US Committed Murder Tod...I Mean Carried Out the Death Penalty [Archive]

Fashion Lad!

11-11-2009, 02:59 PM

I used to be for the death penalty. Now I'm not.

He does give up his rights when he takes someone's life. That's a given. He does need to pay for what he's done. In the big grand scheme of things, putting someone to death is murder. Regardless of what we've done, we're still killing someone.

It's more cost-effective to keep someone in jail for life than it is to execute them. We've had innocent people executed. There are states that are allowing minors, tried as adults, to be executed. Our court system isn't perfect. Nothing they do should be so absolute as executing someone.

Peppergirl

11-11-2009, 03:15 PM

It's more cost-effective to keep someone in jail for life than it is to execute them.

Do you have a source for this info? I'd always heard the opposite. Just curious.

McDreidel09

11-11-2009, 03:21 PM

Fashion Lad is right. It is more cost effective to keep them in jail for life.

The reason: They can fight the death sentence in court as much as they want. Thus, they get a Public Defender and the costs add up.

However, if that right were to be taken away, then it would be more cost effective to execute.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-11-2009, 03:26 PM

Greenday

11-11-2009, 03:38 PM

However, if that right were to be taken away, then it would be more cost effective to execute.

So are you saying we should deny people's right to an attorney? To adequately defend themselves?

Mr Slugger

11-11-2009, 03:45 PM

I'm not in favor of the death penalty because I don't believe in "revenge" punishments.

I'm in favor of it because I'm fucking sick of repeat offenders.

People say "the death penalty does not deter crime." Well, guess what? It will deter this asshole forever. 100 percent money back guarantee.

I am way more concerned for the people he murdered, and the people he would murder in the future. The guy is a murderer. I'm not willing to take the chance he won't do it again with someone else's life. Not even the life of his cellmate in prison.

So yeah. Stop the guy. Permanently.

You know that's the way I look at it too. I mean what's to say prison stops him from killing? What happens if he breaks out of prison and goes on another murder spree, or beats another inmate to death, etc. And honestly I look at it like this. If the state pays $8 million to build a bridge and there's a 95% chance of it lasting 50 years I'd rather them spend the $10 million and make sure that there's a 100% chance it will last 50 years. And on top of it the prison has an extra bed available after he's gone.

On the note of the death penalty doesn't deter crime. I think as it is now it doesn't because it's lethal injection. But I seem to recall in high school while being taught about it that there was actually statistics that said that the electric chair & gas chamber did slightly (and I did say slightly) deter people because it was such a bad way to go.

lordlundar

11-11-2009, 04:13 PM

So are you saying we should deny people's right to an attorney? To adequately defend themselves?

When even the supreme court has declared the person guilty and the death penalty is a fair sentence? Yeah. Why should they be allowed to find loopholes for another 20 years that allow them another 2 years per loophole to leech off the system?

blas87

11-11-2009, 04:31 PM

We already all know my stance on this.

That fucker better burn in hell, and he got exactly what he deserved.

I'm glad I'm not the minority opinion here. Too many people care too much about the murderer and not the victim or their families and friends. And that anyone who believes in the death penalty are mean, evil spirited vile people who can't get over things and move on with life and are bitter and vengeful blah blah blah blah blah...

Well at least we finally put another sick bastard to death.

BroomJockey

11-11-2009, 04:45 PM

Too many people care too much about the murderer and not the victim or their families and friends. And that anyone who believes in the death penalty are mean, evil spirited vile people who can't get over things and move on with life and are bitter and vengeful blah blah blah blah blah...

Way to progress a meaningful dialogue. No, really, I mean that. Absolutely no one is going to fear disagreeing with you after that. It's posts like this that really make the other side think about their position, and why they hold it, and maybe, just maybe, change their mind.

Pedersen

11-11-2009, 05:08 PM

However, if that right were to be taken away, then it would be more cost effective to execute.

So are you saying we should deny people's right to an attorney? To adequately defend themselves?

Wow. I have to wonder if that came from a standard issue jump to conclusions mat (tm, patent pending, protected by copyright, etc), or if you had it custom made? Considering that her comparison had something to do with the way things are here, and your response seemed to have been copied from an alternate dimension where she actually said something similar to "fuck the accused, the only thing they should get is boned. Repeatedly.", I'm going to guess custom made.

McDreidel didn't even imply that the right should be taken away. She made a simple comparison: Since death row inmates have "A", the costs of executions go up. If death row inmates did not have "A", then costs for execution would be lower.

kibbles

11-11-2009, 05:10 PM

Way to progress a meaningful dialogue. No, really, I mean that. Absolutely no one is going to fear disagreeing with you after that. It's posts like this that really make the other side think about their position, and why they hold it, and maybe, just maybe, change their mind.

I'm not changing my mind. IMO the death penalty is just a legalized form of murder, nothing more, nothing less.

I am in no way pitying the criminal; but, I still do not believe in the death penalty. And it's unrealistic to say that everyone who is against the death penalty is a sympathizer with criminals.

blas87

11-11-2009, 05:25 PM

I gave up a long time ago trying to get others to change their minds. Everyone's allowed an opinion. Opinions are like assholes.

I just felt it a good healthy means of letting out frustration. Ya know, being called vengeful and spiteful and all kinds of other lovely things for believing in the death penalty and for speaking my mind and of my own experiences really made me want to change my mind ;)

Greenday

11-11-2009, 05:35 PM

Wow. I have to wonder if that came from a standard issue jump to conclusions mat (tm, patent pending, protected by copyright, etc), or if you had it custom made? Considering that her comparison had something to do with the way things are here, and your response seemed to have been copied from an alternate dimension where she actually said something similar to "fuck the accused, the only thing they should get is boned. Repeatedly.", I'm going to guess custom made.

McDreidel didn't even imply that the right should be taken away. She made a simple comparison: Since death row inmates have "A", the costs of executions go up. If death row inmates did not have "A", then costs for execution would be lower.

Was this right to be taken away not the right to an attorney and to fight their case? It seemed to be what was suggested. I don't see how we can save money otherwise while just giving him the death penalty.

guywithashovel

11-11-2009, 05:40 PM

I tend to have mixed feelings about the death penalty. It's one of those issues that I flip flop on. Someone will make a good argument against the death penalty, and I'll think "Gee, that's a good point." But then someone else will make a good argument for it and the same thing will happen.

In this case, just like in most other murder cases, I would have been satisfied if the DC sniper had been given a life sentence. After all, I often tend to think that a life sentence in prison is a punishment WORSE than the death penalty. I mean, think about it. You'd be forced to live in a cell that's probably about 6ft by 9ft, and you may even have to share that with another person. You'd have to eat when they tell you to. Sleep when they tell you to. You'd have to avoid getting into altercations with other inmates. I often catch myself thinking that I'd rather just take the injection as opposed to living the rest of my life like that. Then again, I would never do anything deserving of the death penalty.

On the other hand, I never have much sympathy for people who do get sentenced to death (unless I suspect that they're innocent). Take the DC sniper. He had an entire city living in fear of their lives for several weeks.

BroomJockey

11-11-2009, 05:56 PM

Was this right to be taken away not the right to an attorney and to fight their case? It seemed to be what was suggested. I don't see how we can save money otherwise while just giving him the death penalty.

*sigh* What she was giving was the explanation as to why it was more expensive for the death penalty vs. life incarceration. To have taken it as an actual suggestion was a leap of Herculean proportions, and not helpful to the conversation at all.

MadMike

11-11-2009, 06:11 PM

We've had innocent people executed.

If you lock someone up, and later discover you locked up the wrong guy, you can release him and let him get on with his life. If you execute someone and later find out it was the wrong guy, you can't bring him back. And for that reason, I'm against the death penalty... normally.

In this case, I don't feel sorry for the bastard, just like I didn't feel sorry for Timothy McVeigh when they put him down.

DesignFox

11-11-2009, 06:14 PM

Gerrinson said what I've said everytime this topic comes up. Put the mad dog down.

RK said a whole host of other reasons why I also agree with the death penalty.

I agree with blas, and I'm not saying everyone does it, but I'm noticing a trend where people seem to sympathize more and more with these scumbag criminals than with the victims they hurt.

I don't feel the death penalty should be applied lightly, or even in the case of most first time offenders. But these animals that murder multiple people, and it can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that they killed multiple people, deserve exactly what they get. Perhaps it is even kinder than locking them up for life, but I don't care about that. If you put the scumbag down, they 100% for sure can't harm another living being.

There was at least one case discussed on this very board where a repeat offender escaped from prison and committed the very crime he was incarcerated. Had we gotten it right the first time and fried his ass, he'd have had one or two less victims on his tally.

I don't generally like to put a price on life, but in very select and extreme cases, protecting innocent people comes first.

Fashion Lad!

11-11-2009, 06:47 PM

I'm glad I'm not the minority opinion here. Too many people care too much about the murderer and not the victim or their families and friends. And that anyone who believes in the death penalty are mean, evil spirited vile people who can't get over things and move on with life and are bitter and vengeful blah blah blah blah blah...

I don't think anyone said that at all.

My whole point is who are we to decide who lives and who dies? It wasn't the DC Sniper's right to decide nor is it ours.

Interesting Map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Death_Penalty_World_Map2.png)

HYHYBT

11-11-2009, 06:49 PM

The US condemned the DC Sniper for murdering people because murder is wrong! So as a result we murder him...Seems a tad backwards to me, neh?

Not all killing is murder, either legally or morally.

Not that I think the death penalty is the best way to handle things, but it's not at all the same as what he did to earn it.

Edit, because the thread grew two pages longer before I got around to posting: If it were up to me, life without parole would be the maximum sentence. Not because I think death is too cruel, or because I sympathize with criminals, but because I do not want anyone to be the way they are, and as long as there is life there's the possibility of change. Which wouldn't get them released, of course. And yes, I know how this sounds.

I'd also offer lethal injection, not as a penalty imposed by the court, but as an option for those who choose to take it.

joe hx

11-11-2009, 07:40 PM

The way I feel about it, when you kill someone for killing, you become that which you wish to destroy. Sort of like Sin in FF... 10?

I do have mixed feelings about the death penalty. My disagreeing with it is often tested when I hear of crimes such as the DC sniper, Tim McVeigh, people raping children...

RecoveringKinkoid

11-11-2009, 07:47 PM

Greenday

11-11-2009, 07:48 PM

So Blas is worked up over a murderer and glad he's dead.

Frankly, I don't see that as a sentiment that she needs to feel bad about. I would say that is a perfectly natural and reasonable reaction.

I'd agree with that.

Fashion Lad!

11-11-2009, 08:09 PM

So Blas is worked up over a serial murderer and glad he's dead.

Frankly, I don't see that as a sentiment that she needs to feel bad about. I would say that is a perfectly natural and reasonable reaction.

I never said she should feel bad. I'm defending myself from her basically saying that I care too much about the DC Sniper when that's just not the case. I do agree with natural reaction to someone who has killed people being dead. I not sad that he's dead. I don't think he deserved to live. HOWEVER, I don't think it's our place to say who lives and who dies.

BroomJockey

11-11-2009, 08:45 PM

I agree with blas, and I'm not saying everyone does it, but I'm noticing a trend where people seem to sympathize more and more with these scumbag criminals than with the victims they hurt.
.

I'm not saying it, and I don't think anyone else has said it. What I've said before is this:

The death penalty is revenge.

No. Full stop. You cannot argue that. It is possible to build a prison where someone cannot escape from. In fact, how many criminals escape from maximum security prisons each year in the US? Less than 1 in 100,000? To say "to make sure they never do it again" is a crap reason. If you're worried about them getting out legally, then you need parole reform. Not revenge killings. As a society, we need to be better than that. To use death as a punishment, when it's irreversible is foolhardy at best. My concern isn't the guilty. It's the innocent convicted as guilty, and the moral fibre of society. Killing cannot be acceptable when done by the government, but then not okay when done by an individual. The government is made up of individuals, and should not be granted special dispensation just because there's a group of them. There's no special wisdom imparted just because you're on a jury, or become a judge, or a legislator. How can society advance as a whole, and improve morally and ethically if we're taking revenge in the form of justice. That method of thinking permeates a population, if it takes hold. "I don't need to find a way to work through this problem, I just need to do what makes me feel better."

Add on top the fact that it doesn't lower crime rates, costs more, can potentially kill innocent people, is usually inequitably applied across race, gender, and other metrics (men more likely than women, blacks more likely than whites, poor more likely than rich, etc.), all together makes the death penalty a likely candidate for "Stupidest Fucking Idea of All Time."

RecoveringKinkoid

11-11-2009, 08:48 PM

HOWEVER, I don't think it's our place to say who lives and who dies.

But it IS our place to protect ourselves. We have put people into power who's responsibility to us is to protect us.

These people fail every single day when they let out murderers and rapists to murder and rape again. And when they DO let these people out, they are not letting out reformed people who have learned compassion and morals. They are letting out hardened, dangerous people who have learned how not to get caught again. It will take us longer to stop them next time.

Or maybe we don't let them out and they kill a guy in prison. After all, why not? People pay for hits in prison...it's not like lifers have anything to lose. And next thing you know, they've failed that dead prisoner, who might be scumbag ,but he wasn't sentenced to death.

I'd say if you want to live in our society and enjoy this society's protection, do not act against this society by killing it's members. Because this society has a duty to protect itself...and eliminating threats does that very effectively.

DesignFox

11-11-2009, 08:57 PM

<snip>The death penalty is revenge.
<snip>

When it applies to the criminals I'm talking about, I disagree.

You guys won't change my opinion, and I'm pretty sure I won't change yours. *shrug*

My opinion counts for shit in my state, anyway. We've already pansied out and done away with it. Apparently, mass murderers and serial rapists are welcome here. Especially since it is unlawful in my state for you to even defend yourself if someone breaks into your home. Talk about the most ass-backwards rules on the planet. :mad:

Pedersen

11-11-2009, 08:57 PM

Personally, I have very mixed feelings on the death penalty. After all, if you're dead, you sure as hell aren't going to become a repeat offender.

However, I don't even trust my government enough to believe they can devise and fairly apply basic laws (including budgeting, criminal statutes, and other topics like health care). In fact, I trust them so little that I demand the right to arm myself to defend myself from them.

How can I trust the government enough to be certain that they have convicted the right person, and are not executing an innocent individual?

gremcint

11-11-2009, 09:05 PM

The death penalty is not revenge, it is not murder it is a consequence of a decision that the sniper made.

The us does not hide the fact it has the death penalty, I can look up which states have it and which method of execution is being used by each and which one they had in the past.

The Sniper who they determined was mentally competent to stand trial and not insane knew that this was a possible consequence of his actions. He knew full well that the death penalty was a very likely possibility should he be caught and he still chose to go out and commit murder. Therefore he chose to put himself in the situation he's in now and he got the punishment he deserved and agreed to. I've long been a believer that if you know the consequences of an action then don't bitch about them when you have a choice not to do the action.

As for the cost, well quite frankly that is court reform that needs to happen as it simply shouldn't cost more just because the punishment is different.

Further a life sentence, where you are guaranteed to spend the rest of your life in prison unless you escape, is in my opinion a death sentence anyways. We've taken away the rest of life and locked you away where you will no longer be contributing to society in any way and now we have to feed and clothe you on my dime.

In regards to the people who are talking about innocent people being locked up or executed is there a study that outlines how many innocents vs guilty are executed and how many people are cleared while alive versus those locked up? I've never heard any specific numbers on this and I am curious.

BroomJockey

11-11-2009, 09:17 PM

The death penalty is not revenge,

Yes it is. there is absolutely nothing about the death penalty to recommend it over life incarceration except the ability to take from others that which they took from ones we care about. It is exactly analogous to setting fire to the homes of arsonists, raping rapists, and other eye-for-and-eye punishments.

Nyoibo

11-11-2009, 09:27 PM

Opinions are like assholes.

Everyone has one and they're all full of shit? :p

Class now, more later.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-11-2009, 09:54 PM

It is exactly analogous to setting fire to the homes of arsonists, raping rapists, and other eye-for-and-eye punishments.

I disagree. Raping a rapist or burning out an arsonist does not stop them from raping or setting another fire.

Unless you manage to kill them in the process. THEN it stops them.

Flyndaran

11-11-2009, 09:59 PM

An eye for an eye was just way back in the past when everyone wanted more. Now it is and should be seen as barbaric.
Causing pain and death is not justice. It is violent animalistic vengeance.
There will always be the specter of imbalanced practice. Why do black men get the death penalty so MUCH more often than white women? That makes the practice racist and sexist.
There will always be the possibility of mistakes, accidental and intentional.

In a perfect world, I may believe that some people should be removed from existence a lazy means of punishment. But we are a long long long way from that time.

Kimmik

11-11-2009, 10:06 PM

I thought long and hard on this.

I am against the death penalty because I do not think that our system is flawless and I do not believe that anyone has the right to say who should die and who should live.

I have been raped, molested, beat, lost my brother to murder's and none of these has made me want the death penalty. I am how ever a believer that prisons need to go back to the way they were. I believe in chain gangs, forced labor, and taking all the bells and whistles out of prison.

But I will never believe that taking a life for a life is right.

Peppergirl

11-11-2009, 10:16 PM

I'm a firm believer that being locked up in prison (hard time, not 'white collar') is more of a punishment than death. At least it would be to me.

The problem is that, in my country, 'life in prison' sometimes doesn't mean LIFE.

How many times have we read about some scumbag killing or torturing people, only to have their 'life' sentence equate to a few years, then go out and kill/torture again? If our justice system were better, would we need an actual death penalty? After all, the dirtbags who get a life sentence would then rot in jail where they belong, until they die. It would still technically be a death sentence, just with added bonus of the misery of being in jail until death comes. :D

RecoveringKinkoid

11-11-2009, 10:20 PM

Thank you, Peppergirl. I agree wholeheartedly with this.

If I knew they would not murder again, either inside or outside of prison, I would change my position in a heartbeat.

I'm not looking for satisfaction, revenge, justice (because really, for some of these crimes, there can never be justice), or any other thing to make it "right." It can't be made right.

All I want is for them to be stopped. And because our system is so screwed up, the only option I see to that end is to put them down.

jackfaire

11-11-2009, 10:22 PM

The problem is that, in my country, 'life in prison' sometimes doesn't mean LIFE.

When I was a kid this always confused me because I would hear 'double life sentences' and I wondered how people could do that. I thought maybe they get jailed once they are born into their new life.

Greenday

11-11-2009, 11:42 PM

The problem is that, in my country, 'life in prison' sometimes doesn't mean LIFE.

How many times have we read about some scumbag killing or torturing people, only to have their 'life' sentence equate to a few years, then go out and kill/torture again?

Unless they escape or are pardoned, which rarely happens, people with life sentences with chance of parole never get out after a few years. For lenient penalties involving a life sentence, it's at least fifteen years before you even have a shot at parole.

Boozy

11-12-2009, 12:29 AM

There are zero escapes on record for US supermax prisons.

Zero.

The "prevention" argument does not hold water.

The US kills murderers because the electorate likes revenge.

And revenge has no place in the justice system of a civilized country.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-12-2009, 01:21 AM

There are zero escapes on record for US supermax prisons.

Zero.

The "prevention" argument does not hold water.

.

They don't have to escape. All they have to wait until they are eligible for parole.

The prevention argument holds the Pacific Ocean. Dead people can't kill people.

