it will gain popularity or be instated anywhere it is not already present. I think it is looked upon unfavorably by many people now, and I think it might be difficult to introduce the idea to a government or people who are not used to the idea of it.

purplehawk

December 24th, 2007, 10:04 pm

In the US, unless a person is charged as a sexual predator there is no legal method of tracking where they go once they're released. The thought of a person like MARCO ALLEN CHAPMAN, Squeaky Fromme, or Charles Manson living next door to my children terrifies me.

Perhaps those things can be taken care of legally? It would make far more sense than execution, which is irreversible and has so much opportunity for human error that it should be abolished.

I don't understand how people can convince themselves that it's okay to kill someone, legally or otherwise. The history of the death penalty in the United States is so heinous, so fraught with issues of race and other forms of bigotry, that I'm forever amazed someone hasn't just stopped it.

PLIMPY

December 25th, 2007, 4:40 am

I don't agree with the death penalty even if it could be flawless in terms of guilt and innocence. I don't believe that there is anything a person can do to forfeit their right to life. I also don't think it is the place of the state to take lives.
It bothers me that the death penalty is so unevenly applied, varying from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, state to state and in terms of media and public influence. The things I've read on "death qualified" juries also make me extremely uneasy. Studies indicate that death qualified juries are more likely to convict. There is also evidence that there is a correlation between certain characteristics and belief on the death penalty which makes a percentage of minorities and women unable to serve on such juries. I, for example, will never be able to serve on the jury for a capital case as I would not vote to condemn a person to death regardless of their actions.

The state of Massachusetts had a panel a few years ago to come up with suggestions to make what they call the "gold standard" of death penalty laws.
The measure calls for verifiable scientific evidence such as DNA to sentence someone to death and a tougher standard of ''no doubt" of guilt for juries to sentence defendants, rather than a ''beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It also calls for a pool of certified capital case lawyers to ensure proper representation for the indigent and allowing jurors to serve in the guilt phase of the trial who do not necessarily support the death penalty. From the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/29/romney_files_death_penalty_bill/)
It never passed into law in the state and there were still people who believed it was far from foolproof, but I know my state certainly doesn't have such standards for death penalty cases.
There is always the risk of prisoners escaping, even from the most secure prisons. The safest way to handle the most dangerous criminals is execution.
Escapes from prison are rather rare, especially when talking about the maximum or supermaximum prisons in which such criminals would be housed. We should really execute people just so to make sure the one or two of them who might escape over a lifetime don't get out? Wouldn't it be better to just sure up prison facilities where necessary?

As I'm anti-death penalty, I would suggest instead that the people who carry out crimes of sexual abuse or any kind of abuse against children be left in the mainstream areas of the prisons and have it made publicly known what they did. Personally, I would feel that it would be a much harsher and a much more deserved punishment than the death penalty.
Obviously being against the death penalty I am rather upset that any place is considering adding to those crimes for which people can be executed, particularly adding crimes in which no one has been killed. But I also disagree with utilizing problems of abuse in our prisons to further "punish" them. I certainly don't think that we should be encouraging prisoners to commit crimes, even if it is against other inmates. The guards are not only there to protect us from prisoners but also to protect prisoners from themselves and others. It is necessary for society that we be protected from those who harm others, but I don't see what we gain by seeing them harmed back. People do not commit such crimes thinking how rosy their life would be in prison should they get caught.

I happen to agree with several other posters on this thread that people who commit horiffic crimes do deserve the death penalty. What constitutes horiffic in my book is pretty bad. Just so those of you who have villified us understand, here are several people currently serving on death row in various states whose crime are such that I have no qualm whatsoever with them being put to death.
I think that it is a mistake to assume that those of us who do not support the death penalty aren't aware of the nature of the crimes that can land people on death row. I am not saying you are guilty of this, but I have certainly seen people do it in the past. I've read some rather graphic accounts of some heinous acts and I know my opinion doesn't change for even the most heinous of crimes.
I know that I would not let a convicted murderer or rapist into my home, feed him my food, or use my money, even if I had nothing to fear from him/her physically. So why would prison be any different? It is my tax dollars that run the prison, no? The prison is not my personal residence but in broader terms America is my home and I have the right to not want to give these criminals room and board, just as much as I have the right to not want to house them in my own house. So society is not rid of these people, they are hidden away but always there.
You have no specific right to dictate what your tax dollars are used for. You can vote in people who attempt to alter laws and expenses so that you better agree with them, but I am not allowed to ask that my tax dollars not go toward executions either.
The amount of your money that goes toward housing violent criminals is rather small. As it costs more to execute someone than it does to house them in prison for life, if you are really concerned as to the amount of your money spent on violent criminals, then execution is not really the way to go. I also think execution vs. life in prison isn't the only way to think about it. We pay to keep violent criminals off the streets because the alternative is to not have prisons and allow all people to live in society regardless of their danger to others.

canismajoris

December 25th, 2007, 5:26 am

When the probability of being killed is greater, say, on a street corner in Chicago than it is on death row, the death penalty is no longer much of a deterrent. Since this is sadly the case in many crime-ridden areas, I have to ask what good the death penalty is really doing. Think about it: in what way are we punishing a murderer if, by putting him on death row, we're actually prolonging his life?

In my mind it's a simple matter: the death penalty appeases people's sense of outrage, but has little or no effect on the risk vs. reward equation being worked out in the minds of the criminals. If they know they might die tomorrow, is the thought of being executed in ten years really going to carry much weight? Not if the reward, like money, respect among peers, or satisfaction of some psychopathic agenda is even vaguely tempting.

The point is we execute people because we're a sanguinary species, and the only way to calm the lurking fear and bloated outrage is to continue the practice. I'm in no way casting aspersions on those who favor the death penalty, but in reality capital punishment exists not to deter future criminals, but to compensate for the helplessness victims, families, and society at large feel in the face of horrible crimes. In short, it makes us feel like we're in control of the problem, but that's about as much as it has ever accomplished.

Yoana

December 25th, 2007, 2:06 pm

Angel26

December 25th, 2007, 9:48 pm

I'm in no way casting aspersions on those who favor the death penalty, but in reality capital punishment exists not to deter future criminals, but to compensate for the helplessness victims, families, and society at large feel in the face of horrible crimes. In short, it makes us feel like we're in control of the problem, but that's about as much as it has ever accomplished.

Do you believe that the victim's family should have a say in what happens to the murderer, that they should be able to decide his fate? It is a common misconception that all families who have lost a loved one to murder want that murderer to receive the death penalty.

Many death penalty supporters constantly bring up this notion, that we should think about the victim's family and help bring them closure. But often this is only referring to those that would seek the death penalty. There are many who don't. Should their wishes be taken into account as much as those who would seek the death penalty? What happens if there is one family member who seeks the death penalty and one who doesn't?

Also, many families of murder victims who did seek the death penalty have discovered that the murderer being executed did not do what they expected. They expected a sense of closure, but they found they did not get that. Their loved one is still gone, and they still have to deal with that grief.

For me personally, I would not seek the death penalty if someone I loved died, and the death penalty was used in my country. And my family members would not seek it if I was the murder victim. What I would want is for the laws to change. I want life with no possibility for parole to mean exactly that. I do not want another human being to be killed in my name, nor in the name of my loved ones.

Yoana

December 25th, 2007, 10:14 pm

Although the question is not directed at me, I'd like to give my answer. I believe the victim's family should not be allowed to have a say, since they are not an institution which has the competence or authority to decide on the kind of penlty a convicted criminal should receive. This is a matter of legal competence, I believe. Furthermore, I think this would make a kind of revenge of the death penalty, which is after all not what justice is about.

purplehawk

December 26th, 2007, 12:30 am

I think this would make a kind of revenge of the death penalty, which is after all not what justice is about.

That's exactly what it is, in almost every case, whether the victims' families asked for it or not. It is society exacting revenge.

monster_mom

December 26th, 2007, 1:10 am

That's exactly what it is, in almost every case, whether the victims' families asked for it or not. It is society exacting revenge.

In the case of the guy who slit two small children's throats, attempted to murder their other sibling, and raped and repeatedly stabbed their mother (who was forced to watch as the killer slit her children's throats), I'd say revenge is the least of it. Imagine, living the rest of your life remembering what it sounded and looked like when your children were being murdered.

While it sounds vengeful to take the victim's concerns into account when sentencing a criminal, I can not separate the crime from the criminal. That man forced a mother to live what has to be one of the worst nightmares a mother can possibly imagine. She will have to live that nightmare every single moment of every single day for the rest of her life. Putting her children's murderer to death won't make her nightmare go away, but if it would give her even a moment of peace, then I have no problem with it.

purplehawk

December 26th, 2007, 1:14 am

What would Jesus Christ say? Would he condone vengeance?

mariebeth83

December 26th, 2007, 2:25 am

What would Jesus Christ say? Would he condone vengeance?

I don't think that religion should come into this, there are too many sides to that debate.

Monster_mom: I can see your point about the death penalty, and wanting to protect your kids.

Still though, I'm against the death penalty as a means of punishment, it doesn't make sense to me that people punish people who kill by killing them. What kind of lesson does that teach anyone? I would like to see tougher sentences though, as in life actually meaning life for once. Also for jails to become tougher, especially on murderers or paedophiles or sexual predators, I'm sick of hearing prisoners going on about how their human rights are being denied in prison, but personally the day they committed a crime, from the day they're sentenced to the day they're released (depending on the sentence) their human rights shouldn't come into consideration. Maybe then people might be deterred from comitting crimes?

DancingMaenid

December 26th, 2007, 3:31 am

I know there are horrible criminals out there. There are people whom I personally feel may deserve to die. But that's not my choice to make.

For that matter, the idea of making prisoners miserable and subjecting them to abuse bothers me a lot, too. I like to think that America is supposed to have some dignity, and part of that is in how we treat everyone in this country, including criminals.

However, I think some sentences need to be made tougher. If dangerous people are put back on the street, that's not an excuse for the death penalty, but for system reforms.

purplehawk

December 26th, 2007, 3:32 am

I don't think that religion should come into this, there are too many sides to that debate.

Not from the perspective in which I asked the question.

I think life sentences should really mean just that: a life behind bars. On the other hand, I would not be willing to see inmates in our jails treated as if they are less than human beings. The very sentence - loss of freedom, loss of autonomy to decide what, where, when and why they do things, is enough to drive anyone up a tree. I don't begrudge them three squares a day, radio and television, and the opportunity to exercise or engage in sports - whatever they do in there to keep them from becoming animals.

canismajoris

December 27th, 2007, 1:17 am

In the case of the guy who slit two small children's throats, attempted to murder their other sibling, and raped and repeatedly stabbed their mother (who was forced to watch as the killer slit her children's throats), I'd say revenge is the least of it. Imagine, living the rest of your life remembering what it sounded and looked like when your children were being murdered.
If revenge is not the motivating factor there, what is? Your entire description of that situation revolves around how terrible it was for the mother. If we're to put a man to death because we feel badly for the poor woman, how is that not revenge?

While it sounds vengeful to take the victim's concerns into account when sentencing a criminal, I can not separate the crime from the criminal. That man forced a mother to live what has to be one of the worst nightmares a mother can possibly imagine. She will have to live that nightmare every single moment of every single day for the rest of her life. Putting her children's murderer to death won't make her nightmare go away, but if it would give her even a moment of peace, then I have no problem with it.
I'm highly skeptical that having someone killed puts anyone at ease unless they're killers to begin with. If you presuppose that the woman's life will be scarred irreparably, then your suggestion that putting a man to death to assuage her horror is admirable strikes me as odd. After all, once you believe the woman can't ever make peace with what happened (as I understood you meant by "every single day for the rest of her life") then executing that man accomplishes nothing more than a relaxing book or a kind stranger at the mall. Is the best response to those who regard life so cheaply really to cheapen it further? It doesn't matter whether we're executing murderers, rapists, or jaywalkers; but once we begin to see a person's death justified by, as you put it, the potential for a moment of peace, then we can forget the slippery slope, because we're in a free fall.

DancingMaenid

December 27th, 2007, 2:14 am

It doesn't matter whether we're executing murderers, rapists, or jaywalkers; but once we begin to see a person's death justified by, as you put it, the potential for a moment of peace, then we can forget the slippery slope, because we're in a free fall.

I think this is an important point. Why should the court have the right to exact vengeance when the same court can convict a woman for killing a husband who has put her through abusive torment for years?

purplehawk

December 27th, 2007, 2:34 am

We also often fail to realize there are other victims of crimes like these. The murderer may have parents, a wife, children - all of whom go through hell during the trial and all the appeals, only to see their loved one die in the end.

Yoana

December 27th, 2007, 1:23 pm

Is the best response to those who regard life so cheaply really to cheapen it further? It doesn't matter whether we're executing murderers, rapists, or jaywalkers; but once we begin to see a person's death justified by, as you put it, the potential for a moment of peace, then we can forget the slippery slope, because we're in a free fall.

I feel this can be said again, so I'm quoting it. An excellent post, in my opinion, and exactly the core of my firm opposition to the death penalty, only I could never phrase it so accurately.

We also often fail to realize there are other victims of crimes like these. The murderer may have parents, a wife, children - all of whom go through hell during the trial and all the appeals, only to see their loved one die in the end.

I've thought about that too. That if anyone from my family, or my friend, is to ve executed, no matter what they have done, I would never, ever want them dead. I presume this would be the case with anobody.

Kharina

December 29th, 2007, 6:14 pm

Discussion Questions:
1. Do you support or oppose the death penalty? If you support the death penalty, under what circumstances do you support it? If you oppose the death penalty, can you envision any exceptions to this?

I oppose it: and no, I cannot envision any exceptions to it. In my view, if there were exceptions it wouldn't really be opposing it, but supporting it only in extreme cases. The main reason I oppose it is also because it is always possible a mistake has been made, and also that no justice system is perfect, often making it more likely that a poor person will recieve a death penalty than a rich person with connections (think Lucius Malfoy!) Yes, there are some cases where it's 99.9999% certain someone is guilty: but in my view, if you make any exceptions, then it becomes really hard to tell where to draw the line.

2. Is the death penalty legal in your country? If it is, is it legal in your state or province?

No, it's illegal in the UK.

3. Do you think the death penalty will be abolished where it is legal? Why or why not? That depends on which country it is: different views are held in different places, and these depend on a wide variety of factors. Perhaps now New Jersey has abolished it, a few more US states where it is legal may consider it, but that will depend on the political climate.

4. Do you think that New Jersey's move will be followed by other states? Do you agree with New Jersey's move? Yes, I agree.

