I think the 50 year streak refers to military cases only. But I’m not sure how many there have been in the last 50 years other than the one during JFK’s administration.
I have no problem with the death penalty. Feeding, clothing, providing medical care and so on for many many years on the taxpayers dime for murderers is insane.
I have never understood this rationale (or the ‘found religion’ one either). If they committed the crime they should serve the full sentence up to and including death.
Henry Lee Lucas was a bit of a special case, not just in Texas but elsewhere as well. Unfortunately, law enforcement, apparently a little too excited that they’d captured a multi-state serial killer, saw an opportunity to close some of their cold cases. Lucas had a habit of confessing to just about any murder you asked him about, you see, and if the interrogation was too lax, he’d end up getting credit for a murder he didn’t actually commit. So, Lucas gets blamed, while some other murderer is still running around scot-free. There’s no doubt that Lucas deserved the death penalty for the crimes he actually committed. But, we needed to keep him around a while to make sure that other people didn’t get away with murder because of his lying, attention-whoring ways.
My own little city, in a county of 10,000, prosecuted a Lucas murder case back in 1984. Just two years ago, there was talk of reopening the case. About the only evidence against Lucas in that original case was his own confession, in which he got a number of details of the crime wrong.
In regard to this, can you address the argument from my admittedly lengthy post. I don’t understand the “moral rightness”. Based on my logic, if we consider justice to be a moral imperative, which I do, then it seems morally correct to have the Death Penalty.
On a side note, I agree that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent. In general, people who are capable of such crimes that would warrant the Death Penalty aren’t going to be pursuaded not to do it because of the punishment. As such, I see this as an argument that lends weight to neither side.
I’m a proponent of the Death Penalty, but I think this argument is generally a non-starter. Last I checked (and no cite, but I suppose I could find one if it really matters) it actually costs more money in most cases to give someone the Death Penalty than Life Imprisonment because the Death Penalty still gets put of for years or even decades and they tend to have more appeals which raises court costs. However, if your argument is more of the principle of providing these basic needs for someone who so violated the laws of society, then I suppose I could understand that.
I do have to say that I solidly agree with this point. I don’t believe the judicial system does or should exist as a way of rehabilitating people. I believe it’s purpose is to establish a just balance of the crime committed versus the penalty. An act once done can never be undone, and while later remorse and an attempt to make amends may be meaningful in a case of theft, no amount of remorse can bring someone back from the dead.
Also, as you mention the “found religion”, I find that even less compelling. As a Christian myself, I believe we, as a society, still have an obligation to uphold our laws and that whether someone has found religion or not, that is purely between him and God. For those of you who are not religious, I’d imagine that the religionous aspect would be essentially meaningless to you and would, at best, equate to the previous case.
I realize that it takes ages to enforce the death penalty, but that is a matter of process which I believe should be fixed. I’m not saying I think they should have an executioner on duty in the court room, but it also shouldn’t take 20 years.
As you say, it’s the principle that we shouldn’t be paying for the care of murderers for indefinate periods of time.
I don’t know anything about this group, but they say the average time between sentence and execution is 145 months. (I just found this)
I’m pretty far from being a fan of President Bush, but I have absolutely no problem with his signing the death warrant for a man who committed four murders and eight rapes.
I won’t dance on Gray’s grave after he’s dead, but I certainly won’t mourn the end of his life.
Okay, then I think we’re in agreement there. I can appreciate the difference in spending of money on verifying somone’s guilt and/or innocence (which, according to the same site is in the neighborhood of about twice the cost) versus sustaining someone we know to be guilty.
I also agree that the system, while improving with technology and such, is still far from perfect. I think there probably is some racial and other prejudices in the legal system. I think waiting 12 years on death row is probably excessive to ensuring someone has had adequate appeals. I can even imagine there have been people who were wrongly executed. But all of these are issues with the system and not necessarily inherent to the Death Penalty itself. I have to wonder, to those who see the issues with the system as their primary reason for opposing it, rather than moral reasons, what are acceptable thresholds for these issues? As we continue to improve on them, if they one day reach those thresholds, would you change your stance?
As for the cite, AFAICT, they appear to be an anti-DP group. As such, I’d imagine their numbers are either fairly accurate or perhaps skewed slightly in favor of their position. Considering the amount of difference in cost is actually much less than I seem to recall (I seem to remember something more like 5x), and the time on death row is what I expected (10-15 years), I’m comfortable conceding those figures.
:smack:
Sorry, everyone. It even says that in the OP, as well.
Chants to self: “Reading comprehension. Learn it. Live it. Love it.”
A most unpleasant fellow, that Gray chap.
Completely aside from the death penalty issue… what about double jeopardy? Did he get convicted of the same crimes in both civilian and military courts? However nasty the guy may be, that doesn’t seem to be in keeping with The American Way.
?
