Capital Punishment for the Innocent

One poster even equated revenge with justice and called any apparent difference just "semantics." Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

That would be me. Did you read my explanation?

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.
Click to expand...

If the family of a victim (or a member of society for that matter) feels the need for revenge against an animal who would commit nightmarish, obscene, brutal, torturous, inhuman acts against an innocent person (or people) who are you to throw out a just penalty for those acts? IMO most who take time to read the transcripts from the trial of the garbage I linked to, even with no knowledge of the victims or sense of community or revenge, would agree that eliminating them from the face of the Earth is the only justice for society. You may not agree but you would be in the minority IMHO. Just because the penalty represents revenge to some it represents justice to the judge, jury and a big chunk of society. The only way the penalty would be completely vengeful would be if family and friends were the composition of the jury and the imposers of the sentence.

If you were the family of the victim of such acts by puke like these 2 brothers would you be wrong to feel revenge was distributed the day you watched the scum twitch their last? I think it would be a completely natural reaction.

Here is a very brief description of the crimes I am refering to. This is the tip of the iceberg and spares the truly monstrous details.

At about 11 PM on the freezing cold night of December 14, 2000, Reginald Carr, 23, and Jonathan Carr, 20, invaded the home of three young Wichita men who had two female guests. The Carr Brothers forced all of them to strip naked. They beat the men and raped the women.

In addition to repeatedly raping the women, the Carr Brothers have been found guilty of forcing them to perform sexual acts on each other, sodomizing one of them, and forcing the three male victims to perform sex acts with each of the women. Then the Carr Brothers robbed them and brutally murdered four of them.

According to a lone survivor's horrifying pre-trial testimony, after sexually tormenting them, the Carr Brothers took the friends individually to an ATM machine and forced them to withdraw as much cash as possible. Then, the Carr Brothers transported their naked victims to a remote soccer field and forced them to kneel in the snow before shooting them execution-style in the head, and then running them over with a truck. After leaving their victims for dead, the Carr Brothers returned to the men's apartment and stole appliances, bedding, and china.

The four friends who died were: Jason Befort, 26, an Augusta High School science teacher and football coach; Brad Heyka, 27, a director of finance with Koch Financial Services; Heather Muller, 25, a St. Thomas Aquinas pre-school teacher who planned to become a nun; and Aaron Sander, 29, a former Koch employee who had decided to become a priest.

The fifth friend, a 25-year-old woman, miraculously survived. To get help, she walked nearly a mile, naked and bleeding from her wounds, through snow and subfreezing temperatures. Her identity is being protected because she was the victim of a sex crime.

The surviving victim and Jason Befort were planning to marry soon. But Jason never had the opportunity of placing the engagement ring he had just purchased on her finger. It was discovered and stolen by the intruders.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with trying to coerce an innocent man to plead guilty. If someone is indicted for a capitol offense, then obviously the death penalty is a possibility. Allowing a defendant to plead to a lesser offense or receive a lesser sentence is an inducement that spares all the burden of a trial. Trials determine guilt. Offering an inducement to plead guilty in no way impairs a defendant's right or ability to vindicate himself at trial.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While the spirit of plea bargains may not be to induce a guilty verdict from an innocent person it is often the result. Pleas are often offered when prosecutors doubt their ability to gain a conviction at all (or even more heinous to hide or keep from divulging exculpatory facts). I have sat in on meetings between defense attorneys and their clients (who I believed strongly were innocent of the crime they were charged with). The thought of gambling with a persons freedom when freedom (of sorts) can be preserved by taking a plea is very tempting to a scared defendant. I don't have stats but would guess that the largest group of convicts who are in fact innocent of the crimes they were convicted of are the result of plea bargains. I would go a step further and guess that the percentages are high multiples of those wrongly convicted during a trial. I think plea bargains should be eliminated completely in all high crimes for this very reason.

Prosecutors with political aspirations (most are) are about conviction stats, a plea counts as a conviction in those stats. There was a local prosecutor who ran for AG of the state with the stat of 99.6% conviction rate as the leading factor in his campaign. This stat insures that there are a fair number of people who are innocent in those numbers.

