This is exactly why we should have the death penalty in this country [Archive]

ALBOB2

October 7th, 2009, 4:56 pm

pdmike and I have had this discussion many times and what I always say right up front is that I do NOT argue it from a point of logic. On this one subject I'm incapable of that. I argue the death penalty on 100% emotion. D867PM said the death penalty isn't justice, it's revenge. You're damn right it's revenge and that's exactly what I want. Fry those ****ers. Then, when they're as crispy as a bag of Cheetos, fry them again. :evil:

Now that I've got that off my chest I'll try to use SOME sort of logic.

What bothers me is twofold. First, the saying "With no possibility of parole" is 100% bogus. There are ways of these scumbags getting out. Just look at Tookie Williams. It seemed the whole world had gone insane and forgotten the horrible things he did. If Bill Clinton had been in office I'd bet my next paycheck that ole Took would be walking around right now, a free man. Time changes people and changes laws. Don't tell me "there's no chance he'll ever see the sun as a free man." That's ********.

Second, IF our penal system really was that, punishment, then I'd be for life in prison. But right now it seems as though prisoners have more rights and/or luxuries than the average working stiff. That could very well be a misperception on my part but, I'd like to see things a lot different for "lifers". Build one huge pit on the Northern slopes of Alaska and drop them in there. Give them enough food and heat to keep them alive for their natural lives and nothing more. THAT would be punishment in my eyes. That would be a deterrent.

Short of that, fry the ****ers.:evil:

ISYairio

October 7th, 2009, 5:06 pm

The extreme hole.

All 3 of them together, leave 'em to their own business. Check on them a year later.

JediMindTrick

October 7th, 2009, 5:09 pm

No sympathy for the convicted for me either. If we could guarantee guilt in every case then I'd gladly support torture and all kinds of harsh punishment for the guilty. But we can't guarantee guilt and there have been far too many cases the last ten years, since the advent of DNA, where its been found innocent people have been sentenced to death. There are also several cases where after the execution evidence has come to light that strongly indicates the executed person may have been innocent. I simply cannot support the death penalty in any case so long as the risk of executing an innocent person exists. And if you leave the DP on the table for those where there is guilt even beyond a reasonable doubt it is inevitable that at some point an innocent will still get sentenced to die, not to mention the fact that you'll have destroyed the already feeble justice system by creating multiple levels of guilt.

ThrowCop

October 7th, 2009, 5:13 pm

Apatriot

October 7th, 2009, 5:22 pm

Second, IF our penal system really was that, punishment, then I'd be for life in prison. But right now it seems as though prisoners have more rights and/or luxuries than the average working stiff.

As a lover of liberty, I can't imagine anything worse than living in prison. In your survival world scenario, at least they'd have plenty to occupy their time. I'd much prefer to live in your survival world than in a conventional prison.

jimjames418

October 7th, 2009, 5:36 pm

I would rip the guts out of anyone who perpetrated such an inhuman act on my family.

But...

I do not think the government should be killing its citizens. I am for the harshest penalties allowed by law but I am against the death penalty.
Give the family a "HUNTING LICENSE" which authorizies them to kill, or hire someone to kill, the convicted person without any charge being brought against them.

F9thRet

October 7th, 2009, 6:05 pm

I am and will always be for the Death Penalty. Revenge for our loved ones is one of the most natural things known to man, and to Deny it, costs us a great deal, as we become a nation of self liars.

There is nothing more Natural of all of mankind then to want to see your enemies dead before you. The sooner people understand this of themselves, and learn to embrace it, the better off we will all be.

Death to Rapists and murderers.

Stephen

ALBOB2

October 7th, 2009, 6:30 pm

As a lover of liberty, I can't imagine anything worse than living in prison. In your survival world scenario, at least they'd have plenty to occupy their time. I'd much prefer to live in your survival world than in a conventional prison.

I can see what you're saying but, you misunderstood my scenario. I'm talking about a pit, literally. A barren spot of ground approximately the same size as the average prison grounds. I wasn't talking about the entire Northern slope. I want the prisoners shoved in there so they barely have enough room to breathe, much less function comfortably.

JediMindTrick

October 7th, 2009, 7:39 pm

Whenever anyone talks about the cushy conditions in prison I really wonder if they have ever actually toured a prison or watched one of those supermax shows on MSNBC. If you have you would realize that death row and super max is not cushy. Your locked in a 8x12 cage for 23 hrs a day. You get one hour out each day where you get to walk around in a slightly larger cage where you might be able to see some blue sky. They do get access to books and some might get TV's if they or someone else is paying the bill. Obviously being alive and in a cage is better than being dead like their victims but its not like they are getting some great country club deal like the rich min security prisoners get.

camarozz

October 7th, 2009, 8:10 pm

JediMindTrick

October 7th, 2009, 8:17 pm

Obviously prisons are not working...

The worse of the worse are a plague on society, a cancer, and as far as Im concerned they need to be removed permanently.

Bundy... Dead
Manson... NEEDS to BE DEAD! Just like his followers! They should not have been allowed to be a leech on society.

I bet the state could have let the family take care of them a lot cheaper than incarcerating them for the last 40+ years. (.02 cent .22 bullet in the head, heck I would have given a whole case to them for free if they asked.)

Hate to burst your bubble of wrath but even if we as a country were willing to throw out our constitution and rename ourselves the United States of China your solution wouldn't work. Its been shown in many studies that your type of solution is actually increases murders because the only thing it ensures is the probability that bad guys will be more likely to kill potential witnesses.

Old_Mil

October 7th, 2009, 9:08 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,561444,00.html

I'm sick and tired of these scumbags who rape and murder the innocent and yet many of us want to feel sorry for the perp never mind the fact he/she took an innocent life just like the ****bag in the story.
I'D SAY BRING BACK OLD SPARKY.

The death penalty is the only 100% foolproof method to keep innocent members of society safe from future predation by a known felon. We don't use it nearly enough.

Old_Mil

October 7th, 2009, 9:09 pm

JediMindTrick

October 7th, 2009, 9:42 pm

The problem with your studies is reality. A woman can walk down the street in Singapore, alone, at midnight. She can't do the same in Downtown Detroit.

So you would prefer if lived in a society like China? Interesting.

jeepers

October 7th, 2009, 10:44 pm

I know there are a lot of arguments for the death penalty. But before you can even talk about them, you must first agree that it's okay to kill a person who poses no immediate danger to you or your family or with whom you're not at war.

Trust me, Junior. If someone rapes and murders my kid, we are most certainly 'at war'.

khigh

October 7th, 2009, 10:46 pm

So, who thinks that Timothy McVeigh should still be alive and in prison? Granted, if the state didn't give him the death penalty, he would have been beaten to death by the guards.

There is a place where you draw the line. Some people don't deserve to breathe anymore.

gdoane

October 7th, 2009, 11:47 pm

I don't get the "if we have the death penalty the perps will leave no witnesses" in cases where the perps flat out didn't leave any witnesses. I don't really see a lot of difference in attitudes from the perps one way or the other. They kill in no-death-penalty States too.

The people who say it's not a deterrent are right, BECAUSE IT IS NOT CARRIED OUT. The guy who murdered this boy is 61 years old, and his liberal dumbass lawyers are going to appeal every last stinkin' technicality they can think of and some they can make up out of thin air to stretch the appeals out for 20+ years because they're making free money on the endless appeals.

A 61-year-old man sentenced to death is going to die in prison but he won't die in any death chamber or electric chair. Not while lawyers can milk his case for a few million bucks.

Nobody else besides the accused and convicted felons has an unfettered right to an attorney. Even if I agreed with the right to an attorney for the presumed innocent (I do not, if you can't pay for it then it's NOT YOUR RIGHT) then I certainly wouldn't agree with any right to an attorney for the found guilty.

The Death Penalty should be carried out immediately if not sooner. A man sentenced to die should NEVER leave the courtroom in anything but a coffin. No other sentences get delayed pending appeal. Judge says a man owes a fine, he owes a fine immediately. Judge says a man goes to jail, he goes to jail immediately. So if Judge says a man should be executed, execute him immediately. The conviction can be appealed just as well posthumously.

Ardathair

October 8th, 2009, 2:12 am

One of the individuals involved was a convicted child molester.

Why was that guy releaced back into society? Did he leave his last victim alive? He didn't get the death penalty the last time, so why should he believe that leaving this boy alive would have avoided the possibility of the death penalty?

I'm for the death penalty not for revenge (though I can see how many would want it), but for prevention. Would the father have stilled abducted and molested the boy had his son not been there? I don't know, but by the accounts presented the convicted child molester was the one who strangled the boy.

Ardathair

October 8th, 2009, 2:19 am

Ardathair

October 8th, 2009, 2:43 am

Hate to burst your bubble of wrath but even if we as a country were willing to throw out our constitution and rename ourselves the United States of China your solution wouldn't work. Its been shown in many studies that your type of solution is actually increases murders because the only thing it ensures is the probability that bad guys will be more likely to kill potential witnesses.

A living child can still tell family members who did it. Do you think that not having a death penalty in the legal code will stay a parent's hand?

Maybe the people who did the studies you are refering to should do a study on how much more likely family members are to take justice into their own hands if they feel there is any chance that the perpetrator of the crime will be free to repeat their actions.

Would family members be more swayed by the child's personal account of what happened or by forensic evidence from a corpse?

Are courts more swayed by a child's personal account of what happened or by forensic evidence?

Claymore

October 8th, 2009, 3:10 am

I support capital punishment for the following crimes.
Murder
Rape
Child Molestation
Kidnapping for profit
Terrorism
Drug Trafficking
Armed Robbery
Identity Theft
Voter Fraud
Espionage
Treason

F9thRet

October 8th, 2009, 3:32 am

I support capital punishment for the following crimes.
Murder
Rape
Child Molestation
Kidnapping for profit
Terrorism
Drug Trafficking
Armed Robbery
Identity Theft
Voter Fraud

+1

Don't forget Treason though.

Stephen

Antrel

October 8th, 2009, 3:48 am

Nobody, especially the state, should have the authority to kill anybody. Justice is the whim of a judge and jury, and as such, it is no grounds to sanction the stripping of life from an individual, regardless of the charges.

Dual867PowerMac

October 8th, 2009, 4:13 am

Trust me, Junior. If someone rapes and murders my kid, we are most certainly 'at war'.
Not when they're in prison.

Do you have any comment on Cameron Todd Willingham? Apparently, he may have been innocent of murdering his three children, who died in a tragic fire in 1991. The fire was initially ruled an arson, but three forensic investigations (one completed before Willingham was executed) reported that there was no evidence of arson.

Like I said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Are you a Christian, sir?

JediMindTrick

October 8th, 2009, 4:21 am

The same methods which have exonerated some convicts are being used to make sure that the right people are convicted now. Most of the overturned cases I have heard about are twenty to thirty years old. I'm certain that police and prosecutors have advanced with the times and do not rely on the old methods and wait for appeals courts to handle the newer forensic methods.

Google Ruben Cantu to learn about his case. He was executed by Texas back in the 90's and was most likely innocent. Even the prosecutor who tried him admits now that Cantu almost certainly didn't commit the crime he was executed for. And Cantu's case had nothing to with forensics.

In brief here is what happened. Two assailants attacked two others, one of whom dies. The survivor can only identify one of the assailants and the case goes cold for years on the other assailant. Cantu's name did come up in the investigation as did hundreds of people who ran in the same circle. A few years later Cantu gets involved in a bar fight with an off duty cop and Cantu ends up shooting the cop. The investigation determines that Cantu acted in self defense against the off duty cop. This cop though worked for the same agency that was investigating the cold murder and suddenly it was reopened and Cantu immediately became the prime suspect. However the survivor failed not once but twice to identify Cantu as the second assailant. The arrested assailant also denied Cantu was his partner but refused to say who it was. The survivor was pressured into fingering Cantu and finally on a third lineup identified him as the other attacker. On that and only that evidence Cantu was tried and executed. The cops were quoted bragging about how they got revenge for their off duty cop friend who got shot. Since then a man has come forward to the media claiming to be the real shooter and knew details that only the real shooter would know. The survivor said he was coerced into fingering Cantu.

I can cite many other cases as well where DNA was not an issue and the conviction was based on very circumstantial evidence. Too many cases especially hinge upon flimsy witness identifications which are inherently unreliable. DNA is only collected in tiny fraction of death penalty cases because its only present in a fraction of cases and often when its there its meaningless because it either doesn't match anyone or there is a reasonable explanation for it (such as when its a family member accused of killing a family member at home - of course the suspects DNA is going to be all over the crime scene.)

JediMindTrick

October 8th, 2009, 5:15 am

Dual867PowerMac

October 8th, 2009, 5:15 am

Yes.

And it was so bad in Illinois that outgoing governor George Ryan commuted 167 death sentences to life in prison. He was a former supporter who saw the light about the death penalty. In a documentary called After Innocence, he said he didn't want to live his life knowing that an innocent man in his state was executed and he could have done something about it and didn't.

On January 11, 2003, the conservative Republican Ryan (a former death penalty supporter) said the following:

"Our capital system is haunted by the demon of error. Error in determining guilt; error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die."

If it was that bad in Illinois and if the reports from Texas are any indication, then there is a huge problem in the other death penalty states.

gdoane

October 8th, 2009, 8:56 am

Not when they're in prison.

Prisons do not work. Every year there are hundreds of escapes, often by convicted violent criminals. Prisons are not as reliable as graves and should never be relied on when the safety of the public is at risk.

Do you have any comment on Cameron Todd Willingham? Apparently, he may have been innocent of murdering his three children, who died in a tragic fire in 1991. The fire was initially ruled an arson, but three forensic investigations (one completed before Willingham was executed) reported that there was no evidence of arson.

There is NOTHING WRONG with a little bit of collateral damage. Cripes, if we'd have been afraid of killing a few innocent Germans in WWII the Nazis would have won for sure.

Using that tired old argument against the death penalty is like opposing omelettes due to a few broken eggs.

Thousands of innocent Americans have died because of the military draft too, but if we didn't have it our nation wouldn't exist today. We need the death penalty for our own survival.

So few innocent people get executed that it's a perfectly acceptable level of collateral damage. More innocent people die because of failure to implement the death penalty than having it would ever cause.

Like I said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Are you a Christian, sir?

Christians believe in the death penalty. Christ carried his own cross for it. Christians should be 100% for the death penalty. If not for the death penalty, there would BE no Christianity.

Greyclouds

October 8th, 2009, 10:17 am

Prisons do not work. Every year there are hundreds of escapes, often by convicted violent criminals. Prisons are not as reliable as graves and should never be relied on when the safety of the public is at risk.

We do need prison reform, but using executions as the only alternative is ridiculous.

There is NOTHING WRONG with a little bit of collateral damage. Cripes, if we'd have been afraid of killing a few innocent Germans in WWII the Nazis would have won for sure.

Using that tired old argument against the death penalty is like opposing omelettes due to a few broken eggs.

Thousands of innocent Americans have died because of the military draft too, but if we didn't have it our nation wouldn't exist today. We need the death penalty for our own survival.

So few innocent people get executed that it's a perfectly acceptable level of collateral damage. More innocent people die because of failure to implement the death penalty than having it would ever cause.

Statistics?

Christians believe in the death penalty. Christ carried his own cross for it. Christians should be 100% for the death penalty. If not for the death penalty, there would BE no Christianity.

Wow... This is quite interesting to me. You equate the execution of your God by human authorities to the execution of capital criminals? So, if Jesus came back today, would all good Christians, in your opinion, be obliged to kill him again in another torturous way?

Apatriot

October 8th, 2009, 11:14 am

Obviously prisons are not working...

The worse of the worse are a plague on society, a cancer, and as far as Im concerned they need to be removed permanently.

Bundy... Dead
Manson... NEEDS to BE DEAD! Just like his followers! They should not have been allowed to be a leech on society.

I bet the state could have let the family take care of them a lot cheaper than incarcerating them for the last 40+ years. (.02 cent .22 bullet in the head, heck I would have given a whole case to them for free if they asked.)

Prisons are working. Violent and non-violent crimes are down. They are much lower than early 1970s levels.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/ncsucr2.gif
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/prop.gif

Dual867PowerMac

October 8th, 2009, 3:42 pm

There is NOTHING WRONG with a little bit of collateral damage.
Tell that to the family of Mr. Cantu or Mr. Willingham.

I'd like to give you a gift.

It's called a conscience.

As much as I'd like to, I can't give you a new conscience as a gift.

ChaosControl

October 8th, 2009, 3:48 pm

Instead of some pansy "execution" where we're all like "oh I hope this doesn't hurt you too much mr", I say we just tie em up in a basement and let the victims do whatever they want with them.

Old_Mil

October 8th, 2009, 6:14 pm

So you would prefer if lived in a society like China? Interesting.

From a felonly sentencing perspective? Yes. That is one thing that societies like Saudi Arabia, China, and Afghanistan get right. The duty of the law is to protect the innocent, not rehabilitate the guilty.

Remus Lupin

October 8th, 2009, 6:17 pm

JediMindTrick

October 8th, 2009, 7:05 pm

From a felonly sentencing perspective? Yes. That is one thing that societies like Saudi Arabia, China, and Afghanistan get right. The duty of the law is to protect the innocent, not rehabilitate the guilty.

But you can't have the felony sentencing perspective while maintaining the basic civil rights we have in America. You also would have to throw out parts of the Constitution, especially the 8th amendment because if we are talking about felony sentencing perspective then we are also talking about lesser crimes. And what about those who are falsely convicted? And what about the teenager who shoplifts (something a vast amount of teens do yet manage to become good responsible adults under the current system), are we going to chop his hand off?

camarozz

October 8th, 2009, 8:31 pm

Prisons are working. Violent and non-violent crimes are down. They are much lower than early 1970s levels.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/ncsucr2.gif
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/prop.gif

Does not feel like it...

It seems all we hear about is how over crowed the prisons are and the early release of them too.

Antrel

October 8th, 2009, 9:07 pm

There is NOTHING WRONG with a little bit of collateral damage. Killing innocent people is murder. Especially when done in a completely controlled environment. I, personally, do not believe in murder.

camarozz

October 8th, 2009, 9:18 pm

Killing innocent people is murder. Especially when done in a completely controlled environment. I, personally, do not believe in murder.

Suppose a known serial murderer came into your house and brutally assaulted and murdered your family.

You still think letting them live is the right thing to do? I imagine most people would feel a serious lack of justice.

but I also believe it would be good to put that person in a room with the victims, and if they survive, then they can spend the rest of their life in prison.

A person that is convicted by a jury of their peers, chances are they are not exactly the ideal citizen. And in the extremely rare occurrences I look at it as big bummer. If at all possible if they are proven innocent then they are entitled to restitution.

Dual867PowerMac

October 8th, 2009, 10:59 pm

Suppose a known serial murderer came into your house and brutally assaulted and murdered your family.
According to Jesus, in order to have everlasting life with Him and the Father, I would have to forgive him. :)

So, the answer to your question is no.

Ardathair

October 9th, 2009, 12:43 am

Now I'm very confident that over 99% of those on death row truly did do the murder they were convicted of but its that remaining fraction of 1% that trouble me. And for them I'm not willing to pull the switch on the other 99% much as I personally would like to see them suffer.

And how many people are killed every year by previously convicted murderers and rapists?

One of those involved in the crime in the OP was a previously convicted child molester. How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice for the piece of mind that you didn't throw the switch?

I do not concider those raped and murdered by known convicted attackers to be "acceptable losses".

gdoane

October 9th, 2009, 12:59 am

Killing innocent people is murder. Especially when done in a completely controlled environment. I, personally, do not believe in murder.

Jails are NOT completely controlled environments.

Letting innocents get murdered by a depraved bastard you had the power to stop is murder too.

If you believe innocent people are in jail wrongfully, then they, like innocent people on the street, are having their lives risked by putting killers to live among them.

There are lots of innocent people who go into those jails. I'm ONE of them. I install, maintain and repair radio systems and I've never seen a jail that didn't have a radio system. They need plumbers, electricians, locksmiths, pretty much every trade involved in facilities maintenance and those guys go in with these convicted creeps who would love nothing better than to massacre as many innocent people as they can possibly manage.

I can't believe you said that a jail is a controlled environment. Just how many jails have you been in that you formed that opinion with?

A very common display in jail briefing/training rooms is a big display of contraband found in the jails. Shanks, knives, even guns are found in jails because they ARE NOT a controlled environment. They pretend to be to calm the public into believing that they're saved from these animals but the truth is far, far from that. Jails are where vicious animals go to learn to be even more vicious.

JediMindTrick

October 9th, 2009, 4:38 am

And how many people are killed every year by previously convicted murderers and rapists?

One of those involved in the crime in the OP was a previously convicted child molester. How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice for the piece of mind that you didn't throw the switch?

I do not concider those raped and murdered by known convicted attackers to be "acceptable losses".

Rather than have the death penalty have life in prison without parole where that actually means what it says. You can always free a wrongly convicted person, you can't bring a wrongly executed person back to life.

Drawz

October 9th, 2009, 5:03 am

Suppose a known serial murderer came into your house and brutally assaulted and murdered your family.

