Capital Punishment for the Innocent

[BoringAccountant]

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

Sorry I started reading on page 4...must have missed it.

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, ....

ok, so what? I mean you never answered the question...yes, these are all fine examples of meaningless government waste, I agree, and it should be dealt with also to reduce it...there are a million other ways in which the government can reduce the national debt, reduce the budget, etc...but the fact still remains...
Some person killed another person and deserves to die for that, why should I as a taxpayer agree to say, hmmm. ok I think I will put forth some of my tax money for the rest of my life as well as all my fellow Americans to take care of this guy when I know he deserves to die?

Your examples don't necessarily take into account that something has done something wrong and should be punished...What did John Kerry or Laura Bush do that I should be morally objected to paying for his haircut and her baker? I think that answer avoids the question.

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

I understand your reasoning and your morals on this subject...you in essence dont want to have the blood of an innocent man on your hands, ok. I dont have stats, maybe someone could provide them, but frankly I dont think they exist, about how many innocents have been convicted and died because they were charged with murder? Our legal system is all kinds of screwed up and needs some change, but I do not think it is at the point where we are killing a lot of innocents. Granted, ONE innocent life being taken is wrong and is not acceptable, BUT I would argue that the risk of having an innocent person put to death does not compare to need to put these cold-blooded murderers to death. Just a difference of opinion Tube I guess

 

[pipoman]

erroneous statistics

gvf The entire reason I began questioning your sources (which you still haven't really supplied) is because of this completely erroneous statement quoted on the first page of this thread.

FROM ANOTHER SITE COMPLILING RATIO STATS:
Since 1977, some 553 people have been executed in the United States while another eighty death row inmates have been released after they were found innocent. For every seven executed, one innocent person is freed-an “error rate” of more than twelve (12) percent. In the State of Illinois, 12 people have been executed since 1977 while 13 have been released after proving their innocence-an error rate of 52 percent.

The "error rate" percentages in this quote are so obviously outrageously distorted it brings question to your entire post and subsequent posts where you continue to site these percentages. If the compiler of this data is so brazen as to try to fool people with crooked numbers and site numbers that a 5th grade math student could debunk I don't trust anything the person says. Without sources for your material I have to assume that you pulled all of your information from the same intentionally distorted source.

TFL has long been a site which requires little higher level of accountability, especially when statistics and assertions based on those stats are being made.

 

[gvf]

Ok

You have sources.
Go find the errors. Start with the Governor of Illinois.
Then get back to us.

 

[Limeyfellow]

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.

The only way to fix that would be an evolution in humanity where it never makes mistakes and never has misguided people in it and thats not going to happen.

There been plenty of cases of innocents left to linger on deathrow because the DA can't be bothered to get around to the case.

We had public defenders with no experience being railroaded over and people convicted who shouldn't be.

We had even worse cases where crime labs have made up evidence to get convictions such as the massive scandel in Texas that involves several labs.

Theres just no way you going to be able to clean up all these problems since it involves people and makes the death penelty flawed.

 

[Let it Bleed]

Mike Nifong is a fine example of prosecutorial misconduct. Hopefully all convictions he obtained will be closely scrutinized.

Except for those who are morally opposed to the death penalty, it seems that the main argument against capital punishment is in its application. That is to say our system is incapable of accurately determining guilt.

Maybe some form of independent review of capital convictions would uncover prosecutorial misconduct or witness perjury. Increased penalties for these actions may also reduce their likelihood. Possibly limiting the application of the death penalty would also help.

Ultimately, there must be some method for society to deal with the Pee-Wee Gaskins and Ted Bundys of this world. After all, Pee-Wee continued to kill even while incarcerated. Richard Speck, who killed 8 nurses, seemed to enjoy his incarceration based on a video tape obtained by Bill Curtis. I saw the video in a documentary the name of which I cannot recall. It is referenced on page 17 in the article below.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/speck/4c.html

Life imprisonment was too good for this piece of :barf:

 

[applesanity]

ok, so what? I mean you never answered the question...yes, these are all fine examples of meaningless government waste, I agree, and it should be dealt with also to reduce it...

I answered your question. I just didn't spell it out literally because I assumed its implications were quite obvious.

Because the moral difference between firing the First Lady's personal baker and killing a human being is so very great. I hope you can sense that. Nobody, not anyone, has any moral or practical qualms about the first decision.

If you want to trim government waste, why not go where it's easiest and has the fewest consequences?

There is no point or credibility to arguing a cost-benefit analysis of keeping human inmates alive.

Thanks for playing.

 

[gvf]

Good Suggestions

Good Points about the NC cases - (a very telling quote by one of the falsely accused: "“This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed; ..... I can’t imagine what they’d do to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves.")

and very good suggestions re: reviews, penalties for misconduct etc.

 

[tube_ee]

Cost/benefit

There is, to me, no moral issue with executing someone like John Gacy, for example. The problem is, what of someone convicted of similarly heinous crimes, who didn't do it?

It's easy to keep such extraordinarily dangerous people from killing anyone. It's called lifelong solitary confinement. Under the right conditions, someone can be rendered completely harmless, without killing them.

