Thread: Purgatory: Capital Punishment debate Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001019
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Where is it legal in the first world countries? Is it a deterrent?

[Thread title edited for Limbo.]

[ 08. February 2006, 19:22: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes? Why do the US do them that favour? Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?

Is it the law of the land in other English-speaking nations, principalities and islands (i.e. Gibraltar)?

-
 
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes?
I'd not heard that before, why do they appeal then?

As for the deterrent, what would qualify as a deterrent? I think it's fairly self explanatory that at least one person is deterred from ever re-offending?

Though those two paragraphs above may be related I grant you.

Love,

Evo1
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
By deterrent, what I of course meant is - is the majority of people considering a capital offense deterred? Apparently treason is no longer a capital crime and is as popular as ever. Many big cities still have high homicide rates, so this is not a deterrent.

[taebos]

[ 16. November 2005, 10:36: Message edited by: Sir Kevin ]
 
Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :
 
This page from Amnesty International might be useful in answering which states retain and which have abolished. The USA has some interesting bedfellows on this issue.

M
 
Posted by Evo1 (# 10249) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Many big cities still have high homicide rates, so this is not a deterrent.

[taebos]
But we could only know that by setting up a parallel universe and seeing what the difference in the rate in that particular city at that particular time would have been.

A deterrent doesn't need to stop someone doing something does it? Just act as one of the cons.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
quote:
A deterrent doesn't need to stop someone doing something does it? Just act as one of the cons.
Well, that, thank God, isn't how the Nuclear Deterrent worked. (If it worked; I always thought arguments about its deterrent value vis-a-vis Global Thermonuclear War were akin to "I've been riding a motorbike for 45 years, and I've never had a fatal accident yet..." )

But I'll concede that a deterrent to murder, for example, might be held to "work" if it could be demonstrated that it reduced the murder rate. Of course, if you hold that state murder is still murder, then you would argue that a death-penalty regime with a 100% successful conviction score would actually double the murder rate. Which is a strong moral argument against the death penalty.

It's always important to ask at what cost these things work.

There is, of course, the argument that murder is such an abhorrent thing that only the forfeiting of a right-to-life meets its just demands. I have found myself wondering whether this leads in the direction of a regime under which murderers might be sentenced to death, but that society concur that it has no right to enact the sentence. Wouldn't that be like saying that the state is not God? Here's Genesis 4:
quote:
[15] Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him.

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Where is it legal in the first world countries?
Why seperate discussion to first world countries? I can see how some people might consider the death penalty appropriate for some crimes, and others would consider it to be inappropriate in all cases. But if that's the case why differentiate between where it's OK and not? If it's wrong, it's wrong. You can justify saying I don't want it here (or, I do want it here), but I'm not going to comment on the choices other nations make. But, you can't say "it's OK in these countries, but not those ones" on the basis simply of whether or not they're "first world".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Deterent is just one aspect of the judicial process - whether the punishment is a large fine, extended incarceration or the death penalty (or, in some countries loss of a limb or other penalty). But, I suspect it's primarily a deterent to getting caught rather than necessarily commiting the crime in the first place. Also, in the case of many murders, the "heat of the moment" factor is probably so high that there's no real thought of "if I do this I'm going to be executed/live the rest of my life behind bars". In such cases deterrence isn't a factor.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Where is it legal in the first world countries?
To my knowledge, the only NATO members who still have the death penalty are Turkey and the United States.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
...Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?

...
I generally think it should be more broadly applied.

And I don't care whether it is a deterrent or not. It is intended as punishment and protection for society. That's good enough for me.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Newman's Own:

quote:
To my knowledge, the only NATO members who still have the death penalty are Turkey and the United States.
Apparently Turkey abolished it in 2004, according to Amnesty. Among the stable and well established democracies the US shares it with Japan, South Korea and India. The Vatican, I was amused to note, abolished it in 1969 which must be a source of comfort to visiting protestant dignitaries. [Biased]
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
And I don't care whether it is a deterrent or not. It is intended as punishment and protection for society. That's good enough for me.

-Digory
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
And I don't care whether it is a deterrent or not. It is intended as punishment and protection for society. That's good enough for me.
-Digory
The primary purpose of the law is to convict. Punishment follows, usually based on the law.

Lifetime prison sentences rarely ever are.

There is a thread in Limbo on capital punishment: Please read.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
From the Amnesty International site:

quote:
As in previous years, the vast majority of executions worldwide were carried out in a tiny handful of countries. In 2004, 97 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Viet Nam and the USA. In China, limited and incomplete records available to Amnesty International at the end of the year indicated that at least 3,400 people were executed, but the true figure was believed to be much higher. In March 2004 a delegate at the National People's Congress said that "nearly 10,000" people are executed per year in China. Iran executed at least 159 people, and Viet Nam at least 64. There were 59 executions in the USA, down from 65 in 2003.
I don't support the death penalty, and I think the US government is quite wrong in its use of it but I think the use of statistics is slightly disingenous. There seems to be no reason to bunch the US with China, Iran and Vietnam - or indeed any of the four together - except to somehow establish guilt by association. 3,400 but possibly 10,000 executions in a year (I bet Tony didn't raise the subject when he met the Chinese President recently) is not really on a par with 59 down from 65. Given that most of the countries that do have the death penalty aren't the sort of places that provide statistics to researchers from Amnesty International, contributing to 97% of the number of reported executions may merely witness to freedom of information and statistical exactitude rather than a draconian legal system.

It's the same sort of smug liberal mindset that led the Guardian to think they could influence the outcome of the US election by having Richard Dawkins and Antonia Fraser write to the electorate of New Hampshire. Given the concerns expressed by Amnesty about human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay (which I share) you think they'd go out of their way to scrupulously avoid the appearance of anti-Americanism.

[ 16. November 2005, 13:04: Message edited by: Callan ]
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
Sadly, the sentiment in favor of capitol punishment in this country remains quite high.

The recent gubernatorial election here in Virginia had the death penalty as a factor. One candidate had said that as part of his faith (he is RC) he opposed the death penalty, but that, if elected, he would enforce it "because that is the law". His opponent made a HUGE effort to smear him on this. It did not work.
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
Sadly, the sentiment in favor of capitol punishment in this country remains quite high.
The current occupants of the Capitol are quite punishing!

Sorry. *gets his coat*

T.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
Sadly, the sentiment in favor of capitol punishment in this country remains quite high.
I think it's gradually declining, though. Am I overoptimistic?

quote:

The recent gubernatorial election here in Virginia had the death penalty as a factor. One candidate had said that as part of his faith (he is RC) he opposed the death penalty, but that, if elected, he would enforce it "because that is the law". His opponent made a HUGE effort to smear him on this. It did not work.
I'm confused. This could be either

* The Republican candidate smeared the Democratic candidate for not having the dedication to convert to a faith better befitting the governor of a hang-em-high state before running for office;

or

* The Democratic candidate lost (contrary to what I recall from the news).

Which is it? Or am I making some kind of foolish assumption (surely no big-name Virginia Republican is opposed to the death penalty both religiously and politically...)
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
During the 20th century New Zealand could not make it's mind up. They switched from the death penalty to life imprisonment several times. There was no discernable effect on the murder rate, this is the nearest thing to an experiment we have and it did not support the deterrence argument.

[ 16. November 2005, 17:42: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes? Why do the US do them that favour? Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?
My understanding is that, for sex-related crimes in the US, when the severity of the expected punishment increases, the conviction rate decreases, so that if you had capital punishment for pedophiles, none of them would ever be convicted.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes? Why do the US do them that favour? Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?
My understanding is that, for sex-related crimes in the US, when the severity of the expected punishment increases, the conviction rate decreases, so that if you had capital punishment for pedophiles, none of them would ever be convicted.
Do you think that is because jurors do not want people executed so they find them "not guilty" to avoid it in spite of the evidence?
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Really really bad people sometimes need to be executed because sometimes they escape and sometimes soft-hearted idiots let them out to kill again.

The state has an obligation to ensure they will never hurt anyone again.
 
Posted by Joyfulsoul (# 4652) on :
 
long time no see. welcome back, Mad Geo.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Listen real careful now ............ sssssssssshh .... yep comet Erin will impact in about 14 posts.

P
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you think that is because jurors do not want people executed so they find them "not guilty" to avoid it in spite of the evidence?
I don't know. I have heard two explanations given. One is that many people feel that, when the evidence so often boils down to issues of "he said/she said," and whether consent was given, and did this person really know how old that person was -- they feel that there's too much they can't know for sure. So while they are sure enough that they're willing convict the accused and throw him in jail, they don't feel that they can be sure enough to impose the death penalty.

Another explanation is simply that a large number of people who support capital punishment do not support it for anything other than murder -- a life for a life, but not for anything else.

It may be that both of these are true, in some measure, for some people -- enough so to produce the effect I described above.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
...It may be that both of these are true, in some measure, for some people -- enough so to produce the effect I described above.
You need 12 out of 12 to hand a murderer, but only 1 out of 12 to hang a jury.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
I meant hang, not hand. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
You need 12 out of 12 to hand a murderer, but only 1 out of 12 to hang a jury.
Righto, and that's exactly the way it was intended. This was the working definition of "jury" at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. It was also understood that any juror outraged by the law or its application to the case should vote 'not guilty' regardless of the facts. In other words, so wary were the Founding Fathers of tyranny that they wanted to be sure people wouldn't be convicted unless the people were virtually unanimous about it.

American conservativism, one would think, would respect this concept and precedent, which derives from British jurisprudence. If doing so brings 'justice' to a standstill, then maybe it's up to the other two branches of government to draft laws with which more of their constituents agree.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
Imagine (if you can) the horror of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Spending years in prison appealing your sentence, begging for clemency, and ultimately being executed for a crime you did not commit.

That this has happened is all I need to know to oppose the death penalty.

One innocent executed negates any benefit, real or imagined, of capital punishment.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
The recent gubernatorial election here in Virginia had the death penalty as a factor. One candidate had said that as part of his faith (he is RC) he opposed the death penalty, but that, if elected, he would enforce it "because that is the law".
[Roll Eyes] Had he said the same thing on another issue I can think of (and I say this not knowing the man and unsure of whether I could find Viriginia on a map), bishops would be telling people they had a moral obligation to vote against him...

I find the death penalty barbaric, and have no idea why it seems there are some in the States who consider it a badge of honour - probably the more when nearly everyone else has abolished the practise. But I do shake my head at the variety of Catholicism where one's country's 'ways' are superior to church teachings.

(I am C of E - it just leaves me puzzled, on not only the Ship but other sites, all the more the US 'conservative Catholic' ones, where the Vatican is supposed to be treated with blind obedience - unless it is about capital punishment... )
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine (if you can) the horror of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Spending years in prison appealing your sentence, begging for clemency, and ultimately being executed for a crime you did not commit.

That this has happened is all I need to know to oppose the death penalty.

One innocent executed negates any benefit, real or imagined, of capital punishment.
You're probably not old enough to remember lynchings. I'm not really, either, but I've done a bit of reading on the subject. I won't ask you to imagine them; they were too horrific to go there. And it is the possibility of lynchings that causes me to support having the death penalty.

I believe that, if the death penalty were not available, then, in the event of particularly heinous crimes, there will be people who feel that the perpetrator deserves to die, and who believe that, if the legal system can't do justice, they'll simply do it themselves.

As long as there is the possibility that the perpetrator could be sentenced to death, I think people like that are more willing to let the legal system do its job, giving passions time to cool, and giving us a better chance that real justice will be done.

Therefore, I support having the death penalty on the books. It strikes me as being less bad than the alternative.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine (if you can) the horror of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Spending years in prison appealing your sentence, begging for clemency, and ultimately being executed for a crime you did not commit.

That this has happened is all I need to know to oppose the death penalty.

One innocent executed negates any benefit, real or imagined, of capital punishment.
Did you read the other capital punishment thread like I suggested? This discussion is all there.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine (if you can) the horror of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Spending years in prison appealing your sentence, begging for clemency, and ultimately being executed for a crime you did not commit.

That this has happened is all I need to know to oppose the death penalty.

One innocent executed negates any benefit, real or imagined, of capital punishment.
So if DNA immediately exonerates a death penalty conviction, does that mean we can kill the bastard immediately if it proves him/her guilty?