You still think letting them live is the right thing to do? I imagine most people would feel a serious lack of justice.

but I also believe it would be good to put that person in a room with the victims, and if they survive, then they can spend the rest of their life in prison.

A person that is convicted by a jury of their peers, chances are they are not exactly the ideal citizen. And in the extremely rare occurrences I look at it as big bummer. If at all possible if they are proven innocent then they are entitled to restitution.

How many known serial killers are in a position to break into someone's house?
How many people proven innocent who've been executed are in a position to benefit from restitution?

jeepers

October 9th, 2009, 8:54 am

Not when they're in prison.

Do you have any comment on Cameron Todd Willingham? Apparently, he may have been innocent of murdering his three children, who died in a tragic fire in 1991. The fire was initially ruled an arson, but three forensic investigations (one completed before Willingham was executed) reported that there was no evidence of arson.

Like I said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Are you a Christian, sir?

There is a huge difference between being completely clear and being unsure. I'm not an apologist for everything that happens in every state, in every courtroom. I'm not going to argue that case becuase I know nothing about it. And I'm sure that there are screw ups because there always are when people are involved. And steps should be taken to correct them yaddayadda safeguards yaddayadda. But I'm not talking about any of that.

Btw, I'm not a man, I'm a woman and a mother. My religion also has nothing to do with this, but you can call me a Deist at the very least. I'm not a 'church goer'.

But I'm coming from a place of protection for children and society. I"m not going to cry for documented predators. Sorry, ain't happening. Look at cases like Jessica Lunsford? The guy BURIED HER ALIVE and I'm suppposed to go 'okay lock him up and give him three hots and a cot for 20 years?"

Nope, I'm more like 'he's a serious danger to society. He is so beyond sick and crazy, like a rabid dog that probably was a good puppy at some point, now he's only going to spread death'.

Put 'em down.

camarozz

October 9th, 2009, 9:00 am

According to Jesus, in order to have everlasting life with Him and the Father, I would have to forgive him. :)

So, the answer to your question is no.

There is implications for that... Forgive him, I whole heartedly agree; but there has to be a request for that otherwise the purp gains nothing if he is not repentant.

He still has to pay his penalty to society per the law.

I can forgive without his repentance, Im sure it would be harder.

gdoane

October 9th, 2009, 9:02 am

Rather than have the death penalty have life in prison without parole where that actually means what it says. You can always free a wrongly convicted person, you can't bring a wrongly executed person back to life.

The power to free people has to be taken out of the hands of liberal judges and the death penalty is the best way to keep liberals from unleashing these guilty dangerous thugs back to the streets where they prey on the public again and again and again.

Our justice system is full of pinko commie judges who hate America and would set killers free in the hopes that they kill more capitalists. The Death Penalty takes that power out of the hands of these communist Judges and that's why liberals don't like it any.

The less power Judges have, the better off America is. Only a JURY should be able to find someone guilty and only a JURY should be able to find a guilty man innocent. Judges should never have the power to set the guilty free and the Death Penalty prevents them from doing that.

camarozz

October 9th, 2009, 9:04 am

How many known serial killers are in a position to break into someone's house?
How many people proven innocent who've been executed are in a position to benefit from restitution?

Dunno, how many murders have yet to be solved? How do they go about killing/murdering people? (hint: sometimes they break into houses.)

I was thinking if they were proven during the appeals process and such, then restitution should be provided. My personal opinion is there is an ultra low percentage of innocent people serving sentences for murder where they "could" face the death penalty.

camarozz

October 9th, 2009, 9:07 am

The power to free people has to be taken out of the hands of liberal judges and the death penalty is the best way to keep liberals from unleashing these guilty dangerous thugs back to the streets where they prey on the public again and again and again.

Our justice system is full of pinko commie judges who hate America and would set killers free in the hopes that they kill more capitalists. The Death Penalty takes that power out of the hands of these communist Judges and that's why liberals don't like it any.

The less power Judges have, the better off America is. Only a JURY should be able to find someone guilty and only a JURY should be able to find a guilty man innocent. Judges should never have the power to set the guilty free and the Death Penalty prevents them from doing that.

It seems we hear of this kind of thing too often. Murderers should NOT be set free, rapists should NOT be let free, child molesters should be shot on site!

Greyclouds

October 9th, 2009, 9:24 am

The power to free people has to be taken out of the hands of liberal judges and the death penalty is the best way to keep liberals from unleashing these guilty dangerous thugs back to the streets where they prey on the public again and again and again.

Our justice system is full of pinko commie judges who hate America and would set killers free in the hopes that they kill more capitalists. The Death Penalty takes that power out of the hands of these communist Judges and that's why liberals don't like it any.

The less power Judges have, the better off America is. Only a JURY should be able to find someone guilty and only a JURY should be able to find a guilty man innocent. Judges should never have the power to set the guilty free and the Death Penalty prevents them from doing that.

Juries can be made of liberals too. Now you have to fear the supposed indiscretions of your peers as well.

BillBrown

October 9th, 2009, 10:12 am

My feelings are mixed on the death penalty.
Philosophically, I support it.

As it is implemented, I don't.

Women commit 13% of the murders and receive less that 1% of the death sentences. Why?

You have never seen a rich man executed and you never will.

You will never see a celebrity executed.

mysticbeauty_nbeast

October 9th, 2009, 1:37 pm

There is a huge difference between being completely clear and being unsure. I'm not an apologist for everything that happens in every state, in every courtroom. I'm not going to argue that case becuase I know nothing about it. And I'm sure that there are screw ups because there always are when people are involved. And steps should be taken to correct them yaddayadda safeguards yaddayadda. But I'm not talking about any of that.

Btw, I'm not a man, I'm a woman and a mother. My religion also has nothing to do with this, but you can call me a Deist at the very least. I'm not a 'church goer'.

But I'm coming from a place of protection for children and society. I"m not going to cry for documented predators. Sorry, ain't happening. Look at cases like Jessica Lunsford? The guy BURIED HER ALIVE and I'm suppposed to go 'okay lock him up and give him three hots and a cot for 20 years?"

Nope, I'm more like 'he's a serious danger to society. He is so beyond sick and crazy, like a rabid dog that probably was a good puppy at some point, now he's only going to spread death'.

Put 'em down.

Bold and Italics mine: :clap::clap::clap: Well done Ms. Jeepers..well done indeed.

My own rant on the topic:
The 'but' monkey scenarios that have been brought to this thread are making me shake in anger...literally shake! The deaths of three children supposedly due to an arson and a man killing an off duty cop and fingered later for a murder that had occurred years previously have absolutely nothing to do with the main OP's topic...which is Child Molesters who kill. Come on people..keep your eye on the reality....not the fantasy of a few rare cases but the actual reality of the fate of far to many children in our society today.

Month after month, year after year the reported actions of these monsters have become more brazen, more brutal and more and more common, ending in a brutal death for their victims. Long gone are the days of the (what I call the Uncle Pervy syndrome) casual molester. Those victims who forever are mentally branded with their monsters particular sickness, forever upon their victims minds and souls; the monsters simply treated and released as mental deviants and mental illness patients. That in and of itself was hard enough to swallow. Now these monsters are killing after their viscous and brutal attacks of rape and sodomy upon our most innocent and most vulnerable of society...our children. If that isn't facing the very real issue and worth putting down/killing these rapid type dogs..then what is? Really...I want to know..what is then worth protection and peace of your childs life?

Threads that complain kids don't go outside and play anymore; threads that speak to the obesity rate among our youngest members of society; paranoid parents who keep their kids under lock and key mentally and emotionally; threads about parents near rioting at schools over what is perceived as improper sex education...(and granted, sometimes it is improper)....all boils down to what these monsters have transformed into over the past 50 or so years into....Uncle Pervy into killers. Children can't be safe outside the watchful eyes of parents. And even then...it's sometimes the parents themselves who perpetrate the evil upon their child. Paranoia doesn't even begin to describe today's modern parent...absolutely stone cold terrified would better suit imo.

Self confessed child murders/rapist/molesters should be put down like rapid dogs. No treatment takes away the instinct and need/want/desire to perpetrate their special brand of violence upon kids...fact. No amount of jail time and counseling has stayed the flow of the rising numbers of recidivism rates among this group...fact. No amount of precautionary measures have stayed the flow of the rising number of monsters within our society.....fact. Are we simply hearing more about it now in these modern times? No...misnomer at best. The monsters have learned to simply plea out to the crime...do their time..and set the trap for their next victim.....FACT!!!!! Not wanting to slow their activities and thinking only of feeding their sick and twisted needs, they are now killing their victims so that the sick acts can continue without interruption and inconvenience of jail time. FACT!!!!

Without lumping every killer into one group...lets just focus on those who harm children with their perverted idealizations and sickness. Adult upon adult crime is dealt with on a case by case basis. We are apt to make a misjudgment...and our system is set up to catch those mistakes through the appeals process. Fine..I'll pay to protect those one or two innocent yet prosecuted citizens to ensure a stable and fair system.....however...don't tell me these monsters even remotely deserve that much...especially since they usually cop to the crime...play mentally sick...do the time..and froth at the mouth waiting for their release date, planing to perpetrate their violence yet again as soon as their free. Shoot them...put um down like rabid dogs...burn the body..and walk away...Period...End of Story...End of compassion for monsters!

Oh..and one more thing...Christianity clearly states it's views on how to deal with crimes. Gods law and man's law may not always be in line with one another..but even Christianity deals with these monsters as they should be dealt with...punished by man and then judged by God Almighty. So please, those of you using the old tired excuse that Christianity doesn't support the death penalty...you all may want to go back through and read exactly what the book says on the topic. ;)
Rant done.....:

~Mysty

King Cantona

October 9th, 2009, 5:10 pm

I'm too tired to argue with the opinions here but I vigorously oppose the death penalty....

khigh

October 9th, 2009, 5:22 pm

I'm too tired to argue with the opinions here but I vigorously oppose the death penalty....

Even for this guy?

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x247/pocketprincess21/timothy-mcveigh-1-sized.jpg

King Cantona

October 9th, 2009, 8:04 pm

Even for this guy?

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x247/pocketprincess21/timothy-mcveigh-1-sized.jpg

Yes, I'm completely unequivocal on this subject, even for Timothy McVeigh, no matter how heinous the crime. Civilised society has to find a better way, of truly developed countries I believe that the US is in the minority in still having the death penalty...

khigh

October 9th, 2009, 10:30 pm

Yes, I'm completely unequivocal on this subject, even for Timothy McVeigh, no matter how heinous the crime. Civilised society has to find a better way, of truly developed countries I believe that the US is in the minority in still having the death penalty...

I'm guessing since you are in the UK, you didn't have any family or friends die that April in the Murrah Building? My uncle's best friend died there- my uncle was supposed to be there, but called in sick to work. If you ever come to Oklahoma, I will personally take you to the memorial to show you exactly why we have the death penalty. 168 people died that day, including 19 children. The only thing that would have been better than the death penalty for that sick man would have been letting the families of the victims have their way with him.

You wouldn't even take the worthless man off the face of this Earth for little Baylee, who died that day and is a symbol for rescue everywhere?

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x247/pocketprincess21/baylee.jpg

PhantomPholly

October 9th, 2009, 10:41 pm

I oppose the death penalty, Rem.

I can easily see the side of people who have lost family members — particularly children — in brutal ways. They want justice.

This is difficult for me to say, but it has to be said: the death penalty is not justice — it's revenge. And revenge is among the basest of human instincts.

This is a deceptive but common talking point of misguided persons opposed to the death penalty.

The truth is that for most people supporting the death penalty has nothing whatsoever to do with revenge, for the simple reason that it is generally a rare person who has lost someone they love to murder. It has instead to do with the obvious fact that no one in this country is sentenced to death for a "mistake" - rather they are sentenced to death because they are clearly broken beyond any human ability to repair, and because their continued existence clearly poses an imminent danger to society each and every day they remain alive.

I know there are a lot of arguments for the death penalty. But before you can even talk about them, you must first agree that it's okay to kill a person who poses no immediate danger to you or your family or with whom you're not at war.

Before you can have THAT discussion, you have to prove that they pose no immediate danger to ANYONE. And THAT you cannot do, because each day these twisted parasites are kept alive at taxpayer expense they may randomly try their hardest to kill again. Whether it is you, your family, or a prison guard does not matter - we spend billions of dollars keeping these animals caged - money, which if directed to other uses such as health care, would SAVE lives.

The act of diverting money to keep a broken animal alive at the expense of lives which could be saved is unconscionable selfishness - of someone determined to tax others to pay to keep an animal caged which will, given half a chance, break free and kill again, all so that their squeamish conscience is soothed.

Now, I would be ok with no death penalty if those so intent on maintaining those animals' lives were willing to foot the bill themselves, and to accept responsibility for that animal, giving up their freedom WHEN their misguided do-gooding result in a subsequent death.

In other words - if you want them kept alive, you should do so out of your own pocket and offer your life as surety against them killing again.

I'll bet 95% of those anti-death penalty folks would change their tune if made personally responsible for their dangerous demands...

Dual867PowerMac

October 9th, 2009, 11:53 pm

JenyEliza

October 10th, 2009, 12:51 am

I oppose the death penalty, Rem.

I can easily see the side of people who have lost family members — particularly children — in brutal ways. They want justice.

This is difficult for me to say, but it has to be said: the death penalty is not justice — it's revenge. And revenge is among the basest of human instincts.

I know there are a lot of arguments for the death penalty. But before you can even talk about them, you must first agree that it's okay to kill a person who poses no immediate danger to you or your family or with whom you're not at war.

An eye for an eye just makes the world blind.

Keep this guy locked up for the rest of his life; I don't want him, or his wife or son for that matter, walking the streets free.

But don't kill them. Not even them.

That's a pantload.

Read the link in my sig line.

If, after reading it, you still say the above, God have mercy on you and yours if one of your children is (heaven forbid) ever taken from you and brutally murdered.

Lori's big sister and I are childhood friends. We were 12 when Lori was brutally, grotesquely kidnapped and murdered. Lori's big sister and I are now 47 year old parents of teenagers--we have children born exactly 3 days apart the same week.

The man who murdered Lori is still alive--after receiving the death penalty TWICE. Once in 1976 and again in 1999. We were too young to attend the trial in 1976, but we both attended every single day in 1999, where the DP was handed down UNANIMOUSLY--again.

And, 10 years after the SECOND DP was handed down, the dirtbag is still alive and well, abusing Lori's family, the criminal justice system, and the taxpayer, filing endless, pointless appeals. One day he is going to die in prison--the only question now is whether it will be a quick painless lethal injection, or if the Angel of Death will come to dispatch him to Hell first.

Lori's parents would like to see justice carried out before they die. They were in their mid-30's when the FIRST DP was handed down. They are now in their early 70's and with each passing day grow more concerned that they will never see justice carried out for their daughter.

Lori's big sister and I have promised them that should they die before Virgil Delano Presnell's death sentence is carried out, we will push hard on their behalf to see to it that it is carried out after their death.

And. We. Will.

I would gladly do the deed myself if there weren't already a very very long line of folks ahead of me willing to do the same.

Poisonshady313

October 10th, 2009, 1:02 am

An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Pure and simple: the death penalty does not deter murder. Need proof? Here it is. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout)

Those numbers don't prove anything, because statistically, the death penalty doesn't even exist in this country.

By that, I mean less than 1% of murderers in the past 33 years have been put to death.

In any given year, most states that have the death penalty don't even use it.

Consider this. Texas, the state most likely to execute murderers, regularly has a lower murder rate than Michigan, a state with no death penalty statute.

What does that tell you?

JenyEliza

October 10th, 2009, 1:08 am

I'm guessing since you are in the UK, you didn't have any family or friends die that April in the Murrah Building? My uncle's best friend died there- my uncle was supposed to be there, but called in sick to work. If you ever come to Oklahoma, I will personally take you to the memorial to show you exactly why we have the death penalty. 168 people died that day, including 19 children. The only thing that would have been better than the death penalty for that sick man would have been letting the families of the victims have their way with him.

You wouldn't even take the worthless man off the face of this Earth for little Baylee, who died that day and is a symbol for rescue everywhere?

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x247/pocketprincess21/baylee.jpg

Little Baylee was 9 months older than my twins. Had she not been brutally murdered in April 1995, she would be a 15 year old girl.

She might have just gotten home from the homecoming football game (like we just did a little while ago). She might have just seen one of her good friends crowned Attendant/Class Favorite/Princess (whatever her school calls the girl who represents underclassmen on homecoming court) for 9th or 10th grade. My daughter just did.

My (almost 15) year old twins are now sacked out, sound asleep here in our new apartment. Exhausted from the big night, there's wrestling practice in the morning, and the homecoming dance with friends tomorrow night.

In three months, my twins will be getting their Learner's Permits to drive an automobile--and that's where the road to independence and adulthood begins in earnest.

High school has really been an adjustment for my twins, even though my son has missed nearly a month of school with Swine Flu, it's been a huge change/difference between middle school and high school. But, it's been an overwhelmingly *positive* change, and it's preparing them for college in just 4 years.

Little Baylee SHOULD be doing these things. She's not. She's in a tiny little grave, 6 feet under, her life stolen from her by an ******* who didn't have the right to take it from her.

McVey paid the appropriate price. The punishment fit the crime. If it were possible, he should have been killed 168 times--once for each person he killed. Sadly, it's not possible, so we just have to accept the one execution.

As for deterrence, it absolutely DOES deter Timothy McVey from ever killing again.

Dead men tell no tales

. . .and Dead Men Kill No More.

Period. The. End.

JenyEliza

October 10th, 2009, 1:12 am

Those numbers don't prove anything, because statistically, the death penalty doesn't even exist in this country.

By that, I mean less than 1% of murderers in the past 33 years have been put to death.

In any given year, most states that have the death penalty don't even use it.

Consider this. Texas, the state most likely to execute murderers, regularly has a lower murder rate than Michigan, a state with no death penalty statute.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that Texas is on the ball and knows what they're doing with regard to the DP, meanwhile Michigan doesn't have a clue.

gdoane

October 10th, 2009, 1:28 am

Juries can be made of liberals too. Now you have to fear the supposed indiscretions of your peers as well.

Jurors won't ever consist of liberals. Liberals are selfish creeps who think only of themselves and their own convenience and push civic duty for everybody and anybody BUT themselves.

Take the issue of jury duty pay, for example.

I just last week got a summons for jury duty. I make about $350 per day on an average work day, and the Justice Court is offering to pay me $12 for that day. I can prove it. http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JuryServices/GeneralInformation/faq.asp

Jury duty is going to cost me AT LEAST $300 personally. Liberals are basically in CHARGE of the jury duty system and they say out of one side of their mouth that minimum wage should be $7 per hour ($56 per day) and that jurors should receive $12 or basically $1.25 per hour. You couldn't get a babysitter to work for that.

I'm going to do the exact same thing I did last time I did with the stupid Jury Duty check for $12 crummy bucks and toss it in the shredder. That's a stinkin' COUPON, not a fair day's pay for a fair day's work!

I consider it a civic duty. I do it as a civic duty, and money doesn't mean jack in civic duties to anybody but liberals.

JenyEliza

October 10th, 2009, 1:46 am

I consider it a civic duty. I do it as a civic duty, and money doesn't mean jack in civic duties to anybody but liberals.

I have never attempted to get out of Jury Duty.

As an American, I am privileged to live in the greatest country in the world. One of our duties as Americans is to serve on the Juries that judge our "peers" who stand accused of a crime/s and who are entitled to a fair trial in front of an impartial jury of thier "peers". It is an important job and it needs to be done.

As a single parent of twin teens, I can't always afford to be on Jury Duty, but I make it work financially somehow.

But for the Grace of God, I have not ever needed a Jury, but I like that I have the right to a jury trial and jury trials require good, honest, impartial citizens who take their duty seriously. I hope should the need arise, a jury of good people can be empaneled for me.

JediMindTrick

October 10th, 2009, 1:57 am

Consider this. Texas, the state most likely to execute murderers, regularly has a lower murder rate than Michigan, a state with no death penalty statute.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that the socio-economic factors in Michigan are such that the crime rate is higher. Any place where you have huge urban inner city blight is going to have a high crime rate and no city in the US is the epitome of urban inner city blight more than Detroit. When you try to cherry pick one single factor and give it as the sole reason for a crime rate you are a fool, especially when its a factor that is actually far far down on the list of factors related to the crime rate.

Poisonshady313

October 10th, 2009, 2:04 am

It tells me that the socio-economic factors in Michigan are such that the crime rate is higher. Any place where you have huge urban inner city blight is going to have a high crime rate and no city in the US is the epitome of urban inner city blight more than Detroit. When you try to cherry pick one single factor and give it as the sole reason for a crime rate you are a fool, especially when its a factor that is actually far far down on the list of factors related to the crime rate.

Exactly.

Which is why it is foolish to claim that the death penalty isn't a deterrent based on crime rates of states that have the death penalty and those that don't.

Dual867PowerMac

October 10th, 2009, 2:14 am

That's a pantload.

Read the link in my sig line.

If, after reading it, you still say the above, God have mercy on you and yours if one of your children is (heaven forbid) ever taken from you and brutally murdered.