The reason these beliefs do not sway my support for capital punishment is because nobody on death row (I am aware of) is there as a result of a plea.
 
I do not believe that our justice system has the right to take the life of another human being.

It seems to me that utilizing the death penalty to gain revenge is simply lowering oneself to the level of that scumbag murderer who places no value on human life.

I believe that a society which substitutes revenge (by way of the DP) for justice is a society that has forfeited its responsibility to uphold the unique value of human life.
 
There are valid arguments that plea bargaining should be eliminated completely. IIRC, there was a court decision that found plea agreements illegal b/c of the inducement. I don't recall if it just called the practice into question, but it definitely brought the issue to light. This was approximately 10 years ago and I don't remember what court made the decision. I suppose not much came from it.

But after all, that is one of the questions a judge asks in a guilty plea - "has anyone promised you anything as an inducement to plead guilty." Of course a plea bargain is not the same as someone paying you to take the rap.

Although prosecutors are supposed to be held to a higher ethical standard, they face enormous pressure to "win" the case. Even though our system is adversarial, winning and losing are terms that should be removed. Sometimes in all the score keeping the original purpose of seeking the truth gets lost. Unfortunately conviction rates matter in getting re-elected.
 
It seems to me that utilizing the death penalty to gain revenge is simply lowering oneself to the level of that scumbag murderer who places no value on human life.

I believe that a society which substitutes revenge (by way of the DP) for justice is a society that has forfeited its responsibility to uphold the unique value of human life.
Click to expand...

Of course that could be twisted completely around. It can be said that the death penalty shows that we respect life in that if you take someone elses, then you forfeit your own.

Its not revenge however, because we don't execute people in the same manner of the crime they committed. We don't rape people then slit their throat, or stab them 42 times or do a myriad of other things that in light of the victim would be perfectly equitable.

If the death penalty were truly revenge, we would allow the family members of the victim to met out punishment, or we wouldn't have procedures where the murderer simply falls asleep and feels none of the pain or fear that their victim experienced.

The death penalty as its carried out today is far from revenge.
 
Simple question for those of you opposing the death penalty. If this was a perfect world and the justice system NEVER made a mistake, would you still oppose it? Please don't address whether this is feasible or not, just answer the question as asked.
 
Simple question for those of you opposing the death penalty. If this was a perfect world and the justice system NEVER made a mistake, would you still oppose it? Please don't address whether this is feasible or not, just answer the question as asked.
Click to expand...
Nope. But as I've clearly stated, my problem is with the system.
 
If you were the family of the victim of such acts by puke like these 2 brothers would you be wrong to feel revenge was distributed the day you watched the scum twitch their last? I think it would be a completely natural reaction.
Click to expand...

Lawyers would call that "temporary insanity." Something that you're supposed to get over. Justice is supposed to be an equalizer - either you're protected from future harm, recompensated for your losses, or both. Hence, the phrase, "paying one's debt to society."

Murder is murder. You can't recompensate the death of another human being - not even by killing the murderer. The only thing you can do instead is to protect society from the murderer - and I think multiple life sentences without parole will suffice.

By showing so much disdain for the Carr brothers (well I hate them too), you've demonstrated that you want to punish them more for how you feel about them, and less for their actions. I contend that you've crossed the line between justice, over to revenge. Are you going to be satisfied from their executions? Satisfied with killing two more human lives? As worthless as those lives may be, they are indeed lives nonetheless.

If those brothers came into my home intending to do what they did to those victims, you can bet your @$$ that I'll pump their skulls so full of hollow-point lead that they'll be dead before the hit the ground. But only because they would be presenting a clear and immediate threat.

Being locked up in jail nullifies any immediate threat and any future threat to society. At that point, i believe there is no need or justification to kill them.

We all have a protected, natural right of self-defense. But where's the self-defense factor when those murderers are in chains? Let their dieties of choice decide what to do with their souls then. We're not gods.

Nope. But as I've clearly stated, my problem is with the system.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere.
 
apple,

All great points but one question...why should I, as a taxpayer, have to support these deadbeats living in a prison for the rest of their lives? They dont pay to be there, WE do. I think killing them for what they DID, not that I am angry about it is justice and alleviates their burden on society.
 
