The Death Penalty Is Unacceptable

[Canarr]

Ah, okay; that makes more sense. Thanks.

[telecom_goddess]

I guess we could bring back the stocks and public floggings. That might be a deterrent for some people.

works for me. It was effective back in the day.

[Boozy]

It was effective back in the day.

No it wasn't. The violent crime rate back in the days of the stocks and public floggings was through the roof.

[senor boogie woogie]

Cameron Todd Willingham was definitely innocent, and the house fire was an accident and there was lots of evidence and experts willing to back that up. Willingham, as seen by witnesses was very distraught as the house was burning and even had to be restrained and cuffed to keep him from returning to the home. Another thing, setting a fire to kill doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think that there are some crimes that just warrant the death penalty, they just do. However, solitary confinement like Supermax would be a punishment worse than the death penalty, 23 hours a day locked in a small room with limited reading materials, with one hour in an outdoor cage.

This would actually save the state money, since it is shown that Life w/o Parole is cheaper than the Death Penalty.

[Canarr]

This would actually save the state money, since it is shown that Life w/o Parole is cheaper than the Death Penalty.

That's another thing I don't get... how can that be? Having someone on Death Row for, say, ten years, then electrocute him, vs. having him in prison for 30-50 years? How can that be more expensive?

Are there any studies made on the subject? How many years in prison are of equal cost to one execution? Where's the break even point?

[Andara Bledin]

Most of the costs related to Death Sentence inmates have to do with all of the various hearings and challenges that must be allowed to try (and often fail) to avoid the execution of innocents.

People who are in jail for the rest of their lives are much less likely to appeal and have campaigns championing their causes when the rest of their lives are allowed to end naturally as opposed to being truncated by the State.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Cameron Todd Willingham was definitely innocent, and the house fire was an accident and there was lots of evidence and experts willing to back that up. Willingham, as seen by witnesses was very distraught as the house was burning and even had to be restrained and cuffed to keep him from returning to the home. Another thing, setting a fire to kill doesn't make a lot of sense.

So... given all that, why was he ever even prosecuted in the first place, and how did they manage to get a conviction and fail all appeals?

[Greenday]

So... given all that, why was he ever even prosecuted in the first place, and how did they manage to get a conviction and fail all appeals?

Because Texas likes murdering people and they won't let facts get in the fair of that. And Rick Perry is governor.

Most of the costs related to Death Sentence inmates have to do with all of the various hearings and challenges that must be allowed to try (and often fail) to avoid the execution of innocents.

Also, since they are more dangerous, they get their own set of guards who must be paid more than normal guards.

[Andara Bledin]

So... given all that, why was he ever even prosecuted in the first place, and how did they manage to get a conviction and fail all appeals?

Long story short: The investigator wanted to find arson (and did so with alarming frequency) and those charged with the duty of preventing innocents from being put to death didn't even make a pretense at doing so. In fact, Gov Rick Perry is still trying to stifle any investigation or action that might lead to the declaration that he allowed Willingham to be killed when he had been provided evidence of the false conclusion of the arson report.

Long story long: New Yorker article by David Grann
The Innocence Project page

Read the REPORT OF THE TEXAS FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMISSION for some interesting data. Including the fact that although there were major changes in how fire investigation was approached after his conviction, not a single official in Texas made any effort to go over old cases to determine if it might have effected the outcomes.

If nothing else, we cannot continue to accept the death penalty as a punishment option because all of the safeguards in place to protect the innocent from being wrongfully put to death are, at best, a polite fiction.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

Ah, okay; that makes sense then, I guess.

Andara: thanks for the links; very informative reading.

[Zod]

Have there been any documented cases where someone's said "well, I was going to murder them, but then remembered that they have the Death Penalty for that, so decided not to"?

[Evandril]

If nothing else, we cannot continue to accept the death penalty as a punishment option because all of the safeguards in place to protect the innocent from being wrongfully put to death are, at best, a polite fiction.
^-.-^

That's not the question stated in the OP, though...The fact the steps leading UP to the death penalty are flawed enough the steps need to be fixed, that much is a given (That I've seen in this thread, I've not seen anyone supporting the current system, at least)

What hasn't been answered...Is the death penalty itself a valid sentance? Assume we have remote time traveling cameras backed by telepaths who cannot lie backed by an incorruptable judicial system, so we know without a doubt the person did the crime they were accused of...Is it acceptable to kill them? And why do you feel this way?

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not certain that killing them is really the proper response, ever.

There is a lot that needs to change. But until there is a massive overhaul of the entire system, the death penalty should not be an option at all.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

That's not the question stated in the OP, though...The fact the steps leading UP to the death penalty are flawed enough the steps need to be fixed, that much is a given (That I've seen in this thread, I've not seen anyone supporting the current system, at least)

What hasn't been answered...Is the death penalty itself a valid sentance? Assume we have remote time traveling cameras backed by telepaths who cannot lie backed by an incorruptable judicial system, so we know without a doubt the person did the crime they were accused of...Is it acceptable to kill them? And why do you feel this way?

I would say yes. If the system were perfect, then I would consider it far kinder to kill someone than to have them rot in prison for the rest of their lives. If there was no way that new evidence could ever, possibly come up that cleared them, and there was no way that person could ever be reformed then, yes, I would support killing them as quickly and painlessly as possible.