Death Penalty

[halides1]

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

Obviously putting a man to death for something he didn't do is wrong but is sentencing to say 60 years in prison all that better?
Both are wrong and should have been stopped at a much earlier point than sentencing.

The death penalty is irrevocable. However if we stopped executing people but never addressed how to minimize wrongful convictions or how better to reverse wrongful convictions once they happen, then we would be making only a miniscule improvement in our system. After reading most of "False Justice" by Jim and Nancy Petro, I am more strongly of the opinion that our appeals process is not functioning at all properly. The CJ system ought to be in a position to take advances in forensics or in the understanding of witness identifications and false confessions into consideration. That requires both reform in the CJ system and that the convicted individual be alive. MOO.

[COLONEL]

With all the advances we have in DNA ,I think the courts should look at the evidence of all the older prisoners on death row. I would hate to see an inocent man put to death.If you catch the person red handed commiting a crime he should have a fair trial ,but if he gets the death penalty and there is no way he would ever be proven inocent, don't drag it out in court with 20 years of appeals . If by chance they appeal it then have a quick trial again and if they are guilty put them to death that day . Why is it that they have to have a seperate trial to sentence a person after they have been found guilty ? This has never made any sense to me either.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by COLONEL

Here is a hypothetical question seeing as everyone likes these . You come home find a family member bleeding say fram a stab wound, you call 911 and the police are on the way, when you hear a scream from another family member upstairs. You go to investigate along the way you grab your gun, you get up satirs and find a low life standing over your wife with a knife . Do you A. tell him to drop the knife and hold him at gun point until the police arrive or B. you say you're a dead mother and shoot him where he stands ? I know I would opt for B. No watse of tax payer money for a long drawn out trial. or the chance of him going free on a tecnicality.

May I ask a question?

Why do ask?

See, this is like the "Dogg example" in the beginning of the thread. "Let me just give you a grizzly enough example, and you'll probably buy into capital punishment, too!".

Um, no. We know rape and murder are gruesome acts. Our objection to death sentence has nothing to do with ignorance or naivete.

Originally Posted by COLONEL

Why is it that they have to have a seperate trial to sentence a person after they have been found guilty ? This has never made any sense to me either.

I suppose it is to determine, for example, why the crime was committed. If I killed someone in self-defense, I would greatly appreciate being allowed to prove this rather than just having the foaming-at-the-mouth CP crowd drag me off to be killed.

[NoahFence]

I'm all for the death penalty in slam-dunk cases where there is literally zero question as to whodunnit.

Take Anders Breverik(sp?) for example. Timothy McVeigh. Charles Manson, who should be dead but isn't.... etc.

Guys like that.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by oglommi

If the evidence is very strong, just shoot them and we're rid of them.
But only for killing another humanbeing.

Hear, hear.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I suppose it is to determine, for example, why the crime was committed. If I killed someone in self-defense, I would greatly appreciate being allowed to prove this rather than just having the foaming-at-the-mouth CP crowd drag me off to be killed.

If you killed somebody in self defense, you wouldn't even have committed a crime. If a jury found you guilty (if it even got that far), that means they didn't buy your self defense defense. At least that is how it works in the USA, where we value the right to self defense. YMMV

[Muldur]

Not only is the DP morally acceptable, but IMO is morally required for all capital crimes.

By NOT enforcing the DP for capital crimes, the state is committing a further criminal act of violence and injustice against society and the individual victims of the capital criminal. By NOT killing these degenerate scum, we are forcing decent, law abiding citizens to labor to feed, clothe, house, and pay for medical care for individuals who have forfeited any moral right to claim the status of "human", and the rights pertaining thereunto.

The "no death penalty" crowd are the same sort of moral nitwits who claim that a bank robber, caught red-handed by the police coming out of the bank with the gun and the bag of cash is a "suspect", not a bank robber.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Not only is the DP morally acceptable, but IMO is morally required for all capital crimes.