Stage2

Simple question for those of you opposing the death penalty. If this was a perfect world and the justice system NEVER made a mistake, would you still oppose it? Please don't address whether this is feasible or not, just answer the question as asked.
Click to expand...

No. If such accuracy could be guaranteed, I'd have no further issue with the death penalty.

But it can't, so we're left with the moral judgment of what number of innocents should be killed on our behalf.

My answer to that is simple. None. Killing innocents is murder. I'm willing to pay the costs of lifelong incarceration of the guilty to prevent murder from being committed in my name.

To turn your (very good, BTW) puestion around, please answer this question: What number of innocent deaths would make capital punishment morally unacceptable to you? There's obviously a threshold somewhere, so what is it? Please factor in the extremely small but non-zero possibility that you or someone you care about might be one of that number, not because this should be an emotional decision, but because if you are unwilling to apply a moral principle to yourself, your family, or your friends, it isn't much of a principle, now is it?

The certainty that some number of innocents will be executed is the sole reason I oppose the death penalty.

--Shannon
 
Tube,

One question back at you :), all these questions flying around...

What is the deterrent then for a person who is at the end of his road, has nothing left to live for, just got fired from his miserable job, and is contemplating going in and killing his boss for ruining his life? I mean, if that were me, and I saw that if I killed one person, then I could go to jail for the rest of my life, where all my meals, free time, visits, etc. (all assuming not some serial killer) are provided, then how does that help? I think the death penalty, while it def has its share of problems, still is a deterrent to criminals.
 
Lawyers would call that "temporary insanity." Something that you're supposed to get over. Justice is supposed to be an equalizer - either you're protected from future harm, recompensated for your losses, or both. Hence, the phrase, "paying one's debt to society."
Click to expand...

I don't entirely agree with this. Granted both are part of the equation, so is imposition of punishment for criminal acts. These guys (and many others) have amassed a debt they cannot repay in a lifetime.

By showing so much disdain for the Carr brothers (well I hate them too), you've demonstrated that you want to punish them more for how you feel about them, and less for their actions. I contend that you've crossed the line between justice, over to revenge. Are you going to be satisfied from their executions? Satisfied with killing two more human lives? As worthless as those lives may be, they are indeed lives nonetheless.
Click to expand...

No, I want to punish them for their acts. Not just their acts against the victims and their families but the results of their acts on my community. The fear imposed on children (2 of the victims were grade school teachers!). IIRC there were family members of some of the victims who asked the death penalty not be imposed. They are better people than I. I have admitted that their deaths will satisfy a feeling of revenge in my being...they deserve to die for their actions. After they are disposed of I will know they will not be able to enjoy any aspect of life which is, IMHO, just.

Let their dieties of choice decide what to do with their souls then. We're not gods.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would never state they will burn in hell or any such thing. I do however feel it is society's obligation (based on the will of the people of Kansas) to speed up that meeting. I believe we are responsible for justice on Earth.

I did not mean to hijack this thread to make it about the Carr Brothers. They add a face to this issue for me. Looking them in the face doesn't change my mind at all about the imposition of their sentence...it strengthens it if anything. IMO it is just a pity that the death penalty couldn't be sought in the trial of the "BTK murderer", another local scum bucket who deserves to be retired early to an eternal dirt nap.
 
why should I, as a taxpayer, have to support these deadbeats living in a prison for the rest of their lives?
Click to expand...

Oh, I anticipated the question and answered it already, a few pages ago.

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, ....
Click to expand...
 
I think we found some common ground Apple....to argue the death penalty from a "cost to keep him" perspective is just wrong IMO.
 
BoringAccountant

Great handle, by the way...

Anyhow, to answer your question... nothing.

By definition, somebody with nothing left to live for won't be diverted by the chance of dying.

To the larger argument of the death penalty's deterrent effect, so far as I've ever been able to determine, it isn't much.

None of which is really relevant to the original point of this thread., which is the fact that, given an imperfect justice system, if you execute people, some number of them will be innocent of the crime for which they are being executed.