Lori's big sister and I are childhood friends. We were 12 when Lori was brutally, grotesquely kidnapped and murdered. Lori's big sister and I are now 47 year old parents of teenagers--we have children born exactly 3 days apart the same week.

The man who murdered Lori is still alive--after receiving the death penalty TWICE. Once in 1976 and again in 1999. We were too young to attend the trial in 1976, but we both attended every single day in 1999, where the DP was handed down UNANIMOUSLY--again.

And, 10 years after the SECOND DP was handed down, the dirtbag is still alive and well, abusing Lori's family, the criminal justice system, and the taxpayer, filing endless, pointless appeals. One day he is going to die in prison--the only question now is whether it will be a quick painless lethal injection, or if the Angel of Death will come to dispatch him to Hell first.

Lori's parents would like to see justice carried out before they die. They were in their mid-30's when the FIRST DP was handed down. They are now in their early 70's and with each passing day grow more concerned that they will never see justice carried out for their daughter.

Lori's big sister and I have promised them that should they die before Virgil Delano Presnell's death sentence is carried out, we will push hard on their behalf to see to it that it is carried out after their death.

And. We. Will.

I would gladly do the deed myself if there weren't already a very very long line of folks ahead of me willing to do the same.
I'm sorry about Lori. :( I truly am.

I have taken what I feel is the proper side on this argument and that is it should be abolished.

I hope this doesn't sound the wrong way, but if someone were to murder me, I would be very much opposed to my murderer receiving the death penalty.

JediMindTrick

October 10th, 2009, 2:26 am

Exactly.

Which is why it is foolish to claim that the death penalty isn't a deterrent based on crime rates of states that have the death penalty and those that don't.

Using math that you almost have to have a PHD to understand (One of my degrees is in engineering and I had a hard time following the statistical calculus back in college) you can isolate specific factors for crimes. Using those they have determined that the death penalty has no general deterrent (it doesn't deter other people) on crime though it does have a an obvious specific deterrent (an executed person obviously can't kill again).

If you want to argue for the death penalty you only have two valid and credible arguments on which to hang your hat: revenge and specific deterrence. Any other argument for it is invalid. As I've said, I'd be all for the revenge part of this if I could guarantee that every person sentenced death was truly guilty but I can't and in an imperfect system I cannot support an irreversible punishment.

Poisonshady313

October 10th, 2009, 3:27 am

Using math that you almost have to have a PHD to understand (One of my degrees is in engineering and I had a hard time following the statistical calculus back in college) you can isolate specific factors for crimes.

I wonder how meaningful those calculations are, especially considering how rarely the death penalty is ever used.

Dual867PowerMac

October 10th, 2009, 4:21 am

I wonder how meaningful those calculations are, especially considering how rarely the death penalty is ever used.
It's not rarely used at all. It's decreasing, but it's more common than you might think.

Consider (I'm using the most recent Death Penalty Information Center report (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/2008YearEnd.pdf))

In 2008, there was a death row population of 3,309 inmates, there were 111 new death row prisoners, and 37 executions. There were 8 exonerations as well.

In 1999, there was a death row population of 3,549 inmates, there were 115 new death row prisoners, and 98 executions.

Thankfully, another number has gone down: percentage of public support for the death penalty. It was down to 64 percent in 2008. That's down from 1999's 71 percent.

Poisonshady313

October 10th, 2009, 5:06 am

It's not rarely used at all. It's decreasing, but it's more common than you might think.

Consider (I'm using the most recent Death Penalty Information Center report (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/2008YearEnd.pdf))

In 2008, there was a death row population of 3,309 inmates, there were 111 new death row prisoners, and 37 executions. There were 8 exonerations as well.

In 1999, there was a death row population of 3,549 inmates, there were 115 new death row prisoners, and 98 executions.

Thankfully, another number has gone down: percentage of public support for the death penalty. It was down to 64 percent in 2008. That's down from 1999's 71 percent.

It certainly is rare. 1176 executions in 33 years.

Since I don't have figures for 2009, let's leave it out... 1136 executions in 32 years.

In the past 32 years, there have been 644,522 murders (according to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

0.18% of murders resulted in execution.

Let's assume that every murderer had 3 victims. Some had more, some had less... 3 seems a good average...

0.53% of murders resulted in execution.

1999.... 98 executions. 16,914 murders.

0.58% of murders resulted in execution that year.

36 states have a death penalty statute. This does not include states that used to have death penalty statutes after '76 but was repealed sometime thereafter (i.e. New York) If every death penalty state executed 1 person every year for 33 years, you'd have 1188 executions.

The actual number of executions since 1976 is 1176.

So it's as if 36 states executed 1 person a year for 33 years... and 12 of those states executed a second person during one of those years.

Yeah... I'd say the application of the death penalty is rather rare in this country.

JediMindTrick

October 10th, 2009, 5:51 am

It certainly is rare. 1176 executions in 33 years.

Since I don't have figures for 2009, let's leave it out... 1136 executions in 32 years.

In the past 32 years, there have been 644,522 murders (according to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

0.18% of murders resulted in execution.

Let's assume that every murderer had 3 victims. Some had more, some had less... 3 seems a good average...

0.53% of murders resulted in execution.

1999.... 98 executions. 16,914 murders.

0.58% of murders resulted in execution that year.

36 states have a death penalty statute. This does not include states that used to have death penalty statutes after '76 but was repealed sometime thereafter (i.e. New York) If every death penalty state executed 1 person every year for 33 years, you'd have 1188 executions.

The actual number of executions since 1976 is 1176.

So it's as if 36 states executed 1 person a year for 33 years... and 12 of those states executed a second person during one of those years.

Yeah... I'd say the application of the death penalty is rather rare in this country.

Your analysis is faulty from the start since the vast majority of murderers have one victim.

Furthermore not all murders are equal and many of those in your analysis are going to actually be some form of manslaughter. In addition, most statistical studies that study the application of the DP throw out the abnormal murderers since they tend to skew the stats - in other words you can't gauge the overall effect of the DP when your using serial killers and guys like Timothy McVeigh in your study since they are abnormal even among murderers.

Lastly its interesting to note that as the DP is used less and less the number of murders in this country are going down (you provided the study). Its not a perfect downward trend as some years its gone slightly up from the previous but we are down about 7000-8000 from the mid 90's when the DP was being used more often and more states allowed it. And thats despite an ever growing population. That pretty much shoots the whole notion that use of the DP decreases murder out of the water.

Poisonshady313

October 10th, 2009, 6:30 am

Your analysis is faulty from the start since the vast majority of murderers have one victim. My first figure... 0.18% assumed 1 victim per murderer.

I gave the other number for effect. If you had a third the number of murderers for the same number of murders, you'd still be at less than 1%

In addition, most statistical studies that study the application of the DP throw out the abnormal murderers since they tend to skew the stats - in other words you can't gauge the overall effect of the DP when your using serial killers and guys like Timothy McVeigh in your study since they are abnormal even among murderers. In this particular post, I wasn't even addressing it's effect. I was simply pointing out that the application of the death penalty is rare. Which it is, even if you whittle out all the manslaughters from the number of murders.

Lastly its interesting to note that as the DP is used less and less the number of murders in this country are going down (you provided the study). Its not a perfect downward trend as some years its gone slightly up from the previous but we are down about 7000-8000 from the mid 90's when the DP was being used more often and more states allowed it. And thats despite an ever growing population. That pretty much shoots the whole notion that use of the DP decreases murder out of the water.

I used the texas example only to prove a point how unreliable pointing out such things are. In truth, I don't believe the death penalty is used enough to have an effect one way or another. And we won't really know until we start using it more frequently.

blackcatrun

October 10th, 2009, 8:34 am

Not easy is it? Making a choice..life or death.
Being some what unable to find compassion for those whom have proven to be a danger to mankind I think most will find my leanings very pro.

See the problem wasnt for those doing a crime of killing anouther citizen. They gave a setance to anouther citizen some time very very painful and brutal ,no humanist compassion at all.
That answer is already solved.
Against:
What about those that are left in the wake of tragic cercumstances like this?
Revenge. Close a chapter. Justice. Eye for an eye makes the world blind.
The choice of letting the human who brutally murdered anouther to die a long life in prison. Warm in confort and with out need.

For:
Defending ones self is primary for our existance...if it is done by the hands whom we allow to police our community IE: justice system, or by a gun shot in self defence in the middle of the night. Either way the threat is exterminated.

My point is the death penalty is self defence.

sisyphus

October 10th, 2009, 11:03 am

Not easy is it? Making a choice..life or death.
Being some what unable to find compassion for those whom have proven to be a danger to mankind I think most will find my leanings very pro.

See the problem wasnt for those doing a crime of killing anouther citizen. They gave a setance to anouther citizen some time very very painful and brutal ,no humanist compassion at all.
That answer is already solved.
Against:
What about those that are left in the wake of tragic cercumstances like this?
Revenge. Close a chapter. Justice. Eye for an eye makes the world blind.
The choice of letting the human who brutally murdered another to die a long life in prison. Warm in confort and with out need.

For:
Defending ones self is primary for our existance...if it is done by the hands whom we allow to police our community IE: justice system, or by a gun shot in self defence in the middle of the night. Either way the threat is exterminated.

My point is the death penalty is self defence.

Close but not quite...

When an act deprives another of a fundamental right, the actor forfeits his fundamental rights.
This is how the use of deadly force is permitted in self defense.
The DP is not murder.

blackcatrun

October 10th, 2009, 2:54 pm

Close but not quite...

When an act deprives another of a fundamental right, the actor forfeits his fundamental rights.
This is how the use of deadly force is permitted in self defense.
The DP is not murder.

You are correct.

King Cantona

October 10th, 2009, 4:07 pm

You wouldn't even take the worthless man off the face of this Earth for little Baylee, who died that day and is a symbol for rescue everywhere?

While I agree with you that he was a worthless man I just KNOW that we as civilised people are better than that....

DLaw911

October 10th, 2009, 8:37 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,561444,00.html

I'm sick and tired of these scumbags who rape and murder the innocent and yet many of us want to feel sorry for the perp never mind the fact he/she took an innocent life just like the ****bag in the story.
I'D SAY BRING BACK OLD SPARKY.Can you explain how two juries in two trials did not recommend death for Terry Nichols (even though they convicted him of over 160 capital murders).

khigh

October 10th, 2009, 9:01 pm

Can you explain how two juries in two trials did not recommend death for Terry Nichols (even though they convicted him of over 160 capital murders).

Jurors could not agree on a sentence (one person could have wavered in each trial) and a state judge can only give life, not the DP. He got a total of 161 consecutive life sentences for 160 counts of murder and 1 count of domestic terrorism. Also got one count of fetal homicide. Got 8 counts of homicide at the federal level, again with a deadlocked jury. The state DA wanted Nichols to be tried and convicted for all 169 lives (168 plus the fetal homicide).

PhantomPholly

October 11th, 2009, 1:55 pm

Phantom, let me ask you this: suppose out of every 100 death row prisoners, one person was actually innocent.

Would you be in favor of executing that one innocent person along with the guilty because by and large, capital punishment works even though the occasional innocent person gets executed?

That doesn't seem to be much of a probability these days. Between DNA testing and the fact that the accused rarely if ever gets sentenced on a first conviction, it seems highly improbable that such a thing would happen.

And, as I stated before, it looks like it's happened.

True in the past - and those found to be innocent are typically found so because of DNA evidence as noted above. So, as a position "moving forward," it seems unlikely that future convictions will be thus reversed.

In the words of Illinois' former Republican governor George Ryan (a former death penalty advocate): "The death penalty is arbitrary and capricious." [LINK] (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/01/14/ryan/index.html)

In other words: why is it that some people convicted of murder receive a death sentence and others don't?

Well, firstly I wouldn't put any stock in anything said by any politician from Illinois. They are the most uniformly corrupt group of human beings on the planet. Secondly, if the criteria are unclear they should be clarified. End of problem.

And in case you think the families of murder victims always want the person who killed their loved ones to be put to death, I refer you to the Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation (http://www.mvfr.org/) website.

Once upon a time, our citizens understood the concept of "Civic Duty." That is the fact that if you fail to stop a murderer, then you are explicitly responsible for the next person that that murderer harms. However, liberals successfully removed Civics from the classroom, and in their movement to paint all humans as equally valuable (to excuse their theft from productive citizens and transfer of those stolen monies to nonproductive citizens) have preached that the most despicable human being is somehow as valuable as the most pious or productive. It simply is not true.

Some day, perhaps, we will be able to mend the minds that conceive of murder as acceptable (and likewise mend the minds of those who believe they are entitled to live a lifestyle as rich as those who actually work for a living). Some day, robots will provide health services for free to every human being - extending their lives so long as those humans wish to exist.

However, today everyone dies. The only question is when, and how much suffering they cause along the way.

I can see the point of view Mark Klaas that the killer of his daughter should die; I just don't agree with it and believe the execution of Richard Allen Davis won't deter future murders and is more about revenge. Yes, I would much rather pay to keep him and any other inmate alive and imprisoned rather that pay for his execution.

Great - then since YOU would rather pay to keep him alive, I will defend your freedom to make such a choice. You, however, are in favor of causing suffering to to others in your belief that government should force others to support that choice by taking THEIR tax money to do such things. When you FORCE others to pay for what YOU want, that is called tyranny, and is despicable to those who love freedom.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Pure and simple: the death penalty does not deter murder. Need proof? Here it is. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout)

But we aren't speaking of deterrence, so proof is irrelevant - crazy people aren't deterred by anything. However, since there is zero chance that a dead person will kill again we can also guarantee that there will be fewer killings if such sick persons are put mercifully to rest.

Well, we won't agree. The sad part is that people like you wish to make slaves of everyone who disagrees with you, and you no doubt believe in your heart that "it is for their own good." That, my friend, is just one of many rationalizations people use to lead us straight into tyranny.

PhantomPholly

October 11th, 2009, 1:57 pm

I'm sorry about Lori. :( I truly am.

I have taken what I feel is the proper side on this argument and that is it should be abolished.

I hope this doesn't sound the wrong way, but if someone were to murder me, I would be very much opposed to my murderer receiving the death penalty.

What a selfish attitude. So, you have a death wish and wish to protect your potential killer's right to kill again?

I'm sensing some emotional disturbance here, perhaps something akin to Helsinki syndrome?

Dual867PowerMac

October 11th, 2009, 2:03 pm

[QUOTE=PhantomPholly;62365071]When you FORCE others to pay for what YOU want, that is called tyranny...]/quote]
That door swings both ways, my friend. It's immoral to force those who oppose the death penalty to pay for executing prisoners.

Capital punishment in this country is flawed, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and it is time we did away with it.

Dual867PowerMac

October 11th, 2009, 2:04 pm

[QUOTE=PhantomPholly;62365071]When you FORCE others to pay for what YOU want, that is called tyranny...]/quote]
That door swings both ways, my friend. It's immoral to force those who oppose the death penalty to pay for executing prisoners.

Capital punishment in this coAuntry is flawed, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and it is time we did away with it.

mysticbeauty_nbeast

October 11th, 2009, 2:28 pm

*snipped for this specific part of PhantomPholly's post*

Once upon a time, our citizens understood the concept of "Civic Duty." That is the fact that if you fail to stop a murderer, then you are explicitly responsible for the next person that that murderer harms. However, liberals successfully removed Civics from the classroom, and in their movement to paint all humans as equally valuable (to excuse their theft from productive citizens and transfer of those stolen monies to nonproductive citizens) have preached that the most despicable human being is somehow as valuable as the most pious or productive. It simply is not true.

Bold, Italics and Underline mine*

:clap::clap::clap: Exactly..the fever pitched mantra of the left...everyone is equal..everyone is the same...everyone is told that even the monsters/villains/criminals/maladjusted are to have our compassion, our understanding and our love. *SPEW* Yeah ok...sure...Utopian express on it's way once again...alive and well within the hearts and minds of liberals. What these types don't get is they are not the same. For if they were, these monsters/criminals/maladjusted citizens wouldn't be creating havoc and harm/death/destruction upon their fellows. Instead, we get psycho babble about how the poor criminal wasn't loved enough in the home growing up, or daddy wasn't around, or how they ate too many twinkies and just lost it; how we are only 'good ' people if we understand and help said criminals. *SPEW* again and again. Come on! Really? Is this what we really want to put out there? Force everyday normal citizen who abide laws and pay taxes that it's ok to have other citizens that aren't law abiding tax payers to go complete bat poop nuts cuz society will embrace and understand you? Not even close folks..not even close. Garbage is garbage...plain and simple..and yeah..it stinks!

However, today everyone dies. The only question is when, and how much suffering they cause along the way.

Exactly and hit the nail right on the head Phantom...

I am so sick of hearing how death is the worst thing that can happen to someone. It's used as a battering ram against the American mindset. It's false, it's wrong and has holes big enough to drive tractor trailers through it. I can think of allot worse scenarios then a quick death. example: Look at a burn victim child or adult, who is kept alive..and lives a full life in desperate pain and suffering...looking forward to only the next surgery. You gonna tell me folks that this is better somehow then the release of death? :hand: What about those who suffer constant abuse by the hands of one of these monsters? Living just barely on the edge of their attackers abuse..who will one day finally bashes in their victims head making their victim vegetative...who must wait for their poor bodies to wear out eventually before they can find peace? :evil:

No...Hell NO! Take down the evil...stop making excuses for the behavior which spreads out like cancer and kills everything it touches. And..if your lucky..it may not actually kill you..but your haunted and twisted remnants of life are all yours to enjoy until a ripe old age finally takes you? UhHuh :rolleyes:....yeah...gee...sounds like liberal Utopia to me. Save the monsters....at all costs.....GAG!

Bullets are cheap...pulling a trigger cost nothing...get rid of the monsters till there are no more...and make each citizen responsible for the clean up. It's cheap, it's easy and should be the Civic Duty of all law abiding citizens to do their part to clean up the trash.

No more garbage...no more excuses for the garbage...no more twinkie stories...no more the dog told me to do it stories..no more open holes in the law that allows these monsters to walk among us...no more Utopian express! Shoot them all and let God sort um out....:evil::evil::evil:

~Mysty

Claymore

October 11th, 2009, 2:51 pm

Exactly.

Which is why it is foolish to claim that the death penalty isn't a deterrent based on crime rates of states that have the death penalty and those that don't.

It has been proven that every single criminal ever executed has never committed another crime.

sisyphus

October 11th, 2009, 4:01 pm

It has been proven that every single criminal ever executed has never committed another crime.

Dexter for president!!!!!!!!!!;)

Poisonshady313

October 11th, 2009, 4:09 pm

Capital punishment in this country is flawed, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and it is time we did away with it.

discriminatory? Though there are more black men in prison, there are more white men than black men on death row, and since 1976 more white men have been executed than black men.

ThrowCop

October 11th, 2009, 4:18 pm

discriminatory? Though there are more black men in prison, there are more white men than black men on death row, and since 1976 more white men have been executed than black men.He may be speaking of the fact that a black person murdering a white person is more likely to face the death penalty than the opposite.

"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."
- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976#defend

Poisonshady313

October 11th, 2009, 4:55 pm

He may be speaking of the fact that a black person murdering a white person is more likely to face the death penalty than the opposite.

No. A black person murdering a white person is more likely to face death row than the opposite.

The death penalty is only ever applied when an execution takes place.

Which is why when talking about the relative merits, or lack thereof, regarding the death penalty, the only numbers that matter are executions.

The real thing to do is to see how many years a person spends on death row before being executed, and find out whether certain races of people are living longer on death row.

And I would take those numbers in groupings according to age of the murderer at the time of sentencing... because it seems like the older one is at sentencing, the quicker they're executed.

Tookie Williams, black, executed in 2005, 24 years after being sentenced. 27 years old at sentencing. 4 victims.

John Hicks, black, executed in 2005, 20 years after being sentenced. 29 years old at sentencing. 2 victims.

Shawn Humphries, white, executed in 2005, 10 years after being sentenced, 24 years old at sentencing. 1 victim.

In 2005, 37 white people were exeucted. 19 black people were executed. 3 Hispanics. 1 Arab (on death row for 14 years... killed his wife with a screwdriver)

In 2005, Texas executed 19 people. 11 of them were white. 5 black. 3 Hispanic.

JediMindTrick

October 11th, 2009, 6:12 pm

In 2005, 37 white people were exeucted. 18 black people were executed. 4 Hispanics. 1 Arab (on death row for 14 years... killed his wife with a screwdriver)

In 2005, Texas executed 19 people. 11 of them were white. 5 black. 3 Hispanic.

Do some basic math.

In 2008 Texas population was just under 12% black. Yet they comprised over 25% of the excutions. Granted I'm using 2008 data to 2005 data (simply because 2008 is what I found first) but in three years time the % of blacks in Texas isn't going to change much.

Also in 2008 the % of blacks in the US was just over 12%. Yet nearly 50% of those executed were black.

You just proved the point, blacks are more likely to be executed for their crimes. More whites get executed total simply because whites so vastly outnumber blacks in the total population but its very clear, and you provided the data, that blacks are more likely to be executed for their crimes.