Just curious how consistent you were on this.
[Big Grin]

(Thanks Joyfulsoul, it has been a long break)
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It is the possibility of lynchings that causes me to support having the death penalty...

if the death penalty were not available, then, in the event of particularly heinous crimes, there will be people who feel that the perpetrator deserves to die, and who believe that, if the legal system can't do justice, they'll simply do it themselves.
Maybe you're right, I just don't remember lynchings. Or maybe this is because where I grew up (Wisconsin) they didn't occur, even though neither did executions: my home state, I'm pleased to say, has never had capital punishment. And Wisconsin is hardly overrun with murder, either, we might note. The linked graph shows a strong positive correlation, in fact, with murder rate and death penalty throughout the country. The variation among states in murder rate is quite dramatic, and the top states are all death-penalty, the bottom states mostly not.

I'd be more inclined to guess that the same mentality that would lynch someone would also want capital punishment.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I'd be more inclined to guess that the same mentality that would lynch someone would also want capital punishment.
Yes, exactly. And given that we have many people with that mentality, I'd rather have capital punishment than lynchings. The chances of justice being done by a judge and jury are much greater than the chances of justice being done by a mob.
 
Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The linked graph shows a strong positive correlation, in fact, with murder rate and death penalty throughout the country. The variation among states in murder rate is quite dramatic, and the top states are all death-penalty, the bottom states mostly not.
I wonder which influences which? Is it that in those states where there is the death penalty, the murder rate was the highest anyway (and thus the death penalty was reintroduced/never rescinded), or is it that having the death penalty is either making no difference to the murder rate or in fact inflaming it? Just curious ...

Where I am tempted by the death penalty (I'm a Brit) is for the mass murderer - the one who walks into a school and fatally shoots a bunch of kids and their teacher; or who systematically kills possibly 200 people while in drag as a doctor. There seems to be something unjust about someone who kills many, and therefore is responsible not only for many deaths but the ongoing suffering of many families, ending up receiving the same punishment as someone who has killed one person. They might not even stay in prison for life (since in the UK life doesn't generally mean life - it means anything up to 25 years, with exceptions).
 
Posted by Suze (# 5639) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes? Why do the US do them that favour? Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?
My understanding is that, for sex-related crimes in the US, when the severity of the expected punishment increases, the conviction rate decreases, so that if you had capital punishment for pedophiles, none of them would ever be convicted.
Do you think that is because jurors do not want people executed so they find them "not guilty" to avoid it in spite of the evidence?
I don't know about whether the jurors would avoid finding them guilty but you may well find children and young people becoming even less prepared to speak about the abuse they have suffered. Very often the young person has great love for the person abusing them and, while they want the abuse to stop, they don't want the person punished for what they have done. It's not uncommon for the child to feel guilt for getting the person abusing them into "trouble" I imagine that feeling would only multiply if the person was then sentenced to death. That in and of itself may be enough to make them retract their allegation, making conviction nigh on impossible.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Sharkshooter:

quote:
Did you read the other capital punishment thread like I suggested? This discussion is all there.
Posting as a shipmate. There's no rule that says that it is forbidden to re-state an argument that has been used in a Limbo thread, if one feels that it is particularly compelling or not adequately answered in the previous thread. The fact that I agree entirely with Romanlion's supremely wise and eloquent post has, of course, nothing to do with my pointing this out. [Biased]

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
You're probably not old enough to remember lynchings. I'm not really, either, but I've done a bit of reading on the subject. I won't ask you to imagine them; they were too horrific to go there. And it is the possibility of lynchings that causes me to support having the death penalty.

I believe that, if the death penalty were not available, then, in the event of particularly heinous crimes, there will be people who feel that the perpetrator deserves to die, and who believe that, if the legal system can't do justice, they'll simply do it themselves.

As long as there is the possibility that the perpetrator could be sentenced to death, I think people like that are more willing to let the legal system do its job, giving passions time to cool, and giving us a better chance that real justice will be done.

Therefore, I support having the death penalty on the books. It strikes me as being less bad than the alternative.
That hasn't been the experience of Western Europe where, in many instances, the death penalty has been removed from the statute books for ordinary crimes for at least a generation. Bosnia-Herzegovina, South Africa and the former communist countries have removed the death penalty despite the fact that there are large numbers of people who one would expect to bear grudges from the civil war, apartheid and communism but who somehow refrain from lynching each other. If a black South African or Bosnian Muslim can be trusted not to take the law into their own hands, I would think anyone can.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... There's no rule that says that it is forbidden to re-state an argument that has been used in a Limbo thread, if one feels that it is particularly compelling or not adequately answered in the previous thread. ...
Indeed.

However, if one were to read the other thread, the arguments were made, and emotions got rather heated. My suggestions were made for the benefit of those who were not aware of that, and those who got involved before who do not wish to reopen old wounds.
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Imagine (if you can) the horror of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Spending years in prison appealing your sentence, begging for clemency, and ultimately being executed for a crime you did not commit.

That this has happened is all I need to know to oppose the death penalty.

One innocent executed negates any benefit, real or imagined, of capital punishment.
So if DNA immediately exonerates a death penalty conviction, does that mean we can kill the bastard immediately if it proves him/her guilty?

Just curious how consistent you were on this.
[Big Grin]

(Thanks Joyfulsoul, it has been a long break)
I have no moral qualm with capital punishment per se, but the evidentiary threshold necessary to guarantee, unequivocally that it is administered properly is, IMO prohibitive.

DNA alone would not do it for me.

The confluence of evidence it would require for me personally(as a juror) to condemn someone to death would be rare, in the utmost sense of the word.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
[...] when the severity of the expected punishment increases, the conviction rate decreases, so that if you had capital punishment for pedophiles, none of them would ever be convicted.
Do you think that is because jurors do not want people executed so they find them "not guilty" to avoid it in spite of the evidence?
In England in the 18th century capital punishment was tried for more and more crimes until bu the early 19th century you could be executed for just about anything. "As well hang for a sheep as a lamb" was only just an exagerration.

The result was that juries refused to convict all sorts of apparently guilty people. Especially if they were any of young, beautiful, noble, well-spoken, obvious victims, notorious highwaymen, et.c etc. It wasn't until after it became normal to commute the sentence to transportation fior everything short of murder that the conviction rate went back up again.

And thus was the Empire forged.


NB although death was mandatory for murder the range of homicides that did not count as murder was (& is) very large in English law. Even in the 19th century the majority of killers were not executed.

For some reason I always feel the need to re-read The Ballad of Reading Gaol when thinking abotu this sort of thing.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
I have no moral qualm with capital punishment per se, but the evidentiary threshold necessary to guarantee, unequivocally that it is administered properly is, IMO prohibitive.

DNA alone would not do it for me.

The confluence of evidence it would require for me personally(as a juror) to condemn someone to death would be rare, in the utmost sense of the word.
So, guilty, but not guilty enough to endure the punishment set by law.

The law sets out that the level of evidence is "beyond a reeasonable doubt". To be a juror and ignore this in favour of your own limit (which, I would guess, might require several eye witnesses, at lest two different video tapes and a signed confession) is to defy the law.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
And I will simply point out the chillingly high number of murder convictions in Canada where it has been proven beyond any doubt -- often 10-20 years after the conviction -- that scrupulous judges and consciencious juries got it wrong. Active police intent to get a conviction regardless of the facts has been a factor in some cases, but certainly not in others.

And it has from time immemorial been a premise of Common Law (the basis for the criminal law in the US as well as in Canada and the UK) that it is better for twn guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be punished. It's one of those things like the concept of due process and innocent until proven guilty that tends to get forgotten.

John
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:

...DNA alone would not do it for me....
Would DNA alone be enough to let someone go?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Sharkshooter:

quote:
The law sets out that the level of evidence is "beyond a reeasonable doubt". To be a juror and ignore this in favour of your own limit (which, I would guess, might require several eye witnesses, at lest two different video tapes and a signed confession) is to defy the law.
Have you no room for conscience?

If I were asked, per impossible to sit on a jury for a capital case I would ask to be excused on the grounds that I disagreed with capital punishment and could not in conscience bring in a guilty verdict if there were any danger of the death penalty. Any sensible judge would kick me off the jury - doubtless with a flea in my ear - before you could say 'miscarriage of justice'.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Sharkshooter:

quote:
The law sets out that the level of evidence is "beyond a reeasonable doubt". To be a juror and ignore this in favour of your own limit (which, I would guess, might require several eye witnesses, at lest two different video tapes and a signed confession) is to defy the law.
Have you no room for conscience?
The law is the law.

I have a conscience, but if I am required to apply a particular law, I do so - that is my duty. My opinion is irrelevant.

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If I were asked, per impossible to sit on a jury for a capital case I would ask to be excused on the grounds that I disagreed with capital punishment and could not in conscience bring in a guilty verdict if there were any danger of the death penalty. ...
That is the honourable thing to do.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Sharkshooter:

quote:
I have a conscience, but if I am required to apply a particular law, I do so - that is my duty. My opinion is irrelevant.
Which is fine, up to a point. What, however, if a law is unjust? What would you do if, to take an extreme example, the Canadian government were overthrown by the Canadian Reich Party or worse, the Canadian Reich Party swept to power in a free and fair election, and you were obliged to report any Jews you knew of in hiding to the authorities so they could be taken away and killed. Are you really saying you would never follow your conscience? What if a law was passed obliging you to burn incense to the Canadian Prime Minister? Are there really no circumstances in which you would break the law?
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
The primary purpose of the law is to convict. Punishment follows, usually based on the law.

Lifetime prison sentences rarely ever are.
What purpose does "conviction" serve?

That lifetime prison sentences rarely are is a solvable problem, and does not necessitate the death penalty.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, guilty, but not guilty enough to endure the punishment set by law?

The law sets out that the level of evidence is "beyond a reeasonable doubt". To be a juror and ignore this in favour of your own limit (which, I would guess, might require several eye witnesses, at lest two different video tapes and a signed confession) is to defy the law.
Not true. As Alogon points out:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It was also understood that any juror outraged by the law or its application to the case should vote 'not guilty' regardless of the facts. In other words, so wary were the Founding Fathers of tyranny that they wanted to be sure people wouldn't be convicted unless the people were virtually unanimous about it.
<snip>
...maybe it's up to the other two branches of government to draft laws with which more of their constituents agree.
The system was set up to allow jurors to believe that the person may seem guilty, but not enough so to endure the law of sentencing provided, etc. That's where democracy still holds some of its power.

-Digory
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... What would you do if, ...
It's not that I will ignore your question, but I have taken the position that hypothetical questions, especially ones such as the one you posed which are intended only to provide the worst possible scenario for the sole purpose of winning an argument, are to be treated rhetorically.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
...
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, guilty, but not guilty enough to endure the punishment set by law?

The system was set up to allow jurors to believe that the person may seem guilty, but not enough so to endure the law of sentencing provided, etc.
So, I guess you agree with me?
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I think the 'they might not be guilty' argument is a bit of a blind alley. There is no way anyone can ever devise a system in which you could ensure no innocent person was ever wrongfully convicted and punished. And this means that innocent people die in jail of old age, sickness and murder as well as capital punishment.

I personally oppose capital punishment. I think the attempt to make the anti-argument is undermined by arguing about the killing of the innocent because it becomes a 'how sure are you ?' debate.

I think the argument about capital punishment in order to avoid overspill of the lynch-mob mentality, is fundementally an argument for trying to change the lynch-mob mentality.

For those who are pro: What is the point of capital punishment ? What exactly do you hope to achieve ? In terms of the individual perpetrator, in terms the surviving victim and/or those who had ties to the victim, and in terms of society as a whole ?

What do you do if your goals for these different people and groups conflict ? What is your priority ? To take one of the examples discussed above, would you still want this punishment if it decreases convictions ? Would you want it if it decreased the murder by 50% rate but increased the number of police officers killied in shoot-outs during arrests ?
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
...For those who are pro: What is the point of capital punishment ? What exactly do you hope to achieve ? In terms of the individual perpetrator, in terms the surviving victim and/or those who had ties to the victim, and in terms of society as a whole ?

These questions have been answered.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Sharkshooter:

quote:
It's not that I will ignore your question, but I have taken the position that hypothetical questions, especially ones such as the one you posed which are intended only to provide the worst possible scenario for the sole purpose of winning an argument, are to be treated rhetorically.
I think you have misunderstood me. I'm not waiting for you to say: "Of course I wouldn't burn incense to the Emperor" and then pounce and triumphantly announce: "Ha! Sharkshooter won't burn incense to the Emperor, therefore he condones perverse verdicts in capital trials!"* Obviously the two positions are completely different. What I want to do is establish whether there are some areas in which you think it licit to disobey, or at least not enforce, the law and, if so, explore what makes it licit and what not.

Obviously I want to win the argument. [Biased] But I'm subtle enough not to aim for Mate in four moves, as it were.