By NOT enforcing the DP for capital crimes, the state is committing a further criminal act of violence and injustice against society and the individual victims of the capital criminal. By NOT killing these degenerate scum, we are forcing decent, law abiding citizens to labor to feed, clothe, house, and pay for medical care for individuals who have forfeited any moral right to claim the status of "human", and the rights pertaining thereunto.

The "no death penalty" crowd are the same sort of moral nitwits who claim that a bank robber, caught red-handed by the police coming out of the bank with the gun and the bag of cash is a "suspect", not a bank robber.

Um, I agree with upholding the death penalty, but in no way agree with how you got there =\

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Not only is the DP morally acceptable, but IMO is morally required for all capital crimes.

By NOT enforcing the DP for capital crimes, the state is committing a further criminal act of violence and injustice against society and the individual victims of the capital criminal. By NOT killing these degenerate scum, we are forcing decent, law abiding citizens to labor to feed, clothe, house, and pay for medical care for individuals who have forfeited any moral right to claim the status of "human", and the rights pertaining thereunto.

The "no death penalty" crowd are the same sort of moral nitwits who claim that a bank robber, caught red-handed by the police coming out of the bank with the gun and the bag of cash is a "suspect", not a bank robber.

And what is the state committing when they execute the wrong person and let the real murderer go out and kill some more?

Sounds like you are parroting the 'pro-criminal lobby' line.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

And what is the state committing when they execute the wrong person and let the real murderer go out and kill some more?

Sounds like you are parroting the 'pro-criminal lobby' line.

Slam dunk cases only....

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Slam dunk cases only....

More slam dunk than beyond a reasonable doubt?

Richard Jewell slam dunk with confession video and everything?

Fatty Arbuckle slam dunk?

Some of the crooks wear badges, donchano?

[Antony]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

More slam dunk than beyond a reasonable doubt?

Richard Jewell slam dunk with confession video and everything?

Fatty Arbuckle slam dunk?

Some of the crooks wear badges, donchano?

Very much so, and this is the factor so frequently ignored by those calling for more and more extreme powers by those in charge of our lives and freedom - whether it be executions, locking people up without due process or conducting acts of war. These powers will be abused.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

More slam dunk than beyond a reasonable doubt?

Richard Jewell slam dunk with confession video and everything?

Fatty Arbuckle slam dunk?

Some of the crooks wear badges, donchano?

For crying out loud....

SLAM DUNK

Did I mention Andres Breverik? In no way humanly possible can there be ANY doubt as to his guilt.

Cases.
Like.
That.

Breverik was on film committing the murders. There's no room for doubt, at all. That he's on trial at all ( in my opinion ) is a total farce and a slap in the face of those who lost loved ones.

[COLONEL]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

If you killed somebody in self defense, you wouldn't even have committed a crime. If a jury found you guilty (if it even got that far), that means they didn't buy your self defense defense. At least that is how it works in the USA, where we value the right to self defense. YMMV

Thank you that would hjave been my answer to him. also I do not think he under stood when I asked why have a separate trial to sentence a person .If the jury found you guilty the judge should be able to sentence you then

[balrog666]

I like the Death Penalty!

As long as it applies to prosecutors who screw up too!

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

And imprisonment won't?

Well, you can ask Mandela if there would have made a difference if the government had executed him. Or any other dissident that eventually was released after change happened in their country...

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Breverik was on film committing the murders. There's no room for doubt, at all. That he's on trial at all ( in my opinion ) is a total farce...

a. Like it or not, that's how modern, democratic nations are run. Deal with it.
b. The court case, by closely scrutinizing every smallest detail of the case, has taught us a lot about both Breivik, the attacks, and its context. I feel both the trials, and their broadcasting by the media, has been handled wonderfully.
c. If we were to just throw Breivik in a "black prison" in some secret location and torture and execute him, War on Terror-style, he would have remained a boogeyman in the eyes of very many. Putting him in the spotlight and tearing into him has done a lot to "declaw" him, reducing him from a scary terrorist to the pathetic disturbed loser he is.

