Capital Punishment for the Innocent

Applesanity said:
The guy holding the paper is Laci Peterson's stepdad, Ron Grantski. What a sick, twisted person. Gloating and celebrating over the death of yet another human being, no mater how despicable. What if TFL members gloated after killing violent intruders in their homes? Killing is something you might one day have to do. But it's not something to derive pleasure from. Jesus Christ.

Reading over the post-jury news conference, we also learned that the jury convicted Scott Peterson because they hated the person he was, and not for any real evidence. Now that is a full blown criticism of the Justice system.

Killing Scott ain't gonna get neither your stepdaughter back, nor any real closure. Revenge is a sick, sick coping mechanism. Jesus is on my side for this issue.
Click to expand...

Perceptions can often be enlightening.
You see Grantski as "gloating" and a "sick, twisted person".
What I see is a man who is happy that the justice system, in his eyes, has worked to punish Peterson for his treachery, deceipt and the murder of two people. I see a step-father who is relieved that the man who bludgeoned his step-daughter and drown her alive will no longer be free; and may have to atone for his sins before the Almighty earlier than he expected.


Gloating and celebrating over the death of yet another human being, no mater how despicable.
Click to expand...
I will tell you that I did celebrate the demise of Lawrence Singleton, a man who, in my opinion, was a waste of oxygen. A brutal rapist, torturer and killer of women, Singleton should never have been released from prison. I will also celebrate when Richard Allen Davis is executed because he, by his record, has shown that he is a violent, predatory, manipulative killer with no regard for his victims, his actions or who gets hurt. Davis confessed to several of his crimes, including the murder of Polly Klass.

It's the very fine, blurry line between justice and revenge. One is an assurance that your society is safe and recompensated for wrondoings. The other is just to get your kicks - to derive pleasure from the suffering of others. We don't have a word for it, but somehow, the Germans do: Schadenfreude.
Click to expand...

This is either over-simplified or a gross distortion. I agree with your definition of justice, though it is far too simple. But to imply that the smiling people in the photo are smiling because of "revenge" is either a distorted view or a twisted view of reality. I'd say they are happy that the killer will not escape punishment and they are pleased that the jury performed its function well.

A jury isn't required to like the defendant to any degree during a trial, nor look for redeeming characteristics. Contrary to other statements about the Jury "not liking" Scott Peterson, that was not the sole reason for a guilty verdict. Besides his actions, his explanations and defenses were as leaky as a seive. Members of the jury stated that they felt that Peterson's demeanor--specifically, his lack of emotion, and the phone calls to Amber Frey in the days after Laci's disappearance--indicated that he was guilty. They based their verdict on "hundreds of small 'puzzle pieces' of circumstantial evidence that came out during the trial, from the location of Laci Peterson's body to the myriad of lies her husband told after her disappearance"

On another note regarding this case, on January 10th, 2007, Donna Thomas, a legal researcher and legal advocate, appeared on Sirius Satellite Radio Courttv radio, with host Vinnie Politan. During the program, Thomas stated "I truly believed Scott was completely innocent. However during one of my visits with him at San Quentin, we were discussing evidence and he slipped. On another visit, he made a full confession."

RERICK made an interesting comment about "pulling the switch" himself. I'll leave his motives for others to dissect. As for me, having been fresh off a long investigation involving a father kidnapping his child after trying to kill his wife with a crosscut handsaw when, in 1978, Singleton's armless victim was discovered, I remarked that if they found her assailant and sentenced him to death, I'd volunteer for firing squad -- with my own rifle and ammuniton. The same is true for Richard Allen Davis. This is not about revenge, it's about being :mad: mad as hell :mad: that these people have the audacity to think they can get away with killing people for their own pleasure or gain.
 
I believe that some crimes certainly deserve death. There are many people walking around now who should be dead. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that the current corrupted and inefficient judicial system is the right entity to be making those decisions. I am not sure how to reconcile these opinions nor am I certain of the right way to fix the judicial system. I AM sure that a pedophile, rapist, or murderer caught in the act (so there is absolutely no doubt) by me will not have to worry about the judicial system.
 
M14fan

"I believe that some crimes certainly deserve death. There are many people walking around now who should be dead."
Click to expand...

With all due respect, who (or what) gives one the power to make that decision to take another human life as an act of revenge?

"I AM sure that a pedophile, rapist, or murderer caught in the act (so there is absolutely no doubt) by me will not have to worry about the judicial system."
Click to expand...