*Tempting though it would be.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I have a conscience, but if I am required to apply a particular law, I do so - that is my duty. My opinion is irrelevant.
As Callan says, per impossibile. Who's requiring you to do that? It is not a juror's only role in the U.S. Don't let the obscurantists trick you into assuming otherwise.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
...For those who are pro: What is the point of capital punishment ? What exactly do you hope to achieve ? In terms of the individual perpetrator, in terms the surviving victim and/or those who had ties to the victim, and in terms of society as a whole ?

These questions have been answered.
Really, all I could find was:

"And I don't care whether it is a deterrent or not. It is intended as punishment and protection for society. That's good enough for me."

So protection for society and punishment for the perpetrator - but what if about the decreasing conviction rate when the penalty is applied to a wider range of crimes ?

"Really really bad people sometimes need to be executed because sometimes they escape and sometimes soft-hearted idiots let them out to kill again. The state has an obligation to ensure they will never hurt anyone again."

Protection again but seemingly because there is a lack of faith in the life sentence.

"Therefore, I support having the death penalty on the books. It strikes me as being less bad than the alternative."

Answered this in my last post.

"There seems to be something unjust about someone who kills many, and therefore is responsible not only for many deaths but the ongoing suffering of many families, ending up receiving the same punishment as someone who has killed one person."

Where does this leave you is deciding how to punish the the guy responsible for the Dunablane massacre (goes into classroom shoots kids, leaves), the Wests (stalked young women abducted then raped and tortured them for some time killing somewhat less people in total than in Dunblane), Shipman (gives elderly people morphine overdose - relatively painless - but kills about 200), man who sexually abuses daughter throughout childhood then kills her in a drunken rage after she turns 18. Are such calculations really meaningful ?
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think the argument about capital punishment in order to avoid overspill of the lynch-mob mentality, is fundementally an argument for trying to change the lynch-mob mentality.
I was told the same sort of thing when I started on a research project some years ago. The project had to do with writing medical information for adults with poor reading skills. I was told that, instead of trying to present complex medical information at a fourth grade level, we should be working to ensure greater literacy.

Which is true. But what do we do until then? I think we have to provide for the situation as it is, not for the situation as we would wish it to be. Which means that we have to make sure that middle-aged diabetics who read at a fifth grade level can read the instructions they get from their doctor.

As long as there are people with a lynch-mob mentality (and I've known a few of them), I think we have to take their existence into account. It's possible, of course, that my perceptions are skewed, that the people who hold "Fry Him Now!" placards outside a penitentiary would never do anything illegal to act on their feelings of rage, and that banning capital punishment altogether would not result in an increase in vigilantism. I would like that to be true. But I'm not sure that it is.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
josephine, something just seems very odd about the idea of being in favor of capital punishment because you're opposed to vigilanism. i mean, while there are exceptions, as far as i know the major victems of lynching in the past were southern blacks, and frequently they were lynched for "crimes" which were by no rational measure capital crimes, for example emmitt till, who was lynched for the "crime" of whistling at a white woman. i have never heard of any increase in lynching, or in fact, in the modern day, any lynching problem at all, in states which do not have the death penalty.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I am completely with you on the clear communication.

Lynching is murder. (Anybody ever hang the lynch mob ?) Other ways to prevent it might be police protection, protective custody etc. I am not convinced that the death penalty is the most effective or appropriate way to deal with the risk. Think how much the legal process up to execution costs, you could spend half this on defendent protection.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
what do we do until then? I think we have to provide for the situation as it is, not for the situation as we would wish it to be... As long as there are people with a lynch-mob mentality (and I've known a few of them), I think we have to take their existence into account.
As people of faith, we also need to take Christ's existence into account. As much as you and I want to reject and repudiate the lynch-mob mentality, I don't think that we should dare to claim that we have no part in it, it's just those certain other people over there. The thirst and process of human sacrifice is a universal feature in society. And it's part of what Christ overcame. If we believe that Jesus Christ was God among us, that He submitted Himself as a sacrifice, thereby triumphing and inaugurating a new era in human history, what does that mean? Rene Girard shows how, although His sacrifice was prefigured many times in literature and folklore, when it occurred it was the human sacrifice intended to end all human sacrifices.

When you observe that capital punishment slakes the thirst of a lynch mob, you've put your finger on it. Girard holds, I agree, and you admit, that the two come from exactly the same place in social psychology. But I believe that Christ walked among us to bring an end to it. For a professing Christian ever to propose the death sentence in God's name strikes me as not only doubting that what He did was efficacious, but rejoicing that it was not.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
For a professing Christian ever to propose the death sentence in God's name strikes me as not only doubting that what He did was efficacious, but rejoicing that it was not.
Seriously misguided perhaps but, 'rejoicing' ? Seems a bit of an overstatement.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
josephine, something just seems very odd about the idea of being in favor of capital punishment because you're opposed to vigilanism.
I know. A lot of my positions are very odd. I favor both chastity and the free availability of condoms. I don't think people should use drugs, but I support needle exchange programs.

In the same way, I'm opposed to capital punishment, but I'm in favor of leaving it on the books as a potential penalty for certain particularly heinous crimes. In all these cases, I'm looking for the least bad option, the option that produce the least amount of harm. I just have a gut feeling that, in the US, fewer people accused of crimes would be killed if capital punishment remains a possibility than would be killed if it is not.

I would never propose capital punishment in God's name. (And, Callan, I expect better from you in a debate.) It may be that I am entirely wrong, and that there is good evidence that eliminating the possibility of capital punishment would not produce the consequences I fear. I would be pleased if that were true.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Dear Josephine,

I do appreciate and respect the nuanced and reluctant position you take on this issue.

Aside from my Christian convictions, the main reason why I have come to oppose capital punishment (I used to be okay with it) is messages that one can read in cyberspace from some of its proponents. They have convinced me that where it is a reality at all, the sentiment for it spreads. Let us pray that they do not get the upper hand in our societies as they have in others in history; but even when they do not, their chest-thumping one-upmanship in trying to outdo one another in how "tough on crime" they want to appear coarsens our entire civil discourse. It is not the way we should discuss politics and justice.

The last straw for me was when a man representing himself as a candidate for sheriff in one of our major metropolitan counties swaggeringly called for the death penalty for, among other things, a second offense of marijuana possession. Now, I don't want to elect anyone as an officer of the law who harbors such desires. I don't think that the good people of Kansas City would knowingly do so, either. I don't know whether he was a serious candidate, but if he were posting under a pseudonym he could have been. For all I know, in that case, he may even have been elected and wielding firearms in their name today.

Perhaps you have led too sheltered an existence. Our social circles in real life have probably always been limited to relatively "nice people." And in cyberspace, Shipmates are not a cross-section of the body politic, either. But the Internet provides an easier way to sample the ventings and rantings of various fellow citizens than we've ever had before. Get out there and read what people say in a few less civilized fora, and I trust that you may become as disgusted as I have become.

Even though I really don't feel, either, that capital punishment for terrorist mass murder would be an egregious miscarriage of justice, I'll gladly settle for less even then if it would put the whole practice firmly beyond the pale. Most countries in the West already manage quite nicely without it. Retaining it leaves the U.S. in a very weak position whenever we try to stand up for human rights in foreign policy.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Just a Virginia update: in VA what happened was that the state Republicans suggested that the Democratic candidate (who won, btw, in spite of this) was scary in his principled opposition to the death penalty on religious grounds. Mr. Kaine, a devout Catholic, had said that as governor, he would uphold the law, though he opposed CP on religious grounds. Opponents suggested in a subtle gambit that this meant he would pardon Adolf Hitler.

Thankfully the voters were not swayed by the smear campaign.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
While pleased to have re-invigorated the debate on this touchy subject, I am still apalled that many erstwhile 'civilized' countries outside the US, such as Japan, still have CP on their books.

In addition to my spiritual opposition to it, I have an economic opposition: did you know that it can cost in excess of a million US dollars to prosecute a capital case to its conclusion, the execution of an inmate? It takes years, sometimes decades! Where's the deterrent there?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
I would never propose capital punishment in God's name. (And, Callan, I expect better from you in a debate.) It may be that I am entirely wrong, and that there is good evidence that eliminating the possibility of capital punishment would not produce the consequences I fear. I would be pleased if that were true.
Where did I say you were advocating capital punishment in God's name? I was merely pointing to evidence that suggests that abolishing capital punishment does not produce the consequences you fear - to wit, the experience of Western Europe over the last generation. I added for good measure that capital punishment has been abolished in states with previous experience of tyranny or ethnic conflict who would have better cause than most to be concerned about vigilantism. I fail to see how that is somehow inappropriate.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The cost is the result of what most people would consider to be reasonable aspects of justice. That the accused be given a fair trial, and that if found guilty that the punishment is appropriate.

Part of a fair trial is, in most countries, a right to appeal if found guilty. Ideally, of course, all available evidence is presented to the jury at the trial. But it's not an ideal world and for various legitimate reasons evidence turns up after the trial that would have been relevant. Even without new evidence, an appeal takes time to organise. It's not unreasonable when the punishment is something as irreversible as a death sentance to have a period of incarceration prior to the execution to allow any new evidence to be brought forward and an appeal to be lodged and heard.

Also, like ensuring the trial is fair, an appeals process against the sentance (be that the death penalty or not) is a reasonable step in ensuring that the penalty is fair. Which, again takes time and money.

Even without the death penalty, much of the costs would be the same. You'd still have the accused in prison for the duration of the appeals process. You'd still have prosecution and defense lawyers employed.

The only way of significantly cutting costs would be to not take so many steps to try and ensure that the trial and sentancing is as fair as humanly possible.
 
Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
The death penalty is extremely consequentialist, it seems to me.

If there was a way to ensure that judges and juries were never biased, and never made mistakes, then maybe I would support it for mass murderers who were in full possesion of their faculties when commiting their crimes AND are extremely likely to kill again AND do not have a low mental age. Maybe. I must admit that I think Hussein, for example, deserves to die.

But since there is no way of making the judical system infallable, and since the death penalty is pretty final once it has been carried out, I think that, on balance, it is more reasonable to oppose it then to support it.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
quote:
I know. A lot of my positions are very odd.
while i appreciate the fact that i you understand many of your opnions seem odd, i think i would more appreciate some comment on the rest of my post.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I agree with Papio. There's alot of crims I would not miss if they were gone, I just don't want to be involved in their death. Again, just make their lives unpleasant: let them live in filth, eat bad meals, isolate them from the general population, deny all visitors, censor all post, bill their familkies for their incarceration or seize assets, etc.

[ 18. November 2005, 10:19: Message edited by: Sir Kevin ]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Where's the deterrent there?
It's not called capital deterrent, is it?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I'm against capital punishment because:
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
...
I would not want to do open-heart surgery, or a host of other jobs.
 
Posted by Exiled Youth (# 8744) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
...
  • We are asking the executor to kill in cold blood. That is something I would not want to do, and so, feel it is wrong to ask another to do in my stead.
I would not want to do open-heart surgery, or a host of other jobs.
I seem to recall a system where three men in three rooms throw switches at the same time, and none ever discover which one was actually wired. Each is paid 500 dollars or something.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm against capital punishment because:
Amen. That's one reason I've always been against abortion, also.
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Exiled Youth:
I seem to recall a system where three men in three rooms throw switches at the same time, and none ever discover which one was actually wired. Each is paid 500 dollars or something.
If we're concerned about the moral implications of the person who, as it were, pushes the button, what are the implications for the designer of this system?

T.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Very grave: it sounds like turning execution into sport!
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
...
  • We are asking the executor to kill in cold blood. That is something I would not want to do, and so, feel it is wrong to ask another to do in my stead.
I would not want to do open-heart surgery, or a host of other jobs.
There's a big difference between not wanting to perform a job because we're too unqualified, frightened or squeamish to do it; and not wanting to do it because we're afraid we just might possibly go to Hell* for it.

Or damage one's karma, or become less close to God, or become less human or not sleep as well at night -- however one defines a peaceful soul.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
That's a better explanation than "I wouldn't want to do" now, isn't it? Still doesn't make it much of an excuse, though, as there are people who would do the job.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Sharkshooter: you seem to be saying, if I understand your rather concise comments correctly, that the main point of capital punishment is the suffering of the offender. Not the deterence, not the prevention of further crimes, not 'closure' for the victim of their family.

In what respect do you reach achieve this goal more fully through killing them rather than imprisoning them until they die ?
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
while i appreciate the fact that i you understand many of your opnions seem odd, i think i would more appreciate some comment on the rest of my post.
It is perhaps because I am a white Southern woman, and understand that most victims of lynchings were black Southern men, and because I have not led a particularly sheltered existence and know a fair number of people whose attitudes towards blacks in general and poor black men in particular are less than enlightened, that I am more concerned about the possibility of lynchings than I would be if I were from Iowa or Minnesota.

