I didn't know them but I'm still shaken

[lieu]

Here you go, light strand, from the same site as you linked to. Scroll down to the first pic. Your article was dated.

[light_strand]

@lieu

Here you go, light strand, from the same site as you linked to. Scroll down to the first pic. Your article was dated.

It didn’t pass until September. I knew it was on the table.

[tdn]

@Starving Artist

Now, why are statistics meaningless regarding the deterrant effect of the DP? Because they fail to account for the inpact of an entire society growing up under the belief that if they commit murder they abvsolutely will be killed in return, versus a society growing up as is the case now where some states enforce the DP, some don’t, and others don’t have it at all.

Let’s see if I can parse this. You are saying that those that grew up when the DP was universal generally did not commit murder. When it was abolished in 1972, those same people were not aware of it, and were conditioned to the sanctity of life. People born after 1972 do not have this respect, and therefore commit murders. However, people born in the late 70s, when the DP was reinstated in some states, got this conditioning.

Is that about right?

So the vast majority of murderers will be 33 and under in states like MA, but only be between the ages of, say, 26 and 33 in TX? But for some mysterious reason no statistics will show this? Seems to me that would be a pretty easy one to produce.

Unless I misunderstood your post, which is likely, as I couldn’t make out much of it. Can you clarify?

[Ludovic]

Perhaps SA is evidence for Conditioned Brutality?

[Ghanima]

To me, an execution should be the human equivalent of taking out the trash. If these men can be proved to have committed this crime, then I think they should be put down. They are no good to society. Who cares about vengeance and whether it’s worse to die or rot in prison for the rest of your life. The death penalty should be used to rid society of it’s worst members, those who commit the most heinous crimes. NOT for deterrence, revenge, punishment, or the satisfaction of the victims’ families, but rather for the benefit of society. However, I ONLY support the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt about the guilt of the defendant. Circumstantial evidence or questionable witnesses or jailbirds who make deals with prosecutors should not be enough. The decision of life or death should only come into play when there is no doubt whatsoever. IMHO.

[Starving_Artist]

@Cerri

Oh. Well, I guess that explains the complete lack of murder of any sort for the entirety of human existence, right up until the first abolition of the Death Penalty, upon which murder rates exploded.

Oh, wait, no it doesn’t. Because that’s retarded. And factually incorrect.

Exactly, which is why I never said it.

A deterrent serves to deter something, not eliminate it. To go back to the traffic ticket analogy, traffic tickets don’t eliminate infractions of traffic laws but they do serve as a very effective deterrent. Imagine what the roads would be like if not for the threat of traffic fines. That is pretty much what has happened in this country as a result of the abolition of the death penalty (and the generally lenient treatment of criminals and criminal behavior that liberal courts were wallowing in from approxinmately the late sixties to the time when the country got fed up and started enacting ‘get-tough’ policies and three-strikes laws in order to try to protect itself from the ever-increasing criminal element the courts were allowing to take root and flourish in this country).

[FinnAgain]

@Ghanima

To me, an execution should be the human equivalent of taking out the trash. If these men can be proved to have committed this crime, then I think they should be put down. They are no good to society. Who cares about vengeance and whether it’s worse to die or rot in prison for the rest of your life. The death penalty should be used to rid society of it’s worst members, those who commit the most heinous crimes. NOT for deterrence, revenge, punishment, or the satisfaction of the victims’ families, but rather for the benefit of society. However, I ONLY support the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt about the guilt of the defendant. Circumstantial evidence or questionable witnesses or jailbirds who make deals with prosecutors should not be enough. The decision of life or death should only come into play when there is no doubt whatsoever. IMHO.

Yep, I agree 100%, and I think you’ve said it better than I’ve been saying it.

[Starving_Artist]

@tdn

Let’s see if I can parse this. You are saying that those that grew up when the DP was universal generally did not commit murder. When it was abolished in 1972, those same people were not aware of it, and were conditioned to the sanctity of life. People born after 1972 do not have this respect, and therefore commit murders. However, people born in the late 70s, when the DP was reinstated in some states, got this conditioning.

Is that about right?

Not even remotely.

Please see my last post for the answer to highly erroneous parsementation ( ) of my words.

[tdn]

@Starving Artist

Not even remotely.

I wasn’t as far off as I thought. You stated that the DP deters by lowering the murder rate, much like traffic tickets lower speeding rates. Should there not be a corresponding trend in murder statistics then? Show me the dip!

[Cerri]

@Starving Artist

Exactly, which is why I never said it.

