Does Texas execute enough murderers?

Great Debates
81

Isolated incidents prove nothing. And your cite is using classic examples of bad statistics.:

A percentage is meaningless when the sample size is only twenty. Anyone who has taken a high school statistics course knows that.

And where did I say that the death of innocent peope didn’t bother me? I never said anything of the sort. I said that the death of innocent people is unavoidable, and that many of these deaths could be pinned on sins of omission by the government. Thus, the deaths of innocent people is one factor that we must take into account, but not the only one. I find it interesting that you decided to take that one sentence out of context while ignoring the rest of my post. And you still haven’t answered my question about why failing to prevent violent crimes should be considered worse than any other form of direct action or fatal negligence on the part of the government.

Nest you accuse every death penalty opponent of “denigrating stereotypical characterizations” (good use of the thesaurus, BTW). Read the thread. We’ve seen all anti-DP arguments dismissed as “mental masturbation and obfuscation”. We’ve been told that anyone who opposes the DP cares nothing about innocent victims. We’ve been informed that all DP opponents put emotion ahead of reason. We’ve been told that resisting the DP is the same as putting the murderers back on the street. Who exactly is using denigrating stereotypical characterizations" here, huh? And could you point to any place where I’ve employed tactics such as the one you described?

How do you explain the prosecutors who don’t want to allow DNA tests that would either prove or disprove the defendant’s guilt?

82

I never claimed all “anti” DP advocates are guilty of mental masturbation and obfuscation. But you knew that.

Why would anyone try to keep DNA evidence out of a trial?

Easy. INAL, but expert witnesses who are usually present in high profile crimes can be paid to testify any way number of ways. OJ Simpson anyone? I can think of quite a few reasons why it would be a good strategy.

In a larger sense, the anti death penalty concept is delusional. One might not believe in it, but it believes in you. Murder is one sense the unlawful application of the death penalty, as it were. The Death Penalty is ideally self-defense on a societal level. If you don’t believe in self defense as a personal matter, that is your right, I suppose. Intellectually bankrupt, but still your call.

83

Still waiting for that cite from december on how many murder one and multiple murder convicts each year are let out for good behavior or otherwise paroled/pardoned/released. I’ll give all takers 3-1 that I’m not gonna get one.

84

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pldennison *
**Still waiting for that cite from december on how many murder one and multiple murder convicts each year are let out for good behavior or otherwise paroled/pardoned/released. I’ll give all takers 3-1 that I’m not gonna get I know that they are not terribly rare. The only cases we hear about are where the person let out or escaped does more violent crime.

If you want to know the numbers, I suggest you do the research yourself. I think it’s your job, because your argument implicitly assumes that we can make this number very, very small.

85

Horsefeathers. Surely the state and federal corrections departments keep statistics on paroles and pardons.

Uh-uh. No way. This is your standard M.O., to make a claim and refuse to back it up, but you aren’t getting away with it this time. My original request for a cite resulted from the following exchange (italics mine):

You made the italicized claim, I asked for a cite, it’s your job to back it up. I’m not going to do your work for you simply because you can’t be bothered to do more than make assertions. If you can’t back it up, I am going to simply dismiss it out-of-hand as another of your partisan conjectures that you have no factual support for. I can’t remember the last time I encountered a person so willing to make so many claims of fact and yet simultaneously so willing to even attempt to back them up.

86

Funny–just a few posts prior, you said:

So, DNA is OK as long as it’s used to arrest someone, but if it can possibly be used by the defense, keep it out of the trial, huh? Nice double standard.

And of course death penalty advocates, of course. :rolleyes:

Ha! Ha ha ha ha ha! Oh, Jack, you really are the bees knees!

Tell me, does your cognitive dissonance affect your real life, or just your SDMB posting? Do you think about it at all when you say that DP opponents “value the lives of murderers more than the lives of victims,” or take the most egregious cases of convicted murderers and try to attribute to DP opponents a belief in their innocence, when in fact no DP opponent has expressed any such belief?

As opposed to DP advocates, who ignore all the innocent people released from death row and simply pretend that there are no consequences to their enforced orthodoxy.

