The Death Penalty: Yes or No?

[Kacey]

There is a difference, both moral and legal between justifiable homicide and murder. It isn't hard at all to see the difference between self defense or defense of others and murder, at least I didn't think it was. Some of you people are starting to worry me...

I don't dispute the difference - but I can only respond to what you say, not what you mean and don't type on the page... and I do know people who would make the statement you made and mean it literally. So until you made this statement I had no way of knowing what you meant; the joy of conversation - especially via text, where there is no inflection - is that one can only take the face value of words, not the implications meant by the author.

 

[Big Don]

I don't dispute the difference - but I can only respond to what you say, not what you mean and don't type on the page... and I do know people who would make the statement you made and mean it literally. So until you made this statement I had no way of knowing what you meant; the joy of conversation - especially via text, where there is no inflection - is that one can only take the face value of words, not the implications meant by the author.

Makes you really value inflection doesn't it?

 

[grydth]

I may well have missed a link in my study of this thread.

Can anyone cite an instance(s) since the resumption of capital punishment where it has been conclusively proven that an innocent person was wrongfully executed?

 

[Karatedrifter7]

Thats a difficult one to answer, but in most cases, I'm not in favour of it. Take Timothy McVeigh. We might have been able to find out more about the Oklahoma conspiracy if he'd been around longer. But he took his secrets with him.

 

[Empty Hands]

That is just it, he has received NO punishment. The criminally insane are not subject to punishment, only treatment.

By being confined to a secure, locked down facility for an indefinite period of time. The only thing significantly better about the psychiatric hospital is the lack of shower rape, which isn't supposed to happen in prison anyways.

So, because it has been 39 years since Sirhan Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy he should be released? Because people have served far less time for murder. Or what about Charles Manson. Manson never killed anyone, yet he rots in prison, and, he is friggin nuts, should his sentence be commuted and he be committed?

Either should be released if they have completed their sentences. I have no idea if either have.

 

[Empty Hands]

Yes. People should be held responsible for their actions. Period.

Jesus H. Christ, you are so incoherent on this topic. Do you not get that the necessity of mens rea is the basis for the insanity plea AS WELL AS justifiable homicide/self defense? You don't get one without the other.

Of course that is what would happen when the principles are applied evenly. You have already made it abundantly clear that your preferences drive your desired outcomes, not your principles. You like it when someone kills someone else in self defense, so they should be let go. You don't like it when some crazy dude kills someone, he should rot in jail forever. Never mind that neither had the criminal intent required to be guilty.

 

[Empty Hands]

Can anyone cite an instance(s) since the resumption of capital punishment where it has been conclusively proven that an innocent person was wrongfully executed?

Some of these innocent guys would have been executed eventually without the involvement of an interested third party with money.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php

 

[Doc_Jude]

Jesus H. Christ, you are so incoherent on this topic. Do you not get that the necessity of mens rea is the basis for the insanity plea AS WELL AS justifiable homicide/self defense? You don't get one without the other.

This guy obviously doesn't even get the basics of criminal law. Just quit talking to him. I have.

 

[MBuzzy]

Be nice, guys. Its nothing personal, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Plus, the best way to discuss anything is to attack the ideas and points, not the people.

Some of these innocent guys would have been executed eventually without the involvement of an interested third party with money.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php

I haven't actually taken the time to read any of these....but isn't this just an example of the system working? That is why we have an appeals process and allow people to exhaust every resource before being put to death. If they get off, that is a GOOD thing.

Unfortunately, the converse applies as well, just as there are innocent men who get executed, there are guilty men who are set free.

 

[Empty Hands]

Be nice, guys. Its nothing personal, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Plus, the best way to discuss anything is to attack the ideas and points, not the people.

Actually the Big Guy made it personal by calling several of my posts "idiotic" when I hadn't been rude first. Not that it justifies anything, but it does add to the frustration...

What also adds to the frustration is I have written several long posts addressing exactly the points raised by my interlocutor, which have been completely ignored.

I haven't actually taken the time to read any of these....but isn't this just an example of the system working?

Unfortunately not. The evidence and money raised to free these men came from the Innocence Project, not the system. The system is not obligated to pay for exculpatory testing such as DNA testing. AFAIK, if the prosecution thinks eyewitness testimony (for instance) is enough to convict, they have no obligation to test the DNA samples in their possession. As DNA testing is costly, a number of convicts later freed were stuck in jail due to lack of money. Also, courts have been known to refuse new evidence on appeal, arguing that appeals courts are not for the establishment of fact, but the testing of procedure.

It doesn't help either that the position of DA is an elected one, and convictions look better to the voters than exonerations. The DA all too often wants a conviction, not to find the truth. Just look at Mike Nifong of Duke Lacrosse fame for a textbook example.

 

[MBuzzy]

Actually the Big Guy made it personal by calling several of my posts "idiotic" when I hadn't been rude first. Not that it justifies anything, but it does add to the frustration...

What also adds to the frustration is I have written several long posts addressing exactly the points raised by my interlocutor, which have been completely ignored.

Understood....maybe I should rephrase. I just think that we should ALL make an attempt to KEEP it from being personal, that's all. Although I understand the frustration.

