Good thing we have an expert to tell us that it’s scary to lock yourself in a room with a violent criminal.
Does that have something to do with all the questions that have been directed toward you?
That’s not a response to the question. I asked why someone who’s a “lethal danger to society” (whatever that means) must be executed, and you said because they’re a lethal danger. That’s circular logic.
So, leaving aside the problem that you can’t actually define what your terms mean, tell me why someone who is a “lethal danger” *must *be executed instead of incarcerated.
You may as well have said, “Here’s a real twisted situation: What if they were forced to do it by an evil ghost from the fifth dimension?” Can you find any example of this kind of “multiple personality” situation outside of fiction?
I don’t believe that there is a set number of appeals. AFAIK, in the U.S. justice system, someone could theoretically appeal a conviction an infinite number of times, as long as they could keep finding legitimate justifications to appeal.
In theory, all convictions in the U.S. are obtained for cases where there is no reasonable doubt of guilt. This leaves only unreasonable doubts. I believe you would be hard-pressed to find even a single case where there are no doubts, including unreasonable ones, as to someone’s guilt. A potential explanation, for example, would be that a secret twin performed the murder and the convicted person was just covering for their sibling.
Who? I think the people speaking against the death penalty have occasionally made the point that the criminal justice system is also about rehabilitation–not solely. Clearly, punishment is also an important focus–as is, importantly in the case of people who are likely to harm others again, segregation, i.e., protecting the rest of society.
Please provide a cite for the “fact” that Ted Bundy would never have confessed to any other murders if he had not been executed. At that time, please also hand over your blueprints for an alternate history machine, because I could stand to make myself filthy rich.
I’m familiar with the anecdote. What’s your point? That lax security can get you killed? That’s true even when working with inmates who *wouldn’t *have been up for the death sentence. Ressler would have been just as safe with adequate security as he would have been if **Kemper **were dead by that point. And you’ll note that his reaction was to “ma[k]e it an FBI rule that they never interview killers alone,” **not **to ensure that all killers are executed so they can’t be a danger to their interviewers.
There is no “must”. Society could decide, and has so far, that a person should be completely removed from society until they die and we’ll all foot the bill. I am of the opinion that if you are going to remove someone from society then Remove them. Time, money, resources, etc. If society wants to study some to understand and prevent problems, that’s valueable.
The only reason I see you (et al) advocating for life in prison (with or without parole) is because someone might have made a mistake somewhere. We all make mistakes. If we functioned so that we only did something if we were 100% sure, we wouldn’t do anything. Look at all the fatalities that occur due to driving. Should we stop driving cars? “Oh, how can you compare driving to killing a person that might be innocent?” Because I think it is such a hard road to traverse to get a conviction of the death penalty that the decision should be honored and society should get on with it’s life.
Why “must” they be killed? To keep society honoring its decisions and not putting more burdens on itself. Put up or shut up. It’s a lot easier to be wishy washy and say “uh, I don’t quite have the evidence, I’ll just stick 'em in prison and they can sort out their own innocence in time”, versus “Am I sure enough of my facts to condemn someone to death?”
Hey, I’m trying to find examples and have a discussion. I admit that the justice system is not perfect and I want to see it improved. I still think you have to go through a lot the get the Death Penalty, so do it already. So why “must” society lock someone away until they die - other than because there could possibly be a mistake somewhere? Sounds like a worse punishment to me.
If you didn’t find reason in the lengthy first trial, and then on appeal when you could go over everything that was brought up the first time, then it seems like you were holding out just to stretch out the appeals process.
And you don’t like my fiction? Hey, I was trying to shoot down my own ideas so that I can see where I’m making mistakes and assumptions (see my username). I want a discussion here so that I can confront my ideas. Bring on some more reasons and cases and [Brooklyn accent]Let’s talk[/accent]
Except we’ve already pointed out to other people in this thread that it’s cheaper in the U.S. to incarcerate someone for life than it is to execute them.
Apparently you missed the rest of the argument, which includes such things as “killing when you are under no threat is universally wrong, even if you really, really don’t like the person.”
Because killing for revenge is wrong, and because our society is incapable of applying this punishment in an evenhanded manner.
Your whole argument is pointless.
Just because the rich can get away with things, does not mean that there should be no death sentence. The rich always can get away with anything.
Just because certain groups do not get ‘proportional’ justice is irrelevant. Justice does not depend upon actuarial tables.
Those who seek the death penalty are worse than the murderers they seek vengeance upon? Stop it!
Best wishes,
hh
So, has anybody on this thread checked out the ad to ‘Stop the execution of Troy Davis?’
I haven’t. I can guess, tho.
He was a victim of white injustice, because of his activism.
He has reformed, and written books, made speeches against violence.
He bears a striking resemblance to another gang member who looks like him.
A former FBI agent has investigated his case, and says he is innocent.
A witness against him has died, but, has, before his death, recanted his testimony.
What am I missing?
