And Cruz was set free?
That there should be such a thing as a life sentence? Oh, wait - there is!
While I think a 21-year-limit is too lenient, he won’t be out in 21 years. Norway does have ways to keep people in custody longer than that.
I know how the legal system works and how murder is defined. I’m asking zephyr9 about her opinions on the moralty of killing people. She didn’t mention any exceptions of that kind. I’ll quote her again:
I’m asking how this can be true of convicted murderers and not people who get paid to execute them. I understand the answer from a legal standpoint, but I don’t think jury convictions apply to pinpoints of light in the universe.
After 10 years in prison, yes. Another seven years later, he was pardoned.
Yes, but I fear you may not be getting my point.
In 1985, the police and prosecutors had no evidence against Cruz and Hernandez. None.
This was a high profile, front page heinous crime and somebody had to fry. Getting the *right guy *to fry wasn’t that important. In fact, it wasn’t important at all.
They railroaded two poor, hispanic youths with a history of both gang affilliation and stupidity.
Before the trial, Brian Dugan, already in prison, offers to confess. During the trial, one officer perjured himself. He confessed to this 10 years later.
Now, at first, the police and prosecutors may have belived the Cruz was the guy. At least once cop didn’t. He resigned in protest. But the others may have believed.
But not in 1994. Then, they had DNA evidence that Cruz and Hernandez were NOT involved. They had PROOF that Cruz and Hernandez were not guilty. (this proof was not gathered by police, of course. It gathered by legal team of volunteers). The State STILL wanted to fry Cruz and Hernandez.
OK, in 1995 Cruz is aquitted and a free man. Also, the District Attorney has DNA evidence that points to Brian Dugan, who had offered to confess to the crime nearly 10 years before in exchange for the State not seeking the Death Penalty. Let’s stress this: DNA EVIDENCE AND AN OFFER TO PLEAD GUILTY.
It takes them another 10 years to indict Dugan.
Please do not get me wrong. I firmly believe that there are crimes so heinous that those who commit them should die.
But…I look at the examples of *immorality, incompetence, racism, and stupidy *of some of those involved with it’s application, and I just cannot support it.
I’ll give it one more shot.
Evidence that the death penalty works. The look and feel of that website is of an advocacy site which makes me a little suspcious. Still, if you look for the first reference, you can’t find it but you can buy it or just read the abstract at this site. Basically it presents the view that each time someone is executed it reduces murders by 18 (plus or minus 10).
This anti-death penalty site basically says that since the death penalty was restarted in the 70s, 138 people on death row have been exonerated while 1268 were executed. It’s a vast over-simplification but lets say that means that 10% of people executed were innocent.
Putting those two together, you get that executing 100 people would result in 10 innocent people being executed and while 800 to 2800 innocent people are saved from murder.
The counter arguement is that states with the death penalty don’t have lower murder rates: Study
But is that because the death penalty doesn’t work or is it because states with high murder rates for some reason are more likely to be willing to adopt the death penalty. The study that indicates that lives are saved by executions use not a simply yes/no as to whether the state has the death penalty but calculated the probablity that someone who commits a murder will be arrested, convicted, sentenced to death and actually executed.
So, why not just increase prison time for murder? This studyindicates that the expected sentence is related to the incidence of a crime but that link is weakest for murder among major crimes.
Who kills who? I assert that people kill people in their social circle. Poor people kill poor people. Black people kill black people. Hispanics kill Hispanics. Therefore, accepting the study above, those 10 poor people who are wrongly convicted save a couple of thousand other poor people.
Would I prefer a magic wand that results in no miscarriages of justice and that no one would ever get out of prison and commit more crime? YES!!! But in this imperfect world, I am willing to make the trade-off. Hopefully the fuller explanation makes it less “disturbing”.
Or because the death penalty encourages murder. Or because people in a a culture that supports the death penalty are more likely to kill in general, not just when it’s officially approved.
The two “or” statements make me think you have two different points but the content seems like just one. :dubious:
That’s certainly one way to deal with the actual content, isn’t it?
No, it does not. YOU may be willing to risk the lives of innocents. I’m not. And if you’re willing to be one of those people, well good for you. I’m not. If these individuals are that dangerous, give them a life sentence.