You may never have heard people whom you considered decent, kind, and respectable say things about blacks that should be unspeakable. I have. It's true you don't hear them very often any more. But I don't know how much that's because hearts and minds have changed, and how much it's because it's no longer socially acceptable to say such things. I'm sure it's some of each.

My fear is that it's still more social pressure than true change -- the pressure is facilitating the change, but that takes time, and I don't think enough time has passed yet for those thoughts and feelings to have been eradicated. I fear that a particularly heinous crime, committed by a black man against a white girl, could overcome the social pressures if there were no possibility that justice, as defined by the mob, might be done. I think simply having the death penalty on the books is enough to keep the the unspeakable from being spoken and acted upon.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Sharkshooter: you seem to be saying, if I understand your rather concise comments correctly, that the main point of capital punishment is the suffering of the offender. Not the deterence, not the prevention of further crimes, not 'closure' for the victim of their family.
...
Still haven't read the whole thread, or the other one, have you?

I see two purposes for capital punishment - punishment (this should be obvious) and protection of society (which is why I know you haven't read the thread).

If it has deterrence or closure value, so much the better, but I do not see that as a purpose.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
In what respect do you reach achieve this goal more fully through killing them rather than imprisoning them until they die ?
Either you achieve the goal(s) or you don't. There is not, in my mind, a "more fully" issue here.

There are some crimes where I believe execution is the proper punishment - it stands to reason, therefore, that, in my mind, life imprisonment is inadequate.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm against capital punishment because:
A few questions/comments from your post:

Does it really matter if someone is insane/psychotic? I never understood that distinction. If you are a massive threat to society, you're a massive threat to society, off with you.

Costs: It costs more because the system is set up that way. Some costs are necessary to protect society.

The U.S. aligns itself with plenty of countries that do bad things. China being a giant case study right now. Does that mean we should stop trading with them? Hell no. Doesn't mean we should stop executing either.

God is hardly a shining example of not doing executions. He has "ordered" way more than his fair share of executions. And he even ordered HIS humans to do it (Israelites).

You ask people to kill in cold blood for you every day of your life, cops and military specifically. If you didn't, there would be no peace or security to conduct your life. You're simply picking and choosing which cold blood you want to be spilled and how, right? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
...You ask people to kill in cold blood for you every day of your life, cops and military specifically. ...
That is not killing "in cold blood", and neither is executing under terms and conditions set by law. It is an attempt to win an argument by using a term in an inappropriate way. Quite unfair, actually.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Still haven't read the whole thread, or the other one, have you?
I have read the whole of this thread. I have not read the other thread because I am participating in this particular discussion only.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
I see two purposes for capital punishment - punishment (this should be obvious) and protection of society (which is why I know you haven't read the thread).
I hadn't picked the deterrence issue up from your posts in this thread, I'm sorry if I missed that - I don't think you have responded to the issue of lowered conviction rates where capital punishment is used for offences other than murder.

quote:
Originally posted by Sharkshooter:
Either you achieve the goal(s) or you don't. There is not, in my mind, a "more fully" issue here.
I disagree. You could punish someone by dropping a hammer on their foot, in the case of a murderer this would not appear to meet your goal of punishment fully enough for you to be satisfied with that. (Mine either, in the case of that example.)

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
There are some crimes where I believe execution is the proper punishment - it stands to reason, therefore, that, in my mind, life imprisonment is inadequate.
And the question I was asking was why you believe that life imprisonment is inadequate. For example, do you want equivalence - you killed 1 person, so we kill you.

If so do you think we should have additional corporal punishment for those who torture their victims to death ?

Do you think that that capital punishment is subjectively more unpleasant than life imprisonment ? (In which case I am not sure you are right.) And therefore should be available for the most serious crimes.

If you believe in the afterlife and God's judgement, is it that you want to get them there - to their eternal experience - more quickly ?

Or something else ?

[ 18. November 2005, 18:28: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
... I have not read the other thread because I am participating in this particular discussion only.
...
Fine. I will not waste any more time then going over old territory.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Does it really matter if someone is insane/psychotic? I never understood that distinction. If you are a massive threat to society, you're a massive threat to society, off with you. [/QB]
Psychosis is usually the product of a mental illness, the point being that someone did not chose to have a mental illness. If they were insane / acutely psychotic at the time of a killing they may have been unaware of what they were doing. Can you meaningfully say that someone is responsible for an act they are not fully aware of initiating - or that they perceive in a way that would be legal if their perceptions were correct ?

If you are prepared to kill people who may put the lives of others at risk unintentionally, it is difficult to see why you would not also want to kill people with fatal communicable diseases in case they pass them on. Or the CEO's of tobacco companies. Basically, once you stop caring what people were intending to do, you open up a whole new can of worms.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
...You ask people to kill in cold blood for you every day of your life, cops and military specifically. ...
That is not killing "in cold blood", and neither is executing under terms and conditions set by law. It is an attempt to win an argument by using a term in an inappropriate way. Quite unfair, actually.
Exactly, I was attempting to demonstrate that (admitedly possibly a little obtusely) by my comment on it. "Cold blood" is in the eye of the beholder and is rather artificial in any case. People have to be killed sometimes, welcome to humanity.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
... I have not read the other thread because I am participating in this particular discussion only.
...
Fine. I will not waste any more time then going over old territory.
If there are to be entrance requirements for a thread perhaps they should be put in the OP ? Or are we all allowed to specify what prior reading we feel a shipmate is required to have undertaken in order for them to be worthy of a response.

If so, I suggest everyone go away and read 'Why Punish' by Nigel Walker, and post their technical definitions of the terms 'punishment', 'deterence' and 'justice' before we go any further.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Does it really matter if someone is insane/psychotic? I never understood that distinction. If you are a massive threat to society, you're a massive threat to society, off with you.
Psychosis is usually the product of a mental illness, the point being that someone did not chose to have a mental illness. If they were insane / acutely psychotic at the time of a killing they may have been unaware of what they were doing. Can you meaningfully say that someone is responsible for an act they are not fully aware of initiating - or that they perceive in a way that would be legal if their perceptions were correct ?

If you are prepared to kill people who may put the lives of others at risk unintentionally, it is difficult to see why you would not also want to kill people with fatal communicable diseases in case they pass them on. Or the CEO's of tobacco companies. Basically, once you stop caring what people were intending to do, you open up a whole new can of worms. [/QB]
I question whether we can accurately determine "intention" good or bad, at all. That's my point. I (or a jury of 12) can only determine that one person killed one (or more) people. To give them an out like "the temporary voices in my head made me do it" seems to me rather absurd. If the voices in your head make you dangerous to society, than you may need to be permanently removed from that society. Emphasis on permanent, and emphasis on removed.

IMO, this really isn't about punishment or retribution or vigilatism. It's not about what caused you to kill five people in a slashing fit of rage or the voices in your head and lust telling you to kidnap, rape and kill a child.

It's about cause and effect. If you are such a serious threat to society that your very existence in any part of the world is a threat to society, than you need to be gone, the more permanent the better. Erased.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If you are prepared to kill people who may put the lives of others at risk unintentionally, it is difficult to see why you would not also want to kill people with fatal communicable diseases in case they pass them on. Or the CEO's of tobacco companies. Basically, once you stop caring what people were intending to do, you open up a whole new can of worms.
For Mad Geo, it seems that either a moral argument or a utilitarian argument will do just fine, so long as it's an argument for execution.

[ 18. November 2005, 18:55: Message edited by: Alogon ]
 
Posted by riverfalls (# 9168) on :
 
The debate on capital punishment has been going on for centuries. We can say hang them cut off the head, boil them in oil. For whatever reason we have. However, if the same person has repented of the sin. Being judge clean by Almighty God how can then we kill an innocent Christian, doesn't he then become a martyr
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I (or a jury of 12) can only determine that one person killed one (or more) people. To give them an out like "the temporary voices in my head made me do it" seems to me rather absurd. If the voices in your head make you dangerous to society, than you may need to be permanently removed from that society. Emphasis on permanent, and emphasis on removed.
I have a cousin who is seriously mentally ill. Although she has never harmed anyone, she has had terrifying delusions and hallucinations. It is quite possible that, in such a state, she could harm someone, thinking that she was protecting herself.

I can't imagine that anyone would consider that taking her life would be an appropriate response, if that were to happen. She needs medical care and supervision (which she receives in a sheltered group home). As long as she receives that, the only one who suffers from her illness is her (and of course those who love her). If those responsible for her safety and well-being were to fail in that duty, it would be a travesty of justice to hold her accountable for that.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Or, for example, you could determine that comitting such an act removed your right to choose not to accept medical treatment and make an order that the individual concerned should be compelled to detention to attend a psychiatric hospital every X weeks to recieve a depot anti-psychotic injection - arrest them and detain them in a psychiatric facility permenantly if they are more than a day late. (Meds take longer than a day to wear off.)

Of course these case arise very rarely in comparison to the amount of people killed and injured by people with no demonstrable mental dysfunction. Such people are far more likely to be a risk to themselves than anybody else.

I am still interested to know if you extend the principle you are expounding to the examples I gave in my original reply to your post ? How bigger a risk do you have to be to others before you'd execute - and how involved do you have to be with the death - and why ?

[ 18. November 2005, 19:02: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
If those responsible for her safety and well-being were to fail in that duty, it would be a travesty of justice to hold her accountable for that.
I strongly agree.

[N.B. Post above was a crossposting - intended to be a response to Mad Geo]

[ 18. November 2005, 19:05: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
In response to Mad Geo and others pro-CP, why not send the convicts to Abu Graid or a CIA prison for life? Save us the money and stop playing God!
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
OK, in deference to sharkshooter's assumption of the gatekeeper role I have now ploughed through the whole of the limbo thread.

It does not answer the questions I was asking of you sharkshooter.

(I realise I said that I hadn't picked up on your deterence argument - in an earlier post - when I meant to type that I hadn't picked up on your protection argument.)
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Does it really matter if someone is insane/psychotic? I never understood that distinction. If you are a massive threat to society, you're a massive threat to society, off with you.
So you'd kill the mentally ill, then? This is what you seem to be proposing.

T.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I (or a jury of 12) can only determine that one person killed one (or more) people. To give them an out like "the temporary voices in my head made me do it" seems to me rather absurd. If the voices in your head make you dangerous to society, than you may need to be permanently removed from that society. Emphasis on permanent, and emphasis on removed.
I have a cousin who is seriously mentally ill. Although she has never harmed anyone, she has had terrifying delusions and hallucinations. It is quite possible that, in such a state, she could harm someone, thinking that she was protecting herself.

I can't imagine that anyone would consider that taking her life would be an appropriate response, if that were to happen. She needs medical care and supervision (which she receives in a sheltered group home). As long as she receives that, the only one who suffers from her illness is her (and of course those who love her). If those responsible for her safety and well-being were to fail in that duty, it would be a travesty of justice to hold her accountable for that.
If she is a genuine threat to society (which in your example does not sound like is actually the real case) than she should be in a place where the chance of a caregiver to "fail in their duty" is minimized. I would think that if they knew she was an actual risk to others and that she could die for it, than they would be accountable for their actions (or lack thereof).

At some point society has to make a choice to protect the innocent, or to protect the rights of homocidal maniacs. I draw that line for protecting the innocent. That is my "moral" argument, Alogon. The higher value is to protect future victims, not the aggressor, no matter what the cause, or worse, excuse. The life of the victim is of higher purpose and value than the life of the murdering aggressor. Again, sometimes societies should make these distinctions no matter how distateful. It's why cops and soldiers have to kill sometimes, to defend the innocent.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
At some point society has to make a choice to protect the innocent, or to protect the rights of homocidal maniacs. I draw that line for protecting the innocent.
In most jurisdictions, murder (or the sort for which one could receive the death penalty or life in prison) requires intent. Someone who is, by reason of age or insanity or any other condition, unable to form the legally defined intent is, by definition, innocent of murder, even if they should kill someone.

I would hope you can understand why.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
What is wrong with life at hard labour at a military prison? I'd think with all of the innocent soldiers and Marines getting themselves killed in Iraq there'd be surplus capacity in military prisons here stateside!
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
The point, Mad Geo, being that without intent they are innocent. Therefore they need protecting. People die in accidents too.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
On th off chance that Doublethink really does want to understand, rather than just pick a fight (which I doubt based on the TITCH thread)...