Quote:

and a slap in the face of those who lost loved ones.

Perhaps so. Point a above remains, however. Defendants' right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of democracies.

[NoahFence]

Its just my opinion.

I'd have rather seen a Humvee with a .50 cal gattling gun turn the moron into swiss cheese.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Its just my opinion.

I'd have rather seen a Humvee with a .50 cal gattling gun turn the moron into swiss cheese.

Yes, and this is a revealing sentiment. The thing about arguing with supporters of the death penalty is that we can talk all we like about there being no deterrent effect, or faulty justice systems executing the wrong person, or the corrupting influence on society of officially killing people - but it all means nothing.

Death penalty supporters want criminals killed because it gives them a good feeling.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Antony

Yes, and this is a revealing sentiment. The thing about arguing with supporters of the death penalty is that we can talk all we like about there being no deterrent effect, or faulty justice systems executing the wrong person, or the corrupting influence on society of officially killing people - but it all means nothing.

Death penalty supporters want criminals killed because it gives them a good feeling.

That would be the most straightforward argument. Society's retaliation.

'Penitence', 'rehabilitation', 'deterrence' and so on are simply euphemisms in this context.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Death penalty is uncomfortable for organized crime, or anyone who has a policy of sometimes hiring assassins. Total abolition of death penalty is most important for organized criminals such as mafia. My imagination explains that the double standard of accepting bloody military actions while not accepting death penalty of a proven guilty murderer has its origins in lobbying circles whom the absence of death penalty benefits and protects.

My answer is: there should be a death penalty, but it should only be used in cases where the proof is complete, without any known naturalistic theory that would explain away the guilt of the suspect. For example, shooting a person under video camera surveillance, the act being recorded on video, would produce such evidence.

I mostly agree with you here but I don't consider video evidence to be unfakable. It really depends on the situation.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

A theoretical practical reason for imposing the death penalty would be to save the taxpayers the money it costs to keep the scumbag alive for decades in prison. Of course, in the real world, death penalty cases actually cost the taxpayers more money, I believe.

I've always rejected this argument. Killing someone is done as punishment, example, vengeance, prophylactic against recidivism, a proper expression of society's extreme revulsion at certain acts.

But one wouldn't kill to save money, nor forego it to save money.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Antony

Yes, and this is a revealing sentiment. The thing about arguing with supporters of the death penalty is that we can talk all we like about there being no deterrent effect, or faulty justice systems executing the wrong person, or the corrupting influence on society of officially killing people - but it all means nothing.

Death penalty supporters want criminals killed because it gives them a good feeling.

100% Accurate. Part of that good feeling is in knowing that the perp will no longer play row, row, row your boat to an island full of children and murder them all. Part of it is knowing that some retard with a truck full of fertilizer isn't going to blow up a federal building with kids in it.

I never implied that my feelings were anything more than just that.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Beerina

I've always rejected this argument. Killing someone is done as punishment, example, vengeance, prophylactic against recidivism, a proper expression of society's extreme revulsion at certain acts.

But one wouldn't kill to save money, nor forego it to save money.

As long as we understand that the prophylactic has a failure rate.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Its just my opinion.

Everything posted here is someone's opinion.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

100% Accurate. Part of that good feeling is...

Hold that thought. In our society, each and every one of us are loved ones. That is, we survive society's losses. Someone dies, and society loses a brother, boyfriend, father, friend, neighbour and coworker. This also holds true whenever someone is given the death sentence. It creates grief and loss in whoever is forced to survive, say, their husband or chess partner. It leaves them with a grave to visit, nothing more. No phone calls, no visits to prison, no exchange of letters. No hope to cling to that he or she will one day be exonerated, or that he or she will be released and allowed to start over. Just a tombstone and a country full of people cheering his or her death.

Yes, there are the families of murder victims and rape survivors. There are also the families of those who receive the death sentence.

