Death penalty

[Jimmy_Jam]

After having read thru all the comments on this thread - pro or con of death penalty - I never once saw the word REDEMPTION.

I believe that that there is at least a trace of goodness in every human being, even the condemned and convicted killer.

Without going into details, I can say with full confidence and with personal experience, that REDEMPTION is possible, if it is given a chance.

Death Penalty removes that chance forever.

Perhaps I did not use the word "Redemption," but I did at least suggest the opportunity to seek forgiveness from the immediate family. Redemption is a religious word that works fine within the context of faith, but here on Earth, regardless of one's spiritual convictions, redemption could only come in the form of forgiveness from the victim. Wouldn't you agree?

Forgiveness is something the victim of a crime does for himself or herself. It should have no bearing on what happens to the criminal.

You might want to believe that there is a trace of goodness in everyone but that doesn't mean they should be released into society. Lawrence Bittaker is a serial killer, he and Roy Norris kidnapped young girls off the Strand in the Beach Cities of California and tortured them to death. Bittaker could not stand the use of profanity when women or children were present. He would quickly tell someone that language was unacceptable, he'd fight them if necessary. He had some trace of goodness, and STILL enjoyed twisting the nipples off girls using a coathanger and pliers.

Perhaps you feel it shouldn't, but it does. Let's say person A vandalizes person B's house. The next day person A knocks on the door and admits to person B that he was the culprit, says he was drunk, and apologizes for the act. Let's say person B decides not to press charges. In a legal sense that person has forgiven the perpetrator, and there is no punishment.

Now, this scenario may seem naive, because that is in no way on par with murder. With murder, there is the murder victim, whose forgiveness cannot be asked, and there is the immediate family, who have been victimized as well. This makes things more complicated.

In my first post in this thread, I did give my opinion on the forgiveness of the family of the victim as a personal opinion, not as a premise for or against capital punishment. Please take it as such. My personal feeling on the matter is that if a family were to choose to forgive the murderer, then that should not removed all punishment, simply that of death. It is a personal opinion, and that is all. I still advocate the presence of a capital punishment system regardless.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

WHAT 'flippant posture' towards the victim? That is self righteous bullshit...

Maybe you need to vastly expand your thinking; put yourself in the shoes of other people and consider that when a person is executed, it creates a NEW family of murder victims. Consider the conscience of a jurist that sent a person to their execution, only to learn the person they sentenced to death may have been innocent. And understand human foible that creates the attitude of prosecutors and District Attorneys who are more concerned with defending their 'turf', their public perception of being 'tough on crime' and gaining re-election, than they are concerned with the truth and justice.

Maybe you need to re-read my post and realize that I was not talking in absolutes. While you are at it you may want to realize that I was placing a pretty strong importance on overwhelming evidence and a healthy respect for the appeals process. I don't want innocent people being executed either. That would show a flippancy on my part as well, wouldn't it?

Besides, the NEW family of murder victims you speak of can hardly be considered the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. I have plenty of sympathy for the mother of a person who murdered, and what her child's life has become, but at least she knows full well ahead of time that it will happen and why. If you're a mother, then you're going to believe your child is innocent anyway, so what bearing does that have on anything? Besides, I cannot put myself in anybody's shoes except my own. Just because I advocate capital punishment does not mean that I don't think the system in place is broken.

I did. I stand by my comments and have more issues with your post. You said you've seen the economic argument presented, and don't get it, and, why would money be such a big concern?

The death penalty is not only a LOT more expensive than life without parole in monetary terms, it is a lot more expensive in human resource terms. Detectives and law enforcement who could be working on new cases or preventing new crimes are wasting an exorbitant amount of human resources on capital punishment cases. The money spent to preserve this failing system could be directed to effective programs that make society safer. And it taxes our court system...

NE - Because of one death penalty case in Nebraska, the Madison County Public Defender’s Office doesn’t have time to meet with their regular clients and prepare adequate defenses, in violation of their code of ethics. Attorneys are withdrawing from all new cases to which they are appointed. (Lincoln Journal Star, Sept. 22, 2003)


In Sierra County, California authorities had to cut police services in 1988 to pick up the tab of pursuing death penalty prosecutions. The County's District Attorney, James Reichle, complained, "If we didn't have to pay $500,000 a pop for Sacramento's murders, I'd have an investigator and the sheriff would have a couple of extra deputies and we could do some lasting good for Sierra County law enforcement. The sewage system at the courthouse is failing, a bridge collapsed, there's no county library, no county park, and we have volunteer fire and volunteer search and rescue." The county's auditor, Don Hemphill, said that if death penalty expenses kept piling up, the county would soon be broke. Just recently, Mr. Hemphill indicated that another death penalty case would likely require the county to lay off 10 percent of its police and sheriff force.

