As long as we’re talking about Bush and the death penalty; what’s the deal with Henry Lee Lucas? Is there something overwhelmingly unique about his case (other than the clemency itself) or did Bush just decide he needed to lighten up his pro-capital punishment stance to get to the White House?
Bush doesn't have a large number of executions. He's not actually in charge of who is sentenced to death.
Marc
from threll:
I was wondering how far we would get before someone started throwing out the “Nazi” label.
And where did I say we kill to save lives? My statement, which you quoted directly, says that capital punishmnet is a means by which our society says it will not tolerate murder.
If you disagree with that, fine. Reasonable people do. But don’t go assigning motives to me out of thin air and then comparing it to Nazi Germany.
from ruadh:
**
At the risk of sounding like I’m defending the psych report (which I most certainly am not), the point I was trying to make is that a quoted statement in a newspaper may not be representative of the actual findings of a clinical report or study. This is something I am always wary of when reading the paper, regardless of subject matter. Maybe in this case, it is exactly representative.
Let me just go on the record here and state that I don’t disagree with the Illinois Governor (or Pat Robertson for that matter) who both recognize we might have a serious problem with the way the death penalty is carried out. To me, that provides an opportunity to minimize error within the system, not to scrap it altogether.
I’m not against introducing DNA evidence, even if it is after the fact trialwise, if it means exonerating an innocent person. DNA evidence can certainly be definitive.
Which brings me to pepperlandgirl:
As I already told you, it is not that simple. Murder has a strict legal definition that you are blowing right by. Is first degree murder the same as third degree (self-defense)? Our society and legal system make many distinctions when it comes to taking the life of another person. Some are accepted, even justified. Some are not. Some fall in a debatable middle ground. IMO, that is where capital punishment lies. Obviously, you do not see it as debatable middle ground. That’s your perogative. But when you use statements such a “thirst for blood” and “pretense of justice,” you do a disservice to what could be, with a little thought, a more persuasive argument on your part.
I guess you have been shuddering for the past eight years, seeing as that both Clinton and Gore support the death penalty. In fact, you will be doing a lot of shuddering no matter who gets elected. As far as I can tell, Gore has no intention of running on an anti-capital-punishment platform.
Pepperlandgirl:
Well here we are again!
I think divemaster has a pretty strong point here. According to Webster’s, the definition of murder is:
" the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice
aforethought."
For example, though James Bond kills quite a few people it is not murder, as he has a license to kill, making his actions legal.
A soldier at war is not murdering either because his actions are sanctioned.
A state execution is also legal, and by definition not murder.
I would politefully and respectfully suggest that your insistence on the use of the term, is merely rhetoric, saying more about your personal opinions, and preconceived notions than actual facts.
you said:
“the difference is, cars, walking and construction are not used on a regular basis with the intent to kill.”
I would point out “vehicular homicide,” the Ford Pinto, and my neighbor’s kid’s driving as examples of cars used with the intent ot kill. Certainly killers walk, and construction equiptment is great stuff for either committing murder or disposing of bodies.
Again I beleive that the substance of the impasse is that I think that a just death penalty is appropriate because of the preciousness of human life. You think that it is not for exactly the same reason. Does that seem like a fair statement?
“If you think that any human system of justice is infallible, then you are ignorant. If you think that no person has been falsely condemned to death, then you are naive. If you think that even one innocent person, ripped from their life and their passion and put to death at the hands of the state is in any way justifiable, then you are evil.”
- Joshua W. H. Steiner
Yes, it’s a fair statement.
Ok, here is the problem as I see it. When one takes a life away, one is playing “God”, by deciding who gets to live and who gets to die. Now, when a State takes a life, it is playing “God” as well. I’m uncomfortable with any entity having that kind of power. Especially if the wrong person gets control. I think Bush is the wrong person. To paraphrase Daniel, he has political motives, not justice, in his mind.
And I have not been satisfied that state sanctioned MURDER is in anyway shape of form justice.
Daniel said:
Um… Did you read the article I mentioned in the OP? I know it was long, but it discussed at least one case which certainly had some serious problems. It discussed at least a couple others where evidence came in to indicate possible innocence, and the men were still executed. And those are just the ones in that particular article.
–I know a secretary that was involved in that case. When he started “confessing” to murders all over the place Lucas became a real favorite with officials who believed they could clear up unsolved murders in their areas.
Lucas got a color TV and a refrigerator with steaks in it…pretty good treatment for prison. And ADA’s and police officials would visit him AND TELL HIM THINGS ONLY THE MURDERER COULD HAVE KNOWN to which he would shortly confess to. And the list of his murders went into the hundreds. As long as he kept confessing Lucas got good treatment and good food.
Did Lucas murder people? Probably. But after awhile it became apparant that fact and fiction was starting to blend into a mess.
Doug, I understand that Lucas is insane. And he obviously isn’t guilty of all the crimes he’s confessed to. (Some of the people he’s confessed to killing have since turned up alive.) He probably isn’t even guilty of killing the “orange socks” victim.
But let’s face facts. In Texas, none of the above has ever been considered sufficient grounds for clemency. The fact is that Lucas is the only condemned prisoner who’s been given clemency by Bush since he took office. What’s Lucas got? A winning smile and a boyish charm?
The scariest thought is that Bush has only granted clemency because it will help him to be elected president. And if that’s true, it follows that Bush is either willing to abandon his moral belief that capital punishment is just for political reasons or that he only supported capital punishment for political reasons all along.
**
Scylla, Scylla, Scylla. You left out ": to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to "
Also from websters. I think we can use the term murder.