5. Do you think that the death penalty will be introduced where it is not legal? Why or why not? I can't imagine that happening here, in the UK. I get the general feeling most people would be against it, although I haven't done a survey! In other places, I'm not sure, as I don't really know enough about them.

rigdoctorbri

December 29th, 2007, 9:24 pm

1. Do you support or oppose the death penalty? If you support the death penalty, under what circumstances do you support it? If you oppose the death penalty, can you envision any exceptions to this?

Strictly opposed. Without exception.

In the immortal words of Alan Dershowitz, "Death Penalty? That's no penalty! You're outta the game!" Actually he was quoting someone else, but he made it famous.

The Death Penalty is as barbaric as the crimes for which those convicted and sentenced to Death. We call ourselves a civilized society, but civilization is greatly reflected upon by how we treat our prisoners. I don't find killing one in the name of Justice to be civilized.

2. Is the death penalty legal in your country? If it is, is it legal in your state or province?

The Death Penalty is legal in the United States, and in my state of Louisiana. Louisiana is also the only state currently that has expanded the Death Penalty to include child rapists if the victim is under 12, serious physical harm (intent of death) is done, and it is at least the second offense or more.

3. Do you think the death penalty will be abolished where it is legal? Why or why not?

I am about to tick off a lot of people, but it should abolished, though I do not believe it will be erradicated in my lifetime.

4. Do you think that New Jersey's move will be followed by other states? Do you agree with New Jersey's move?

Sure, I think other states will move toward abolision, but for true erradication it must have a Constitutional Amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states. That won't happen.

5. Do you think that the death penalty will be introduced where it is not legal? Why or why not?

As far as the United States goes, there are a few states that have a growing move toward allowing the Death Penalty within their states, even though it is currently not an option under those states laws. If enough of the citizens demand it, then yes it will come to fruition.

Further notation...

There was a movie a few years ago called The Life Of David Gale. It was about a man on Death Row who was a noted Right-to-lifer, and staunch opponent to the Death Penalty. There was a trial, a conviction, and indeed he admitted his guilt. He went to the his death only to have a video release immediately afterward which showed that he did not commit the crime. It was part of his movement's plan to have a not-guilty man (I cannot use the term "innocent" because he was part of the conspiracy) wrongly convicted, and executed to prove the flawed nature of the system.

Though this was a ficticious story, it drives home that there have been myriad mistakes in the legal system that have allowed innocent or "not'guilty" persons to go to their deaths or almost go to their deaths. Further problems with the Death Penalty go toward the politically motivated prosecutors whose careers are furthered by killing murderers.

Because we have been instructed not to discuss specific cases, I will simply let your fingers do the walking. If you Google keywords: Death Penalty, Wrongfully convicted you will find countless cases of people who have been wrongfully convicted, some acquitted, some executed and later discovered to be not guilty. I, for one, would rather a guilty man go free than for us to execute an innocent.

Kharina

December 29th, 2007, 9:31 pm

purplehawk

December 29th, 2007, 11:43 pm

No question about that. It's actually been done before.

DancingMaenid

December 30th, 2007, 9:34 am

I am about to tick off a lot of people, but it should abolished, though I do not believe it will be erradicated in my lifetime.

I agree on both counts, there. I do think that, the way things are currently going, it could reasonably be abolished in the future, but I think it would take a while. And it's hard to know what might change before then.

There was a movie a few years ago called The Life Of David Gale.

I really like that movie, though it's definitely chilling.

Some people have mentioned that DNA evidence could be made a prerequisite for the death penalty: however, I'd like to point out that even DNA evidence isn't firm proof. Someone could take, for example, a hair of mine- they wouldn't even need to go near me, just get it from a hairbrush, plant it at the scene of a murder, and after DNA testing the hair was found out to be mine: but that doesn't mean I was even there at the scene of the crime, let alone actually committed it. So if someone really wanted to plant evidence against someone else, they could fabricate DNA evidence too.

Not only that, but since murder victims are often killed by people known to them, there's a good chance that there would be some DNA evidence from the suspect, anyway, so the presence of some hair, for example, may not be a reliable clue at all. You also have cases where the suspect was at the scene of the crime on another occasion around the time of the crime. For instance, I saw a show about a guy who had been convicted of murder, and the DNA evidence (a small drop of blood) wasn't reliable enough to withhold the conviction because he'd been working at the scene of the crime not long before and could have plausibly cut himself while working (as he claimed).

mariebeth83

December 30th, 2007, 10:09 am

Some people have mentioned that DNA evidence could be made a prerequisite for the death penalty: however, I'd like to point out that even DNA evidence isn't firm proof. Someone could take, for example, a hair of mine- they wouldn't even need to go near me, just get it from a hairbrush, plant it at the scene of a murder, and after DNA testing the hair was found out to be mine: but that doesn't mean I was even there at the scene of the crime, let alone actually committed it. So if someone really wanted to plant evidence against someone else, they could fabricate DNA evidence too.

That's very valid, and I'm sure it's been done in various crimes.

Also, for example if a person who commits a crime has had a bone marrow transplant, then they are carrying around the DNA of the person who gave them the bone marrow transplant in some areas of their body, while other parts such as semen, would have their own DNA. I can't remember which parts, I read this in a Jodi Piccoult novel, but since her research is quite thorough I would tend to believe that it's true!

There was a movie a few years ago called The Life Of David Gale. It was about a man on Death Row who was a noted Right-to-lifer, and staunch opponent to the Death Penalty. There was a trial, a conviction, and indeed he admitted his guilt. He went to the his death only to have a video release immediately afterward which showed that he did not commit the crime. It was part of his movement's plan to have a not-guilty man (I cannot use the term "innocent" because he was part of the conspiracy) wrongly convicted, and executed to prove the flawed nature of the system.

Though this was a ficticious story, it drives home that there have been myriad mistakes in the legal system that have allowed innocent or "not'guilty" persons to go to their deaths or almost go to their deaths. Further problems with the Death Penalty go toward the politically motivated prosecutors whose careers are furthered by killing murderers.

Because we have been instructed not to discuss specific cases, I will simply let your fingers do the walking. If you Google keywords: Death Penalty, Wrongfully convicted you will find countless cases of people who have been wrongfully convicted, some acquitted, some executed and later discovered to be not guilty. I, for one, would rather a guilty man go free than for us to execute an innocent.

I'm off to google now :) but I'd forgotten about that film, it freaked me out a bit! It was a really good film though, and it had such a valid point that people can be found guilty even though they're not, which is reason enough to abolish the death penalty.

rigdoctorbri

December 30th, 2007, 7:24 pm

purplehawk

December 30th, 2007, 7:37 pm

I invoke the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, founder of the LA Street Gang, The Crips. He was on Death Row for years. While there he reformed his life, rejected gang life, and wrote several books to guide children on a straighter and stronger course. It was his efforts to redeem himself, though he admitted he could never truly redeem himself for his most heinous crimes. Truly sorry for his life and his crimes, he was still executed. How many other lives could he have changed, or saved from following in his course of life if he had been allowed to live? Now we will never know.

I confess to cringing when Schwarzenegger let Williams' execution proceed. I guess I cringe inwardly every time I read of an execution - one good reason why I won't read much of anything coming out of Texas.

Karla Faye Tucker was another person who completely turned her life around while on death row. There are so many others. I remember my grandfather saying that a thief will continue to steal, a liar will continue to lie, but a murderer rarely repeats his crime. Of course, back then we didn't hear about serial killers and students shooting up classmates and teachers. It seems we have changed as a society - and not for the better. Honestly, we need to get rid of guns.

katsumi

December 30th, 2007, 9:07 pm

I think another important point to consider is the whole notion of parole. It comes up so often in these debates that murderers and rapists are up for parole after so many years, and we're all in danger of those criminals being released into the community where they could end up living next to us, etc.
But this completely fails to take into consideration the entire notion of parole itself, and the criteria with which these people are judged and assessed when their release or parole is considered by the parole board.
I have a cousin who works for parole services, and one of my former bosses is also a parole officer, and from what they told me, they won't release anyone they wouldn't feel safe having move in as their neighbour. The particular members of any parole board have to consider whether or not they would feel safe living with that criminal as their neighbour. Because parole board members live in society too, and they have to deal with the consequences of releasing criminals as much as we do.

So I don't know how much water the "but they might be paroled!" argument holds, at least not entirely. People like Charles Manson don't get paroled. The kinds of "monsters" that you are describing generally don't get paroled, particularly if they're high profile.

Instead of worrying about death row convicts being released (which would never happen), we should be worrying about those repeat offenders who are convicted of violent crimes (like domestic abuse and sexual assaults) and are released when their sentences are up. In my country (Canada) violent offenders sometimes get off very easy, and it's those offenders being released and at large that keeps me up at night.

I'm pretty secure that Charles Manson will never show up at my door to relive the glory days. The death penalty won't keep him from harming me, as there's no chance he's going to get out (and that's the way it should be, in my opinion).

And if the death penalty isn't going to keep me safer, and isn't going to deter other criminals from committing crimes, then what is the point in having it? Revenge? Money?

I shudder to think what that says about us if those are the factors we consider when determining the value of human life: money especially.

mariebeth83

December 30th, 2007, 10:01 pm

But this completely fails to take into consideration the entire notion of parole itself, and the criteria with which these people are judged and assessed when their release or parole is considered by the parole board.
I have a cousin who works for parole services, and one of my former bosses is also a parole officer, and from what they told me, they won't release anyone they wouldn't feel safe having move in as their neighbour. The particular members of any parole board have to consider whether or not they would feel safe living with that criminal as their neighbour. Because parole board members live in society too, and they have to deal with the consequences of releasing criminals as much as we do.

So I don't know how much water the "but they might be paroled!" argument holds, at least not entirely. People like Charles Manson don't get paroled. The kinds of "monsters" that you are describing generally don't get paroled, particularly if they're high profile.

I agree with everything you said. We forget that anyone who has to decide whether to let someone out on parole is human too, and lives in society and if they don't feel safe releasing someone they're not going to.

Instead of worrying about death row convicts being released (which would never happen), we should be worrying about those repeat offenders who are convicted of violent crimes (like domestic abuse and sexual assaults) and are released when their sentences are up. In my country (Canada) violent offenders sometimes get off very easy, and it's those offenders being released and at large that keeps me up at night.

I'm pretty secure that Charles Manson will never show up at my door to relive the glory days. The death penalty won't keep him from harming me, as there's no chance he's going to get out (and that's the way it should be, in my opinion).

And if the death penalty isn't going to keep me safer, and isn't going to deter other criminals from committing crimes, then what is the point in having it? Revenge? Money?

I shudder to think what that says about us if those are the factors we consider when determining the value of human life: money especially.

Everything you said makes so much sense! I'm in total agreement!:tu:

Tenshi

December 30th, 2007, 10:18 pm

Even with DNA evidence I would be against the Death Penalty on moral grounds. But, if the Death Penalty is to continue in the country, then we should hold even higher standards to institute it. DNA evidentiary requirements is a start, but hardly the only safeguard we could use.
Even if there's no doubt that the person commited the murder, even if they confessed it, I still don't support the Death Penalty in that case.
How can you teach someone that taking away other people's life is wrong, when you do the very same?

mariebeth83

December 30th, 2007, 10:38 pm

How can you teach someone that taking away other people's life is wrong, when you do the very same?

I think that I've mentioned that as well. It seems totally hypocritical to me that people punish someone for killing by killing them. Ok, so the person is dead but where is the lesson for other people? It doesn't really teach me anything other than an 'eye for an eye', which in my mind doesn't work.

Yoana

December 30th, 2007, 10:58 pm

I googled that man Stanley Williams and read his story. I wonder what made the governor give his agreement to kill him. Could he have changed his sentence to a life sentence? I'm asking because I don't know what powers a governor has. I'm wondering why he needed to be killed. Was there a chance he might escape and kill other people? Or a chance of him being pardoned and killing other people? I just can't seem to find a reason for his killing. Unless it's just punishment, which would be, as mariebeth said, an eye for an eye sort of justice (which leaves the whole world blind, as Gandhi ji said).

purplehawk

December 30th, 2007, 11:10 pm

Lorena

December 31st, 2007, 12:04 am

death penalty is not legal in argentina. I am against it, but sometimes I read about certain crimes, about kids being murdered in strange vudu rituals for example, rape, what the military did in Argentina; and I think that people like that should be executed.

PLIMPY

December 31st, 2007, 2:36 am

I saw this article the other day in the NY Times on the use and popularity of the death penalty in the US this past year: At 60% of Total, Texas is Bucking Execution Trend (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/26death.html). There were 42 executions this year spread out across 10 states. My state (which often adds to the execution numbers) has had a moratorium on executions for about a year now because of a case in which there were questions about the pain suffered by the prisoner because of the order in which the injections were administered. The article seems to imply that more people are questioning the death penalty especially when options like life without the possibility of parole are introduced.

Also for jails to become tougher, especially on murderers or paedophiles or sexual predators, I'm sick of hearing prisoners going on about how their human rights are being denied in prison, but personally the day they committed a crime, from the day they're sentenced to the day they're released (depending on the sentence) their human rights shouldn't come into consideration. Maybe then people might be deterred from comitting crimes?
For the people who commit crimes thinking they won't get caught (which I would imagine is a large portion of criminals), there isn't really a whole lot in the way of punishment that will deter them. Or, like canismajoris pointed out, some people live lives that are dangerous and unpredictable enough that few things are scary enough to top it. Would it be enough to stop some crimes? maybe, but are we really willing to sell our rights (and our souls) just for the possibility of reducing the crime rate a little bit?
Either way, to me it is easy to defend the rights of "good" and "innocent" people, but human rights apply to all people and as difficult as it might be sometimes to argue for them, people in prison need advocates for protection of their human rights. They are in a vulnerable position not fully able to protect themselves and they are in the care of the state, so in my opinion, it is up to the state to make sure that they are safe.

Voldemorts8thHorcrux

December 31st, 2007, 8:48 pm

I feel that the death penalty is only necessary under extreme conditions, like say if the person in question is like a mass murderer or something like that. the Death Penalty would be used so he/she couldn't hurt anyone else. And personally, i would rather have the Death Penalty than lifetime in prison. I'd just end it nice and quick.

rigdoctorbri

January 1st, 2008, 12:14 am

Even if there's no doubt that the person commited the murder, even if they confessed it, I still don't support the Death Penalty in that case.
How can you teach someone that taking away other people's life is wrong, when you do the very same?