Best wishes,
hh
Perhaps a link.
Regards,
CP
-
I know of no state that runs a system like that, and you do not either. You speculate that you do, or you try to hint at knowledge that you do, but you don’t.
-
I don’t see how, even if there were a state like that, the inference of an increase in crime could be made, even partially. You don’t like some things, and you throw up blanket statements trying to prove a point. That isn’t making anybody smarter.
Best wishes,
hh
That would be the United States of America.
I’m talking about the ad on this thread.
Wait…are you a paying [shudder] subscriber?
Best wishes,
hh
Perhaps we should continue this in the Pit. 
Well, I meant one of the ads. Well, I meant one of the ads that was here when I looked. I meant, one of the ads that was here, unless I dreamt of it.
bw,
hh
harry, do you want to engage in this discussion on something other than a trivial level? Because it is a point of indisputable fact (and has been recognized as such by the Supreme Court) that the death penalty is administered in a racially discriminatory fashion.
The people who are put to death for crimes are not put to death in even approximate proportion with respect to race. Being black makes you slightly more likely to be executed than if you were white for the same crime. Being black and killing a white person makes you vastly more likely to be put to death than for the same crime against a black person. Thus the racial aspect of the statement that our society “values minority and poor lives less than rich and white ones.” I trust that not even you would deny the economic component of the same statement… or do you need a citation to establish that the most expensive private defense attorney is more likely than a public defender to keep you off of death row?
There’s really no question that you are living right now in a society that allows race and socioeconomic status to dictate how effectively your right against being killed by the state is protected. The only reason you don’t know this already is that you scoff and wave your hands dismissively at those of us who point these things out.
But *reality *doesn’t matter, Jimmy, as long as it’s not an *official *policy. :rolleyes:
Actually, a significantly important part of justice is people getting proportional treatment. Justice does not live in a single case - a legal system that punishes only Jews who commit crimes, but ignores those committed by Gentiles would not be just. One that in practice uses what it regards as the ultimate sanction in a way dependent on the race of the victim is not only not just, but also arguably unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
It’s not a question of people “getting away” with things. That cannot be stopped in any system where there are protections for the accused. And yes, the rich will get away with more than the poor. But if you want to have a just system, you cannot punish people disproportionately based on the race of the victim.
And yes, I’ll stand by the idea that those who will flush away the protections of our criminal justice system, who are baying for the blood of these people who have not even been convicted as yet, are worse than the murderers themselves. A murderer doesn’t destroy one of the underpinnings of civilized society. What these people seek does.
For anyone following the Petit case, Steven Hayes, the defendant whose trial has been held for the past few weeks, was convicted on sixteen out of seventeen charges (all but arson) and of those, six crimes make him eligible for the death penalty. The penalty phase of the trial starts in a couple of weeks. And his co-defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky, is to be tried next year.
When I heard the news (presented in the usual annoying, overblown, sensationalistic, exploitative fashion by truTV), an ugly thought occurred to me. It was mentioned that Hayes has been prevented from offing himself during the trial, and I thought, “What a waste of time.”
Lemme pull some stats from an old post of mine in another death penalty thread…
Of those executed since 1976, 35% were black and 56% were white. Cite. Blacks represent 12.4% of the population of the United States. Cite. So, if your inquiry stopped there, you might conclude that the death penalty is racist, because clearly the percentage of blacks being executed is out of proportion with their representation in the population as a whole.
However, we’re not talking about population as a whole, we’re talking about murderers. For the same period, blacks represented 52.2% of murderers, compared to 45.8% for whites. Cite. So, there were more black murderers than white murderers, yet more white murderers were executed.
The second point is more interesting. It does appear from the stats that the death penalty is more likely to be sought in cases where the murder victim is white. Most murders, however, are not interracial; “from 1976 to 2005, 86% of white victims were killed by whites, and 94% of black victims were killed by blacks” (same cite as above). Most interracial homicides are “stranger homicides”, where the murderer and victim didn’t know each other. In stranger homicides, blacks killed white victims about 17.5-21% of the time, while whites killed black victims 3.6-6.6% of the time. For acquaintance homicides, blacks kill white victims about 3.8-6.6% of the time, and whites kill black victims about 1.5-3.4% of the time (same cite). So the disparity may be because juries are more likely to assess the death penalty for a stranger homicide, and whites are the victims in over 60% of stranger homicides, but I don’t know that that’s ever been studied.
Any notes on why that charge is the one he wasn’t convicted on? Seems an odd thing to leave off. Did they think the house just spontaneously combusted, or what?
52.2% of *convicted *murderers. Just so we’re being clear, here. If the point is that the justice system is skewed based on race, using further statistics from the same system isn’t exactly the best way to prove your points.
From the local paper (the New Haven Register): “The sole not guilty verdict came on the charge of first-degree arson. Prosecutors were unable to prove that Hayes, who admitted pouring gasoline in the Petit home, lit the match that started the fire.”