kerpal32

You mentioned earlier comments about jury trials, hence:

the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person. Remember, a jury of 12 members must unanimously decide there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set free.

Juries just "do what they're told" more often than you think... I have some faith in my common man, but not that much. Additionally, the appellate courts make mistakes all the time (Dred Scott, Slaughterhouse, Lochner, etc).

But even despite executions are not unconstitutional. Frustrating for some people, but the truth nonetheless.

JungleBoogie:



It just rather ironic to me that the method of punishment is identical to the crime when you strip away the details" death.

Every mechanism of your argument makes sense, except the "why."

There is no sense to this act. If we believe that ending another person's life is wrong, then why do we kill the killer to give us that satisfaction?

I rephrase the question again, but I don't think you should answer it. I think you need to consider again the paradox of the situation.

And exchanging the killer's life for the victim is not a "proportional cost." It is--an eye for an eye mentality.

I'm sorry, but no one is going to convince me that the Death Penalty is civilized.

It's another example of Man's need to cling to a necessary evil in order to compensate for his imperfections.

And having recognized that, it's time to move on. Let's end this smug self-satisfying barbarous act, remove it altogether from our society, and actually rethink the whole rehabilitation system and its philosophies.

Whoops, I'm typing too quickly.

Last line should be: But even despite the imperfection of men, executions are not unconstitutional.

Its juat a shame we dont eat the corpse. Perfectly good meat going to waste.

I don't see anyone protecting me when the dentist had a pair of pliers that I could find in any toolbox wrapped around a permenent tooth with her foot on my chair and pulling with all her might.

While it might be unconsitutional, they do kind of deserve it. Well, good luck to future death row inmates. You just might have a different burning sensation elsewhere now.

great. now guys convicted of murder will have one more reason to not turn themselves in peacefully, rather go out in a blaze of glory. terrorists on foreign soil will also rather keep fighting if they know the real consequences.

2005-04-16 12:33:57 AM linewalker

Indeed - Appellate courts reverse decisions. Your examples are interesting though.

Let me ask you how much has the legal system, rights of the defendent(s), appeals system, and scientific evidence (e.g DNA Analysis) progressed since the era of your examples (app pre-Miranda by the way)


But again - you're examples are interesting

Dred Scott - 1857
Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his owner, Sanford, into northern federal territory. Scott felt that he was free because of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which excluded slavery from specified portions of United States territories. When he came back to Missouri, Scott sued his owner for his freedom.

Slaughterhouse Cases - 1873
New Orleans butchers charged that the state of Louisiana had violated their Fourteenth Amendment Rights by granting one company the exclusive rights to operate a slaughterhouse in New Orleans. The butchers alleged that the state-granted monopoly to one company deprived them of their right to earn a living, a right among those privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment

Lochner v. New York - 1905
New York law set limits on how many hours bakery employees could work. Lochner was convicted and fined fifty dollars for permitting an employee to work more than the lawful number hours in one week. On appeal, Lochner claimed that the New York law infringed on his right to make employer/employee contracts.

Please feel free to draw some parallels between these decisions and some capital crimes cases.

For starters, I'm a liberal in many ways, but I'm to the right of Genghis Khan regarding violent crime. If there were (and that's a very big 'if') a truly perfect and infallible way to determine guilt, I'd be 100% in favor of the death penalty. Hell, in cases of truly horrific crimes, I'd even support hooking the subhuman shiatbags up to a life-support system and torturing them until their bodies disintegrated. However, in the real world, things are tragically imperfect, which is why I'm on the fence regarding the DP--life without parole is probably worse than any lethal injection.

However, there's a much bigger issue at stake. Is there real justice in the universe? No matter how hard we try to make our human institutions infallible, there will never be perfect earthly justice.

People have gotten away with murder throughout history and will continue to do so until the end of time. I'm sure there's been a lot of serial killers, dictators, etc., who have caused immense amounts of human misery--and died peacefully in bed of old age. I personally knew an asshole scumbag who brutally killed a ten-year-old girl, but avoided conviction because the body wasn't found, just her bloody clothes in his locker. I would gladly pay a lot of money to be able to push his face into a vat of boiling grease.