I'm just not OK with that, even if there are benefits to it.

--Shannon
 
Now we're getting somewhere.
Click to expand...
Did I ever suggest otherwise? :confused: Again, since that guarantee can never be made it's like asking "If we could guarantee that there would never be any crime or tyrannical government would you be fine with giving up your guns?" because both questions are essentially pointless. They reference hypothetical situations that can never come to fruition so using them as an argument is a waste of time.

So it's not getting us anywhere.
 
What number of innocent deaths would make capital punishment morally unacceptable to you? There's obviously a threshold somewhere, so what is it? Please factor in the extremely small but non-zero possibility that you or someone you care about might be one of that number, not because this should be an emotional decision, but because if you are unwilling to apply a moral principle to yourself, your family, or your friends, it isn't much of a principle, now is it?
Click to expand...

First, capital punishment is never morally objectionable to me. If the justice system is so perverse that innocent people are being punished I would call for a delay for all punishment until things could be fixed. However if the system is working as well as can be expected, then I will have no objection.

As far as applying this to myself, since we currently have capital punishment myself and my loved ones are already "at risk" since the possibility exists that we may find ourselves on the chopping block. This doesn't change my viewpoint.
 
Sources

Re: a post questioning sourses of info posted on overturned convictions. It follows.

First though, to the proposition mentioned that the wrongful convictions were caught by "the system". The system was battled feriously by sharp private attorneys of the defandants, and often with extremely sharp attorneys of "joiners": various organizations joining the actions with their attorneys. The "system" convicted them wrongly, with extremely high percentages of prosecutorial misconduct or substandard appointed legal representation. The "system" would have killed them. These known innocent had the intelligence, sanity, press and sheer luck to have such representation. Most don't.

As far as the alreay executed: no one will ever determine the number of already executed innocent because it is impossible. Unless a fluke shortly after the execution -- e.g., a killer arrested who confesses to that crime as well as the one he is accused of, evidence in a current case that happens to indicate innocence of recent executed -- aside from that. no one will ever investigate, represent, nor courts hear, all the rest. They're dead. And the cases are dead, quickly forgotten. So, extrapolation is the only way to even estimate.
I leave it the imagination what the figures could be, especially say, in the 30's, before DNA could catch some errors, before many current legal holds were placed on police in arrests and interrogation etc.

Now: Sources: public records and often reports of them or of individual cases by multiple press organizations. One example for the Illinois cases is at the bottom of the posting. There are many others.
The "antecdotes" aren't antecdotes: they are facts of public records. Read these "antecdotes" again, there is, in each, facts - not stories. These and others are compliled on many sites, or go yourself to the public records if you don't like any of the multiple sites that record them. Then come back and tell us what you found.
If you want an example site data can be found, here's one of many; this compiles data related to capital punishment. : http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109


The Illinois cases: one example press of the many:

Illinois suspends death penalty
Governor calls for review of 'flawed' system

January 31, 2000
Web posted at: 10:33 p.m. EST (0333 GMT)

CHICAGO (CNN) -- Illinois Gov. George Ryan on Monday imposed a moratorium on the state's death penalty. All lethal injections will be postponed indefinitely pending an investigation into why more executions have been overturned than carried out since 1977, when Illinois reinstated capital punishment.

"We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death," Ryan told CNN. "There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied."

The rest of the story: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/
 
Last edited:
Again, since that guarantee can never be made it's like asking "If we could guarantee that there would never be any crime or tyrannical government would you be fine with giving up your guns?"
Click to expand...

Your analogy fails because guns don't necessarily have to be an issue of practicality or necessity. Guns also have sporting and collecting interests. Or you could be insulting everyone here who owns a flintlock or muzzleloader.

The original hypothetical question is very significant because it's trying to pinpoint the actual reason for opposition to the death penalty. A large number of people opposed to the death penalty are opposed to it because they think killing is wrong, and not because of any criticism of the system. You know... hippies.

Interesting to note that on a forum of mostly gunowners, most here are okay with killing people, so long as you're getting the right bad guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top