Murder in the 1st Degree is defined as Murder with the element of premeditation. A planned act of murder. However, what makes it premeditated? A person who robs a convienience store, gun in hand, and shoots the clerk could be called a 1st Degree Murderer. Yet, where is the premeditation? Did the guy go in with the intent to kill the clerk? Or, did they just shoot them without actually thinking about it? Their intent was to rob them, and not kill them.

Most murders that qualify as premeditated were decided upon at the spur of the moment, in a very grey area of premeditation. They are not murders that happen where planned over the course of several minutes or even hours. They are killings that occur without the perpetrator actually thinking about it. Does it make it any different, since the victim is just as dead? Of course not.

Both cases of murder, 1st and 2nd Degree, are heinous. Both have elements of intent. Yet, given that either crime generally happens without thought, or consideration to the consequences, I see no difference in how they should be prosecuted or sentenced. By killing someone you are depriving them of life. By sentencing someone to life in prison, you are also depriving someone of life. Life behind bars is no life at all. Especially when one considers how horrible prison life is.

I can say this because I have worked as a medic at Stateville Prison, Joliet, Illinois. It is a dump, and no place for any decent human. But I find it fitting for those who are violent, and deserving of being locked up for life. Lock them up, and you have Justice. Execute them, and you have endorsed the very crime for which the murderer is convicted.

purplehawk

January 1st, 2008, 1:28 am

I can say this because I have worked as a medic at Stateville Prison, Joliet, Illinois. It is a dump, and no place for any decent human. But I find it fitting for those who are violent, and deserving of being locked up for life. Lock them up, and you have Justice. Execute them, and you have endorsed the very crime for which the murderer is convicted.

Your post really impressed me, Doc. :tu:

One of the most moving appeals against the death penalty in Ohio came from the father of one of my best friends. She worked as a counselor in a male penitentiary and was ambushed by two honors-level inmates who brutally raped and murdered her. In my grief, I came as close as I will ever come to wanting to see a murderer executed. Then her dad, a pastor, spoke out at the men's sentencing hearing. I've never forgotten the way he tied the teachings of Jesus Christ to mercy and leniency, with a chance of redemption, and as being entirely incompatible with society's desire for revenge. The jury gave them life sentences without any chance of parole.

rigdoctorbri

January 1st, 2008, 2:32 am

It's nice to have a fan, Purplehawk.

To err is human. To earnestly seek and find redemption, Spiritual.

Voldemorts8thHorcrux

January 1st, 2008, 3:28 am

purplehawk

January 1st, 2008, 4:04 am

To err is human. To earnestly seek and find redemption, Spiritual.

:agree: Couldn't have penned any better.

mariebeth83

January 1st, 2008, 6:05 am

Wab

January 1st, 2008, 6:26 am

For the people who commit crimes thinking they won't get caught (which I would imagine is a large portion of criminals), there isn't really a whole lot in the way of punishment that will deter them.

I worked for years reporting courts and every offender fell into three broad categories, none of which would have been deterred by penalties:

1) Spur of the moment: didn't have time to consider the penalties;
2) Won't get caught: wouldn't be subject to penalties; and
3) Unaware they were committing a crime: didn't think there would be sanctions.

DancingMaenid

January 1st, 2008, 12:33 pm

I worked for years reporting courts and every offender fell into three broad categories, none of which would have been deterred by penalties:

1) Spur of the moment: didn't have time to consider the penalties;
2) Won't get caught: wouldn't be subject to penalties; and
3) Unaware they were committing a crime: didn't think there would be sanctions.

I think there's a lot of truth to that. I think most of the people who are able to think rationally about what they're doing and weigh out the consequences are probably not the sort of people who would commit crimes in the first place. With lesser crimes, there are a lot of repeat offenders, and I think that supports the idea. If someone goes to prison for stealing a car, gets out, and steals another car, that suggest they aren't thinking of the penalties.

purplehawk

January 1st, 2008, 5:26 pm

There is a recent case out of Florida that supports Wab's contention.

Pro Bowl defensive back Sean Taylor, of the Washington Redskins, was killed last month during a botched burglary in his home. The kids involved intended to steal - something - and didn't expect Taylor to be in his house. When he surprised them, one of them panicked and fired a shot into Taylor's leg, and they all fled. Trouble is, that shot - while aimed low so as not to kill - hit Taylor's femeral artery and he "bled out." Medical professionals were unable to save him.

Yes, I know... the boys shouldn't have been in Taylor's home at all. Still, it is clear they didn't enter the place with the intention of killing him.

Tenshi

January 1st, 2008, 5:37 pm

Both cases of murder, 1st and 2nd Degree, are heinous. Both have elements of intent. Yet, given that either crime generally happens without thought, or consideration to the consequences, I see no difference in how they should be prosecuted or sentenced. By killing someone you are depriving them of life. By sentencing someone to life in prison, you are also depriving someone of life. Life behind bars is no life at all. Especially when one considers how horrible prison life is.
Well, I guess it depends on where you would live when you are out of prison. But the sense of prisons are to keep criminals away from others, so I couldn't care less how they live within the walls.

I'd just end it nice and quick.
That's again a statement, that I don't support. Sounds to me like we should get rid of bad people, because we don't need to bother with them anymore when they are gone. Yes, it would be the easiest way, but would it be the right way too. I don't think so. Instead of killing off criminals, which I doubt has any influence on other people at all, you should rather try that it doesn't come this far. Yes I know that murder happen everywhere in the world, but in some countries it seems easier for people to get weapons and they think that it's OK to shot at any person who dares to step in your house. First you should stop creating your murders, before you get rid of them, because you don't know what else to do with them.

mariebeth83

January 2nd, 2008, 12:41 am

Yes I know that murder happen everywhere in the world, but in some countries it seems easier for people to get weapons and they think that it's OK to shot at any person who dares to step in your house. First you should stop creating your murders, before you get rid of them, because you don't know what else to do with them.

I agree with trying to work to prevent murders actually happening, because a lot of the time it seems to me that it happens more frequently in areas where there is higher poverty rates and lower education rates. So it makes sense to try and prevent one problem by solving other problems.

canismajoris

January 2nd, 2008, 5:03 am

Well, I guess it depends on where you would live when you are out of prison. But the sense of prisons are to keep criminals away from others, so I couldn't care less how they live within the walls.
What if they're innocent? Another little snag that doesn't make the death penalty desirable, but which also continues to be a problem with non-capital trials.

purplehawk

January 2nd, 2008, 4:01 pm

What if they're innocent? Another little snag that doesn't make the death penalty desirable, but which also continues to be a problem with non-capital trials.

There are quite a few individuals who have been exonerated and released from our nation's prisons based on DNA evidence that was suppressed during their trials. Most are black men who were convicted of raping white women.

As the orders are now in place to review the convictions gained from the use of now-discredited FBI forensic tests, we can expect to see quite a few more over the next couple of years.

A Long Road Back After Exoneration, and Justice Is Slow to Make Amends (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/25dna.html?hp)

rigdoctorbri

January 2nd, 2008, 5:55 pm

It kind of depends on the person. the kind of person I feel would deserve a death penalty is like a serial killer who killed a few people, then when in prison, they got out and killed more. For me, the death penalty shouldn't be punishment, it should be protecting others from that person. For a normal murder, lifetime in prison would probably be a worse punishment. it just really depends....

First of all, a serial killer clearly has a screw loose. Though the Death Penalty might be good for such people, I think society would better benefit from them being studied. You can't really study a psychotic properly when they are dead. Locking them up in prison or a state mental institution will ensure public safety, while promoting higher good. Perhaps study of such people will bring breakthroughs in treating people with serious mental diseases before they become a threat to society.

Well, I guess it depends on where you would live when you are out of prison. But the sense of prisons are to keep criminals away from others, so I couldn't care less how they live within the walls.

Furthermore, I am in favor of Truth In Sentencing. If a murderer is sentenced to 25 to life, then they should do at least 25 years. This year for year good behavior **** has to go!

My cousin, Bless His Soul, and I were in the bar about a year ago. In walked his ex-wife of 18 years (Also my cousin, other side of the family). He is still paying alimony after all this time, and he just hung his head and said "You know, if I had killed her I would be out by now." It is strange, but the truth is he had he killed her he probably would have been released in 8-10 years. There is where our system has its problems. Not with having or not having a Death Penalty. It is Truth In Sentencing.

As a murderer you can reasonably expect (save the Death Penalty) to be out in under 20 years. That is hardly an appropriate sentence for willfully taking a life. Even Life In Prison does not really mean Life In Prison. All a prisoner has to show is (1) Remorse for his/her crime, (2) Demonstrable positive change, (3) that they are no longer a threat to society, and (4) have done a substantial amout of time behind bars.

This is unacceptable in my book.

Nowadays, if one wishes to plan a murder he/she can take into account that even if they get caught, they will probably not spend the rest of their life in prison...I say put them behind bars for Life and that means even if they live to be 130 years old...

Tenshi

January 2nd, 2008, 7:27 pm

What if they're innocent? Another little snag that doesn't make the death penalty desirable, but which also continues to be a problem with non-capital trials.
Uhhh then they doesn't deserve to be in prison at all?

katsumi

January 2nd, 2008, 8:00 pm

DancingMaenid

January 2nd, 2008, 10:19 pm

As a murderer you can reasonably expect (save the Death Penalty) to be out in under 20 years. That is hardly an appropriate sentence for willfully taking a life. Even Life In Prison does not really mean Life In Prison. All a prisoner has to show is (1) Remorse for his/her crime, (2) Demonstrable positive change, (3) that they are no longer a threat to society, and (4) have done a substantial amout of time behind bars.

This is unacceptable in my book.

I agree that sentences need to be stricter in many cases, but I don't think that time off for good behavior is always a bad thing. If someone fits the above criteria, I honestly don't see the problem with keeping them behind bars. It just needs to be applied carefully.

rigdoctorbri

January 2nd, 2008, 10:26 pm

But I believe that is the point Canismajoris was trying to make. If they're innocent, the permanance of the Death Penalty kind of makes taking back the execution somewhat impossible. What if someone is falsely accused, is falsely convicted, and is then executed?
Do we just say oops? The fact that they shouldn't have been in jail at all doesn't make them any less dead.

BINGO!

I agree that sentences need to be stricter in many cases, but I don't think that time off for good behavior is always a bad thing. If someone fits the above criteria, I honestly don't see the problem with keeping them behind bars. It just needs to be applied carefully.

Look, the Law spells out the sentencing guidelines. The Judge imposes the sentence. It is every person's responsibility to not only know what is and is not legal, but what the penalty is for not obeying. Be it murder, armed robbery, or Jaywalking, you are responsible to know the Law and how it is invoked. If an Armed Robber is convicted, and the sentencing guidelines says 15 years to Life, and the Judge imposes a 20 year sentence, then the sucker should do 20 years. I don't care that he earned his Master's Degree in Business and is now a model prisoner. He is stuck for 20. End of story.

What's more, prisoners get plenty of opportunities to change their lives, get educated, have free legal council, free healthcare and many other things that we law-abiding citizens have to pay out of pocket. I think it only fair that they should have to do the time for which they are sentenced.

If you want to give a prisoner a real incentive to change his or her life, then don't knock off years of imprisonment, just give them more years if they screw up!

Lifers, though are another story. If you have done something worthy of a life sentence (not those who have shoplifted three times and now are in prison for life...different debate.) then Life is what you do. Plain and simple. Truth in Sentencing. That will be the best deterent we can have against crimes.

rigdoctorbri

January 5th, 2008, 4:08 am

It should be noted that The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a landmark case regarding the Death Penalty imposed upon a Louisiana man who has been convicted of the Rape, though not murder, of a child.

Although several other states have passed laws or are trying to pass them to expand the Death Penalty to the rape of a child, this is the only case in which a person currently sits on Death Row.

Opponents to this law insist that it might encourage those who have already commited such a heinous crime as the rape of a child may decide that continuing on to murdering that child to cover it up may be in their best interests...

This should add some interesting debate in this thread...

DancingMaenid

January 5th, 2008, 8:49 am

Look, the Law spells out the sentencing guidelines. The Judge imposes the sentence. It is every person's responsibility to not only know what is and is not legal, but what the penalty is for not obeying. Be it murder, armed robbery, or Jaywalking, you are responsible to know the Law and how it is invoked. If an Armed Robber is convicted, and the sentencing guidelines says 15 years to Life, and the Judge imposes a 20 year sentence, then the sucker should do 20 years. I don't care that he earned his Master's Degree in Business and is now a model prisoner. He is stuck for 20. End of story.

What's more, prisoners get plenty of opportunities to change their lives, get educated, have free legal council, free healthcare and many other things that we law-abiding citizens have to pay out of pocket. I think it only fair that they should have to do the time for which they are sentenced.

If you want to give a prisoner a real incentive to change his or her life, then don't knock off years of imprisonment, just give them more years if they screw up!

Lifers, though are another story. If you have done something worthy of a life sentence (not those who have shoplifted three times and now are in prison for life...different debate.) then Life is what you do. Plain and simple. Truth in Sentencing. That will be the best deterent we can have against crimes.

I'm of two minds of this. On one hand, I see the importance of having clear sentencing. Otherwise, it will be abused, and some people will get much harsher sentences than necessary and others will get off too freely. That already happens enough as it is.

However, I also think that human motives and psychologies are so diverse that it's difficult to have a guideline that will be right for everyone.

When I hear about someone who methodically planned and carried out a murder, then I feel that they definitely deserve to serve their time. They had time to think about what they were doing.

However, you have some cases where I don't feel it's as clear-cut. For instance, as a hypothetical, let's say Jane is with an abusive boyfriend. One night, they have a fight, and she has enough and kills him when he threatens her. The court decides that she acted beyond what was necessary for self-defense and she is convicted of murder. She has no prior criminal record and was an upstanding citizen up until her arrest. While in prison, she gets her degree and makes it her cause to encourage other women in abusive relationships to seek help before a tragedy occurs. After serving a certain amount of time, I would have no problem with Jane being paroled and given another chance at a life.

purplehawk

January 5th, 2008, 3:42 pm

However, you have some cases where I don't feel it's as clear-cut. For instance, as a hypothetical, let's say Jane is with an abusive boyfriend. One night, they have a fight, and she has enough and kills him when he threatens her. The court decides that she acted beyond what was necessary for self-defense and she is convicted of murder. She has no prior criminal record and was an upstanding citizen up until her arrest. While in prison, she gets her degree and makes it her cause to encourage other women in abusive relationships to seek help before a tragedy occurs. After serving a certain amount of time, I would have no problem with Jane being paroled and given another chance at a life.

If Jane had been married to the abusive male, chances are good that she would never be charged with murder or acquitted at trial. Assuming, of course, that there was a record of abuse.

