Death Penalty

[Diuretic]

State sanctioned murder remains murder, and too many innocent people have been killed by the state after being wrongfully convicted of murder.

This is where words are used to make the justice system look ugly. There is a very big difference between murder and killing. A murderer is someone who chooses to commit the crime of taking away the right of life to another citizen. The state does not murder....the state KILLS those who choose to violate the law and thus must pay the ultimate punishment. The state does not go around murdering anyone. The arguments about innocent people being killed by the state are very complicated. While I am sure it has happened....there is no real hard evidence that it has happend near to the extent that you will hear about at your local college university. It all depends on which information they chose to give you and which information they chose to keep hidden. Once again far left professors indoctrinating rather than "sharing" ideas.

I bring up professors becuase this was a huge argument in an American justice class I took....After doing my own research I found the numbers of innocent people killed to be skewed quite a bit. At least to any real hard evidence of their being innocent. I think with todays technology the chances of someone on death row being wrongly accused are pretty slim.

No evidence that innocent people have been executed? Really?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Liberals who support killers may be winning. Those who care more for money than justice may be winning.


no discussion is needed here...you have made up your mind and labeled others before allowing any imput....enjoy your limited and narrow mind

Oh, yes. If anyone DARES to state a firm opinion, rather than wimpily asking what SHOULD be thought about something, that certainly means no discussion can take place. God knows no one on this board EVER discusses something after a firm stance has been taken.

What I'm hearing is, "Damn it, how DARE you have made up your mind without giving me a chance to indoctrinate you first!" I'm also willing to bet money that you will go on to discuss this later in the thread, regardless of your statement here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think we need to remove predators from the population, but I don't think the state should be in the business of killing people. I don't agree with the endless appeals either. Give them 1 trial, 1 appeal, then lock them up - forever. I'm sure it would be cheaper to take 'em out back knock their head in with a shovel, but I think if we're going to assume the moral responsibility to police society we should draw the line at a place where we are better than those we're trying to punish. And by that I mean, we sorta lose the moral high ground when we too are killers.

I have to ask: WHY shouldn't the state be in the business of killing people? They're damned near the only people who CAN be allowed to be in that business. And how do you figure we lose the moral high ground for executing heinous murderers? Surely you aren't equating a clean, peaceful lethal injection with, for example, stabbing a 2-year-old multiple times with an ice pick and then leaving her to slowly bleed to death in an abandoned car.

 

[Cecilie1200]

State sanctioned murder remains murder, and too many innocent people have been killed by the state after being wrongfully convicted of murder.

If Charles Manson ever gets paroled, I hope he moves to your neighborhood and not mine.

Manson never killed anyone. He was in fact eligible for parole in 1978.

Conspiracy to commit murder is the same as murder, I believe, under the laws of every state. Manson actually got the death penalty, if I remember correctly, and when California declared it Unconstitutional, his sentence was commuted to life in prison.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What crime did he commit?

Conspiracy to commit murder I believe is what he was charged with.

Yeah it's an interesting case. I don't think the girls that actually did the killings have ever been up for parole, have they?

Yes, they have. No parole board in their right minds is going to let any of the Manson family out of prison, EVER. They're too infamous.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It costs more to kill somebody than it does to incarcerate them for life, and it's equally as wrong for the government to kill somebody as it is for a private person to do the same.

Then you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree, because, at this point his appeals are exhausted, so I fail to see how feeding, housing and clothing him for the rest of his life is cheaper than a few volts of electricity.

He was supposed to fry. the supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, then a few years later, they gave the rights back to the states, but with double jeopardy laws, there was no frying him.
As for the rest of your argument, there were no appeals, those were parole hearings. Death penalty cases are ALWAYS appealed. By the time the prisoner is executed, it costs far more than it would have if he had just been put in prison for life with no chance of parole.