How do you death penalty-supporters know in which of these roles you will end up?

Since your reasoning is based on the appeal to emotion -- what if it was one of your siblings, or some other loved one? Would it still make you feel good to have him or her on death row?

None of Breivik's close friends or family members have reported that they saw 22/7 coming. Just sayin'.

[The Dark Lord]

I somebody that I care(ed) about murdered dozens of people, he would be dead to me, and I wouldn't care if the state actually made him dead.

[Safe-Keeper]

That, of course, wasn't my point either, so I couldn't care less.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

100% Accurate.

That's what I thought. You feel satisfaction when you hear someone has been executed; I feel shame and sadness that purportedly civilised governments should behave in this way. It belongs in the Middle Ages.

Of course, I'm not expecting you to be impressed by my expression of shame and sadness; but it cuts both ways. Those who make it obvious that they get personal satisfaction from executions will never convince someone like me who finds judicial killings repugnant. The only way for you to win the argument is to show that the existence of the death penalty has a positive effect on law enforcement. I think your case is weak.

Quote:

Part of that good feeling is in knowing that the perp will no longer play row, row, row your boat to an island full of children and murder them all. Part of it is knowing that some retard with a truck full of fertilizer isn't going to blow up a federal building with kids in it.

Obviously a reference to the Anders Breivik (sp?) case. The trouble with this is that you don't deal with the problems of violent crime or racial hatred, by killing individuals.

To execute Breivik (who in any case seems to have no more regard for his own life than for those of his victims) would simply create a martyr to be celebrated by people who think like him. In the gangland underclass in the US, killing a murderer simply sends the message: "the state does it, so it's OK for us to do it. Anyway, we won't get caught."

Quote:

I never implied that my feelings were anything more than just that.

On the one hand, bravo for being up-front about it. Shame you spoiled it by trying to rationalise it with faulty reasoning.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Antony

That's what I thought. You feel satisfaction when you hear someone has been executed; I feel shame and sadness that purportedly civilised governments should behave in this way. It belongs in the Middle Ages.

Of course, I'm not expecting you to be impressed by my expression of shame and sadness; but it cuts both ways. Those who make it obvious that they get personal satisfaction from executions will never convince someone like me who finds judicial killings repugnant. The only way for you to win the argument is to show that the existence of the death penalty has a positive effect on law enforcement. I think your case is weak.


Obviously a reference to the Anders Breivik (sp?) case. The trouble with this is that you don't deal with the problems of violent crime or racial hatred, by killing individuals.

To execute Breivik (who in any case seems to have no more regard for his own life than for those of his victims) would simply create a martyr to be celebrated by people who think like him. In the gangland underclass in the US, killing a murderer simply sends the message: "the state does it, so it's OK for us to do it. Anyway, we won't get caught."


On the one hand, bravo for being up-front about it. Shame you spoiled it by trying to rationalise it with faulty reasoning.

Would you feel ashamed had the police gotten there in time to kill Brievik after the first dozen victims?

[Antony]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Would you feel ashamed had the police gotten there in time to kill Brievik after the first dozen victims?

That depends on whether disarming him was a possibility. But it's something of a moot point, because among numerous cases of a gunman running amok among unarmed victims, I can't think of a case where someone was in a position where shooting him dead in the act was a possibility. Can you?

[halides1]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Would you feel ashamed had the police gotten there in time to kill Brievik after the first dozen victims?

crimeresearch,

No, but killing someone who is killing others is not that same as the death penalty. My own problem with this particular case is that I am not 100% convinced that Breivik is of sound mind (not that I have looked into it carefully). The idea of applying the death penalty to people who are mentally ill or mentally incompetent (possibly Rickey Ray Rector) is bothersome; even when you know for certain that someone is guilty, can you know for certain that they don't fall into one of these two categories?