Poisonshady313

October 11th, 2009, 6:37 pm

Do some basic math.

In 2008 Texas population was just under 12% black. Yet they comprised over 25% of the excutions. Granted I'm using 2008 data to 2005 data (simply because 2008 is what I found first) but in three years time the % of blacks in Texas isn't going to change much.

What was the Texas death row population in 2008? That's the only population that matters. What percentage of black death row inmates are executed in any given year? In that same year, what percentage of white death row inmates are executed?

Also in 2008 the % of blacks in the US was just over 12%. Yet nearly 50% of those executed were black. 38%. And again... what was the percentage of black death row inmates?

The number of those sentenced in any given year has absolutely nothing to do with the number of those executed in any given year, especially because those executed in a given year were sentenced in an assortment of years. This means that the number of blacks in any state population or the US population is totally irrelevant.

You just proved the point, blacks are more likely to be executed for their crimes. Not really. Blacks may be more likely to be sentenced... but until you present percentages of black death row inmates executed in any given year compared to percentages of white death row inmates executed in any given year, you can't say blacks are more likely to be executed.

More whites get executed total simply because whites so vastly outnumber blacks in the total population but its very clear, and you provided the data, that blacks are more likely to be executed for their crimes.

No sir... such a thing has not been established.

Poisonshady313

October 11th, 2009, 6:44 pm

Poisonshady313

October 11th, 2009, 6:47 pm

There have only been two states that executed a total of more black people than white people in the past 33 years... and for both of those states, the number of black people executed exceeded the number of white people executed by 1

JediMindTrick

October 11th, 2009, 6:55 pm

And you've got 32 years to work with... and 36 states... 1176 executions.

When you add the numbers of "Black", "Hispanic", and "Others", it still comes out less than the number of White people executed.

Your again ignoring basic math. When only 12% of the population is black while well over 50% is white it stands to reason that whites are going to be the majority of death row too. Yet the %'s on death row are different and suddenly blacks make up a larger share than 12%. And by the way 18 out of 37 is not 38% as you claim, its actually 48.6% which is as I said just under 50%. So in 2005 you have under 12% of your states population being black yet you have 48.6% of your executed prisoners being black. This disparity occurs because blacks are more likely to get the death penalty than whites, especially when a black kills a white person. Again there are vastly more white people than blacks so of course the aggregate #'s tilt towards whites but when you consider %'s you can't help but notice the bias.

Poisonshady313

October 11th, 2009, 7:42 pm

Your again ignoring basic math. When only 12% of the population is black while well over 50% is white it stands to reason that whites are going to be the majority of death row too. Yet the %'s on death row are different and suddenly blacks make up a larger share than 12%. I'm not ignoring anything. The US population of black people is irrelevant. You should be looking at the number of black executions relative to the number of black death row inmates in any given year.

If you want to argue that black people are disproportionately arrested, look at the population of the country (or the state, depending on what population size you want to look at).

If you want to argue that black people are disproportionately convicted, look at the number of black people convicted relative to the number of black people arrested, compared to the number of white people convicted relative to the number of white people arrested.

If you want to argue that black people are disproportionately sentenced to death, look at the number of black people sentenced to death relative to the number of black people convicted, compared to the number of white people sentenced to death relative to the number of white people convicted.

You're trying to argue that black people are disproportionately executed. You have to look at the number of black people executed relative to the number of black people sentenced to death, compared to the number of white people executed relative to the number of white people sentenced to death.

Yet you refuse to do that.

And by the way 18 out of 37 is not 38% as you claim, its actually 48.6% which is as I said just under 50%. So in 2005 you have under 12% of your states population being black yet you have 48.6% of your executed prisoners being black.

You said 2008. There were 37 executions in 2008. 14 of them were black. 38% There were 60 executions in 2005. 19 of them were black. 32% I can't trust any of your numbers if you're going to mix them up like this.

This disparity occurs because blacks are more likely to get the death penalty than whites, especially when a black kills a white person. Wrong. The penalty isn't given until the sentence is carried out.. i.e. execution. A 2 year prison term is served sitting two years in prison... not sitting two years in prison after sitting for 20 years in another prison.

A death sentence is only served when an execution occurs.

So, the fact remains that while black people are more likely to be SENTENCED, white people are more likely to be EXECUTED.

Unless you can provide significant data that proves otherwise, which you refuse to do every time you remind me that black people make up 12% of the US population.

What percent of black people on death row were executed in 2005? What percent of white people on death row were executed in 2005?

Again there are vastly more white people than blacks so of course the aggregate #'s tilt towards whites but when you consider %'s you can't help but notice the bias.

What percent of black people on death row were executed in 2005? What percent of white people on death row were executed in 2005?

JediMindTrick

October 11th, 2009, 8:01 pm

I misread your earlier post on the numbers.and mixed up 37 for the total on death row. My bad.

sisyphus

October 11th, 2009, 10:13 pm

What does race have do with the validity of the death penalty?

JediMindTrick

October 11th, 2009, 10:36 pm

What does race have do with the validity of the death penalty?

Studies have shown that race of the victim is single most important factor in determining if you get the death penalty. These studies exclude serial killers and mass murderers since their crimes are so horrific that they skew stats and instead the studies focus on normal murders (calling a murder normal sounds odd but you know what I mean). The studies use very complex statistical calculus to isolate the effect that numerous variables have on the death penalty and each and every time they come to the same conclusions: if you kill a white person your much more likely to get the death penalty than if you kill a black person. The reasons for this are speculative, the fact of it is not. The reason is speculated to be that most juries tend to be white and white people will subconsciously sympathize with a white victim more than a black one. Most crime tends to be same race upon same race so it only becomes an issue when a black person kills a white person.

Poisonshady313

October 11th, 2009, 10:52 pm

Studies have shown that race of the victim is single most important factor in determining if you get the death penalty. These studies exclude serial killers and mass murderers since their crimes are so horrific that they skew stats and instead the studies focus on normal murders (calling a murder normal sounds odd but you know what I mean). The studies use very complex statistical calculus to isolate the effect that numerous variables have on the death penalty and each and every time they come to the same conclusions: if you kill a white person your much more likely to get the death penalty than if you kill a black person. The reasons for this are speculative, the fact of it is not. The reason is speculated to be that most juries tend to be white and white people will subconsciously sympathize with a white victim more than a black one. Most crime tends to be same race upon same race so it only becomes an issue when a black person kills a white person.

You should edit your post, replacing every instance of the word "penalty" with "sentence".

Being sentenced is not the same as being executed.

sisyphus

October 11th, 2009, 10:58 pm

Studies have shown that race of the victim is single most important factor in determining if you get the death penalty. These studies exclude serial killers and mass murderers since their crimes are so horrific that they skew stats and instead the studies focus on normal murders (calling a murder normal sounds odd but you know what I mean). The studies use very complex statistical calculus to isolate the effect that numerous variables have on the death penalty and each and every time they come to the same conclusions: if you kill a white person your much more likely to get the death penalty than if you kill a black person. The reasons for this are speculative, the fact of it is not. The reason is speculated to be that most juries tend to be white and white people will subconsciously sympathize with a white victim more than a black one. Most crime tends to be same race upon same race so it only becomes an issue when a black person kills a white person.

It still seems a bit of a reach... I understand about cross race crime and the distrust and other non-rational responses it can engender.
If memory serves, somewhat over 85% of violent crime is confined to the race of the perp. ( I get a kick out of that term)
It then seems that remaining 15% would be the only group in which analysis need be done.

You may wish to consider that I am of the opinion that if a person dies during an act, the perp. is volunteering to be fertilizer.

Poisonshady313

October 11th, 2009, 10:59 pm

What does race have do with the validity of the death penalty?

Nothing whatsoever. It's a filler talking point. Make it seem like the death penalty is a racial issue just to give it one more mark in the "con" column (as opposed to the "pro" column).

Makes you wonder if there are people who would become pro death penalty if only the system could guarantee that people of all races were being executed in proportion to the racial makeup of the country's population.

And you thought racial quotas in the workplace was a bad idea....

sisyphus

October 11th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Nothing whatsoever. It's a filler talking point. Make it seem like the death penalty is a racial issue just to give it one more mark in the "con" column (as opposed to the "pro" column).

Makes you wonder if there are people who would become pro death penalty if only the system could guarantee that people of all races were being executed in proportion to the racial makeup of the country's population.

And you thought racial quotas in the workplace was a bad idea....

Yikes!:think::frown::)

P.S. I like the Avitar lots

camarozz

October 11th, 2009, 11:08 pm

I do not care what "race" you are, if you do the crime you should do the time. If it is a horrific crime of which would happen again if released, then the perp should fry!

If they are career criminals, I would consider it for them too.

Poisonshady313

October 11th, 2009, 11:09 pm

Yikes!:think::frown::)

P.S. I like the Avitar lots

Thanks.

Saw the movie just before signing up, it's been my only avatar.

Maybe at 15,000 posts I'll change it. I just can't imagine what I'd change it to.

sisyphus

October 11th, 2009, 11:16 pm

Thanks.

Saw the movie just before signing up, it's been my only avatar.

Maybe at 15,000 posts I'll change it. I just can't imagine what I'd change it to.

Don't ever. Its a great reminder. (IMHO)

JediMindTrick

October 11th, 2009, 11:19 pm

It still seems a bit of a reach... I understand about cross race crime and the distrust and other non-rational responses it can engender.
If memory serves, somewhat over 85% of violent crime is confined to the race of the perp. ( I get a kick out of that term)
It then seems that remaining 15% would be the only group in which analysis need be done.

You may wish to consider that I am of the opinion that if a person dies during an act, the perp. is volunteering to be fertilizer.

If it was race of the offender then you would be right. A white people who kills a white person is more likely to get the death penalty than a white person who kills a black person. So the bias can work against whites too.

Also if you didn't see my earlier posts I only anti death penalty because of the risk of executing an innocent, something I fully believe has happened since 1973 (Fuhriman vs Georgia). If I could guarantee guilt I wouldn't care either about all the stats so all I'm doing is answering the question.

sisyphus

October 11th, 2009, 11:36 pm

If it was race of the offender then you would be right. A white people who kills a white person is more likely to get the death penalty than a white person who kills a black person. So the bias can work against whites too.

Also if you didn't see my earlier posts I only anti death penalty because of the risk of executing an innocent, something I fully believe has happened since 1973 (Fuhriman vs Georgia). If I could guarantee guilt I wouldn't care either about all the stats so all I'm doing is answering the question.

I was speaking intra-racial as the majority of the violent acts vs inter-racial.
Wasn't that case 78 or 79?
With the advances in technology and DNA typing, the stats are approaching zero. Better than the 90% that got the DP shut down in Illinois.
Part of which was, over-zealous prosecutors.

Poisonshady313

October 11th, 2009, 11:37 pm

Question for you Jedi.... out of the last 1176 executions, how many of the defendants do you believe were innocent?

Dual867PowerMac

October 11th, 2009, 11:57 pm

discriminatory? Though there are more black men in prison, there are more white men than black men on death row, and since 1976 more white men have been executed than black men.
Did I say anything about race?

There's more forms of discrimination than racial discrimination. Financial discrimination, for instance.

The only person I am aware of who would be called wealthy who is on death row is Nelson Serrano Saenz in Florida.

DLaw911

October 12th, 2009, 2:34 pm

Jurors could not agree on a sentence (one person could have wavered in each trial) and a state judge can only give life, not the DP. He got a total of 161 consecutive life sentences for 160 counts of murder and 1 count of domestic terrorism. Also got one count of fetal homicide. Got 8 counts of homicide at the federal level, again with a deadlocked jury. The state DA wanted Nichols to be tried and convicted for all 169 lives (168 plus the fetal homicide).So in other words the death penalty is applied in an arbitrary manner.

camarozz

October 12th, 2009, 3:19 pm

So in other words the death penalty is applied in an arbitrary manner.
trial with a jury of your peers...

Judges mostly pass the sentence.

So, no its not an arbitrary manner.

Poisonshady313

October 12th, 2009, 3:41 pm

This discussion reminded me of a scene from the show House MD, in an episode where they're treating a death row inmate... so he can be healthy enough to go back to death row...

Dr. Cameron: Black defendants are ten times more likely to get a death sentence then white.
Dr. Foreman: Doesn’t mean we need to get rid of the death penalty – we just need to kill more white people.

DLaw911

October 12th, 2009, 4:15 pm

trial with a jury of your peers...

Judges mostly pass the sentence.

So, no its not an arbitrary manner.Not exactly. Prosecutors decide in which cases to seek the death penalty. And assuming the person is convicted the judge can only impose death if the jury recommends it. Nothing prevents the exact same defendant having his same case heard by two juries at the same time --- one recommending death and one not. How much more artibrary can you get than that?

JediMindTrick

October 12th, 2009, 5:04 pm

Question for you Jedi.... out of the last 1176 executions, how many of the defendants do you believe were innocent?

Since I know nothing about most of them I would have no clue but I've stated elsewhere that I fully believe that well over 99%, maybe even 99.9%, of those convicted probably were guilty but thats not good enough. Executing even one innocent person is one too many when a life in prison without parole sentence would serve the same purpose in protecting society. I know of one that I fully believe was innocent as does the prosecutor who orignally convicted him (Ruben Cantu) and another where there is serious reasonable doubt (Cameron Willingham). And I'd be willing to bet everything I own that there are others we just don't know about yet.

Also, the revenge factor is highly overrated because the only people who get satisfaction from it are those who don't need it (people like you). Case studies have found that the majority of victim families left behind do worse after the killer is executed. Its felt that its because the families never learn to move on and they start living for nothing but the hope that one day their family member's killer will be executed. When that day happens their loved one is still dead and they find that the execution didn't help them. And they suffer worse for it.

JediMindTrick

October 12th, 2009, 5:09 pm

I was speaking intra-racial as the majority of the violent acts vs inter-racial.
Wasn't that case 78 or 79?
With the advances in technology and DNA typing, the stats are approaching zero. Better than the 90% that got the DP shut down in Illinois.
Part of which was, over-zealous prosecutors.

DNA is overrated as less than 1% of cases have DNA evidence as there usually isn't any to collect. I could go out and kill someone right now and not leave DNA by simply shooting them. The only evidence I'd leave behind is the bullet and if I got rid of the gun by throwing it in the river the ballistics are now useless. Which means all thats left to try and convict me is potential witness statements (unless I did it where there is video surveillance). Witness statements are completely unreliable though as study after study has shown that people really remember things very badly in a stress incident which witnessing a shooting would be. Yet what I describe is the kind of thing that countless people have been convicted on. I'm sure some were truly guilty but others were not. Think about the Duke rape case - those three boys were arrested based on witness testimony and if not for the best lawyers money could buy they would be in prison right now.

jimjames418

October 12th, 2009, 5:31 pm

trial with a jury of your peers...

Judges mostly pass the sentence.

So, no its not an arbitrary manner.
Per the Supreme Court ruling judges can no longer impose the death sentence, that sentence must be imposed by the jury. Which IMHO is a good ruling.

nortman

October 12th, 2009, 6:10 pm

JediMindTrick

October 12th, 2009, 6:19 pm

Every time I question my belief in the death penalty (and it happens frequently) I think of cases like this and realize that sometimes life in prison without parole just isn't enough. Mr Edenfield will never molest and kill another boy if he is dead. He might be afforded that opportunity if he gets life in prison and then someone believes that he is rahabilitated and releases him back into the public.

A life in prison without parole sentence would protect kids just as well.

nortman

October 12th, 2009, 6:22 pm

A life in prison without parole sentence would protect kids just as well.

Unless someone decides that he is "rehabilitated" then releases him in spite of his "life in prison no parole" status.

JediMindTrick

October 12th, 2009, 6:30 pm

Unless someone decides that he is "rehabilitated" then releases him in spite of his "life in prison no parole" status.

There is a difference in a "life sentence" and a "life sentence without parole." Some states use both. In the former a person can get out on parole if they successfully rehabilitate. The difference in the latter should be obvious and it cannot be overturned unless evidence is found that the person is not guilty (or gets a new trial) or the person receives a presidential pardon / governor commutation.

DLaw911

October 12th, 2009, 7:04 pm

Per the Supreme Court ruling judges can no longer impose the death sentence, that sentence must be imposed by the jury. Which IMHO is a good ruling.Juries do not impose sentences. Only (see **) a judge can do that but only upon a jury recommendation. As the 13th juror a judge has the power to NOT impose a death sentence following a jury recommendation. That has happened but it is pretty rare.

** Techically, I suppose, if both sides AGREED that a judge acting without a jury could decide the facts and whether or not to impose the death penalty, and that jury waiver was knowingly and intelligently made with an understanding of the constitutional rights being given up, in THAT situation a judge COULD not only decide on death but also impose it. I know this has happened and happened recently but I cannot recall the case.

DLaw911

October 12th, 2009, 7:14 pm

A life in prison without parole sentence would protect kids just as well.The only time we hear about people given life without parole is when they are fortunate enough to be freed due to exonnerating evidence. Of course that is the rare case.

EVEN a "life" with the possibility of parole sentence is no guarantee the person will be released. Take Sirhan Sirhan and the Manson Family. They have been eligible for parole since 1972. Look what happend to Susan Atkins even though she was deemed "rehabilitated" and not a danger to others by the Board of Prison Terms.

But as a sentence life WITHOUT parole means just that and absent a governor or Presidential pardon that person is not going anyplace. And they are much less expensive to house than are condemned inmates who must be segregated, have more intensive supervision, etc., not to consider the sheer costs of automatic and subsequent appeals and writs. To me the death penalty is sheer torture on the family and survivors of the victims who worry day after day if the high degree of scrutiny afforded those convicted will result in a new trial or a reversed sentence. How can people think about "moving on" knowing that. I would rather that the person be dead to the world, and that is exactly where they are when they get life without parole.

sisyphus

October 13th, 2009, 5:48 am

A life in prison without parole sentence would protect kids just as well.

Consider these:
1. Parole
2. Pardon
3. Escape
All done by living prisoners...
Dead ones only do these things in bad 'B' horror movies.

JediMindTrick

October 13th, 2009, 8:37 am

Consider these:
1. Parole
2. Pardon
3. Escape
All done by living prisoners...
Dead ones only do these things in bad 'B' horror movies.

1. Which part of "without parole" don't you understand?
2. Pardon - tell me about all the other death row inmates who have been pardoned. Don't give me hypotheticals, give me actual examples because the truth is that its never happened and never will.
3. Tell me about all the death row inmates who have escaped and make sure they are "death row" and not regular inmates. This one could feasibly happen (my google search found one example of a DR inmate escaping from prison (note prison: not jail) in the last 80 years) I admit but until it happens more than once a century I'm not gonna worry about it much.

sisyphus

October 13th, 2009, 9:55 pm

1. Which part of "without parole" don't you understand?
2. Pardon - tell me about all the other death row inmates who have been pardoned. Don't give me hypotheticals, give me actual examples because the truth is that its never happened and never will.
3. Tell me about all the death row inmates who have escaped and make sure they are "death row" and not regular inmates. This one could feasibly happen (my google search found one example of a DR inmate escaping from prison (note prison: not jail) in the last 80 years) I admit but until it happens more than once a century I'm not gonna worry about it much.

We were speculating about 'lifers' (who are usually in general population) not death row.

In the state of Florida alone;
(see the states own stats.)
Between 63 and 191 prisoners escape per year.
Of that number approximately 91% are recaptured.

Meaning some are still out........

JediMindTrick

October 13th, 2009, 10:39 pm

We were speculating about 'lifers' (who are usually in general population) not death row.

In the state of Florida alone;
(see the states own stats.)
Between 63 and 191 prisoners escape per year.
Of that number approximately 91% are recaptured.

Meaning some are still out........

This is a death penalty discussion. Lifers are irrelevant to the discussion especially if the life without parole crowd are in max security. Nearly every single time you hear about an escape its by a prisoner who was in med or min security.

sisyphus

October 14th, 2009, 12:55 am

This is a death penalty discussion. Lifers are irrelevant to the discussion especially if the life without parole crowd are in max security. Nearly every single time you hear about an escape its by a prisoner who was in med or min security.

life sentence vs DP....Hello....
persons not given the DP, do not reside on death row.

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 1:09 am

This is a death penalty discussion. Lifers are irrelevant to the discussion especially if the life without parole crowd are in max security. Nearly every single time you hear about an escape its by a prisoner who was in med or min security.

Not so.

I haven't checked all the links out (links within a link), but there's a link that mentions the escapes of violent and in some cases, death row criminals from high or maximum-security facilities in New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas (more than once), Virginia, Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Pennsylvania.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDk5ZDlkMzYwNGZkNDNhZWEyZjc3M2U1MzA2NTRlMTU=

How 'bout that?

Lifers AND Deathers escaping from Max security and death row.

Whoda thunk it?

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 1:25 am

I counted them up. That's 40 escapes from maximum security prisons... some of which were from death row.

And that's just the ones listed. There could be more.

And most of them happened in 2000 or later.

1 of them in 84. 12 of them in the late 90s... 7 in 2000, 1 in 2008, and the rest in either 2005 or 2006.

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 1:31 am

I read one of the articles a bit further... the number of escapees from the links come to 44.