Man serving a life sentence for murder and kidnapping, and then commits nearly forty offenses while in prison, blows his chances of parole by murdering a meth head. (http://www.thestate.com/154/story/925255.html) So, basically, the meth head gets the death sentence and the murderer/kidnapper/God knows what else-er does not. And yes, the guy was up for parole. So evidently, my state uses to term "life sentence" differently that I would.

And here is Anthony Sowell, who kept a collection of decomposing women around his property and the system that failed him, failed them, and failed us. (http://geogee.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/anthony-sowell-and-his-co-defendants/)

So, if you want to know why I am in favor of the death penalty, it's stories like these.

I do not trust our system to to the right thing. Do they screw up and kill innocent people sometimes? Yes. But I bet they kill fewer innocent people than paroled and incarcerated killers do.

Boozy

11-12-2009, 02:51 AM

Is there not a sentence called "life without parole"? And if not, is there some reason why killing people is preferable to creating one?

blas87

11-12-2009, 03:18 AM

In severe cases, there is life without parole.....but the guy who killed my cousin got life with parole in x years.....and this was before unborn babies were counted as victims, so he was only charged for murdering 1 person, not two.

Perhaps the only smart thing that Bush ever did, was to pass that law after what happened with Lacey Peterson and her baby Connor. If only he'd done that just years before.

I do have a question, though. People keep bringing up that the justice system shouldn't have a say as to who lives or dies. Murderers don't give their victims a choice, so why should we give them one?

Fashion Lad!

11-12-2009, 03:35 AM

People keep bringing up that the justice system shouldn't have a say as to who lives or dies. Murderers don't give their victims a choice, so why should we give them one?

No one has that choice. No one.

blas87

11-12-2009, 03:39 AM

You are 110% correct, Lad.

It just befuddles me a bit that murder victims are never given a choice, but murderers are.

Nyoibo

11-12-2009, 03:46 AM

And revenge has no place in the justice system of a civilized country.

Good thing it's not in a civilized society then. (yup, I'm sure I'm gonna cop flak for that)

No one has that choice. No one.

I beg to differ on that.

Greenday

11-12-2009, 03:50 AM

I beg to differ on that.

Yea, theoretically we can choose to murder, but it just sets us back in advancing as a society. It doesn't make the world a better place. The government murdering is no different from some jackass murdering people.

McDreidel09

11-12-2009, 03:51 AM

Thanks Pederson for clarifying what I said.

If I thought that the right should be taken away, that sentence would have started with "I think..."

I was merely stating the reason why it is more cost effective for life in prison.

However, my take is this:

I'm working my butt off so I can pay my bills and tuition. However, some of that hard earned money goes towards the prison system so they can have a free education, that I have to pay thousands of dollars for now and put myself in debt for. Prison has become a place that people no longer fear. Some people I know even said that if they end up broke, they would commit crimes so they would have a place to sleep and free food. :eek:

How is it fair that law abiding citizens are paying for people who broke the law to have those things?

Greenday

11-12-2009, 03:54 AM

I'm working my butt off so I can pay my bills and tuition. However, some of that hard earned money goes towards the prison system so they can have a free education, that I have to pay thousands of dollars for now and put myself in debt for.

It's so when they get out of jail, they actually have options other than going back to a life of crime. Pretty well worth it in my opinion.

blas87

11-12-2009, 03:55 AM

I hate to disagree with you, lil sis, but I used to think the way you do about prison.

I still agree that prison inmates get a few too many privileges, I still agree that it's a waste of tax dollars to educate and warm and a/c murderers and scumbags, but in all reality, prison is NOT somewhere any decent person wants to be.

The Big Boy House is no joke.

Unfortunate as it sounds, the threat of prison time is what stopped my bf from drinking and driving and to stop screwing off. Jail is like a walk in the park on a sunny day compared to prison.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-12-2009, 04:55 AM

Is there not a sentence called "life without parole"? And if not, is there some reason why killing people is preferable to creating one?

I think there is one, and if it kept someone from murdering or raping anyone else, I'd be all for it. It would be preferable. Personally, the idea of our legal system being in charge of killing people is NOT preferable to me. If we could guarentee that once put away, the threat from that one guy was completely eliminated, I would be against the death penalty.

However, lin reality, ife without parole would not have protected the meth head that got stabbed to death in the story I cited. That guy had to die before our system decided that the guy that killed him woiuld not stop killing. Why? The guy had 40+ priors, if you include the murder and kidnapping. Our system failed the guy that got stabbed in the worse possible way.

Heck, you put a guy in for life without parole, and all that does is tell him that there is nothing more that can or will be done to him. He's got nothing to lose at that point.

You fill up a prison with THAT kinda guy and everyone in there with him is potentially under a death sentence. Meth head did not deserve to be killed. His sentence did not include the death penalty.

Fashion Lad!

11-12-2009, 05:08 AM

I'm not going to defend the guy for killing the meth head. Just like I'm not going to defend our court system for killing someone because they believe it's the right thing to do.

Since we can't be 100% (http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence/page.do?id=1101086) with our judiciary system and the death penalty, I do not want to fund the execution of someone by even one penny. Because what if the courts were wrong? I just funded the execution of a completely innocent person. That person's life is extinguished, unjustifiably.

crashhelmet

11-12-2009, 08:00 AM

IIRC, a Life Sentence is only 30 years. That's why/how judges can order multiple sentences. In most states, you're up for parole every 7 years. Some have extended it to 10 and 15, I believe.

The Death Penalty is not revenge. Calling it revenge would be no different than calling all forms of discipline revenge. Call it what it is. Retribution.

As I've said in other posts, if a convicted murderer can be proven without a shadow of a doubt to have committed murder, don't even waste the time, energy, or resources to take them to prison. Take them out back and put a bullet in their head or string them up as soon as the sentence is passed.

Yes, there are a large number of people erroneously convicted each year. Yes, sometimes they're executed before they can be proven innocent. As technology and science continue to improve, however, that number is quickly dropping.

CH

BroomJockey

11-12-2009, 08:13 AM

The Death Penalty is not revenge. Calling it revenge would be no different than calling all forms of discipline revenge. Call it what it is. Retribution.

Definitions of retribution on the Web:
a justly deserved penalty
the act of correcting for your wrongdoing
vengeance: the act of taking revenge (harming someone in retaliation for something harmful that they have done) especially in the next life; "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord"--Romans 12:19; "For vengeance I would do nothing. ...

I see no method of correcting wrongdoings in killing someone who has done wrong. So I assume you mean the 3rd definition listed there. Vengeance.

The death penalty is not "discipline." Discipline is a measure taken to correct behaviour. After the death penalty, there is no further behaviour.

Nyoibo

11-12-2009, 08:38 AM

The death penalty is not "discipline." Discipline is a measure taken to correct behaviour. After the death penalty, there is no further behaviour.

I'd say that pretty defiatively corrects it.

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 11:14 AM

I see no method of correcting wrongdoings in killing someone who has done wrong.

I do. Society as a whole has lost a life, so society corrects that by taking the life of the offender. It prevents that person doing it again.

Generally speaking, though, the life sentencing thing not meaning life made me think. I'm pro-execution where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt in the more horrendous crimes. However, were the life sentence for this changed to meaning for the rest of a person's natural life, with no chance of parole, would I change my view? It would give a chance of remission when those occasional cases are proved to be innocent, despite the original trial, and without little home comforts then it would mean more to me as a deterrent to others than just offing someone.

With the system as it is, though, the life sentence is a joke. I wouldn't say that prison is easy or pleasant, but compared to death it's generally preferable.

Rapscallion

crashhelmet

11-12-2009, 12:09 PM

Definitions of retribution on the Web:
a justly deserved penalty

That sounds like an applicable definition to me

The death penalty is not "discipline." Discipline is a measure taken to correct behaviour. After the death penalty, there is no further behaviour.

Sounds like the problem with the disciplined has been corrected then. It also sets an example for would be future murderers that change their minds as a result of it.

CH

Mr Slugger

11-12-2009, 12:23 PM

As I've said in other posts, if a convicted murderer can be proven without a shadow of a doubt to have committed murder, don't even waste the time, energy, or resources to take them to prison. Take them out back and put a bullet in their head or string them up as soon as the sentence is passed.

And to this note. We had a guy around here about six months ago murdered his family. The cops walked into a blood soaked house with dead people on the floor to the sight of the guy slitting his sister throat. The cops put a bullet in his head. (Mainly to help save the girl) But when situations like this happen I'm perfectly ok with the cops killing them. Saves us money putting that person through the justice system.

But a perfect example. In our state there's no death penalty. 30 years ago he admitted to killing in 80 year old grandmother. Stabbed her to death and then shot her. Drank her blood, and then burned the body. Now of course it's because he's a 700 year old vampire. So he wasn't all there, at the time. But well he's a changed man now of course. Doesn't matter than only a couple of years ago he tried to blood suck a prison guard. Luckily he just got denied parole for the second time. But I mean at some point he has a chance of getting out, and if he's 25 years later still trying his vampire thing on prison guards I would have to say that this guy should really never get out period, but seeing he can go up for parole he's always got a chance at getting out.

I'm not saying he deserved to be executed, but it's an example of a killer who even years later still exhibits signs of being a killer and yet has the chance at some point of getting out.

You know maybe if the rules were changed that a person like him doing what he did would revoke his possibility of parole. Or life with no chance of parole included spending the rest of their life in a straight jacket, mouth guard, and chained to the wall in a 3x3 cell for the rest of their life. (and really for the rest of their life) And I think in the future I think I'd be ok if they had some kind of cryo sleep where they just put them into some kind of coma, then stored them in some kind of crypt system, and if they did the crime then they'll die of old age without even knowing it. If they weren't guilt and they find out later on then they wake them and let them out.