I believe the law only requires one automatic appeal of death penalty cases. Any appeal after that is generated voluntarily by the prisoner and his legal defense. It helps a lot when appeals after the first one are limited strictly to new evidence, as opposed to any and everything they can think of to throw out, regardless of proof.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The cost is irrelevant. Both the death penalty and life imprisonment for a single murder are irrational because they provide a perverse incentive to commit additional murders and violently resist attempts at capture by police because there is no motivation for them to not do so. Rational approaches to criminal justice must be based on deterrence, whether the means to that end be "punishment" or "rehabilitation."

Strictly speaking - yes, call me picky - punishment is linked to deterrence but rehabilitation isn't. The idea of rehablitation is comparatively recent and driven by the Christian idea of redemption but not until true contrition has been displayed.
And even the idea of punishment as a deterrence is fairly recent (Beccaria, Bentham), prior to Beccaria (I think) it was all about revenge and not societal revenge but the revenge of affronted authorities.

I don't recall Christianity ever teaching that 1) you can redeem other people, and 2) that redemption should exempt you from the consequences of your actions.

I frankly don't have a problem with the idea of societal revenge. Hey, if the penal system wants to make rehabilitative services available to inmates, fine. But you can't rehab people. They have to do it themselves, so it's ludicrous to think our penal system should be aimed at "fixing" people against their will.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry Auditor, while true ten years ago, we have less than 1 billionth of a chance that hard evidence is wrong in many cases, those without hard evidence, sure, keep them around until we can get some. But those who have been proven innocent are because of those same advances that allow us to find the truly guilty as well.

WHAT? Did human nature SUDDENLY change and human foibles evaporate?

SUDDENLY ALL police officers are honest, ALL lawyers are competent and ALL judges are dispassionate...

Ironic how people that rail against government have NO problem with government when it comes to sanctioned murder...

"Sanctioned murder" is an oxymoron. Spare us the warm fuzzies.

 

[Agnapostate]

"Societal revenge"? Any rational approach to the death penalty must focus on deterrence theory, lest worse consequences be caused by irrational and emotion-driven quests to seek "societal revenge."

 

[Diuretic]

The cost is irrelevant. Both the death penalty and life imprisonment for a single murder are irrational because they provide a perverse incentive to commit additional murders and violently resist attempts at capture by police because there is no motivation for them to not do so. Rational approaches to criminal justice must be based on deterrence, whether the means to that end be "punishment" or "rehabilitation."

Strictly speaking - yes, call me picky - punishment is linked to deterrence but rehabilitation isn't. The idea of rehablitation is comparatively recent and driven by the Christian idea of redemption but not until true contrition has been displayed.
And even the idea of punishment as a deterrence is fairly recent (Beccaria, Bentham), prior to Beccaria (I think) it was all about revenge and not societal revenge but the revenge of affronted authorities.

I don't recall Christianity ever teaching that 1) you can redeem other people, and 2) that redemption should exempt you from the consequences of your actions.

I frankly don't have a problem with the idea of societal revenge. Hey, if the penal system wants to make rehabilitative services available to inmates, fine. But you can't rehab people. They have to do it themselves, so it's ludicrous to think our penal system should be aimed at "fixing" people against their will.

C you need to do some reading about the Howard League. Redemption was at the guts of prison reform driven by them and a good thing it was too. But redemption in their eyes - as in Christianity generally - requires true repentance and there was never a denial of consequence, simply the promise or offer that redemption followed true repentance.

Societal revenge is fair policy, I don't have a problem with it either, it's necessary to keep some respect for the system. It's a matter of how societal revenge manifests itself that's at issue.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

"Societal revenge"? Any rational approach to the death penalty must focus on deterrence theory, lest worse consequences be caused by irrational and emotion-driven quests to seek "societal revenge."

The problem is, there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the death penalty-- or other harsh sentences-- is never an effective deterrent to crime. Deterrence is a matter of the prospective criminal's perceived chances of getting away with the crime. A better policy, especially considering the additional costs of the death penalty, is hiring more police. More police patrols in areas where crime is more likely to occur, and more police investigators to track down offenders.