4 escaped from Riverbend prison (max security, Tennessee) in 95.

More people have escaped from Tennessee prisons in the past 14 years than have been executed by the State of Tennessee in the past 33 years.

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 1:38 am

More people have escaped from Tennessee prisons in the past 14 years than have been executed by the State of Tennessee in the past 33 years.

The same goes from Pennsylvania.

3 executions since 76.
6 escapes in the year 1997

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 1:42 am

Excuse me... 1 of the escapes was from a medium security prison.

43 from Max or death row

That's pretty bad.

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 1:44 am

Interesting fact: most of these escapes involve multiple people at the same time.. usually either 2 or 6.

JediMindTrick

October 14th, 2009, 4:20 am

Not so.

I haven't checked all the links out (links within a link), but there's a link that mentions the escapes of violent and in some cases, death row criminals from high or maximum-security facilities in New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas (more than once), Virginia, Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Pennsylvania.

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDk5ZDlkMzYwNGZkNDNhZWEyZjc3M2U1MzA2NTRlMTU=

How 'bout that?

Lifers AND Deathers escaping from Max security and death row.

Whoda thunk it?

Its obvious you didn't check your links. :)) The following facts can be gleaned from a simple clicking of the links in the article you linked.

The ones from New Mexico were in jail at the time of their escape, not prison. Jails are not nearly as secure as prisons.

The one from Lousiana wasn't even a death row inmate.

The ones in Texas were not death row inmates either.

The ones in Virginia were housed at a medium security prison, not a max.

The ones in Iowa were not death row inmates. Not many other details given here.

The ones in South Carolina were not death row inmates either.

The one in Alabama was from a medium security prison and he wasn't death row either

No death row inmates in Tennesse either.

No real details given on the Pennsylvania ones.

So once again, we are back to my point that there has been one death row prisoner that has escaped in the last 80 years (according to several articles I saw).

What we also have is a failure to communicate in that when I talk about max security and you guys talk about max security we are obviously talking about different things. I've toured a max security prison in Washington. Within that prison though there were different classifications of prisoners - max, med, and min. The maximum security prisoners in that prison were your death row inmates and problem prisoners. They were the ones housed 23 hrs a day in a small cell and only left for one hour to a small 20 by 10 yard to pace. From reading about the escapes you linked it obvious those prison might be max security prisons but that the prisoners within were of the med and minimum security types as several clearly were not confined to cells all the time since it was their freedom to move about the prison (usually from interior prison jobs) that allowed them to effect their escapes. In the prison I toured I walked right out amongst the med and min prisoners and talked to many. I toured their classrooms where they were trying to get their GEDs. I toured their work areas where they made license plates and road signs and did laundry. I watched a baseball game between many of them.

When I talk about max security I'm talking about the prisoners who are in their cells 23 hrs a day. These prisoners don't escape because they don't have the opportunity too.

JediMindTrick

October 14th, 2009, 6:00 am

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 10:32 am

The one from Lousiana wasn't even a death row inmate.

The ones in Texas were not death row inmates either.

The ones in Iowa were not death row inmates. Not many other details given here.

The ones in South Carolina were not death row inmates either.

No death row inmates in Tennesse either.

Holy Strawman Batman!

I NEVER SAID THEY WERE ALL DEATH ROW INMATES!!!!!!!!!!

The ones in Virginia were housed at a medium security prison, not a max. see... that's an example of you deliberately twisting the truth. It wasn't a medium security prison until at least 10 years AFTER the escape.. which means the guy escaped from a max security prison.

The one in Alabama was from a medium security prison

I already noticed that one on my own... if you actually bothered to read my posts.... which it doesn't seem that you do... or if you do, you don't do it very well.

So once again, we are back to my point that there has been one death row prisoner that has escaped in the last 80 years (according to several articles I saw). Six death row inmates escaped from Virginia in 1984.

What we also have is a failure to communicate in that when I talk about max security and you guys talk about max security we are obviously talking about different things. I've toured a max security prison in Washington. Within that prison though there were different classifications of prisoners - max, med, and min. The maximum security prisoners in that prison were your death row inmates and problem prisoners. They were the ones housed 23 hrs a day in a small cell and only left for one hour to a small 20 by 10 yard to pace. From reading about the escapes you linked it obvious those prison might be max security prisons but that the prisoners within were of the med and minimum security types as several clearly were not confined to cells all the time since it was their freedom to move about the prison (usually from interior prison jobs) that allowed them to effect their escapes. In the prison I toured I walked right out amongst the med and min prisoners and talked to many. I toured their classrooms where they were trying to get their GEDs. I toured their work areas where they made license plates and road signs and did laundry. I watched a baseball game between many of them.

When I talk about max security I'm talking about the prisoners who are in their cells 23 hrs a day. These prisoners don't escape because they don't have the opportunity too.

My father worked in a Max security prison for 30 years of his life. There's a difference between "solitary confinement", which is being in the cell 23 hours a day, and general population.... but the prison, as a whole, is either max, med, or min security. That's the whole purpose of being sent first to a prison where you're classified before you go to the prison where you serve the rest of your time.

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 10:46 am

Out of curiosity, for the death penalty supporters how many innocent people being executed is acceptable to you?

Less than 1% of the total number of people executed.

In a perfect world, there would be no innocent people put to death whatsoever... but this world isn't perfect.

MattieV

October 14th, 2009, 11:54 am

Less than 1% of the total number of people executed.

In a perfect world, there would be no innocent people put to death whatsoever... but this world isn't perfect.

With all of the advancements in DNA, and other forensic tools, the probability of sentencing an innocent person to death is almost impossible. And, DNA has put more guilty criminals in prison than it has exonerated innocent people serving prison sentences.

The death penalty is rarely used. It is a sentence pursued by prosecutors for the worst of the worst offenders. There are monsters among us who have perpetrated crimes beyond anyone's worst nightmares. These criminals deserve to be sentenced to death by a jury of their peers. Consider the acts of Ted Bundy, John Gacey, the Green River Killer and others who can only be classified as killing machines. Even they knew that the death penalty is what they deserved.

The death penalty can also serve as a deterrent to crime. It should remain a rarely used sentence by our criminal justice system.

Greyclouds

October 14th, 2009, 12:17 pm

With all of the advancements in DNA, and other forensic tools, the probability of sentencing an innocent person to death is almost impossible. And, DNA has put more guilty criminals in prison than it has exonerated innocent people serving prison sentences.

The death penalty is rarely used. It is a sentence pursued by prosecutors for the worst of the worst offenders. There are monsters among us who have perpetrated crimes beyond anyone's worst nightmares. These criminals deserve to be sentenced to death by a jury of their peers. Consider the acts of Ted Bundy, John Gacey, the Green River Killer and others who can only be classified as killing machines. Even they knew that the death penalty is what they deserved.

The death penalty can also serve as a deterrent to crime. It should remain a rarely used sentence by our criminal justice system.

Circumstantial evidence is often enough to convict.

Also, DNA as a forensic tool has its limitations. While Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) has enabled us to amplify as little as a couple of femtograms of DNA from a sample, it still has powerful inhibitors that must be removed from the reaction before proceeding. Phenolics and some polysaccharides can inhibit the reaction and cause a DNA sample to become "unreadable."

If it is capable of being "read," then I agree with you that DNA is a useful forensic tool.

I just disagree that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime; it's only a deterrent to the person directly receiving the penalty!

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 12:36 pm

With all of the advancements in DNA, and other forensic tools, the probability of sentencing an innocent person to death is almost impossible. And, DNA has put more guilty criminals in prison than it has exonerated innocent people serving prison sentences. I know that. Why are you telling me?

The death penalty is rarely used.

I know that too. In fact, I've spent several posts in this thread illustrating that fact.

Does anybody read threads before they post in them anymore?

It should remain a rarely used sentence by our criminal justice system.

I disagree. I believe it should be used more often.

MattieV

October 14th, 2009, 2:34 pm

I know that. Why are you telling me?

I know that too. In fact, I've spent several posts in this thread illustrating that fact.

Does anybody read threads before they post in them anymore?

I disagree. I believe it should be used more often.

Yes, I read the posts in this thread. Consider that with the pros and cons being aired about this issue, I'm merely agreeing with and/or reinforcing your opinion -- even though you certainly need no help in making your points.

And, while I believe the death penalty is an appropriate sentence in more cases, it's also not an achieveable one. If the prosecutor believes the defendant is guilty and wants a conviction, it is much more difficult to get one, in many instances, in a death penalty case. As many others have commented, they prefer life without the possibility of parole. And, if that's the best the prosecution thinks it can get, that's what they will go for. Lean budgets for prosecutors also factor in sentencing. Death penalty cases are very expensive, and getting the criminal off the streets for the longest time possible helps keep the community more safe.

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 3:58 pm

And, while I believe the death penalty is an appropriate sentence in more cases, it's also not an achieveable one. If the prosecutor believes the defendant is guilty and wants a conviction, it is much more difficult to get one, in many instances, in a death penalty case. As many others have commented, they prefer life without the possibility of parole. And, if that's the best the prosecution thinks it can get, that's what they will go for. Lean budgets for prosecutors also factor in sentencing. Death penalty cases are very expensive, and getting the criminal off the streets for the longest time possible helps keep the community more safe.

You're talking about sentencing. I'm talking about executions.

People should not be spending even a decade sitting on death row.

That's not serving a sentence... that's waiting to serve a sentence.

There's a guy on Texas death row by the name of Jack Harry Smith. 40 years old when he was sentenced. He's 72 years old now, and still sitting on death row.

He murdered a man while committing robbery while on parole from a life sentence... and he's been sitting on death row for 32 years.

If the state had no intent on carrying out the sentence, it should not have sentenced him to death.

There are six men in Texas who have been on death row longer than him. Are they waiting for them to die of natural causes?

I'm not worried about how quickly death row should be filling up. I'm worried about how slowly death row is being cleared out.

Appeals should be thorough, well prepared, and few in number so that the convict may either be exonerated or executed.

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 4:08 pm

The first guy executed in Texas since 76 was sitting on death row for only 5 years. (On death row from 1977 till 1982)

And there are still 15 people sitting on death row in Texas from before that guy was executed.

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 4:18 pm

The last guy executed in Texas was on death row since 97. Executed a month ago.

There are a bit more than 100 people who are still on death row that have been there from before him.

MattieV

October 14th, 2009, 4:25 pm

I couldn't agree with you more. Prisons should not be old age homes for death row inmates.

PhantomPholly

October 14th, 2009, 4:29 pm

When you FORCE others to pay for what YOU want, that is called tyranny...
That door swings both ways, my friend. It's immoral to force those who oppose the death penalty to pay for executing prisoners.

Capital punishment in this country is flawed, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, and it is time we did away with it.

I won't argue that our existing system isn't flawed - it is and has been, but that wasn't the point of the original conversation.

As for forcing those against the death penalty to pay for an execution with tax money, I agree with you 100%. However, I'll bet you'll find plenty of volunteers to accept that one-time cost.

Perhaps prisoners convicted of capital crimes should be offered up to the highest bidder, their fate decided by the winner at auction?

:think:

More reasonably, I would be happy with a solution where, if ANY group agreed to accept the cost and responsibility of keeping said convict alive AND CONTAINED were allowed to do so. I think you would find quickly that the most heinous criminals would find no such sponsor, people finding "better things to do" with that money. Death would be the last resort for any criminal so awful that no one was willing to fund their continued existence.

A true free-market solution.

PhantomPholly

October 14th, 2009, 4:32 pm

It has been proven that every single criminal ever executed has never committed another crime.

Yep, the rate of recidivism among the dead is 0%.

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 4:42 pm

At the end of 1998, the United States held 3,452 death row prisoners. In 1999, there were 98 executions. At the end of 1999, there were 3,527 death row prisoners.

This means 173 people were sentenced to die in the year 1999. Since then, 28 of those people have been executed.

PhantomPholly

October 14th, 2009, 4:46 pm

Out of curiosity, for the death penalty supporters how many innocent people being executed is acceptable to you? If you are pro death penalty than you clearly are willing to accept a certain amount so how many is it? Two cases where its more likely than not that an innocent person was executed have been cited here in this thread. If you go back further in our history to the days when executions were carried out almost immediately you could find hundreds if not thousands of innocents but for the sake of argument lets stick to post Furman vs Georgia executions (by the way if you don't know what Furman vs Georgia signifies then you don't even know enough to have a valid opinion on the subject).

This is an incomplete question, because you fail to include the terms of the alternatives in your example.

Let's try an example. It isn't perfect, but it gives us a starting place. Let's say:

- It costs $500,000 / year to keep a prisoner in maximum security prison
- We sentence 100 men to death
- One of the men was innocent of the murder (BUT perhaps not innocent of severely mangling someone, or raping, or something else horrific)
- The money saved over the number of years (on average) they would have been kept in prison comes to $100 million (average 2 years each before execution)

Now, we have to ask ourselves, "What would we do with that money if we saved it?"

If the answer was that we save the lives of 10 good people by funding experimental procedures which neither they, their insurance, nor charity would cover - then what's the answer?

You cannot ask these questions in a vacuum. Every action has unintended consequences.

Poisonshady313

October 14th, 2009, 4:48 pm

According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the cost of drugs per execution is $86.08

Claymore

October 17th, 2009, 9:08 pm

According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the cost of drugs per execution is $86.08

The cost of a .45 ACP is about $0.37 if you reload your own.
1 through the forehead ussually does the job.

JediMindTrick

October 17th, 2009, 10:08 pm

With all of the advancements in DNA, and other forensic tools, the probability of sentencing an innocent person to death is almost impossible. And, DNA has put more guilty criminals in prison than it has exonerated innocent people serving prison sentences.

Spoken like someone who only knows about police work from TV.

Let me educate you on a few things:

DNA is very rarely present in a murder. If its a rape / murder then there probably is DNA. If its a robbery murder there isn't going to be DNA. And sometimes when there is DNA is doesn't prove anything. If a husband is accused of killing his wife what does it prove if they find DNA since its only natural that you would find his DNA on her and possibly in her. Statistically DNA is present in less than 1% of murders and its of use even less than that. You just hear about it all the time because it helps free people but most death row inmates don't have the luxury of DNA evidence.

About forensics. Even that doesn't always help as it may not pinpoint anyone. I said this somewhere else, maybe this thread, but its easy to commit a murder where there basically is no forensic evidence. If I walk into a store, rob it, and shoot the clerk the only forensic evidence is the bullet(s) I leave behind. If I then dispose of the gun in a way that it won't be found even that is worthless. Which means I'll have to be convicted on circumstantial evidence which is how most people on death row got convicted. I mentioned the case of Ruben Cantu earlier in this thread - he was convicted on nothing more than the coerced testimony of a guy who said it wasn't Cantu the first two times he was interviewed and now claims the cops forced him to say it was the third time so they could frame Cantu (in this case this is actually a credible claim).

There are countless people on death row who are there on no more evidence than speculation and shaky witness testimony, sometimes from jailhouse snitches who have no credibility.

As I've also said in this thread I've got no doubt that well over 99% of those on death row did commit the murder but thats not good enough.

sisyphus

October 18th, 2009, 12:45 am

The cost of a .45 ACP is about $0.37 if you reload your own.
1 through the forehead ussually does the job.

I am beginning to think that we are looking at this from the wrong end...The need for the DP would be reduced if proper gun control was taught in schools...Y'all know the routine, point, hold, squeeze.
The 'victim' is the first line of defense against trouble, when assaulted, strike hard and with force. Everything else is too late.

DLaw911

October 18th, 2009, 2:38 pm

I am beginning to think that we are looking at this from the wrong end...The need for the DP would be reduced if proper gun control was taught in schools...Y'all know the routine, point, hold, squeeze.
The 'victim' is the first line of defense against trouble, when assaulted, strike hard and with force. Everything else is too late.That simply is not reality. Victims are often times killed by ambush, or in situations where the perp is able to escape. And when it DOES happen in a crowded area and people hear shots and have no idea who the good guy and the bad guy is, do we really want citizens with guns to start shooting the first thing that moves?

Also gun control can be taught, but hormones and emotions still rule the day. Anyone, even a police officer, has an emotional line that when crossed can lead to improper or illegal gun use. NO I don't advocate banning guns. I am only speaking of the reality of what you are suggesting.

You speak about "striking hard and with force when assaulted." So at what point can you us a firearm? How about if someone throws an egg at your car while you're driving? Or someone slaps you or punches you? What if someone is stealing your bicycle or your car? What if a homeless person hands you a note that says, "Give me your money?" What if a parent goes to school to speak with a teacher and hears, "I'm going to kill you all, you're all dead" and walks in on a school play and sees a kid holding a very real looking, but fake, AK-47. If the parent whips out her .45 and wipes the kid off the face of the earth, was she justified? Again, I am only pointing out that decisions to use guns are often made very quickly and gun control education is not foolproof.

DLaw911

October 18th, 2009, 2:51 pm

........DNA is very rarely present in a murder.Just small point of correction. Unless a perptrator is dressed in a hermetically sealed plastic bubble or space suit, he IS probably going to leave some DNA evidence at the scene. The problem for investigators is finding it. The reason more isn't found is the sheer expense involved. If a laboratory was called in and told, "There's DNA someplace on this 12' x 12' carpet" it could blow a police department's budget. Some labs charge as much as $1,500 per square inch to seach for DNA evidence and in the case of a large item, where the existence or location of DNA is uncertain, random samples are taken from different places.

The rest of your post is an excellent analysis of DNA evidence.

MattieV

October 18th, 2009, 3:12 pm

Spoken like someone who only knows about police work from TV.

Let me educate you on a few things:

DNA is very rarely present in a murder. If its a rape / murder then there probably is DNA. If its a robbery murder there isn't going to be DNA. And sometimes when there is DNA is doesn't prove anything. If a husband is accused of killing his wife what does it prove if they find DNA since its only natural that you would find his DNA on her and possibly in her. Statistically DNA is present in less than 1% of murders and its of use even less than that. You just hear about it all the time because it helps free people but most death row inmates don't have the luxury of DNA evidence.

About forensics. Even that doesn't always help as it may not pinpoint anyone. I said this somewhere else, maybe this thread, but its easy to commit a murder where there basically is no forensic evidence. If I walk into a store, rob it, and shoot the clerk the only forensic evidence is the bullet(s) I leave behind. If I then dispose of the gun in a way that it won't be found even that is worthless. Which means I'll have to be convicted on circumstantial evidence which is how most people on death row got convicted. I mentioned the case of Ruben Cantu earlier in this thread - he was convicted on nothing more than the coerced testimony of a guy who said it wasn't Cantu the first two times he was interviewed and now claims the cops forced him to say it was the third time so they could frame Cantu (in this case this is actually a credible claim).

There are countless people on death row who are there on no more evidence than speculation and shaky witness testimony, sometimes from jailhouse snitches who have no credibility.

As I've also said in this thread I've got no doubt that well over 99% of those on death row did commit the murder but thats not good enough.

No, sorry, actually spoken by someone who worked with prosecutors for over seven years. And, you're right about the absence of any type of forensic evidence in some cases. However, as forensic tehnology advances in all areas (including DNA) it will help identify only the guilty. There have been death row inmates who were convicted many years ago and have asked for their DNA to be tested to exonerate them. In one of these cases the evidence that had been preserved for years, when tested, proved that the inmate had committed the crime. The inmate said he thought that his DNA would have deteriorated to the point that it would not connect him to the crime.

Most prosecutors will pursue the death penalty only when they believe in the guilt of the defendant beyond doubt.

JenyEliza

October 18th, 2009, 3:16 pm

No, sorry, actually spoken by someone who worked with prosecutors for over seven years. .

Don't worry, Jedi thinks none of us Honored Guests know nearly as much as he does. Please overlook his rudeness. As an LEO (law enforcement officer), surely he knows more than the average poster on Hannity. Right? ;)

By the way, welcome to the forums. :D

DLaw911

October 18th, 2009, 4:20 pm

No, sorry, actually spoken by someone who worked with prosecutors for over seven years. And, you're right about the absence of any type of forensic evidence in some cases. However, as forensic tehnology advances in all areas (including DNA) it will help identify only the guilty. There have been death row inmates who were convicted many years ago and have asked for their DNA to be tested to exonerate them. In one of these cases the evidence that had been preserved for years, when tested, proved that the inmate had committed the crime. The inmate said he thought that his DNA would have deteriorated to the point that it would not connect him to the crime.

Most prosecutors will pursue the death penalty only when they believe in the guilt of the defendant beyond doubt.Well with all due respects you are only partially right and I'll mention that I have worked as a defense attorney AND prosecutor for 32 years and am very familiar with DNA evidence.

No matter how far technology advances, it cannot identify "only the guilty." Forensic evidence is, and always be, an evidence producing tool.

As for DNA evidence, just like fingerprints, it is only as good as being able to convince a jury that it was found in a place consistent with the criminal offense. That is never going to change. As more and more DNA samples are collected, more and more cold case files are going to be opened. But no matter what science you use, the only 100% certain use of DNA is to EXCLUDE persons. When it comes to matching suspects that is and always will be based on expert OPINION based on statistical analysis of extracted DNA bands. It boils down to the ODDS of another person having the same DNA markers. Unfortunately, DNA has been used to try and convict people without any other corroborating evidence, essentially leaving it up to the defendant to explain the match.

