Death Penalty

[alan1]

I am for the death penalty if the accused is guilty. The system has a bad record of determining that fact. what is it you want me to say? that I'd rather have innocent people die than not have the death penalty?

Well, isn't that a loaded and insinuating question?
Nice dodge.

what did I dodge? what's your question? I will try to answer it.

I suppose "dodge" was the wrong word. "Diversion" might be a better term, since I never indicated that I wanted you to say anything.

 

[Diuretic]

It's not bogus because they are ALWAYS granted appeals. Why? because there is no room for error. In Illinois, there were 13 people on death row who were set free because more evidence came out about the murder.

See my previous post as response to your first sentence.

Now, pick an argument,
1st choice is it more costly or less costly to enact the death penalty?
2nd choice, are you for or against the death penalty?
You are trying to mix apples and oranges.

I am for the death penalty if the accused is guilty. The system has a bad record of determining that fact. what is it you want me to say? that I'd rather have innocent people die than not have the death penalty?

My problem with "guilty" is that it's a sloppy notion. The prosecution only has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That's still probability albeit a very high level of probability, it isn't certainty. And someone should only be executed if it was certain they committed an offence. Since that standard doesn't apply then no-one should be executed.

 

[elvis]

See my previous post as response to your first sentence.

Now, pick an argument,
1st choice is it more costly or less costly to enact the death penalty?
2nd choice, are you for or against the death penalty?
You are trying to mix apples and oranges.

I am for the death penalty if the accused is guilty. The system has a bad record of determining that fact. what is it you want me to say? that I'd rather have innocent people die than not have the death penalty?

My problem with "guilty" is that it's a sloppy notion. The prosecution only has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That's still probability albeit a very high level of probability, it isn't certainty. And someone should only be executed if it was certain they committed an offence. Since that standard doesn't apply then no-one should be executed.

Was there any doubt that Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald?

 

[Diuretic]

I am for the death penalty if the accused is guilty. The system has a bad record of determining that fact. what is it you want me to say? that I'd rather have innocent people die than not have the death penalty?

My problem with "guilty" is that it's a sloppy notion. The prosecution only has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That's still probability albeit a very high level of probability, it isn't certainty. And someone should only be executed if it was certain they committed an offence. Since that standard doesn't apply then no-one should be executed.

Was there any doubt that Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald?

No, from the film available it would appear that Ruby did kill Oswald.

Now, did he murder him?

 

[Dr Grump]

No, from the film available it would appear that Ruby did kill Oswald.

Now, did he murder him?

Yep...

 

[DamnYankee]

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.

THIS rather liberal State has decided to do away with the Death Penalty. The reason? The victims' families. THEY decided that there was no point since, although it was an option, IT WAS NEVER USED. It was tied up in appeals for years on end without resolution or closure. THERE is your cost factor.

 

[Diuretic]

No, from the film available it would appear that Ruby did kill Oswald.

Now, did he murder him?

Yep...

Then if Ruby's actions in murdering Oswald were proven beyond any doubt whatsoever my objections to the death penalty for him, in theory, cease to exist. In his case. But since cases like the Oswald killing are so rare I won't resile from my position that somone can be convicted of murder on the basis of probability and that isn't sufficient to execute them. If the requirement for conviction for murder was that the allegations should be proven beyond any doubt (using the Oswald killing as a an example) then every murder conviction could theoretically end up with the defendang being executed.

 

[Just A Man]

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. -- KK

It cost more because too many greedy lawyers have corrupted the justice system and many of the judges (ex-lawyers) are their accomplices. Then throw in the liberals who don't have the back bone to carry out a death sentence and you got endless appeals. Too many average citizens who are against the death penalty have been brain-washed and they're not thinking for themselves. Just like the extreme PC move has brain-washed so many.

It's wrong for the government to be killing??? Well the same liberals who think this way are for government paid abortions.

I leave you with this thought: Never let anyone think for you.

 

[Diuretic]

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. -- KK

It cost more because too many greedy lawyers have corrupted the justice system and many of the judges (ex-lawyers) are their accomplices. Then throw in the liberals who don't have the back bone to carry out a death sentence and you got endless appeals. Too many average citizens who are against the death penalty have been brain-washed and they're not thinking for themselves. Just like the extreme PC move has brain-washed so many.

It's wrong for the government to be killing??? Well the same liberals who think this way are for government paid abortions.

I leave you with this thought: Never let anyone think for you.

Not even Rush?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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. -- KK

It cost more because too many greedy lawyers have corrupted the justice system and many of the judges (ex-lawyers) are their accomplices. Then throw in the liberals who don't have the back bone to carry out a death sentence and you got endless appeals. Too many average citizens who are against the death penalty have been brain-washed and they're not thinking for themselves. Just like the extreme PC move has brain-washed so many.

It's wrong for the government to be killing??? Well the same liberals who think this way are for government paid abortions.

I leave you with this thought: Never let anyone think for you.