They may not, but you most likely would.
 
It should be noted that often capital punishment is used as a bargaining tool to get an obviously guilty defendant to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of Life without Parole. This spares the victim's family or families of multiple victims the anguish of a trial. Without the threat of capital punishment, a defendant has no reason not to go to trial.

Also, when it is asserted that a capital trial costs more than keeping a person imprisoned for life, this argument fails to consider the enormous savings derived from guilty pleas that would not have been obtained without the looming spector of capital punishment.

The idea of increasing the burden of proof from "any reasonable doubt" to "any doubt" would by definition require the State to present evidence to refute all possibilities. This would be impossible. After all, while it may be possible that space aliens committed the offense, most people would consider that unrealistic. However, if the State cannot disprove the defendant's assertion that space aliens did it, then there is arguably a scintilla of doubt. Beyond any reasonable doubt is the highest threshold that can be obtained. Unreasonable doubts are just that - unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
Lets see, one in particular that comes to mind is.
Guy kidnaps, rapes, kills little girl, here in Idaho. He is caught, confesses, takes the authorities to the body which has his DNA inside.
Is this a case for the death penalty?
IMHO it is and I would give him more than he gave her. I would not toucher him as he did her,and would allow him till sunrise to make peace with his maker then it would be a trip to the gallows. See ya! I don't care what your excuse is, NONE is good enough including complete insanity, your done buddy.

What would Jesus do? (In light of today being Holy Sunday)
Click to expand...

Jesus can forgive him society should not.
 
The idea of increasing the burden of proof from "any reasonable doubt" to "any doubt" would by definition require the State to present evidence to refute all possibilities. This would be impossible. After all, while it may be possible that space aliens committed the offense, most people would consider that unrealistic. However, if the State cannot disprove the defendant's assertion that space aliens did it, then there is arguably a scintilla of doubt. Beyond any reasonable doubt is the highest threshold that can be obtained. Unreasonable doubts are just that - unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Heck, you don't even have to go with space aliens. There's always good ol' fashioned government conspiracy. Just because there's not a snowball's chance that it's true doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as "doubt." This is kinda what I was getting at when I mentioned the idea that there is no such thing as absolutely no doubt. Call me naive, but from some of the things I've heard spewed by conspiracy nuts I'm thinking that in every crime there are always alternate theories that, no matter how implausible, are still possible.

This is not about revenge, it's about being mad as hell that these people have the audacity to think they can get away with killing people for their own pleasure or gain.
Click to expand...

So you're mad as hell, and anxious to volunteer to kill them yourself...but it's not about revenge? Hmmmm......

If it really wasn't about revenge, then you wouldn't care how he died or who killed him, no?
 
The justice system in this country is out of control. There are two types of crimes:
1. Malum Per Se - Evil (Bad in itself) ie: murder, rape, robbery etc. Things all societies have rejected.

2. Malum Prohibitum - Bad because the Govermment says so. ie: drug use, prostitution, gambling, selling raw milk, the list is endless. These laws are in place because we say we want to be left alone, but we want to be left alone with all others following our beliefs.

You can complain all you want but most of us contribute, under the guise of Democracy, by our own submission to Malum Prohibitum. Guess who wins?
It isn't us. It is the government (bureaucrats and politictians) who are supposed to be subserviant. The game is out of the barn. And your servants are loose.
 
I am pro death penalty. Call it revenge or justice it is just semantics.

That said the justice system does have intrinsic flaws. Not the least of which is law enforcement's and prosecution's refusal to accept exculpatory evidence and investigate for the real criminal. Too often a suspect will be zeroed in on by law enforcement. Even after the person is found to be innocent of the crime, law enforcement and prosecution maintains they don't believe the person is innocent and refuse to re-open the investigation. Going hand in hand with this problem is refusal and foot dragging by the courts to reverse or even review provably wrongful convictions when new evidence is discovered.
 
If it really wasn't about revenge
Click to expand...
,

It isn't PC but neither am I, but I tell ya what, if you were to molest my kid, or my wife and I knew it was 110% sure you did it. You better hope the authorities find you before I do cause I tell ya what, I will seek revenge with a vengeance such as you have never seen.

Revenge is a healthy thing under the right circumstances IMO.
This kind of thinking has be branded as not acceptable in our society but sometimes I hardily disagree with that PC assumption.
 
So you're mad as hell, and anxious to volunteer to kill them yourself...but it's not about revenge? Hmmmm......

If it really wasn't about revenge, then you wouldn't care how he died or who killed him, no?
Click to expand...

