In other words, I was right about how the basic idea is to round up and kill poor and dark skinned people. And eugenics by mass murder as well. Why don’t you come right out and admit you think that Nazi Germany was the ideal government?
I didn’t say anything about killing black people, you did. To you, criminal=black apparently. But you’ll come back and say, no, it’s just that those will be the ones railroaded.
Yes, everyone in jail is railroaded. No one actually robs, rapes, kills, carjacks…it’s all a racist myth.
Because they are, and will be. The death penalty and the justice system in general is strongly racist among it’s other flaws.
Those numbers show that the death penalty does not reduce crime, or reduces it by an insignificant fraction. They don’t show that the death penalty increases crime. As Shagnasty notes, you’re drawing a correlation that isn’t really there.
Those people are obviously wrong. If convicts would rather die, they’d stop appealing their sentences.
Western civilization didn’t get to where it is today by letting nonwhites and women vote, either. How far would you like to go back?
For the 1,000,000th time, the death penalty is applied vastly more often to blacks and Hispanics than to other people convicted of capital crimes, and even more often to blacks and Hispanics who kill a white person.
You’re making sense. If a person is safely locked away, he is not a threat anymore. I’ll admit, there are times when there is something especially nasty on the news and my initial reaction is “kill the bastard”, but that is emotion talking, not logic or reason.
Stuff happens. It is not inconceivable that the accused could be innocent, or simply bat shit crazy (and therefore not responsible). We simply don’t need to execute people.
It is if you abolish the death penalty.
No. BUT, if a wrongful conviction is proven, a prisoner in jail can be freed. If said person is dead, they cannot.
And if we ARE going to have the death penalty, you better BELIEVE we should have a stronger appeals process, and not limit it, as has been suggested. That only increases the chances of executing an innocent person.
Can you provide CITES, not just, “I heard,” or “I believe” but cold, hard FACTS, to back up your claims that the death penalty is a deterent?
(And as far as I’m concerned, one innocent person executed, is one too many)
Shodan, when I said life in prison was worth than death, I did not mean it literally. Do keep up. Again, at least there is a chance of righting a wrong.
And for those who were saying, “well if said retarded person can tell right from wrong…” – why hasn’t anyone answered my question about how, if they essentially have the mind of a child, would you be comfortable then with executing a child?
What makes the death sentence the “top pillar of justice” in your eyes? Wouldn’t massive amounts of torture be even more severe? What about the torture of you and your loved ones? What about slow public dismemberment?
Why don’t you do an informal poll of a group of people who have done prison time and see how homosexual men are perceived by that segment of society? I’m serious, hang around a crew of temp day laborers or something - most menial labor crews will have several people in them who have done prison time, at least in my experience - and ask them what they think of gay men. Then you’ll understand what his being gay has to do with it.
People who are seen as weak become a target in prisons. Gay men are seen as weak and effeminate. That is just the way it is.
The point I was trying to make is that life in prison is only “hell on earth” for someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, a weak wimp who will be perceived as such. A hardcore gangbanger, rapist or armed robber will quickly adjust to the prison environment and in many cases enjoy it; in prison, he will find an ordered system of “respect” based upon physical prowess, a pecking order which he can rise to the top of in a way which was impossible in the outside world. Prison is NOT A DETERRENT to people like this, and it’s also not a punishment either.
I don’t want to speak for ITRChampion, but I take his point as being that not only don’t the numbers show the death penalty reduces crime, you could just as well take them to say it increases it. I don’t think it does, but the bigger point is that you can’t justify the death penalty as a way of making us safer. You then fall back on revenge.
I didn’t claim you said it was good; I said you said it was okay. Which you clearly do.
No, my logic is that there are remedies for those times when justice is not served and an innocent person is in jail, alive.
I see innocent people in jail as a huge problem that needs to be addressed, but one of the principles of our justice system is that the greater the restriction on freedom, the greater the objective basis requirement for it. Since death is the ultimate restriction on freedom and there’s no way to take it back, it needs MORE of a basis, not less. I just can’t believe that’s actually up for dispute.
I’m trying to keep up, but it is difficult when you say things you don’t think are literally true.
Well, at least you are up front about it - you are not against the DP because it is cruel, but because it is not cruel enough.
And of course, by this logic, LWOP is not as good as life without parole and with daily, non-lethal torture.
Well, if we really care about innocence per se, as opposed to using the appeal process to abuse the system, then we have to have just as much appealing in LWOP as in DP cases. After all, keeping an innocent person in prison is an injustice to be corrected, isn’t it?
So we have to appeal LWOP cases more than DP cases. The appeals have to go on for life, not the dozen years or so of the average death row inmate. You can’t ever shut off the process - that would mean that guilt has been established, and at that point it would be more just and more merciful to execute that to keep them alive for a lifetime of LWOP.
Unless, as is my suspicion, the nearly endless appeals are fueled, not by any real concern for justice, but simply to prevent the will of the people from being carried out. Or, if your notion that LWOP is worse than execution, simple sadism.