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
...For those who are pro: What is the point of capital punishment ? What exactly do you hope to achieve ? In terms of the individual perpetrator, in terms the surviving victim and/or those who had ties to the victim, and in terms of society as a whole ?
The Point is to punish. What is hoped to achieve is punishment for the guilty and protection for society. Those who had ties to the victim - I assume you mean his/her family. They have to deal with the horror inflicted with the act, it is not, in my opinion, the job of the legal system to deal with that.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What do you do if your goals for these different people and groups conflict ? What is your priority ? To take one of the examples discussed above, would you still want this punishment if it decreases convictions ? Would you want it if it decreased the murder by 50% rate but increased the number of police officers killied in shoot-outs during arrests ?
These goals do not conflict. Priority is, therefore, irrelevant.

If the existence of this form of punishment decreases convictions, the system is in need or repair. That is, those who would find someone not guilty in spite of the evidence solely so the guilty will not be executed should be weeded out of the jury pool for capital offenses.

As to your last question. The outcome you wish to be assumed cannot be so assumed. I will not get pulled into such hypothetical arguments. I see no purpose to them.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If the existence of this form of punishment decreases convictions, the system is in need or repair. That is, those who would find someone not guilty in spite of the evidence solely so the guilty will not be executed should be weeded out of the jury pool for capital offenses.
So jurors are just a sort of machine programmed to do what the government tells them? And any with an independent conscience - or a different view of the law from - need to be removed from the process?
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
Where does the state get the authority to punish people in such an absolute and final way?

T.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If the existence of this form of punishment decreases convictions, the system is in need or repair. That is, those who would find someone not guilty in spite of the evidence solely so the guilty will not be executed should be weeded out of the jury pool for capital offenses.
So jurors are just a sort of machine programmed to do what the government tells them? And any with an independent conscience - or a different view of the law from - need to be removed from the process?
Another issue is that in England and Wales the jury is left to its own devices. What each juror thinks, says and decides is left in the jury room and unlike those in California who blabbed after the Michael Jackson trial any juror speaking out after a trial in England and Wales could easily find themselves on a contempt charge.

I suppose this will all change soon in the name orf "Modernisation".
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Where does the state get the authority to punish people in such an absolute and final way?

T.
From the people who elected the government who passed the laws.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So jurors are just a sort of machine programmed to do what the government tells them? And any with an independent conscience - or a different view of the law from - need to be removed from the process?
Yes.

It is the role of the government, not a jury or a judge, to make law.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
executed man may have been innocent


just a little something to throw into the debate, from cnn today.

and of course the thought that every time an innocent person is executed for something they didn't do, it means a guilty person is running around free.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So jurors are just a sort of machine programmed to do what the government tells them? And any with an independent conscience - or a different view of the law from - need to be removed from the process?
Yes.

It is the role of the government, not a jury or a judge, to make law.
No.

It is the role of the government to make law.

It is not the role of judges and juries to act as an extension of the government. They are specifically constituted so as to be totally independent of the government.

Their job is to decide what the facts are, and decide whether a particular person is or is not guilty of a crime and worthy of the consequent punishment. It is well attested that throughout the history of common law, juries (and judges) have exercised a right to acquit if the penalty was inappropriate (in their eyes). And in today's world, if the crown disagrees with a verdict, it has the right to appeal the result.

John
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I agree with sharkshooter that the criminal justice system is not the right forum for assisting suvivors and the families and friends of the victims. Though I do feel the state has a role here, in so far as it has not suceeded in its aim of protecting them. Though I would want this done through statutary compensation and free healthcare support as needed. (I am aware this is done at least partially in the UK.)

I think we do need to take seriously the unintended side effects of a given punishment. Whether that is lynching if you don't have the death penalty or lowered conviction rates if you do. There is some evidence that if you sift a jury for people with pro-capital opinons you get more chance of conviction. (Studies using vignettes with two different types of jury same case outlines.) You may just exchange one kind of bias for another.

I suppose we can go on trying to provide better and better systems but none will ever be perfect. We don't currently have the death penalty in the UK but that may change. we tend to follow a US lead in some things, which makes me worry about the idea of plea bargains which is starting to be floated. If anything I think this just introduces an element of unfairness into the way sentences are applied - inluding the death penalty.

At base, I am not sure that I have a logical argument against the death penalty - it's more the idea that it is wrong to take human life, it doesn't become right because the state does it. I also feel that it corrupts those called upon to carry it out.

There is also something that is very nihilistic about the whole idea - nothing is created or resolved through it. Why not, for example, have people imprisoned for life the products of whose labour are sold or used for the benefit of society. This also allows for the possibility of / opportunity for, repentence.

[ 21. November 2005, 19:17: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
executed man may have been innocent


just a little something to throw into the debate, from cnn today.

and of course the thought that every time an innocent person is executed for something they didn't do, it means a guilty person is running around free.
Imagine that! A man shoots a police officer under circumstances too shady for the D.A. to press charges, and then gets executed for an unrelated crime that he did not commit, on the eyewitness account of a 19 year old illegal immigrant that took some persuasion to pick out the photo of the man who shot him.

Punitive or not, capital punishment makes for sweet revenge if you're a dirty cop.

It sucks to be that guy, but unfortunately the demographic at your local death row is far too brown for most people to give a shit.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
...it is wrong to take human life, it doesn't become right because the state does it. I also feel that it corrupts those called upon to carry it out.
I disagree with those two statements.

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
... Why not, for example, have people imprisoned for life the products of whose labour are sold or used for the benefit of society. ....
A life sentence rarely is for life.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Thank you for your responses. I am serious about understanding the pro view. After all, as someone who is anti - I do realise I am in the minority.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
This the 21st century. CP is obsolete. Old Testament times were twenty one centuries ago!

Punish criminals thusly in all states in the US:
Let them live in filth, eat bad meals, isolate them from the general population, deny all visitors, censor all post, bill their families for their incarceration or seize assets, bring back 'cruel and unusual punishmnent' for child rape, homicide, paedophilia - execution solves nothing. Life in prison without parole!
[Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

[ 22. November 2005, 02:40: Message edited by: Sir Kevin ]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
A life sentence rarely is for life.
Have you a reference for this, Sharkshooter?

It's my impression that in the US, at least, a sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is just that (barring a rare exercise of clemency or pardon.) I haven't found national statistics, but this article on the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola says that the half of inmates who are lifers there "will never be released from the prison." (The article is from a 1998 newsletter of the National Prison Hospice Association.) I'd be interested to learn of an authoritative source on this topic, if you know of one.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
A life sentence rarely is for life.
Have you a reference for this, Sharkshooter?

...
Try this analysis by the John Howard Society: here. We have no true life imprisonment in Canada ...
quote:
There are four classifications of indeterminate sentences in Canada, three of which involve life imprisonment and a fourth which involves “indefinite detention,” which can be imposed upon being declared a Dangerous Offender. The four classifications are: life imprisonment as a minimum sentence with no eligibility for parole for 25 years, life imprisonment as a minimum sentence with no eligibility for parole for 10 to 25 years, life as a maximum sentence and indeterminate sentences imposed on Dangerous Offenders.

Note that all categories allow for parole.
 
Posted by Dobbo (# 5850) on :
 
A few thoughts

Justice is blind

No it is not - as far as I am aware over 90% of those on death row are black

Justice is impartial

No - not if you have enough money to buy an extremely expensive legal team

My cousin who works as a procurator fiscal - does confuse me sometimes - she says that the jury tend to not convict if the crime is carries a capital offence (she worked in the states in a legal capacity against the death penalty) but is not averse to entertaining castration for repeat rapists.

I also find that use of the death sentence may have been more satisfactory in the case of Myra Hindley (who ended up dying in prison with pnuemonia at 60) see here In this case she was a political football - none of the Home Secretaries would release her because they would have been "soft on crime". I watched a programme on TV about her which showed both sides and one woman was totally consumed by hatred for Myra - her only reason for living was to ensure that Myra was never released - that was her life sentence as well - perhaps if the death sentence had been invoked that woman may have been able to get on with her life.

An interesting thought - the police officers that killed a Brazillian going towards a tube train - should they be up for the death penalty if it were introduced.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Punish criminals thusly in all states in the US:
Let them live in filth, eat bad meals, isolate them from the general population, deny all visitors, censor all post, bill their families for their incarceration or seize assets, bring back 'cruel and unusual punishmnent' for child rape, homicide, paedophilia - execution solves nothing. Life in prison without parole!
I disagree with pretty much all of this, unsurprising really given what I've said above.

However, do want to tackle something about this. People seem to almost think of sexual offenses as morally worse than murder. [No I am not saying that Sir Kevin said this specifically - just triggered my thoughts in this direction.] Paedophillia is a disgusting crime, as is rape, but are these acts not of a different order to murder ?

[ 22. November 2005, 18:00: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by wombat (# 5180) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Is it not generally thought that vicious murderers and other sociopaths want to be executed for their crimes? Why do the US do them that favour? Why do they execute those guilty of murder and treason but not paedophiles?
My understanding is that, for sex-related crimes in the US, when the severity of the expected punishment increases, the conviction rate decreases, so that if you had capital punishment for pedophiles, none of them would ever be convicted.
Do you think that is because jurors do not want people executed so they find them "not guilty" to avoid it in spite of the evidence?
Historically speaking, in the 18th century, Britain had the Death Penalty for dozens upon dozens of crimes. You could be executed for stealing a sufficiently well made pie. The end result was that juries frequently refused to convict and most people ended up being pardoned if they were convicted.

If the punishment seems disproportionate to juries, they will frequently acquit, since they usually have no way to lower the punishment to the level they find suitable.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I think I agree with that last post. After all its more or less exactly what I said myself on the previous page... [Biased]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
My point, which I am sure I have already made, is that I don't think that is the role of a jury.

Are we done yet, or does anyone have anything new to say?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
My point, which I am sure I have already made, is that I don't think that is the role of a jury.

Are we done yet, or does anyone have anything new to say?
Not new -- just to repeat, that this is a role juries have historically performed over several centuries. It seems a little brusque to brush off the experience of centuries in order to achieve a (debatable) theoretical purity.

It may not be the function of a single, specific jury (except in unusual circumstances), but for the legal systems based on that of England, it certainly can be argued that it is the function of juries in general.

John
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
The function of juries is justice, not law. In common law countries, that means that the jury is free to say "not guilty and he can keep the pig", as the old joke goes.
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
have you never heard of jury nullification, sharkshooter?
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
have you never heard of jury nullification, sharkshooter?
Yes. I just disagree with it.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Hosting

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Are we done yet, or does anyone have anything new to say?
It doesn't matter if the things people post are new or not; if you are bored, don't click on this thread. Also, in earlier posts you seem to have Limbo confused with Dead Horses. Just because a previous discussion of this topic has been deemed interesting enough to save in Limbo doesn't mean the same ground can't be covered again. It also doesn't mean anyone is obliged to read the previous discussion.

In short, do not attempt to moderate or limit discussion.

RuthW
Purgatory host
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
... do not attempt to moderate or limit discussion.

...
Sorry.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Deterrence can only theoretically work, surely, against professional killers. Hit men. And other serial killers with a strong sense of self-preservation. I suppose it might have inhibited the murderers of that poor WPC in Bradford too. But probably not. Premeditation and consequential reasoning isn't the strong suit of such morons.

I'd allow for capital punishment in theory, but never - or rather I can't think of an exception - in practice in civil society.
 
Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
However, do want to tackle something about this. People seem to almost think of sexual offenses as morally worse than murder. [No I am not saying that Sir Kevin said this specifically - just triggered my thoughts in this direction.] Paedophillia is a disgusting crime, as is rape, but are these acts not of a different order to murder ?
I think that's an interesting question. Paedophillia and rape can destroy a life; murder takes it. But then, if someone has been gang raped or brutalised in other ways as well (regardless of age), it could be said that they, too, have been robbed of their life.

Maybe it isn't so much that they are of a different order but of a similar order along different lines?
 
Posted by universalist (# 10318) on :
 
What does the doctrine of Capital Punishment say to the one convicted?

"There is no hope for you--you are not redeemable, you are not worth saving. You are beyond God's power to forgive and save you in this life. Therefore, all that is left is death for you.

"Capital Punishment" is the crowning ritual which celebrates "The Administration of Death"--St.Paul
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
It only says that if it is invoked AFTER death, U. Not before. Before it it can only say we can't help you in this life, better luck in the next.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
What I meant to say is that the paedophile is as evil as, or no better than, the murderer, and both should be incarcerated for life with no possibility of parole.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Interested in this from a Scriptural perspective: Gen9:6 is often cited by pro- people as justification for CP - what do Shipmates make of it?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Gen9:6 is often cited by pro- people as justification for CP - what do Shipmates make of it?
That it permits capital punishment for murder.

But (a) justice is better than mercy, and we can be Christlike by extending mercy

and (b) as others have said we can never be quite sure we've got the right convict and you can't undo an execution. So seeing as we are living in reasonbly settled and non-violent cultures with the ability to lock people up rather than do away with them, its better that we do that & not risk killing the wrong person. If we were living in little tribes in the desert things might be different.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Ken, this is dreadful, what are we going to do. We agree!
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
The Four Horsemen are surely nigh (or is that 'neigh')?!
 
Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 
News report that the Virginia governor grants clemency to a convicted killer, by commuting his sentence to life in prison.

I am glad I voted for him.
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Good news indeed. I'm glad your candidate was elected.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
What does the doctrine of Capital Punishment say to the one convicted?

"There is no hope for you--you are not redeemable, you are not worth saving. You are beyond God's power to forgive and save you in this life. Therefore, all that is left is death for you.

This is almost exactly the conclusion I have come to as well, although I think of it in social terms: "You will never contribute anything positive to society no matter how long you live. You will never change. Therefore we are going to kill you."

I refuse to even attempt to make that kind of determination about another person, and I wonder at how others seem to think they can. I believe capital punishment is about revenge, no matter how many additional justifications get trotted out. OliviaG
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Gen9:6 is often cited by pro- people as justification for CP - what do Shipmates make of it?
That it permits capital punishment for murder.

But (a) justice is better than mercy, and we can be Christlike by extending mercy

and (b) as others have said we can never be quite sure we've got the right convict and you can't undo an execution. So seeing as we are living in reasonbly settled and non-violent cultures with the ability to lock people up rather than do away with them, its better that we do that & not risk killing the wrong person. If we were living in little tribes in the desert things might be different.
But fundies and conevos, who tend to be pros- , will cite Gen 9 ad nauseam for saying that, whatever the goodness of your above arguments, the death penalty is mandated by God because Man is in His image, and that therefore it is God's will.
 
Posted by MightyAardvark (# 10255) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Where is it legal in the first world countries? Is it a deterrent?
No. The United States executes more people than the rest of the western world put together yet maintains homicide and violent crime rates grossly out of proportion to it's population.

QED
The death penalty is not an effective deterrent.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Sorry, missed edit window.

I wanted to add that fundies will also say that Gen 9 predates the Law, and therefore it is no use arguing with them that we're under the New Convenant now etc.
 
Posted by MightyAardvark (# 10255) on :
 
there is no biblically valid way of separating the laws of the old testament into laws we still follow and laws we don't follow. Either you follow them all (and stone homosexuals to death and dash the brains out of our children etc) or by the grace of God we are free from the need to abide by these rules.

Also...

God loves us all regardless of our misdeeds and I for one am not going to be a party to shivving up one of god's beloved children. That's just asking for an an almighty asskicking.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Agreed, but they would say that since Gen 9:6 predates the giving of the OT Law, it is not part of it and is therefore of universal application.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
OliviaG

I'm happy to make that determination without prejudice. Myra Hindley was a near classic case. She was UTTERLY humanly, socially irredeemable, no matter how penitent, repentant, forgiven by God; saved by the blood of the lamb. Which in her case still seemed questionable while STILL being ultimately open.
 
Posted by MightyAardvark (# 10255) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed, but they would say that since Gen 9:6 predates the giving of the OT Law, it is not part of it and is therefore of universal application.
They can make that argument if they want but I would still call it biblically invalid.
Jesus' new covenant replaced EVERYTHING that went before, regardless of where and when it came. Everything was washed away and made anew. The precise location it enjoys within the OT is not germane to the argument.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
I heard an interesting libertarian argument on how the death penalty should be implemented. The libertarian stated that because government sucks at everything it does, that the death penalty should be abolished. When asked what he would do if someone killed his sister he replied, "I would commit a crime myself, get thrown in jail and kill the bastard that killed my sister with my own hands."

Works for me.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
This is almost exactly the conclusion I have come to as well, although I think of it in social terms: "You will never contribute anything positive to society no matter how long you live. You will never change. Therefore we are going to kill you."
Yes. A hopelessly botched job of any kind suggests an incompetent craftsman.

As chilling as such a statement is when applied to an adult, AFAIK laws are on the books in various states whereby the statement can be made to children.

Whereas it seems that various other countries never have to make that statement.

What does that say? 'Only America manages to botch so badly the craft of child-rearing.'

Great testimony for what America stands for, huh.

I suppose once in awhile even a master craftsman messes up to that extent. But he doesn't go out and parade the fact.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MightyAardvark:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed, but they would say that since Gen 9:6 predates the giving of the OT Law, it is not part of it and is therefore of universal application.
They can make that argument if they want but I would still call it biblically invalid.
Jesus' new covenant replaced EVERYTHING that went before, regardless of where and when it came. Everything was washed away and made anew. The precise location it enjoys within the OT is not germane to the argument.
They would doubtless argue that Jesus didn't replace the OT/ Law but fulfilled it
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

What does that say? 'Only America manages to botch so badly the craft of child-rearing.'

Great testimony for what America stands for, huh.
Yes, because all 297 Million of us 'Mericans are one homogenous case of bad parenting. We all beat our children, hand them crack pipes, and sell them to our neighbors for slaves. Yeah. Sure.

I sure hope I am misunderstanding you and you did not in fact make that ridiculous assertion.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
What does the doctrine of Capital Punishment say to the one convicted?

"There is no hope for you--you are not redeemable, you are not worth saving. You are beyond God's power to forgive and save you in this life. Therefore, all that is left is death for you.

This is almost exactly the conclusion I have come to as well, although I think of it in social terms: "You will never contribute anything positive to society no matter how long you live. You will never change. Therefore we are going to kill you."

I refuse to even attempt to make that kind of determination about another person, and I wonder at how others seem to think they can. I believe capital punishment is about revenge, no matter how many additional justifications get trotted out. OliviaG
So basically you should never be on a jury because on a jury you have to determine if someone actually IS a murdering nasty scumbag of a person and inflict revenge on them in the form of prison or death.

If the DP is revenge, so is prison.

[ 01. December 2005, 16:18: Message edited by: Mad Geo ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
If the DP is revenge, so is prison.
The way our prisons are currently run, yes, that's at least partly true. But removing someone from society and taking away their liberty for a period of time is not necessarily revenge. Once upon a time, we had the notion that the point of imprisoning someone was partly to punish them and partly to hold them apart from society until they were fit to re-enter it. The rehabilitative model of imprisonment is now largely lost, but it could be brought back.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Yes, because all 297 Million of us 'Mericans are one homogenous case of bad parenting. We all beat our children, hand them crack pipes, and sell them to our neighbors for slaves. Yeah. Sure.

I sure hope I am misunderstanding you and you did not in fact make that ridiculous assertion.
Where do you find that assertion? Please read again the assertion I made:

America's laws indicate that America occasionally finds it necessary to give up on one of its human beings as hopelessly botched jobs before even reaching the age of majority.

Most other nations never find this necessary.

Ergo, American culture constitutes an unusually dangerous, defective, and uncertain environment for raising its young. Maybe the conclusion isn't true, but it is a valid conclusion from the premises. If you don't like the conclusion, you might want to do something about the premises.

Because I would consider this-- wouldn't you?-- a rather damning conclusion to reach about any culture, especially one which thinks it can instruct the rest of the world on how to live.

Do you also assume in perplexity that Juan Miguel Gonzalez must have been out of his mind when he insisted on getting his six-year-old son out of the United States and back to Cuba? I can think of quite a few good possible reasons, none directly related to politics.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Do you also assume in perplexity that Juan Miguel Gonzalez must have been out of his mind when he insisted on getting his six-year-old son out of the United States and back to Cuba? I can think of quite a few good possible reasons, none directly related to politics.
Actually of course Juan Miguel wanted to get his son back to the Authoritarian Communistic state of Cuba, because then he would be a national hero, and is. A better question might be why his mother tried, to the point of death by shark, to leave the country and come to a country that is so piss poor at raising its young.

Are you raising your young here? If so, you better hurry up and leave this "unusually dangerous, defective, and uncertain environment" for someplace nice, safe, and restrained like Cuba [Roll Eyes] . I'm sure they will love to have people that think like you.

RuthW

I am in favor of some, some, rehab of prisoners, within logic, and more importantly, cost constraints. But even then, I would call it revenge to lock people away while they were rehabbed. If we are worrying about revenge, let's not gloss over that society takes its revenge one way or the other. Dead Penalty or Bubba, revenge is revenge.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Actually of course Juan Miguel wanted to get his son back to the Authoritarian Communistic state of Cuba, because then he would be a national hero, and is.
I guess you don't like Cuba much. I don't either on balance, although Cuban medical care may be seriously underrated.

How about Mexico, then? A man named Nasdijj recently moved his 25 young charges of Refuge House, all children with HIV/AIDS who would otherwise be homeless, from Chapel Hill, North Carolina to Mexico. Why? The medicine they needed to stay alive was more readily available there than in the Research Triangle. (Not that he isn't plenty fed up with the U.S. in other ways as well.)

[ 01. December 2005, 20:23: Message edited by: Alogon ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I am in favor of some, some, rehab of prisoners, within logic, and more importantly, cost constraints. But even then, I would call it revenge to lock people away while they were rehabbed. If we are worrying about revenge, let's not gloss over that society takes its revenge one way or the other. Dead Penalty or Bubba, revenge is revenge.
If we're locking people away because they are likely to re-offend before they are rehabilitated, I don't see how that can be labelled "revenge." But as I said earlier, given the current state of our prisons, I have no problem calling it revenge right now.

When people cite the truism that you can tell a lot about a society's morality by how it treats the powerless and the vulnerable, they're usually thinking of children. But I think we should also think of the crazy people on the streets and the people in prison.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
I was surprised to read MadGeo's comments that some lives have a higher monetary value than others. Some simply aren't worth it; it would seem from his comments.

K.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Just to note, the US has now reached the 1000th execution.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
& just to add a sense of scale, that's about what China does in a year.

As do the Brazilian police, without benefit of trial (though that's in some ways more like a slow-burning conservative insurgency than police action)

When we Brits used to exectute we probably didn't kill many more than that in the last two centuries of peacetime capital punishment - smaller population though so maybe about the same rate as the USA nowadays and orders of magnitude less than China.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Actually of course Juan Miguel wanted to get his son back to the Authoritarian Communistic state of Cuba, because then he would be a national hero, and is.
I guess you don't like Cuba much. I don't either on balance, although Cuban medical care may be seriously underrated.

How about Mexico, then? A man named Nasdijj recently moved his 25 young charges of Refuge House, all children with HIV/AIDS who would otherwise be homeless, from Chapel Hill, North Carolina to Mexico. Why? The medicine they needed to stay alive was more readily available there than in the Research Triangle. (Not that he isn't plenty fed up with the U.S. in other ways as well.)
Mexico? [Killing me]

Have you been to Mexico lately? Not the Mexico you see for tourists mind you, the Mexico where crime is bad, people import U.S. garage doors to make houses out of, and live in shanty towns. The Mexico that is sending entire villages of young men to get to the U.S. That Mexico?

Every country has its ups and downs Alogon. Every single country. I just got back from Germany and France. Both were very cool, very much like the U.S. in many ways. And both have unemployment rates that would choke a country to death, riots in France, and other pains. Just like US. And that's the closest comparison one could reasonably make to the U.S., which doesn't amount to shit. So please stop with the country assertions, they don't fly because every country has its ups and downs.

If you simply must make an assertion comparing countries, why don't you add the sentence "and the U.S. has the most powerful economy in the world and highest standard of living for the bulk of its residents" after every assertion, just to put things in perspective.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If we're locking people away because they are likely to re-offend before they are rehabilitated, I don't see how that can be labelled "revenge." But as I said earlier, given the current state of our prisons, I have no problem calling it revenge right now.

When people cite the truism that you can tell a lot about a society's morality by how it treats the powerless and the vulnerable, they're usually thinking of children. But I think we should also think of the crazy people on the streets and the people in prison.
I will probably get fully onboard with the crazy people in the streets (although again, many countries have that issue). I will not with regards to prisoners. They are more often than not "vulnerable", they are the ones doing the victimizing of the vulnerable, so I will not cut them that slack.

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I was surprised to read MadGeo's comments that some lives have a higher monetary value than others. Some simply aren't worth it; it would seem from his comments.

K.
Care to show me where I said that?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I will probably get fully onboard with the crazy people in the streets (although again, many countries have that issue). I will not with regards to prisoners. They are more often than not "vulnerable", they are the ones doing the victimizing of the vulnerable, so I will not cut them that slack.

Assuming, of course, that they are actually guilty as charged. An assumption many of us are no longer willing to make without conditions, given the record of courts and police forces in many countries.

John
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Mexico? [Killing me]
.

Yes, Mexico. Let me repeat: Nasdijj and his family left the U.S. for Mexico of their own free will and never looked back. Now go ahead and tell us what a miserable place Mexico is economically and in any other way you care to mention. Think I don't know that? Think he doesn't know it? You make my point for me.

Did you read anything at that link? If not here's another. http://nasdijj.00books.com/

Excerpt:

quote:

We tried in North Carolina, California, and New Mexico. We always met extraordinary opposition from school districts, community AIDS outreach centers, and the medical community which viewed us with nothing less than sheer loathing. The KKK burned a cross on our front yard. The hate mail we receive is shocking. The threats ("take your AIDS somewhere else or we'll kill you") we receive have been consistently threatening. We are now in a very remote location. We will not tell you where it is. The only way to communicate with us is through email and all threatening email is automatically blocked.
quote:

If you simply must make an assertion comparing countries, why don't you add the sentence "and the U.S. has the most powerful economy in the world and highest standard of living for the bulk of its residents" after every assertion
Thank you. The operative phrase is "For the bulk." And what about the others? The more we brag about our powerful economy and our great standard of living for "the bulk", the more inexcusable become the conditions in which we leave the small minority outside "the bulk". Or isn't it such a small minority? The indifference of The Bulk is stupefying. The utilitarian complacency that can leave children in such conditions as he describes for the sake of The Bulk is utterly devoid of moral stature. Obviously you don't get it.

As far as I'm concerned, Nasdijj is prophesying to America exactly like a latter-day Jeremiah. We'd better pay attention to such voices before we've totally lost it.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Alogon, a famous person once said "Democracy is the worst form of government on earth, except for all the rest".

Sure if you look at the lowest 5% in America, yeah their conditions might suck, but how does it suck compared to the lowest 5% in Cuba, or how does it suck from the lowest 5% in Mexico, or France (who just rioted because they had NO OTHER VOICE)? You think you are demonstrating that because SOME people have shit lives that we (or pick any country) are somehow inferior to someplace else.

That is as asinine with regards to the U.S. as it is to anywhere else. We all have our problems. Some have less than others. Some have shitloads more. All in all, the U.S. and E.U. have less, that's why people from Cuba and Mexico are literally dying to get here. The fact that we have the Death Penalty or that France treats their immigrants like dogshit, is irrelevant to anything for comparitive purposes.

ALL countries have issues.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Sure if you look at the lowest 5% in America, yeah their conditions might suck, but how does it suck compared to the lowest 5% in Cuba, or how does it suck from the lowest 5% in Mexico
Very true.

quote:

, or France (who just rioted because they had NO OTHER VOICE)?
I doubt if 5% rioted. Probably not much more than 0.05%

Ansd the poorest in France have the same voice they do in the USA - theoretical freedom of speech. They are also more likely to register to vote, and more likely to actually vote if they do. Their chance of getting a job is lower than in most of the USA, but their material conditions without a job tend to be rather better.
 
Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Didn't mean to imply that 5% of France rioted. As I understand it, France keeps no records of the different races/cultures within its borders "because we are ALL french!". And that tended to allow them to ignore the problem areas, if you can't track it you can't fix it. Not that I would blame them for that, but apparently that sytem is less than desirable to some. Melting pots are hard to do, just ask America. But very worth it.

Of course, all that Francofury would make for an "unusually dangerous, defective, and uncertain environment for raising its young" and therefore the French should be fleeing to Cuba or Mexico.
[Biased]
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I declined to post on the Van Nguyen thread because, in spite of my sadness at hearing of his death, we have passed a very sad milestone right here in the US: 1000 executions since it became common practice again. I had great, bright hopes for this country in the 21st century. Now they are dimmed.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:If you simply must make an assertion comparing countries, why don't you add the sentence "and the U.S. has the most powerful economy in the world and highest standard of living for the bulk of its residents" after every assertion, just to put things in perspective.
Where on Earth do you get the idea that the US has the highest standard of living? I do notice that have added the rather pointless qualifier 'for most of its citezens'.


quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I was surprised to read MadGeo's comments that some lives have a higher monetary value than others. Some simply aren't worth it; it would seem from his comments.

K.
quote:
Care to show me where I said that?
In your earlier post.

K.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
From the closed thread, originally posted by Chastmastr:

quote:
I recalled another, not-quite-appropriate thread from a while ago when I saw the news story just now about the Stanley Tookie Williams death penalty appeal -- and this thread is not to rehash that thread nor to debate the death penalty proper (dead horse, I think).

What bothered me -- weirded me out a bit -- when I read the news article (on AOL news) was this sentence (no pun intended):

quote:
... the 51-year-old gangster-turned-preacher of peace, who was convicted of murdering four people in 1979. He is scheduled to die on Dec. 13.
Four people.

In 1979.

I don't have an intrinsic problem with the death penalty. But it seems to me that this case -- the murder of four people (and not, unless I've missed something, in a serial-killer-rape-and-torture kind of way) twenty-six years ago, apart from any issues about penitence or his peace work or whatever -- compared with, say, Charles Manson, or any number of serial killers, or other murdered-in-cold-blood situations...

Why are those guys alive and in jail, and this guy being executed, exactly? Even apart from the really twisted ones, aren't there other people who have killed more people to execute first?

Is this just a quirk of the way the law happened to work in this case?

Should the laws be made more regular across state lines? Why or why not?

I'm sure there's some explanation, I just find it baffling that this guy killed four people during the Disco era, before some of us here were alive, and he's just now being executed for it. Isn't there a thing about a speedy trial? Doesn't it apply to sentencing too? Did he appeal for years on it? How long can they go on for? Is this a good thing after all, given that some people do turn out to be innocent? Etc.?

Again, this is not about the death penalty proper -- just the oddly spotty use of it in this case and how it relates to other things. (I tend to think "not guilty by reason of insanity" applies to some cases but not all, and not people like Manson, who I think should have been executed for his crimes long ago, nor child murderers and the like.)

I'm personally inclined to think I'd rather be executed quickly rather than wait, not knowing what was going to happen next, for over two decades as the years agonizingly drift by.

David

 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Whups! Thanks, Ruth! [Hot and Hormonal]

I'm actually amazed it's not a dead horse, and somehow thought this thread was there. [Hot and Hormonal] But anyway, yeah, this is my post, and I'm still a tad wondering why the DP is being applied so haphazardly. Possibly it's because it's a state by state issue here in the US?

David
 
Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
well yeah, chast, that basicly is it.

also racial bias as well.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I heard an interesting libertarian argument on how the death penalty should be implemented. The libertarian stated that because government sucks at everything it does, that the death penalty should be abolished. When asked what he would do if someone killed his sister he replied, "I would commit a crime myself, get thrown in jail and kill the bastard that killed my sister with my own hands."

Works for me.
Government law is meant to maintain order in a society. I know you are half-joking here, MG, but many people would agree with you on this, I fear. Our laws are set up to protect everyone, not the least of which would be alleged murderers. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a near meaningless platitude, but it's an amazing virtue to build a system on. Until they have been "proven" guilty to the best of our ability to do so, they remain innocent, which means they should not be at risk from you or any other of the victim's family members who are blinded by their rage and pain.

However, there is something to be said for the argument for capital punishment on the grounds of utilitarianism. Law should be based on what maintains order for the society. This is a big issue when people begin to claim that "it's better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted." Lawfully, that's just not true--much more damage is inflicted to society by letting 100 criminals go free and commit more crimes than to wrongfully incarcerate or execute one unlucky Joe.

The issue here is what does the killing gain??? I can't see that it gains anything that lifelong imprisonment doesn't.

And sorry, but you can't make the argument "well most life sentences aren't lifelong" and then later make the argument "well if capital punishment is reducing convictions then we have to fix the system." You can fix the life sentencing system just as "easily."

-Digory
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't have an intrinsic problem with the death penalty. But it seems to me that this case -- the murder of four people (and not, unless I've missed something, in a serial-killer-rape-and-torture kind of way) twenty-six years ago, apart from any issues about penitence or his peace work or whatever -- compared with, say, Charles Manson, or any number of serial killers, or other murdered-in-cold-blood situations...

Why are those guys alive and in jail, and this guy being executed, exactly? Even apart from the really twisted ones, aren't there other people who have killed more people to execute first? <snip>

I'm sure there's some explanation, I just find it baffling that this guy killed four people during the Disco era, before some of us here were alive, and he's just now being executed for it. Isn't there a thing about a speedy trial? Doesn't it apply to sentencing too? Did he appeal for years on it? How long can they go on for? Is this a good thing after all, given that some people do turn out to be innocent? Etc.? <snip>

I'm personally inclined to think I'd rather be executed quickly rather than wait, not knowing what was going to happen next, for over two decades as the years agonizingly drift by.
I live in California, so this being a California case, it's all over the news (thank God I do not have television!) - makes me crazy how many untruths are out there about this case. But you ask, why is he still alive? BECAUSE while we have laws that advocate a speedy trial (and he was sentenced quickly, too), we also have an automatic series of appeals for death-penalty convictions. Tookie Williams has exhausted ALL of his appeals (and no court in the land, including the US Supreme Court, have found *any basis* on which to uphold any of those appeals). People talk about it being racist - NO, it wasn't. Yes, a lot of black folks were kicked off the jury - for CAUSE; it had nothing to do with being black (believe me, this was the point of a number of appeals and it has been examined VERY CLOSELY by extremely liberal courts - including multiple times by the California 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which freely topples such convictions, given half a chance). It has also been reported that the jury was "all white" - and THAT is also false.

Why is Charles Manson not executed? Well, he got the death penalty - and then California decided to eliminate the death penalty and all those convicts had their sentences commuted to life without the possibility of parole. Then the people of California came back to their senses and said, "whoa, death penalty might be a good idea after all" so it was re-instated BUT those convicts whose sentences had been commuted to life without parole remain LWP - so there's a new crop of convicts with pending death sentences. It's actually very expensive to have the death penalty - they can't be housed with the regular prison population, they're on "death row" and that costs considerably more, and they get all these automatic appeals, for which the state ALSO pays, so from a practical standpoint it may not be the best use of resources.

But personally, I believe God meant it back in Genesis 9 when He says, "whoever murders man, by man shall his blood be shed" - this is a sin against GOD - because mankind is made in the image of God (see Gen.9:6) and it has to do with keeping the land itself balanced (scripture often talks of the blood crying out from the ground, and I have Native American friends who actually *discern* that - they can feel it). So we may choose to stop imposing the death penalty but I actually think there's a negative spiritual consequence to that choice.

As for Tookie, no they weren't rape/murder/torture serial-tyoe killings but rather vicious, petty robbery related. He's promoted himself as co-founder of the Crips, but I remember the Crips when I was in high school (late 1960s), so that's historically unlikely (and challenged by other Crip members). It's become very goofy because some college professor has nominated him repeatedly for the Nobel (peace and also literature!) prize - and it turns out that it doesn't take much to be nominated, the nomination in itself is actually pretty meaningless - but the public hasn't figured that out yet. He also doesn't stand up as an "anti-gang" activist because he's still affiliated with the gang and doesn't use his influence to break down that destructive sub-culture (he claims he's been "redeemed" - but he doesn't repent of the killings and claims to be innocent, despite partial confessions at the time) - he's a pretty bogus guy but he's the center of this particular tornado.