Tenshi

January 5th, 2008, 4:33 pm

But I believe that is the point Canismajoris was trying to make. If they're innocent, the permanance of the Death Penalty kind of makes taking back the execution somewhat impossible. What if someone is falsely accused, is falsely convicted, and is then executed?
Do we just say oops? The fact that they shouldn't have been in jail at all doesn't make them any less dead.
I am confused now...

I totally agree with you. There are so many people who are unfairly in jail and some got executed. Unless there is a bullet proof method to convict a criminal (but there isn't), things like that will happen again.

Someone (can't find the quote) posted before that they'd rather see a murder running around free, than an innocent killed unjustified by Death Penalty. Couldn't agree more.

It should be noted that The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a landmark case regarding the Death Penalty imposed upon a Louisiana man who has been convicted of the Rape, though not murder, of a child.

Although several other states have passed laws or are trying to pass them to expand the Death Penalty to the rape of a child, this is the only case in which a person currently sits on Death Row.

Opponents to this law insist that it might encourage those who have already commited such a heinous crime as the rape of a child may decide that continuing on to murdering that child to cover it up may be in their best interests...

This should add some interesting debate in this thread...
Like said before. I don't understand a decision to put a person in death row who hasn't taken a life themselves. Yes, raping his horrible, but the victim is still alive.

rigdoctorbri

January 5th, 2008, 11:33 pm

I am confused now...

I totally agree with you. There are so many people who are unfairly in jail and some got executed. Unless there is a bullet proof method to convict a criminal (but there isn't), things like that will happen again.

Someone (can't find the quote) posted before that they'd rather see a murder running around free, than an innocent killed unjustified by Death Penalty. Couldn't agree more.

Like said before. I don't understand a decision to put a person in death row who hasn't taken a life themselves. Yes, raping his horrible, but the victim is still alive.

I am The Death Penalty's most abhorent adversary. That they have expanded it to include lesser crimes just shows that we have gone the wrong direction.

DancingMaenid

January 6th, 2008, 2:42 am

If Jane had been married to the abusive male, chances are good that she would never be charged with murder or acquitted at trial. Assuming, of course, that there was a record of abuse.

Not everyone convicted of a crime is sentenced or convicted fairly, even if they're guilty of the crime.

rigdoctorbri

January 7th, 2008, 1:15 am

Not everyone convicted of a crime is sentenced or convicted fairly, even if they're guilty of the crime.

Granted, it was a rape this man was convicted of, but just the other day a man in Texas was released after serving 26 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. He came up for parole several times and adamantly denied his guilt. He could have acted recousatrant and tried for parole, but he did not do the crime.

He is the 10th person in Dallas County to be exonerated thanks to DNA evidence. However, if he had been on Death Row, after 26 years he would likely have been executed by now. Texas would have happily thrown the switch (or stabbed the needle as the case may be).

rigdoctorbri

January 8th, 2008, 6:26 pm

Hes

January 8th, 2008, 7:56 pm

Now we have a person challenging the Humaneness of the current means of execution using lethal injection...this is interesting, as opponents of the Death Penalty already feel that the whole idea is inhumane.

The challenge stems around the types of drugs used to stop the heart are painful. Is it just me or is dying supposed to have a little pain? You have to admit that this guy's lawyers are smart by arguing the humanity of the lethal injection rather than arguing the merits of the Death Penalty.

Dying should be a little painful? I should think not.

If someone is out of appeal opportunities when it comes to the death sentence itself but one can still contest the way it's been done, why not? There are known cases where the drugs didn't work, paralyzed the person, made him/her feel pain, but without power to say so (due to being paralyzed). Something like that is unnecessary and should warrant complete investigation into the drugs.

rigdoctorbri

January 8th, 2008, 8:32 pm

Dying should be a little painful? I should think not.

If someone is out of appeal opportunities when it comes to the death sentence itself but one can still contest the way it's been done, why not? There are known cases where the drugs didn't work, paralyzed the person, made him/her feel pain, but without power to say so (due to being paralyzed). Something like that is unnecessary and should warrant complete investigation into the drugs.

Mine was just a little tid-bit of information. Forget ye not that I am wholey against The Death Penalty. Yet, if it is to be used, a little discomfort is a small price to pay for willfully taking a human life. Truthfully, I would find living in an 8 x 8 cell more painful than any kind of execution could provide.

canismajoris

January 8th, 2008, 8:34 pm

Now we have a person challenging the Humaneness of the current means of execution using lethal injection...this is interesting, as opponents of the Death Penalty already feel that the whole idea is inhumane.

The challenge stems around the types of drugs used to stop the heart are painful. Is it just me or is dying supposed to have a little pain? You have to admit that this guy's lawyers are smart by arguing the humanity of the lethal injection rather than arguing the merits of the Death Penalty.
The way I see it, the punishment isn't the actual killing, it's the being dead. So no, I don't believe executions have to be painful, because though the end result is the same, the point of executions is not to make the inmate suffer, it's to permanently remove him or her from society. Since I don't believe the death penalty is used responsibly in the first place, any amount of pain that can even be suspected calls the whole practice into question if we're truly to deplore cruel and unusual punishment.

rigdoctorbri

January 9th, 2008, 2:10 pm

The way I see it, the punishment isn't the actual killing, it's the being dead. So no, I don't believe executions have to be painful, because though the end result is the same, the point of executions is not to make the inmate suffer, it's to permanently remove him or her from society. Since I don't believe the death penalty is used responsibly in the first place, any amount of pain that can even be suspected calls the whole practice into question if we're truly to deplore cruel and unusual punishment.

I just think that lethal injection is about as painless as is possible for execution.

I am spinning my wheels here, so suffice it to say, Death Penalty? Get rid of it.

OldLupin

January 9th, 2008, 3:44 pm

The chief difference I see between freedom and life is that life is something that, once we're born, will continue for as long as we're able to sustain it. Freedom, sociologically, never fully exists. We're always bound to something..

Actually it isn't able to be sustained if someone poses enough of a threat to be removed from open society and in effect becomes a ward of the state. These are people completely dependant upon aid provided as a condition of their being detained. If we stopped feeding them, they could not be self-sufficient and removed from society at the same time.

While I agree with you, this isn't always the case. Not all life prisoners are exactly the same. You have some extremely dangerous ones, but you have others who are able to maintain relationships from prison, publish books, and even get degrees, depending on the kind of facility they're in.

Yes, but why should they be given this privilege? Bestow a degree on a killer who can never rejoin society? Allow them access to former associates who could be persuaded to commit further crimes on their behalf? Allow them to avoid isolation and have contact with other people, even if it isn't physical contact? By not denying these things and allowing them to achieve rewards in prison we seriously diminish their punishment don't we? To pre-empt the, "It isn't punishment" argument, if there is no chance of reintroducing the person into society, it isn't reform. These are people that have been deemed unable to re-enter society even by death penalty opponents.
I personally feel that any University that would allow them to get a degree or publisher that would allow them to profit from a book should be liable for legal regress by the victims' families. I can only imagine the anger I would feel if my children and wife were killed by some mad-man and while he is living off of the tax dollars I still have to pay, he is receiving a degree that I would have to pay for and/or making money from a book written while subsisting off my dime. I realize that it is still technically a human-being, but privileges are earned not rights and extending them to someone who has done something horrible enough to earn that type of sentence is just morally repugnant, IMO.

Wab

January 9th, 2008, 3:47 pm

The way I see it, the punishment isn't the actual killing, it's the being dead.

The punishment is the ritual. Otherwise they wouldn't take the usual precautions to stop the condemned man topping himself while on death row.

rigdoctorbri

January 9th, 2008, 4:39 pm

Yes, but why should they be given this privilege? Bestow a degree on a killer who can never rejoin society? Allow them access to former associates who could be persuaded to commit further crimes on their behalf? Allow them to avoid isolation and have contact with other people, even if it isn't physical contact? By not denying these things and allowing them to achieve rewards in prison we seriously diminish their punishment don't we? To pre-empt the, "It isn't punishment" argument, if there is no chance of reintroducing the person into society, it isn't reform. These are people that have been deemed unable to re-enter society even by death penalty opponents.
I personally feel that any University that would allow them to get a degree or publisher that would allow them to profit from a book should be liable for legal regress by the victims' families. I can only imagine the anger I would feel if my children and wife were killed by some mad-man and while he is living off of the tax dollars I still have to pay, he is receiving a degree that I would have to pay for and/or making money from a book written while subsisting off my dime. I realize that it is still technically a human-being, but privileges are earned not rights and extending them to someone who has done something horrible enough to earn that type of sentence is just morally repugnant, IMO.

This is part of my point against The Death Penalty. A murder, though amongst the most greivous crimes, is often done by good people, or bad people who might reform or find redemption. Part of that redemption is contributing to society. If a murderer earns a degree, writes a book that meaningfully contributes to the betterment of society, changes his or her life, or has a meaningful positive impact on someone going down the road they themselves were/are on, then that is part of redemption. To then just execute them not only executes the murderer, but also the chance or will to redeem.

I submit that many murderers, both on and off Death Row, have done works after incarceration that have actually saved lives or turned them to better ways of life.

OldLupin

January 9th, 2008, 5:01 pm

This is part of my point against The Death Penalty. A murder, though amongst the most greivous crimes, is often done by good people, or bad people who might reform or find redemption. Part of that redemption is contributing to society. If a murderer earns a degree, writes a book that meaningfully contributes to the betterment of society, changes his or her life, or has a meaningful positive impact on someone going down the road they themselves were/are on, then that is part of redemption. To then just execute them not only executes the murderer, but also the chance or will to redeem.

I submit that many murderers, both on and off Death Row, have done works after incarceration that have actually saved lives or turned them to better ways of life.

While I see your point, to an extent, why should we as a society pay for them to live and have adequate resources to write a book or to go to college? I have four children who will be attending college and all four will have to keep jobs to subsidize their living expenses and school. This is a person who has killed and done so in a very deliberate and violent way. The idea that they are a "good person" seems highly improbable given that little sampling of their conduct. Even if they are remorseful, why are they so much more entitled to a fulfilling and compensated life than my kids who have never committed a capital offense especially considering that I am being indirectly forced to pay for it? Again, if the criminal killed my loved ones and was allowed to get higher education (self enhancement) and/or to write a book for profit, I would consider that the height of inappropriate. That person has done nothing to merit such privilege and to afford it to them when there are other people who don’t commit capital offenses struggling to pay their bills, stay fed and better themselves is just repugnant in my opinion, simply repugnant.
I still have a little more than a little ill will for the death row inmate that made millions in California off of the book he wrote after the degree he earned after planning and assassinating three L.A. police officers as gang retaliation while my kids and I were eating Kraft Macaroni & cheese and bologna sandwiches hoping we could make rent on my overtime and side work. Ironically I didn’t have time or resources to get a degree or write a book or even have three well-balanced meals a day.
Sometimes our hearts bleed for the wrong people and hard-core killers are definitely the wrong people in my opinion. How about this? After every person who hasn’t brutally killed has gotten their opportunity to get a degree on the taxpayers’ dime, then we consider allowing those who have brutally killed that opportunity. Of course if they have time to pen a book, then they seriously need to find more work for them to do.

BabyCarrot

January 9th, 2008, 5:16 pm

OldLupin

January 9th, 2008, 5:33 pm

I am against the death penalty for a number of reasons:

1) It is ineffective as a deterrent. A deterrent only works when people are able to think in a rational manner, that they can see that an action entails a certain consequence. And murderers are well known to not be able to link actions to consequences.

The inability to do that, at least in the U.S. is grounds for "not guilty by reason of mental deffect" during trial. Also known as the insanity defense, it has only to prove that the criminal couldn't appreciate their actions and the consequences of them. As it is very rarely tried and even less rarely proven, I would have to contend that this is probably not an argument I can agree with.

2) A state should not legalise the killing of it's own citizen because it undermines the value of human life in society. All human life should be valued at least to the extent of preserving such life no matter how disgusting we believe that human to be.

So killing in self-defense or in defense of your children or others should not be legalized? There is an equal argument that to show a value for human life the most drastic and severe punishment must accompany an act to willfully and intentionally end a person's life. That penalty being the forfieture of life by the killer.

3) It removes any chance of forgiveness. Once you have killed someone you cannot forgive them.

Unless the execution is immediately after the crime, that oportunity is still afforded. The victim is the only one who looses that oportunity to ask forgiveness or reconcile anything either in their lives or their faiths. That is the more brutal aspect in some ways than simply having their lives end.

BabyCarrot

January 9th, 2008, 5:58 pm

The inability to do that, at least in the U.S. is grounds for "not guilty by reason of mental deffect" during trial. Also known as the insanity defense, it has only to prove that the criminal couldn't appreciate their actions and the consequences of them. As it is very rarely tried and even less rarely proven, I would have to contend that this is probably not an argument I can agree with.

I believe that the passions that lead someone to commit murder, whether it be premeditated or not are unlikely to be stopped by consideration of the possible punishment. Again, this isn't the insanity defense, this is momentary relapse of someone's ability to give sufficient rational thought tot he consequences of their crime.

So killing in self-defense or in defense of your children or others should not be legalized? There is an equal argument that to show a value for human life the most drastic and severe punishment must accompany an act to willfully and intentionally end a person's life. That penalty being the forfieture of life by the killer.

Self-defence or defence of one family should still be charged under manslaughter. Of course, it's never a cut-and-dry issue, each case would have to be considered on it's particular circumstance. I do not think the argument that when one kills, the state is thus responsible for taking the life that is responsible. Because if we accept that then there is conundrum of where we draw the line, what criteria do we use to find out who we execute and who we don't. I see a large scope for abuse here.

Unless the execution is immediately after the crime, that opportunity is still afforded. The victim is the only one who looses that opportunity to ask forgiveness or reconcile anything either in their lives or their faiths. That is the more brutal aspect in some ways than simply having their lives end.

