The prisons are full

Remove all ads!

But when it's wasteful to take on the expense for his life, the choice becomes between feeding the scum for the rest of his life or ending it, Excuse me for having no sympathy.

Then that's why I want a tribunal set up. To determine if there are flaws with the trial, then the appeal occurs. If there were no flaws, then hang the sucker.

So was the victim. It wasn't a factor in their decision at the time, why get soft now? Besides, locking them up just treats them like animals, anyway.

Which is why I want the state to handle this. It controls the situation, so that it does not escalate into a feud.

These are ones I believe should simply be executed.

If the quality of evidence is improving, then the likelyhood of an innocent man being convicted is reduced.

Actually, wouldn't that free up more space to put jail cells? He's in isolation, and the area that they use coud likely hose more cells. If the state lacks the stones to get rid of him, then the other prisoners in General Population would be just fine with this public service...

 

Facts are facts. I really don't like Bill O'Reilly. He is, in many ways, the very antithesis of everything I hold dear, but when Bill O'Reilly says something that is factually correct, I don't refuse to acknowledge the fact just because Bill O'Reilly brought it up. Give me the same courtesy.

Actually, that's 120 exonerations extrapolated against the number of executions...not the number of people on death row. I'm not trying to be sneaky, here. That said, 120 exonerations were the result of an audit of genetic evidence from only some of the 5-10% of cases where such evidence is available. This is a big problem. Out of all the people on death row since 1976, 120 of them were proven inarguably innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. If, from the 5-10% of cases they could check, we had 120 exonerations, it stands to reason that there is at least an equally substantial number of innocents among the other 90%. Probably a lot more.

The vast majority of Republicans are corrupt and accept bribes. The fact that most of them haven't been convicted doesn't mean that they don't have a history of corruption or bribery -- it just means they haven't been caught.

I have no problem with you being on the other side of the fence. I have a problem with intellectual dishonesty and incorrect facts.

 

Substantiate that accusation. I have been stating my opinion all along and have not represented myself in any other way. You don't agree with my opinion, fine. But don't start throwing insults such as liar and stupid.

 

T2, in response to my arguments about just how disputed the death penalty's status as a deterrent is, you have responded by attacking not the substance of my argument, but who you perceive to be their source. At one point, you made the ridiculous argument that, hey, how can we KNOW that wrongly convicted people on death row aren't murderers? You also argued that death penalty opponents want you to believe 12.5% of death row inmates have been exonerated, when I have neither seen nor made such an argument. To your credit, though, you stopped pressing the issue when I explained how the numbers were actually reached. You argued that a majority of death row inmates had a history of violence, which I did not dispute, but you then argued that not being convicted does not mean no history of violence (as if the onus should somehow lie with proving the absence of violence rather than with proving the presence), citing dropped domestic violence cases in your area as your example. The problem with this specific example is that they don't actually need the spouse/girlfriend's consent to press charges in Chicago. If there is enough evidence, they press charges anyway (and a staggering percentage of domestic violence cases are pressed against the will of the victim). While dropped or unpressed charges can certainly be evidence of criminal activity, they can also be evidence of no criminal activity.

 

You and Ragusa have made statements that were extreme in one viewpoint. My responses have often been to show the opposite extreme is equally viable -- and by conjecture, equally wrong. That you and Ragusa have failed to grasp such an argument is unfortunate.

You also fail to grasp that statistics are used to convey a perception -- stating that one person is release for every eight executed is planting a perception that 12.5% of convictions are wrong. Those who a have solid grasp of statistics may realize the ruse, others tend to fall into the intentional trap. I chose not to pursue the issue because you apparently fell into the trap. At that point it's like arguing religion with Gnarff.

I attack your source because your precepts (in this case references) are flawed. There is no point in debating an issue based on flawed precepts -- that is fundamental logic (from the basic philosophy course). Once again, you quoting of the propaganda is like arguing with someone that repeatedly quotes the Bible to an agnostic or athiest.

 

T2,
that's not a question of being liberal or conservative. If one takes that constitution of yours serious you're just flat wrong.

Criminal law has been conceived the way it is to protect the innocent. That's a fact. You don't like it, or appear to do, and it appears that you would rather prefer an order that instead effectively prosecutes the guilty, or for good measure the bad guys who deserve it anyway, trifles like individual guilt aside if the bad guy has a bad enough record. The problem with it is that it is against the law, and worse, that such a view corrodes the rule of law that distinguishes a cop from a criminal.