I know what you mean about thinking you'd prefer to "get it over with" in terms of execution - but that is *rarely* the case - I suspect, when it comes right down to it, that most of us would rather live (and it really upsets the anti-death penalty activists when someone does refuse those appeals, etc., and request a speedy execution). By the way, while very occasionally forensic science clears a formerly convicted person, it usually goes the other way and proves the conviction - but *those* cases aren't publicized. Lots of this is the dynamic of the media sharks at work... *sigh*

What a zoo.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
It's become very goofy because some college professor has nominated him repeatedly for the Nobel (peace and also literature!) prize - and it turns out that it doesn't take much to be nominated, the nomination in itself is actually pretty meaningless - but the public hasn't figured that out yet.
I've never been nominated, and neither has anyone I know or have ever known. That probably counts for something.

quote:
He also doesn't stand up as an "anti-gang" activist because he's still affiliated with the gang and doesn't use his influence to break down that destructive sub-culture (he claims he's been "redeemed" - but he doesn't repent of the killings and claims to be innocent, despite partial confessions at the time) - he's a pretty bogus guy but he's the center of this particular tornado.
If he's guilty, then yes, this MIGHT be true (that he's a "bogus" guy), but since we don't really know the truth and never will, it's probably a little unfair to make this claim about him. What if he IS innocent? It's actually VERY easy to get a confession out of somebody, but that's a different topic I suppose.

quote:
By the way, while very occasionally forensic science clears a formerly convicted person, it usually goes the other way and proves the conviction - but *those* cases aren't publicized. Lots of this is the dynamic of the media sharks at work... *sigh*
Welllll... I mean, of course we're not going to make a newsworthy story out of "Look who's still guilty," are we? I'd think even a 1% rate of wrong convictions would be quite notable, and worth discussing at the very least!


(Lynn, I've just realized you must think I live to pick fights with you. Many apologies if I've come off this way... I just respond when I feel like I have something to say! Much respect for you, of course! [Smile] )

-Digory
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I take it the books he's supposedly written encouraging kids to keep out of gangs don't exist, and that's just liberal lies as well?

Or is that not "using his influence"?
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
I've never been nominated, and neither has anyone I know or have ever known. That probably counts for something.
It counts for something - but not as much as I'd always assumed - Bill Handel, a local radio personality "and Marconi Award winnder," just got himself nominated by a congressman, for the purpose of demonstrating that there aren't a lot of hoops to jump through, as far as nominations go.

quote:
If he's guilty, then yes, this MIGHT be true (that he's a "bogus" guy), but since we don't really know the truth and never will, it's probably a little unfair to make this claim about him. What if he IS innocent? It's actually VERY easy to get a confession out of somebody, but that's a different topic I suppose.
I've got opinions because this is all *local* to me - the murders in the first place, the trial (a friend of mine was a district attorney for 25 years here, and this was during her tenure but not her case). I really don't doubt his guilt - having read a chunk of the available legal material, having served on a number of juries and being quite aware of the way the legal system works in California, I am quite confident in the legitimacy of this conviction. No, there's no question of him being "beaten and forced into a confession" (that's not been alleged) - he's never fully confessed, just let a few things slip which served to confirm the stories of the people he was hanging out with (whose testimony was some of what served to convict him - the most damaging of which did NOT have a plea bargain with the DA and is still doing his own time).

quote:
...of course we're not going to make a newsworthy story out of "Look who's still guilty," are we? I'd think even a 1% rate of wrong convictions would be quite notable, and worth discussing at the very least!

(Lynn, I've just realized you must think I live to pick fights with you. Many apologies if I've come off this way... I just respond when I feel like I have something to say! Much respect for you, of course! [Smile] )
Nah, I don't take it personally - but it is kind of funny how often the same sets of folks will end up on the opposite side of a question - which leads to a whole other question of mindsets, what they are and how we develop them!

Karl, I haven't read the books so I don't have an opinion on them. There are those who believe the books, the movie, the nominations, etc., are all part of a "keep Tookie alive" plot orchestrated by certain persons, but that's a little too "conspiracy theory" for me - I mean, if I had a friend on death row that I wanted to keep alive, I'd do all sorts of stuff to try and make it happen, too. I have respect for people who don't believe in the death penalty; that's a legitimate position. But I am fascinated that the last person executed here in California was a white guy and he had *no* media coverage - just not the "right" case to draw out the ones who do it for the purpose of their own profile (as opposed to the folks who will be out there with candles and a vigil, no matter who is being executed - those are the guys who really stand by their convictions).
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Even as we speak, Governor Schwarzenegger is looking at this case.
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
well, he's been dead about 2 hours now... (tookie, not the Guv!).
 
Posted by MightyAardvark (# 10255) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Didn't mean to imply that 5% of France rioted. As I understand it, France keeps no records of the different races/cultures within its borders "because we are ALL french!". And that tended to allow them to ignore the problem areas, if you can't track it you can't fix it. Not that I would blame them for that, but apparently that sytem is less than desirable to some. Melting pots are hard to do, just ask America. But very worth it.

Of course, all that Francofury would make for an "unusually dangerous, defective, and uncertain environment for raising its young" and therefore the French should be fleeing to Cuba or Mexico.
[Biased]
I'm sorry you are totally denying to reality of the society you live in. Utterly utterly closing your eyes to the truth of the situation. You haven't made a logically supportable post on this thread so far and your "evidence" is apparently plucked out of thin air. You only examine the concepts that support your theory and refuse to accept the theoretical validity of any other points of view.
Show me the hard verifiable data, preferably quantifiable statistics etc to support any single point my point claim you have made in this thread. If you can't then kindly concede the point and stop peddling such hate filled nonsense.

For those of you who appear to actually understand the topic I heartily commend this book. linkies
 
Posted by Keren-Happuch (# 9818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:


Why is Charles Manson not executed? Well, he got the death penalty - and then California decided to eliminate the death penalty and all those convicts had their sentences commuted to life without the possibility of parole. Then the people of California came back to their senses and said, "whoa, death penalty might be a good idea after all" so it was re-instated
I was very surprised by this case, because I thought California was too liberal to have the death penalty. Evidently not.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
well, he's been dead about 2 hours now... (tookie, not the Guv!).
Oh, shame.

K.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I hate to say it, but the facts I've now read about the case on this link -- which I did not know -- persuade me that he did deserve the death penalty. However, I also still think it should have been decades ago, and that there are still others -- Charles Manson springs to mind -- who, if a society is to execute people for their crimes, deserve to be executed first. But how that kind of thing can be dealt with -- given that the checks and balances in the system which have grown up are there to serve a purpose, and that I believe if they were cleared away (as some say they should be, which I think sounds good at first) in the name of simplicity, the issues those laws came into being to repair would be back with a vengeance -- I don't know.

David
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Keren-Happuch:
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Why is Charles Manson not executed? Well, he got the death penalty - and then California decided to eliminate the death penalty and all those convicts had their sentences commuted to life without the possibility of parole. Then the people of California came back to their senses and said, "whoa, death penalty might be a good idea after all" so it was re-instated
I was very surprised by this case, because I thought California was too liberal to have the death penalty. Evidently not.
Only parts of California are liberal--Los Angeles and San Francisco, mainly, with the suburbs of those cities also skewing liberal, though the deeply true-blue liberal-no-matter-what attitudes you're probably thinking of belong only to the metro SF area. Outside of SF and LA, there are some liberal hippies in Santa Barbara, Mendocino County and few other places. But Orange County, the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties), San Diego, the Central Valley, most of the Central Coast, and the rural parts of California have various mixes of conservative and libertarian folks.

CNN has a breakdown by county of California voting results in the 2004 election here -- much of the coast, though not all of it, went for Kerry, and the coast is where the biggest population centers are. But there are still a lot of people living in the rest of the state.

Moreover, there is a fair number of people in the US who are "liberal" by American standards who are in favor of the death penalty.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
However, there is something to be said for the argument for capital punishment on the grounds of utilitarianism.
Perhaps there is if honestly labeled, but not if it's dressed up in the robes of 'justice.' [Mad]
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
Well, I think Genesis 9 still applies - I don't see Jesus saying anything to the effect of "yeah, the Romans have the power of the sword over you, but they shouldn't."

So while in practice, the death penalty is more expensive than keeping the convict alive in prison (housing on death row costs more than double, all the legal costs the state picks up, etc.), I think it's one of those unpleasant duties that we need to carry out in obedience to God.

Now that's MY reason for it and I have no idea how the secular world sorts it out. I was amazed, however, listening to the various protesters up at San Quentin (my first father-in-law did 17 years at "SQU" as he called it) who got very ugly and hostile (in the name of peace and life - now, I dare say, the "real" anti-death penalty types are out there for *every* execution, not just the high profile ones like this one, whether they're black or white - far more whites get executed, btw) - and it really confuses me that the same people accusing the state of "murder" and "legal lynching" and arguing against the death penalty also line up as PRO-abortion. That doesn't make sense - how can you be rabidly against the right of the state to carry out the death penalty for a convicted murderer but for the right to kill innocent (but inconvenient) babies in utero? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Well, the sweeping review of cases ordered by the gov. last year in Virginia has exonerated another two men imprisoned a combination of 20 years for rapes they did not commit. This review has been possible because of the discovery of a treasure trove of evidence preserved in pre-DNA testing days by a state examiner for reasons unknown. Anyway, the cases had relied on eyewitness testimony. (story: here)

This is what I mean when I say that I might support the death penalty in principle, but because we do not seem capable on the state level of ensuring that innocent people are not convicted of capital crimes, we just can't afford it. The risk of error is too high. These guys can be released from prison. If they had been executed ... not so much.
 
Posted by jinglebellrocker (# 8493) on :
 
I also support the death penalty in principle, but I don't trust the state not to kill innocent people. I did a report on capital punishment back in high school and I remember that since 1900 there has been an average of more than four cases a year of innocent people being convicted of murder in the U.S., and who knows how many of these people were executed?

[ 15. December 2005, 16:51: Message edited by: jinglebellrocker ]
 
Posted by MightyAardvark (# 10255) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jinglebellrocker:
and who knows how many of these people were executed?
Stanford university reckons that 24 innocent men have been executed in the United States since 1900

I oppose the death penalty on principle and on practicality.
 
Posted by professorkirke (# 9037) on :
 
MightyAardvark- where did you get this? Source?

quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
dare say, the "real" anti-death penalty types are out there for *every* execution, not just the high profile ones like this one, whether they're black or white - far more whites get executed, btw
Whoa, are you talking about raw numbers? Of course! But if you looked at the rate, would it still be the same? What about rate of blacks vs. whites ON death row?

Careful with statistics. (Did you know that approximately 89.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot?)

-Digory
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
While hearing the news of the recent execution(s) in California, I couldn't help having unworthy thoughts of how strange it seemed that Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has made millions of dollars pretending to kill people, was now making that choice in real life. And while Arnie was making all those movies*, Stanley Williams was in prison apparently trying to prevent violence. Is it a strange irony, or am I personalizing Arnie's decision too much? (I assure you I am not idealizing Tookie, even though I am a latte-drinking-sushi-eating-gay-loving-bleedin-heart-liberal...)

OliviaG

*Most of which, of course, I've watched dozens of times, coz things get blowed up real good. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
dare say, the "real" anti-death penalty types are out there for *every* execution, not just the high profile ones like this one, whether they're black or white - far more whites get executed, btw
Whoa, are you talking about raw numbers? Of course! But if you looked at the rate, would it still be the same? What about rate of blacks vs. whites ON death row?
Digory, when you talk about "rates", do you mean proportional to the population? So - NOT wanting to make up numbers off the top of my head (!!), "African-Americans" (aside: I have seen the "correct" terminology change at least 5 times in less than 40 years) make up 13.3% of the population of the USA (source) and racial composition of the death row population in 2003: 46% white, 42% African American, 10% Latino (source - I'm assuming it hasn't changed appreciably in the last 2 years). The statistic I don't have is how the figures compare, racially-speaking, for comparable murder convictions. I think the really challenging issue here is *why* there is more murder done by African-Americans? (I realize it's primarily gang culture related, but *why*?). So considering that the population of death row is proportionally nearly as many blacks as whites, it's also interesting that considerably more whites are actually executed.


quote:
posted by OliviaG (I think!)
While hearing the news of the recent execution(s) in California, I couldn't help having unworthy thoughts of how strange it seemed that Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has made millions of dollars pretending to kill people, was now making that choice in real life. And while Arnie was making all those movies*, Stanley Williams was in prison apparently trying to prevent violence. Is it a strange irony, or am I personalizing Arnie's decision too much? (I assure you I am not idealizing Tookie, even though I am a latte-drinking-sushi-eating-gay-loving-bleedin-heart-liberal...)
Actually, I think you are idealizing Tookie - his efforts to "prevent violence" have been greatly inflated (and many manufactured, imho) and I can understand a woman who falls for a guy in prison doing everything she can to "save" him, but I think his execution actually does MORE to discourage kids from joining gangs than anything else.

But YES, you are right, it is VERY bizarre to have Schwarzenegger have to consider clemency requests. It's been a long time since a California governor commuted a death sentence (last time was Ronald Reagan during his gig as governor) - of course, we've only executed 13 people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, so it's not done frequently (source).
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Here's wishing all death-row inmates at least one more Happy Christmas and praying for sentences overturned or commuted to life incarceration.
[Votive] [Tear] [Votive]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0