I still support the death penalty, but not as either a form of "societal revenge" or a form of deterrence. I support the death penalty because I believe that the form and function of the corrections system should be corrective, and warehousing the dangerous and irredeemable interferes with that function. Prison should be short-term and minimum security, with a focus on rehabilitative and reintegrative programs; people who are not suitable for this system should be removed as quickly and as mercifully as possible from society, and this should be handled by an entirely separate government department.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Strictly speaking - yes, call me picky - punishment is linked to deterrence but rehabilitation isn't. The idea of rehablitation is comparatively recent and driven by the Christian idea of redemption but not until true contrition has been displayed.
And even the idea of punishment as a deterrence is fairly recent (Beccaria, Bentham), prior to Beccaria (I think) it was all about revenge and not societal revenge but the revenge of affronted authorities.

I don't recall Christianity ever teaching that 1) you can redeem other people, and 2) that redemption should exempt you from the consequences of your actions.

I frankly don't have a problem with the idea of societal revenge. Hey, if the penal system wants to make rehabilitative services available to inmates, fine. But you can't rehab people. They have to do it themselves, so it's ludicrous to think our penal system should be aimed at "fixing" people against their will.

C you need to do some reading about the Howard League. Redemption was at the guts of prison reform driven by them and a good thing it was too. But redemption in their eyes - as in Christianity generally - requires true repentance and there was never a denial of consequence, simply the promise or offer that redemption followed true repentance.

I must admit to deep confusion as to what the Howard League has to do with anything I said.

Societal revenge is fair policy, I don't have a problem with it either, it's necessary to keep some respect for the system. It's a matter of how societal revenge manifests itself that's at issue.

As far as I'm concerned, a quick, peaceful lethal injection in exchange for unspeakable, brutal murders is also a fair policy. More than fair, to be truthful.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Societal revenge"? Any rational approach to the death penalty must focus on deterrence theory, lest worse consequences be caused by irrational and emotion-driven quests to seek "societal revenge."

The problem is, there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the death penalty-- or other harsh sentences-- is never an effective deterrent to crime. Deterrence is a matter of the prospective criminal's perceived chances of getting away with the crime. A better policy, especially considering the additional costs of the death penalty, is hiring more police. More police patrols in areas where crime is more likely to occur, and more police investigators to track down offenders.

Really? How are we defining "preponderance" here?

I still support the death penalty, but not as either a form of "societal revenge" or a form of deterrence. I support the death penalty because I believe that the form and function of the corrections system should be corrective, and warehousing the dangerous and irredeemable interferes with that function. Prison should be short-term and minimum security, with a focus on rehabilitative and reintegrative programs; people who are not suitable for this system should be removed as quickly and as mercifully as possible from society, and this should be handled by an entirely separate government department.

You didn't bother to mention how you rehabilitate people against their will. Methinks you have never been to a prison, nor had any contact with the sorts of people who inhabit them. I don't even like to speculate as to what sort of image you actually have of them in your head.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

You didn't bother to mention how you rehabilitate people against their will.

You don't. You offer them a chance at rehabilitation and put a bullet in their heads if they refuse.

Methinks you have never been to a prison, nor had any contact with the sorts of people who inhabit them. I don't even like to speculate as to what sort of image you actually have of them in your head.

I've never been to prison, but I have had some amount of contact with prisoners. And I've seen both decent people who've made mistakes and have reformed into productive citizens, and I've seen incorrigible offenders who will never stop flouting the law and making victims of their fellow citizens.