87

Pldennison, it’s not a double standard, the reality is that in the case of jury trials, sometimes it doesn’t matter how much evidence is presented which establishes guilt. OJ Simpson is a classic example.

Of juries intelligent enough or willing to accept the truth, etc., of course DNA evidence is an excellent method of presenting proof of guilt. But you knew that.

Are you interested in arguing just to argue?

I’m in favor of anything that will nail guilty parties to the wall, yes. No double standard there, but thanks for playing.

88

december, Texas has a number of different scenarios that can be charged as capital murder, and one such scenario is murder committed during an enumerated felony. As found here, Texas defines capital murder as

And section 19.02(b)(1) is

pldennison, since I was wandering through Texas web pages, I tried to find an answer as to murders released from prison. I didn’t really find that. I did find a Statistical Summary (FY 2000). It is an Adobe file. One of the things that it tells us is that in year 2000, 2,948 3G offenders were released from prison, out of 32,612 total released. 3G is an offense classification that includes offenders who use deadly weapons, some sexual offenders (offenses against children), and murderers. (Mind you, I just looked to see if I could even find such information).

89

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pldennison *
**

Six ha!s!!! Congratulations, you’re now eligible for an insanity plea in the jurisdiction of your choice.**

Unfortunately, some DP opponents do focus exclusively on the perils of convicted killers facing execution, and ignore or speak dismissively of victims and/or their relatives. Exhibit A is the case of John W. Byrd (see above), one of whose supporters wrote in to my local paper, peeved as all get-out that a story on the case had featured the views of the widow of Byrd’s victim. His take was that 1) the widow’s views on Byrd’s guilt had gotten too much attention, and 2) that the widow was to blame for not strenuously pressing for the “truth” to come out.

Or have you sort of glossed over the Byrd case, Philco? Remember, the one where he “egregiously” stabbed to death a convenience store clerk, tried to stab an employee of another store - and whose supporters are busy trying to gain him clemency under the rubric of “actual innocence”? The very same James Byrd who bragged in prison letters about how he got a “high” from killing? And wrote the widow telling her to say hello to her murdered husband that night?
Nah, no DP opponents ever express fantasy-style beliefs in the innocence of their latest “cause”. Right.

And while we’re strolling down memory lane, Phil, let us not forget that marvelous case you dredged up in a recent death penalty thread - you know, the one designed to show how the DP was placing innocents in dire peril?
It was a most impressive case, until a little checking showed that a) the person involved was not, in fact, a brief walk from the death chamber, b) not even on death row, c) had never been sentenced to death, d) had not been convicted of murder, e) had not even been tried for murder.

Phillie, you are the poster child for cognitive dissonance.

But oh so mellow.

90

Has anyone in this thread done so?

Is that person in this thread?

I didn’t address the Byrd case one way or the other, unless you’d like to point out a post in which I did.

Is the use of quote marks supposed to somehow imply that I don’t really believe it was egregious? Or is it just more pointless grandstanding?

That’s nice. Since I don’t see any of them in this thread, perhaps you should go elsewhere and argue with them. Or is it more fun for you to burn your little strawmen here at the SDMB?

Yeah, and no person has ever been released from death row because they were actually innocent. Prance and dance as much as you want, wave your hands to your heart’s content, but you’ll never get over the fact that there have been, and in all likelihood are, people sitting on death row right now for crimes they did not commit. An inconvenient fact for you, to be certain, but a fact nevertheless, and one which you have never adequately addressed except in a halfhearted attempt to prove that “the system works.”

I am not surprised to find that you don’t understand the purpose of an example which demonstrates that, in their eagerness to close cases, the police often aggressively pursue the “obvious” suspect to their detriment, which is exactly how innocent people do end up on death row.

For those who did not read the thread to which Jack refers, I will unabashedly recap the case once again: A Maryland man whose wife was murdered was suspected by police and, despite his denials, was arrested and questioned repeatedly, and spent some time in jail thanks to the high bail. Unfortunately, while the police were pursuing him – because he obviously did it – the person who murdered his wife raped and killed someone else. How do you think innocent people get to death row, Jack?

You may address me as Phil or pldennison. Anything else gets you plonked. I am not your child, your pet, your paramour, or your pal.