A deterrent serves to deter something, not eliminate it. To go back to the traffic ticket analogy, traffic tickets don’t eliminate infractions of traffic laws but they do serve as a very effective deterrent. Imagine what the roads would be like if not for the threat of traffic fines. That is pretty much what has happened in this country as a result of the abolition of the death penalty (and the generally lenient treatment of criminals and criminal behavior that liberal courts were wallowing in from approxinmately the late sixties to the time when the country got fed up and started enacting ‘get-tough’ policies and three-strikes laws in order to try to protect itself from the ever-increasing criminal element the courts were allowing to take root and flourish in this country).

You’re an idiot.

@Ghanima

To me, an execution should be the human equivalent of taking out the trash. If these men can be proved to have committed this crime, then I think they should be put down. They are no good to society. Who cares about vengeance and whether it’s worse to die or rot in prison for the rest of your life. The death penalty should be used to rid society of it’s worst members, those who commit the most heinous crimes. NOT for deterrence, revenge, punishment, or the satisfaction of the victims’ families, but rather for the benefit of society. However, I ONLY support the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt about the guilt of the defendant. Circumstantial evidence or questionable witnesses or jailbirds who make deals with prosecutors should not be enough. The decision of life or death should only come into play when there is no doubt whatsoever. IMHO.

Well, I suppose that’s fair enough. It’s at least a reasoned position on the matter.

However, I do feel I should state that that it’s not implemented in that fashion even a majority of the time. Reading some of the articles and studies I’ve seen about the implementation, and what little evidence too many DP cases have hinged on is horrifying.

Believe it or not, I used to very pro-death penalty. I felt much the same as you do, with the exception I believed that the latter half of your statement was the reality of DP case prosecution.

After I learned the truth of the matter, I’ve never found myself able to support the Death Penalty again. Especially not in it’s current implementation.

http://ccjr.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=32477

Lethal Indifference: The Fatal Combination of Incompetent Attorneys and Unaccountable Courts in Texas Death Penalty Appeals
This report is a comprehensive study of the quality of representation afforded to death row inmates in the state post-conviction process. Amid heightened awareness of the mistakes and failures permeating the application of the death penalty in Texas, the quality and consistency of attorney performance in the latter stages of the appellate process was studied, especially the critical state habeas corpus proceeding.

The findings of this report reveal that a high number of people are being propelled through the state habeas process with unqualified attorneys and an indifferent Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA). The current capital habeas process in Texas- resulting from new legislation in 1995 and intended as a vital safety net to catch the innocent and those undeserving of the death penalty is, instead, a failed experiment with unreliable results.

Note the link to the actual report on the page is a .pdf file.

http://ccjr.policy.net/cjedfund/wrong/

Gary Nelson
Gary Nelson spent eleven years on Georgia’s death row. During that time, fifteen people were taken to the electric chair and executed. Nelson says the smell of burnt flesh is something he’ll never forget.

Nelson was represented at his two-day trial by a sole practitioner who had never tried a death penalty case. During a time when Nelson’s attorney was personally experiencing financial problems, he was paid between $15 and $20 per hour. His request for co-counsel was rejected. No funds were provided for an investigator, and the attorney didn’t even ask for funds for an expert witness. The attorney’s closing argument at trial was 255 words. Gary Nelson was sentenced to death. His trial attorney was later disbarred for other reasons.

Fortunately, Nelson’s appeal was taken over by a respected Atlanta law firm, and eventually he was cleared of all charges and released in 1991. The prosecution admitted that “there is no material element of the state’s case in the original trial which has not subsequently been determined to be impeached or contradicted.” If this thorough defense had been mounted at trial, it would have saved the state the enormous costs of a decade of litigation. It also would have saved eleven years of Gary Nelson’s life.

Today, there is even less of a chance that a Gary Nelson would be spared the electric chair. With over 3,000 people on death row and with the resource centers, which assisted law firms in taking cases, on the brink of elimination, an inmate’s claim that he was poorly represented at trial will fall on deaf ears.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/deathpenalty.htm

The above link contains links to 12 of the 18 DP exonerations found before Illinois put a moratorium on the Death Penalty

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1655&scid=64

The death penalty cases of Franklin Dewayne Alix, Juan Carlos Alvarez, and Gilmar Alex Guerva are among the report’s list of 27 problematic DNA cases. The investigators found that in one of the cases, the DNA lab “failed to report reliable and potentially exculpatory DNA typing results” and instead reported that the suspect was guilty.

The Justice System isn’t perfect, but I do believe it’s the best option we have. But that doesn’t prevent it from getting it wrong. And it does. We can release exonerated prisoners that we got it wrong on. We can’t bring them back from the dead.

One person innocent of the crime for which he was committed put to death is too many, to me. If we execute someone who was innocent of the crime, how does that make us any better than the criminals we seek to punish?

[SoulFrost]

Dear God, Nickrz! Still crying like a fucking baby over every drop of spilled milk! Shit!