In addition, I have two issues with the present thread. One is that the pro-death penalty advocates have not engaged the examples of people who were nearly wrongfully executed or who might have been wrongfully executed. Two is the use of hypotheticals such as a time machine. I recall a conversation I had with an advocate who asked me would I support the death penalty if it could be reversed. Possibly this is an interesting question for an all-night college bull session, but one that does not deal with the reality of the death penalty. Even if the death penalty could be reversed in cases where new evidence was uncovered, the authorities would resist any attempt to do so, based on what I have seen of the Todd Willingham case.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by halides1

In addition, I have two issues with the present thread. One is that the pro-death penalty advocates have not engaged the examples of people who were nearly wrongfully executed or who might have been wrongfully executed. Two is the use of hypotheticals such as a time machine. I recall a conversation I had with an advocate who asked me would I support the death penalty if it could be reversed. Possibly this is an interesting question for an all-night college bull session, but one that does not deal with the reality of the death penalty. Even if the death penalty could be reversed in cases where new evidence was uncovered, the authorities would resist any attempt to do so, based on what I have seen of the Todd Willingham case.

The first part is a nonstarter argument against the death penalty. Do people get executed wrongfully? Yes, if history has anything to say. Is it a shame? yes, but not against the death penalty. It's a shame against the legal process. I'm all for the death penalty and wouldn't mind if 100% of the cases that mandate the death penalty put the convicted behind bars for life. Same outcome to me, let them live a life behind bars or shoot them in the face, no difference.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I don't consider video evidence to be unfakable.

Nothing is unfakable, but then those who are capable of feeding fake video surveillance camera evidence to a court, probably would be capable of clandestinely causing the suspect to die anyway, so I don´t think that accepting video surveillance videos as 100% evidence worsens our odds.

Originally Posted by halides1

applying the death penalty to people who are mentally ill or mentally incompetent (...) is bothersome; even when you know for certain that someone is guilty

Speculations about the mental health or IQ of an otherwise proven murderer are not a burden for my conscience. I take the attitude that the whole process from crime to death penalty can be seen as an accident where the convict died, if you don´t want to think that the insane or low-IQ convict "deserved" to die. He killed, and will be killed.

I think that speculations about the mental health or IQ of a murderer are an unnecessary detour in criminal processes. My moral philosophy does not need such splitting of hairs, we swallow camels anyway so why sift out every smallest gnat.

Originally Posted by halides1

Even if the death penalty could be reversed in cases where new evidence was uncovered, the authorities would resist any attempt to do so

Then we should get rid of the said authorities having any say in any criminal court case, no matetr what the crime and punishment is.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by halides1

crimeresearch,

No, but killing someone who is killing others is not that same as the death penalty. My own problem with this particular case is that I am not 100% convinced that Breivik is of sound mind (not that I have looked into it carefully). The idea of applying the death penalty to people who are mentally ill or mentally incompetent (possibly Rickey Ray Rector) is bothersome; even when you know for certain that someone is guilty, can you know for certain that they don't fall into one of these two categories?

In addition, I have two issues with the present thread. One is that the pro-death penalty advocates have not engaged the examples of people who were nearly wrongfully executed or who might have been wrongfully executed. Two is the use of hypotheticals such as a time machine. I recall a conversation I had with an advocate who asked me would I support the death penalty if it could be reversed. Possibly this is an interesting question for an all-night college bull session, but one that does not deal with the reality of the death penalty. Even if the death penalty could be reversed in cases where new evidence was uncovered, the authorities would resist any attempt to do so, based on what I have seen of the Todd Willingham case.

You set up the dichotomy that governmental killing of murderers sent the message that it is OK for people to kill a murderer, which would include in self defense.

Quote:

...killing a murderer simply sends the message: "the state does it, so it's OK for us to do it.

You choosing to parse it in elitist terminology of 'the underclass,' is a non sequitur. The message would be the same no matter what the social class of those who received it, and 'gangland' would would seem to be the last place where anyone would care about killing murderers.
And there is no rational connection between executing those who are caught, and your insertion of 'Anyway we won't get caught'.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

You set up the dichotomy that governmental killing of murderers sent the message that it is OK for people to kill a murderer, which would include in self defense.

