I’m against the Death Penalty for much the same reason as others here; if the judgement is wrong, there’s no taking it back or compensation.
People for it seem to be to me because of two things;
It is only justice; death is the worst possible punishment, and these people deserve that punishment.
A dead person cannot commit more offences.
It’s a good deterrent.
I’d like to propose an alternative; instead of death, how about years of horrible, agonising torture? I’m not talking along the lines of limbs being cut off, or burning, nothing permanent (except mentally wise). Pointed spikes, electricity, starvation rations, cells the size of a broom cupboard, etc. I’m pretty sure this would be as “bad” a punishment as death would be. And if you keep them locked up there forever, they can’t commit more offenses. It could be judged they deserve, say, ten years of torture, and then the rest of their life in prison as currently. Seems to me that it’d be as big a deterrent, too. And on the up side, if you’re wrong, you can always go back - compensation in the millions can be paid, psychiatric bills can be paid, etc. Sure, it wouldn’t be a perfect system; innocent people are going to be tortured horribly. But it’s better than the more permanent solution.
This would be a very bad idea, on several grounds.
Let’s take your hypothetical guy who gets 10 years worth of “torture.” The things you’ve listed are enough to make just about anyone snap mentally.
The minute this guy snaps mentally, anyone who comes into contact with him is in danger, even if he’s supposedly “subdued.” I’ve seen people who were restrained with handcuffs go absolutely nuts and still badly injure whoever was escorting them.
It also sets a really disturbing precedent. There aren’t many countries who have legalized torture for prisoners. Do you really want to be on the list of countries who do?
I also meant to say that if you torture an innocent person with the methods you’re discussing, you will wreck them mentally for life. Electricity, starvation rations, and pointed spikes could also conceivably wreck them for life as well. Prolonged starvation ruins one’s metabolism, one’s gastrointestinal system, and can affect other systems in the body as well. Prolonged exposure to electricity can be bad news for a cardiovascular and neural system, depending on frequency of electric shock.
And poking with pointed spikes? Hello scar tissue. Even if it’s only a scratch, doing it over and over again will cause lots of scar tissue.
You think it’s okay to break down someone mentally and possibly physically when there’s a chance they might be innocent? I’m sorry, but that’s more than a little nuts.
Point here - Wisconsin does not have the Death Penalty. Somthing which I was terribly proud of when I lived there. Now I am in California and pass San Quentin frequently, and know there are men there on death row. Frightens me.
I don’t think it’s ok; it would be an evil thing to do, and cruel. I’m saying it would be better than the alternative of the death penalty. My own opinion is that no crimes are worth the death penalty, and as such no crimes would be worth the torture. All I mean is, if it was my job to decide whether criminals faced death or torture, and only those options, i’d go with the torture.
It wasn’t a complaint, it was a correction. I have no problem with (non-lethal) vengence. I just don’t pretend it’s got anything to do with self-defense.
Wow, you’re just determined to pick a fight with me! Keep putting words in my mouth, it’s kind of fun.
I never claimed to be a “voice of calm and reason,” or that I was trying to be “helpful.” I was expressing an opinion of why a certain status existed at a certain time. Why is that so difficult for you to understand/accept? Plnnr’s comment seemed argumentative to me, so you’re damn right that “what would be the fucking point” was argumentative in response.
Really? You’re referring to post #63, because it’s the only time I posted between your reply and when you told me to just leave the thread if I don’t like it (I’ve posted all of 4 times in this thread, including this one) – what was so “snotty” about it? Do you mean the part where you said you wanted to know what pro-DP people think and I said you should start a GD thread? If so, you misunderstood what I meant: the whole time, I was talking about the chances of there being any kind of reasonable conversation on the topic – how they seemed pretty much nonexistent, so I wasn’t surprised that a lot of folks weren’t willing to jump in. My “start a GD thread” response meant “if you really want to know what people think, start a GD thread because there isn’t going to be much respect for opposing opinions in this one.” Maybe I wasn’t good enough at making that point (even though right above that line I’d written, “Start a GD or IMHO thread about it, and that’s a different story. But I’d wager that most pro-death-penalty folks aren’t stupid enough to jump into this Pit thread and try to ‘defend’ anything”), but thanks ever so much for giving me the chance to explain before dismissing me entirely.
(Now that was snotty.)
Now there is (though it is neither reasonable nor calm, which were the points I was making all along), but at the time I made the comment to plnnr there was not. I said something when this thread was less than a page long (and followed up when it was at 1.2 pages), and trying to act as though I just said it – well into the 4th page, when things have obviously changed – is what strikes me as snotty and argumentative.
Seriously, did I harm a member of your family or something without realizing it? I don’t recall ever having an issue with you, so I don’t understand where all of this vitriol is coming from…
And we are right back to what Elvis pointed out, and what I asked Dio to clarify:
If you are innocent, yet found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, is this still not torture? Year after year of nothing but wondering how your life would have been, should have been. At least if you are guilty, you would know in your heart you were there for a reason. If you are not guilty, this would surely have some sort of lasting impact on your mental health.
The most pressing problem is to make certain innocent people are never sentenced, but stop killing ones who might be innocent in the meantime.