I did a quick search of this forum, and the word 'damnation' didn't come up even once, which was very surprising. Seems to me that if you really believed in the existence of Hell or in karmic retribution, then you'd have peace of mind knowing that there will be absolute justice in the end. I'd imagine that even a minute in the Christian Hell would cause more torment than any human punishment could do, so the death penalty would be a non-issue.

On the other hand, if there isn't any 'built-in' justice, then no amount of brutality or vigilantism will ever punish everybody who deserves it. You'll just have to accept that the Universe is intrinsically unfair. When I hear one of my Christian friends get worked up about punishing a criminal on death row, I truly wonder if he or she believes in a Judgment Day.

Worse yet, is the belief among some Christians that salvation has nothing to do with whether you did good or evil and everything to do with accepting Jesus as one's personal savior (e.g. The Gospel According to Jack Chick). In other words, if Josef Stalin, after a lifetime of murdering and torturing tens of millions, accepted Jesus on his deathbed, he's in Heaven right now without spending even a single minute's suffering in Purgatory. On the other hand, if his victims died without being born again, they're burning in Hell no matter how decent and compassionate they were in life. It's a very horrible doctrine, and one reason why I turned from evangelical Christianity to agnosticism.

As an agnostic, I really don't know. I chose to believe that scumbags will suffer for their evil, one way or another, but that's just wishful thinking. It would help if, from time to time, murderers and child molesters were horribly disfigured in freak accidents. Anyhoo, time to spark one up, and try to get this negative topic out of my head...

kerpal32
Let me ask you how much has the legal system, rights of the defendant(s), appeals system, and scientific evidence (e.g DNA Analysis) progressed since the era of your examples (app pre-Miranda by the way)...

Please feel free to draw some parallels between these decisions and some capital crimes cases.

Wrong comparison. I named these cases to highlight the unfortunate fact that even our best legal minds made what's eventually found out to be the wrong choice (coincidently, Justice Holmes dissented in Slaughterhouse and Lochner as well as other cases that have been overturned, but it I'm going to guess you're aware of this already).

Although modern jurisprudence (especially substantive due process) has helped balance the severe imbalance of power between the state and the individual, part of your argument supporting the idea of execution appeared to be based in a deep faith in our judges and juries eventually making the right choice. My point (again) was to point out that mistakes regarding law have been made in the past and will happen in the future, even in the Supreme Court. If you want to support the death penalty, you're best argument is the constitutionality, not the ultimate infallibility of the courts.

2005-04-16 01:07:31 AM JungleBoogie

Thank you. With that....Good night.

One last comment to those posting. I have seen evil. Search above for phase "vice grips". I'm not sure about most of the posters here. Food for thought.

I believe in justice and swift punishment for those willing to transgress beyond the boundries of civilized society. This includes capital punishment for those who have no regard for the life / lives of others.

It is not from any desire for bloodlust, vengence, hatred, etc., no matter what those of you holding the opposite position may be inclined to believe.

The Larch :I think we should run murderers through giant plastic shredders, feet first.

nah...

Giant belt sanders. stand them up, turn it on, watch them gradualy get smaller.

or make it sporting...pick from 6 revolvers, 35 live bullets. 5 wins in a row and you go free!

Homer'sEnemy, it astounds me that you would allow your wife/children to be murdered because the murderer's "life is sacred"...I know you have popped off for the evening after a nice evening of debate, but perhaps when you get back you can cite your personal reasons for this pov ? survival and protection of our loved ones is the most basic of instincts. to know that you are passing on genes that are devoid of this most important quality is frightening. to what higher reasoning do you attribute these beliefs ? I am not familiar with any religion that espouses this pov, except maybe the janes.

to those quoting the bible without doing any basic research, I have saved you some time:
thou shalt not be obtuse

For those who are afraid of putting to death someone who is innocent of murder - the smoking gun should come into effect.