JuanCarlos -- did I say I was anxious? No, I said I was willing, there is a difference. I really don't care how Davis dies as long as the state executes him (and not a fellow inmate).

California, where I live, has flip-flopped notoriously on the issue of capital punishment. Even when we finally switched to lethal injection there were some "progressive" types who claimed no doctors would perform a lethal injection execution and wanted to revoke their licenses if they did. To which, I say, fine and dandy. I'm sure that in a state of more than 10 million people we could find 5 people to volunteer as Davis' firing squad, if it became necessary.

I think all of us would agree that being on a jury in a capital murder case is serious business. Further, I think most people on TFL would work hard to be critical and analytical in coming to judgement about guilt or innocence. I've seen plenty of examples of it here and would expect most of us would be good guardians of the defendant's rights as well as society's needs.
 
The big problem I have with capital punishment (and really with the entire criminal justice system) is that in most cases you're pitting a defendant with little or no money against the virtually unlimited resources of the government. Who do you think's going to win in this situation? The police work hand-in-hand with the prosecution and control the investigation, crime labs dealing with scientific evidence are under the control of the prosecution, and grand juries are basically tools of the prosecution. And when you add to the mix prosecutors and cops who falsify or conceal exculpatory evidence so they can get a conviction, what chance does an indigent defendant have? If you're accused of a crime and have plenty of money and are willing to spend it, you may get a fair trial. But God help you if you're poor.
 
I am pro death penalty. Call it revenge or justice it is just semantics.
Click to expand...

It's not just semantics.

At least now the thread is going in a direction so very different from the original post. I really do believe the death penalty is a philosophical issue. Any argument over practicality or logic, are just disguised criticisms of the justice system itself.

If you're gonna allow society the right to kill a defenseless (monster of a) human being, you'd had better be ready to know why this person is gonna die, why the newspapers say, "Crowds cheer verdict," if it's just revenge and not justice you're after, and if you'll sleep well at night.

If an attacker comes into my home and threatens my life or the lives of those I care about, there'll will be 7 smoking, bleeding holes in his forehead and chest. No qualms. I might not be able to eat for a few days, but I wouldn't be hating myself.

If the attacker escapes, gets caught, and gets sentenced for a bunch other crimes, I say, let the bastard rot in jail, nervously looking over his back every time he steps into the shower. A quick death is such an easy way out.

And some of my notes from the Scott Peterson case:

Jury Instructions:
You must not be influence by pity for, or prejudice against, the defendant. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime, or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt and you must not infer or assume to from any or all of them that a defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.
Click to expand...

Steve Cardosi, jury foreman
“I still would have liked to see, I don't know if remorse is the right word.”
Click to expand...
 
IMO Justice and revenge don't have to be mutually exclusive. A local example would be The Carr Brothers. These animals can"t be killed fast enough or harshly enough. Their date with the needle will satisfy a revenge twinge in my being. The details of their crimes will be in my nightmares for the rest of my life. When they are dead Justice will have been served. Nothing less would be just.
 
JuanCarlos -- did I say I was anxious? No, I said I was willing, there is a difference. I really don't care how Davis dies as long as the state executes him (and not a fellow inmate).
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a difference. "Willing" implies that you'd comply if asked. "Anxious," at least in the sense I was using it, means you'd volunteer for the chance to do so. Bit of a difference.

Revenge is a healthy thing under the right circumstances IMO.
This kind of thinking has be branded as not acceptable in our society but sometimes I hardily disagree with that PC assumption.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider revenge healthy, but I'd say it's completely understandable and far from abnormal in many circumstances.

That said, I expect more from our justice system. Again, when the state executes somebody, they're killing that person on my behalf. I can accept reasoning regarding the few innocents being executed being balanced by the innocents saved by not releasing offenders, and other such rational arguments. But the idea of killing an innocent person (and I firmly believe this will happen regardless of how hard we try not to) on my behalf for some kind of revenge...yeah, I'm less okay with that.

To be honest, I'm not even particularly okay with the idea that innocent people are being imprisoned by our system...but I accept it because there's really no way to avoid it without doing away with the justice system entirely. But that's why if we ever get on the subject of the conditions in our prisons, you'll find me just as vocal regarding the humane treatment of inmates as I am against the death penalty. It's not because I give half a crap about some poor child molester's feelings, but rather because I know for a fact that there are perfectly innocent people in there.