Across the country, police are being laid off, prisoners are being released early, the courts are clogged, and crime continues to rise. The economic recession has caused cutbacks in the backbone of the criminal justice system. In Florida, the budget crisis resulted in the early release of 3,000 prisoners. In Texas, prisoners are serving only 20% of their time and rearrests are common. Georgia is laying off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey has had to dismiss 500 police officers. Yet these same states, and many others like them, are pouring millions of dollars into the death penalty with no resultant reduction in crime.

The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, but its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country.

The death penalty is escaping the decisive cost-benefit analysis to which every other program is being put in times of austerity. Rather than being posed as a single, but costly, alternative in a spectrum of approaches to crime, the death penalty operates at the extremes of political rhetoric. Candidates use the death penalty as a facile solution to crime which allows them to distinguish themselves by the toughness of their position rather than its effectiveness.

The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative--life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials--one on guilt and one on sentencing--make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial.

The high price of the death penalty is often most keenly felt in those counties responsible for both the prosecution and defense of capital defendants. A single trial can mean near bankruptcy, tax increases, and the laying off of vital personnel. Trials costing a small county $100,000 from un-budgeted funds are common and some officials have even gone to jail in resisting payment.

Nevertheless, politicians from prosecutors to presidents choose symbol over substance in their support of the death penalty. Campaign rhetoric becomes legislative policy with no analysis of whether the expense will produce any good for the people. The death penalty, in short, has been given a free ride. The expansion of the death penalty in America is on a collision course with a shrinking budget for crime prevention. It is time for politicians and the public to give this costly punishment a hard look.

Okay. But just so you know, I have little interest in what politicians use capital punishment for toward their political aims, so any comments you have on the matter don't affect me in the slightest. I already know how politicians use any number of issues, why would capital punishment be any different?

Neither what politicians use the issue of capital punishment for, nor whether or not such systems are broken, has no influence on whether or not such a thing should be present. For instance, prohibition of drugs is used as a political issue and has been for some time, but what politicians do with the issue has no bearing on the basic premises of whether or not they should be prohibited, nor should such a thing be used as an argument.

If you want to argue your position on whether or not a capital punishment system should be in place, and under what circumstances, fine, but what politicians do with the issue, well, I couldn't care less.

As for the cost, my position does not change. I am sure there are things that can be fixed that can reduce the financial burden of capital punishment, but so what either way? By your reasoning of cost, then wouldn't Texas, one of the reddest states in the Union, with one of the harshest capital punishment systems, be broke? Instead they are booming during a crippling national recession, while also enjoying a significant tax surplus.

My point being we can go back and forth on the cost issue all day long, and it still have little to no bearing on whether or not there should be a capital punishment system.

 

[Bfgrn]

Maybe you need to re-read my post and realize that I was not talking in absolutes. While you are at it you may want to realize that I was placing a pretty strong importance on overwhelming evidence and a healthy respect for the appeals process. I don't want innocent people being executed either. That would show a flippancy on my part as well, wouldn't it?

Besides, the NEW family of murder victims you speak of can hardly be considered the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. I have plenty of sympathy for the mother of a person who murdered, and what her child's life has become, but at least she knows full well ahead of time that it will happen and why. If you're a mother, then you're going to believe your child is innocent anyway, so what bearing does that have on anything? Besides, I cannot put myself in anybody's shoes except my own. Just because I advocate capital punishment does not mean that I don't think the system in place is broken.

I did. I stand by my comments and have more issues with your post. You said you've seen the economic argument presented, and don't get it, and, why would money be such a big concern?

The death penalty is not only a LOT more expensive than life without parole in monetary terms, it is a lot more expensive in human resource terms. Detectives and law enforcement who could be working on new cases or preventing new crimes are wasting an exorbitant amount of human resources on capital punishment cases. The money spent to preserve this failing system could be directed to effective programs that make society safer. And it taxes our court system...

