Capital Punishment

[Pah]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

# In 2003, 65 persons in 11 and the Federal system, States were executed -- 24 in Texas; 14 in Oklahoma, 7 in North Carolina; 3 each in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio; 2 each in Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia; and 1 each in Arkansas and the Federal system.

# Of persons executed in 2003:
-- 41 were white
-- 20 were black
-- 3 were Hispanic (all white)
-- 1 American Indian

# Of those executed in 2003:
-- 65 were men

# Lethal injection accounted for 64 of the executions; 1 was carried out by electrocution.

# Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2003 had capital statutes.

Let this quote open the debate on capital punishement. What do you feel about it?

I feel that all acts of revenge are childish.

I feel the state has the power to set punishments for crimes

In those two statements, is there a contradiction?

Bob

 

[painted wolf]

if you were to belive the pro-death propaganda then you would expect Texas to have the lowest crime rate. If death penalty truely deters people from crime. Last I heard they were still 8th in terms of highest crime rate and 13th in terms of violent crime.

I think that the death penalty is biased and misused in this country. Also the execution of a person with an IQ in the 60's is a travisty.

My state has the death penalty (hanging) but hasen't used it in more than 30 years. We would get rid of it but the lesislature has the 'you never know' attitude. The only thing that would really get you hanged here is possibly a major murder spree or treason. Thats if you couldn't talk them out of killing you. Personally I'm not shure anyone still knows how to tie the proper knots.

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Bob, I love you, man. If anyone on this site can start a thread that will spark debate, and phrase it in such a way that discussion is inevitable, it is you.
Whether all acts of revenge are childish is open for debate, but the statement that the state has the power to set the punishment for crimes is a fact that is beyond question.

Painted Wolf - the argument against the death penalty (that it is not a deterrent) is a red herring (at least, it is to me). I say that because it is immaterial whether putting a serial killer to death convinces someone else in the folly of committing a similar crime (it would be nice if it did), but that the true point of it is to remove someone that has shown that they are incapable of interacting with other humans.
In my world, anyone that goes on a major killing spree (let's say that they killed five young women - or a family of four) has conceded their right to live. As for tying the knot, I can do it, would willingly do it, and would be proud to kick the chair out from under such an animal.

Painted - I know that you do not agree with me, and I fully understand that. I respect your opinion and I mean that sincerely. I just happen to feel that this world is a better place when it is devoid of people that willingly take the lives of others, whether it is for personal gain, sexual gratification, or any other reason.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Scott1]

The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

 

[Scuba Pete]

My beliefs...

The state has the right to execute.

I have the right to abhor that right.

Only those who can imbue life should be allowed to take it.

Let anyone without sin be the first to cast a stone.

 

[Jaymes]

Meh. We don't rape the rapist... why should we kill the murderer?

 

[No*s]

I have mixed feelings on this subject.

The state has the power and the authority to do so. There are likely occasions when it's necessary. The state-administration of justice beats personal vengeance any day of the week. There are crimes that certainly would seem to deserve it, but...

Killing someone removes all possibility of repentance, and that's a serious thing, at least in a Christian worldview. How many people have repented after the fact? The tendency to murder is a disease, and the person needs to be healed.

No small number of people have been "exhonerated" post-humously by new techniques in investigation. I wouldn't want to be the man to fry an innocent person. That would be...disturbing at the very least. I wouldn't want to fry a guilty person either. Still more, I don't want to be the one to knock on the door of the inmates widow, children, or parents and say, "I'm sorry, Mr. & Mrs. Doe, but it is to my regret to inform you that your son John has been wrongfully executed. An advance in forensics has shown that he really wasn't at the seen of the crime as all the evidence states."

Add to this that I couldn't pull the lever. It's not even a matter of wouldn't. I couldn't. Heck, I feel guilty after I lose my temper and say a few choice words to people. There's no way that I could pull the lever.

That last part would make it completely hypocritical for me to say, "Yeah, I'm all for it." I won't say it's wrong, but I will say I have extremely strong reserves. To kill a man, take away the right of repentance, and to possibly do this to an innocent man, that's a tough one to bear. The state has its own power, and it can make its own choice, but I don't think I could ever do it.

Anybody can call me a weak man if they want. I just couldn't do it. Anybody on here that says they unconditionally support it, must be willing to convict or kill the person, so as to be involved, and *then* if he is proven innocent be willing to go to the family and tell them what happened and his part in it. It's just too much for me.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Jensa - you are correct that we don't rape the rapist, but if I had my way, we'd at least neuter the rapist.