[SoulFrost]

@tdn

Natch. And that’s the problem right there. Not everyone holds that opinion, and it’s hard to back up “he needed killin’” with irrefutable facts.

Well, the irrefutable facts are that somebody looked an innocent, defenseless child in the eyes (so to speak) and sliced her throat. Whichever bastard did it needs killin’.

[TVeblen]

@Nickrz

This is the PIT, assholes, not a forum for your tiresome, endless wrangling over state-sponsored killing.

It’s a refreshing change from wrangling about fast food, telemarketers, Pat Roberston and declawing cats.

Hugs and kisses,
Not-Lynn

[Aeschines]

@Starving Artist

The fact of the matter is that not only are your statistics meaningless…

How are the statistics meaningless? At the very least you’ve got to admit that countless studies over the decades have proven that there is not whiz-bang-obvious deterrent effect demonstrated for the DP. You know, you introduce the DP and murder rates fall by 90%, something like that.

Now, why are statistics meaningless regarding the deterrant effect of the DP?

Ah, but now you tell us, and your grasp of logic and social science here and plain common sense here ain’t pretty.
[/quote]
Because they fail to account for the inpact of an entire society growing up under the belief that if they commit murder they abvsolutely will be killed in return, versus a society growing up as is the case now where some states enforce the DP, some don’t, and others don’t have it at all.
[/quote]
I take that here you are indicating that the DP, as currently implemented in the US, is completely useless? I 100% agree.

Where are your studies and your statistics? Have you provided a single example of the DP implemented so as to fulfill the conditions you outline, and implemented successfully? Or are you merely engaging in “good old days” imaginings–you know, when men were men and killers hanged good ‘n’ quick.

(A specious reason for letting a killer off the hook if ever there was one; who cares if they’re ‘rehabilitated’: the people they murdered are still dead. Are we to say as a society that you can get away with depriving people of their lives and depriving their loved ones of them as long as you become a worthwhile person afterward?

Dude, if you don’t know how fucked up the above sounds. I sure hope you don’t consider yourself a Christian.

…in other words, making murder an ‘oopsie’ that you can make up for by becoming a good guy afterward? What kind of deterrant is that?)

There is still the deterrent of going to prison for a long time.

In short, people in this country don’t grow up with the respect for life that a properly enforced DP engenders, and they don’t really fear the consequences of murder if they commit one and are caught.

Yes, if only we all cowered in fear of the DP there would be no more murders. Again, I welcome you to back up that assertion.

This is a large part of the reason why people ‘panic’ or otherwise decide rashly to kill someone they hadn’t originally planned on killing: they haven’t grown up with the respect for life the DP engenders in the back of their minds and they aren’t sufficiently convinced of the price they’ll pay if they’re caught.

This is your own personal pop psychology without a damn thing to back it up. It doesn’t even seem commonsensical.

Scumbag killers–in any society, in any era–don’t have “respect for life” in the first place. The only thing that deters them is the inconvenience of getting caught and having their activities halted. They are not particularly worried about prison or Old Sparky; they simply wish to avoid, in an animal fashion, getting nabbed.

On the other hand, to a person like me, the idea of merely getting arrested or, Heaven forbid, spending a night in jail, is enough to deter me from doing anything illegal. 99% of the population don’t want to murder anyone in the first place, are constitutionally or socially incapable of it. The remaining 1% is split between the freaks for whom deterrence is not an issue at all and what I suppose is a tiny fraction for whom the DP pushes them into “do not kill” territory.

As far as revenge is concerned, I think of it more as retribution than revenge. To me, ‘revenge’ is an attempt to even the score whereas retribution is the administration of justice.

Thanks for the brilliant parsing there.

In other words, is a traffic ticket ‘revenge’ for running a red light, or is it society’s punishment (retribution) for having broken the law?

It’s neither, you oaf! It’s merely a punishment applied as a deterrent. Arggggh!

[AFAIKnow]

@Cerri

Common sense as in, having nothing to do with actual facts, data, or anything in the realm of numbers, statistics…anything that might back up your claim of “common sense”. Gotcha.

So… what, you need statistics to have common knowledge that people try to avoid things they fear? Do you need statistics that many people fear death? I said I think that the DP has some deterrence effect. We kill .08% of our murderers. I don’t think it would necessarily have a statistical effect. Maybe if we hung them out in the public square with mandatory attendance such a low number might. If you have such a hard-on for statistics, maybe you can look up the crime rates of countries that have the DP and those that don’t. I think that Singapore and England are one of the best and worst in crime rate iirc and one has a one of the highest DP rates and the other none.