But oh so mellow. **
[/QUOTE]

91

And where did I say that the death of innocent peope didn’t bother me? I never said anything of the sort. I said that the death of innocent people is unavoidable, and that many of these deaths could be pinned on sins of omission by the government…**
[/quote]

Wasn’t it you who came up with that interesting analogy about sins of omission - the one about the government and Bridgestone-Firestone?
To clean up that analogy a bit, postulate the following: The federal government finds out that Bridgestone is making a tire that explodes during 0.0002% of sharp left turns. Safety advocates urge the government to force Bridgestone to correct the defect, noting that dozens of people have been killed by accidents involving exploding tires. The government refuses to act. It points out that several Bridgestone executives have recently died of heart attacks, and that studies by corporate advocates show that work pressures due to publicity and the economic impact of recalls may well have contributed to the executives’ premature deaths. The tire-related deaths are classified as unavoidable, isolated incidents - regretfully necessary to protect the health of company executives.

Sound familiar?

92

Jackmannii: The vast majority of supporters of the death penalty do not want it mandated in every homicide.

Then the vast majority of DP supporters are in favor of “releasing human predators back into society”, since some of those released murderers are going to kill again. So are many people who were never indicted or convicted, for that matter. There’s no such thing as eliminating the risk without killing every existing member of society prophylactically, so we must base our judgements on a sober and quantitative assessment of what the risks actually are.

*But permitting juries to have the option of applying the death penalty in egregious cases undoubtedly saves lives by permanently removing the threat posed by certain vicious sociopaths. *

Ah, there’s that useful word “undoubtedly,” so beloved of people who want to make assertions without providing evidence to back them up. :slight_smile: Moreover, the choice is not between “removing the threat” by killing murderers and retaining the threat by letting them go: it’s between removing the threat by killing them and removing it by keeping them locked up.

*It’s abundantly clear what happens when the ability to apply the death penalty is removed, as in the case of Kenneth McDuff, paroled after a death row stint to go on a spree of serial murder. *

But the problem there is not that McDuff was not executed, it’s that he was let out. Again, the choice is not between killing murderers and letting them go.

As for Napoleon Beazley, who executed a carjacking victim at age 17 (and attempted to murder his victim’s wife), now with a stay of execution: His case is reminiscent of that of another teenaged murderer, Oregon’s Michael Olds. Olds shot to death a bystander at a convenience store robbery in the early ‘80s. Based on the nature of the crime and Olds’ violent past the death penalty was an option, one not pursued by the prosecutor because of his moral opposition to the death penalty. Olds subsequently went on a cross-country kidnapping and murder spree.

But the problem there is not that Olds was not executed, it’s that he was let out. (And why you bother bringing up, and giving a detailed account of the crimes of, Napoleon Beazley baffles me, since Beazley has not been let out of jail so the recidivism question is pretty moot in his case.)

Again, we really need to see some solid statistical evidence about the dangers posed to innocent people by the absence of a DP, versus the dangers posed to innocent people by the existence of a DP, before we can usefully weigh the comparative risks. Two anecdotal stories about crime sprees that could equally well have been prevented by execution or by denial of parole don’t really cut it.

*The more I see the death penalty debated here, the more similarities appear between the stances of anti-death penalty enthusiasts and anti-abortion activists. *

Well, I think that says more about your own opinions than it does about the real characteristics of either DP opponents or abortion opponents.

(By the way, I realize you were probably not aware of this, but pldennison in particular does not care to be addressed except by his username or pld or Phil. I know that semi-jocular derisory nicknames are a common debating “tactic” among some posters who don’t really mean any insult by them, but in this case I think it would be courteous of you to cut it out.)

93

pld: You may address me as Phil or pldennison.

Sorry Jackmannii, tried to warn you but didn’t finish the post in time. :slight_smile:

94

Utilizing your training in comprehending the written word, point out where in the above paragraph I refer to "some DP opponents in this thread. More cognitive dissonance? A ringing in the ears, perhaps?
Of course, dismissive attitudes towards the threat posed by released/escaped/pardoned killers to innocent people abound in SDMB death penalty threads. My favorite was the one where someone suggested that people living in the area of a prison breakout didn’t have it all that bad, since they’d presumably get some warning and be able to defend themselves.**

I didn’t address the Byrd case one way or the other.**
[/quote]
Um, yes. Exactly.