My point still stands. What if the opportunity passes and later on there is a need for forgiveness by those that were affected (family)? The magnitude of the death of the victim has already been established. We're dealing with the death of the perpetrator now.

rigdoctorbri

January 10th, 2008, 2:42 am

While I see your point, to an extent, why should we as a society pay for them to live and have adequate resources to write a book or to go to college? I have four children who will be attending college and all four will have to keep jobs to subsidize their living expenses and school. This is a person who has killed and done so in a very deliberate and violent way. The idea that they are a "good person" seems highly improbable given that little sampling of their conduct. Even if they are remorseful, why are they so much more entitled to a fulfilling and compensated life than my kids who have never committed a capital offense especially considering that I am being indirectly forced to pay for it? Again, if the criminal killed my loved ones and was allowed to get higher education (self enhancement) and/or to write a book for profit, I would consider that the height of inappropriate. That person has done nothing to merit such privilege and to afford it to them when there are other people who don’t commit capital offenses struggling to pay their bills, stay fed and better themselves is just repugnant in my opinion, simply repugnant.
I still have a little more than a little ill will for the death row inmate that made millions in California off of the book he wrote after the degree he earned after planning and assassinating three L.A. police officers as gang retaliation while my kids and I were eating Kraft Macaroni & cheese and bologna sandwiches hoping we could make rent on my overtime and side work. Ironically I didn’t have time or resources to get a degree or write a book or even have three well-balanced meals a day.
Sometimes our hearts bleed for the wrong people and hard-core killers are definitely the wrong people in my opinion. How about this? After every person who hasn’t brutally killed has gotten their opportunity to get a degree on the taxpayers’ dime, then we consider allowing those who have brutally killed that opportunity. Of course if they have time to pen a book, then they seriously need to find more work for them to do.

Science and psychology agrees with me that just about every one of us is capable of murder under the right set of circumstances. Even a peaceful monk could kill someone if presented with proper motive and provocation.

Also, many murders are not planned or have such a small element of planning that I would hardly call it premeditation. Legally, premeditation only requires one single element of thought, which could be as fleeting as a blink of an eye. Yet in that instant two lives change forever.

It seems to me though that your argument in favor of the Death Penalty rests entirely with economics and not with actual Justice. Now, let us suppose that the same murderer is not on death row, and has a chance at re-entering society. Don't laugh because this is not only likely, it happens all the time. Would it not be better for them to enter society with a new chance, and an education rather than just as they were upon entering? Which option do you think is more likely to produce a set of circumstances for them to either repeat their crime or commit a different one? Remember that prison officially is "Rehabilitation", with the intent that prisoners come back to society with a better mindset and sense of civil responsibility than upon entering.

As for writing a book for profit, so long as they are not profitting from their crimes, then I see no problem with it. If they are profitting from their crime, then any profits should either go to the victim's family or to a charity of the victim's family's choosing.

DancingMaenid

January 10th, 2008, 9:25 am

I still have a little more than a little ill will for the death row inmate that made millions in California off of the book he wrote after the degree he earned after planning and assassinating three L.A. police officers as gang retaliation while my kids and I were eating Kraft Macaroni & cheese and bologna sandwiches hoping we could make rent on my overtime and side work. Ironically I didn’t have time or resources to get a degree or write a book or even have three well-balanced meals a day.

Well, the only reason why that person had the time and resources is because they lost their freedom. If getting a degree and writing a successful book is ones idea of success, and they feel that spending the rest of their life in prison until their eventual execution is worth that success, I would seriously question their priorities. Nobody has everything. People in prison are pretty far from having the most important things for a happy life, in my opinion.

Actually it isn't able to be sustained if someone poses enough of a threat to be removed from open society and in effect becomes a ward of the state. These are people completely dependant upon aid provided as a condition of their being detained. If we stopped feeding them, they could not be self-sufficient and removed from society at the same time.

By that definition of sustenance, most of us are dependant. For instance, if all the grocery stores and processed food went away over night, how many people would know how to sustain themselves? The only people who could be self-sufficient are ones who know how to hunt, fish, forage for food, and grow their own food. But even without knowing how to do those things, my heart would most likely keep beating for a while, and my brain would keep sending messages to different parts of my body. As long as I had water, I could survive for a bit before starving. I would live until my body could no longer sustain itself, which is how everybody dies, except that the reason can vary. True dependency, by the way I'm seeing it, ends when a person is born. After that a point, a person's body will keep working until it can no longer sustain itself.

I personally feel that any University that would allow them to get a degree or publisher that would allow them to profit from a book should be liable for legal regress by the victims' families. I can only imagine the anger I would feel if my children and wife were killed by some mad-man and while he is living off of the tax dollars I still have to pay, he is receiving a degree that I would have to pay for and/or making money from a book written while subsisting off my dime. I realize that it is still technically a human-being, but privileges are earned not rights and extending them to someone who has done something horrible enough to earn that type of sentence is just morally repugnant, IMO.

While I can understand your feelings, I disagree. I'm sure there are many people who aren't incarcerated, but whom I would consider as having a poor moral system, who have degrees or who have had more success with their writing than I have. But if they have what it takes to write a good book or get a degree, and I'm not there yet, that's on me, not them. I do think it's distasteful for a person to profit off being in prison or commiting a crime, but not every prisoner who gets a degree or writes a book is doing that.

WitchHunter

January 10th, 2008, 10:20 am

I believe that the passions that lead someone to commit murder, whether it be premeditated or not are unlikely to be stopped by consideration of the possible punishment. Again, this isn't the insanity defense, this is momentary relapse of someone's ability to give sufficient rational thought tot he consequences of their crime.

This is exactley why the death penalty is needed. Most people can restrain themselves from acting violently when they are angry, which is why most of us aren't murderers. Those who lack this ability are a danger to everyone around them, and no matter how much you try to reform them they will always be a danger. Execution is the safest way to deal with such individuals.

Self-defence or defence of one family should still be charged under manslaughter. Of course, it's never a cut-and-dry issue, each case would have to be considered on it's particular circumstance. I do not think the argument that when one kills, the state is thus responsible for taking the life that is responsible. Because if we accept that then there is conundrum of where we draw the line, what criteria do we use to find out who we execute and who we don't. I see a large scope for abuse here.

By abuse are you reffering to the execution of those who kill in self-defense?

It seems to me though that your argument in favor of the Death Penalty rests entirely with economics and not with actual Justice.

"Actual Justice" is not an absolute, and cannot be used to determine policy.

Would it not be better for them to enter society with a new chance, and an education rather than just as they were upon entering? Which option do you think is more likely to produce a set of circumstances for them to either repeat their crime or commit a different one?

This depends on the circumstances of the first murder. If someone simply cannot control their impulses an education will make little difference. The same is true if they cannot recognize that murder is unacceptable. The only situation in which an education may reduce the threat a person poses to society would be if they killed for money, and then only if they can make more money with an honest job then they can by killing. But even if an education could help, would it not be more productive to use the money it would take to educate a murderer to instead provide an education to a stable, upstanding person? And, as OldLupin mentioned before, how does one justify providing convicted murderers with a free education when there are countless innocent citizens who have to pay for it themselves?

BabyCarrot

January 10th, 2008, 1:03 pm

This is exactley why the death penalty is needed. Most people can restrain themselves from acting violently when they are angry, which is why most of us aren't murderers. Those who lack this ability are a danger to everyone around them, and no matter how much you try to reform them they will always be a danger. Execution is the safest way to deal with such individuals.

The death penalty is not needed because it is NOT a deterrent, states in the US who have the death penalty have the similar level of murders than states that do not have the death penalty. Implementing the death penalty does not save lives, it kills lives. You cannot say whether reformation will work or not because you've killed them. Once you've designated a person as "beyond help" it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They become beyond help because you put them beyond help.

By abuse are you reffering to the execution of those who kill in self-defense?

As in if panic and hysteria grips a nation and they demand the death penalty for other crimes (pedophiles, illegal immigrants, drug dealers). And the state are pressured into further widening of the criteria for the death penalty. If you give not scope for abuse there will be no abuse.

rigdoctorbri

January 10th, 2008, 5:02 pm

"Actual Justice" is not an absolute, and cannot be used to determine policy.

Oh yes it can and should when it comes to snuffing out a human life. Justice, morality, and humanity should be the only factors when weighing an execution. Financial issues should never play into it.

imacheeto

January 20th, 2008, 5:16 am

Yoana

January 20th, 2008, 9:27 am

rigdoctorbri

January 20th, 2008, 10:44 pm

If a dude murders or rapes someone, he should get killed, but robberies (which I'm pretty sure are technically capital crimes) aren't that bad. The worst types o crime should get the death penalty. I'm surprised over half of voters don't support it at all. [staff edit]

Robberies are not Capital Crimes, they are State Crimes. A Capital Crime indicates it is elgible for, or worthy of the Death Penalty. Definitions vary, but in days of old, Robbery, and many other lesser crimes were worthy of the Death Penalty. We are, of course, referring to Yester-year America, not modern America.

OldLupin

January 22nd, 2008, 2:45 pm

I believe that the passions that lead someone to commit murder, whether it be premeditated or not are unlikely to be stopped by consideration of the possible punishment. Again, this isn't the insanity defense, this is momentary relapse of someone's ability to give sufficient rational thought tot he consequences of their crime.

By definition, a crime of passion is not a capital crime. This idea that capital offenses are momentary discretions is erroneous and used specifically to engender undue sympathy. By definition, capital offenses are particularly sociopathic and depraved crimes. These are crimes that most people would not be capable of even given the most terrible of conditions. This specious concept of a moments indiscretion is just apples to oranges when discussing capital crimes.

Self-defence or defence of one family should still be charged under manslaughter. Of course, it's never a cut-and-dry issue, each case would have to be considered on it's particular circumstance. I do not think the argument that when one kills, the state is thus responsible for taking the life that is responsible. Because if we accept that then there is conundrum of where we draw the line, what criteria do we use to find out who we execute and who we don't. I see a large scope for abuse here.

Is this serious? If an armed assailant points a weapon at my daughter and I shoot him dead I should be charged with manslaughter? How exactly does that work? Why should legitimate self-defense and protection of others be charged as a crime? Would this not even farther empower those with no conscience and bad intentions? Wouldn’t this put us even more at the mercy of those who would do evil?
As to the circumstances that enable the application of a death penalty, those are very specific and are designed to limit the application to the most depraved and dangerous of criminals.

My point still stands. What if the opportunity passes and later on there is a need for forgiveness by those that were affected (family)? The magnitude of the death of the victim has already been established. We're dealing with the death of the perpetrator now.

Yes the death of the victim is established. I just can't abide the, "we have to worry about the living, the dead are dead" type of philosophy, though. Why is the killer more valuable than the victim? Simply because they did the killing instead of being killed themselves? What comfort is being provided the victim's survivors by having the perpetrator kept alive, possibly getting an education and making money on book deals discussing their crimes and potentially continuing to mock and insult them and the victim? This assumption of a remorseful and sorry killer seeking to be forgiven or even allowing the victim’s survivors to forgive them is unrealistic given the type of crimes that are eligible for the death penalty. I would submit that more sociopaths would attempt to insult and farther humiliate the victim’s families than would legitimately seek to be forgiven by them. Again, the idea that they are somehow truly sorry is not something we can assume. The definition of a sociopath makes them incapable of real rehabilitation. They may act as if they have remorse, but I am unable to find even one example of any proof that a sociopathic killer has ever actually been rehabilitated.

canismajoris

January 22nd, 2008, 3:01 pm

By definition, a crime of passion is not a capital crime. This idea that capital offenses are momentary discretions is erroneous and used specifically to engender undue sympathy. By definition, capital offenses are particularly sociopathic and depraved crimes. These are crimes that most people would not be capable of even given the most terrible of conditions. This specious concept of a moments indiscretion is just apples to oranges when discussing capital crimes.
That's true, although isn't there some similarity between the two? All I mean is if you believe the perpetrators are all violent sociopaths, violently murdering someone might constitute a momentary indiscretion in their frames of mind. That's why these crimes are so heinous--the depravity implies a high degree of careless for human life. This doesn't really affect my opinion, since I'm not sure how to justify most of the kinds of crimes we're talking about, but it is something to think about all the same.

Is this serious? If an armed assailant points a weapon at my daughter and I shoot him dead I should be charged with manslaughter? How exactly does that work? Why should legitimate self-defense and protection of others be charged as a crime? Would this not even farther empower those with no conscience and bad intentions? Wouldn’t this put us even more at the mercy of those who would do evil?
As to the circumstances that enable the application of a death penalty, those are very specific and are designed to limit the application to the most depraved and dangerous of criminals.
While I don't want to argue with you about gun laws or self defense, :lol: I do think that it would take a seriously stupid criminal to believe a father wouldn't shoot him to protect his daughter. Perhaps that is just the sort we need to watch out for anyway.

Yes the death of the victim is established. I just can't abide the, "we have to worry about the living, the dead are dead" type of philosophy, though. Why is the killer more valuable than the victim? Simply because they did the killing instead of being killed themselves? What comfort is being provided the victim's survivors by having the perpetrator kept alive, possibly getting an education and making money on book deals discussing their crimes and potentially continuing to mock and insult them and the victim? This assumption of a remorseful and sorry killer seeking to be forgiven or even allowing the victim’s survivors to forgive them is unrealistic given the type of crimes that are eligible for the death penalty. I would submit that more sociopaths would attempt to insult and farther humiliate the victim’s families than would legitimately seek to be forgiven by them. Again, the idea that they are somehow truly sorry is not something we can assume. The definition of a sociopath makes them incapable of real rehabilitation. They may act as if they have remorse, but I am unable to find even one example of any proof that a sociopathic killer has ever actually been rehabilitated.
The question is does anyone really think we want to rehabilitate candidates for the death penalty? For those who push for the death penalty, obviously not. But the usual alternative is life without parole--is there any implicit hope for rehabilitating the offenders if we never want them released from prison? I don't believe so. I know I'd rather live on death row and be executed than spend the rest of my life in prison without a chance of ever getting out. But the odd part is, none of that has any bearing on whether I'm going to commit a capital crime... the death penalty as a deterrent is a total non-factor, and always has been.

OldLupin

January 22nd, 2008, 3:37 pm

Science and psychology agrees with me that just about every one of us is capable of murder under the right set of circumstances. Even a peaceful monk could kill someone if presented with proper motive and provocation.

Very few of us would meet the definition of a capital crime under any circumstances, though. The idea that any of the circumstance dictated actions of a reasonable person is somehow comparable to capital crimes that require depravity is really misleading and inaccurate. Above that, mitigating background is admissible in any proceeding and in sentencing it is a focal point. It takes twelve people unanimously agreeing that the crime warrants the death penalty under law and that is reviewed no less than three times before it is even a standing sentence. In that I am not of a mind to agree with “anyone would kill” is an accurate assertion in this debate.

Also, many murders are not planned or have such a small element of planning that I would hardly call it premeditation. Legally, premeditation only requires one single element of thought, which could be as fleeting as a blink of an eye. Yet in that instant two lives change forever.

That standard isn't as loose as is being implied by this statement. Premeditation requires more than an instant and that also must stand up to the jury and the reviews to allow pursuit of a death sentence and beyond that requires the actual imposition of that sentence which is never presented as the only possible sentence. No capital crime is a simple matter of unavoidable circumstances, on the contrary, it requires deliberate action and a series of events to occur.

It seems to me though that your argument in favor of the Death Penalty rests entirely with economics and not with actual Justice. Now, let us suppose that the same murderer is not on death row, and has a chance at re-entering society. Don't laugh because this is not only likely, it happens all the time. Would it not be better for them to enter society with a new chance, and an education rather than just as they were upon entering? Which option do you think is more likely to produce a set of circumstances for them to either repeat their crime or commit a different one? Remember that prison officially is "Rehabilitation", with the intent that prisoners come back to society with a better mindset and sense of civil responsibility than upon entering.

I believe we have a serious disconnect here on what qualifies as a capital crime and therefore warrants the death penalty. We have also omitted the definition of the word sociopath. There is no rehabilitation that makes a sociopath or anyone capable of capital murder safe to re-enter society. Even if there were, what justifies the risk that allowing them freedom again would present? Why are they entitled to a chance of re-entering society when we are certain that they are capable of horrendous crimes? These are not criminals that are released “all the time” and the recidivism rate of felons, who actually are, murderers in particular, is not a statistic I would assume anyone trying to make the argument presented here would want to point at.
As to the argument I am making being solely economic, that is missing a great deal of the rationale I was giving. Whether intentional or inadvertent, I will reiterate that it is the fact that the survivors have the additional burden of knowing that they are involuntarily paying for the subsistence of the person who killed their loved one. How unfair is it that they would have to partially pay for that killer’s education when in many cases they can’t afford to send their children to college? It isn’t the money; it is who is obligated to pay it and who is given to receive it. I would assume that there is some rationale that justifies this, is there? I have unfortunately not heard it yet, so I have to continue asking.

As for writing a book for profit, so long as they are not profitting from their crimes, then I see no problem with it. If they are profitting from their crime, then any profits should either go to the victim's family or to a charity of the victim's family's choosing.

How is having time to write any book, while being fed off of public funds not "profiting from their crimes"? For that matter, why wouldn't any money they have or earn forfeit either to pay for their own existence and/or to make reparations to the family of the victim(s)? I get the impression that we are making sympathetic characters out of the criminals and forgetting the magnitude of their actions. This repeated idea that these are reasonable people victimized themselves in some way is just in denial of the reality that these are people capable of true evil and have proved it in actions. In the end, they are the least deserving among us of any considerations or benefits. We owe them nothing and they have earned even less. The constant insinuations that we somehow owe them chances and considerations that they have permanently denied to others dumbfound me. Why do we owe them this consideration? Why are they entitled to anything?

That's true, although isn't there some similarity between the two? All I mean is if you believe the perpetrators are all violent sociopaths, violently murdering someone might constitute a momentary indiscretion in their frames of mind. That's why these crimes are so heinous--the depravity implies a high degree of careless for human life. This doesn't really affect my opinion, since I'm not sure how to justify most of the kinds of crimes we're talking about, but it is something to think about all the same.

The distinction is drawn to ensure that "capital crime" is only associated to crimes that require more than momentary indiscretion or emotional over-reaction. These are the crimes of those who either kill for personal gratification or petty motivation. This is a very strong indicator of dangerous sociopathic behavior, which is not shown to be reversible and/or rehabilitated. In short, this is the identifier of the brutal and dangerous that is incapable of remorse or compassion. While acting the part is common, it is not genuine for a sociopath to actually feel remorse for anyone but themselves.

While I don't want to argue with you about gun laws or self defense, :lol: I do think that it would take a seriously stupid criminal to believe a father wouldn't shoot him to protect his daughter. Perhaps that is just the sort we need to watch out for anyway.

This assumes he knew I was there and/or armed. The point being, there is an exception for self-defense for a reason. It is a reasonable use of force. By the comment I was responding to, even a police officer killing a criminal in a shoot-out would have to be charged with man slaughter. That is not reasonable in my opinion.

The question is does anyone really think we want to rehabilitate candidates for the death penalty? For those who push for the death penalty, obviously not. But the usual alternative is life without parole--is there any implicit hope for rehabilitating the offenders if we never want them released from prison? I don't believe so. I know I'd rather live on death row and be executed than spend the rest of my life in prison without a chance of ever getting out. But the odd part is, none of that has any bearing on whether I'm going to commit a capital crime... the death penalty as a deterrent is a total non-factor, and always has been.

As I said earlier, the only way it works as a deterrent is if it is either performed very brutally and publicly or used very liberally. As it is constituted and so rarely used it is unlikely to deter crimes, especially since those who commit these types of crimes are virtually impossible to deter in any way. This is the reason that they are never not a danger once identified

rigdoctorbri

January 24th, 2008, 3:04 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri
Science and psychology agrees with me that just about every one of us is capable of murder under the right set of circumstances. Even a peaceful monk could kill someone if presented with proper motive and provocation.

Very few of us would meet the definition of a capital crime under any circumstances, though. The idea that any of the circumstance dictated actions of a reasonable person is somehow comparable to capital crimes that require depravity is really misleading and inaccurate. Above that, mitigating background is admissible in any proceeding and in sentencing it is a focal point. It takes twelve people unanimously agreeing that the crime warrants the death penalty under law and that is reviewed no less than three times before it is even a standing sentence. In that I am not of a mind to agree with “anyone would kill” is an accurate assertion in this debate.

Very few of us would meet the definition, but I believe under the right circumstances every one of us COULD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri
Also, many murders are not planned or have such a small element of planning that I would hardly call it premeditation. Legally, premeditation only requires one single element of thought, which could be as fleeting as a blink of an eye. Yet in that instant two lives change forever.

That standard isn't as loose as is being implied by this statement. Premeditation requires more than an instant and that also must stand up to the jury and the reviews to allow pursuit of a death sentence and beyond that requires the actual imposition of that sentence which is never presented as the only possible sentence. No capital crime is a simple matter of unavoidable circumstances, on the contrary, it requires deliberate action and a series of events to occur.

Oh, but any good prosecutor can easily paint the picture of more premeditation than there might have been. As a juror it usually comes down to less facts and more charisma...who was more believable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri
It seems to me though that your argument in favor of the Death Penalty rests entirely with economics and not with actual Justice. Now, let us suppose that the same murderer is not on death row, and has a chance at re-entering society. Don't laugh because this is not only likely, it happens all the time. Would it not be better for them to enter society with a new chance, and an education rather than just as they were upon entering? Which option do you think is more likely to produce a set of circumstances for them to either repeat their crime or commit a different one? Remember that prison officially is "Rehabilitation", with the intent that prisoners come back to society with a better mindset and sense of civil responsibility than upon entering.

I believe we have a serious disconnect here on what qualifies as a capital crime and therefore warrants the death penalty. We have also omitted the definition of the word sociopath. There is no rehabilitation that makes a sociopath or anyone capable of capital murder safe to re-enter society. Even if there were, what justifies the risk that allowing them freedom again would present? Why are they entitled to a chance of re-entering society when we are certain that they are capable of horrendous crimes? These are not criminals that are released “all the time” and the recidivism rate of felons, who actually are, murderers in particular, is not a statistic I would assume anyone trying to make the argument presented here would want to point at.
As to the argument I am making being solely economic, that is missing a great deal of the rationale I was giving. Whether intentional or inadvertent, I will reiterate that it is the fact that the survivors have the additional burden of knowing that they are involuntarily paying for the subsistence of the person who killed their loved one. How unfair is it that they would have to partially pay for that killer’s education when in many cases they can’t afford to send their children to college? It isn’t the money; it is who is obligated to pay it and who is given to receive it. I would assume that there is some rationale that justifies this, is there? I have unfortunately not heard it yet, so I have to continue asking.

To be clear, I don't think any crime warrants the Death Penalty. The power to kill should rest solely with God Himself. Even if one of our brethren breaks that Commandment, the equating punishment should not rest in the hands of anyone other than the One who wrote it.

And, Truth In Sentencing is still not taking place...lest ye forget that I did work in a Maximum Security Prison, elbow to elbow with murderers, some lifers and some who only spent 8-10 years there. They do get released. Overcrowding is a factor, good behaviour is another, and mitigating circumstances still another. Whatever the reason, not nearly the numbers you think do "LIFE" anymore. They are released, placed in half-way houses, work-release, in a nutshell, they re-enter society. Unless we start putting them in prison for life and have that always mean "life", murderers and manslaughters will be released from prison.

Do you honestly believe it is safer for good citizens to have them released into the very same or worse circumstances that might have led them to commit such crimes? Do you not believe it would be better and safer for society to have them released with skills, able to contribute to society rather than cause harm to it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri
As for writing a book for profit, so long as they are not profitting from their crimes, then I see no problem with it. If they are profitting from their crime, then any profits should either go to the victim's family or to a charity of the victim's family's choosing.

How is having time to write any book, while being fed off of public funds not "profiting from their crimes"? For that matter, why wouldn't any money they have or earn forfeit either to pay for their own existence and/or to make reparations to the family of the victim(s)? I get the impression that we are making sympathetic characters out of the criminals and forgetting the magnitude of their actions. This repeated idea that these are reasonable people victimized themselves in some way is just in denial of the reality that these are people capable of true evil and have proved it in actions. In the end, they are the least deserving among us of any considerations or benefits. We owe them nothing and they have earned even less. The constant insinuations that we somehow owe them chances and considerations that they have permanently denied to others dumbfound me. Why do we owe them this consideration? Why are they entitled to anything?

In most cases besides prison time they are required to pay fines, which go to cover the costs of incarceration. They may also end up paying restitution to the family. If they had the means going in, then those fines and restitution are paid out of it. If they earn anything while in prison, that money generally pays for those costs and fines too.

Finally, whether or not you chose to admit it, there is a difference between a murderer and a sociopath. Many murders are committed by people who were normally docile, friendly, responsible, and loving. Yet circumstances intervened, and they reached a breaking point. You evidently have served in the military, right? Have you never felt rage? Have you never felt battlelust? Have you never wanted blood? I think we all have at one time or another. But, luckily, our sense of self-control got the better of us.

Let me point to a movie you may have seen, based on a book you may have read: The Rainmaker by John Grisham. In that movie/book there was a small girl who is often beaten by her husband, and nearly killed. Then she fights back in self-defense. He is on the floor, moaning, and bleeding. He is at a point where he is helpless. He clearly deserves what he has gotten so far, and at this point it is justifiable and self-defense. Now, knowing that when he recovers he will likely kill her, she takes the baseball bat, and delivers the killing blows. He is dead.

In the movie, she is arrested, but later released because the DA says she would never get a conviction. However, looking at the facts of the case, and knowing that self-defense ends when you are no longer in immediate danger of life or greivous harm, under the Letter of The Law, she is now a murderer. A murderer who got away with murder. I seriously doubt you, I, or anyone could bring ourselves to convict her if sitting on that jury, but that doesn't mean under the definition of Premeditated Murder she is not guilty of that crime.

Wab

January 24th, 2008, 3:28 am

Oh, but any good prosecutor can easily paint the picture of more premeditation than there might have been.

Indeed. The very fact a person was in possession of a weapon could be evidence of a willingness to kill.

As for writing books and the like, I don't know about other jurisdictions but we have proceeds of crime legislation which means that any money or benefit gained by a person from crime is surrendered to the state to provide restitution to victims. For example, if a serial killer published a book about his exploits, he wouldn't see a penny of his royalties.

BabyCarrot

January 24th, 2008, 4:35 am

By definition, a crime of passion is not a capital crime. This idea that capital offenses are momentary discretions is erroneous and used specifically to engender undue sympathy.

Did I say it was a crime of passion? I said the passions that lead to a crime. It could be highly premeditated yet still involve the same passions that would lead to a "crime of passion".

By definition, capital offenses are particularly sociopathic and depraved crimes

Untrue, capital offenses also include premeditated murders. Also, depraved is a slippery term which could lead to broadening of the definition.

These are crimes that most people would not be capable of even given the most terrible of conditions.

You don't know that. Stanford prison experiment tends towards the idea that given a set of circumstances a person will act against their better judgment.

This specious concept of a moments indiscretion is just apples to oranges when discussing capital crimes.

No it's not, it's part of the argument that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent.

Is this serious?

Yes quite serious.

If an armed assailant points a weapon at my daughter and I shoot him dead I should be charged with manslaughter?

yes you should be charged with manslaughter.

How exactly does that work?

You have taken a life. And therefore punishment should ensue.

Why should legitimate self-defense and protection of others be charged as a crime?

Because it is still a crime.

Would this not even farther empower those with no conscience and bad intentions? Wouldn’t this put us even more at the mercy of those who would do evil?

No because who gives a second thought when defending their child.

As to the circumstances that enable the application of a death penalty, those are very specific and are designed to limit the application to the most depraved and dangerous of criminals.

And those criminals should spend the rest of their life in jail. There are such things that is worse than death. Isolation for the rest of your life is one. That is why there is a generally higher suicide rates in prisons. Because they prefer death over imprisonment.

Yes the death of the victim is established. I just can't abide the, "we have to worry about the living, the dead are dead" type of philosophy, though.

I'm sorry but there is literally NOTHING we can do for the victim. There is no recourse that we can pursue that will allay any benefit towards the victim because the victim is not alive.

Why is the killer more valuable than the victim?

The killer isn't more valuable than the victim but the clear definition here is that one is alive and one is dead.

Simply because they did the killing instead of being killed themselves?

One is alive and one is dead.

What comfort is being provided the victim's survivors by having the perpetrator kept alive, possibly getting an education and making money on book deals discussing their crimes and potentially continuing to mock and insult them and the victim?

I believe in life imprisonment so I don't think any benefit the perpetrator receives will be of much use to the perpetrator.

This assumption of a remorseful and sorry killer seeking to be forgiven or even allowing the victim’s survivors to forgive them is unrealistic given the type of crimes that are eligible for the death penalty.

Why would it be unrealistic? Your blind type-setting of these people is inane. Your unbelief in their redemption is becoming circular in reasoning.

I would submit that more sociopaths would attempt to insult and farther humiliate the victim’s families than would legitimately seek to be forgiven by them.

That would be your submission.

Again, the idea that they are somehow truly sorry is not something we can assume. The definition of a sociopath makes them incapable of real rehabilitation. They may act as if they have remorse, but I am unable to find even one example of any proof that a sociopathic killer has ever actually been rehabilitated.

Again, capital punishment stretches much further than sociopaths. I don't think you have to be a sociopath to commit a capital punishment.

canismajoris

January 24th, 2008, 7:28 am

As I said earlier, the only way it works as a deterrent is if it is either performed very brutally and publicly or used very liberally. As it is constituted and so rarely used it is unlikely to deter crimes, especially since those who commit these types of crimes are virtually impossible to deter in any way. This is the reason that they are never not a danger once identified
The only possible way frequent use of the death penalty can effect changes in the crime rate is when we begin killing off criminals faster than they can commit crimes.

DancingMaenid

January 24th, 2008, 8:18 am

Yeah, I'm not convinced that even brutal, public executions would act as a deterrent. They didn't really in the past. I think most murderers are either over-confident in their ability to get away with it, meaning that they wouldn't see the death penalty as a realistic consequence, or act without thinking, meaning they don't think of the consequences, period.

OldLupin

January 24th, 2008, 5:42 pm

Did I say it was a crime of passion? I said the passions that lead to a crime. It could be highly premeditated yet still involve the same passions that would lead to a "crime of passion".

It is exactly the inability to control passions that lead to brutality that differentiate between a crime of passion and a premeditated murder. Acting immediately without thought is a crime and shows a person is dangerous. Acting after rational thought and consideration and still choosing to act brutally is specifically more dangerous and therefore is given a higher level of criminal status. That is the major difference that makes capital crimes more likely to be repeated as well.

Untrue, capital offenses also include premeditated murders. Also, depraved is a slippery term which could lead to broadening of the definition.

Premeditated murder is a sociopathic act. I am unclear what definition is being applied, but to plan and proceed to kill is sociopathic by definition. The premeditated killing is the prime example of a capital crime, yet even that is rarely prosecuted that way without circumstances that make the crime even more depraved. As it is we are more likely to restrict than to expand the definition of that term as a society, so the "slippery slope" isn't viable in my opinion.

You don't know that. Stanford prison experiment tends towards the idea that given a set of circumstances a person will act against their better judgment.

Not in the depraved manner of capital criminal acts. All people can be capable of various criminal acts given extreme circumstances, but the application of total indifference to life or to the act of killing is a difficult barier to overcome for anyone who isn't a sociopath or doesn't feel truly vindicated in that act.

No it's not, it's part of the argument that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent.

Again, the way a capital offense is defined clearly removes momentary lapses from its definition. It takes premeditation which means, that's right, it can't be a momentary decision.

Yes quite serious.
yes you should be charged with manslaughter.
You have taken a life. And therefore punishment should ensue.
Because it is still a crime.

You do realize that killing in self defense is not illegal, don't you? The law specifically acknowledges that a person has the right to use deadly force under threat of death or serious injury. This is also afforded the police in the line of their duties and citizens in cases of iminant threat to other people as well as themselves. The idea of making this a criminal act is contrary to common sense, IMO. How would people who wouldn't desire to break the law or take life for criminal intent defend themselves against those who would and do?

No because who gives a second thought when defending their child.

One of many reasons it isn't manslaughter or criminal to kill the man who is attempting to kill your child.

And those criminals should spend the rest of their life in jail. There are such things that is worse than death. Isolation for the rest of your life is one. That is why there is a generally higher suicide rates in prisons. Because they prefer death over imprisonment.

So would you support not preventing their commiting suicide?

I'm sorry but there is literally NOTHING we can do for the victim. There is no recourse that we can pursue that will allay any benefit towards the victim because the victim is not alive.

We owe the victim consideration, much more so than the killer. It seems lost on death penalty oponents what is lost by the victim and all those who survive them. The "well their dead" idea being tantimount to forgetting their loss as we worry ourselves about the loathsome person who did the crime. In the act of doing that, the survivors of the victim get no consideration either and last I checked as they are survivors, they are alive as well.

Why would it be unrealistic? Your blind type-setting of these people is inane. Your unbelief in their redemption is becoming circular in reasoning.

My blind type-setting of these people? My assessment of these people is that they have willingly and with malice and premeditation killed someone for person gain or gratification. That defines sociopathic behavior and is indicative of someone who has no conscience and will always be capable of horrible criminal acts. Show me an instance where a sociopath has reformed and I'll be convinced. As that example doesn't exist, there is nothing blind nor inane in my lack of belief in the redemption of these criminals. The whole "warm, fuzzy, they are really good people" idea is repugnant to me with good reason. Further, I don't care about their redemption, whether posible or not. Why should I? If they are capable of a capital crime, they are a danger pure and simple and the idea that we owe them another chance has to be prefaced with their victim getting an equal second chance. Oh, as has been pointed to earlier, their victim is dead and therefore incapable of a second chance, aren't they?

That would be your submission.

There is plenty of evidence to that effect. Cases of victims families recieving correspondance from convicted killers harrassing them and threatening them. This even with strict controls on what can and can't be sent or recieved on super-lifers and death row inmates. Is anyone asserting that this doesn't happen? That it is even unlikely? I would be entertained to see that refusal of fact.

Again, capital punishment stretches much further than sociopaths. I don't think you have to be a sociopath to commit a capital punishment.

You are entitled to your opinion. I would just like to know how someone can commit a premeditated murder for gain or gratification and then intentionally evade capture and not be a sociopath. Any examples?

Very few of us would meet the definition, but I believe under the right circumstances every one of us COULD.

I disagree. There is a line that a conscience draws for us that we are almost completely incapable of crossing in regards to taking another human life, especially for gain or gratification. That isn't an inspirable reaction in most people without the introduction of fear of death or serious harm. Even if I accepted your premise, those are all admissable circumstances that a jury and judges would have to be aware of and bypass for a death sentence to even be issued.

Oh, but any good prosecutor can easily paint the picture of more premeditation than there might have been. As a juror it usually comes down to less facts and more charisma...who was more believable?

It isn't charisma it is credibility and the defense has infinitely more latitude in painting the picture of the defendant than the prosecutor, especially in death penalty cases. That not withstanding the penalty phase of the trial on its own is litterally an oportunity for the defense to show the defendant as a sympathetic character.

To be clear, I don't think any crime warrants the Death Penalty. The power to kill should rest solely with God Himself. Even if one of our brethren breaks that Commandment, the equating punishment should not rest in the hands of anyone other than the One who wrote it.

While I disagree, I admire and appreciate this line of thought. I will not attempt to argue faith and belief in this arena.

And, Truth In Sentencing is still not taking place...lest ye forget that I did work in a Maximum Security Prison, elbow to elbow with murderers, some lifers and some who only spent 8-10 years there. They do get released. Overcrowding is a factor, good behaviour is another, and mitigating circumstances still another. Whatever the reason, not nearly the numbers you think do "LIFE" anymore. They are released, placed in half-way houses, work-release, in a nutshell, they re-enter society. Unless we start putting them in prison for life and have that always mean "life", murderers and manslaughters will be released from prison.

Not all murders are capital crimes. In fact very, very few are. Using offenses and offenders of lesser crimes is unrelated to what I have tried to be clear is death penalty worthy individuals and cases. There is a very legitimate reason we seperate crimes the way we do and it is based mostly on the likelihood of a perp commiting similar crimes in future. In the area of capital offenses, parole and release is not a viable option, IMO.

Do you honestly believe it is safer for good citizens to have them released into the very same or worse circumstances that might have led them to commit such crimes? Do you not believe it would be better and safer for society to have them released with skills, able to contribute to society rather than cause harm to it?

I again believe we are discussing apples and this is oranges. As to making them more successful when they get out? We owe them that advancement, why? To be more clear, what do we owe them and why are they entitled to it?

In most cases besides prison time they are required to pay fines, which go to cover the costs of incarceration. They may also end up paying restitution to the family. If they had the means going in, then those fines and restitution are paid out of it. If they earn anything while in prison, that money generally pays for those costs and fines too.

The state gets their cut first and the publisher generally doesn't put the majority of funds into the inmates name. The gang-banger in L.A. was only paid a nominal fee, while his family was given the bulk of the earnings. I don't think the widows and children of the cops he killed got much out of it in royalties or payments.

Finally, whether or not you chose to admit it, there is a difference between a murderer and a sociopath. Many murders are committed by people who were normally docile, friendly, responsible, and loving. Yet circumstances intervened, and they reached a breaking point. You evidently have served in the military, right? Have you never felt rage? Have you never felt battlelust? Have you never wanted blood? I think we all have at one time or another. But, luckily, our sense of self-control got the better of us.

I believe I have repeatedly stated the distinctions I am making in this and the fact that not all murders are applicable to the capital crime definition. As to their being "nice people", I won't buy that. They killed for criminal purposes. They may be calm now or noce when you talk to them, but in the overall, they are capable of something that makes them not nice. I'm not calling them all evil, or even all a continuing threat, but I sure don't abide the "nice" thing. They may be loving to some, but they are obviously a threat to others. In the overall, that doesn't negate the killing part. As to my military service, what exactly are you getting at? Are you equating being shot at by known enemies with the stated intent of killing you to the shooting of a drug store clerk during a botched robbery attempt? Battlelust? How about self-preservation? Wanted blood? How about wanting to keep breathing? I have had non-military instances of anger and have more than average means to do violence, yet have not done so. Even when I was basically homeless on my own, with two kids. I don't hold everyone to my standards, but I am incapable of just ignoring an act as final and devistating as the taking of a life. It is not an easy thing to do and an even harder thing to live with, but to do it for selfish reasons of gain or gratification makes a person less human, IMO.

rigdoctorbri

January 24th, 2008, 6:15 pm

You are entitled to your opinion. I would just like to know how someone can commit a premeditated murder for gain or gratification and then intentionally evade capture and not be a sociopath. Any examples?

Sociopathy is a clinical diagnosis for someone who has a dissociative condition that clips the connections between one's consciousness and conscience. In other words, the sociopath has no conscience, no regret, and cannot identify a reason to be sorry for anything.

Murder is a crime, not a psychological condition. Many murders have been planned and carried out by those who later have serious regrets for the crime. They have emotional feelings about what they have done, and they are truly sorry.

Let's say on a smaller, or rather a less grandios, scale you have a daughter who is acting up. She is screaming, a trantrum is being thrown, and you are at your wit's end. You pick her up, and shake her violently. She is unhurt, but could have been. Just the same, you feel an awful wave of guilt over what you have done, and what could have happened. You are no different in feelings than someone who has committed a murder and regrets it. The only difference between you and that murderer is you were lucky because your daughter didn't die from your rage.

OldLupin

January 24th, 2008, 6:31 pm

Sociopathy is a clinical diagnosis for someone who has a dissociative condition that clips the connections between one's consciousness and conscience. In other words, the sociopath has no conscience, no regret, and cannot identify a reason to be sorry for anything.

Murder is a crime, not a psychological condition. Many murders have been planned and carried out by those who later have serious regrets for the crime. They have emotional feelings about what they have done, and they are truly sorry.

Let's say on a smaller, or rather a less grandios, scale you have a daughter who is acting up. She is screaming, a trantrum is being thrown, and you are at your wit's end. You pick her up, and shake her violently. She is unhurt, but could have been. Just the same, you feel an awful wave of guilt over what you have done, and what could have happened. You are no different in feelings than someone who has committed a murder and regrets it. The only difference between you and that murderer is you were lucky because your daughter didn't die from your rage.

Look, I don't know why the differetiations I've made are so completely missed, but a man shaking a baby to death isn't a capital crime. Planning a killing and executing it is. Beyond that, there are depraved circumstances that have to exist to inspire the death penalty. I don't know how else to say it, the statute is deliberately designed to single out sociopaths and sociopathic crimes. Crimes that require the lack of a conscience to carry out. The idea that a planned murder is executed and then regretted is unlikely. It may be possible, but to go through with such an act after planning and having time to consider it? That defies reason for any person who has a conscience. If you know anything about sociopaths, they are usually well liked, easy to get along with and very good actors. They can lie without tipping a lie-detector in some cases. Their showing displays of remorse don't impress me, knowing that. Given that they had plenty of oportunity to avoid killing someone and proceeded, I don't believe they are genuinely remorseful. It is not an easy thing to kill, to do it after consideration and thought and to complete the act when the oportunity to balk is available? I don't buy the victim of circumstance or momentary loss of reason argument in that.

rigdoctorbri

January 24th, 2008, 7:18 pm

Look, I don't know why the differetiations I've made are so completely missed, but a man shaking a baby to death isn't a capital crime. Planning a killing and executing it is. Beyond that, there are depraved circumstances that have to exist to inspire the death penalty. I don't know how else to say it, the statute is deliberately designed to single out sociopaths and sociopathic crimes. Crimes that require the lack of a conscience to carry out. The idea that a planned murder is executed and then regretted is unlikely. It may be possible, but to go through with such an act after planning and having time to consider it? That defies reason for any person who has a conscience. If you know anything about sociopaths, they are usually well liked, easy to get along with and very good actors. They can lie without tipping a lie-detector in some cases. Their showing displays of remorse don't impress me, knowing that. Given that they had plenty of oportunity to avoid killing someone and proceeded, I don't believe they are genuinely remorseful. It is not an easy thing to kill, to do it after consideration and thought and to complete the act when the oportunity to balk is available? I don't buy the victim of circumstance or momentary loss of reason argument in that.

IMO you are Black and White. There cannot be any middle ground to you when it comes to premeditated murder.

So, let me give you another example. Your daughter, once again, is the victim. However, this time she is raped and seriously beaten. The guy who did it shows no remorse, and gets off scott free. You kill him. Are you a bad person? Are you a sociopath? NO! You are father, vengeful and wrong in this case, but you are a father protecting his daughter. You are also a murderer now. Are you a bad person? Are you a threat to society? No, you are a father doing what a father should do, albeit in the wrong way. But, you are not a bad person and you are not without regrets. You are not a sociopath. Could you qualify for the Death Penalty? Absolutely, because you planned and carried out a murder.

OldLupin

January 24th, 2008, 8:17 pm

IMO you are Black and White. There cannot be any middle ground to you when it comes to premeditated murder.

So, let me give you another example. Your daughter, once again, is the victim. However, this time she is raped and seriously beaten. The guy who did it shows no remorse, and gets off scott free. You kill him. Are you a bad person? Are you a sociopath? NO! You are father, vengeful and wrong in this case, but you are a father protecting his daughter. You are also a murderer now. Are you a bad person? Are you a threat to society? No, you are a father doing what a father should do, albeit in the wrong way. But, you are not a bad person and you are not without regrets. You are not a sociopath. Could you qualify for the Death Penalty? Absolutely, because you planned and carried out a murder.

Am I a candidate for the death penalty? No! No prosecutor would attempt it and even if they did, will a jury sentence me to death for that? No! Am I a bad person? Hell yes I am a bad person. I will have killed in vengence for my own gratification. That isn't something a good person does. This is an absolutely specious argument. There is no depravity in that and it isn't indicative of my being a continued threat or danger to society. If he killed my daughter and then raped her body, then he would be a candidate for the death penalty. I would submit that I am not the one with a very "black and white" mentality in this debate. I make distinctions for a reason, yet continually these types of scenarios that obviously don't meet the criteria I have stated are thrown out there as some kind of counter-example. Give me the example without the incredible mitigating circumstances that renders it moot. How about I not only killed the guy, but tortured and raped him? Still a good guy? That would reinstate the death penalty association, IMO.

Discordia

January 25th, 2008, 12:51 am

rigdoctorbri

January 25th, 2008, 1:53 am

Tenshi

January 25th, 2008, 7:14 pm

Abuse humans as test objects is even worse than death, if it's cruel to do it with animals then it's even more cruel to do it on humans. The last time I know people did it was WW2 with disabled people and to go back at such practices as punishment is inhuman.

katsumi

January 25th, 2008, 11:28 pm

I heard from someone who is Canadian that there is virtualy no crime there because instead of just stuffing people int prison's or sentencing the to death they are instead used for human experimenting and testing. So no one wants to get poked, proded, or injected with God knows what. Personally I think that is a brilliant solution. Rather than people testing on animals they should use criminals. Some wil debate well is that humane? Well after a person has comitted some serious crime like murder, rape, you name it I don't see what the problem is. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind but I don't believe that just allowing people to sit in prison contributing nothing productive to society does anyone good. Living is prison is by far no picnic and compared to other prison systems ours is practically a heavenly experience.

:lol: Wow! I haven't laughed that hard in ages! :lol:

Sorry, but Canada has crime, and Canada has prisons. We do not have criminals as science projects either -- our human rights lawyers would be all over that, trust me. Was your Canadian friend joking, by any chance? Pulling your leg, perhaps?
It is true, though, that we don't have the death penalty.

Crime is actually on the rise in Canada due to increased gang activity. Per capita, our murder rate is still relatively low (though Halifax's gangs have made the murder rate in that relatively small city sky rocket in the last 5 years).

As far as the circumstances for capital crimes goes, I don't think that the sociopaths you've described, Lupe, are the only ones that end up on death row. A great number of people end up on death row for making stupid, terrible decisions when they are young, uneducated, or are on drugs, and then they live to regret it to their very souls later.

But since the topic of sociopaths and them deserving death has come up several times in this debate already, I'm interested to see how everyone feels about the notion of sociopaths/psychopaths being put to death. I am not suggesting that they are incapable of controlling their actions, but science has shown that they are missing something (a chemical signal in the brain that sets off reactions in normal people). It feels kind of wrong to execute people who are in some way emotionally broken -- people who don't respond to the pain or suffering of others the way that the rest of us do -- because there is something wrong with them.
I would think that studying them so that we can perhaps find the genetic markers that lead to psychopathy or sociopathy, or so that we can predict future behaviour more accurately, would be a better use of time and funding.

Any thoughts?

rigdoctorbri

January 27th, 2008, 12:35 am

As far as the circumstances for capital crimes goes, I don't think that the sociopaths you've described, Lupe, are the only ones that end up on death row. A great number of people end up on death row for making stupid, terrible decisions when they are young, uneducated, or are on drugs, and then they live to regret it to their very souls later.

Some people just don't see any grey areas when it comes to Capital Murder. They seriously doubt that there is any good in the hearts of those who did one such terrible thing in their lives. Furthermore, some don't believe there is a chance at redemption. I don't see any difference between a premeditated murder and someone who makes a conscious, albeit intoxicated, decision to get behind the wheel of a car. How is that any different than going out on the road with a loaded shotgun and the intent to kill someone? You may not want to kill someone with your car, but any fool would know that eventually that is exactly what he or she will do. The only difference is accuracy. The drunk takes more shots to hit the target. However, the law makes a huge distinction between Murder 1 and reckless vehicular homicide/DWI.

But since the topic of sociopaths and them deserving death has come up several times in this debate already, I'm interested to see how everyone feels about the notion of sociopaths/psychopaths being put to death. I am not suggesting that they are incapable of controlling their actions, but science has shown that they are missing something (a chemical signal in the brain that sets off reactions in normal people). It feels kind of wrong to execute people who are in some way emotionally broken -- people who don't respond to the pain or suffering of others the way that the rest of us do -- because there is something wrong with them.
I would think that studying them so that we can perhaps find the genetic markers that lead to psychopathy or sociopathy, or so that we can predict future behaviour more accurately, would be a better use of time and funding.

Any thoughts?

I am in favor of studying them. For those who think that The Death Penalty should be used to keep the public safe, would it not be safer for us to know what triggers sociopathy and psychosis, so we can prevent it or treat it? Or is that out of the realm of protecting the public?

DancingMaenid

January 27th, 2008, 5:56 am

Am I a candidate for the death penalty? No! No prosecutor would attempt it and even if they did, will a jury sentence me to death for that? No! Am I a bad person? Hell yes I am a bad person. I will have killed in vengence for my own gratification. That isn't something a good person does. This is an absolutely specious argument. There is no depravity in that and it isn't indicative of my being a continued threat or danger to society. If he killed my daughter and then raped her body, then he would be a candidate for the death penalty. I would submit that I am not the one with a very "black and white" mentality in this debate. I make distinctions for a reason, yet continually these types of scenarios that obviously don't meet the criteria I have stated are thrown out there as some kind of counter-example. Give me the example without the incredible mitigating circumstances that renders it moot. How about I not only killed the guy, but tortured and raped him? Still a good guy? That would reinstate the death penalty association, IMO.

Mitigating circumstances are relevant. People only commit premeditated murder because they feel like they have ample reason to do so, or because their emotions drive them to it. While the specific circumstances need to be considered in deciding the harshness of a sentence, very few people kill for no reason, or for no reason other than enjoyment. There are a multitude of reasons and motives that people have, and I don't think you can make wide brush strokes here and say that every single person who commits premeditated murder is a sociopath. After all, you've just said that you don't really think that since you acknowledge that if you sought vengeance against someone who killed your daughter, that would not be a sociopathic motive (even if the action is still wrong).

I am in favor of studying them. For those who think that The Death Penalty should be used to keep the public safe, would it not be safer for us to know what triggers sociopathy and psychosis, so we can prevent it or treat it? Or is that out of the realm of protecting the public?

I agree that it would be better to study such people, and I also think that it's inhumane to kill someone lacking their full mental capacities. Actually, psychosis (which is actually a pretty rare factor in murders. Most mentally ill people are no violent) would probably render someone legally unfit to stand trial, in the first place.

rigdoctorbri

January 27th, 2008, 10:48 pm

I agree that it would be better to study such people, and I also think that it's inhumane to kill someone lacking their full mental capacities. Actually, psychosis (which is actually a pretty rare factor in murders. Most mentally ill people are no violent) would probably render someone legally unfit to stand trial, in the first place.

Actually psychosis, schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, sociopathy, and mental retardation do not automaticly qualify a person as not competent to stand trial. The Court has to see that the person is not capable of understanding the proceedings, or understand the consequences of their actions. Many people with such disorders do rather well using medications, and can be quite rational and comprehensive.

DancingMaenid

January 28th, 2008, 5:22 am

Actually psychosis, schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, sociopathy, and mental retardation do not automaticly qualify a person as not competent to stand trial. The Court has to see that the person is not capable of understanding the proceedings, or understand the consequences of their actions. Many people with such disorders do rather well using medications, and can be quite rational and comprehensive.

True, but I was assuming that by your reference, we were talking about people whose conditions directly contributed to their commiting the crime, which would suggest that they were not rational at the time. Though, again, I'd like to stress that very few mentally ill people are violent or drastically more capable of crime than an average person is.

OldLupin

January 28th, 2008, 5:19 pm

Mitigating circumstances are relevant. People only commit premeditated murder because they feel like they have ample reason to do so, or because their emotions drive them to it. While the specific circumstances need to be considered in deciding the harshness of a sentence, very few people kill for no reason, or for no reason other than enjoyment. There are a multitude of reasons and motives that people have, and I don't think you can make wide brush strokes here and say that every single person who commits premeditated murder is a sociopath. After all, you've just said that you don't really think that since you acknowledge that if you sought vengeance against someone who killed your daughter, that would not be a sociopathic motive (even if the action is still wrong).

[staff edit] I have clearly defined the circumstances of capital crimes to include mitigation and legitimate remorse, but sociopaths and hardened criminals are highly unlikely to have either. Motives such as financial gain, elimination of a nuisance, personal convenience, and enjoyment absolutely indicate sociopathic behavior, where vengeance for a brutal crime, response to severe abuse, and impassioned reactions of that ilk are all mitigating circumstances and wouldn't stand up to the criteria I have presented. I realize that those who oppose the death penalty want very much to lump together these circumstances as the sociopaths I define as, IMO, prime candidates for a death penalty are pretty much un-defendable based on their crimes and motives. It is a proven technique to do this, but I don’t know how much more obvious a distinction I can make as to the dividing line being drawn, with error on the side of caution, toward only the most brutal and severe offenders. The additions that keep cropping up may well suit the opponents, but aren’t indicative of the group I am continually pointing to.

I agree that it would be better to study such people, and I also think that it's inhumane to kill someone lacking their full mental capacities. Actually, psychosis (which is actually a pretty rare factor in murders. Most mentally ill people are no violent) would probably render someone legally unfit to stand trial, in the first place.

We don't have the authority to force people to participate in such experimentation and as has been pointed out, there are many people with these disorders that aren't proven dangerous or willing to kill or worse who are far more likely to be genuinely willing to assist science. Anything beyond routine testing would fall as far, or farther, on the side of cruel and unusual punishment than a death penalty would. As most already know it isn't a reduced mental capacity to understand actions in sociopaths and even most psychosis, it is the deliberate disregard that the disorders provide a conduit for; that makes the criminal culpable and dangerous. The major factor being the ability to understand the consequences of the action, which is unaffected and that alone makes these offenders so much more dangerous than those with mitigating circumstances to provoke their actions.

DancingMaenid

January 28th, 2008, 8:29 pm

[staff edit]

We don't have the authority to force people to participate in such experimentation and as has been pointed out, there are many people with these disorders that aren't proven dangerous or willing to kill or worse who are far more likely to be genuinely willing to assist science. Anything beyond routine testing would fall as far, or farther, on the side of cruel and unusual punishment than a death penalty would.

Whoa, wait a second. I'm extremely against medical testing on unwilling humans, no matter what the circumstance. However, I do not consider having someone meet with a psychiatrist who can then ask them questions and try to understand their motives as being cruel or unusual. In fact, it may actually help the person in some cases, and at the very least could give us more understanding as to how to deal with others with similar problems. Do you think that would be less humane than killing them?

katsumi

January 28th, 2008, 8:49 pm

OK, just so that we don't end up going around in circles (which I think Lupe feels we're doing), do we have a final word on what crimes constitute capital crimes? Do we have examples of crimes committed that landed someone on death row that wouldn't fall under the category Lupe has described? I just thought maybe some stats, facts, etc., might help to clarify some of these points so that no one feels like they're talking to themselves.

For example, I have heard of cases that were capital cases that didn't sound like the kind of examples Lupe has described. I'll see if I can do some searches to find out what kinds of crimes land people on death row and will get back to you guys. If anyone else would like to do the same, or has already done so, please share!

Wab

January 29th, 2008, 1:32 am

Jurisdictions vary, but capital offenses in the US include: homicide; treason and espionage (federal); aggravated rape (Louisiana, Florida, and Oklahoma); extortionate kidnapping (Oklahoma); aggravated kidnapping (Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky and South Carolina); aircraft hijacking (Alabama); drug trafficking resulting in a person's death (Connecticut); the rather specific train wrecking which leads to a person's death (California); and perjury which leads to a person's death (California).

In practice, no one has been executed for a crime other than murder or conspiracy to murder since 1964, when James Coburn was executed for robbery in Alabama on September 4.

About 67% of convictions are later overturned "mainly on procedural grounds of incompetent legal counsel, police or prosecutors who suppressed evidence and judges who gave jurors the wrong instructions".

Within living memory one person has been excecuted for burglary.

(Adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States)

My curiosity piqued, I checked the burglar, Frank Bass. For some reason the Albama Department of Corrections lists all the people it's killed on the web (DoC (http://www.doc.state.al.us/execution.asp)) and Bass is alone among a list of homicides and rapes.

Definitely bears looking into.

rigdoctorbri

January 29th, 2008, 3:47 pm

True, but I was assuming that by your reference, we were talking about people whose conditions directly contributed to their commiting the crime, which would suggest that they were not rational at the time. Though, again, I'd like to stress that very few mentally ill people are violent or drastically more capable of crime than an average person is.

Often is the case that, yes, their mental condition does play a role in the crime, but the decision was still thought out, planned, etc...That too does not mean that they were not legally insane at the time of the murder or planning. A good example of this is John Hinkley, Jr. who attempted to kill President Reagan. He was a calculating schizoaffective, who intended to kill the President, but he was legally insane. His only motive was to impress the actress Jodi Foster. Since his trial he has been a psychiatric inpatient.

John Wayne Gacy clearly had many mental defects going on, but it was shown that his decisions and murders were carried out with planning, and without a break from reality. To this day there has not been a clear diagnosis, though some have called him a sociopath, and he has never fit into any of the typical or atypical serial killer profiles. As far as science goes, he is/was a prime subject for study. He was unique. All they could determine is that he killed for pure pleasure, and without any remorse. Unlike Hinckley, he was executed by lethal injection in 1994.

We don't have the authority to force people to participate in such experimentation and as has been pointed out, there are many people with these disorders that aren't proven dangerous or willing to kill or worse who are far more likely to be genuinely willing to assist science. Anything beyond routine testing would fall as far, or farther, on the side of cruel and unusual punishment than a death penalty would. As most already know it isn't a reduced mental capacity to understand actions in sociopaths and even most psychosis, it is the deliberate disregard that the disorders provide a conduit for; that makes the criminal culpable and dangerous. The major factor being the ability to understand the consequences of the action, which is unaffected and that alone makes these offenders so much more dangerous than those with mitigating circumstances to provoke their actions.

That is precisely why they should be studied, but it would be walking a slippery slope indeed for experimentation on the unwilling. I agree to an extent that it should be done only with consent of the killer/sociopath/subject/whatever label has been slapped on. Perhaps, as part of their personal penance if they so chose. A certain amount of involuntary study should be done too, but that should be noninvasive, consisting of questioning, observation, and psychotherapy. Medications at their own option.