Forensic evidence can be used and abused. Labs will never admit that samples can be switched or contaminated. They want to keep their licenses.

AS for prosecutrs seeking the death penalty only when they believe in the guilt of the defendant beyond doubt (whatever that means), that is not the standard. It is based on a prosecutors opinion that he can PROVE the guilt of a defendant to a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor might have evidence available that is inadmissible in court and which, therefore, might convince him a person is guilty. But if he cannot prove the case without that evidence, then he cannot file charges. Additionally prosecutors have almost complete discretion as to whether or not to seek the death penalty and if you look at the cases over the years there appears to be a racial bias for both seeking and imposing of the death penalty.

MattieV

October 18th, 2009, 4:51 pm

Well with all due respects you are only partially right and I'll mention that I have worked as a defense attorney AND prosecutor for 32 years and am very familiar with DNA evidence.

No matter how far technology advances, it cannot identify "only the guilty." Forensic evidence is, and always be, an evidence producing tool.

As for DNA evidence, just like fingerprints, it is only as good as being able to convince a jury that it was found in a place consistent with the criminal offense. That is never going to change. As more and more DNA samples are collected, more and more cold case files are going to be opened. But no matter what science you use, the only 100% certain use of DNA is to EXCLUDE persons. When it comes to matching suspects that is and always will be based on expert OPINION based on statistical analysis of extracted DNA bands. It boils down to the ODDS of another person having the same DNA markers. Unfortunately, DNA has been used to try and convict people without any other corroborating evidence, essentially leaving it up to the defendant to explain the match.

Forensic evidence can be used and abused. Labs will never admit that samples can be switched or contaminated. They want to keep their licenses.

AS for prosecutrs seeking the death penalty only when they believe in the guilt of the defendant beyond doubt (whatever that means), that is not the standard. It is based on a prosecutors opinion that he can PROVE the guilt of a defendant to a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor might have evidence available that is inadmissible in court and which, therefore, might convince him a person is guilty. But if he cannot prove the case without that evidence, then he cannot file charges. Additionally prosecutors have almost complete discretion as to whether or not to seek the death penalty and if you look at the cases over the years there appears to be a racial bias for both seekig and imposing of the death penalty.

Spoken like a "former" prosecutor who became a "defense" attorney. Well done for the side of the defense. I realize that the standard is beyond "reasonable" doubt at this time. In the future, however, the science may be able to reach the "beyond doubt" point where it exists in the evidence. And, DNA can identify the guilty . . . not just exclude the not guilty. But, I applaud your efforts as a defense attorney.

MattieV

October 18th, 2009, 4:57 pm

JenyEliza -- Thanks so much for the welcome. I'm trying to learn how this all works.

poorblackman

October 18th, 2009, 7:25 pm

If you can't trust the government to do anything right, why would you trust it to find and kill the correct person for a crime with 100% accuracy?

JediMindTrick

October 18th, 2009, 8:51 pm

No, sorry, actually spoken by someone who worked with prosecutors for over seven years. And, you're right about the absence of any type of forensic evidence in some cases. However, as forensic tehnology advances in all areas (including DNA) it will help identify only the guilty. There have been death row inmates who were convicted many years ago and have asked for their DNA to be tested to exonerate them. In one of these cases the evidence that had been preserved for years, when tested, proved that the inmate had committed the crime. The inmate said he thought that his DNA would have deteriorated to the point that it would not connect him to the crime.

Most prosecutors will pursue the death penalty only when they believe in the guilt of the defendant beyond doubt.

Well I've got double your experience working with the prosecutors since I've been a cop for over 13 years now. Your comment about "only identifying the guilty" is silly. Lets give a common example of a murder where a wife turns up dead. The husband of course is going to be considered as a suspect. They test the wife for DNA and low and behold they find the husband's DNA in her. They also find hair belonging to him on her and her clothes. But the husband says that they had consensual sex (not unheard of for married couples) the day she disappeared. So what has the DNA proven besides the fact they had sex and that they live together? Now if its a random DNA it provide a new lead (which is why I said in rape murders there usually is DNA) but it still won't prove anything as the wife could have been having an affair (again not unheard of).

Furthermore all DNA does is prove that there was contact. If its just hair then that could have come from brushing up against a person or the victim sitting in the same seat as the other person. DNA alone proves nothing, it only gives you a place to start looking.

As to prosecutors pursuing the DP when they only believe in the guilt beyond doubt thats not quite true. If the case is horrific or sensational enough they will go for the DP just to satisfy the public, especially if the prosecutor is an elected official. Guilt becomes irrelevant in that case since the prosecutor is basically signing his resignation letter if he doesn't go for the DP.

And last but not least I once again will point out that a huge number of those on death row are there for crimes where there is no DNA.

JediMindTrick

October 18th, 2009, 8:54 pm

If you can't trust the government to do anything right, why would you trust it to find and kill the correct person for a crime with 100% accuracy?

You just made a bunch of conservative heads explode.

poorblackman

October 18th, 2009, 9:21 pm

You just made a bunch of conservative heads explode.

The desire to exact vengeance trumps the very true conservative logic that government does not do many things well. We all want to see sick bastard get thrown under the jail when we are certain that we have found the correct perpetrator. With that being said, we all know that the government is extremely error prone so unfortunately we should not allow the government to be in the business of executing people.

camarozz

October 18th, 2009, 10:07 pm

The desire to exact vengeance trumps the very true conservative logic that government does not do many things well. We all want to see sick bastard get thrown under the jail when we are certain that we have found the correct perpetrator. With that being said, we all know that the government is extremely error prone so unfortunately we should not allow the government to be in the business of executing people.

When compared to running the financial end of things, the proof is in the pudding. Running programs into the ground like the government does would ruin all other normal companies.

You answer your own statement as well, the government does not run things right. Since the police are not all federally run much of it is locally, otherwise with out it we would have vigilante justice. Some things the government is needed to run.

poorblackman

October 18th, 2009, 10:26 pm

When compared to running the financial end of things, the proof is in the pudding. Running programs into the ground like the government does would ruin all other normal companies.

You answer your own statement as well, the government does not run things right. Since the police are not all federally run much of it is locally, otherwise with out it we would have vigilante justice. Some things the government is needed to run.

There is no doubt there government is needed however we also need limits on what the government is able to do. One important limit should be to prevent the government from making an irreparable error which is to take someones life.

gdoane

October 18th, 2009, 10:37 pm

If you can't trust the government to do anything right, why would you trust it to find and kill the correct person for a crime with 100% accuracy?

The jury is not the government.

I've been summoned for Jury Duty in a month. Jurors are citizens, not government and juries are 100% completely perfect and infallible, incapable of error. One person may make a mistake but 12 people never will. Juries are perfect, infallible and incapable of error. If they say a man is guilty then the man is by God guilty.

Clintville

October 18th, 2009, 11:08 pm

The jury is not the government.

I've been summoned for Jury Duty in a month. Jurors are citizens, not government and juries are 100% completely perfect and infallible, incapable of error. One person may make a mistake but 12 people never will. Juries are perfect, infallible and incapable of error. If they say a man is guilty then the man is by God guilty.
Wow. You really believe that crap? I mean, yes it is the best system, but do you really think a jury has never made a mistake? That is just plain dumb.

camarozz

October 19th, 2009, 8:57 am

There is no doubt there government is needed however we also need limits on what the government is able to do. One important limit should be to prevent the government from making an irreparable error which is to take someones life.

Since there are many safeguards involved, I highly doubt there are many "innocent" people in prison; especially on death row.the government already is preventing irreparable errors with these safeguards.

These stats are for my state... and in comparison I know of violent crime happening daily in my area that in my opinion deserves a death penalty, but I guess that is why Im not in charge.

As of yearend 1999, Washington State had executed 50 prisoners since 1930, of whom 3 were executed since 1977; 12 prisoners remained under sentence of death. http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/deathrow.html#wa

MattieV

October 19th, 2009, 10:41 am

Well I've got double your experience working with the prosecutors since I've been a cop for over 13 years now. Your comment about "only identifying the guilty" is silly. Lets give a common example of a murder where a wife turns up dead. The husband of course is going to be considered as a suspect. They test the wife for DNA and low and behold they find the husband's DNA in her. They also find hair belonging to him on her and her clothes. But the husband says that they had consensual sex (not unheard of for married couples) the day she disappeared. So what has the DNA proven besides the fact they had sex and that they live together? Now if its a random DNA it provide a new lead (which is why I said in rape murders there usually is DNA) but it still won't prove anything as the wife could have been having an affair (again not unheard of).

Furthermore all DNA does is prove that there was contact. If its just hair then that could have come from brushing up against a person or the victim sitting in the same seat as the other person. DNA alone proves nothing, it only gives you a place to start looking.

As to prosecutors pursuing the DP when they only believe in the guilt beyond doubt thats not quite true. If the case is horrific or sensational enough they will go for the DP just to satisfy the public, especially if the prosecutor is an elected official. Guilt becomes irrelevant in that case since the prosecutor is basically signing his resignation letter if he doesn't go for the DP.

And last but not least I once again will point out that a huge number of those on death row are there for crimes where there is no DNA.
The "only the guilty" reference was clearly made as a possible futuristic expectation. The rest of your comments are based on your interpretation, clarity, and opinions.

Poisonshady313

October 19th, 2009, 11:08 am

Well I've got double your experience working with the prosecutors since I've been a cop for over 13 years now. Your comment about "only identifying the guilty" is silly. Lets give a common example of a murder where a wife turns up dead. The husband of course is going to be considered as a suspect. They test the wife for DNA and low and behold they find the husband's DNA in her. They also find hair belonging to him on her and her clothes. But the husband says that they had consensual sex (not unheard of for married couples) the day she disappeared. So what has the DNA proven besides the fact they had sex and that they live together? Now if its a random DNA it provide a new lead (which is why I said in rape murders there usually is DNA) but it still won't prove anything as the wife could have been having an affair (again not unheard of).

Furthermore all DNA does is prove that there was contact. If its just hair then that could have come from brushing up against a person or the victim sitting in the same seat as the other person. DNA alone proves nothing, it only gives you a place to start looking.

As to prosecutors pursuing the DP when they only believe in the guilt beyond doubt thats not quite true. If the case is horrific or sensational enough they will go for the DP just to satisfy the public, especially if the prosecutor is an elected official. Guilt becomes irrelevant in that case since the prosecutor is basically signing his resignation letter if he doesn't go for the DP.

And last but not least I once again will point out that a huge number of those on death row are there for crimes where there is no DNA.

This post raises for me a question:

How many people have been wrongly exonerated from death row?

DLaw911

October 19th, 2009, 2:17 pm

Spoken like a "former" prosecutor who became a "defense" attorney. Well done for the side of the defense. I realize that the standard is beyond "reasonable" doubt at this time. In the future, however, the science may be able to reach the "beyond doubt" point where it exists in the evidence. And, DNA can identify the guilty . . . not just exclude the not guilty. But, I applaud your efforts as a defense attorney.I'm not speaking as a former prosecutor but simply explaining the law to you ... the law you don't seem to understand.

OK you tell me how DNA can "identify the guilty." Forensic evidence can help identify a PERSON. That person might be the perpetrator or there might be a good reason why his DNA (or fingerprints) was found at the crime scene. Does DNA decide whether a killing was in self-defense? Does DNA decide whether or not a killing is murder or manslaughter or mere accident? And what are the FACTS of a case? The "facts" are what the jury decides the facts are after hearing the evidence admitted in court.

DLaw911

October 19th, 2009, 2:18 pm

This post raises for me a question:

How many people have been wrongly exonerated from death row?Do you mean based on DNA, or on other evidence?

DLaw911

October 19th, 2009, 2:23 pm

Since there are many safeguards involved, I highly doubt there are many "innocent" people in prison; especially on death row.the government already is preventing irreparable errors with these safeguards.

These stats are for my state... and in comparison I know of violent crime happening daily in my area that in my opinion deserves a death penalty, but I guess that is why Im not in charge.

As of yearend 1999, Washington State had executed 50 prisoners since 1930, of whom 3 were executed since 1977; 12 prisoners remained under sentence of death. http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/deathrow.html#wa
There are NO safeguards when convictions are based on eyewitness identification. I'm not going to write another long discussion about it, but rest assured people are identified not as BEING the perpetrator, but by looking like the person. And hundreds of people (maybe even thousands) have been sent to death row based on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony. Of thouse many were proven later (before being executed) by DNA evidence. But in cases where there WAS no DNA, the remaining people awaiting execution have little chance to challenge the evidence presented at trial. So one can only wonder how many people who WERE executed following convictions based on eyewitness identification were wrongfully convicted.

And almost as bad are convictions based on "paid" informant testimony, e.g. another inmate charged with a serious crime gets his charges dripped or reduced for ratting out an accused killer.

SherlockHolmes

October 19th, 2009, 3:14 pm

when someone hurts others they hurt themselves -they dont care and i doubt death deters since people commit suicide over dumb reasons like losing a girlfriend etc

camarozz

October 19th, 2009, 5:40 pm

There are NO safeguards when convictions are based on eyewitness identification. I'm not going to write another long discussion about it, but rest assured people are identified not as BEING the perpetrator, but by looking like the person. And hundreds of people (maybe even thousands) have been sent to death row based on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony. Of thouse many were proven later (before being executed) by DNA evidence. But in cases where there WAS no DNA, the remaining people awaiting execution have little chance to challenge the evidence presented at trial. So one can only wonder how many people who WERE executed following convictions based on eyewitness identification were wrongfully convicted.

And almost as bad are convictions based on "paid" informant testimony, e.g. another inmate charged with a serious crime gets his charges dripped or reduced for ratting out an accused killer.

I would like to see your evidence that those convicted were proven not guilty later before being executed; I would venture a guess that the rate is really low in comparison. And that proves my "safeguards" (for lack of a better word) that during the appeals, and new technologies, can keep a person from the gas chamber.

Still doesn't change my mind that a repeat offender of heinous crimes should get death. But once again since I do not run things, it is not a problem, and in my state there is still only 12 (I think it was) people executed since 1977. Not a big issue there.

I know this, if some serious criminal was in my house I will shoot to kill, to protect my family, just to be sure the ******* will not be able to do it again to another.

MattieV

October 19th, 2009, 5:45 pm

I'm not speaking as a former prosecutor but simply explaining the law to you ... the law you don't seem to understand.

OK you tell me how DNA can "identify the guilty." Forensic evidence can help identify a PERSON. That person might be the perpetrator or there might be a good reason why his DNA (or fingerprints) was found at the crime scene. Does DNA decide whether a killing was in self-defense? Does DNA decide whether or not a killing is murder or manslaughter or mere accident? And what are the FACTS of a case? The "facts" are what the jury decides the facts are after hearing the evidence admitted in court.

:rolleyes:You missed my point re: former prosecutor. And, it's not worth the effort to keep this up. You and I are on different wave lengths. It's good that we both want the guilty arrested, tried and convicted so that our streets and neighborhoods can be more safe, and DNA evidence is a tool, among many, to help us in this regard.

As an edit to my response according to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, "DNA can be used to identify criminals with incredible accuracy where biological evidence exists . . . When DNA ia used to its full potential it will help solve and prevent some of the Nation's most violent crimes." Examples are too numerous to mention but here are a couple you'll recognize. Dennis Rader the BTK Strangler and Gary Leon Ridgeway the Green River Killer -- both notorious serial killers.

poorblackman

October 19th, 2009, 7:19 pm

Since there are many safeguards involved, I highly doubt there are many "innocent" people in prison; especially on death row.the government already is preventing irreparable errors with these safeguards.

These stats are for my state... and in comparison I know of violent crime happening daily in my area that in my opinion deserves a death penalty, but I guess that is why Im not in charge.

As of yearend 1999, Washington State had executed 50 prisoners since 1930, of whom 3 were executed since 1977; 12 prisoners remained under sentence of death. http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/deathrow.html#wa

I bet I could get a jury to convict you of a capital crime and have you put on death row. All that is needed is one witness and a hole in your alibi. We don't need DNA to do that. All you need is an aggressive talented prosecutor with unlimited resources to prosecute you.

If the process is so perfect, would you be willing to bet your life on it? So folks lets try this: We have a quick and aggressive death penalty BUT if there is a mistake that is ever proven, ALL of those who participated in the trial who sided with the prosecution will be executed including the judge, jury , prosecutor as well as the police officers who gathered the false evidence.

gdoane

October 19th, 2009, 7:45 pm

Wow. You really believe that crap? I mean, yes it is the best system, but do you really think a jury has never made a mistake? That is just plain dumb.

One person can make a mistake. Two people considering the same question are half as likely to make that mistake. TWELVE people combined are never going to make an error. That is the basis and the fundamental reasoning behind our jury system.

I think it's despicable that governors and presidents can grant pardons, and that judges can set convicts free based on dicey "DNA evidence" when the perfection that is a jury has put forth a guilty verdict.

If you pull my name for jury duty and make me miss a day of work just to have my services thrown out by some candy-assed liberal judge then that ticks me off.
A jury verdict should be absolute, irreversible and beyond the reach of any judge or governator to change the outcome.

DNA can only prove guilt, NOT INNOCENCE. It's a classic truth that you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that God doesn't exist any better than the lack of DNA evidence proves a guilty man is really innocent.

The jury system is as close to perfection as we've got. It beats the crap out of nerds in lab coats and liberals in robes sitting on a bench.

camarozz

October 19th, 2009, 9:20 pm

I bet I could get a jury to convict you of a capital crime and have you put on death row. All that is needed is one witness and a hole in your alibi. We don't need DNA to do that. All you need is an aggressive talented prosecutor with unlimited resources to prosecute you.

If the process is so perfect, would you be willing to bet your life on it? So folks lets try this: We have a quick and aggressive death penalty BUT if there is a mistake that is ever proven, ALL of those who participated in the trial who sided with the prosecution will be executed including the judge, jury , prosecutor as well as the police officers who gathered the false evidence.

Yup, but then, I have absolutely no history of problems, and I do not do anything without someone being with me.

Well, except for walking the mile to and from work.

I do not even go to the store with out a family member, (I hate to shop)

With our system, I would most definitely bet my life!

poorblackman

October 19th, 2009, 9:40 pm

Yup, but then, I have absolutely no history of problems, and I do not do anything without someone being with me.

Well, except for walking the mile to and from work.

I do not even go to the store with out a family member, (I hate to shop)

With our system, I would most definitely bet my life!

The time you took to walk, is time enough to be implicated. So you have no problem killing the people , jury and all, if there is a wrongful execution? Would you willingly serve on a jury if this was the case?

camarozz

October 19th, 2009, 10:12 pm

The time you took to walk, is time enough to be implicated. So you have no problem killing the people , jury and all, if there is a wrongful execution? Would you willingly serve on a jury if this was the case?

Im not sure where the miss communication came in, but I do not advocate killing the "jury and all". The Jury is just doing their job, passing judgment to the guilt of the perp.

Im all for killing the grotesque and murderous bastards that have no conscience when it comes to violent and violent repeat offenders.

I can see prison for the crimes of passion, and accidents... except for the drunk drivers that have killed people, then that one I can go either way. It would depend on how much they have repeated DUI.

SherlockHolmes

October 20th, 2009, 1:06 am

i bet there is less horrible crimes like that in non death penalty states but if they kill him who cares

he admitted he did it

if he gets 10 years to life or ten then executed i mean ,will he get beaten by inmates?one can only wunder

get movie "DEADLINE" about Illinois death row

spain and sweden have no juries just judges-im sick of criminals getting off because the jury is nuts whether there is death or life in prison

SherlockHolmes

October 20th, 2009, 1:09 am

In a fiery argument, District Attorney Stephen Kelley asked the jury to sentence Edenfield to die, saying "maybe he's just rotten from the inside out. ... And his words on that tape were, 'It felt good."'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,561444,00.html

what a creep

death is too easy for the scum i think-too quick

DLaw911

October 20th, 2009, 1:19 am

.......TWELVE people combined are never going to make an error. That is the basis and the fundamental reasoning behind our jury system.The reality, Gene, is that jurors have convicted many thousands of innocent people over the years. My own theory is that jurors often times make up their minds NOT on the evidence but which lawyer is most convicting, and whether or not they like or dislike the accused. The Innocent Project and similar post conviction associations DO NOT assist persons charged with misdemeanors and minor felonies. Their resources are much too limited. Just imagine how many more people could get their convictions erased if they DID have the resources.