If you read the text of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opinion dealing with Cantu’s case, you’ll see that nowhere in it does it mention that the appellant was a car thief, or a gang member, or involved with drugs, or was alleged to have once shot a police officer. There’s a very good reason for that; it’s inadmissable, because it is wholly irrelevant. Mentioning his alleged involvement in other crimes would have been completely improper, and if a prosecutor had done so, it would have been grounds for reversal.
We don’t put people in jail or to death for being criminals in general, we do it for committing the individual crimes for which they are charged. We don’t want juries punishing people because of other crimes they have committed, we want them to focus on whether this particular defendent committed this particular crime. For that reason the rules of evidence don’t even allow mention of other crimes in front of the jury, except for certain limited instances such as when they defendent testifies and it may be relevant as to his truthfullness. If Cantu was indeed put to death for a crime that he had no involvement in, it is not disingenious to say that an innocent man was put to death. It is 100% correct to say that an innocent man was put to death.
The notion that it’s really not that bad a deal or that we shouldn’t shed a tear because Cantu was a bad person who had committed other crimes is an extremely dangerous one that we absoultely, unequvocably must reject as a society bound by the rule of law. Justice is not only due to the good; bad people deserve justice applied equally, and “he deserved it anyway” is something we should never, ever catch ourselves saying.
Lawyers call this game “are you lying then, or are you lying now?” Occassionally someone on the witness stand will tell a story diametrically opposed to the one they originally told police. A good lawyer will eat this person alive, because they are admitting to being liars, yet at the same time insisting they should now be believed. Regardless of when they were actually telling the truth, their credibility is completely destroyed.
Moreno’s identification and testimony were the sole evidence that sent a man to death in a capital murder case, and now by his own testimony he is a liar. Whether he lied then or he’s lying now, the word of a man who admits to lying in capital murder cases sent a man to the death chamber.
It could be looked at as “tying up loose ends”. You kill the victim, who may be the only person who can identify you, and then you are in the clear. No loose ends. Moto made a good point.
pravnik, that reminds me of a passage from The Fellowship of the Ring, when Gandalf explains that Bilbo let Gollum live out of pity.
That about sums it up for me. (And no, wiseasses, I’m not saying I base my opposition to the death penalty on the words of Tolkien. I’m just saying that quote was very apt.)
I don’t like to say this, but I think somebody needs to. Two things about your story are very sad, GusNSpot: what happened to your family, and to a lesser extent, what it’s done to your thinking process here. You do not earn the right to have an opinion. Being a victim of the justice system doesn’t mean your opinion carries more weight and it doesn’t mean that “non-victims” don’t know what they’re talking about. I’m sure you’ll never believe that, but tough shit. I don’t need to see a family member murdered to have a valid opinion here.
The things you go on to say aren’t wrong, but the penalty itself is still the problem. If it wasn’t on the table, and it shouldn’t be, we wouldn’t have this issue.
Yes.
That’d suit me fine.
By your own admission, your ‘virtue’ has nothing to do with the death penalty, so I’m gonna say it’s meaningless. Sorry. You don’t get to have an opinion either. Most people never have their virtue tested on matters like this, fortunately. So it’s fortunate that we don’t allow people claiming victimhood to make those decisions for us.
As just about everyone here knows, I am one of the more liberal SDMB members, and possibly one of the leading “Dubya” bashers but surprisingly I am pro death penalty. So, I felt it was almost mandatory for me to post in this thread as opposed to just avoiding this story entirely.
I’m sure that most “Dopers” are familiar with the John Stuart Mill quote “while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall”. Of course that quote is based on the premise that the recipient of the death penalty is actually guilty to begin with.
So, in light of this story, there’s not much to say on the pro-death penalty side of the argument so I’ll just leave it at that.
I just wish that fucking Bush bashers would realize that Ann Richards was Governor when this happened. It’s one thing to bitch about a man being wrongfully put to death, but to bring Bush into this is bullshit. Hey, bash Richards, why don’t you? :wally
It is amazing how many people here are not reading what is being written.
Do I want to be innocently killed by the state? Of course not.
I said in a 100% no question situation. You know, smoking gun, 157 witnesses, video tape, confession and stuff and such. ( all together ) The DP should not even be an option in a case that does not have those things even if the crime is the same because there can not be the certainty.
But that means different punishments for the same crime. We do that all the time now and no is complaining.
I will not talk with a person that says the victims are not entitled to an opinion.
You all won’t read. I said a world where 100% was required. Not just about the DP, but everything. EVERYTHING. Not just law, not just DP, everything.
If you want 100% on DP I want 100% on speed limits, the breaking of them causes death. You speed and kill, you get life without parole.
You can’t prove the need for an operation, 100%, no medical help for you.
There are many cases where the guilt is 100% and you all are acting like that never happens.
This thread is so long, no one is reading it anymore and just jumping in and saying things that were not said or were covered before. Making claims and accusations on the fly with no attempt at discourse.
If there were that 100 percent certainty, some people would not be so anti-death penalty. That is rarely the case. There are MANY people who fear making a mistake and executing an innocent person. The law is supposed to be all about justice. There is no justice in “frying” the wrong person. It’s one of my biggest problems with it. I have others, but uncertainty is right up there. There are also plenty of us who would still have no problem or hesitation in shooting someone who broke in and was a real physical threat (assuming we get lucky and can get to a weapon in time).