Pepperlandgirl was perfectly allright using the term murder. If you prefer we can use the term “State-sanctioned murder” or we can just use the term “kill”. The state kills people, that is wrong.
Ok. You are talking about a “just death penalty”, do you believe that the death penalty is currently just? Do you believe it can ever be just? Do you think that a death penalty should be applied if the victim’s relatives ask for it not to be? Could life imprisonment be an adequete solution?
I think everyone would be happy to debate you. I’m just trying to find out more about your personal stance.
David: I went back to that link, and it no longer works. However, there is a big difference between irregularities ( which there are ALWAYS a lot of) and proof someone is actually innocent. In the other thread, there was a real good guess, that there have been about 400 people wrongfully executed since 1900. Given that the bulk of them were “legal lynchings” in the pre WWII South, and that the bulk were before things like DNA evidence, I would say that we are looking at one wrongful execution a decade. Now, that is still too much, true, but the chance that one years worth of executions in one state would have more wrongful executions than the entire country had in a decade is a bit much.
If you look at the evidence and reinvestigate ANY case, you find irregularities, Look at JFK, Marilyn Monroe, RFK, MLK, etc. I mean it would seem like the RFK murder is open & shut, they got the murderer on FILM for gawd’s sake. But there are many questions raised, some legit. Irregularities do not mean the guy was innocent. Based on that, we would have to let every prisoner go free.
And besides, this whole business of “there might be an innocent amoung them, so the Death penalty is a bad idea” is a smokesceen. You anti-Death penalty folks have admited that it does not matter how sure we are, you are still against executions. So stop with the whole “doubt means no executions” bit.
And you pro-death people who not care about how many innocent people have to die so your blood thirst is quenched.
I never admitted that it doesn’t matter how sure you are. Mainly because nobody can ever sure of anything, ever. Especially humans who make mistakes.
Daniel, are you willing to be the one innocent person this decade? Will the DP still sound like such a good idea when you are faced with the chair, or a needle?
Two wrongs do not make a right. Murdering is wrong, horrible. But another murder will not take back the first one. And the thought of innocent people being sacrificed so society can sleep easier at night just makes it worse.
Who? And why does his opinion count? And how does this apply to the problem in Texas?
Yes, it does. You need to cut and paste the entire line rather than clicking on it.
Freedom is not the only alternative to execution.
Executions are bad, period.
Executions of possibly innocent people are, as Matt’s quote said, evil.
No, I won’t stop trying to convince others that if we must use this barbaric method of punishment, at the very least we should make some kind of effort to ensure we’re using it against the “right” people.
I wish to point out I am hardly 'bloodthirsty". I have said that the death penalty should be reserved mainly for those who are convicted for a second murder, ie those of whom we can be “sure” of, and those who clearly are not going to stop killing unless we kill them. I have said the the huge # of executions under Gov Bush are clearly politically motivated, and thus wrong. Oh, they are very likely guilty, but I believe we should reserve the death penalty for confirmed sociopaths/pyschopaths who will kill without any feeling of remorse or wrongdoing. Some stupid thug who killed a store clerk during a robbery gone bad- is not a pyscho, he is a thug; and he might reform, so we need to attempt to reform him in prison, not kill him. If my hand was on “the switch”, we might execute one person a year(in an average State). 130+ is completely bogus.
I am ON the side of those who feel Bush is executing those who do not deserve it, but I am against those who would never send anyone to their death, no matter how evil or certain. Those Psychopaths like Dahlmer are not Human, we should have no more remorse for killing them as stepping on a scorpion.
To my mind, this is the real issue. I agree that some people out there are more than deserving of the death penalty. But our justice system is both flawed and often politically motivated.
I do not know exactly how many people have been sentenced to death for something they did not do. The article mentioned in the OP said “As one state, New Hampshire, becomes the first to abandon the death penalty and another, Illinois, imposes a moratorium after 13 men on death row were proved inno cent.’” 13. In a small and peaceful state like New Hampshire! Way too fucking many!
But even if it were only one innocent person sentenced to death, thats still too fucking many. And I am not willing to be that one.
I have said it before in a similar thread. It is foolish to think we are immune to the injustices visited upon others. It CAN happen to one of us.
Danielinthewolvesden writes:
> In the other thread, there was a real good guess, that
> there have been about 400 people wrongfully executed
> since 1900. Given that the bulk of them were “legal
> lynchings” in the pre WWII South, and that the bulk were
> before things like DNA evidence, I would say that we are
> looking at one wrongful execution a decade.
Huh? How do you come up with that rate? 400 since 1900 comes to 40 a year. If you’re going to use their guess of 400 people wrongfully executed, you should look at when they say that these cases happened before you say that these nearly all happened in the pre-World War II South. Are you claiming that there have probably been only two or three executions of innocent murderers in the U.S. since the death penalty came back in 1976?
Check out this story in this mornings L.A. Daily News.
http://www.dailynews.com/archives/today/new05.asp
Daniel said:
As somebody else pointed out, it does, but the MB screwed up a bit. I’ve gone back and fixed it so it should now be clickable.
If you haven’t read the article, how do you know which we’re talking about? Please go read the article and then we can have an intelligent discussion (I hope).
Wrong. Based on that, we should seriously reconsider the idea of executions. As I said in the previous thread, if new information is discovered 15 years after trial that exonerates the person convicted, we can let him go free. If we’ve used the death penalty, we can do nothing.
Excuse you? Don’t lump me in any group. I’m speaking for myself. You want to discuss it with me, fine. You try to lump me in with some group to make it convenient for you, I’ll tell you where you can stick that lump.
As soon as you volunteer to be the innocent person who is executed.