That’s probably true. How has the death penalty prevented that?
The number of people killed by escaped/parole killers would be larger if we didn’t have the death penalty. Some of those killers would most likely have gotton out of prison and killed again.
Paroled isn’t relevant; that’s an argument against having parole, not for having the death penalty. As to escaping, not really. Put plainly, the death penalty hasn’t been shown to save one life in Texas, or anywhere else that I know of. The Mecklenburg escapees could have killed somebody in 1984 but luckily didn’t, and as a result death rows across the country are run differently.
We’re killing them left and right in Texas and offenders are still escaping and killing innocent people like Aubrey Hawkins, just not from death row. Since the reinstitution of the death penalty in Texas inmates have spent a combined total of over four thousand years on death row and not one has escaped with his life. One the other hand, there are at least three Texas cases I know of where guilt is questionable, and if at least two of those cases were retried today the verdict would almost certainly be not guilty. If it’s not saving anybody and innocent people may be dying, what’s the point?
Erm, Dave, you really **are **talking about hypotheticals you know.
There is a very simple point that you are overlooking. Those real people killed by real escaped criminals, this actually happened. The death penalty failed to stop them.
Oh, I know what you mean. You mean that those people would have been saved *if * the death penalty had been used.
And that is a hypothetical.
Trouble is, Annie, it’s not that simple. You make a false assumption about the value of human lives. Nobody is actually without value.
So, you execute a thousand people. Lets just say that there is no dispute about their guilt. Lets also say that maybe 1% would have escaped and killed again, if not executed. So, you have saved 10 lives by performing those executions.
But you have also killed 990 other people. And those 990 deaths served no purpose. They were 990 people who wouldn’t have escaped and wouldn’t have killed again. Each one of these executions is a loss to someone. There is always a mother or a sister or a daughter who is hurt by the execution. That’s 990 families hurt.
The damage done by executions is observable and clear cut. In my opinion it outweighs the purely hypothetical damage that *might *have happened if they hadn’t been executed. Killing a thousand people to save ten isn’t justified.
I agree completely. So let’s execute them so they can never kill anyone again.
Because the same response is appropriate when DP opponents talk about innocent people being executed - let’s fix the problems that allowed an innocent person to be convicted. Like, for instance, DNA testing.
Then when we are sure we have the right guy, we execute him, and gain the safety that execution provides against repeat offenders, but without the offsetting disadvantage that an innocent might be executed. DNA tests make the death penalty a more just alternative, not less. It does not address the disavantages of LWOP (for the guilty) at all.
Regards,
Shodan
This is a value judgement, you can’t just claim that even the most despicable scumbag on the planet has value that should be preserved and expect us to take your words as fact.
Yeah, I bet they’re really torn up about their raping and/or murdering child/sibling/parent getting put down for their refusal to not ruin innocent people’s lives.
Since I am only arguing for people who commit multiple murders to be executed, image how many lives each of them has ruined. Take Timothy McVeigh–he killed 168 lives. Assuming each of these people had five relatives to mourn them, that is 840 affected people! Even with a killer of 10 people, that is only 50 people!
If an innocent member of my family had to be killed, I’d rather it be by the state that by a serial killer/mass murderer.
Be clear as to what you mean when you say DNA testing. Do you mean DNA to link a weapon to an accused, an accused to a crime scene, etc.? If my cleaning lady were killed by a home invader shortly after cleaning my bathroom, there is little doubt that DNA would link me to: 1) her person (a hair on her pants, maybe); and 2) the scene (hair, etc. everywhere). What has that proven? People fall back on DNA like it is relevant in every case, it’s not. I will grant you, DNA matches to semen and blood at the scene might be very relevant, but “DNA” is not the end all be all of evidence in every case. Not every murder will offer the opportunity for the presentation of DNA eviedence, and even when it is present the conclusions drawn can often be ambiguous.
We’re already being as careful as we can be. Every single person convicted of capital murder was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, including the factually innocent ones later exonerated. What specific solutions to “fixing the problem” do you propose?
DNA evidence is available in only about 5 to 10 percent of all violent criminal cases. What do you propose the ones who aren’t lucky enough to have exculpatory DNA evidence in their cases do?
This is exactly the reason that Laci Peterson’s asshole husband is on death row. Her hair was in his boat. What the fuck kind of police work was that?