I think prisons are good for containment, and depending on how bleeding-heart we're feeling perhaps rehabilitation. Even that last is a stretch. But as soon as brutal conditions are used as punishment (either inflicted intentionally or through neglect) then I think we as a society have stooped to a level little better than those in our prisons.
 
Sasquatch

I am not placing myself in the position of deciding who are those among us who should be dead. I will state without reservation however that there are pedophiles, rapists, and murderers walking amongst us who should be dead. I do not know who they are and our current justice system may never be able to accurately make that determination. They are there nonetheless.

I submit to you that vengeance is not my motivation for the immediate redress of actions directly observed. It is about accountability. If I know with no doubt that such actions are being committed (ie. caught in the act) I will gladly take my chances with the judicial system if it means that said perp will not again defile the innocent. This is not revenge nor moral judgement, it is ethical action based on nothing more than natural law. I will leave the Vengeance and full retribution to God.
 
bad boys, bad boys whatjagonnado

I think prisons are good for containment, and depending on how bleeding-heart we're feeling perhaps rehabilitation
Click to expand...

Rehabilitation and our prison system is a joke as it is now.
OK I got into this I will give my view in some of it
.
The young guy or anyone for that matter that gets onto drugs or some such a position that he/she commits a serious crime against society. This person I would imprison and attempt to rehabilitate. I would give them every opportunity to learn a good trade and help with job placement when released. that done one time to most. People that do horrendous crimes to others for gratification or pleasure this sort of crime would be exempt from rehab.

Now this person goes out and does another crime against society I would promptly spank the heck out of them. I mean prison with hard labor if you only dig a hole and fill it back in again, all day everyday. NO TV, no exercise yard, you gonna get all that you want anyway. no amenities to make your day better. Your going to be too busy to get into much trouble and if you do ...oh my you will only want to do that once. Some what like the sheriff in AZ. Pink underwear no coffee life ain't good while your here bud. not cruel, good food, housing, good medical, etc.but punishment not rehab again. Man am I on a rant this evening.

And yes the death penalty. shown to the general public if they so desire to see such stuff. Young guys thinking about committing grievous crimes would see the consequences of such action, death!
 
When they are dead Justice will have been served.
Click to expand...

How? Have the victims or families of the victims been recompensated for their loss, or is there an assurance that society will be protected from them? That would be justice. That would be "paying your debt to society." Killing someone is just killing someone.

Putting a criminal behind bars until he dies is just as adequate. Society is protected. I would think that spending the rest of your dying days thinking how you lived your life is in fact, much more fitting than a quick (very painless) death.

And if you're gonna argue over the cost of keeping inmates fed and under a roof, then let's start talking about the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, the navy ship in Mississippi that nobody asked for, Laura Bush's own personal baker, John Kerry's overpriced haircut, the TSA, the HUD, the War on Drugs, that CIA experiment to use LSD as mind control, Social Seurity, last year's energy bill, ....
 
And yes the death penalty. shown to the general public if they so desire to see such stuff. Young guys thinking about committing grievous crimes would see the consequences of such action, death!
Click to expand...

Generally punishments, even the death penalty, are a poor deterrent for crimes. You've generally got two kinds of criminals that commit the kind of crimes for which the death penalty is generally suggested: either those so desperate (or mentally/chemically impaired) that they aren't considering the possible consequences of their actions of those who honestly believe they will not get caught. Neither will be dissuaded by the death penalty.

Now, I say "generally." You can often dissuade people from committing crimes using punishment, but generally only when the punishment is extreme compared to the crime or if the crime is one that somebody isn't particularly determined to commit anyway. An example for the former would be the death penalty for jaywalking...yeah, faced with such extreme punishment most people will look for a crosswalk. An example of the latter would be (agree with them or not) our current drug laws. The possible punishment for marijuana use is enough that I honestly don't care enough to use it, at least not now that I'm a little older and a bit wiser. Were it legal, on the other hand, I'd probably spark up every now and again.

Now, if we're talking about a crackhead so desperate for his next fix that he'd consider shooting somebody for a few bucks, or a pedophile being driven by needs/desires much stronger than my desire not to walk 20 extra feet to a crosswalk...well, hate to break it to ya but the death penalty isn't going to work as a deterrent. If a couple decades of trying to dodge (and all too often failing) forcible sodomy isn't enough to make them think twice, do you honestly think death will do the trick?

My wife's the psychologist and could probably explain in much more detail why it doesn't work...but a vast majority of everything I've ever read seems to agree that it doesn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top