Or maybe the US Court System has a dim view of African Americans although maybe it’s the police that hate them more.
Killing people is wrong.
I agree, that’s why we’ll kill you if you do it!
If you think “an eye for an eye” is morally correct reasoning, then sure. IMHO, however- and YMMV, obviously- justice as tit-for-tat is morally incorrect in and of itself.
If you’re going to execute someone, I think you really it owe it to them to make sure they did it. Given the number of people acquitted after previously being sentenced for murder (129 since the 1973 reinstatement, say most of the sources I looked at), it seems reasonable to infer that such a lengthy appeals process is absolutely required.
I don’t see where I disagree that we should be certain before an execution. I don’t necessarily agree that a lengthy appeals process that can take decades (and on average seems to take about 12 years) is needed.
Well, not in this case. 
You’re arguing a strawman. I specifically said my view of justice is a modified version of “eye for an eye” such that it is the same OR a forfeiture of an equitable amount of another right. I even gave a specific example such that the “eye for an eye” punishment for assault would be capital punishment, but I believe a jail sentence can be just as an equitable trade of the convict’s right to freedom verses the physical harm he did to the victim.
I also specifically said that I hold the right to life as immeasurably more valuable than any other right and thus it is impossible to make an equitable trade of a different right for violating such a right of another individual.
Justice is defined as “the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness” by Dictionary.com. My appeal to why the Death Penalty is just is based on this. No one argues that it is wrong to kill, but what is important is the equitableness.
So, I have to ask you, what’s YOUR view of justice if it differs from mine? If it doesn’t, what else do you see as an equitable trade for violating the right to life? In this state, IIRC, people can get life imprisonment for a myriad of violent crimes, most of which I would consider to be equitable punishments. Surely murder is an entirely different and more serious crime, no?
If you disagree with my view on justice, what is yours? If we’re not punishing people to achieve a balance, why are we punishing them? Revenge? Rehabilitation?
If execution represents equitableness for the crime of murder, what is the equitable sentence for the crime of rape? To satisfy your need for equitableness, shouldn’t rapists be raped by the state? How can any term of incarceration be equated with sexual assault, except through subjective designation? If literal equitableness is not applied in other crimes, I see no reason to be a slave to it with regards to murder. I believe life in prison represents equitableness for murder, because the state is depriving the perpetrator of any of the things free men aspire to. Actually taking a life is unnecessary to achieve equitableness .
What if somebody murders two people? He can only be killed back once. Do you kill him extra hard?
Yes, equitableness is not something that can be easily decided upon. I, personally, hadn’t given any consideration to rape because it is irrelevant. But, for what it’s worth, I’m happy to examine it. You say “how can any term of incarceration be equated with sexual assault”, so perhaps sexual assault is also worthy of a punishment greater than life imprisonment?
You’re missing the point. I never said anything about literally being the same thing. Some rights are more valuable than others. I personally consider the right to life to be the most valuable AND to be immeasurably more valuable than any summation of any other rights. What good is a right to property or right to freedom if you’re not alive to enjoy it?
We, as a society, have agreed upon what an equitable trade is for most violations. For instance, theft (violation of someone’s right to property) is worth a certain amount of time of incarceration. Thus, we can roughly say that a violation of someone’s property of a certain amount is equal to a certain amount of someone else’s right to freedom. I think we, as a society, have agreed to these terms because they’re amongst the simplest and most humane ways of dealing with crime. It’s the same sort of principle why we use money instead of trading sheep for corn. Money and incarceration are simple, quantitative things that can easily used to fulfill this principle. Further, incarcerating someone or fining them is significantly less barbaric and more humane than, say, chopping of their hands or physically castrating them.
However, the crux of my argument, which you haven’t addressed, is that life is immeasurably more valuable than any summation of any other rights that a person may have. Thus, it is impossible to have any sort of equitable trade of any other rights.
I agree that the state is more or less depriving the convict of what free men aspire to. I disagree that it is equitable. To qualify this, any freedom that the incarcerated man does not have, neither does his victim. However, the incarcerated man can still read a book, write a letter, have a conversation, smile, or any number of other things; his victim can NEVER do those things. He has taken away from his victim not just freedom, but everything that goes with life that we take for granted. Incarceration is not even close to an equitable trade for murder.
I assume this is a silly response, but I’ll give a serious answer nonetheless. He has taken away from two individuals as much as he possibly can, all he can do is give up as much as he can; his life.
This is no different than with life imprisonment. If you don’t believe in the death penalty, and you’d give him life imprisonment for a single murder, then there is similarly no discernable difference between giving him life imprisonment for a single murder, or life imprisonment for a double murder. So, really, any discussion of multiple murders is irrelevant unless there is some numerial threshold where a multiple murderer deserves a punishment other than the death penalty or life imprisonment, whichever argument to which you hold. FWIW, my opinion on the death penalty is unaffected by the number of murders.