You Kill, You Die.

[DSYoungEsq]

Only two good reasons potentially exist to support the application of the death penalty:

1. Avoids recidivism

2. Acts as a deterrent
   Now, as we all can see, you can manage 1) pretty effectively with life in prison without parole; the only downside is the cost of feeding and clothing and housing the criminal. If you set that cost against the moral cost of executing someone wrongly convicted, I submit it is pretty easy to decide in favor of incarceration costs.

As to 2), there have never been any statistics supporting the idea that the potential for recieving the death penalty acts as a deterrent to even first degree murder (let alone second degree murder). Of course, it is an admittedly hard thing to dissect statistically, but there was a good laboratory for doing so during the roughly 10 years we were without capital punishment in this country in the late 60’s and early 70’s. So far, there is no indication that the absence of the penalty caused increased murder rates, nor did they drop again as a result of re-institution. Anyone with some pretty solid evidence of detterent effect is welcome to offer it; I don’t mean anecdotal evidence, either.

Now, if it isn’t a deterrent (despite what anyone has as a ‘gut’ feeling, keep those to your own guts, please), and you can avoid recidivism, why kill them? The answer, of course, is retribution. In light of the quite large numbers of wrongly convicted death penalty cases, I don’t see where getting our blood lust satisfied overcomes the moral horror we should feel should we manage to kill even one innocent being.

Of course, if we’re gonna kill them even if innocent, why don’t we change the burden of proof to 51%, or reduce the jury vote to 75%, or do something else equally outrageous, so we can convict those damn criminals?

[pepperlandgirl]

Frist off, I found this webpage http://www.essential.org/dpic/Innocentlist.html
It lists how many innocent people have been released, how long they were in jail, and what race they were. If you notice, the minimum amount of years spent in jail is one, the maximum was 19. If the one month policy was introduced, all of these men would have died, been murdered, at the hands of the state and the tax payers. Quite frankly, I don’t want their blood on my hands.

I believe that the automatic death penalty for murderers would be a deterrant in much the same way that
professional burglers are rarely armed because that is an automatic escalation of the charge against them if
they are caught.

from http://www.essential.org/dpic/deter.html#STUDIES

At her weekly Justice Department news briefing, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said that she has
yet to find any evidence that the death penalty deters crime. “I have inquired for most of my adult life
about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that
would substantiate that point,” said Reno. (Reuters, 1/21/00)

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate. In

1997, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The South accounts for 80% of
executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder
rate.

Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas.
Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart examined executions in
Texas between 1984 and 1997. They speculated that if a deterrent effect were to exist, it would be found
in Texas because of the high number of death sentences and executions within the state. Using patterns in
executions across the study period and the relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found
no evidence of a deterrent effect. The study concluded that the number of executions was unrelated to
murder rates in general, and that the number of executions was unrelated to felony rates. (45 Crime and
Delinquency 481-93 (1999)).

So far, I cannot see how deterence would be a factor. Obviously it isn’t.

If I am wrong and it’s not a deterrant, than consider this: Why should tax payers have to foot the bill for
keeping these rabid dogs alive in prison? Why should we support the endless appeals?

Why should taxpayers foot the bill of killing these ‘rabid dogs’?
From http://www.essential.org/dpic/costs2.html

The most comprehensive study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina
$2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of
imprisonment for life (Duke University, May 1993.) On a national basis, these figures translate to an
extra cost of over $1 billion dollars spent since 1976 on the death penalty.
The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice
system - $78 million of that total in incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).
Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18
executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution. (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).
In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of
imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning
News, March 8, 1992).

So far your deterence and the financial arguements are not winning Scylla.
Ok, I’m going to do more research and come back with more stats later.

Oh BTW, for once I actually agree with everything you say David…din’t think it would ever happen!

[Sterra]

We should use criminals to take over canada and mexico.

America boasts 5% of the world population but 25% of the worlds prisoners. We should deport them, all. A new law should send every criminal in the us back to cuba with Elian.

[Scylla]

DavidB:

I’m not familiar with the Illinois cases. If you had a link, I’d be interested.

I find the idea of witnesses changing their minds after years and years, frankly despicable. Hopefully they received punishment for the perjury that cost innocent men decades of their lives.

You know very well the unreliability and suggestivity of witnesses. You know this increases as time passes. The pressure that can be brought to bear against a key witness to change his mind can be immense. There is at least the possibility that after so many years and so much pressure for a certain set of answers from a witness, that they just may tell what their interviewer wants to hear.

If somebody said to me ten years after the fact “Are you really sure of what you saw ten years ago? Somebody is going to die if you don’t change your mind,” that alone would cast severe doubt on most peoples conviction.

Perhaps the imminence of an execution led to this recant. If somebody knew that their testimony would lead to the very near term death of a criminal, they might be more careful about what they say.

The idea that “Oh well, he’s probably guilty, let’s lock him up for 20 years or so while we check it out,” is more horrifying to me than the death penalty. If long term incarceration be an option in uncertainty, if it’s a soft option, than it will be used extensively. In such circumstances where the guilt is uncertain, why should this person be incarcerated?

Rather than go point to point on the rest let me jump to what I see as the crux of the biscuit here (if you think I’m unfairly dodging a counterargument that you would like me to respond to, point it out and I will.)