The facts that juries get it right more often than wrong is not the issue. Everyone agrees it is an imperfect system. So given that why have a death penalty. Imagine to torment on jurors to convict, recommend death, live long enough for the person to be executed, only to find out the person was innocent. Which one of them could honestly NOT say to themselves that HE or SHE killed an innocent man!?
I think it's despicable that governors and presidents can grant pardons, and that judges can set convicts free based on dicey "DNA evidence" when the perfection that is a jury has put forth a guilty verdict.I'm not aware of any of the set asides was based on dicey DNA.
If you pull my name for jury duty and make me miss a day of work just to have my services thrown out by some candy-assed liberal judge then that ticks me off.
A jury verdict should be absolute, irreversible and beyond the reach of any judge or governator to change the outcome. Gene, the problem is that sometimes not all evidence is available at the time of trial. Sometimes it is unknown to the defense. Also sometimes DA's HIDE exonerating evidence (actually this is NOT uncommon). So let me ask you THIS question. If you had a loved one charged with capital murder and it was captured on video tape and the killer was another person, but some jailhouse informant got out of a murder rap by testifying that she confessed .... AND the video tape somehow got destroyed by a fire the day it was to be shown in court .... and your loved one got convicted. So now she's being dragged down to the execution room and suddenly the phone rings and it's the governor telling YOU that a copy of the tape was found and he was prepared to grant a reprieve pending a motion for a new trial .... please don't tell me you would tell the executioner to proceed.
DNA can only prove guilt, NOT INNOCENCE. It's a classic truth that you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that God doesn't exist any better than the lack of DNA evidence proves a guilty man is really innocent.Actually DNA can't "prove" either. It can only TEND to prove, or CONCLUSIVELY disprove, identity. It can also assist in locating the actual perpetrator in factual innocence cases.

Poisonshady313

October 20th, 2009, 1:20 am

Do you mean based on DNA, or on other evidence?

Either.

I'm guessing that there must be some, since you didn't say "none" outright.

DLaw911

October 20th, 2009, 1:21 am

DLaw911

October 20th, 2009, 1:27 am

Either.

I'm guessing that there must be some, since you didn't say "none" outright.In general proving factual innocense following conviciton is VERY difficult. DNA testing DOES NOT require a showing it was unavailable at time of trial. But other evidence, such as another person proven to be the actual perpetrator, requires a compelling showing that the information was not available NOR discoverable with reasonable diligence at the time of trial.

I have seen death verdicts and life sentences UPHELD in the face of compelling evidence another person committed the crime in situations where the defense was denied funds for an investigator, or where the defense attorney was incompetent and did not seek and investigator. A REAL problem is that many attorneys ASSUME the guilty of their client and don't do a good job of defending that person. But ineffective assistance of counsel rarely results in overturned verdicts (such as a the sleeping lawyer in a Texas murder trial).

To be more specific to your question I suppose it's possible for a guilty person to be freed based on newly discovered evidence, but this is a judicial decision based on compelling proof. So it's rather unlikely a mistake would be made.

DLaw911

October 20th, 2009, 1:28 am

Either.
I'm guessing that there must be some, since you didn't say "none" outright.See my last answer.

gdoane

October 20th, 2009, 8:13 am

The reality, Gene, is that jurors have convicted many thousands of innocent people over the years. My own theory is that jurors often times make up their minds NOT on the evidence but which lawyer is most convicting, and whether or not they like or dislike the accused. The Innocent Project and similar post conviction associations DO NOT assist persons charged with misdemeanors and minor felonies. Their resources are much too limited. Just imagine how many more people could get their convictions erased if they DID have the resources.

Thousands out of millions of convictions is barely a tenth of a percent, 99.9% perfect which is plenty good enough. You have to remember, the accused gets not one but TWO juries, the Grand Jury and the trial jury. That's not just 12 people, that's 24.

You can't get 12 people to agree on pizza toppings so if you get 12 people to agree that a bastard is guilty, odds are that the bastard actually IS guilty.

The facts that juries get it right more often than wrong is not the issue. Everyone agrees it is an imperfect system. So given that why have a death penalty.

Why have a death penalty is simple:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/10/19/20091019abrk-patientescape.html

Escapee has officials looking for system weaknesses

A convicted felon scaled fences and razor wire Saturday night to escape a local rehabilitation center, authorities said Monday.

The incident left state officials searching for the escapee and investigating which systematic weaknesses he exploited to get loose.

Jorge Murillo, 40, was reported missing by security at the Arizona Community Protection and Treatment Center in the complex of Arizona State Hospital near 24th Street and Van Buren at approximately 10 p.m. on Saturday, according to officials at the Arizona Department of Health Services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24th Street and Van Buren is less than ten miles from where my mother lives and this sexual predator who was supposed to be locked away safe and he got out EASILY.

I know the area well. There's a children's hospital just three blocks north of where this bastard escaped from. There's an elementary school just a half mile away.

The danger the system put these people in because of the gutless failure to execute this creep is UNACCEPTABLE. This guy should be DEAD DEAD DEAD in the name of public safety.

Imagine to torment on jurors to convict, recommend death, live long enough for the person to be executed, only to find out the person was innocent. Which one of them could honestly NOT say to themselves that HE or SHE killed an innocent man!?

Imagine the torment of people victimized by a criminal who was released to prey again and again in the revolving doors of "justice". 2 out of 3 criminals re-offend within 2 years of their release, proving that we had a bad guy and LET HIM GO to hurt more people.

A lot more innocent people get hurt and killed because of gutless liberal criminal coddling than EVER get convicted wrongfully.

I'm not aware of any of the set asides was based on dicey DNA.
Gene, the problem is that sometimes not all evidence is available at the time of trial.

That's a GOOD thing because it means the evidence is fresh, and not bought or manufactured. We are supposed to have SPEEDY trials, it's in the Constitution and a trial should be had within 24 hours of the arrest.

It doesn't take that long to commit the crime and it doesn't take that long to gather the evidence.

Sometimes it is unknown to the defense. Also sometimes DA's HIDE exonerating evidence (actually this is NOT uncommon). So let me ask you THIS question. If you had a loved one charged with capital murder and it was captured on video tape and the killer was another person, but some jailhouse informant got out of a murder rap by testifying that she confessed .... AND the video tape somehow got destroyed by a fire the day it was to be shown in court .... and your loved one got convicted. So now she's being dragged down to the execution room and suddenly the phone rings and it's the governor telling YOU that a copy of the tape was found and he was prepared to grant a reprieve pending a motion for a new trial .... please don't tell me you would tell the executioner to proceed.

I'd be disgusted at the waste of time and money thrown away trying to prove a guilty person innocent.

Besides, I'm 45 years old. I will NEVER LIVE to see a person convicted of a death penalty offense get executed for an offense committed henceforth. It takes FIFTY YEARS for a death penalty conviction to be carried out. I'd have to live to be 95 years old to see anybody I know go through the death penalty process and be executed.

Death Row ought to be called "retirement row" because the most common cause of death is old age.

Actually DNA can't "prove" either. It can only TEND to prove, or CONCLUSIVELY disprove, identity. It can also assist in locating the actual perpetrator in factual innocence cases.

It cannot disprove identity. That would be proving a negative, which cannot be done. DNA can NEVER EVER be used to prove innocence.

It's like a footprint. You might be able to find my footprint in Grand Junction, Colorado from last week but if you don't, does that mean I wasn't in GJ? Of course not! All it proves is that you couldn't find a footprint, nothing more. It does not prove a negative.

We need a death penalty. A fast one, to protect innocent people from the predators who really need to be dead and pushing up daisies.

Greyclouds

October 20th, 2009, 8:59 am

Thousands out of millions of convictions is barely a tenth of a percent, 99.9% perfect which is plenty good enough. You have to remember, the accused gets not one but TWO juries, the Grand Jury and the trial jury. That's not just 12 people, that's 24.

You can't get 12 people to agree on pizza toppings so if you get 12 people to agree that a bastard is guilty, odds are that the bastard actually IS guilty.

Well, this means that you believe that OJ was completely innocent of his wife's murder, right? Or are you going to tell us that an acquittal is not "proving a negative" as well?

Juries are human beings. While I do not have Dlaw's Judicial experience, I can think of several different ways that a jury can be mislead and can form the wrong conclusion.

Withheld evidence that was improperly seized. Jury tampering. Wrong charges against the offender... etc.

Why have a death penalty is simple:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/10/19/20091019abrk-patientescape.html
<snip>
The danger the system put these people in because of the gutless failure to execute this creep is UNACCEPTABLE. This guy should be DEAD DEAD DEAD in the name of public safety.

It is harder for me to think of ways that the death penalty should be instituted in a free society... I believe that only the most heinous crimes should carry a possibility for a death penalty, and then ONLY if rehabilitation is not possible (as determined by professional psychologists and psychiatrists).

If we are to institute the death penalty just so that little Sally can sleep safer now that all people who have committed D felonies are put to death, well... Sally better watch out when she gets older! The government just got more powerful...

Imagine the torment of people victimized by a criminal who was released to prey again and again in the revolving doors of "justice". 2 out of 3 criminals re-offend within 2 years of their release, proving that we had a bad guy and LET HIM GO to hurt more people.

A lot more innocent people get hurt and killed because of gutless liberal criminal coddling than EVER get convicted wrongfully.

Source of your statistics? Oh, and do those statistics make differentiations for violent criminals and non-violent criminals?

I'd prefer to see the facts myself here.

That's a GOOD thing because it means the evidence is fresh, and not bought or manufactured. We are supposed to have SPEEDY trials, it's in the Constitution and a trial should be had within 24 hours of the arrest.

It doesn't take that long to commit the crime and it doesn't take that long to gather the evidence.

You're putting undue burden on the prosecution. It might take a week before they're able to present all evidence at trial, and before then, they might just want to keep the suspect from fleeing the jurisdiction.

I'd be disgusted at the waste of time and money thrown away trying to prove a guilty person innocent.

Besides, I'm 45 years old. I will NEVER LIVE to see a person convicted of a death penalty offense get executed for an offense committed henceforth. It takes FIFTY YEARS for a death penalty conviction to be carried out. I'd have to live to be 95 years old to see anybody I know go through the death penalty process and be executed.

Death Row ought to be called "retirement row" because the most common cause of death is old age.

So? Your defense of the death penalty is that it keeps recurrent criminals from terrorizing the populace.

If they die of old age can they re-offend?

So I don't believe that your defense of the death penalty is for public safety at all, is it? You want good old fashioned wild western justice, right?

It cannot disprove identity. That would be proving a negative, which cannot be done. DNA can NEVER EVER be used to prove innocence.

It's like a footprint. You might be able to find my footprint in Grand Junction, Colorado from last week but if you don't, does that mean I wasn't in GJ? Of course not! All it proves is that you couldn't find a footprint, nothing more. It does not prove a negative.

We need a death penalty. A fast one, to protect innocent people from the predators who really need to be dead and pushing up daisies.

You're trying to argue semantics here.

PCR RFLP analysis of two genetically distinct people will yield two different banding patterns. That provides evidence that shows that they are two genetically distinct people. So, yes, DNA evidence can support contentions that another person might have committed the crime.

Nothing can ever be "proven" in science, but if we do not find your DNA in Grand Junction at the crime scene, we know that the victim had pieces of the perp's skin under her fingernails, and finally, a DNA test of you compared to the skin samples showed no RFLP matches, then you're LIKELY innocent.

Or perhaps you'd like that exculpatory evidence thrown out of your trial?

poorblackman

October 20th, 2009, 9:34 am

Im not sure where the miss communication came in, but I do not advocate killing the "jury and all". The Jury is just doing their job, passing judgment to the guilt of the perp.

Im all for killing the grotesque and murderous bastards that have no conscience when it comes to violent and violent repeat offenders.

I can see prison for the crimes of passion, and accidents... except for the drunk drivers that have killed people, then that one I can go either way. It would depend on how much they have repeated DUI.

I asked you a simple question. Is your confidence in the system so high that the consequences of mistakes mean that those involved in the mistake should pay with thier lives? You responded "yes".

MattieV

October 20th, 2009, 3:08 pm

This post raises for me a question:

How many people have been wrongly exonerated from death row?
Try this link: https://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day17/archive/2007/03/15/the-wrongfully-exonerated.aspx
Sorry, the link doesn't work on this site. But it does give examples you're looking for.

camarozz

October 20th, 2009, 11:15 pm

I asked you a simple question. Is your confidence in the system so high that the consequences of mistakes mean that those involved in the mistake should pay with thier lives? You responded "yes".

Ahh, you meant the jury, I thought you meant only me in a situation where I would be fighting for my innocence.

The situation I would bet my life would be if I were indicted for a horrible crime and the death penalty were involved. Even if I knew I were innocent, I still believe in the death penalty. Especially since it would keep the guilty ones from ever being able to do it again.

DLaw911

October 21st, 2009, 1:53 am

Thousands out of millions of convictions is barely a tenth of a percent, 99.9% perfect which is plenty good enough. You have to remember, the accused gets not one but TWO juries, the Grand Jury and the trial jury. That's not just 12 people, that's 24.First, grand juries rule on probable cause and not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; second, grand juries do not hear misdmeanor cases. They only hear most federal cases and about 1/10th of 1% of criminal cases.

snipped

It [DNA] cannot disprove identity. That would be proving a negative, which cannot be done. DNA can NEVER EVER be used to prove innocence.This is actually a very simple matter. Just like fingerprints, DNA is tool. Common scenario. One man rapes woman and leaves semen on her and on her clothing. Now, of course, lawyers might raise issues such as consent but let's assume we are past that. That semen belongs to a person. That semen contains DNA with specific characteristics. If the victim identifies a person in a line up and that person's DNA bands do not match those found at the crime scene, then that person is conclusively innocent. She merely picked out someone who LOOKED like the person who raped her. Speaking of that I cannot think of how many times I have said "hello" to someone, mistakingly thinking I knew the person. Of course the example I gave you is where DNA almost immediately exonerates a person. But what if the crime happened 40 years ago when DNA science did not exist. What wouldhappen to THAT person when the victim pointed him out in court and said, "That's him, I recognize his eyes, I will never forget his face, he raped me (sobbing)." That person was very likely to be convicted, many innocent people were and many of them died in prison (one way or the other). As for DNA proving guilty, again it is but a tool to allow an expert to say it is highly probable that the sample from the crime scene is a statistical match to the suspect.
We need a death penalty. A fast one, to protect innocent people from the predators who really need to be dead and pushing up daisies.But the reality is the death penalty does not reduce crime. In states without the death penalty the murder rate is typically lower than in states that DO have the death penalty. The same in countries that have outlawed the death penalty.

DLaw911

October 21st, 2009, 2:07 am

....snipped......Juries are human beings. While I do not have Dlaw's Judicial experience, I can think of several different ways that a jury can be mislead and can form the wrong conclusion.I cannot begin to think of how many cases I have tried that turned on evidentiary rulings by the court.

Poisonshady313

October 21st, 2009, 2:22 am

In states without the death penalty the murder rate is typically lower than in states that DO have the death penalty.

When you consider how infrequently the death penalty is administered, your statement becomes meaningless.

Especially in light of the following.

The murder rate in florida, texas, and delaware, all death penalty states, are typically lower than murder rates in michigan.

There are quite a few non death penalty states with typically higher murder rates than delaware.

To give an idea of how infrequently the death penalty is administered, it's as if 1 person in each death penalty state was executed every year for 33 years, with a few states executing a second person during the last year. (I worked out the numbers somehwere else... I forget if it was in this thread or another.)

Because its application is so rare, its effects are only hypothetical. The question isn't "is it or isn't it a deterrent" The question is, can it be a deterrent?

Who knows?

I think it could be, if it were a real enough possibility as the result of being convicted of murder.

gdoane

October 21st, 2009, 3:55 am

First, grand juries rule on probable cause and not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; second, grand juries do not hear misdmeanor cases. They only hear most federal cases and about 1/10th of 1% of criminal cases.

Death penalty cases aren't misdemeanors but among the most serious of felonies.

snipped

This is actually a very simple matter. Just like fingerprints, DNA is tool. Common scenario. One man rapes woman and leaves semen on her and on her clothing. Now, of course, lawyers might raise issues such as consent but let's assume we are past that. That semen belongs to a person. That semen contains DNA with specific characteristics. If the victim identifies a person in a line up and that person's DNA bands do not match those found at the crime scene, then that person is conclusively innocent.

Not finding DNA means exactly that... DNA was not found. It in no way, shape, manner or form proves innocence. All it means is that the villain didn't leave DNA where the prosecution found it, or that the lab made an error. Scientists make mistakes all the time. That's why DNA should never be trusted. Scientists are a bunch of liberal quacks who never get anything right.

She merely picked out someone who LOOKED like the person who raped her.

Someone whom the cops arrested, most likely because the creep has wants and warrants and prior convictions. It takes a LOT to get arrested and wind up in a lineup. It's not going to happen to a completely innocent guy who's never been in trouble before.

Speaking of that I cannot think of how many times I have said "hello" to someone, mistakingly thinking I knew the person. Of course the example I gave you is where DNA almost immediately exonerates a person. But what if the crime happened 40 years ago when DNA science did not exist. What wouldhappen to THAT person when the victim pointed him out in court and said, "That's him, I recognize his eyes, I will never forget his face, he raped me (sobbing)." That person was very likely to be convicted, many innocent people were and many of them died in prison (one way or the other). As for DNA proving guilty, again it is but a tool to allow an expert to say it is highly probable that the sample from the crime scene is a statistical match to the suspect.

The expert is not a better witness than the actual witness. The expert doesn't even know one single fact about the crime and has no business in the trial proceedings. All the lab monkey knows is that he was given a smidge of "evidence" to test and what his test outcome was. Nothing more. Nothing is disproven by that.

But the reality is the death penalty does not reduce crime. In states without the death penalty the murder rate is typically lower than in states that DO have the death penalty. The same in countries that have outlawed the death penalty.

The death penalty reduces crime from those who are executed. Seen Timothy McVeigh blowing up any Federal Courthouses lately? Nope, and the little bastard is never gonna blow up any courthouses ever again.

The death penalty works on a case by case basis. It does reduce crime from the criminal it's applied to.

JediMindTrick

October 21st, 2009, 6:52 am

When you consider how infrequently the death penalty is administered, your statement becomes meaningless.

Especially in light of the following.

The murder rate in florida, texas, and delaware, all death penalty states, are typically lower than murder rates in michigan.

There are quite a few non death penalty states with typically higher murder rates than delaware.

To give an idea of how infrequently the death penalty is administered, it's as if 1 person in each death penalty state was executed every year for 33 years, with a few states executing a second person during the last year. (I worked out the numbers somehwere else... I forget if it was in this thread or another.)

Because its application is so rare, its effects are only hypothetical. The question isn't "is it or isn't it a deterrent" The question is, can it be a deterrent?

Who knows?

I think it could be, if it were a real enough possibility as the result of being convicted of murder.

The crime rate in Michigan is higher than most places due to the severely depressed economy there. Bad economy = more crime and few if any states have it as bad as Michigan.

How about you compare the crime rates in Texas and Florida, the two most frequent executing states, to the crime rates of non death penalty states. And don't cherry pick one non DP state like Michigan and instead compare them to the non DP states overall.

As to whether the DP can be a deterrent that is an absolute no. Something they teach you in sociology is that for a punishment to be an effective deterrent it must have three things: certainty (includes being caught), celerity (swiftness), and severity. The DP certainly has severity. It does not have celerity though I suppose we could go the China route and execute immediately. But it will never have certainty because no crook ever thinks they are going to be caught. It never even crosses the minds of most murderers that they are going to be caught as they are doing their crime so the potential punishment is irrelevant. And without certainty it will never work as a general deterrent, only a specific one.

Greyclouds

October 21st, 2009, 8:43 am

<snip>

Not finding DNA means exactly that... DNA was not found. It in no way, shape, manner or form proves innocence. All it means is that the villain didn't leave DNA where the prosecution found it, or that the lab made an error. Scientists make mistakes all the time. That's why DNA should never be trusted. Scientists are a bunch of liberal quacks who never get anything right.

<snip>

:)) :)) :)) :))

... now can we please have a serious discussion? That was a funny joke, but please...

gdoane

October 21st, 2009, 9:13 am

The crime rate in Michigan is higher than most places due to the severely depressed economy there. Bad economy = more crime and few if any states have it as bad as Michigan.

I don't buy that. There are a lot of nations with worse economies than the USA and lower crime rates than we have here. Poverty is not a causative factor in crime. Abraham Lincoln grew up dirt poor and was considered one of the most honest men (Honest Abe) in American History.

The reason Michigan has a crime rate that is through the roof is because the illegitimate birth rate in Michigan is through the roof. The illegitimacy rate in Detroit is over 85% today, so bad that the hardest thing there is to sell in Michigan is a Father's Day Card.

THAT is what causes the crime, not poverty. Nine out of ten homes in Michigan are broken homes raising broken bastard children.

How about you compare the crime rates in Texas and Florida, the two most frequent executing states, to the crime rates of non death penalty states. And don't cherry pick one non DP state like Michigan and instead compare them to the non DP states overall.

You're cherry picking yourself, comparing border states with large illegal alien populations to States with nearly no illegal alien populations. Of course Texas and Florida will have larger crime rates. They're major ports of entry for illegal aliens, drug runners and smuggling.

As to whether the DP can be a deterrent that is an absolute no. Something they teach you in sociology is that for a punishment to be an effective deterrent it must have three things: certainty (includes being caught), celerity (swiftness), and severity.

The DP is not a punishment. Punishment is a corrective action meant to be learned from. There's not a lot to be learned from in death. Creeps put to death aren't meant to be learning anything, they're meant to be STOPPED.