But I'm sure that people would complain about those methods of dealing with them too.

jackfaire

11-12-2009, 01:19 PM

Mr Slugger

11-12-2009, 02:05 PM

Honestly I don't think I would mind Cryo sleep so much because theoretically it freeze their aging and thus if it came out they were innocent then they would have lost the same amount of time and such with their family but they would still have plenty of life ahead of them.
Theoretically it either stops or slows it, or just keeps them asleep. Depending on the scifi author :) But I wouldn't want them to just be frozen because then eventually we could have huge buildings of frozen murders. Like I said more of a coma where they age normally, just never wake up. However you might be able to talk me into agreeing on say a 25 year freeze time to make sure there's no reversal in the judgement.

BroomJockey

11-12-2009, 02:29 PM

And to this note. We had a guy around here about six months ago murdered his family. The cops walked into a blood soaked house with dead people on the floor to the sight of the guy slitting his sister throat. The cops put a bullet in his head.
That's not the death penalty, that's proper defence of a human life. If they'd come in afterwards, then the cops would be guilty of murder, had they done that.

But I mean at some point he has a chance of getting out, and if he's 25 years later still trying his vampire thing on prison guards I would have to say that this guy should really never get out period, but seeing he can go up for parole he's always got a chance at getting out.

Like I said. Parole reform. High-risk reoffenders should not get parole, etc. Parole should only be for those with either extenuating circumstances, or little-to-no risk of reoffending.

DesignFox

11-12-2009, 02:34 PM

I haven't poked around the internet, because I tend to be very nightmare prone, but if someone can show me where the courts convicted a serial killer, gave him the death penalty, and it turned out someone ELSE was the serial killer, maybe...and it's a very slim maybe...I'd have second thoughts.

But as it stands, I tend to think that those wrongly convicted were NOT in the cases of mass murders/rapes. They were generally in the case of a one time offense and got stuck in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I mean, I find it hard to believe that some guy or woman can be tied to 15 murders incorrectly. "Woops! Our bad!" For multiple victims in multiple situations? I highly doubt it.

Those are the people we execute.

Want nightmares? Look up the Phoenix strangler. That scumbag is still alive and well in South Africa, where they don't have the death penalty.

Sorry. Fuck that. Put that SOB to sleep. That is one nasty individual. And what's so awesome about him, is he really doesn't see anything wrong with what he did. He just sorta, snapped...and dozens of young women were raped, tortured and strangled to death. Left out in the sugar cane fields because they do routine control burnings, and he hoped to get rid of the bodies that way. So, can't even tell me he's too crazy to know what he's doing. Crazy he may be. But he knew enough to try and not get caught. Like most serial offenders, they caught him because he got obsessed and careless.

Those people need to be executed. I wouldn't expose those types of prisoners to one another, let alone leave even the slimmest chance that they will get back out into society.

I am probably going to lose a lot of sleep over these examples.

Greenday

11-12-2009, 02:35 PM

It also sets an example for would be future murderers that change their minds as a result of it.

So what about every study on this saying that as a deterrent, the death penalty is worthless?

linguist

11-12-2009, 03:24 PM

DesignFox

11-12-2009, 03:50 PM

While still a horrible story, linguist, the situation doesn't seem to coincide with say, a serial killer. Multiple murder yes, and until I read the case details, I'm assuming this was one crime scene.

I will look into it when I get off of work. What a terrible situation. :(

RecoveringKinkoid

11-12-2009, 03:50 PM

Parole should only be for those with either extenuating circumstances, or little-to-no risk of reoffending.

Well, shoulda, woulda, coulda. How it should be isn't not how it often is.

So what about every study on this saying that as a deterrent, the death penalty is worthless?

How can you call a 100 percent no chance of a repeat offense worthless? That guy won't even get in trouble for jaywalking after that.

Fashion Lad!

11-12-2009, 04:38 PM

Well, shoulda, woulda, coulda. How it should be isn't not how it often is.

With that statement, you can nullify just about any argument on this matter. Awesome.

How can you call a 100 percent no chance of a repeat offense worthless? That guy won't even get in trouble for jaywalking after that.

Let me get this straight. Even if it meant one innocent person being executed, you would keep the death penalty in favor of multiple life sentences without chances of parole? In order to save someone, you're willing to possibly sacrifice an innocent person's life?

This is not good company. Countries with 25 or more executions: Iraq (29), Iran (265), Pakistan (29), Saudi Arabia (156), USA (42).

We're 3rd! That is not something I'm proud of and it's not a race I want to compete it.

BroomJockey

11-12-2009, 04:40 PM

How can you call a 100 percent no chance of a repeat offense worthless? That guy won't even get in trouble for jaywalking after that.

If you take his post in context, as it should be, you'd note he was replying to CH saying it acts as a deterrent for future killers, and it doesn't. Neither of them mentioned the current offender. Reply to posts as they are, not as you'd like to address them. After all, "coulda shoulda woulda."

One more argument for anyone saying "Well, the death penalty is legal, so that's okay." Slavery was legal. Not letting homosexuals marry IS legal. Not letting women vote was legal. So just because something is currently legal does not automatically make it ethical.

I find it interesting how so many people cannot fathom the thinking of people against gay marriage, shouting that it's immoral, and those people should change their way of thinking, gays are people too, and deserve rights, and then turn around and support the most barbaric – nay, Neanderthalic – of punishments available to humankind. To paraphrase Charles Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a dichotomy of opinion. To consider oneself so forward in one area, but be so backwards in another.

blas87

11-12-2009, 04:48 PM

When a person has taken a victim (or victims) and done something very barbaric and Neanderthalish, they are no longer a person with feelings, emotions, and rights to me anymore.

I do not find myself a hypocrite at all. Solid bet that most of the gays who are trying so desperately to get married are not fucking murderers!!!!

Everyone is a person with feelings, emotions and rights, don't get me wrong. But in my opinion, when you do something that is just so disgustingly un-human and vicious and especially when done in a matter with NO regret or emotion towards what was done.........that's not a person. That's a fucking monster.

RecoveringKinkoid

11-12-2009, 05:00 PM

Well, Broom, yeah, I agree that it does not deter future killers. I'm just saying it deters future murders.

Nobody ever thinks they will get caught. So I'm not sure that short of having people drawn and quartered in the public square, anything we do will deter future killers.

To answer FL's question...yeah. I think so. I say that tentatively, but yeah. Because you wouldn't be saving an innocent life. You'd just be swapping out which innocent life gets wasted. And I simply do not believe that we execute more innocent prisoners by accident than repeat offenders do on purpose.

Pedersen

11-12-2009, 05:11 PM

Well, Broom, yeah, I agree that it does not deter future killers. I'm just saying it deters future murders.

And thus did my brain shut down.

BroomJockey

11-12-2009, 05:13 PM

Well, Broom, yeah, I agree that it does not deter future killers. I'm just saying it deters future murders.

You know, except that it doesn't do that any more effectively than life incarceration.

And I find it interesting that you're willing to have the government kill innocents in your name, just because "someone else would have died anyways."

Greenday

11-12-2009, 05:18 PM

How can you call a 100 percent no chance of a repeat offense worthless? That guy won't even get in trouble for jaywalking after that.

As a deterrent, the death penalty is worthless. It doesn't deter people from committing crimes.

BroomJockey

11-12-2009, 05:19 PM

that's not a person. That's a fucking monster.

How nice that we have someone capable of determining who is worthy of humandom. Personally, I'm not willing to strip away humanity from anyone, for fear that someday, someone may decide something I do is inhuman. Glad you don't have to fear that though. After all, you're perfect, and never break any laws, never do anything immoral, and completely righteous in the eyes of all humans, no? Because if not, someone, somewhere, may decide that you're inhuman, and decide you don't qualify for life. And not to pull a Godwin, but keep in mind, the Jews were seen as inhuman by the Nazis, so there's no guarantee that even doing everything right will save you. I'd really prefer not to be the one stripping humanity. A saying you might want to keep in mind, blas, "You become what you hate."

Note of order, but people with mental illness are not eligible for the death penalty, and usually, the most heinous murderers have mental illnesses, so you're not even getting rid of the worst offenders. Keep that in mind while you're talking about putting down "mad dogs" and such.

Fashion Lad!

11-12-2009, 05:27 PM

To answer FL's question...yeah. I think so. I say that tentatively, but yeah. Because you wouldn't be saving an innocent life. You'd just be swapping out which innocent life gets wasted. And I simply do not believe that we execute more innocent prisoners by accident than repeat offenders do on purpose.

Since our system is not perfect, I don't want anything as absolute as the death penalty.

I'd say people are less likely to be murdered in jail than they are to be out wandering about.

Total deaths by cause from 2001-2006 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcrp/tables/dcst06spt1.htm)

This is per 100,000 inmates. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcrp/tables/dcst06spt3.htm)

But, instead of multiple life sentences without chances of parole, you're still willing to risk an innocent person's life?

RecoveringKinkoid

11-12-2009, 05:50 PM

Without chance of parole, if it really does mean there is NO CHANCE OF PAROLE, and no chance that the guy can't take a crack at someone NOT condemned to the death penalty, then no. I would not be willing to risk an innocent's life.

Mr Slugger

11-12-2009, 06:12 PM

I'd say people are less likely to be murdered in jail than they are to be out wandering about.

Total deaths by cause from 2001-2006 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcrp/tables/dcst06spt1.htm)
Interesting. If you follow a couple of links I found out that there's actually 3 states that still have hanging as an option and three states where firing squad are an option. And Utah used firing squad as recently as 1999.
I figured New Hampshire was the last state to have hanging as an option, and I don't think they've ever used it. But firing squad I figured that was long gone.

tropicsgoddess

11-12-2009, 06:25 PM

The DC Sniper definitely didn't deserve to live another day. He took callously innocent peoples lives for what?!! It's not as though he has severe mental issues or anything of that sort! So yeah, I'm fine with the fact that he was executed, but it's too bad they couldn't have taken him down in a similar fashion as he did with his victims. Why should we care if the murderers like will/or already did die a "painful" death from botched lethal injection when they were the ones that make their victims and survivors suffer through hell and in cold blood watch their victims draw their last breath?!!

Fashion Lad!

11-12-2009, 06:57 PM

Why should we care if the murderers like will/or already did die a "painful" death from botched lethal injection when they were the ones that make their victims and survivors suffer through hell and in cold blood watch their victims draw their last breath?!!

Because then we'd be no better than them.

Greenday

11-12-2009, 07:51 PM

Because then we'd be no better than them.

Which is exactly my point. Why is it ok for the judicial system to murder, but not the average Joe? It's not different at all.

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 08:26 PM

And I find it interesting that you're willing to have the government kill innocents in your name, just because "someone else would have died anyways."

Yes? Under the current system, murderers (the worst ones) are given a chance to go back out on the streets and kill (quite probably) more than the occasional innocent executed in error. Numerically, it's the better option for least innocent life lost. I'd reserve execution for the very worst cases where it's proven beyond doubt, but I'd very much like it to be used.

Out of interest, has anyone gathered any data on the number of people executed in the US legal system over the last - for example - ten years and the number since proven guilty? Maybe twenty or thirty? I'd like to see just how many instead of the occasional anecdote.

Someone raised an interesting point about the mentally ill not being executed. If someone's incurable and likely to go around killing, just because of a mental illness they're spare execution? Why? I'd say that's all the more reason to put someone down. I wouldn't want it to be the thin end of the wedge of culling the mentally handicapped, but I'd like to be protected from a proven murderer by them being stopped permenantly.

Rapscallion

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 08:28 PM

Which is exactly my point. Why is it ok for the judicial system to murder, but not the average Joe? It's not different at all.

As far as I'm aware, and I'm using my definitions instead of going to dictionary.com, murder is illegal and execution is both legal and for a reason. The judicial system therefore doesn't murder, just like the average slaughterhouse doesn't commit murder (despite the slogans put about by the pro-lentil groups).

Rapscallion

linguist

11-12-2009, 08:38 PM

Yes? Under the current system, murderers (the worst ones) are given a chance to go back out on the streets and kill (quite probably) more than the occasional innocent executed in error.

i have to stop you here. an innocent person put to death is not executed; they are murdered by the state. in my mind anyone ok with this is party to the murder.

Out of interest, has anyone gathered any data on the number of people executed in the US legal system over the last - for example - ten years and the number since proven guilty? Maybe twenty or thirty? I'd like to see just how many instead of the occasional anecdote.

did you mean since proven innocent? and in that case, isn't one far too many?

Greenday

11-12-2009, 08:41 PM

It's interesting. I'm curious where the people who say they think the death penalty should be reserved for when the crime is proven without a shred of doubt are from. Raps, I know you are from the UK, but you weren't the first to say it in this thread.

I may be a little rusty on my current US law as it's been almost half a year since I've studied it at all, but in the US, if you are convicted of a crime, it must have been proven that the defendant is guilty without a doubt. That's how the US legal system works. If it cannot be proven that the crime was committed without reasonable doubt (because no matter what, there will be some moron who will refuse to believe in evidence placed right in front of their face), you cannot find the person guilty. AKA if you doubt the person did it AT ALL, you must find them innocent. Oops, there goes that argument...for the US anyway.

If the death penalty wasn't a form of retribution, which it most definitely currently is, I wouldn't mind as much, but I have an issue with a blood thirsty society that thinks vengeance is perfectly ok. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Flyndaran

11-12-2009, 08:43 PM

Killing someone when not for immediate self-defense is murder. I don't agree with any other wordy way of weaseling out of that.

Fashion Lad!

11-12-2009, 08:55 PM

Carlos DeLuna Texas Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989
Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993
Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995
Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997
David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997
Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998
Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000
Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004

Are people that could have been innocent. The link I've included also contains their stories and why they are believed to have been wrongfully executed.

Link (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent)

To date, there are over 130 people that have spent time on death-row and were later taken off of death-row. I agree, one fuck-up when it comes to executing someone and that's too many. Putting an innocent person to death, there's no coming back from that. None. It's not our place to decide if they deserve to die for what they've done. It's our job to make sure they are not in the general public to not harm anyone else.

And Raps, by your logic and the way our court system works, anyone who has murdered people could be up for execution. They are supposed to be convicted beyond any shadow of a doubt or they're innocent.

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 09:04 PM

If the death penalty wasn't a form of retribution, which it most definitely currently is, I wouldn't mind as much, but I have an issue with a blood thirsty society that thinks vengeance is perfectly ok. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

It's not blood-thirstiness. Were it so, I'd be quite happy to see convicted criminals fight to the death in the arena in front of jeering crowds. It's self-preservation - I don't want those fuckwads getting out and risking me and mine.

Were the life sentences handed out actually meaning for the duration of their natural life and without parole, I'd possibly view it differently, but right now we don't have that choice.

Killing someone when not for immediate self-defense is murder. I don't agree with any other wordy way of weaseling out of that.

There's no need for a wordy way of weaseling out.

Murder is illegal. Execution isn't. Don't like it? Change the law.

i have to stop you here. an innocent person put to death is not executed; they are murdered by the state. in my mind anyone ok with this is party to the murder.

How do you determine this? Perform a referendum and anyone who votes to keep the death penalty should suffer time in jail as a result?

As a viewpoint, though, I fully agree that the general population get the government they vote for, for good or ill.

did you mean since proven innocent? and in that case, isn't one far too many?

One is one too many, but a murderer getting out on parole and killing someone else, or several someone elses, is a case of more innocent people dying. The death of one guilty person saves more lives under the current system.

So, how many people have been proven innocent beyond doubt after having been executed as compared to the number of people executed overall? I've got no idea what the stats are, but I'd like to hear them and their sources.

Rapscallion

Nyoibo

11-12-2009, 09:14 PM

So what about every study on this saying that as a deterrent, the death penalty is worthless?

Then I'd say we have a new category for the Darwin awards.

linguist

11-12-2009, 09:21 PM

One is one too many, but a murderer getting out on parole and killing someone else, or several someone elses, is a case of more innocent people dying. The death of one guilty person saves more lives under the current system.

so you're ok with the state-sanctioned murder of one to protect a hypothetical many? even if that one is innocent?

So, how many people have been proven innocent beyond doubt after having been executed as compared to the number of people executed overall? I've got no idea what the stats are, but I'd like to hear them and their sources.

according to our justice system, no should have to be proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. they should be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. fashionlad posted some sources a few posts up, but the one i'm most familiar with is the case of cameron willingham. after his execution, multiple fire science experts have determined the arson investigation that led to his conviction was shoddy and based on outdated techniques, and that the fire he was accused of setting was in fact accidental. as for the number of innocent vs guilty executed, i can't say i know. i can't say that i care. not to sound like a broken record, but one innocent murdered by the state is too many, and until such time as we can be 100% assured that the executed is guilty, the state has no business killing people.

Fashion Lad!

11-12-2009, 09:22 PM

So, how many people have been proven innocent beyond doubt after having been executed as compared to the number of people executed overall? I've got no idea what the stats are, but I'd like to hear them and their sources.

Rapscallion

From the website I quoted earlier. They gave 8 examples of people with strong evidence supporting their claims of innocence that were executed.

There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved.

But they did show a list of people who were possibly executed and were innocent. 2 people were innocent but later exonerated after execution. But those executions happened like 60 and 94 years ago.

We can't say that executing one innocent person is going to save other people's lives. We can't say that. It shouldn't be said. It cannot be proven.

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 09:23 PM

Are people that could have been innocent. The link I've included also contains their stories and why they are believed to have been wrongfully executed.

Link (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent)

Thanks - looks like seven likely candidates, but not proven, since as it says there's no real impetus for a case to be heard after death.

Says in there there's been over one thousand executions sicne 1976, so if we take the figure of one thousand then that's 0.7% of the executed people to be likely innocent.

To date, there are over 130 people that have spent time on death-row and were later taken off of death-row.

What I get from that is that the US system of double checks and appeals works. However, taken off death row and exhonorated are vastly different concepts. How many of those were actually released as free and unsullied, and how many just went back to the general prison population on appeals as having diminished responsibility at the time of the event (for example)?

I agree, one fuck-up when it comes to executing someone and that's too many.

One death of an innocent after releasing a known murderer is one too many.

Putting an innocent person to death, there's no coming back from that. None.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I wish I had a better answer to the problem. Well, actually I do - it's not to let the fuckers out of prison. "Oh, you killed someone, we'll let you out after fifteen years or so." Sod that - as a member of society I want to be protected. If that means killing those who threaten me or makign sure they're never released, fine.

It's not our place to decide if they deserve to die for what they've done. It's our job to make sure they are not in the general public to not harm anyone else.

Then who else can make that decision other than the members of society themselves?

And Raps, by your logic and the way our court system works, anyone who has murdered people could be up for execution. They are supposed to be convicted beyond any shadow of a doubt or they're innocent.

I've never claimed otherwise, unless my grammar was shoddy in some post earlier. I've always been of the mind that a death sentence should only exist where there is no doubt of guilt, that there was an intent and premeditation to kill someone.

I don't know about innocence in the case of a murder trial. Over here we have two main forms of murder - murder (premeditation and planned act) and manslaughter (usually reserved for walking in on your wife and the milkman in your bed and in a red rage clubbing one or the other to death with the bedside lamp). Manslaughter is sort of seen as a lesser form of murder, but it's still caused the death of another by lack of control. This is why I ask if the people taken off death row are back in the prison population (maybe clemency or a technicality such as manslaughter instead of murder) or if they were freed. For me, there are levels.

Rapscallion

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 09:26 PM

We can't say that executing one innocent person is going to save other people's lives. We can't say that. It shouldn't be said. It cannot be proven.

No - but it can be proven that executing one guilty murderer will prevent that murderer from commiting the same crime.

If memory serves, you're pro-gun. Give a corpse a magnum or a bazooka. I'll take the bugger on with one hand tied behind my back. See who wins.

Rapscallion

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 09:36 PM

so you're ok with the state-sanctioned murder of one to protect a hypothetical many? even if that one is innocent?

I'm OK with locking up people convicted of murder permenantly, and I think I would prefer that choice. Under the current system, where convicted murderers are let out after a decade or two, I don't think I'm safe and would prefer them to be executed.

Are you ok with murderers being let out and then killing again?

An anecdote (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540632/Convicted-murderers-who-were-set-free-to-kill.html).

By the way, the state executes - an act that is not illegal. Murder is illegal. Important definition.

Also, the courts in the UK and the US are generally not the sort where justice is meted out willy-nilly. The US system of appeals is proof of just how much work goes into defending people from the result of the prosecution.

according to our justice system, no should have to be proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt. they should be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I've never denied this as a system. In fact, I quite endorse it.

fashionlad posted some sources a few posts up, but the one i'm most familiar with is the case of cameron willingham. after his execution, multiple fire science experts have determined the arson investigation that led to his conviction was shoddy and based on outdated techniques, and that the fire he was accused of setting was in fact accidental. as for the number of innocent vs guilty executed, i can't say i know. i can't say that i care. not to sound like a broken record, but one innocent murdered by the state is too many, and until such time as we can be 100% assured that the executed is guilty, the state has no business killing people.

Donna Wilson in the above link was killed by a released killer who killed again. Another innocent on the hands of those who insist that a life sentence shouldn't mean life.

Rapscallion

Fashion Lad!

11-12-2009, 09:36 PM

No - but it can be proven that executing one guilty murderer will prevent that murderer from commiting the same crime.

If memory serves, you're pro-gun. Give a corpse a magnum or a bazooka. I'll take the bugger on with one hand tied behind my back. See who wins.

Rapscallion

I'm pro-gun for people who are responsible individuals and for self-defense.

We could execute that one murderer. You're right, they will never kill again. We could execute one murderer without knowing all the facts behind what they did and they may have not been inclined to murder someone else. We can think we got our murder and execute him just to find out years down the road they were innocent. Not something I will accept. Make release laws tougher for convicted murders. DO NOT execute anyone! The consequences of being wrong are too final. It's cheaper to keep them in jail anyway.

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 09:38 PM

Killing someone when not for immediate self-defense is murder. I don't agree with any other wordy way of weaseling out of that.

Had a thought about this. Where do you stand on the military ordered to attack the enemy?

Rapscallion

Greenday

11-12-2009, 09:44 PM

Hm, here's an interesting website full of lovely statistics: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2001/factors.html

So the older a person is, the less likely they are to become a repeat offender. So if you aren't going to give them a full life sentence in jail, at least odds are they won't commit more crime.

Violent offenders are the least likely to commit crime after jail.

Fact is, most older prisoners, when they finally get out of jail, just want to live out the rest of their lives in peace and don't want to be bothered or bother themselves with society. So most don't even pose a risk if we can hold them in jail until they are senior citizens. Or we could just hold them in jail until they die. Plenty of extremely reasonable options that aren't immediate irreversible actions.

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 09:46 PM

I'm pro-gun for people who are responsible individuals and for self-defense.

It would be self-defence - it would be the corpse of a known murderer!

:D

We could execute that one murderer. You're right, they will never kill again. We could execute one murderer without knowing all the facts behind what they did and they may have not been inclined to murder someone else.

The UK and US systems are pretty tight. I apologise - I miscounted the number of 'likely' innocents in the article you linked. Turns out to be eight, or 0.8%. However, the chances of a mistake in the system, especially when it involved murder, is pretty slim.

We can think we got our murder and execute him just to find out years down the road they were innocent. Not something I will accept. Make release laws tougher for convicted murders. DO NOT execute anyone! The consequences of being wrong are too final. It's cheaper to keep them in jail anyway.

To a certain extent I agree wholeheartedly, except in the case of the release criteria. Why release a convicted murderer except when they're proven innocent?

While there's a system that says, "We'll let them out after a bit or we'll kill them," then I have to push for the 'kill them' mindset. It's self-presevration. When the option for life imprisonment becomes meaningful, I'd be all for it.

Yes, the occasional innocent may die as a result of an execution system being in place, but many more would die as a result of a killer being released.

Rapscallion

BroomJockey

11-12-2009, 09:55 PM

Yes, the occasional innocent may die as a result of an execution system being in place, but many more would die as a result of a killer being released.

Rapscallion

The entire basis of the US legal system rests on a simple premise:

It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than to send a single innocent to jail.

So how many guilty men should go free to balance the taking of an innocent life, in that equation?

RecoveringKinkoid

11-12-2009, 10:06 PM

Yes? Under the current system, murderers (the worst ones) are given a chance to go back out on the streets and kill (quite probably) more than the occasional innocent executed in error. Numerically, it's the better option for least innocent life lost. I'd reserve execution for the very worst cases where it's proven beyond doubt, but I'd very much like it to be used.

Rapscallion

And that is exactly my point. That is math even I can work out.

And I'm with you there on the mentally ill thing, too. Take Andrea Yeats over here (drowned her children in a bathtub). I scandalized just about everyone I know when I commented that my heart was breaking for her. It was. That story is tragic in about a thousand different ways.

However, give her soft treatment because she is sick? Well, no. Give her humane treatment, by all means. However, she is way too sick to be out ever again. Should she die or spend her life locked away? Well, if she will never get out, lock her away. She isn't going to harm any adults, most likely. And clearly, keep her away from anyone she COULD harm. I'm okay with that (although when I imagine myself in her place, I would be begging for death, but that is just my take on it.) Execute her? I am frankly okay with that, too. It's a capital offense for a reason. But understand that revenge has NOTHING TO DO with my feelings on the matter.

If the decision were mine, I'd probably opt to lock her up forever. If she asked for the death penalty, I'd give it to her.

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 10:26 PM

The entire basis of the US legal system rests on a simple premise:

It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than to send a single innocent to jail.

So how many guilty men should go free to balance the taking of an innocent life, in that equation?

Do you really think that premise to be correct?

I'm a realist and know the above to be an ideal. My ideal is that there should be no innocents killed by murder, or - when we get to reality - that the minimum number of innocents should be killed by murderers. I know for a fact that the occasional innocent will die in a death penalty situation, but I also know that in a catch and release system there will be more innocents killed by released murderers.

With a catch and release system backed up by the death penalty for the worst cases, such as the majority of the US states as I understand it, my odds of survival are best if an occasional innocent dies. It's regrettable, but the numbers are in my favour as far as I can see it - I'm more likely to be murdered than accused of and executed for being a murderer.

My real preference is for permanent incarceration, thus allowing the chance of successful appeal for those who are innocent.

Rapscallion

linguist

11-12-2009, 10:44 PM

With a catch and release system backed up by the death penalty for the worst cases, such as the majority of the US states as I understand it, my odds of survival are best if an occasional innocent dies. It's regrettable, but the numbers are in my favour as far as I can see it - I'm more likely to be murdered than accused of and executed for being a murderer.

would you feel differently if the accused was a relative? sure, they're about to be murdered by the state for a crime they didn't commit, but it's okay because their death means some hypothetical future victim won't be killed by someone else?

BroomJockey

11-12-2009, 10:45 PM

Do you really think that premise to be correct?

For this case, my beliefs are irrelevant. It's the premise of the US Adversarial Legal system. It's better for a guilty person to go free due to fancy lawyering than for an innocent person to go to jail due to shitty lawyering, or a guilty person going free on weak evidence than an innocent person being convicted on weak evidence. "Reasonable doubt." We are talking about the US legal system, and people have repeatedly stated they'd rather an innocent person be executed than a killer to be released on parole. I find that to be directly analogous to the position that lawyers are supposed to take about convictions, only directly opposite. When we're talking about something permanent, is any doubt unreasonable? I'd think that a single case of an innocent person being executed shows that there is always doubt. After all, that person was found guilty enough to be convicted, lose all their appeals, and be put to death, but then exonerated afterwards. If there's always that possibility, and better the guilty go free, then I ask again, using that, how many guilty people do you think is appropriate for one innocent to be executed?

Because I gotta say, 111 found innocent while waiting to be killed, and 12 actually killed before their innocence was proved (just from what I found on a quick search: source New York Times), even if the ratio stayed the same, you'd need 1200 murderers freed just to make up for the innocents killed.

DesignFox

11-12-2009, 11:06 PM

The problem is when the jury convicts and the prosecution gets their death sentence when reasonable doubt exists. I've seen at least one case that I can think of off the top of my head, where doubt existed as to the person's guilt. They were convicted, anyway. (At least the one case I can think of, the convicted were not however, sentenced to death)

THAT is a problem. My problem is not with the punishment itself, only in the .8% of cases where it is inappropriately used. Give me a few to peruse those links. But my thought is that none of those people were accused of being repeat offenders. I will read them, and amend myself if necessary.

Which is why I think the death penalty needs to be reserved for only the most heinous, and repeat offenders at that.

It seems unlikely to me that someone linked to 3 separate deaths at 3 separate crime scenes would be innocent.

While I don't support the use of the death penalty in the case of most mentally ill people, I do believe that if they are murderously ill, like, they have no sense of morality at all and their broken wiring causes them to kill for the sake of killing, put them down. That kind of person will never be able to be integrated into society. Why do we put our prison guards and health care workers at risk by exposing THEM to people like that, let alone their fellow inmates, let alone *thinking* we fixed them and releasing them and having them go on another killing spree. I'm sure that case is extremely rare. Maybe it doesn't even exist, but is one of the few where I'd be ok with giving them the death penalty. Again, repeat offender. Not necessarily in a one time instance, although they should be incarcerated for life, and ideally would have NO opportunity for parole.

Ever see the movie Backdraft? With the pyro (who killed people in multiple fires) coming up for parole and the fireman has to go before the board every so often and show them that his remorse is all an act, so he stays behind bars?

Shouldn't have to happen.

linguist

11-12-2009, 11:16 PM

It seems unlikely to me that someone linked to 3 separate deaths at 3 separate crime scenes would be innocent.

.

there was a case in texas not that long ago, of timothy cole, who was accused of being a serial rapist (though to be fair he was only convicted of a single rape--police linked him but couldn't produce evidence that he committed the others, just that he was nearby when they all happened. you know, since they all happened around the college he attended). he was tried and convicted based on shoddy investigation and incorrect eyewitness testimony. sentenced to life in prison, he died of an asthma attack after serving several years.

granted, i know this is a death penalty thread and cole was given life, but it goes to show that, evidence be damned, someone can be linked to separate crimes and still be innocent of any of them.

DesignFox

11-12-2009, 11:17 PM

I've reviewed the link supplied by FashionLad. One guy they thought was innocent, after further review turned out to really be guilty. So, though I would have locked him up for life, not necessarily killed him, his execution was found to be just.

All of them were one time (possible) offenders. Some involved in shootings at a robbery.

Two were thought to be responsible for the death of multiple children. But now, apparently, the courts aren't so sure.

None of these people are those that I am advocating use of the death penalty on. Those are types of crimes I'd like to see people permanently locked away for. If they are eventually found to be innocent, then they should be released.

Also note which states these things happened in. Not every state throws the noose out as readily as Texas. Yikes. But I still insist it isn't the punishment itself that is inappropriate, just some of the cases it has been used in. I think that is what needs to be amended.

Fashion Lad!

11-12-2009, 11:17 PM

We have sentences that are multiple life sentences so the person has no chance to serve his term. We have life w/o parole. Why not abolish the death penalty and go with that?

But people are arguing for the death penalty when we do have multiple life sentences available. States were the most egregious acts are punished by the death penalty could remove the death penalty and go with multiple life sentences.

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 11:47 PM

would you feel differently if the accused was a relative? sure, they're about to be murdered by the state for a crime they didn't commit, but it's okay because their death means some hypothetical future victim won't be killed by someone else?

Probably. I'm quite happy to admit that if a faceless stranger (with so many people around, this is pretty likely, so the odds are still in my favour) was involved instead of a relative I liked (there are some I'd cheerfull wave off), then I'd be of a different opinion. I'm arguing on the grounds of self-preservation - me and mine to be protected. Yes, I'd feel differently if it was someone I was related to and liked. The odds are in my favour.

For this case, my beliefs are irrelevant.

Hmm - true. More of a separate thread issue.

After all, that person was found guilty enough to be convicted, lose all their appeals, and be put to death, but then exonerated afterwards. If there's always that possibility, and better the guilty go free, then I ask again, using that, how many guilty people do you think is appropriate for one innocent to be executed?

I don't agree that it's better that the guilty go free. Numerically, more innocent people are going to die if we use the catch/release system currently in place.

Because I gotta say, 111 found innocent while waiting to be killed, and 12 actually killed before their innocence was proved (just from what I found on a quick search: source New York Times), even if the ratio stayed the same, you'd need 1200 murderers freed just to make up for the innocents killed.

Were they actually found innocent, or were their sentences brought down to a lesser charge, or what? Link, please.

Innocents killed - release those murderers, and the likelihood is that even more innocents would die. I'm interested in preserving as many innocents as possible.

Rapscallion

kibbles

11-12-2009, 11:47 PM

. Murderers don't give their victims a choice, so why should we give them one?

Because we as a society are supposed to be better than murderers?

Rapscallion

11-12-2009, 11:49 PM

Because we as a society are supposed to be better than murderers?

We are, that's why we strive to provide a safer, more painless way to die than they offered their victims. I know there are botched cases, though my memory of these are usually where the guilty party is a drug addict with poor veins.

It's not about being better - being better just releases killers to kill again. It's about self-preservation.

Rapscallion

kibbles

11-12-2009, 11:54 PM

I don't agree that because it seems like too much work to reform the prison system, it will create more self-preservation to just implement the death penalty. I think that's just a lazy justice system, that's all IMO.

Peppergirl

11-13-2009, 12:02 AM

The problem is when the jury convicts and the prosecution gets their death sentence when reasonable doubt exists.

So much WORD to this. I think about many of the stories we hear on CS, and then consider that these same people could be on a jury, deciding if someone should live or die.

One can examine the amount of frivolous, ludicrous lawsuits in the US in which a jury awards ridiculous amounts of money on baseless complaints. Granted, many are turned over on appeal, but the point is clear: A jury can be comprised of some of the biggest idiots on the planet. And *these* are the people deciding the fate of others.

A jury of 'one's peers'? I shudder at the thought.

The system seems irretrievably broken.

Arcade Man D

11-13-2009, 01:25 AM

What I get from that is that the US system of double checks and appeals works. However, taken off death row and exonerated are vastly different concepts. How many of those were actually released as free and unsullied, and how many just went back to the general prison population on appeals as having diminished responsibility at the time of the event (for example)?

I can't remember what year it was off the top of my head, but Indiana's governor instituted a moratorium on executions when almost 50% (I believe the real numbers were 17 prisoners out of 35) of death-row inmates where proven innocent on appeals, and on evidence that should have exonerated them on their first trial.

Because humans are incapable of perfection, and because a government-sponsored execution of an innocent is a murder (after all, when a fascist/communist government executes a political prisoner, we decry it as murder, so any government executing an innocent person should be subject to the same definition), I cannot in good conscience support the death penalty at all. On the other hand, I think life sentences should be stricter, and even life sentences with parole should have more parole restrictions than any other sentence.

daleduke17

11-13-2009, 03:25 AM

Why do black men get the death penalty so MUCH more often than white women? That makes the practice racist and sexist.

Black men commit more crimes fitting of the death penalty than white women.

Makes pretty damn good sense, doesn't it?

blas87

11-13-2009, 03:29 AM

Come to think of it, I don't think many women have been put to death.

Anyone got any statistics?

gremcint

11-13-2009, 04:43 AM

Come to think of it, I don't think many women have been put to death.

Anyone got any statistics?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-and-death-penalty

•As of June 30, 2009 there were 53 women on death row. This constitutes 1.6% of the total death row population of about 3,297 persons.

•In the past 100 years, over 40 women have been executed in the U.S, including 11 since 1976. See, Women Executed in the U.S. Since 1900 for the date, state, race, and method of each execution.

•Much of this information is taken from "Death Penalty For Female Offenders, January 1973 through June 30, 2009 [PDF]" by Victor L. Streib, Professor of Law at Ohio Northern University College of Law, with periodic annotations by DPIC (Please see the full-text of the report for more details.)

kibbles

11-14-2009, 02:04 AM

BlaqueKatt

11-14-2009, 05:17 PM

Do you have a source for this info? I'd always heard the opposite. Just curious.

I do (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty#financialfacts)

covers the costs for all states that have the death penalty-

Peppergirl

11-14-2009, 05:24 PM

I do (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty#financialfacts)

covers the costs for all states that have the death penalty-

Thanks foir this, BK - I was hoping someone had it. Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.

BlaqueKatt

11-14-2009, 05:43 PM

In regards to the people who are talking about innocent people being locked up or executed is there a study that outlines how many innocents vs guilty are executed and how many people are cleared while alive versus those locked up? I've never heard any specific numbers on this and I am curious.

executed-no studies because no state wants to spend money to admit they executed an innocent person however there is this story (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?printable=true) from the new yorker-long read but worth it-texas has executed a factually innocent man-Cameron Todd Wilingham.

As for exhonerations check out the innocence project-
There have been 245 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.
Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.

and they only work on DNA cases-some of these individuals were on death row.

and this (http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/46.php) is a fantastic representation of our justice system at work
some highlights
The state's chief witness in the case, Paula Gray, claimed to have been at the scene of the crime with the four men. After her testimony secured indictments of all four men, she recanted and the charges against Jimerson were dropped.
Gray, who had been convicted as an accomplice and for perjury after her recantation, reverted to her original story and testified against Williams to gain her own release from prison.
Archie Weston(defense attourney) would later admit during a hearing in a different case that he was so stressed during the trial of Williams, Adams and Rainge that he couldn't think straight. He was disbarred for fraud committed in another case.
Adams's appeals were denied, but Williams and Rainge won new trials and were convicted again based on both the eyewitness testimony and the perjured testimony that had convicted Jimerson.
They also discovered that the police had been tipped to the identity of the actual perpetrators, but did not pursue the lead. Eventually, DNA testing exonerated all four men and implicated three other men, two of whom confessed and pleaded guilty to the crimes in 1997.

The prosecution's star witness later recanted her story, saying she made it up because she felt pressured and threatened by the police.

so 4 men sent to prison and two to death row because somone lied-great system we have

AdminAssistant

11-14-2009, 07:44 PM

I'm a woman; but, I find a lot of heinous crimes committed by women are downplayed because oh she was stressed, she was abused, blah blah blah blah. A crime is heinous whether it's committed by men women black white whatever. A crime shouldn't be downplayed because of a person's gender or race. *Sorry for the thread jack, it's just a trend that's irritating to me LOL!*

I just read a pretty interesting book called No Constitutional Right to be Ladies by Linda Kerber for a US Women's History class. It covers all of the various aspects where men and women are not treated equally in the eyes of the law throughout history, everything from property rights, suffrage, jury duty, and the draft. It's an interesting read, if you want to know more about the subject and don't mind dense, academic tomes. :p

kibbles

11-14-2009, 11:57 PM

I just read a pretty interesting book called No Constitutional Right to be Ladies by Linda Kerber for a US Women's History class. It covers all of the various aspects where men and women are not treated equally in the eyes of the law throughout history, everything from property rights, suffrage, jury duty, and the draft. It's an interesting read, if you want to know more about the subject and don't mind dense, academic tomes. :p

That sounds really interesting (even if it is a bit dense and academic ;)). Thanks for the tip! :)

daleduke17

11-16-2009, 02:16 AM

gremcint

11-16-2009, 02:33 AM

Call it revenge if you want, doesn't change my point that it was a well known consequence of what he CHOSE to do. Therefore I am fine with the death penalty, If you choose to walk off a cliff and die that is a consequence of an action you chose, same thing here.

In fact I say Rapists and Child Molesters should also get the death penalty, and forget lethal injection or electricity we should go back to older methods of execution that are reusable and don't use resources, hanging, guillotine or a knife. Come and join me in supporting a new death penalty initiative: The Green Death Penalty.

kibbles

11-16-2009, 02:38 AM

Count me out, I don't feel like supporting the country going backwards in terms of civilization IMO. I think that life sentences should actually mean life sentences and that should be the consequence for criminals who make the choices they do.

crashhelmet

11-16-2009, 08:32 AM

I do (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty#financialfacts)

covers the costs for all states that have the death penalty-

From that site...
Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, June 30, 2008).

Ok. Apparently, it's far cheaper to keep them in jail on a life sentence than on Death Row. I've never worked in corrections, so I'm completely baffled at how that differentiates. Death Row is supposed to be the worst of the prison system. Not a free upgrade to 5 star accommodations.

You know... I'm wondering how much of these costs are inflated with $200 hammers, $50 pop tarts, and other tricks the government likes to do with funding?

I still think we'd be saving money on quicker executions. Why is Richard Ramirez still alive? He was convicted 20 years ago.

CH

Greenday

11-16-2009, 02:45 PM

Why is death row more expensive? The inmates need their own section of guards, because they are deemed much more dangerous than anyone else. These guards have to be paid a lot more than regular guards because the prisoners are much more dangerous. Meal time is done a different way because they can't be brought into the mess hall with everyone else. Etc. etc.

Lace Neil Singer

11-16-2009, 04:59 PM

Want nightmares? Look up the Phoenix strangler. That scumbag is still alive and well in South Africa, where they don't have the death penalty.

I'll take your Phoenix strangler and raise you a Pedro Lopez. Seriously, this guy raped and murdered hundreds of young girls and nope, he didn't get the death penalty. Plus, he's free right now; he served his sentence then was deported. Seeing as he wasn't caught for fucking years and police thought that the girls were being kidnapped by white slavers rather than being murdered, he could still be doing it now.

Sweet dreams.

DesignFox

11-16-2009, 09:42 PM

<snip>
Sweet dreams.

*sad puppy face*

I do not have my boyfriend to hug me if I wake up crying from nightmares tonight.

I am NOT looking up those details today.

And Greenday, if death row inmates require the special guards, meal times, etc. that isn't going to change if we keep them alive...so...I don't see how giving them life sentences would save money on those particular examples. They'd still be the most dangerous criminals and require maximum security type treatment.

I think the only reason we spend so much more to execute someone is because of the appeals process. Unless I misinterpreted information...

Greenday

11-16-2009, 10:52 PM

And Greenday, if death row inmates require the special guards, meal times, etc. that isn't going to change if we keep them alive...so...I don't see how giving them life sentences would save money on those particular examples. They'd still be the most dangerous criminals and require maximum security type treatment.

If we didn't have death row, they wouldn't have to be separated from the general population and wouldn't need any special stuff.

Nyoibo

11-17-2009, 04:06 AM

If we didn't have death row, they wouldn't have to be separated from the general population and wouldn't need any special stuff.

I'm going to turn that arguement around and ask then why can't they be put into general population where they don't need that stuff until it's their time?

Greenday

11-17-2009, 04:58 AM

I'm going to turn that arguement around and ask then why can't they be put into general population where they don't need that stuff until it's their time?

By giving them the death penalty, we are saying they are unable to live with anyone. As such we obviously have to separate them from everyone else.

Nyoibo

11-17-2009, 06:11 AM

So what, if they didn't have the death penalty then that would magically make them safer around others?

Mr Slugger

11-17-2009, 11:35 AM

So what, if they didn't have the death penalty then that would magically make them safer around others?
Good point there. I've heard those excuses before. I've also heard it's for their protection because hey you never know another inmate might want to carry out the death penalty for the state. My response is so, they're going to die anyway.

Greenday

11-17-2009, 02:31 PM

So what, if they didn't have the death penalty then that would magically make them safer around others?

Serial killers and such do not randomly pick their targets. They don't kill everyone they see. They wouldn't just start killing everyone within their reach in prison.

Lace Neil Singer

11-17-2009, 03:06 PM

This guy did. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Panzram)

He said "I'll kill the next guy who bothers me" and yup, he did. Carl Panzram was indeed a serial killer; also one who agreed with the death penalty. Who's to say that he's a rarity? Why wouldn't someone commit a murder in prison purely to get the death penalty, or cuz they felt they had nothing to lose by doing so?

Greenday

11-17-2009, 03:08 PM

So it happened once, meaning they all will? Yea...

Lace Neil Singer

11-17-2009, 03:14 PM

I'm not saying that at all. You however, said that serial killers wouldn't ever kill someone in prison. I proved you wrong. Never did I say that they all would, and I wouldn't anyway cuz serial killers are different beings. They have different motives, different victims and different reasons to kill. Also, not all the people on death row are serial killers, so your logic is skewed. I don't feel strongly either way on the subject; I'm just merely pointing out flaws to your posts. XD Just as I would if the other side made a point that needed debunking.

BroomJockey

11-17-2009, 04:05 PM

They don't kill everyone they see. They wouldn't just start killing everyone within their reach in prison.

I'm not saying that at all. You however, said that serial killers wouldn't ever kill someone in prison.

Interesting interpretation. May I enquire as to the chromatic hue of the sky in your world?

linguist

11-17-2009, 06:06 PM

So what, if they didn't have the death penalty then that would magically make them safer around others?

perhaps. sentencing someone to die means they no longer have anything left to lose, therefore they have the potential to be even more dangerous.

Greenday

11-18-2009, 12:52 AM

I'm not saying that at all. You however, said that serial killers wouldn't ever kill someone in prison. I proved you wrong.

Quote me where I said that.

DesignFox

11-18-2009, 01:36 AM

perhaps. sentencing someone to die means they no longer have anything left to lose, therefore they have the potential to be even more dangerous.

But if they are already proven to be extremely dangerous, I would think they'd still be separated, whether or not they are sentenced to die. I don't see how not being sentenced to die will all of a sudden turn a violent sociopath into a regular, run of the mill prisoner. That person still needs to be held under maximum security conditions. It isn't only for the safety of the other prisoners, but let's think about our prison guards and staff, hmm?

I wish Kara were around. Maybe she'd have some clues for us...since she works in a prison and has worked around some of the nastiest of the nasty. I forget where those threads are on CS. I made the mistake of looking up the names of one of the prisoners she tended to...he is the stuff nightmares are made of. Don't remember if he has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment. She described the situation as "looking into a person's eyes and seeing that they have no soul" or something like that. :eek:

DesignFox

11-18-2009, 01:43 AM

Serial killers and such do not randomly pick their targets. They don't kill everyone they see. They wouldn't just start killing everyone within their reach in prison.

Here's your quote Greenday.

Maybe we all misunderstood it. But it looks like you're saying that serial killers won't touch their fellow inmates simply because they won't be their "type."

I think you meant to say that not all the inmates and staff will meet the killer's victim profile, so it is unlikely that those people would be targets. But, uh...you want to take that chance? You are on the side of: "ONE innocent life lost is one too many."

Wanna take the chance that your serial killer will feel more noble simply because he's not sentenced to die? I know nothing about prison systems, but I'm pretty sure maximum security and solitary confinement punishments are based upon more than the prisoner's sentence.

Greenday

11-18-2009, 03:00 AM

Here's your quote Greenday.

Maybe we all misunderstood it. But it looks like you're saying that serial killers won't touch their fellow inmates simply because they won't be their "type."

I think you meant to say that not all the inmates and staff will meet the killer's victim profile, so it is unlikely that those people would be targets. But, uh...you want to take that chance? You are on the side of: "ONE innocent life lost is one too many."

Wanna take the chance that your serial killer will feel more noble simply because he's not sentenced to die? I know nothing about prison systems, but I'm pretty sure maximum security and solitary confinement punishments are based upon more than the prisoner's sentence.

I said serial killers pick people for a reason. Some psycho proving his point does not mean all murderers are like him. Someone is sentenced to death, so they kill everyone in sight? I don't buy it. And I don't think any that are mentally healthy would honestly would kill other prisoners. It'd be the mentally unhealthy that don't belong in prison and belong in a mental institution that'd murder...in prison.

Lace Neil Singer

11-18-2009, 01:49 PM

I wasn't saying anything of the kind. Just pointing out that a serial killer might well kill someone in prison. Also, not all serial killers have women as their targets, so they might well find a victim in prison who fitted their victim profile.

There's also the tiny fact that the other prisoners might try to kill THEM. Especially if they killed women or children, especially if their crimes were sexual.

DesignFox

11-18-2009, 05:06 PM

<snip>
There's also the tiny fact that the other prisoners might try to kill THEM. Especially if they killed women or children, especially if their crimes were sexual.
Also a good point.

Greenday

11-18-2009, 06:38 PM

Just pointing out that a serial killer might well kill someone in prison.

There's also the tiny fact that the other prisoners might try to kill THEM. Especially if they killed women or children, especially if their crimes were sexual.

So may a petty thief or a druggie.

This is probably more likely than anything. Murders in prison is still pretty uncommon. But I don't think someone in prison would kill a murder in jail just because he/she killed a woman or kids, even if the murder involve sexual assault.

Honestly, I'm not sure how to resolve the issue of integrating them into the regular prison system, but seeing as their are murderers in jail as it is, I don't think it would be that tough.