I am not following you. I accept that killing in self-defense when that is the only reasonable course of action is justified. I accept that the police may need to kill someone if there is no other way to keep him or her from immediately killing someone else. As Antony did I note the provision that there is no way to subdue this individual. I see a considerable difference between those two closely related situations and the death penalty.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

The first part is a nonstarter argument against the death penalty. Do people get executed wrongfully? Yes, if history has anything to say. Is it a shame? yes, but not against the death penalty. It's a shame against the legal process. I'm all for the death penalty and wouldn't mind if 100% of the cases that mandate the death penalty put the convicted behind bars for life. Same outcome to me, let them live a life behind bars or shoot them in the face, no difference.

If we abolish the death penalty but did not reform the criminal justice system in any other way, it might seem to be an almost infinitesimal improvement. Death versus life in prison is not much of a difference. However, if we also made improvements in our appeals system and started taking into account modern research into eyewitnesses and false confessions, it starts to look not so infinitesimal. It is also worth noting that forensic science (especially arson science) is continually improving, and that is a consideration. MOO.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by halides1

If we abolish the death penalty but did not reform the criminal justice system in any other way, it might seem to be an almost infinitesimal improvement. Death versus life in prison is not much of a difference. However, if we also made improvements in our appeals system and started taking into account modern research into eyewitnesses and false confessions, it starts to look not so infinitesimal. It is also worth noting that forensic science (especially arson science) is continually improving, and that is a consideration. MOO.

It seems that abolishing the death penalty is moot here then. You could keep the death penalty, hell you could even abolish life imprisonment and ONLY have the death penalty and still make improvements to the judicial process.

I've said it before, these arguments are just not academic anymore. The only issue worth discussing is the death penalty versus other comparable sentences, such as life imprisonment or whatever. What are their comparisons and advantages. We use both for now but keep finding the death penalty losing favor. I wonder if there's a utilitarian reason versus a purely ethical one.

[Antony]

crimresearch, these were points that I raised, but you addressed your reply to halides1. We are not the same person!

Originally Posted by crimresearch

You set up the dichotomy that governmental killing of murderers sent the message that it is OK for people to kill a murderer, which would include in self defense.

You missed the point I was making. The message is that it's OK for them to kill anyone they don't like.

Quote:

You choosing to parse it in elitist terminology of 'the underclass,' is a non sequitur. The message would be the same no matter what the social class of those who received it, and 'gangland' would would seem to be the last place where anyone would care about killing murderers.
And there is no rational connection between executing those who are caught, and your insertion of 'Anyway we won't get caught'.

That's just in case anyone is nursing the illusion that violent types worry about getting executed themselves before committing their murders. I don't believe that they think they're going to get caught.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Antony

crimresearch, these were points that I raised, but you addressed your reply to halides1. We are not the same person!



You missed the point I was making. The message is that it's OK for them to kill anyone they don't like.


That's just in case anyone is nursing the illusion that violent types worry about getting executed themselves before committing their murders. I don't believe that they think they're going to get caught.

Ahh, my mistake, I thought the person repsonding to my comments on your post, was you.

In any case, the standard for the death penalty isn't merely 'anyone they don't like'.

The standard for using deadly force to stop a murder in progress is the same for the government, as it is for individuals... clear and imminent danger.

The trouble with the death penalty is that there is no imminent danger, and as the error rate shows, it isn't always clear.

But that doesn't mean that if people see the government executing criminals, that the citizenry will follow suit. First, such private killings are illegal, and second, the government does a lot of things without the populace being emboldened to do the same things. Print money, levy taxes, etc.
I see no evidence that the double standard of executions means that such a message is actually being sent, so that simply doesn't strike me as an effective argument against the DP, compared to others that have been raised.