NE - Because of one death penalty case in Nebraska, the Madison County Public Defender’s Office doesn’t have time to meet with their regular clients and prepare adequate defenses, in violation of their code of ethics. Attorneys are withdrawing from all new cases to which they are appointed. (Lincoln Journal Star, Sept. 22, 2003)


In Sierra County, California authorities had to cut police services in 1988 to pick up the tab of pursuing death penalty prosecutions. The County's District Attorney, James Reichle, complained, "If we didn't have to pay $500,000 a pop for Sacramento's murders, I'd have an investigator and the sheriff would have a couple of extra deputies and we could do some lasting good for Sierra County law enforcement. The sewage system at the courthouse is failing, a bridge collapsed, there's no county library, no county park, and we have volunteer fire and volunteer search and rescue." The county's auditor, Don Hemphill, said that if death penalty expenses kept piling up, the county would soon be broke. Just recently, Mr. Hemphill indicated that another death penalty case would likely require the county to lay off 10 percent of its police and sheriff force.

Across the country, police are being laid off, prisoners are being released early, the courts are clogged, and crime continues to rise. The economic recession has caused cutbacks in the backbone of the criminal justice system. In Florida, the budget crisis resulted in the early release of 3,000 prisoners. In Texas, prisoners are serving only 20% of their time and rearrests are common. Georgia is laying off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey has had to dismiss 500 police officers. Yet these same states, and many others like them, are pouring millions of dollars into the death penalty with no resultant reduction in crime.

The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, but its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country.

The death penalty is escaping the decisive cost-benefit analysis to which every other program is being put in times of austerity. Rather than being posed as a single, but costly, alternative in a spectrum of approaches to crime, the death penalty operates at the extremes of political rhetoric. Candidates use the death penalty as a facile solution to crime which allows them to distinguish themselves by the toughness of their position rather than its effectiveness.

The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative--life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials--one on guilt and one on sentencing--make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial.

The high price of the death penalty is often most keenly felt in those counties responsible for both the prosecution and defense of capital defendants. A single trial can mean near bankruptcy, tax increases, and the laying off of vital personnel. Trials costing a small county $100,000 from un-budgeted funds are common and some officials have even gone to jail in resisting payment.

Nevertheless, politicians from prosecutors to presidents choose symbol over substance in their support of the death penalty. Campaign rhetoric becomes legislative policy with no analysis of whether the expense will produce any good for the people. The death penalty, in short, has been given a free ride. The expansion of the death penalty in America is on a collision course with a shrinking budget for crime prevention. It is time for politicians and the public to give this costly punishment a hard look.

Okay. But just so you know, I have little interest in what politicians use capital punishment for toward their political aims, so any comments you have on the matter don't affect me in the slightest. I already know how politicians use any number of issues, why would capital punishment be any different?

Neither what politicians use the issue of capital punishment for, nor whether or not such systems are broken, has no influence on whether or not such a thing should be present. For instance, prohibition of drugs is used as a political issue and has been for some time, but what politicians do with the issue has no bearing on the basic premises of whether or not they should be prohibited, nor should such a thing be used as an argument.

If you want to argue your position on whether or not a capital punishment system should be in place, and under what circumstances, fine, but what politicians do with the issue, well, I couldn't care less.

As for the cost, my position does not change. I am sure there are things that can be fixed that can reduce the financial burden of capital punishment, but so what either way? By your reasoning of cost, then wouldn't Texas, one of the reddest states in the Union, with one of the harshest capital punishment systems, be broke? Instead they are booming during a crippling national recession, while also enjoying a significant tax surplus.

My point being we can go back and forth on the cost issue all day long, and it still have little to no bearing on whether or not there should be a capital punishment system.

So you are an ideologue with zero pragmatism who supports capital punishment based purely on emotions, with no consideration for logic, effectiveness or that it makes our communities LESS safe. That's fine. Glad we could agree on something.

 

[Katzndogz]

Capital punishment should be administered with no emotional involvement whatsoever. It is the same thing as taking out the trash. It is putting down a dog with rabies. It is a necessary act that is deserving of no feeling at all.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Yet, you support killing innocent unborn humans but not killing convicted murderers.

I get it, you don't support the death penalty because you are a murderer.

Oh, most people support the right to beat arms to protect themselves from scum like you, not the Govt.