As for the image I have in my head of what occurs in prisons, 1 in 4 male inmates is sexually assaulted by other inmates. And that's based on reports; rape is always underreported, male-on-male rape is even more underreported, and crime of every sort within prisons is underreported. I know that the majority of inmates in all but minimum-security prisons are members of prison gangs, regardless of any gang affiliation they may or may not have had on the outside. And I know that, for all that we complain about "coddling" inmates-- much of which I agree with-- we actually do very little to prepare those inmates to rejoin society and to start over as productive members of society.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You didn't bother to mention how you rehabilitate people against their will.

You don't. You offer them a chance at rehabilitation and put a bullet in their heads if they refuse.

You don't like our current system, and you want to go to something even less compassionate?

The current penal system already makes available everything the inmates need for rehabilitation, should they choose to utilize it. Most do not, because most have no desire to change.

Methinks you have never been to a prison, nor had any contact with the sorts of people who inhabit them. I don't even like to speculate as to what sort of image you actually have of them in your head.

I've never been to prison, but I have had some amount of contact with prisoners. And I've seen both decent people who've made mistakes and have reformed into productive citizens, and I've seen incorrigible offenders who will never stop flouting the law and making victims of their fellow citizens.

As for the image I have in my head of what occurs in prisons, 1 in 4 male inmates is sexually assaulted by other inmates. And that's based on reports; rape is always underreported, male-on-male rape is even more underreported, and crime of every sort within prisons is underreported. I know that the majority of inmates in all but minimum-security prisons are members of prison gangs, regardless of any gang affiliation they may or may not have had on the outside. And I know that, for all that we complain about "coddling" inmates-- much of which I agree with-- we actually do very little to prepare those inmates to rejoin society and to start over as productive members of society.

You "know" it, but you don't know it, because it's not true. We do everything you could expect to help inmates prepare themselves to rejoin society. But you can't force them to participate, and most do not choose to. As for gangs, it depends on the state system you're dealing with. There are a lot of gang members in prison simply because gang members commit a lot of crimes, and they're too stupid to avoid getting caught most of the time. In Arizona, inmates identified as gang members are isolated from the rest of the prison population to minimize their effect on other inmates and on the safety of everyone involved.

 

[mattskramer]

I see in the news some states are considering doing away with the death penalty due to the costs involved. It seems it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for the remainder of their life. What a situation we have worked ourselves into. The statement by itself smacks of lunacy.

Why is it so expensive to put a convicted killer to death as his punishment for taking innocent lives?

It's the lawyers, judges and the bleeding heart liberals. Some people can't handle the idea of killing a killer, but they ignore the victims. The lawyers keep the appeals ongoing to line their pockets. Lawyers charge by the hour to represent the human predator and appeal after appeal insures them of a continuous paycheck paid by us hard working, law abiding taxpayers. We also pay for the prosecutors to continue returning to court to present the case against the killers. The judges have no backbone, think they're being fair, ignoring the victims.

Liberals who support killers may be winning. Those who care more for money than justice may be winning.

I’m opposed to the death penalty. I’d rather have 1,000,000,000,000 people CONVICTED of murders spend hard life-time sentences in jail than risk executing someone who did not really do the crime that he was convicted of

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

If they die in prison, what's the difference? Took their life either way.

 

[mattskramer]

If they die in prison, what's the difference? Took their life either way.

While in prison, modern forensic technology or information might come to light proving that the convict did not really commit the crime for which he was convicted. Why it is still wrong for an innocent person to spend years in jail, it would be far worse to go “Oooops” after the convicted person was executed.

“I’m sorry that we subjected you to a decade in jail, but we learned that you did not do the crime, so you are free to go.”

“I’m sorry that we killed you. We thought that you committed the crime. Unfortunately, we can’t bring you back to life. Oh well. At least you will continue to do a good job at pushing up daisies.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

While in prison, modern forensic technology or information might come to light proving that the convict did not really commit the crime for which he was convicted.

Unless, of course, they die. While sitting in prison. Happens a lot, you know.

Not to mention, you can't give a person back the years they've spent in prison, nor can you undo the changes that years in prison make in a person. Again, you've still stolen their life.