You referred to Capone earlier. The analogy is flawed. The difference between Capone and some bad guy who was innocent but executed is that that legal workaround was legal - because Capone was guilty of tax evasion, among all his other crimes. They didn't falsely accuse him of that crime. He was not convicted of a crime he didn't commit. He committed the crime he was accused of.

The problem with your views here is that they are in conflict with the law as it is. That is very simple. You don't care about constitutionally mandated procedural rights because they don't conform with your views how the law ought to be. Laws like the 'express lane' are not just a reform of the law, but a reform of the constitution to something authoritarian and pre-bill-of-rights as far as criminal law is concerned, for the sake of expediency. If that's what you want, why not follow the lead of Iran or Saudi Arabia? They have harsh punishment, no appeals and swift executions aplenty.

 

Then attack the precepts if they are wrong. Are you disputing that we've had 120 exonerations of death row inmates? Are you disputing that a majority of Criminologists (the people actually qualified to study this type of thing) reject the very notion that the death penalty deters more crime than life imprisonment? Are you disputing that the south, where 80% of executions are conducted, had 6.8 murders per 100,000 people in 2006 (which is in keeping with their normal trends - 2006 is not an anomaly) while the Northeast, where only 1% of executions have been conducted (and where most states either have a moratorium or an outright ban on the death penalty) has a murder rate of only 4.5 per 100,000?* Are you disputing that, since 1976 (when the death penalty ban was lifted), the murder rates in the south haven't gone down? So far, all you've done is attack what you perceive to be my source.

*I'm not trying to use this data to argue that the death penalty increases violent crime. That would be absurd! What I am arguing is that we haven't seen any evidence that the death penalty deters more violent crime than life in prison. Sure, if speeding or stealing carried the death penalty, you can bet your balls that speeding and theft numbers would drop, but we aren't talking about stealing. We are talking about murder. People that commit murder either don't care about the consequences (and let's not forget that no one wants to spend the rest of their life in prison) or they don't plan on getting caught.

The idea that the death penalty would deter more crime than spending the rest of your life behind bars is, on its own merits, a pretty tough sell for many people. When you couple it with the fact that there aren't any metrics to indicate that the death penalty deters more crime, it becomes really hard to make a strong argument that the death penalty actually works better as a deterrent than life in prison. This is not to say that we absolutely shouldn't have the death penalty. There are other reasonable arguments to be made in its favor, but arguments about the death penalty being an effective deterrent are unsupported by the metrics.

This is no ruse, T2. 120 out of 4000 (600 higher than our current death row population), if you'll notice, is 3%. I could have easilly argued that over 3% of our current death row inmates were exonerated before they could be executed. If I factor in the people who were already executed as well, I can still argue that 2.5% of everyone we have put on death row since 1976 was exonerated. Even if I artificially bloat the number of death row inmates by 1500, I can still argue that 2% of everyone we've put on death row since 1976 was exonerated. These arguments are, in my opinion, even more powerful than my initial argument.

 

Just because we can prove that the opposite extreme of an argument is false, does not mean that we can infer that the original argument is also false. I (and going by their replies, so would Ragusa and Drew) would dispute that you have proved the opposite extreme to be viable. Do you have any facts that you wish to share?

The opposite extreme to the theory of gravity would be if things either did not accelerate in a specific direction, or that they accelerate away from the planet. Both of these are provably false, yet we take the theory of gravity to be true.

So we should lower ourselves to their level?

 

I started out by saying:

Just what part of that is Constitutionally correct? I KNOW it's not the law, I never said it was. It is simply my belief. The law protects criminals. I would rather have it protect victims.

Exactly. So why didn't you use those to begin with? The entire set of data is more convincing in most debates. The use of simplistic measures works for the masses. The main problem with the site you want to quote is their interpretation of the data. It is entirely unreasonable to compare murder rates in the south versus New England. Compare areas with similar demographics and really find the difference. You will also find the death penalty is not a deterence in areas where it is rarely enforced -- that somewhat skews the interpretation as well. Good comparisons might be Illinois versus Michigan -- or even Texas versus California.