If there is absolutely no doubt then there is no need of an extensive trial and if the type of murder has been legislated as one to which the death penalty is mandated, the give them the needle.

vegasj: A bullet to the temple should take care of that problem

I dont think I have to read any other comment in this thread.I will tommorow.
As long as the person is truly guilty, and not screwed into copping a plea or a raiload job, he hit the nail on the head.
Of course, I am not exactly in favour of capitol punishment.

It's really hard to choose the stupidest post in this one, but I think it might be:

RockIsDead

The mob seems to think that it works as a deterrent.

Congratulations! You've won dual citizenship in the African nation of your choice!

The state murders in a gruesome and heinous fashion all the time. It's called "war".

Unless you absolutely and unequivocably oppose the U.S. government going to war under any circumstances, you're nothing but a hypocrit if you selectively choose the death penalty as an instance when the state shouldn't kill. Either you believe government murder is wrong, or you don't - you can't have it both ways.

At least with the death penalty the greatest number of innocents you'll be executing in any individual case is exactly one. In war, no matter how good the technology civilian casualties are almost always higher than military ones; and even when they aren't the number of innocents killed is always higher than one.

Max

To the best of my knowledge, most prisons are pretty shiatty. Like that show Oz. I mean all those bad actors and shiat getting all up in your grill? Nobody wants that.

Does incarceration make us kidnappers? We're depriving someone of their freedom against their will, just like a kidnapper

We are not talking about incarceration. I will not accept this comparison. If you kill, you are a killer. You do not take someone's life when you put someone in jail.

Of course, execution is not like murder. The murderer did not give his victim due process and appeals among other things.

And if the murderer did, would that make it legitimate?

Simply put, our disagreement is the method. I say it is both arrogant and hypocritical to kill killers. You are actually committing the same act.

Killing someone is not always wrong

Again, we are talking about a specific example. My argument is not against killing. It is the absurdity of the punishment.

And, you sound like you buy into it without any second thought.

Allowing murderers to spend a few years in jail is what I call barbarous and the mark of a society that has slipped into decay.

I feel the same way about capital punishment--ugly, disgraceful and neatly packaged to sell with words like "duty" and "closure."

You can disagree all you like, but at the very heart of it condoning a death penalty makes you really no better than the criminal.

I'd like to see you honestly try to refute that without skipping around and borrowing from other situations like the military or the prison system.

Or admit that you accept it as a necessary evil, and not a just means at all.

iollow:

True, but keep in mind that we value the freedom to speak out against our government much more than they do in China/Iran, so it seems a HUGE injustice to be considered a criminal for doing so. I don't know how such things are perceived by individuals of those societies.

I don't think you could be more wrong. If they are punished by death for speaking out, and yet still do it, how could anyone value the freedom to speak out more? They are willing to die for it. Are you? How many things would you die for?

If you remember Tiananmen Square, 1989, do you think you value your freedom as much as the guy who, on foot, stared down a tank?

Re: Saudi Arabia

Its easy to have a low murder rate when killing your adulterous wife is not considered murder... or did they change that law? Either way, somehow this doesn't seem to be the nation to model politics after.

To the best of my knowledge, most prisons are pretty shiatty. Like that show Oz.

If prison life was really anything like Oz, I'd be jacking cars in the FBI parking lot.

Don't take the article too seriously Motluk is not real good on checking her facts.

From an article on James Watson by Alison Motluk

Sadly, throughout much of the book, most of the women he (Watson) covets go out of their way to avoid him. Some of his only successes involve bribery: "Both Leslie Orgel and Jane Rich opted at the last minute to join me, tempted by my offer to pay for the gas that would transport them."

Uh no. Leslie Orgel is a man.

NonComposMentis:

FWIW I don't think either set of stats makes any distiction in that regard. AFAIK they also include Firearms Homicides by LE.

Late reply, but deaths by UK Police shootings are very rare. A bad year would see one.

gravespinner: If there is absolutely no doubt then there is no need of an extensive trial

Whoops, there goes the 6th Amendment.

Would you be so carefree about abusing the 5th, or 2nd, or 1st?

Apologies if this has already been suggested (I didn't read the entire thread):

Since starvation leads to a painless and peaceful death (we are led to believe), the humane method of execution would be to simply stop feeding and watering the bastards.

Then again, if you can support the death penalty then who are you to care?

/rhetoric

Axolotl:

Question for you pro-death penalty farkers: What error rate do you think is acceptable to keep the death penalty?

The error rate should be below the execution rate. The execution rate for murderers is currently about .1%.

TSD: Why should I have to contribute to keeping these people in prison

You are aware it costs more to execute someone? Or are you more intetested in revenge than justice?

/I suspect the latter.

Sloth_DC: The error rate should be below the execution rate.

Strange, you are willing to accept that some innocent people will die, where most countries in the world take the viewpoint that even this small percentage is too high.

TSD:

Another question. Think hard and be honest. If you killed someone in a fit of rage or as part of a plan, what do you think your punishment should be

LIFE INPRISONMENT.

If Saudi is the model you're trying to get to, that's rather sad.

I've lived in Saudi, they'll throw you in jail for anything, cut off your hands for stealing, have public executions...

When they blew up some compounds a couple of years ago, people were arrested the next day and executed the day after. Is that really the system you admire?

endo55: they'll throw you in jail for anything

I lived in Kuwait for a few years during the 80's. Our company beach was about 8 Km from the Saudi border and one day we decided to drive down to another companies beach nearer the border. We actually crossed over it and were stopped by the Saudi police.

For most westerners, your only comparison would be 1930's Germany. These guys do not care.

We were lucky to get away with a very strong telling off, my dad worked for the Kuwaiti state shipping company he had some clout, but you do not want to pissed these people off.

So to echo endo55's post. Try modeling American justice on a country which isn't barbaric, then we can talk about how civilised you are as a nation when it comes to penal issues.

/Hur, he said penal.....

You can't compare murder rates in a third world dictatorship to first world democracies.

Murder rate in Saddam's Iraq was probably very low as well, but anyone bad got tortured, their family killed etc.

I hope that a low murder rate is not the ultimate goal of our civilization. I hope that other factors are used to measure the success of a population. If you want low murder rates, there are utopias that can achieve that. Judge Dredd, Gattaca, etc. Just tie up judiciary, enforcement, government, law making into one entity and ban most liberties.

You want low murder rates in the US? Give every gun wielding maniac a license to kill anyone committing a crime. Hell you might even reduce theft incidences.

I hope humanity still exists. I have no pleasure in seeing another person suffering.

Aren't most people on death row black and/or poor?

This might seem crazy, but how about spending all that appeal money on providing people with an education so they don't have to resort to violence to achieve their perceived goals. That might also somehow help them out of poverty as well.

Hell, why bother with that, lets just send all them black folk back to Africa, then the US wouldn't need the death penalty to deter crimes because all them criminals would be in another country. And anyone else who's leftover, we can burn on the stake then feed to our chickens, therefore taking pleasure into turning those criminals into our poo.

The point of the last sarcastic paragraph is that there are lots of ways to deter crime, but hopefully after a few thousand years of civilization we can figure out that there are ways that are better than others.

Half Man Half Biscuit:

So to echo endo55's post. Try modeling American justice on a country which isn't barbaric, then we can talk about how civilised you are as a nation when it comes to penal issues.

What's really funny is trying to follow the context of this discussion. Notice, the question of deterrant comes up first from the *opponents* of DP, who point out that the US has a higher murder rate than Western Europe. The rebuttal is that it's not a good comparison on which to invalidate the deterrance value DP, because the US does not have an *effective*, *fair*, or *uniform* DP. As soon as this is pointed out, everyone who stated the bad comparison in the first place piles onto the person pointing out their bad comparison, and angrily mutters that he is trying to model his society on a backward shiathole. Errrm, there's a short-circuit in that logic somewhere.

I also notice that the reference to Singapore has been conveniently ignored, as it's much more fun to ridicule the Saudis. Let's talk about Singapore for a moment - lovely country, very civilized, very modern, great place to visit. But you'd be less likely to commit murder or deal in drugs there, knowing that you'd *automatically* be put to death, wouldn't you?