The results of the Innocence project are illuminating. They found some people who were condemned to death but innocent, and got them freed. Good for them. But the large majority of those tested were found to be guilty as Cain. And they sure as hell didn’t say “Sure, fry the son of a bitch”. Because, guilty or innocent, they don’t want anyone to be executed. Therefore, you may even be correct that if we abolished the DP, all the pressure groups endlessly appealing would drop the subject. Because they are not as concerned as they claim to be with justice.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, yes, I said it was ‘ok’ I guess (actually I didn’t just that it was unavoidable). It is if it results in greater good being done I think. If 100,000 murderers are killed and that saves/improves the lives of 50,000 people (both by freeing resources and improving the quality of life of the citizenry and preventing them from being killed) but unfortunately 5 innocent people are killed…then SOME might say it was worth it.
Society makes determinations like that all the time. They give vacines that kill a small percentage of people taking them. Those are innocent people sacrificed to the greater good, so to speak. What’s the difference?
If you can free up billions by killing a few hundred thousand predators, then how many people can be saved via “free health care”? Ever think of that? Everything is a tradeoff. We spend money on murderers that otherwise could save lives.
The way the system is now, the death penalty doesn’t save money, obviously. It would have to be expanded and reformed.
For the purpose of my reply I was accepting your premise that LWOP is worse. I was just trying to show that even if it is a worse penalty, it is still preferable to the death penalty. Part 1 just says that it doesn’t really matter for the guilty, since no one I know advocates the death penalty as being merciful in comparison to LWOP. I was not saying that it is good to maximize suffering. The interesting parts are 2 and 3, which you didn’t respond to.
Theoretically, there should be an appeal only if there is something worth appealing. Practically, people tend to do the default. Thus, it may be the case that a party with a case worth appealing might not do it because of depression, discouragement from incompetent legal advice, or just inertia. In the LWOP case this is fine, since he has the chance later. In the death penalty case there is no second chance, so the default case should be to appeal. If most people convicted of murder are actually innocent, I might be in favor of more appeals in LWOP cases, but I don’t think even death penalty opponents believe that. So, it will be most often the case that a convict who knows he is guilty won’t appeal, which is fine. There is no pressing need for appeals without new evidence. I haven’t noticed anyone supporting LWOP also calling for unlimited appeals. We don’t think everyone who is convicted is innocent - just too high a proportion.
That’s only true if you think that the only justice in a capital case is killing the guy. Now some opponents of the death penalty are against it even if guilt were absolutely certain, but there are plenty against it because of the inevitable mistakes in the system. Scott Turow turned against it after serving on the Illinois Commission and seeing first hand how screwed up the system is - he is not against executions in principle, only in practice. One of the things he mentioned is that prosecutors would file a death penalty charge in order to pressure the suspect to plea bargain. If the suspect wouldn’t (which is more likely if the guy were innocent) then the prosecutor can’t back down, because it would look like the case was weak. This actually increases the chances that the innocent will get convicted. This is a lot less blatant than defense attorneys sleeping through the trial, but just as deadly.
So, what’s the highest percentage of innocents dying you’ll accept for your sense of justice?
No I don’t believe in the death penalty.
No, that’s not correct. An inmate doesn’t get endless appeals so long as he stays alive; he gets a direct appeal through the state system, state habeas relief, and federal habeas relief, and absent extrordinary circumstances gets one bite at the apple for each. If you take the death penalty off of the table the vast majority of appeals end when the direct state appeal is exhausted.
And you don’t need separate trials (and juries) for the finding of guilt/innocence and sentencing.
I don’t think that you can seriously argue that the death penalty does not exist. :dubious:
In any event, I am for the death penalty, but only for egregious crimes such as first-degree premeditated murder.
We currently have a case here in Connecticut in which two career criminals broke into a random house in the middle of the night, held a family hostage, beat the husband/father (a prominent physician) unconscious with a baseball bat, sexually assaulted the mother and her two daughters, drove the mother to the bank to withdraw $15,000…and then strangled the mother, poured gasoline on her and her daughters (now tied to their beds) to conceal evidence of the rapes, and set them and the house on fire.
They then fled the scene in the family’s SUV and were captured immediately by police (after ramming the police cars blockading the road).
There is no question of their guilt.
It is a crime against humanity that these two sociopaths are still alive.
Links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19957752/
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07slay.html
No, YOU made the claim – YOU back it up. He may have been SEEEN as weak, but I’d like a cite for that – the guy was a freaking CANNIBAL, for crissakes!!!
Shodan – I meant it as a metaphor. As in, do you honestly think that life in prison is all that much better?
Namely, well off white people. The people who know they are not the ones in danger of being killed. And probably not the cops, who’ll have to worry about getting dragged out of their cars and killed if they patrol minority neighborhoods after.
Not by gang members, but by enraged mobs of average citizens. Because another flaw in your psychopathic plan is that it ignores the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you that those people deserved to die, or were even guilty.
Two that come to mind is there’s no other way of solving the problem of many diseases, that it actually works ( unlike mass executions ), and that bigotry isn’t involved.
A society that does as you suggest would probably “solve” the problem of sickness among the uninsured by killing them. A murderous society is going to solve it’s problems in a murderous way. And no, I don’t think it’s unrealistic to think that a society that acts like Nazi Germany in one way will act like Nazi Germany in another.
There has been a death penalty for quite a while. It is good because it has cut down on murder.
Except, it has not. It has never been a deterrent. Murder is often a crime of passion or anger. Do you believe that those who murder do not know it is a serious crime and they will get severely punished. Do you think someone says ,"I will shoot him because I only have to serve life in prison, so it is worth it’ .