No*s - I would not look upon anyone that opposes the death penalty (for any reason) as being weak. If you do not believe it is right, I understand. I would not expect you to "pull the lever" on someone. I also don't see myself as "strong" because I am more than willing to do so. As for not having the chance to repent due to being executed, I'd have to point out that many a death row inmate has "come to Jesus" because of the very fact of his impending demise. Not that that is a stumbling block for me, as I am an Agnostic.

NetDoc - I certainly am not without sin, but I am without homicide. I'll take the chance that when I meet St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he'll let it slide that I played a role in the execution of a valueless pig that preyed on society. I love most people that I meet, and try desperately to tolerate the rest, but I have nothing - absolutely nothing - for anyone that takes another humans life in the situation I described above. If we are talking about an accidental killing, that is a different story, but I am referring to people that wantonly kill - like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Gilmore, etc. To me, they have less value than the hogs that are processed at a slaughterhouse.

I realize that this makes me sound like a coldhearted, uncaring person, but I do believe very strongly in the idea of "an eye for an eye". If anything, this position makes me the weaker person, not someone on your side of the aisle.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Lintu]

This is an extremely long speech, but it helped me to decide for sure that I was against the death penalty:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/01/11/ryan.DTL&type=printable

The former governor of Illinois, George Ryan, did a very controversial thing in pardoning all of the inmates on death row before he left office. In that speech, he summarizes the reasons why he did this. It made a big impact on me.

 

[No*s]

No*s - I would not look upon anyone that opposes the death penalty (for any reason) as being weak. If you do not believe it is right, I understand. I would not expect you to "pull the lever" on someone. I also don't see myself as "strong" because I am more than willing to do so. As for not having the chance to repent due to being executed, I'd have to point out that many a death row inmate has "come to Jesus" because of the very fact of his impending demise. Not that that is a stumbling block for me, as I am an Agnostic.

I realize that this makes me sound like a coldhearted, uncaring person, but I do believe very strongly in the idea of "an eye for an eye". If anything, this position makes me the weaker person, not someone on your side of the aisle.

Thanks,
TVOR

I understand. I was just speaking from my position. This is a gray area, and I'm not going to be the one that thinks I can solve the enigma.

My "weak" comment comes more from the fact that most people in the small town (roughly a dozen houses large) where I'm from all look at it this way. You kill the man who did this sort of thing. It has nothing to do with religion or morality (trust me...no girl in the family, and none of the "nerds" would even venture to ascribe either to them). Since it is the most common objection I have ever heard to it, it's one I address quickly.

I can see it on terminating a dog that really hurt a person, or a ram that ran attacked a kid (lamburgers for a couple of months), but I'm very hesitant about people.

 

[No*s]

This is an extremely long speech, but it helped me to decide for sure that I was against the death penalty:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/01/11/ryan.DTL&type=printable

The former governor of Illinois, George Ryan, did a very controversial thing in pardoning all of the inmates on death row before he left office. In that speech, he summarizes the reasons why he did this. It made a big impact on me.

Thanks for the link.

 

[painted wolf]

TVOR- I take no offence. Infact I agree that in some cases the death penalty is nessisary and eaven desirealbe... however I do not agree with the way it is used in our country currently.

as for the info on Texas, I have heard the deterant theory repeated more often than I can count. It is complete bunk yet they still try to peddle it.

If you are going to sanction the deaths of others do so for the right reasons, not fluffy feel good ones.

wa:do

 

[robtex]

I am reading this debate and am enjoying it and would like to state I am against the death penalty. Their are reasons why that have not been mentioned yet and I would like to put them on the table. Justice is anything but black and white. It is a very complicated machine. The players themselves are complicated. You have"

the police who are trained to get info out of the suspects and have (and reasonably so ) prejudices and theories going into the negociation.

The DA who is paid the same no matter how he preforms but (a very important but) has a win loss ratio attached to his resume at all times. Many DA's are bucking for bigger and better things ..like being a judge for instance.....and some can be very very ambiscious.

The Defense attorney who (as some very adroit defense attorneys have told me in the past) are always on triel for two people...their client and themselves (future business).

The judge who has pressure from the community on all death penalty cases

The jury

Now some cases are slam dunks where you have eye witeness murder weapons and DNA but others just are not. They are shades of gray were certainty is not a luxary given to those involved. If you take time to read some capitical cases you will find very few are black and white.

If you kill a prisoner there are no second chances is it done over finished. If you don't already know many cases in the United States get turned over every year from new evidence...DNA, false testimony, coehersion, using prision snitches instead of real witnesses, newly discovered evidence ect.

If it didn't happen often than maybe it wouldn't matter as much but it does. In texas (the death penatly capital of the world) many convictions stuck due to the expert testimony of Fred Zain.

Zain was a forenics expert. He testified for years --and on capital murder cases on evidence he had never seen. He lied to the jury and they convicted men and sent them to prison and death row based on his testimony.
www.truthjustice.org/expertslie.htm
In Chicago there was a ring of officers in 2004 I believe who tortured confessions out of suspects. The confessions become admissable evidence.
www.cnn.com/2004/LAW'/11/17/deathpenalty.lawsuit.ap

Ryan Matthews was sentenced to leathal injection in 1997 for murder in LA (st). He was freed after DNA proved him innocent....
www.truthustice.org/ryan-matthews.htm

Want to see a real eye opener go here
www.law-forensic.com/cfr_hall_of_shame.htm

It is a list of incompentance and fraud.

the last website is a database of all those on death row when their time is due...read their cases for a few months....It will give you a good feel for the system.
www.ncadp.org

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Meh. We don't rape the rapist... why should we kill the murderer?

We may not rape the rapist, but there's probably a large bloke on the inside that will do it for reasons of his own.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

We don't have capital punishement here, but I believe under certain circumstances that we should.
If it is a case where you have committed pre-meditated multiple murder and there are multiple witnesses and you have been caught with the smoking gun, as it were, then I'm all for it.
There are several examples of people in Australia that I can think of...Julian Knight, who shot dead 7 people in the street for no reason other than it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Martin Bryant, who killed 30 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania. In particular he hunted 1 terrified 6 year old down after he shot her mother and 3 year old sister in front of her and shot her dead as she cowered behind a tree.
Paul Denyer, who killed 7 women at random, because he'd,'always wanted to kill'.
What do you gain by keeping these people alive? There're no mistakes here, they're all guilty, and Denyer in particular wastes court time and taxpayers money on a regular basis on frivolous court actions to keep his name in the public eye. Perhaps it is an illness, but then so is cancer, and we cut that out quick smart if we can. It's removal forms part of the cure.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

PW and Robtex -
I do not disagree that mistakes are made and that the system is flawed. The answer (in my opinion) is simple - fix the system. I realize that fixing the system is a complex problem, that would require considerable resources, but I would still retain the death penalty, for just such situations as Lady Lazarus described above. For me, if there are multiple reliable eyewitnesses, DNA evidence, or videotape of you killing someone, I would say that if you are convicted, you should get ONE appeal - and that should be limited to a review to ensure that the trial was conducted legally. After that review, I say it's time to start using the money that would be used to buy their food, shelter, and clothing for something like paying teachers, flood relief, or student grants.

TVOR

 

[robtex]

TVOR what are some ideas on fixing the system? That is a big task. Appeals can only be made on the contingency of new evidence or misconduct in the privious trial. They are not automatic. If you look at one capital murder case every two weeks for a year TVOR you are going to see that there are very rarely eyewitness and videotapes. DNA is a big tool in the game and hopefully that will make cases more reliable but in a number of instances they aren't avaliable either. Many if not the majority of murder cases are based on circumstanial evidence and because of such there can not be absolute certainty of their guilt ..just probablity. I have a hard time killing someone where certainty is not avaliable.

For my understanding what is the benefit gained from the murder's death?

 

[Fluffy]

The justice system should be about just that, justice. Revenge should not be a feature. I know for certain that, if I had the power to decide whether a rapist should live or not, then my decision to kill him would not stem from compassion to stop further rapes, but from revenge to gain recompense from his earlier crimes.

I know very well that I would likely kill someone who had commited such a dreadful act as murder or rape. I also know that I would be morally wrong in doing so but I would not stop me. A system which tries to uphold a moral obligation to a community cannot be infected by my, or anyone elses, personal shortcomings.

I can list so many advantages of keeping the death penalty.
It saves money. Yet is that justification for slaughtering anyone who commits a crime, simply to stop them from using the tax payers money?
It prevents reoffense. Yet isnt this an easy way out? Aren't we merely ignoring the opportunity we have to allow these people to redeem themselves through prison or rehabilitation? Both these systems will need major changes in order to prevent reoffenses but there are plenty of murderers who have gone to prison and come out changed people. It does come down to a point of opinion now but in my mind that is far better than killing them.

Perhaps banning the death penalty would only happen in a perfect world and I am a dreamer for considering it unnecessary. Still, I will be constantly reminded that, with every person sent to death, society, and the system, has failed them AS WELL AS their victims.

Fluffy

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Some people are beyond redemption. I know that sounds harsh, and I'm sure people will disagree with me, but can anyone tell me how many sociopaths the prison system has turned into full functioning human beings and released to live a full and productive life?
Honestly, if there's a statistic out there, I'd like to know.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I don't know what I believe. I think it would be a far greater punishment to have a person life the rest of their natural life with the knowledge of what they've done, but I know that would not be the ultimate threat to others. My mind screams that human life is so brief as it is... well, to take it from someone, whether you are a person or a government, is appalling.