So if the Brutalization Effect theory is found to be satistically valid, the data proves out, and is proven to actually increases murder rates, it’s no concern of yours, no skin off your nose, right? Well, that’s…interesting. Morally deficient and utterly callous, imo, but interesting, I suppose.

I don’t buy into the Brutalization Effect theory. I think it just another reach for the anti-DP folks. In some states murders drop after an execution. In others they rise. Have there been actual studies on why they rise or fall? Has anyone ever been interviewed and said they murdered because the state does it? One study I read stated that 280 people were murdered because of the BE. Does that seem like reaching to you? Until such a theory has more empirical data and proven to be statistically valid, I don’t think it is an effect. And I could care less what conclusions you jump to.

The perpetrators of violent crimes have no right to decide whether someone lives or dies. That is why we punish them when they commit such crimes. What gives you the right? What gives you the right to decide the same thing we punish for?

This is fucking retarded. It’s a crime to kidnap someone too. Do you suggest that society can’t decide to lock up criminals?

What about when we get it wrong, when justice is miscarried, when a defendant is given a faulty trial? When the wrong person is put to death?

Somehow I doubt that bothers you either. Hell, they were prolly guilty of something, right?

And mayhap you should get some reading comprehension skills or at least read a fucking thread before jumping in ass first with your ignorant conclusions. I have already addressed this and made it clear on how it would bother me,piss-ant.

[tdn]

@AFAIKnow

Until [Brutalization Effect] has more empirical data and proven to be statistically valid, I don’t think it is an effect. And I could care less what conclusions you jump to.

@AFAIKnow

I said I think that the DP has some deterrence effect.

The ironing is deciduous.

[light_strand]

@FinnAgain

No, actually, it doesn’t. PA, for instance, had many life without parole sentences commuted in the 70’s IIRC.

Since you’ve decided this was a debate, I’m going to have to call you on this. The reason is, that in PA there is no such sentence as life with the possibility of parole, so many sentences were commuted (especially those that were given under federal sentencing guidelines which demanded that drug sentences were life in prison) because they were determined too harsh. (Since 1995 only one sentence has been commuted) But that’s the entire point! If for whatever reason, it is decided that a penalty is too harsh, then it can be commuted. If the penalty was death, and it was carried out, it can’t.

Let me ask you this: What shall we do when an innocent person is put to death by the State?

@Ghanima

To me, an execution should be the human equivalent of taking out the trash. If these men can be proved to have committed this crime, then I think they should be put down. They are no good to society. Who cares about vengeance and whether it’s worse to die or rot in prison for the rest of your life. The death penalty should be used to rid society of it’s worst members, those who commit the most heinous crimes.

Who gets to decide what is heinous? Is the murder of a cop heinous? How about a mother of three? Drunk driving? Animal cruelty? Child molestation? Rape of an adult? Torture? Fire worse than drowning? Quick better than slow?

Are all lives equal or do you determine that some are more important? Shall we make a chart?:
Child > Teen > Woman > Man :
White > Black :
Child > Cop > Fireman > Doctor > Teacher :
Mother > Father :

What about this guy? Should he get a new trial? Should a prosecutor continue to fight re-trials if there is contrary evidence?

[FinnAgain]

@light strand

Since you’ve decided this was a debate, I’m going to have to call you on this.

Are you living in an alternate reality where “call you on this” means “confirm what you’ve just said but still argue with you?”

You just proved my point. Life without parole is not always life without parole. Thanks for playing, collect your parting gift on the way out.

@light strand

Let me ask you this: What shall we do when an innocent person is put to death by the State?

Be sad?
What’re you looking for here?
What should we do when someone dies of old age while serving a life sentence for a crime they didn’t commit?

@light strand

Who gets to decide what is heinous? Is the murder of a cop heinous? How about a mother of three? Drunk driving? Animal cruelty? Child molestation? Rape of an adult? Torture? Fire worse than drowning? Quick better than slow?

Oh my, you’re right! Faced with gradations and differences the legal system can do nothing, nothing! We’re dooooomed!!!

[SoulFrost]

There are already many laws on the books which would seem to give a hierarchy of value on human lives. An adult cannot have consensual sex with someone below a certain age, while having consensual sex with someone above that age is fine. Assault by a minor upon a teacher or even a bus driver carries a mandatory jail sentence, though assault upon a milkman or a minister may only result in probation. The killing of a law enforcement officer who is performing his duties as such is a capital offense, but the killing of one’s next-door-neighbor may not be.

[FinnAgain]

Oh, and, while I’m at it since I’ve “decided” that this is a debate?

Did you wander into the wrong message board by mistake? This may be the Pit, but even here it’s laughable to make the entire substance of your rebuttal ‘Well… your idea is stupid!’

Just, ya know, in case you were curious.