Crimes against humanity

I'm a firm supporter of the death penalty. Show me a percentage of people on death-row who were later found innocent. I'll bet it's pretty low. As firearms enthusiasts/2A supporters, we are willing to accept a certain level of risk. Kids get killed accidently with guns once in a while. Should guns be banned? The wrong person gets executed once in a while. Should the DP be banned? People drive drunk and kill folks sometimes. Should booze be banned? Guys get raped in prison by other guys. Should prison be banned? Little boys get molested by preachers once in a while. Should preachers be banned?

In its totality, I'd rather see the wrong person get the needle once in a while than see murderers, child molesters and rapists enjoy three hots and a cot, along with cable T.V., college classes and conjugal visits.

Another issue I find compelling here might be harder for me to put into words. An earlier post compared lethal self-defense to the death penalty. This comparison was dismissed a little too lightly. Hypothetically, let's say I don't believe in defending one's home with lethal force. There are too many examples of folks accidentally walking into the wrong house when they are drunk or high and being killed by an over-zelous gun-nut. There are also too many examples of people shooting family members who come home unexpectedly. We need to ban defending homes with lethal force.
 
Redneckfur,

One of the reasons I described a high standard for invoking the death penalty was to avoid what you describe. One can be convicted by "circumstantial evidence" just as easily as by mistaken eye witnesses.

I'd not lightly vote for a death penalty in any case. I can see being a juror, hearing and seeing the evidence and being convinced that it's 99.99% likely the defendant committed the crime. But I want more than just one piece of evidence or testimony to firmly link him to the crime before making an irrevokable decision. I like to sleep well at night.

It's not about what the family, city or town wants. It is about making sure we convict the right person for the crime, the right way.
 
I'm not a death penalty abolitionist, but I'm also not that cavalier about sacrificing the life of an innocent. Would you like this tried on you or someone you loved?

robc opines:

In its totality, I'd rather see the wrong person get the needle once in a while than see murderers, child molesters and rapists enjoy three hots and a cot, along with cable T.V., college classes and conjugal visits.
Click to expand...
 
Do you not see this discussion as always being circular though? Meaning, I agree 100% our system is flawed, the justice system, and that capital punishment should not be instituted except in absolute certainty, but how do you apply it then?

To leave it up to other humans, the jury, a biased human on both sides of the aisle, the prosecution and defense, and the other humans involved, the police, the witnesses, the victims family, etc. is sure to fail in certain instances. How do you then apply or carry out this form of punishment in any circumstance without having a little doubt?

And then to add another layer you add in the classic defense, insanity, that throws a huge monkey wrench into the system, would the same standards on evidence, witnesses, etc. apply?

Who is to ensure these standards are met? Other humans?

Of course you could always go the inhumane way, as robc does, and just be "comfortable" with a few not-guilty people killed, as long as a majority of them are guilty.

Lastly, if somehow standards were to be prescribed and followed to the T about these things, is this a state or federal concern? Meaning, a standard for someone to be put to death in the US should be the same regardless of the state in which it was committed, correct?
 
If that's the case why should we humans decide anything? It's all relative, we haven't lived in their shoes and we all make mistakes. Hell, let's let computers run the show before we blow ourselves up.
 
Here is some information from the Justice Department to consider (most recent complete data from 2003):

1,414,826 = total prison population
171,832 = imprisoned for homicide = 12.15% of total prison population
3,377 = prisoners under death penalty = 1.97% of homicide prisoners

The number of prisoners under death penalty is not representative of the numbers executed. 1951 was the last year in which 100 or more prisoners were executed.

100 executions = 2.96% of prisoners under death penalty = 0.06% of homicide prisoners

The discussion of the death penalty does not even start until the system has culled the number down to less than 2% of all homicide convictions. Once the discussion starts, people may or may not have moral objections to the state using capital punishment. For those without general moral objections, the discussion revolves around how certain society should be of a person's guilt.

The US has a population exceeding 300 million, making the "only one innocent person" argument a very high standard. As a point of reference, the National Safety Council's 2004 "Odds of Dying" report showed 52 legal executions versus 46 deaths from being struck by lightning.
 
The discussion of the death penalty does not even start until the system has culled the number down to less than 2% of all homicide convictions.
Click to expand...
Let's compare the number of actual executions to opening murder charges which are then plead down. I venture we are well past lightening and headed toward odds associated with asteroid strikes.

Reality is more injustice is done by dismissing capital charges than by imposing capital punishment on those who are innocent.
 