It's funny how people wil hysterically defend the right to bear arms on the grounds that you can not trust the government - but have no problem with the government executing people.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I did. I stand by my comments and have more issues with your post. You said you've seen the economic argument presented, and don't get it, and, why would money be such a big concern?

The death penalty is not only a LOT more expensive than life without parole in monetary terms, it is a lot more expensive in human resource terms. Detectives and law enforcement who could be working on new cases or preventing new crimes are wasting an exorbitant amount of human resources on capital punishment cases. The money spent to preserve this failing system could be directed to effective programs that make society safer. And it taxes our court system...

NE - Because of one death penalty case in Nebraska, the Madison County Public Defender’s Office doesn’t have time to meet with their regular clients and prepare adequate defenses, in violation of their code of ethics. Attorneys are withdrawing from all new cases to which they are appointed. (Lincoln Journal Star, Sept. 22, 2003)


In Sierra County, California authorities had to cut police services in 1988 to pick up the tab of pursuing death penalty prosecutions. The County's District Attorney, James Reichle, complained, "If we didn't have to pay $500,000 a pop for Sacramento's murders, I'd have an investigator and the sheriff would have a couple of extra deputies and we could do some lasting good for Sierra County law enforcement. The sewage system at the courthouse is failing, a bridge collapsed, there's no county library, no county park, and we have volunteer fire and volunteer search and rescue." The county's auditor, Don Hemphill, said that if death penalty expenses kept piling up, the county would soon be broke. Just recently, Mr. Hemphill indicated that another death penalty case would likely require the county to lay off 10 percent of its police and sheriff force.

Across the country, police are being laid off, prisoners are being released early, the courts are clogged, and crime continues to rise. The economic recession has caused cutbacks in the backbone of the criminal justice system. In Florida, the budget crisis resulted in the early release of 3,000 prisoners. In Texas, prisoners are serving only 20% of their time and rearrests are common. Georgia is laying off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey has had to dismiss 500 police officers. Yet these same states, and many others like them, are pouring millions of dollars into the death penalty with no resultant reduction in crime.

The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, but its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country.

The death penalty is escaping the decisive cost-benefit analysis to which every other program is being put in times of austerity. Rather than being posed as a single, but costly, alternative in a spectrum of approaches to crime, the death penalty operates at the extremes of political rhetoric. Candidates use the death penalty as a facile solution to crime which allows them to distinguish themselves by the toughness of their position rather than its effectiveness.

The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative--life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials--one on guilt and one on sentencing--make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial.

The high price of the death penalty is often most keenly felt in those counties responsible for both the prosecution and defense of capital defendants. A single trial can mean near bankruptcy, tax increases, and the laying off of vital personnel. Trials costing a small county $100,000 from un-budgeted funds are common and some officials have even gone to jail in resisting payment.

Nevertheless, politicians from prosecutors to presidents choose symbol over substance in their support of the death penalty. Campaign rhetoric becomes legislative policy with no analysis of whether the expense will produce any good for the people. The death penalty, in short, has been given a free ride. The expansion of the death penalty in America is on a collision course with a shrinking budget for crime prevention. It is time for politicians and the public to give this costly punishment a hard look.

Okay. But just so you know, I have little interest in what politicians use capital punishment for toward their political aims, so any comments you have on the matter don't affect me in the slightest. I already know how politicians use any number of issues, why would capital punishment be any different?

Neither what politicians use the issue of capital punishment for, nor whether or not such systems are broken, has no influence on whether or not such a thing should be present. For instance, prohibition of drugs is used as a political issue and has been for some time, but what politicians do with the issue has no bearing on the basic premises of whether or not they should be prohibited, nor should such a thing be used as an argument.

If you want to argue your position on whether or not a capital punishment system should be in place, and under what circumstances, fine, but what politicians do with the issue, well, I couldn't care less.

As for the cost, my position does not change. I am sure there are things that can be fixed that can reduce the financial burden of capital punishment, but so what either way? By your reasoning of cost, then wouldn't Texas, one of the reddest states in the Union, with one of the harshest capital punishment systems, be broke? Instead they are booming during a crippling national recession, while also enjoying a significant tax surplus.

My point being we can go back and forth on the cost issue all day long, and it still have little to no bearing on whether or not there should be a capital punishment system.

So you are an ideologue with zero pragmatism who supports capital punishment based purely on emotions, with no consideration for logic, effectiveness or that it makes our communities LESS safe. That's fine. Glad we could agree on something.

Wow. If you want to point out flaws in my thinking I welcome that. I don't see the need to be insulting.

Being idealistic and lacking pragmatism (of which I am subject) does not equal emotional, nor does it equal lacking logic. Quite the contrary. I am quite unemotional in my views. What you have done is to refuse to address any premise I presented in my last post, while also resorting to petty insults. That is sad.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Oh look, the idiot chimes in.

So you're claiming most murderers are in a maximum security prison???

The inmates in those facilities are there because they the worst of the worst, a threat to the staff, other inmates and sometimes themselves. Most murderers that escape the death penalty end up living in a normal prison where they are allowed to rape, kill, etc other people.

There was an incident in Colorado this past week where a scumbag in jail for murder killed a guard and almost killed another guard during lunch period. Does he give a shit? Oh, you claim he was locked away in some hole in the ground and can't bother anyone.

Shut the **** up, idiot.

Certain heinous crimes that are 100% easy to identify the murderer(s) should get the death penalty.

A man rapes a woman and her children then slaughters them with clear evidence against him, I'd love for some of you scum to go to court and demand he be allowed to live in a jail cell for life watching TV, surfing the internet, going to school......hopefully a family member of the victim gets their hands on you.

They don't get to live a life of luxury, you know. Stop listening to what the right wing media tells you. I have been inside a maximum security prison to meet low risk inmates, one of whom shot a guy in the head for no reason at all. They have to work damned hard to EARN the right to watch one damned TV show.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Hopefully someday you wake up with one of these scumbags in your bedroom at 3am....

Certain heinous crimes that are 100% easy to identify the murderer(s) should get the death penalty.

A man rapes a woman and her children then slaughters them with clear evidence against him....

....And, you think this normal-behavior, huh?

.....I'd love for some of you scum to go to court and demand he be allowed to live in a jail cell for life watching TV, surfing the internet, going to school......hopefully a family member of the victim gets their hands on you.

Can't you Jr. High kiddies find some teen-chat site, somewhere?

​

 

[Bfgrn]

Okay. But just so you know, I have little interest in what politicians use capital punishment for toward their political aims, so any comments you have on the matter don't affect me in the slightest. I already know how politicians use any number of issues, why would capital punishment be any different?

Neither what politicians use the issue of capital punishment for, nor whether or not such systems are broken, has no influence on whether or not such a thing should be present. For instance, prohibition of drugs is used as a political issue and has been for some time, but what politicians do with the issue has no bearing on the basic premises of whether or not they should be prohibited, nor should such a thing be used as an argument.

If you want to argue your position on whether or not a capital punishment system should be in place, and under what circumstances, fine, but what politicians do with the issue, well, I couldn't care less.

As for the cost, my position does not change. I am sure there are things that can be fixed that can reduce the financial burden of capital punishment, but so what either way? By your reasoning of cost, then wouldn't Texas, one of the reddest states in the Union, with one of the harshest capital punishment systems, be broke? Instead they are booming during a crippling national recession, while also enjoying a significant tax surplus.

My point being we can go back and forth on the cost issue all day long, and it still have little to no bearing on whether or not there should be a capital punishment system.

So you are an ideologue with zero pragmatism who supports capital punishment based purely on emotions, with no consideration for logic, effectiveness or that it makes our communities LESS safe. That's fine. Glad we could agree on something.

Wow. If you want to point out flaws in my thinking I welcome that. I don't see the need to be insulting.

Being idealistic and lacking pragmatism (of which I am subject) does not equal emotional, nor does it equal lacking logic. Quite the contrary. I am quite unemotional in my views. What you have done is to refuse to address any premise I presented in my last post, while also resorting to petty insults. That is sad.

I feel sorry for you.

Take it however you wish. It is the only conclusion one can draw from your position on capital punishment...pure emotion. It costs 10 times more than life without parole, it is bankrupting states, counties and local governments, it clogs up the justice system, it takes away valuable resources that could be used to investigate new crime, it forces government agencies to lay off law enforcement, it prevents money being used for crime prevention, is not a deterrent; law enforcement says it is the least important tool for fighting crime and states with capital punishment have the highest murder rates. And it is very reasonable to assume that innocent human beings have been put to death.

You say to have little interest in what politicians use capital punishment for toward their political aims, so any comments you have on the matter don't affect me in the slightest.

But the ONLY ones who stand with you on this topic ARE politicians.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

So you are an ideologue with zero pragmatism who supports capital punishment based purely on emotions, with no consideration for logic, effectiveness or that it makes our communities LESS safe. That's fine. Glad we could agree on something.

Wow. If you want to point out flaws in my thinking I welcome that. I don't see the need to be insulting.

Being idealistic and lacking pragmatism (of which I am subject) does not equal emotional, nor does it equal lacking logic. Quite the contrary. I am quite unemotional in my views. What you have done is to refuse to address any premise I presented in my last post, while also resorting to petty insults. That is sad.

I feel sorry for you.

Take it however you wish. It is the only conclusion one can draw from your position on capital punishment...pure emotion. It costs 10 times more than life without parole, it is bankrupting states, counties and local governments, it clogs up the justice system, it takes away valuable resources that could be used to investigate new crime, it forces government agencies to lay off law enforcement, it prevents money being used for crime prevention, is not a deterrent; law enforcement says it is the least important tool for fighting crime and states with capital punishment have the highest murder rates. And it is very reasonable to assume that innocent human beings have been put to death.

You say to have little interest in what politicians use capital punishment for toward their political aims, so any comments you have on the matter don't affect me in the slightest.

But the ONLY ones who stand with you on this topic ARE politicians.

No, that is the only conclusion YOU will draw from my position. It is an emotional person that will resort to attempting to defame somebody who is only trying to have a discussion with them. Despite what you may think of me, I am trying to learn from this experience, not be derided and insulted.

The premises you use deserve to be examined. I think I am being fairly reasonable about this. I am also looking back on my posts and trying to find any emotional outbursts on my part and I can't really find any.

You say law enforcement says some things. I will be happy to look at your sources. If a preponderance of law enforcement officials say that it is ineffective, I would be foolish not to at least pay attention. Please point me to them.

The deterrent effectiveness of capital punishment is not something I can find anything on that is overwhelmingly conclusive. California and Texas are two examples of death penalty states that have fairly high homicide rates. There are non-death penalty state that have lower homicide rates. However, those states tend not to have densely populated urban centers where those types of crime are more likely to occur like Texas has. Non-death penalty states like Connecticut or Iowa fell between 1% and 4% homicide rates according to Uniform Crime Report in 2010, while others like New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, with large urban centers, figured along the lines of Texas and California, two death penalty states, between 4% and 6%, Illinois being the highest. I'm not exactly seeing a significant disparity here. If you're really going to compare apples to apples, it would seem that high homicide rates correspond much more closely with urban centers than whether or not the state has the death penalty.

As for cost, I don't argue that capital punishment carries a high financial burden. I simply don't care. It makes sense that capital punishment SHOULD be more expensive, as the ultimate taking of a life by the state should never be taken lightly. I get it.

Like I said, we can argue numbers back and forth ad nauseum, and then ideology must take over from there. For whatever problems you have with me basing my beliefs primarily upon ideology, I can't see much value in basing them primarily on pragmatic bases. You cannot escape that capital punishment is an issue that carries far heavier moral considerations than most. I can understand and appreciate the moral grounds upon which those opposed to capital punishment stand, but I respectfully disagree with them. You seem to think there are overwhelming pragmatic considerations against capital punishment, but I have difficulty finding any legitimate sources that not heavily biased. The only two conclusions I have been able to come to based on pragmatic considerations of numbers are that a) capital punishment costs more money, and b) there are no significant differences in homicides between the two scenarios. So, after that, I must go to moral considerations, and when considering them I am okay with the increase in cost.

So there. I know you won't agree with me. That's fine. If after providing a little more detail you still view me as emotional and illogical, so be it. One can only try so hard.

 

[Polk]

I do not have any moral problem with the death penalty, but oppose it on utilitarian grounds. Too expensive, too uneven in application.

 

[dudleysharp]

I do not have any moral problem with the death penalty, but oppose it on utilitarian grounds. Too expensive, too uneven in application.

THE DEATH PENALTY: THE LEAST ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS OF ALL SANCTIONS?

About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 70,000 murders since 1973. We have sentenced 8300 murderers to death since then, or 12% of those eligible.

I doubt that there is any other crime which receives a higher percentage of a sole maximum sentence, when mandatory sentences are not available.

Based upon that, as well as the well known increased scrutiny of pre trial, trial, appellate, clemency/commutation realities, the US death penalty is likely the least arbitrary and capricious criminal sanction in the US, if not the world.

Death Penalty: Saving Costs over LWOP?
Dudley Sharp

Can any jurisdiction have a responsible death penalty protocol whereby the costs are similar or less expensive than life without parole cases?

Of course.

In responsible states, the death penalty should be less expensive than a life sentence.

In Virginia, for example, 75% of those sent to death row have been executed, on average, within 7.1 years of sentencing, a protocol which will almost always be cheaper than a life sentence.

All jurisdictions could do that and save money over LWOP.

It is crucial to check the claims and methodology of the death penalty cost studies. Often they are either very deceptive or inaccurate, just as some studies which compare the costs of the death penalty vs life without parole.

Instead of an apple to apples comparison, we often find a kangaroos to apples comparison.

Make sure you fact check.

My URL's were not allowed

Response to Absurd California Death Penalty Cost "Study"

Maryland Cost Study Problems: Urban Institute: "Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland"

Duke (North Carolina) Death Penalty Cost Study: Let's be honest


Cost, Deception & the Death Penalty: The Colorado Experience


"Death Penalty Cost Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP"



Cost Savings: The Death Penalty

 

[dudleysharp]

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
Dudley Sharp

The death penalty has a foundation in justice and it spares more innocent lives.

Anti death penalty arguments are either false or the pro death penalty arguments are stronger.

The majority populations of all countries may support the death penalty for some crimes (1).

Why? Justice.

THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES

Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

SNUCK THE URL'S IN

1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html

2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html

MORAL FOUNDATIONS: DEATH PENALTY PT. 1

1) Saint (& Pope) Pius V: "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

2) Pope Pius XII; "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.

3) John Murray: "Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life."

"... it is this same atrophy of moral fiber that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty."

"It is the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the crime of murder. It is the sense of this sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. The deeper our regard for life the firmer will be our hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merit." (Page 122 of Principles of Conduct).

4) Immanuel Kant: "If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.".

"A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral."

5) Billy Graham: "God will not tolerate sin. He condemns it and demands payment for it. God could not remain a righteous God and compromise with sin. His holiness and His justice demand the death penalty." ( "The Power of the Cross," published in the Apr. 2007 issue of Decision magazine ).

6) Theodore Roosevelt: "It was really heartrending to have to see the kinfolk and friends of murderers who were condemned to death, and among the very rare occasions when anything governmental or official caused me to lose sleep were times when I had to listen to some poor mother making a plea for a criminal so wicked, so utterly brutal and depraved, that it would have been a crime on my part to remit his punishment.".

7) Jean-Jacques Rousseau: "Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgments are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State." (The Social Contract).

8) John Locke: "A criminal who, having renounced reason... hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or tyger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security." And upon this is grounded the great law of Nature, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Second Treatise of Civil Government.

==============

1) US Death Penalty Support at 80%; World Support Remains High
http(COLON)//prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2012/04/us-death-penalty-support-at-80-world.html

http://prodpinnc.blogspot(DOT)com/2012/04/us-death-penalty-support-at-80-world.html

 

[dudleysharp]

..

 

[Polk]

It's absolutely arbitrary. Look at the racial breakdowns on murderers/victims, then look at the proportions among those sentences to death. You'll see a lot more black faces and far more male ones.

 

[Gadawg73]

I do not have any moral problem with the death penalty, but oppose it on utilitarian grounds. Too expensive, too uneven in application.

Lots of things are too expensive. Crime statistics are uneven along racial lines so that means nothing also.
The only reason to oppose the death penalty is humans make mistakes.
Innocent folks have been put to death.

 

[dudleysharp]

It's absolutely arbitrary. Look at the racial breakdowns on murderers/victims, then look at the proportions among those sentences to death. You'll see a lot more black faces and far more male ones.