"Eye for an eye" is commonly misinterpreted...

It's not "if someone does you wrong, do the exact same wrong to them."

It's, "if you're going to punish someone for something, don't do something worse than they did." Like, if you poke my eye out, I don't have you drawn and quartered -- at most, I poke your eye out. No death penalty for stealing your wallet.

Not that it really makes a huge difference on murder cases... just a thought.

Aren't most people on death row black and/or poor?

Most people on death row have murdered more than one person.

"In Texas, we have the Death Penalty and we UUUUUUUUUUUSE IIIIIIIIIT"
~Ron White

/Doesn't care about death row criminals feeling "pain"

Sloth_DC

About the logical flow, I think that the opponents pick up on the deterrrent aspect because that is what they believe to be what drives the DP in the supporter's point of view.

I can see a couple of reasons supporting the DP: revenge, deterrent, prevent criminal from committing crime again.

What the opponents do not "see" is the revenge. And whatever people say, I believe there is a moral highground for people who do not seek revenge.

Preventing criminal from committing crime again can by achieved by life in prison.

So that leaves the deterrent, what the opponents see as the only rationale to the DP, which is why they will focus on it on an attempt to understand the supporters.

About Singapore, again you are sacrificing human rights/liberties for a more authoritarian system. You can get whipped in Singapore, get beaten for cheating on spouse, severe punishment for spitting/throwing chewing gum.

That was my point a couple of posts ago, you can deter crime, but it always comes at a certain cost.

And because the deterrent becomes the fighting ground, the supporters try and use other models to support their claims, which always ends up comparing the system to some shiathole.

That's because I believe there are no statistics proving that the DP is a deterrent when used in a democratic way. Look at figures in the US before and after, figures in the UK before and after, figures in France before and after. etc.


Therefore the only reason for supporting the DP becomes revenge as most posts here point out. We must kill x because he/she did y. Most recently outlined by JuggleGeek.

But again, I am not a vindictive person and do not have this thirst for revenge.

So even if we forget about most of the arguments and think about what could be done with that money lost on appeals. It could go towards education, putting more police officers on the street, helping poorer communities, etc. Which I believe would be a much bigger deterrent to crime than killing another person. But again, the obstacle to implementing such a system is the desire for revenge.

Let's go back to the guilitine. It only hurts in a circle with a diamater of about six inches...

/screw their pain
//are they still using alcohol wipes on these guys?

How is death a better punishmen than spending the rest of your life in rape u in the awss prisson?

You know, maybe the problem with our method of capital punishment is that we're trying to preserve the body instead of ending the consciousness of the condemned as quickly as possible.
To that end, I suggest a 20 ton sheet metal press. This can be activated hydraulically or steam powered and the plates can be made to move at greater than 80 miles per hour with a plate pressure of over 20 tons.
If you were to place the entire head of the victim into a guillotine which was designed to to cut off the head, but to obliterate it, this would be likely to produce extremely little pain that the condemned would be conscious of.
For the squeamish, we're talking about ending a life here. There is no reason for the State to satisfy your desire for it to be a bloodless exercise. This bloodlessness makes it far too easy for the State and its citizens to dole out death as a punishment.
If death is public, horrific, and painless at the same time, we can prevent needless suffering by the condemned, while at the same time preserving the respect for life in the populace. This should not be carried out for entertainment, but should instead be covered as a standard news event.
If capital punishment "seems" nonviolent and is carried out behind closed doors, it becomes FAR too easy and convenient.
That is why I support the use of my invention, the mash guillotine. It would be kinda like a cross between Marie Antoinette and Gallagher.

Threads like this one make me pine for the days before the internet. When the illusion was that most people weren't bloodthirsty citizens who would still enjoy the spectacle of a public and preferably gory execution for it's entertainment value.

Technology advances, but other than the ability to use our new toys, humankind is basically stuck in the middle ages.

Gibby: grunt grunt, snarl grunt!