Who's thinking for me?

I'm against "government paid abortions," and I'm not a liberal.

As to the "endless appeals," I've already discussed them. Every appeal you take away from these convicts raises the odds that you're going to kill an innocent person, and that's a far worse than spending money on appeals.

 

[Agnapostate]

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."

 

[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.

 

[Agnapostate]

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 wouldn't even claim that an altogether different mentality existed today, as evidenced by the aforementioned research of Garland. Here's another snippet:

[T]he collective killing of hated criminals (or merely the assertion of the people's right to do so) remains one of the ways in which groups of people express their autonomy, invoke traditional values, and assert their local identity (Garland, 2005a; Simon, 2007). Somehow it serves all these functions while also generating news, dramatizing the dull business of punishment, and giving casual pleasure to prurient onlookers.

The fact that Americans, at least, maintain a "lynch mob mentality" of sorts in the administration of the death penalty, is obviously cause for concern.

 

[Diuretic]

It's a reaction out of fear I think.

 

[strollingbones]

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

In the past, true, but now there are many cases that are almost 100% without doubt (science calls it 99.999999999~%) due to advances in evidence collection. In such cases when there is no doubt that rehabilitation is not an option, there is little choice and no reason to keep them around.

why kill a person..that simply ends their suffering....life in prison with daily reflections on what they did...seems more punishment than simple death

 

[editec]

The death penalty is cheap.

It's those damned lawyers and judges which are so goddamned expensive.

Wait a minute...I'm getting a simply solution to a complex social problem here...

It's coming to me...

The death penalty is cheap except that the lawyers and judges aren't...

hmmmm....

 

[Bfgrn]

Human predators should not be allowed to breath the air shared by law-abiding people. It's our government's job to protect the people and thus they should be doing the organized killing as humanely as possible. I don't want human predators to suffer, I want a swift death for them and then flush them. I ain't worrying about someone saying I'm no better than the human predators if I want the death penalty, I want the bad guys to know if they kill an innocent person then they lose their life. It ain't complicated although people who have trouble making tough decisions may not want the death penalty, I understand that. I respect all opinions when well stated, that's what we do here, share opinions.

Do you have a problem with the organized killing of INNOCENT people as humanely as possible?


Do you have a problem with the organized killing of MENTALLY ILL people as humanely as possible?

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).

New Study Reveals Maryland Pays $37 Million for One Execution

Federal Costs

The average cost of a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought. A study found that those defendants whose representation was the least expensive, and thus who received the least amount of attorney and expert time, had an increased probability of receiving a death sentence. Defendants with less than $320,000 in terms of representation costs (the bottom 1/3 of federal capital trials) had a 44% chance of receiving a death sentence at trial. On the other hand, those defendants whose representation costs were higher than $320,000 (the remaining 2/3 of federal capital trials) had only a 19% chance of being sentenced to death. Thus, the study concluded that defendants with low representation costs were more than twice as likely to receive a death sentence. The complete report can be found here.

(Office of Defender Services of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, "Update on Cost, Quality, and Availability of Defense Representation in Federal Death Penalty Cases," June 2008; prepared by Jon Gould and Lisa Greenman).
Death Penalty Information Center

 

[Diuretic]

The death penalty is cheap.

It's those damned lawyers and judges which are so goddamned expensive.

Wait a minute...I'm getting a simply solution to a complex social problem here...

It's coming to me...

The death penalty is cheap except that the lawyers and judges aren't...

hmmmm....

Link this with doctors and.........

As GB Shaw said, "all professions are a conspiracy against the laity".

We've been sucked in completely but no one is going to change anything.

 

[Just A Man]

Remember Richard Speck (multiple nursing student killer) who ended up with life in prison rather than death? From his prison cell he uttered these words, "If they knew how much fun I was having they would release me."

How did the families of his victims like to hear that? That human predator should have been strung and quartered. And I would have helped do it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Remember Richard Speck (multiple nursing student killer) who ended up with life in prison rather than death? From his prison cell he uttered these words, "If they knew how much fun I was having they would release me."

How did the families of his victims like to hear that? That human predator should have been strung and quartered. And I would have helped do it.

Remember Mario Marquez?

Mario Marquez, IQ of 65, Executed in Texas in 1995
(ABC-TV) (requires Real Player)

Mario Marquez had the adaptive skills of a 7 year-old. His trial counsel testified at a clemency hearing that he did not present any evidence of Mario's mental retardation because of a legal flaw in the Texas death penalty statute. Marquez was executed on January 17, 1995.


Remember Earl Washington?

Earl Washington, IQ of 69, Confessed to a crime he did not commit
(CNBC-TV) (requires Real Player)

In 1983, police convinced Earl Washington to make a statement concerning the rape and murder of a woman in Culpeper, VA, in 1982. The statements were used against him and in 1984 he was convicted and sentenced to death. Sixteen years later, DNA tests confirmed that Washington was innocent and he received an absolute pardon.