Sorry, Phil, I think you’re still having severe problems rehabilitating your credibility after that blown citation which had nothing to do with the death penalty. If you’re trying to argue that no one should ever be arrested for murder because they might possibly be innocent, you’re advancing resolutely towards dementia.**

Gosh, I just love it when you get pseudo-cyberviolent. I get all tingly.

But seriously - grow up.

95

plonk

96

By this sort of logic, why work to reduce poverty and disease? No matter how hard you try, there’ll still be poor folks and sickness. Better not to make an attempt than risk a less than perfect outcome?

“We must base our judgements on a sober and quantitative assessment of what the risks actually are.”
Ah, there’s that “quantitative assessment” rigmarole, a favorite of DP opponents who wax eloquent over the possibility of one wrongful execution, but greet the carnage produced by the likes of Kenneth McDuff with statements like “It’s just anecdotal”, “Statistically, most murderers don’t repeat their crimes” and “I can live with that risk”.

And again (re McDuff), if you intend to replace the judgement of juries with the Kimstu Absolute Leak-Proof Safety-Sealed Prison For Life or an infallible mind-reading course for prison shrinks on how to spot the unreformed sociopath, contact your local correctional authorities for a lucrative contract.
**

Does that mean Philemon and Philbert are out? ;).
But if Phil wants to get huffy about using his proper name, he can make the effort to get mine right (not that any sane person should give a rat’s ass about such things).
In the spirit of reconcilation, pld, of all your 5000-odd deathless posts, that last one may have been the best. At least in terms of brevity.

97

I was unaware that the majority of death penalty advocates do not favor execution in all cases of homicide.

I do, certainly.

I would be in favor of execution for crimes committed with a firearm, as well, though that may perversely increase the number of innocents killed, since any witnesses would “have” to be killed, I suppose.

98

Can you point to anywhere where I have used isolated incidents to prove my point? You’re apparently think that using this type of poor reasoning is ok because a few DP opponents use it as well. Sorry, but using isolated incidents to “prove” a trend is always illogical, no excuses.

Jack, look at the first post that you made on the second page of this thread. Under the link that used the text “grim facts”, you did, in fact, cite the Oregon study. A bit careless of you, but understandable in the heat of debate. :slight_smile:

99

Tedster: *I was unaware that the majority of death penalty advocates do not favor execution in all cases of homicide.

I do, certainly. *

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Do you really mean all cases of homicide? Involuntary manslaughter, euthanasia, the whole works? Sixteen-year-old new driver loses control of car and kills pedestrian, ill-informed new mother unintentionally lets baby die of neglect, relative is persuaded by pain-racked elderly terminal-cancer victim to slip her some sleeping pills—send them all to the chair? All those cases count as homicide of one form or another.

I would be in favor of execution for crimes committed with a firearm, as well, though that may perversely increase the number of innocents killed, since any witnesses would “have” to be killed, I suppose.

Yikes! And this is supposed to provide an incentive for increasing the safety of innocent members of society?..

100

O.K. ITR, score one for you.

But if we’re going to cherry-pick individual items from a large site to hold up to scorn, let’s look at one from a site you linked to on the first page of this thread, the “Death Penalty Information Center”, an anti-DP site. Under public opinion polls, they present a July 2001 Harris survey with the headline “Support For Death Penalty Remains Low.”
You have to scroll to the end of the paragraph to find, in small type, the information that over two-thirds of respondents actually expressed support for the death penalty, up three percentage points from the previous year.
That’s a pretty sleazy use of polling data.

And while we’re quoting the site I linked, let’s not forget that study that looked at convicted killers released in two selected years, of whom 34 were “returned to prison for commission of criminal homicide within the first year alone”.*

Of course, that reflects the general population of murderers and not specifically the those convicted of capital murder, who could reasonably be expected to pose an even greater danger to society.

*Of course, these were isolated incidents of criminal homicide. :wink: