I’m just trying to get to the root issue. The point was made above that the death penalty assures us the accused will not kill again. I’m trying to discover if we assure ourselves of that without the death penalty… is there any OTHER argument that mandates the use of the death penalty?
The problem is (and I think all reasonable folks on both sides of the DP issue will agree with this) that it’s far easier to talk about “getting tough” on criminals than it is to sell programs which prevent people from turning into hardened criminals to begin with. Selling the idea of life without parole prisons would be just as difficult, IMHO. Admittedly, many people are under the wrong impression that putting someone to death is somehow cheaper than keeping them alive.
If I understand what you’re saying, you consider intentionally getting someone into the electric chair (that you know is innocent) as murder.
Then you didn’t understand what I was saying (ignoring how hard perjury is to prove). Lots of people end up on death row who are innocent, and nobody intentionally misled. Everybody acted in good faith, and they convicted the wrong guy. And “beyond reasonable doubt,” by definition, allows wrong convictions in a very small minority of cases - it’s not as strict a standard as ‘incontrovertible proof.’
Moreover, we’re doing a worse job than we should - too many people on death row have been exonerated for a reasonable person to conclude that they were all guilty “beyond reasonable doubt.”
But if I didn’t understand what you were saying, please elaborate.
Partially correct. There have been cases where the police/prosecutors have fabricated evidence or knowingly concealed evidence simply because they believed the person was guilty. I consider those folks guilty of murder, even if the person didn’t die.
Perjury is one thing, but fabricating or concealing evidence is quite another. AFAIK, in most cases where that happens the police/prosecutors who fabricate/conceal evidence are given little more than a slap on the wrist if anything.
Then how is it discovered that the person is innocent? I can understand it in cases where a person was convicted before DNA (or other forensic) evidence was allowed, or if they had a shitty defense team, but I’ve not heard of a case where all the available physical evidence, etc., pointed to one person who was convicted, then later found innocent. Not saying that it couldn’t happen, mind you, only that I’ve not heard of it. Certainly, I think that everyone should have the best possible defense, and that all forensic evidence should be reviewed in death penalty cases, nor do I necessarily think that the DP should be applied in every instance of murder.
I agree, and nothing pisses me off like hearing that some states won’t allow a review of DNA evidence, even though it could clear innocent people in prison (don’t forget that a number of people have been freed for lesser crimes, thanks to DNA/forensic evidence, discovery that police/prosecutors had fabricated/concealed evidence).
Please enlighten me.
IIRC, it takes only a million or so to house and feed a person for life, but the cost of repeated appeals, etc. quickly add up to tens of millions of dollars (all those lawyers, judges, expert witnesses, etc., don’t come cheap, even if they are on the government’s payroll). John Wayne Gacy used that argument while he was fighting his death sentence as I recall, and various newspaper stories that I read at the time confirmed it.
In very much agreement. All evidence aside, pretty damning to implicate yourself in court in front of the judge, jury, and lawyers. Then laugh about it. For 5 to 6 minutes. No value for the family other than the man cannot hurt anyone ever again in prison or out.
NO!
In fact, I’ve seen some of those places on TV. It appears cruel to be locked up like that! Like a fucking animal. Why keep someone like that for the rest of their life?
Just fucking kill the guy, will ya?
What I don’t get is why most of the same people who want to spare the worthless life of some piece of shit are the same ones who claim they have a right to suck a baby out of their womb or starve to death a woman who committed no crime except get sick on her asshole husbands dime.
I’ll tell you what: Eliminate convienence abortion and then I’ll agree that the death penalty should go too. Deal?
I’ve been staying away from this thread for a while (avoiding it like the plague). But, a death penalty legally does not require that the jury be 100 percent positive. Only beyond a reasonable doubt, just like Bup said. As BobLibDem said, there is always the chance the it might be a wrongful conviction. Then as ** Bricker** said, if we could guarantee that instead of the death penalty, convicts would be housed in supermax confinement, the killer would no longer be a threat.
Tookie Williams was, according to the charges, a cold blooded murderer. One who laughed while killing, one who would kill people that might have just seen something, one who probably ordered other killings as leader of the Crips. I don’t feel any “closeness” to him. but let’s be honest. His execution is more about vengeance than anything else.
What exactly are you saying with this statement? Death before prison?
This matters to the thread how? You want an abortion thread? Go start one elsewhere.
But I like my drive through McAbortions.
What is the use of locking a guy up like a veal calf for 70 years until he dies just to make sure he doesn’t commit any more crime. Whats the use of that?
No, I’m staying here. I want to know why that piece of shits life is sooooooooooooo important to you while other lives are held valueless . The question is 100% relavent to this case.
Same use as the death penalty really, only it doesn’t leave one feeling morally distressed. Death is so upsetting. Life in prison? It’s got life right in the sentence. Life is good, right?
Of course there is the other answer of “it’s a deterrant.” Comitting a crime doesn’t sound as fun when you’ll wind up locked up like a veal calf, but not as tasty.
Why? Cause. That’s why. You can’t place a solid standard upon peoples moral decisions. Everyone is free to believe what they want, when they want even if it makes no sense to you.
You are dragging another issue in just to stir things up. Abortion and the death penalty are two separate issues whether you like it or not.
Are you referring to the Schiavo (sp?) case? If so, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Or to you for that matter. Public opinon on capitol punishment is still on my side. I believe this guy was a blight on our world. He lost any right to redemption when he did what he did. Putting him to death was as just as putting down a rabid dog. Quick execution is human. Keeping a guy locked in a cage for the rest of his eternity is not.
So what am I ignorant about? She didn’t starve to death by removal of the feeding tube? You mean she DID commit a crime?
You are totally ignorant of every aspect of the Schiavo case beyond the hysterical lies and distorted half-truths of the jackasses who used that case to further their own agendas.
Go search on “Schiavo” for threads about it at the time and learn something, idjit.
Some of you couldn’t wait to “let that poor woman die”, yet scream and yell & protest over executing a piece of shit murderer.
But I guess we both got what we wanted. They’re both dead.
You know, I never thought it’d be possible for someone to sound like they’re screaming hysterically without using all caps, but you’ve managed to do it.
Take a pill or switch to decaf would ya?
Pkbites the woman was already a corpse, she had no brain activity, essentially a vegetable, she felt no pain,joy, or anything else. What was the point of keeping her alive, she was not coming back.
I’m not the one trying to force others to fit in to my views on morality. People can be anti-death penalty and pro-choice whether you like it or not. People are contrary like that.
As far as the Tookie Williams case goes, I would’ve been okay if he recieved clemency from the Governator and I’m okay with his execution. You assumed I disagreed with you because I didn’t like you and your abortion soapbox. You guessed wrong.
I don’t see how putting someone to death is any better than life in prison. They wind up in prison until the end of their life anyways. Neither offers any chance of rehabilitation. If it’s more humane, it’s just barely.