Question for BillCA

Bill
I enjoy reading your posts, very articulate & well thought out. Being in Texas I have trouble understanding California & their death row. From what I've read CA has the most people currently on DR and apparently the citizens continue to send and believe in executions. Excluding the current moratorium, what in your opinion holds up the system? Is it the courts?

Rick
 
ROBC
As I mentioned earlier and you brought up again. If you are willing to execute someone assaulting you in your own home or business, how can you not be against the state executing ? Just a thought.
 
cool hand luke 22:36
You're projecting here. Your experience isn't universal. Many family members of murder victims have said seeing the death penalty carried out does indeed provide closure, and that seeing killers receive only life in prison without the possibility of parole only prolongs the grief.
Click to expand...

au contraire mon frair.
There is a great body of liturature that supports my position and as I indicated I have spoken with many crime victims and their families.

http://www.californiacrimevictims.org/stories.html

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/1218702450-78572656/content~content=a748951975~db=arst~order=page
Needs registration

http://www.mvfr.org/

http://freenet-homepage.de/dpinfo/victimsfamilies.htm

http://www.restorativejustice.org/

Do your own research and I think you'll come to the same conclusion it took me several years to reach.
 
That's typical spin. You don't agree with me so you aren't as informed as I am. How can anybody say it doesn't give any victims some measure of justice? Anyone can piecemeal stories together, but they aren't universal. No one can speak for everyone. My research indicates that an executed murderer never recommits a single murder. There's a universal statement I'll put a wager on.:)
 
au contraire mon frair.
There is a great body of liturature that supports my position and as I indicated I have spoken with many crime victims and their families
Click to expand...

Well no, actually there isn't a great body of literature supporting your contention. Unless you're referring to fictional literature.

You haven't conducted an unbiased, scientific survey, nor have you provided a link to one, that supports your contention that most family members of capital crime victims either oppose the death penalty or greatly devalue it.

Sorry, but links to web pages put up by anti-death penalty groups doesn't count as "research" :rolleyes:
 
I'm always somewhat amused by the "put them in prison for life as they might be innocent" concept. A person on death row has far more opportunities for appeal than a lifer, and because the death penalty is the perpetual whipping boy of certain groups, said groups will expend incredible resources on the death row inmate. Most lifers are forgotten.

So, because someone may be innocent, some prefer to put them in the general population, with little hope of redemption, and subject them to a life of rape and abuse.
 
My biggest problem with the death penalty is the way in which it is applied. Usually, only those who insist they are innocent are subject to a death sentence. That's idiotic and bound to lead to those who are actually innocent being executed. Those like Gacy and Dahlmer, where there is really no reasonable doubt as to guilt should be executed as quickly and efficiently as possible.
 
I can intellectually argue for or against the death penalty. My gut tells me though it is a neccesary and needed option.

As a Corrections Officer at Graterford Prision in PA I have worked on J Block, where we had about twenty or so death row inmates. I have talked to them, brought them food and thier mail. Will I feel any remorse when any of them (if ever) are executed? No, most of them were had multiple murders or some truely hienous aspects to thier crimes.

I am glad I no longer work in the prison it was a tough job. As for those that say life without parole is suffiecient, well what would be thier punishment if they had killed me while delievering something to thier cell. Doube Life? There is only so much you can take away from a prisoner due to limits placed by case law. Thier cell has to be such and such a size, they have to get thier mail, they get a the mimimum an hour out of their cell a day, most of these guys on death row are already very close to the mimimum level allowable.

No I believe the death penalty must always be an option.
 
Jail does not detour criminals

I am former detention officer in SC. I wish we had an express line like Texas. Let's face the facts, jail and prison DO NOT detour murderers. That is a fact. The thought of death does. If that was not the case our jails and prisons would not be overcrowded. In cases when there is irrefutable evidence like DNA and or a confession then there is no reason why we should spend tax payer dollars on someone who took the rights of a person to live. In this country we often forget about victims rights. I have a right to live and if anyone who maliciously takes away that right deserves to die, especially if they take the rights of a child. In cases like that, then they execution should be painful and uncomfortable. Murderers do not consider the rights of their victims we should not consider theirs.
 
Mary, tell us how you really feel!:D I agree with what you said but we probably shouldn't torture the a-hole that kills a child, just slap him with a brick and Fed-Ex him to Jesus. You bring up a good point though, what about the parents of a murdered child? I can't believe the majority of them want the killer to die of old age. Something like that would really test one's convictions, it's easy to be analytical in theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top