Jail is completely ineffective. THOUSANDS of criminals escape from our jails each year because they're so incompetently run. The fantasy that the threat is ended because a bad guy is locked up is just ridiculous. The threat is even more real because the inmate has nothing better to do than to sit and stew 24/7 thinking of ways to escape and he will escape given the time and determination to do so.

The DP prevents that escape. It's a matter of safety. Kill the bastard and he won't escape. It's not a punishment, it's a solution to a serious problem.

The DP certainly has severity. It does not have celerity though I suppose we could go the China route and execute immediately. But it will never have certainty because no crook ever thinks they are going to be caught. It never even crosses the minds of most murderers that they are going to be caught as they are doing their crime so the potential punishment is irrelevant. And without certainty it will never work as a general deterrent, only a specific one.

The deterrent doesn't matter anyway because jail can't hold any prisoner who wants to get out. Graves have a lower escape rate than jails do.

gdoane

October 21st, 2009, 9:16 am

:)) :)) :)) :))

... now can we please have a serious discussion? That was a funny joke, but please...

Global Warming is proof positive that scientists are morons. Oh yeah, and that horrible hole in the Ozone layer that's about to kill us all. Remember when they told us we'd run out of Oil by 1980?

I'm through with listening to scientists. Buncha dumbass liberals if ya ask me.

Greyclouds

October 21st, 2009, 10:43 am

Global Warming is proof positive that scientists are morons. Oh yeah, and that horrible hole in the Ozone layer that's about to kill us all. Remember when they told us we'd run out of Oil by 1980?

I'm through with listening to scientists. Buncha dumbass liberals if ya ask me.

So, climatologists equal all scientists, in your opinion?

You don't take any medication right now, do you?

gdoane

October 21st, 2009, 11:50 am

So, climatologists equal all scientists, in your opinion?

You don't take any medication right now, do you?

I don't believe in medication.

Greyclouds

October 21st, 2009, 12:02 pm

I don't believe in medication.

Alright! A live anti-technologist!

... but wait... how are you talking to me through a computer? I thought science was stupid...?

Going back to our original discussion of DNA evidence, DLaw is correct in stating that it is a tool for determining possibility of involvement. Considering the fact that DNA evidence is always used in conjunction with statistical calculations, I don't see how you can possibly issue a blanket dismissal of it's usefulness without also discarding the entire study of mathematics. You do believe in mathematics, right?

gdoane

October 21st, 2009, 12:26 pm

Alright! A live anti-technologist!

... but wait... how are you talking to me through a computer? I thought science was stupid...?

Computers were made by inventors, not by scientists.

Going back to our original discussion of DNA evidence, DLaw is correct in stating that it is a tool for determining possibility of involvement. Considering the fact that DNA evidence is always used in conjunction with statistical calculations, I don't see how you can possibly issue a blanket dismissal of it's usefulness without also discarding the entire study of mathematics. You do believe in mathematics, right?

I didn't say it wasn't useful. It's very useful in proving guilt. It's absolutely useless in proving innocence. DNA is only good for convictions, never for exonerations.

Greyclouds

October 21st, 2009, 12:40 pm

Computers were made by inventors, not by scientists.

Federico Faggin was a physicist/engineer who co-developed the Intel 4004 microprocessor. Personal computing was developed by scientists because of the discovery of silicon gate technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Faggin

Never trust those scientists...

I didn't say it wasn't useful. It's very useful in proving guilt. It's absolutely useless in proving innocence. DNA is only good for convictions, never for exonerations.

See though, I can find a logical quandary that raises a reasonable doubt about someone's involvement in a crime. For instance? Tissue of a different genotype under the victim's fingernails and blood of the same genotype on the victim's clothing from defensive wounds. Given the presumption of innocence before being proven guilty, DNA evidence that appears to indicate another party places more burden on the prosecution to directly tie a non-detected party to the crime. In that way, yes, DNA supports (but, I agree, doesn't "prove") innocence.

DLaw911

October 21st, 2009, 1:00 pm

Death penalty cases aren't misdemeanors but among the most serious of felonies.That does not mean a grand jury will be involved.

The grand jury process is a very strange beast. As you are aware a person arrested for a felony offense has the right to a probable cause hearing, often called a preliminary hearing. At that public hearing the prosecution has convince a magistrate that there is sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to trial. Motions can be brought at that hearing such as insufficiency of the evidence, search and seizure violations, and others. The defendant can rebut the evidence, cross examine any witnesses who appear to testify and he can, but rarely will, put on a defense.

The grand jury, on the other hand, is a secret proceeding. Defense attorneys and defendants are not present. There is no cross examination of witnesses. Grand jury proceedings are rarely unsealed.

If a defendant is indicted by grand jury he no longer has a right to a preliminary hearing since the grand jury has determined that probable cause exists. Prosecutors use grand juries rather than filing criminal complaints for a variety or reasons. But I believe the two biggest reasons are to (1) speed up the case by taking away the right to a preliminary hearing and (2) shield their witnesses from cross examination until the actual trial.
Not finding DNA means exactly that... DNA was not found. It in no way, shape, manner or form proves innocence. All it means is that the villain didn't leave DNA where the prosecution found it, or that the lab made an error. Scientists make mistakes all the time. That's why DNA should never be trusted. Scientists are a bunch of liberal quacks who never get anything right.I'm not sure what you mean, Gene. If DNA is not found in a place consistent with the crime, then either it is too hard to find or it is not there. In that case DNA evidence does not come into play. Just like you don't always find fingerprints. A person can hold a gun with his bare hands, kill someone and drop the gun and a fingerprint expert might not be able to lift a single print off it it.
Someone whom the cops arrested, most likely because the creep has wants and warrants and prior convictions. It takes a LOT to get arrested and wind up in a lineup. It's not going to happen to a completely innocent guy who's never been in trouble before.Gene it's irrelevant if the person has a record. A person's past record is relevant if he is ultimately prosecuted since his ultimate sentence can be predicated on his past.

But here's how so many people get FALSELY charged with crimes. In other words, for a moment you have to accept the premise I only talking about persons who are falsely accused and who still end up convicted of the charged crime. So I will give you a REAL example, a case I handled 25 years ago. A female cop was working undercover on a high school campus looking for drug dealers. One day while walking to school she was accosted and gagged by 5 males who pulled her into an alley car port and raped her repeatedly for over and hour. None of the males was wearing a mask and the victim clearly saw all their faces. She was then punched in the face and left in the alley tied up.

At the hospital she was shown a "mug" book. She was unable to identify anyone. She was then shown individual photos. Again she was unable to identify anyone. She could only identify the persons as "teenage male blacks", one with dreadlocks." After her recovery she was taken classroom to classroom and she eventually pointed out 3 persons and said they were her attackers. All denied involvement, none had past records, none were known to ever have associated with the others, and none has dreadlocks. The DA had so little confidence in his case that he did not seek to have them tried as adults and kept them in juvenile court where getting convictions is much easier. This was prior to DNA testing (I will get back to that). So we had the uncorroborated testimony of a single eye witness and, based on that, all three were convicted of kidnapping and rape and ADW and sentenced to the California Youth Authority.

But I am not talking about THOSE three defendants. TWO YEARS after the rape she was shown a school graduation yearbook and MY client was pointed out to her. He had dredlocks and she said, "That's him." Cops went to school and arrested him. The following facts were UNDISPUTED at his trial. First, he did not have dreadlocks two years earlier. Many photos were produced including year book photos, and his hair was always a short afro. The rape occurred before first period. But the semester of the rape he did not have a first period class. He voluntarily took a polygraph and passed. But the most compelling evidence was from his little sister. The reason he did not have a first period class was that it was his job to safely walk her to elementary school every school day before he went to his school. He was an honor student at his school and had been accepted into a major university.

Of course none of that mattered to the DA because the cop said "he's the one" and that was good enough for the DA's office. At the trial he was convicted of all counts and sentenced to the California Youth Authority.

By the way the California Youth Authority is a part of the CA State Prison system. When persons there turn 25 they are often times then transferred to state prison (especially if they have long or life sentences).

So all of that happened in the 1980's. Now fast forward 20 years. Of the four persons convicted and sent to prison one was murdered in prison. My client wanted to have his DNA compared with the evidence but the court denied the motion stating he has served his sentence and "there was nothing left to remedy." he can never get his reputation back and, in his case, a truly innocent person had his life ruined by a ruthless DA and a misidentification.
The death penalty reduces crime from those who are executed. Seen Timothy McVeigh blowing up any Federal Courthouses lately? Nope, and the little bastard is never gonna blow up any courthouses ever again.Have you seen Terry Nichols blowing up Federal Buildings lately?
The death penalty works on a case by case basis. It does reduce crime from the criminal it's applied to.But you have to assume that, given a chance, the person would kill again. Did you know that many people got convicted of capital murder based on crimes of passion in which the jury felt that murder was more appropriate than manslaughter. Such was the case with former Deputy DA (and Manson assistant prosecutor) Jack Kirschke who discovered his wife with a lover and shot them both to death. Rather than pursue a manslaughter defense, Jack denied it. He was convicted and even dared the jury to give him the death penalty. In the end he received a life sentence, served about 8-9 years and was released. He became a writer and an actor and still lives in the LA area.

I agree though. Some people WILL kill again if given the chance. And I would hope those people never walk out of prison.

Poisonshady313

October 21st, 2009, 6:11 pm

How about you compare the crime rates in Texas and Florida, the two most frequent executing states, to the crime rates of non death penalty states. And don't cherry pick one non DP state like Michigan and instead compare them to the non DP states overall.

Check this out.

In the past 33 years, Louisiana has executed 6% the number of people executed by Texas... yet Louisiana consistently has the highest murder rate in the country.

That's odd. If the "states without the DP have lower murder rates" claim is to be taken seriously at all, wouldn't it stand to reason that states that use the death penalty less frequently would have lower murder rates as well?

Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, New Hampshire.... all death penalty states.. have lower death rates than all non-death penalty states, with the exception of North Dakota.

South Dakota... 1 execution in 33 years. That's one more than most non-death penalty states... and South Dakota typically has a lower murder rate than all non-death penalty states, except North Dakota.

Check this out... in 2007, Texas had 26 out of 42 executions in this country. 62%

Yet in 2008, there were 19 states with higher murder rates than Texas.

Let's see how many of them executed people in 2007, and how their murder rate ranked in the nation the following year.

Louisiana executed NOBODY. Highest murder rate in the nation.
Maryland executed NOBODY. 2nd highest murder rate in the nation.
Mississippi executed NOBODY. 3rd highest murder rate in the nation.
Missouri executed NOBODY. 4th highest murder rate in the nation.
Alabama executed 3 people. 5th highest murder rate in the nation.
New Mexico executed NOBODY. 6th highest murder rate in the nation.
South Carolina executed 1 person. 7th highest murder rate in the nation.
Tennessee executed 2 people. 8th highest murder rate in the nation.
Georgia executed 1 person. 9th highest murder rate in the nation.
Delaware executed NOBODY. 10th highest murder rate in the nation.

By the way, typically, Delaware has a lower murder rate than almost half the non-death penalty states, including (but not limited to) Michigan, New York, Alaska, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Delaware has executed 14 people in the past 33 years. Tennessee has executed 5 people in the past 33 years, yet consistently has higher murder rates than Delaware.

Back to the list.

North Carolina executed NOBODY. 11th highest murder rate in the nation.
Florida executed NOBODY. 12th highest murder rate in the nation.
Nevada executed NOBODY. 13th highest murder rate in the nation.
Arizona executed 1 person. 14th highest murder rate in the nation.
Illinois executed NOBODY. 15th highest murder rate in the nation.
California executed NOBODY. 16th highest murder rate in the nation.

in 33 years, California has executed 1 less person than Delaware, yet consistently has a significantly higher murder rate than Delaware.

Oklahoma executed 3 people. 17th highest murder rate in the nation.
Arkansas executed NOBODY. 18th highest murder rate in the nation.
Pennsylvania executed NOBODY. 19th highest murder rate in the nation.

PA has executed 3 people since 1976, yet very consistently has numbers very close to Texas, which has executed 441 people since 1976.... which brings us to...

Texas executed 26 people. 20th highest murder rate in the nation.

South Dakota executed its one and only since 1976 in 2007. 2008, the murder rate was lower than that of Michigan, New York, Alaska, New Jersey, West Virginia. (All non death penalty states)

It's painfully clear that the notion that "non death penalty states have lower murder rates than death penalty states" has absolutely nothing to do with the application of the death penalty, and is therefore entirely meaningless.

Poisonshady313

October 21st, 2009, 6:27 pm

Virginia... 2nd state most likely to execute people (103 since 1976)... consistently has lower murder rates than Michigan and Alaska.

2007 VA executed NOBODY. 23rd highest murder rate in the nation.
Ohio executed 2 people. 24th highest murder rate in the nation.

Since 1976, Ohio has executed less than 1/3 the number of those executed by Virginia in the same amount of time.

Murder rate in NY is often greater than that in Ohio.

JediMindTrick

October 21st, 2009, 8:28 pm

Check this out.

In the past 33 years, Louisiana has executed 6% the number of people executed by Texas... yet Louisiana consistently has the highest murder rate in the country.

That's odd. If the "states without the DP have lower murder rates" claim is to be taken seriously at all, wouldn't it stand to reason that states that use the death penalty less frequently would have lower murder rates as well?

Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, New Hampshire.... all death penalty states.. have lower death rates than all non-death penalty states, with the exception of North Dakota.

South Dakota... 1 execution in 33 years. That's one more than most non-death penalty states... and South Dakota typically has a lower murder rate than all non-death penalty states, except North Dakota.

Check this out... in 2007, Texas had 26 out of 42 executions in this country. 62%

Yet in 2008, there were 19 states with higher murder rates than Texas.

Let's see how many of them executed people in 2007, and how their murder rate ranked in the nation the following year.

Louisiana executed NOBODY. Highest murder rate in the nation.
Maryland executed NOBODY. 2nd highest murder rate in the nation.
Mississippi executed NOBODY. 3rd highest murder rate in the nation.
Missouri executed NOBODY. 4th highest murder rate in the nation.
Alabama executed 3 people. 5th highest murder rate in the nation.
New Mexico executed NOBODY. 6th highest murder rate in the nation.
South Carolina executed 1 person. 7th highest murder rate in the nation.
Tennessee executed 2 people. 8th highest murder rate in the nation.
Georgia executed 1 person. 9th highest murder rate in the nation.
Delaware executed NOBODY. 10th highest murder rate in the nation.

By the way, typically, Delaware has a lower murder rate than almost half the non-death penalty states, including (but not limited to) Michigan, New York, Alaska, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Delaware has executed 14 people in the past 33 years. Tennessee has executed 5 people in the past 33 years, yet consistently has higher murder rates than Delaware.

Back to the list.

North Carolina executed NOBODY. 11th highest murder rate in the nation.
Florida executed NOBODY. 12th highest murder rate in the nation.
Nevada executed NOBODY. 13th highest murder rate in the nation.
Arizona executed 1 person. 14th highest murder rate in the nation.
Illinois executed NOBODY. 15th highest murder rate in the nation.
California executed NOBODY. 16th highest murder rate in the nation.

in 33 years, California has executed 1 less person than Delaware, yet consistently has a significantly higher murder rate than Delaware.

Oklahoma executed 3 people. 17th highest murder rate in the nation.
Arkansas executed NOBODY. 18th highest murder rate in the nation.
Pennsylvania executed NOBODY. 19th highest murder rate in the nation.

PA has executed 3 people since 1976, yet very consistently has numbers very close to Texas, which has executed 441 people since 1976.... which brings us to...

Texas executed 26 people. 20th highest murder rate in the nation.

South Dakota executed its one and only since 1976 in 2007. 2008, the murder rate was lower than that of Michigan, New York, Alaska, New Jersey, West Virginia. (All non death penalty states)

It's painfully clear that the notion that "non death penalty states have lower murder rates than death penalty states" has absolutely nothing to do with the application of the death penalty, and is therefore entirely meaningless.

:))

The sad thing is that I think your serious with this post.

Get back to me when you study up a little bit about population density, big cities, and crime rates within those cities. Then you might understand why states like Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming have low murder rates. In case you don't let me make it simple: high population density = more crime = more murder. I live in Idaho, our biggest city is Boise and it only has around 200,000 people. Our next biggest city only has about 70,000. Our whole state only has about 1.5 million people, despite the fact we are the 13th largest state, and thats less than numerous cities across the land.

Whats sad is that you keep trying to isolate one little factor, the DP, and correlate it to crime rates. The DP, if it has any effect, is negligble on crime rates (and murder rates) as they are all about poverty, broken homes, urban decay, gangs, and such.

If you want to stick to the DP though lets go across 12 years so we can see trends instead of one year since any given year could be an abberation. (For instance my state of Idaho's murder rate dropped 100% from 2007 to 2008 but as an overall trend you'll see that one number was a bit higher than the norm and the other a bit lower).

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2008
(state by state comparison from 1996-2008 is midway down the page)

What you'll notice is that the non DP states tend overall to have lower murder rates than the DP states. Its not true in all cases like Idaho but as I said, Idaho isn't normal because of how rural we are. The trends you can see for the most part which are the really the only ones you should take any truth from without a lot of other date are that the southeast tends to have the highest murder rates while the rural northern and western states have the lowest. Seven of the bottom ten states in murder rate are also in the bottom ten population wise - go figure.

Poisonshady313

October 21st, 2009, 8:37 pm

:))

The sad thing is that I think your serious with this post.

Get back to me when you study up a little bit about population density, big cities, and crime rates within those cities. Then you might understand why states like Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming have low murder rates. In case you don't let me make it simple: high population density = more crime = more murder. I live in Idaho, our biggest city is Boise and it only has around 200,000 people. Our next biggest city only has about 70,000. Our whole state only has about 1.5 million people, despite the fact we are the 13th largest state, and thats less than numerous cities across the land.

Whats sad is that you keep trying to isolate one little factor, the DP, and correlate it to crime rates. The DP, if it has any effect, is negligble on crime rates (and murder rates) as they are all about poverty, broken homes, urban decay, gangs, and such.

Dlaw is the one that said: In states without the death penalty the murder rate is typically lower than in states that DO have the death penalty.

Not me.

If anything, I'm making the same point you are. The fact that you can't recognize that... and more, you laugh at me for it... that's what's sad.

Poisonshady313

October 21st, 2009, 8:50 pm

It's painfully clear that the notion that "non death penalty states have lower murder rates than death penalty states" has absolutely nothing to do with the application of the death penalty, and is therefore entirely meaningless.

Since you have a hard time understanding me, let me see if I can spell it out for you.

The statement commonly made by those who argue that "the death penalty isn't a deterrent" is this:

"In states without the death penalty the murder rate is typically lower than in states that DO have the death penalty."

This statement is supposed to make someone believe that the death penalty is the factor that accounts for higher murder rates.

My post was designed to show that this is absurd... that if what that statement says is true, then the numbers put forth couldn't and shouldn't be.

I'm showing you that it's a bit more complicated than just saying "death penalty states have more murder".

You said "Whats sad is that you keep trying to isolate one little factor, the DP, and correlate it to crime rates."

I'm trying to show how isolating one little factor DOESN'T correlate to crimes.

camarozz

October 21st, 2009, 10:02 pm

Poisonshady313

October 22nd, 2009, 2:50 pm

Just like anything that has to do with statistics, the numbers can explain just about anything for anything.

But I do know that I think there is more to the "the dp is not a deterrent" than people may realize.

I think it is a deterrent to some degree, but may not hold the same meaning with the way things are today. If they actually followed through with the DP then that probably would be a deterrent to some. Then there are those that it would not matter, mostly I believe those do need to die.

Couple of things to consider.

There is no effective way to measure how many crimes weren't committed by people because they fear the possibility of being put to death.

Especially because, as you pointed out, there are some for those it would not matter.

Those for which it would matter... it's impossible to say who they are, how many of them there are, and how many crimes they didn't commit because they feared the consequences.

Also... being on death row doesn't even guarantee execution, much less being arrested for murder. So people in general have less of a reason to believe that murder will result in capital punishment.

I say that a system that executes inmates more frequently could have a significant effect on murder rates. And since there's no logical reason whatsoever to propose that the death penalty might increase murder rates, that can only mean that there could very well be a deterrent effect.

And even if there was no such effect, at least murderers would get what they have coming to them.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

camarozz

October 22nd, 2009, 3:41 pm

Couple of things to consider.

There is no effective way to measure how many crimes weren't committed by people because they fear the possibility of being put to death.

Especially because, as you pointed out, there are some for those it would not matter.

Those for which it would matter... it's impossible to say who they are, how many of them there are, and how many crimes they didn't commit because they feared the consequences.

Also... being on death row doesn't even guarantee execution, much less being arrested for murder. So people in general have less of a reason to believe that murder will result in capital punishment.

I say that a system that executes inmates more frequently could have a significant effect on murder rates. And since there's no logical reason whatsoever to propose that the death penalty might increase murder rates, that can only mean that there could very well be a deterrent effect.

And even if there was no such effect, at least murderers would get what they have coming to them.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

We are completely on the same wavelength...