Unfortunately not. The evidence and money raised to free these men came from the Innocence Project, not the system. The system is not obligated to pay for exculpatory testing such as DNA testing. AFAIK, if the prosecution thinks eyewitness testimony (for instance) is enough to convict, they have no obligation to test the DNA samples in their possession. As DNA testing is costly, a number of convicts later freed were stuck in jail due to lack of money. Also, courts have been known to refuse new evidence on appeal, arguing that appeals courts are not for the establishment of fact, but the testing of procedure.

It doesn't help either that the position of DA is an elected one, and convictions look better to the voters than exonerations. The DA all too often wants a conviction, not to find the truth. Just look at Mike Nifong of Duke Lacrosse fame for a textbook example.

I suppose I will need to read up a bit on the innocence project. Either way, it is an extension of the system working. I'm a student of systems analysis and when a complex system exists with problems, those affected by the system generally create ammendments to the system to overcome those problems and mitigate their effects. So I view this organization as society's way of taking a PROACTIVE approach at fixing the system. After all, that is how TRUE change happens. When you feel strongly enough about an issue, you go out and try to change it. If you can't change it, try to mitigate its effects. Seems like they are reasonably successful. I still see it as a good thing. If we can preserve the deterrance of the Death Penalty and add another fail safe to ensure that innocent men aren't executed - all the better in my opinion.

 

[Empty Hands]

So I view this organization as society's way of taking a PROACTIVE approach at fixing the system.

Well, that's true enough. Hopefully they can help inspire change. Making the justice system more effective SHOULD make everyone more happy (of course it won't though). Those changes do have to happen to the wider system though, a couple of activist groups aren't enough to correct millions of potential problems.

If we can preserve the deterrance of the Death Penalty and add another fail safe to ensure that innocent men aren't executed - all the better in my opinion.

Definitely. I would be a lot more willing to support it in that case.

 

[Cruentus]

I may well have missed a link in my study of this thread.

Can anyone cite an instance(s) since the resumption of capital punishment where it has been conclusively proven that an innocent person was wrongfully executed?

http://www.fdp.dk/uk/released.htm

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20000928.jhtml

The center of wrongful convictions have found some 86 people on death row innocent (mostly proved innocent with DNA evidence). They would have been killed otherwise.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/

It happens more often then people think. That is why like I said before, even though some people should be killed, I can't justify the death penalty with the margin of error in our system.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Understood....maybe I should rephrase. I just think that we should ALL make an attempt to KEEP it from being personal, that's all. Although I understand the frustration.

We should keep things civil and stick to healthy conversation and debate. However, that demands a willingness to listen to the arguments and points of other, along with a openness to learning new information, especially on a subject that they feel so strongly about.

A few posters here in this thread obviously don't come from this standpoint and would rather simply stand on their uninformed opinions, voicing them in an rather callus, acerbic manner. A public discussion forum isn't the place for that. Try a Blog.

 

[Doc_Jude]

http://www.fdp.dk/uk/released.htm

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20000928.jhtml

The center of wrongful convictions have found some 86 people on death row innocent (mostly proved innocent with DNA evidence). They would have been killed otherwise.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/

It happens more often then people think. That is why like I said before, even though some people should be killed, I can't justify the death penalty with the margin of error in our system.

& the problem with the Center for Wrongful Convictions, along the backlog of cases that need proper DNA verification, is that they won't be able to get to all of the wrongful convictions before they're put to death. They save some, but not all.
The bloodthirsty attitude of some people that see these government-endorsed murders as acceptable & "collateral damage" is what perpetuates this kind of archaic punishment.

 

[MJS]

Hmmm....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22296966/

 

[KempoGuy06]

The dealth penalty...I support it. What I dont support is the argument that it needs to be humane. I think punishments should go back to an eye for an eye. You kill some one buy shooting them well then you get shot. Or in the case of the guy in Texas that was dragged to his death, they people responsible should die the same way. Ive told people this before and they say to me "Well Brandon who are we going to get to perform all these punishments" my only answer is "ME" I will do it to save tax payers millions and to solve the problem.

Also...child molestors...SHOT THEM IN THE HEAD. There is no place for them in society. You mess with a little kid you deserve to die plain and simple. If this makes me barbaric than so be it. But like Christopher Titus says "show me the pro molesting little kids side of the argument"

B

 

[Ray]

Yes, but only for first-time non-violent drug offenders.

 

[Empty Hands]

Also...child molestors...SHOT THEM IN THE HEAD.

I notice you didn't volunteer your services in performing your "eye-for-an-eye" duties by molesting the child molesters.

 

[Big Don]

I notice you didn't volunteer your services in performing your "eye-for-an-eye" duties by molesting the child molesters.

an eye for an eye is fine, when dealing with murder when a death for a death is equal. For child molesters and rapists, I would suggest something a tad more brutal than today's modern execution methods. The brazen bull perhaps.http://www.medievality.com/brazen-bull.html That is, make the punishment fit the brutality of the crime.
Executions should be swift, public and on pay-per-view. When you tell people you might kill them if they kill/rape/molest you don't get the full deterrent effect unless and until you kill some people for murder/rape/molestation. The monies recouped from the first dozen pay-per-view executions would cover the prison budgets for years.