Don’t get me wrong…there’s a vacancy in that dude that makes me think there’s a serious defect going on. However, that ain’t how we try people. And if you start convicting husbands because their wives’ hair is present in co-owned property and he could have brought it in on his fucking sweater fercrissakes, there’s no fuckin’ justice anywhere.
Oh, way to go. That’s right, snip out the bit where I stated that it was my opinion.
Do you really think that way or are you just trying to provoke an argument?
FYI, about 99% of the time whenever there’s an execution scheduled the family is begging the governor for clemency. Yes, most people really are torn up about their child getting put down.
Remind me to never put you in charge of the Bathwater Disposal Committee. 
I see no reason why we can’t do both of those things, and stop executing people.
:dubious: Uhh, yeah?
I’m not sure I follow your point - could you clarify?
IMO, that’s bizarre. I see no difference between the two.
One is forced to wonder. Would you pro-death penalty wags out there be for it if you were going to be executed (and were innocent)? If not, I would suggest that you’re hypocrites.
And no, I don’t think there should be a death penalty for hypocrisy. 
I suppose that depends I what I’d done to deserve it. I’ve made my peace with death and its’ inevitability, so if I had kidnapped, bludgeoned, raped and murdered two women, I might be for the hot shot, as I could, with any luck, recognize my own uselessness.
Continued scientific advance. DNA testing has already greatly reduced the possibility of executing an innocent, thus making execution a more viable alternative.
Well, if they are murderers, execute them. While continuing to research improved forensic techniques to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent.
I mean DNA considered in the same way other evidence is considered.
I’m not claiming that there is one specific set of circumstances where DNA evidence should be required. I am assuming that the Innocence Project came up with DNA evidence that clearly demonstrated that the guy didn’t do it. (I actually haven’t inquired into the way this works.)
I am assuming that it would be something like DNA testing shows that the blood on his pants comes from a cut on his own hand, even though he and the victim have the same blood type. Or something like that.
I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t execute someone if there is no DNA evidence, or that there should be a different standard for the DP vs. LWOP.
If I understand what you are saying.
Certainly true. And I am not suggesting either that you should be convicted or that you should be acquitted on DNA evidence like that.
But if they arrest somebody for killing your cleaning lady, and he claims that he has never met her, doesn’t know her, and was out of town the night she died, and the police find a hair on her pants and DNA matches it to him, then that is relevant evidence.
Similarly, if there were a bite mark on your cleaning lady’s body that matches him, and he has some of her jewelry in his car, blood on a knife in his kitchen is human and with the same blood type as your cleaning lady, and his girl friend testifies that he gave her a ring identified as belonging to the victim two days after the body was discovered, and a jail house informant testifies that he bragged about the killing the night of his arrest, then I would be willing to consider the DP for him even if there was DNA from you on the cleaning lady and none from him.
If you see what I mean.
Regards,
Shodan
Because then we lose the advantages of the death penalty, like reduced recidivism. 
Sure, I am willing to take that chance. Are you willing to be killed by an escaped murderer?
Regards,
Shodan
You don’t see any difference between these two scenerios:
An innocent person will sit for years on Death Row. He will have access to food, exercise, the Internet, TV, movies, medical care, and all the necessities of life. He will be able to interact with his friends and family. He will be able to celebrate holidays and follow the news of the world. He will probably be interviewed and may become a minor celebrity at some point. His family will be able to prepare for his death and will be able to hold services after it.
An innocent person killed by an escapee/parolee will be taken by surprise and may be subject to unspeakable torture, sometimes for days. The body may be used for furthur activities. It will then be dumped, often someplace where it is not found. The family will never say goodbye, may never have closure. They will always hold on to the faint hope that the person is alive.
So you’re willing to kill innocent people to lower the chance that you’ll be killed? I suppose that makes sense. You know if you kill everyone on Earth beside yourself you won’t get murdered ever!
Also, I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that the escaped death row inmate murderer is a real problem so much as hysterical rhetorical poop.
You got the part where I said DNA evidence is only available in a small percentage of cases, right? It doesn’t matter how much science advances if there’s no DNA to test.
I don’t think you understand what I’m asking you. I asked about people who are or may be factually innocent but don’t have any DNA evidence to exculpate them. “Execute them if they are murderers” doesn’t make any sense.