Many, yes. Most, doubtful. All, never. Life behind bars? The criminal is still alive -- that has a lot going for it. Generally, to most people, being alive is much better than the alternative. Yes, I dispute the "experts" in this. The evaluations I've seen thus far are not very convincing (for the same reasons I mentioned before).

 

Unless of course one was to agree that imprisonment is indeed kidnapping. I would raise two points about your comparison though. First, I would claim (and I would like to think I'd be in the majority on this point) that kidnapping is a far lesser crime than murder. Second (where I might not be in the majority), I would say that this 'kidnapping' should be used as little as possible, and that there are far better deterrents for the vast majority of criminals than prison. One of the few cases where imprisonment has its uses is simply to protect others. Yes, killing the criminal does that as well, but then it comes back to the question of which is the lesser crime? To kill a human or to kidnap a human?

 

T2,
why not watch that old flick again, The wrong Man (1956) with Henry Fonda?

 

A Swift, humane execution is not lowering ourselves. We are talking about proven killers here. They deserve the same consideration that they gave their victim. Be it dehumanization of the victim or a calculated decision that their victim needed to die, the result is the same--the victim is dead. Look at it as you will, but the decision should be the same--the killer should likely die.

 

The Internet is getting boring, same old debates and they all go exactly the same. Think I could manufacture my own death penalty or abortion debate in my sleep.

Would just like to comment on one of Gnarf's arguments for the death penalty, it is one that is quite often used mostly when all the half decent arguments are already used.

Ok, so we are supposed to kill people because keeping them alive is so darn expensive? Hmm, maybe we should just take old geezer and dump em in a mass grave, it is so damn expensive to keep them alive and they will never contribute much to society again. I just love that argument, it truly shows the utter contempt some people hold for the sanctity of life. There is very little point arguing this subject, some people will never leave the middle ages.

 

I think the problem with this (at least in the United States) is that executing people tends to cost more than keeping them imprisoned for life. It only really works if you do it cheaply a la China or Saudi Arabia, but then there's the whole human rights issue.

I thought the Life of David Gale was another good - anti-death penalty film, probably not as deep as anything by Hitchcock, but the twist was enough to keep me pretty interested

 

Well, yes, it is lowering yourself. Okay, first you say a swift humane execution isn't lowering yourself to their standards. I'll give you that, Gnarff, assuming they did not carry out a swift humane execution of their victim. But as soon as you say they deserve the same consideration, you are placing yourself on their level. Let me repeat what you said, just for clarity. "They deserve the same consideration that they gave their victim". Can you claim to be above them, yet saying they deserve what they gave?

 

Not to be a smart-ass, but the law can't protect the victim. The law can't protect a murder victim because no crime has been committed prior to the murder and, after the murder, the victim is already dead. It can't protect a rape victim since no crime has been committed prior to the rape and, afterwards, the rape has already happened. The law can punish the murderer or the rapist, but it cannot protect the victim.

I'll do you one better. Let's compare Illinois to Illinois. In January of 2000, due to the fact that it had exonerated more people than it had executed since 1977 (13 exonerations vs 12 executions), the republican governor of Illinois put a moratorium on the death penalty and created a special panel to study the state's capital punishment system in general and determine what happened in the 13 specific cases in which men were wrongly convicted. Averaging the murder rate from 2000-2006 (2007 statistics are still tough to find) nets you 7.157 murders per 100,000 people. (The national average for this period was 5.6.) From 1993-1999 the average rate was 9.81. (The national average for the same period was 7.56.) It's obvious that we had a downward trend both in Illinois and nationally. The decline continued unabated in Illinois even with their moratorium.

 

Part II. (had to go before I was finished before)

Using your example of Illinois, there had been only 12 executions in 25 years. That is one execution every two years. At the time of clemency there were 167 prisoners on death row. It would have taken 334 years to execute them all at the rate Illinois was going. More prisoners died of natural causes than lethal injection. A sentence of death in Illinois was, in reality, a life sentence. Not very effective. Although it does appear at first glance to be more effective than no death penalty (as in Michigan).

For the death penalty to work there must be sufficient determination to use it. That has not been the case in the majority of states. Texas is the notable exception. Texas has all the racial problems that plague the south and the most extensive coast and border to transport drugs across. Texas is a major front for the war on drugs and drug dealers have a huge influence in the crime rates -- including murder. Yet, in spite of being in the worst position for such things, Texas is nearly average for murders. I would argue the use of the death penalty is a contributing factor in the low murder rate.