Such confinement is, however, incredibly expensive. I just can't see way to implement capital punishment that rules out the execution of the innocent. And that's my threshold, so I cannot support the death penalty. If I were to support it, given the certainty of innocent executions, I would have to make arguments based on relative risks and costs, and that's not an analysis I'm comfortable making when it comes to human beings.

On a wider scale, I think that once we get a confirmed case of an execution of someone who was clearly, provably innocent, that will probably end capital punishment in America. The public backlash would be overwhelming, I think.

--Shannon

 

[BoringAccountant]

Apple,

So ok, I went back and reread you posts on the subject...

All cost-benefit analysis aside...you are correct, that is not the issue, it is on a much deeper level than that, I just wasn't sure I could mention religion here.

As cheesy as it may appear, this picture represents everything about how wrong the death penalty is. I think you all know who they are. Regardless of what you think of the man being sentenced to death, just pause for second and observe the reactions - reactions to the conclusion of a murder trial where the victims were a mother and her unborn baby boy.

While I agree that Mr Grantski should be not "happy" about someone dying, I think his reaction is more of one that he is "happy" that justice was served. I would never argue that Justice and Revenge are intertwined, they are completely different. I cannot speak to the thoughts of Mr Grantski, but lets not accuse him of being a sick *&%^ just yet...you must first realize that he could also be ecstatic because the sick bastard Peterson got what he deserved...yes deserved because he committed murder. That statement I just made has nothing to do with revenge, it is a simple fact that Scott Peterson committed murder and deserved to die for doing so.

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.

While I agree yet again that revenge is a sin and has no place in the judicial process, tell me why Scott Peterson, who committed murder twice, should be allowed to rot in the prison system for the remainder of his life? Yes, I am sure that would give him plenty of time to think about what he has done, but so what, he again deserves to die, period.

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.

I disagree with the statement "A quick death is an easy way out". As you know death for a man only happens once. Sure there are many ways to die which would be more severe than any other form, but the end result is the same...you are dead. Death is by far the harshest punishment we can give someone.

Finally,

The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance.
- Psalm 58:10

And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me.
-Isaiah 66:24

First, Isaiah 66 has nothing to do with capital punishment, it refers to the Jews and the Gentiles. More prophecy of New Testament times, not capital punishment.

Second, I think you may have forgotten Genesis 9:6
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man"

I am not sure what your beliefs are in supernatural, heaven, hell, etc., but the fact you quoted the Word of God lends me to believe you know a bit or two about it. If we are in the image of God and one person takes another persons life, and God COMMANDS us to shed his blood, how can any Christian be against the death penalty? Remember this is not to say that a person cannot be against it because the judicial system has some flaws or that a Christian should be "happy" when a person is put to death.

Thanks for playing.

Games not over yet!!!

 

[sasquatch]

BoringAccountant

"If we are in the image of God and one person takes another persons life, and God COMMANDS us to shed his blood, how can any Christian be against the death penalty?"

I think you need to be extremely careful when citing Old Testament law in support of capital punishment.

 

[applesanity]

be extremely careful when citing Old Testament

I was getting somewhere with this, which wasn't totally obvious. The old testament is (mosaic) LAW; the new Testament is GRACE. The new testament is all about turning the other cheek. If we really want to get techical here, then here's Romans 6:14

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Followed by Galatians 3:10

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse

And I assure you that these lines are not out of context.

Which is why I get so annoyed when Christians try to stick the ten commandments inside courthouses. Jesus Christ, you Christians are not Jews.

Was trying to show that revenge is so very rooted in culture, but forgiveness as well. Both however, do not necessarily amount to justice. So basically, I believe that Justice and revenge are distinct but do get confused too often.

I'll concede that I took Isiah out of context.

I'm not trying to bring religion into this argument. In fact, I think I just sort of proved that religion may not be even have much footing in this argument. Funny that the argument is now less of "if the death penalty is wrong" and more of "why it's wrong."

Death is by far the harshest punishment we can give someone.

I beg to differ. There's the old British common law, "corruption of blood" where you kill everyone of the family name. There's "bill of attainder." There's also the 8th amendment. The founders apparently thought there were harsher forms of punishment than death, I think. They didn't ban hangings, but they did ban castrations.

I'm a big fan of the Godfather series. All those "vendettas" - did any of them equate to justice? I think they were all about the corleone familiy coming out on top. To the extent that by the end of the Michael series, he was pretty much the last one alive, and alone.

 

[STAGE 2]

It's easy to keep such extraordinarily dangerous people from killing anyone. It's called lifelong solitary confinement. Under the right conditions, someone can be rendered completely harmless, without killing them.

So what are you going to do about all of those people doing time for something other than murder than kill in prison. Solitary for them too?

 

[Redworm]

So what are you going to do about all of those people doing time for something other than murder than kill in prison. Solitary for them too?

Why not?

 

[pipoman]

You have sources.
Go find the errors. Start with the Governor of Illinois.
Then get back to us.