NOTE: Very few women commit capital murders, a very small subset of murders, which are those which are eligible for the death penalty


HAD TO SHORTEN OR CHANGE OR ELIMINATE URL's because of restrictions for new posters


Rebuttal to the death penalty racism claims
Dudley Sharp

1) Blume, John H.; Eisenberg, Theodore; and Wells, Martin T., "Explaining Death Row's Population and Racial Composition" (2004), Cornell Law Faculty Publications

2) "Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias"

3) "The Death Penalty and Racism The Times Have Changed", Washington Post reporter Charles Lane, The American Interest, Nov/Dec 2010,

4) SMOKE AND MIRRORS ON RACE AND THE DEATH PENALTY
BY KENT SCHEIDEGGER

5) Race, Sentencing and the death penalty.


6) McCleskey v Kemp, the infamous race based death penalty case decided by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS)

Baldus' database and work in McCleskey was quite poor.

Read Federal District Court Judge Forrester's rejection of Baldus' database for McCleskey.

A more thorough review is provided by Joseph Katz, who did the methodological review of the Baldus database, which was rife with errors and problems. I have it, if you care to research.

In addition, SCOTUS totally misunderstood the math involved. They ignorantly wrote: "defendants charged with killing white victims were 4.3 times as likely to receive a death sentence as defendants charged with killing blacks."

Totally inaccurate. It was by odds of 4.3 times, or an odds multiplier of 4.3, which can mean a variables as low as 2-4%, as opposed to the 330% difference represented by 4.3 times. SCOTUS blew it big time on this.

These two articles, below, give a good explanation of a core problem with Baldus, in the McCleskey case and another of his reviews.

A) "The Math Behind Race, Crime and Sentencing Statistics"
By John Allen Paulos, Los Angeles Times, July 12, 1998


B) See “The Odds of Execution” within “How numbers are tricking you”, by Arnold Barnett, MIT Technology Review October, 1994


and

7) Race, ethnicity and crime statistics.

For the White–Black comparisons, the Black level is 12.7 times greater than the White level for homicide, 15.6 times greater for robbery, 6.7 times greater for rape, and 4.5 times greater for aggravated assault.

For the Hispanic- White comparison, the Hispanic level is 4.0 times greater than the White level for homicide, 3.8 times greater for robbery, 2.8 times greater for rape, and 2.3 times greater for aggravated assault.

For the Hispanic–Black comparison, the Black level is 3.1 times greater than the Hispanic level for homicide, 4.1 times greater for robbery, 2.4 times greater for rape, and 1.9 times greater for aggravated assault.

From

REASSESSING TRENDS IN BLACK VIOLENT CRIME, 1980.2008: SORTING OUT THE "HISPANIC EFFECT" IN UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS ARRESTS, NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY OFFENDER ESTIMATES, AND U.S. PRISONER COUNTS, DARRELL STEFFENSMEIER, BEN FELDMEYER, CASEY T. HARRIS, JEFFERY T. ULMER, Criminology, Volume 49, Issue 1, Article first published online: 24 FEB 2011

 

[Noomi]

Capital punishment should be administered with no emotional involvement whatsoever. It is the same thing as taking out the trash. It is putting down a dog with rabies. It is a necessary act that is deserving of no feeling at all.

But I bet you wouldn't willingly administer that injection yourself.

 

[Unkotare]

What an unbelievable hypocrite.

 

[Noomi]

How about you shut the **** up for once?

If a prisoner is able to murder a guard inside the prison, that shows there is a problem with the prison system itself, because an inmate should not even be allowed to get that close to a prison guard.

But you will ignore that, I am sure.

Oh look, the idiot chimes in.

So you're claiming most murderers are in a maximum security prison???

The inmates in those facilities are there because they the worst of the worst, a threat to the staff, other inmates and sometimes themselves. Most murderers that escape the death penalty end up living in a normal prison where they are allowed to rape, kill, etc other people.

There was an incident in Colorado this past week where a scumbag in jail for murder killed a guard and almost killed another guard during lunch period. Does he give a shit? Oh, you claim he was locked away in some hole in the ground and can't bother anyone.

Shut the **** up, idiot.

Certain heinous crimes that are 100% easy to identify the murderer(s) should get the death penalty.

A man rapes a woman and her children then slaughters them with clear evidence against him, I'd love for some of you scum to go to court and demand he be allowed to live in a jail cell for life watching TV, surfing the internet, going to school......hopefully a family member of the victim gets their hands on you.

They don't get to live a life of luxury, you know. Stop listening to what the right wing media tells you. I have been inside a maximum security prison to meet low risk inmates, one of whom shot a guy in the head for no reason at all. They have to work damned hard to EARN the right to watch one damned TV show.