Another factor that complicates the murder rate versus death penalty issue is the definition of murder and what figures are used to determine the murder rates. My understanding is all deaths rule homicide are included in that number -- that would include vehicular manslaughter, manslaughter, 2nd degree murder and 1st degree murder cases. Manslaughter (and vehicular manslaughter) cases are basically accidents -- there are serious doubts the presence of a death penalty would do anything to reduce these deaths.

Conviction rates also play into the equation. Low conviction rates would certainly provide no deterence no matter the penalty.

My biggest argument against information from websites like Drew references is they oversimplify the issue. It's not a simple issue, it's quite complex. The reason anti-capital punishment groups choose "simple" is because it plays into their hands -- "simple" answers look good to their cause. Further investigation takes the strength out of their arguments.

I've said it before, there are glitches in the system. In general, there are many factors to convict: motive, opportunity, criminal history, and evidence (usally all, but sometimes only three). Opportunity may be another way of saying "being in the wrong place at the wrong time." The glitches come from either extraordinary circumstances or from flat out deceit on the part of law enforcement.

In cases of extraordinary circumstances ... well, sucks to be that guy. I'd rather have the occasional "innocent man" conviction in the overall scheme of things (yes, I've seen "The Wrong Man," several times -- my opinion remains unchanged). It would be better to have the right guy behind bars. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time shouldn't be a crime, but if you have motive and/or past history with violent behavior you need to be a little more cautious. That's just life.

For deceit of law enforcement, that's a crime in and of itself. Law enforcement officials should be punished severely for such infractions (conviction should mean loss of pensions and prison time). Former police officers do not fair well in prison. If we start sending these crooked cops to prison for such infractions the message will be quite clear and occurances should drop.

What about those whose DNA got them off? Do you really know anything about them? It's too easy to make sweeping generalities without knowing why they were targetted and what led the police to them. I can spout off at least three cases in this area where the men were exonerated: in two of them the convictions were declared mistrials because the piece of evidence with the DNA on it was "prejudicial to the jury." These cases will be prosecuted again. There was sufficient evidence without the "tainted" piece for trial -- whether sufficient for conviction we'll see. For now, those "alledged killers" are back out on the streets. Great. The third case was the rape and murder of a little girl. The police tagged a convicted pedophile -- he was in the area at the time and had been seen talking to the girl. He was cleared after DNA tests determined it was not his semen in her. Am I upset a convicted pedophile was wrongfully imprisoned -- not even a tiny bit.

These examples don't prove anything -- but just spouting out numbers doesn't prove anything either. Without case studies and in depth analysis of the statistics you really can't determine anything about the affectiveness of the death penalty or our justice system.

So, for now, I support capital punishment because I believe it works.

Edit: One last item... Drew, keeping violent people off the streets protects their future victims. That's what I meant by protecting victims (more like preventing).

 

If I were to be murdered, I would want the person who killed me to pay a price. On a simple, basic level, I would want to know that the person who killed me would pay a price commensurate with the magnitude of their crime. The only two punishments that come even close are either A: Capital Punishment or B: Torture. A lifetime imprisonment does not cut it in terms of paying the price for murder. I believe quite strongly that to NOT kill the murderer is to show utter contempt for the life (lives) of his victim(s).

And you know, I have criminal relatives. I feel for them. They are addicts who life has given a raw deal to, no question. But the world is full of people who have received similar raw deals and who have not committed heinous crimes. If my brother committed murder (adding yet another charge to his long rap sheet) and ended up with the death penalty, I would still love him, but I would tell him that he made his choices and that he has been given many chances to turn his life around. I'd go to the execution and tell him I cared about him and was praying for him, but I'd never try to detract from the magnitude of his crime or denigrate the memory of his victims or the pain of their families by saying he should get away with what he did.

Many opponents of the death penalty don't care about whether the criminal is guilty. Even for the most heinous of obvious cases they advocate letting these killers live. Why don't they put that energy into caring for the victims -- and more importantly, the families the victims left behind?

 

Well said.

 

Spot on there, LKD. I don't think that's exactly what you're trying to say (or maybe I'm reading it in a different way), but instead of worrying about a revenge killing, why not put effort into caring for the victims family? And for that matter, the criminals family?