BTW, why would you use such a highly biased website? That’s like using Stormfront for stats on black crime. It would behoove you to find more neutral sources.
The Other Waldo Pepper, I have no idea what you’ve been smoking.
Reevaluating position.
The Executioner:
Certain points of light take on that moral responsibility for the rest of us. We know them as soldiers, executioners, etc.
We do not know at this time what eternal consequence is enacted upon them for doing this.
They’re like the Sandmen in Logan’s Run, terminating runners. Except slimy runners who slice and dice people.
The rule is: there can be no blanket morality about killing humans if there is not allowed to be one blanket morality about killing sentient beings period. Marley.
Never said I feel good about eating meat. I’m a horrible meat eating slob.
Addendum to rule about morality: “(prissy voice) Because I say so!” lol
How do you quote just a portion of a post?
There is no such rule.
I don’t believe in any of this “point of light” nonsense or in eternal consequences. And it sounds like you’re actually admitting that the executioner is doing something that violates your moral code (otherwise what consequences would there be?).
You can make up whatever rules you like (this isn’t a bad one, really) and you can live by them if you want. But that doesn’t mean anybody else is going to find your reasons compelling, especially when you admit you can’t be bothered to live by your own rules. I am a vegetarian, and I think what you’ve said about human and animal life is wrong. I love animals, but I don’t value their lives equally to mine or to those of other human beings. For example I think it would be exceptionally unreasonable to ask people to let their loved ones die because testing chemicals on rats is cruel. I don’t think humans are superior to other animals, but I think that like other animals, we value our own the most. That doesn’t bother me.
I’m also aware of the fact that the agriculture that goes into a vegetarian lifestyle still results in the deaths of animals (the deaths of mice and things aren’t intentional, but they’re not avoidable, and it does without saying that they’re not raised in inhumane conditions and then butchered, nor are crazy amounts of resources devoted to supporting them). And I notice you said “sentient beings.” It turns out sentience is a difficult concept to pin down and we’ve had some very long discussions on what it really is and how you know anybody has it. I still think this is tangential to the discussion about the death penalty, but it’s worth pointing out that all of this stuff is more complex than you think.
“There is no such rule.” Czarcasm
Ok like we make the rules?
It was a joke and a not-joke!
Morality is too subjective and too fluid to institutionalize absolutely.
I see that the ideal idea which I had of “a” death penalty has nothing to do with “the” death penalty as an institution, the one which we have in the US.
"I still think this is tangential to the discussion about the death penalty, but it’s worth pointing out that all of this stuff is more complex than you think. " Marley23
Yes, out of my depth on a couple different levels. My perspective has become jammed up with tangents, and my asthetic argument is out of step w/the real world argument which I unwittingly projected myself into.
The whole animal thing is just a pet peeve of mine. I wouldn’t weigh the life of one animal against the life of one person. It’s just we are such exploiters, such users.
My silly little arguments.
Sorry, won’t happen again.
First I used a biased website, pointed out in my post that it was biased but then found a link for the study being cited and evaluated it. That is how I think biased websites should be used. I would have felt better if I had found a full copy of the study an not just an abstract.
I am willing to risk the lives of a few innocents to save other (and more innocents). You are willing to risk the lives of a lot of innocents to save the lives a few innocents.
My use of the vague quantitative terms “few” and “a lot” is intentional because the group I want to save and the group you want to save are both very vague and undefined in any practical sense.
I don’t buy the idea that an agent (executioner) acting on behalf of society is automatically equivalent to an individual. You can believe it and if you do it can and should inform your opinion but just asserting it has no authority outside your thought process. Similarly, me believing that the agent of society is a different case can and does influence my opinion but I don’t expect that asserting it will have any weight outside my thought process.
It is my BELIEF that if everyone were more aware of which part of their decision making is fact-based, what part is opinon-based and what part is ethics-and-values-based, we would have a lot fewer problems. Things could go from “you want to destroy America” to “you have a different view on what is good for America, how can we find common ground”.
I want certain criminals irreversibly incapacitated. So long as they’re alive, they may strike again. Once they’re executed, they can’t. I have no idea why any of that should be difficult to follow.