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

[Fashion Lad!]

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

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.

[Flyndaran]

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

[Greenday]

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.

[linguist]

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?

[Rapscallion]

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

[Rapscallion]

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

[Greenday]

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.

[Fashion Lad!]

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.

[tropicsgoddess]

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?!!

[Mr Slugger]

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

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.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

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.

[Fashion Lad!]

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

This is per 100,000 inmates.

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

[BroomJockey]

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.

[Greenday]

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]

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."