I don't know what is or has been going on in Illinois. I do know that IL politics are somewhat notorious...

I did find it interesting that the anti capital punishment guy used the same crackpot math used in the ridiculous 52% figure bandied around earlier in this thread.

"We need an investigation of why half the cases are overturned. We need to investigate what's been going on."

Again, just so there is no confusion:

"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,"

Does not equal "half of the cases are overturned" unless there were only 26 people sentenced to death in IL between 1977 and 2000 (the date of the article you sited). This could be but I can't seem to find that figure. (I doubt that it is for if it were that would account for the 13 people + the 12 executed leaving only 1 person on DR)

I am not saying that the numbers are acceptable to me as they aren't. IMO the case being made by these anti-death penalty groups would be more compelling if they would cease using erroneous statistics.

I also agree that prosecutorial misconduct should carry a stiff criminal penalty. Enough of the disbarment being penalty enough. I am a strong believer in the right of the accused to a fair trial which includes pretrial preparations. In fact I have spent a fair number of hours doing gratis investigation for indigent defendants and convicts.

 

[pipoman]

I have to ask...Apple is it really necessary to repeatedly use "Jesus Christ" as an expletive? You have done this 2 or 3 times in this thread alone.

 

[tube_ee]

On people who commit murder in prison

Self-defense, war, and execution aside, murder is murder, regardless of the moral standing of the victim. When someone commits murder in prison, he or she should be subject to the same penalties as someone who is convicted of any murder "on the outside."

My opposition to the death penalty is soley based on the potential (100%, as far as I can see) that some number of innocent people will be subject to it. For what it's worth, I'm not in favor of laws which mandate additional penalites for murder based on the nature of the victim, be they pregnant woman, child, or cop. That's just because I don't have a ranking of worth when it comes to human lives. If you make someone's life worth more than another's, in terms of the punishment to be exacted for taking that life, you must also make everyone not in that special category's life worth less, at least by that same yardstick. That's not a distinction I'm comfortable making.

So, yes, if the penalty for premeditated murder is life imprisonment in solitary confinement when the crime is committed outside prison, so it should be when the same crime is committed in prison. I wouldn't get more or less punishment if I killed someone in their home vs. on the street, why should this case be any different? The location doesn't matter.

The varying graduations of homicide based on intent and planning are outside the scope of this discussion, since only premeditated murder is subject to the death penalty, so far as I know. Although that's another fascinating topic.

--Shannon

 

[applesanity]

2 or 3 times in this thread alone.

No, I suppose it's not necessary. Apology for offending you, if I have.

I'm not in favor of laws which mandate additional penalites for murder based on the nature of the victim

Agreed. Nobody is entitled to special treatment. Even though I want to though, I don't think I'd be too good at arguing against special penalties for killing a cop. I assumed that the provision was an extra buffer of safety for those that put themselves in harm's way all the time.

I do support the current system that levies punishment based on motive, like how premeditated murder counts for more than a crime of passion.

 

[Let it Bleed]

I believe the harsher penalties for killing a law enforcement officer has to do with trying to preserve the institution. It's not that the cop's life is worth more, but it is what he represents.

It is similar to harsher penalties for killing a Judge for the purpose of intimitading the system. Now if a Judge is killed in a random act of violence, such as carjacking, then the fact that he is a judge should not matter. Now if he is killed because he is a Judge in an attempt to indimidate others, then a harsher penalty is appropriate. Now it's debatable whether there is any real deterrent effect, but the justice system must be protected. I would also support harsher penalties for those who kill Doctors who perform abortions. Killing cops, judges, certain doctors, and [fill in the _____] is a form of terrorism that must be dealt with more severely than a drug deal gone bad for example. I am not implying that any particular person's life is more valuable than another, but rather any form of terrorism is unacceptable in an ordered society.

As to the Bundys, Gacys, Dahmers, etc., it is not only the heinous nature of their crimes, but also the overwhelming evidence of their guilt that makes them ideal candidates for execution. Maybe that should be the extra burden of proof necessary in order to impose the death penalty - overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Retribution is definitely a part of any system of justice. It can be ugly when others get enjoyment out of the punishment of others, but it doesn't make it any less necessary. Retribution should not be the only thing, but for some people only the fear of punishment has any deterrent effect.

I also wouldn't judge victim's family members too harshly. Trials are an arduous ordeal and I am sure at some point any apparent victory from a guilty verdict begins to ring fairly hollow in time. None of us are rational all the time, and I cannot fathom the anguish of knowing your loved ones last days, hours, or minutes were filled with complete fear and horror.

 

[BerettaCougar]

Someone remind me why this is still open?

These threads always end with some bible thumpers contorting ancient words to fit their agenda.

 

[applesanity]

Actually the past six pages have been pretty rational debate. No "bible thumping" here. In fact, I'm the one quoting the most bible passages and I'm not even Christian.

At any rate, religion can and does play a heavy factor in the way many people think. So what. No reason to dismiss their opinions just because they like to "thump" bibles, korans, torahs, -

Let it Bleed, your rationale for harsher punishment for certain people representative of various systems makes perfect sense.