On the one hand we have the potential execution of convicted criminals who are actually innocent. On the other hand we have the release of actual murderers who may murder again, killing innocents. In a perfect world neither of these things would happen. I do not see wasting a man’s life in prison as an acceptable alternative to this quandary.

In today’s judicial system the death penalty process is so long and drawn out, with so many people involved, that it is easy to pass the buck. Nobody wants to overturn a conviction and set a murderer free, and risk the political implications of having him kill again. So, it moves along the system, and a chain of denial. People can justify not doing anything about it by saying “Well he’ll get another chance at an appeal later on.”

If the police, a judge, a jury, prosecuters, and witnesses all know that the results of their actions will directly and immediately send a man to his death without a second chance, then they will be a lot more careful about how they proceed since there will be nobody else to sort out their innacuracies.

I would think that if a witness provided false testimony that sent an innocent man to death, than that witness would be guilty of murder, wouldn’t you?

Genral Lee once said something to the effect that a Good General must love his army in order to lead it. He must also risk the destruction of this thing he loves in order to be victorious. He cannot avoid this dual responsibilty.

Our legal system provides to much potential for this kind of avoidance and copping out.

As it stands now I agree that the death penalty does not provide much of a deterrant. A criminal can think “Hey if I kill, and I’m convicted, than MAYBE I get the death penalty. That can take lots of years before it ever actually happens . IT will be so far down the road, and I will have lots of opportunity to overturn the decision or get it commuted.” THat’s not a deterrant. The death penalty as it stands today is torture. IT is useless both as revenge and deterrant, because of the time frame and uncertainty of implementation.

Immediate and mandatory execution of murderers is one hell of a deterrant. It’s also one hell of a thing for a key witness to face who may be falsifying his testimony.

You can’t say that these people in Illinois would be dead today under my system, because what I’m describing is a very different process.
I am no more cavalierly endorsing the execution of wrongfully convicted murderers than you are endorsing the murder of innocents by repeat killers who are set free. Your suggestion that I am doing so is fallacious. THe implication that I don’t mind murdering a few innocent people in order to get the guilty is wrong as well.

I am sure you would agree that in a system where it so easy to pass the buck, errors persist far longer than in one where there is direct responsibility.

You said:

"Under the current system in Illinois, for example, we can rest assured
that no innocent person will die. "

Really? Now who’s being ridiculous?

[BobT]

A big problem with this “all or nothing” approach to murder convictions is that it prevents the state from obtaining convictions for people for whom the evidence isn’t the greatest.

Scylla thinks that the “you kill, you die” system will make the police and the prosecutors more vigilant. Wouldn’t it more likely make them more hesitant to issue indictments and take the more marginal cases to trial? The prosecution loses any ability to get the defendant to plead guilty to murder. The only alternative would be to offer manslaughter, which would then put the murderer back out on the street in about seven years again.

There also the practical matters like getting all 50 states and the Federal justice system to adopt the same procedures. Some states have never had capital punishment (I believe Michigan is one of them). What if those states don’t want to adopt capital punishment?

[David_B]

Scylla: The Chicago Tribune did an exhaustive series of investigative reports, and has continued to write about it (indeed, their series of articles was what eventually convinced our governor to put all executions on hold).

Here is a link to the front page of that series (you can get to each part from there) : http://www.chicago.tribune.com/news/metro/chicago/ws/0,,37842,00.html

They also did a series called “Trial and Error” about how prosecutors screwed up – either by accident or intentionally – and how innocent people ended up in jail or on death row: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/news/nationworld/ws/0,1246,21398,00.html

Those should give you plenty of reading for a while.

You said:

I find the idea of witnesses changing their minds after years and years, frankly despicable.

I do as well – though not nearly as despicable as having lied to begin with.

Hopefully they received punishment for the perjury that cost innocent men decades of their lives.

I’m not sure. As I recall, at least one lied because her relative was involved in the actual killing (don’t recall exact details, but the Northwestern prof I mentioned tracked her down and found out she’d lied). Others did it because they were pressured by police or prosecutors, or because they were jailhouse snitches who got benefits for doing so.

You know very well the unreliability and suggestivity of witnesses. You know this increases as time passes. The pressure that can be brought to bear against a key witness to change his mind can be immense. There is at least the possibility that after so many years and so much pressure for a certain set of answers from a witness, that they just may tell what their interviewer wants to hear.

Sure, there is that possibility. And it’s not like these guys are simply let out of jail when somebody says they lied. The judges look at all the evidence and decide what to do (as do the prosecutors). In the situations I’ve discussed, the evidence has been enough to let them go or to have the prosecutors drop the charges.

Perhaps the imminence of an execution led to this recant. If somebody knew that their testimony would lead to the very near term death of a criminal, they might be more careful about what they say.

In at least one case, the time for the execution had already been there once (the one who “failed” the IQ test, as I mentioned in a previous message) and the witness hadn’t changed anything. So why later under your scenario?

The idea that “Oh well, he’s probably guilty, let’s lock him up for 20 years or so while we check it out,” is more horrifying to me than the death penalty. If long term incarceration be an option in uncertainty, if it’s a soft option, than it will be used extensively.

Who said anything about using it in uncertainty? Juries still are supposed to be sure “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Remember, they determine guilt first, and then sentencing later. So if somebody is guilty, they’re guilty. The only thing removing the death penalty does is make it possible to at least partially correct an error. The death penalty makes it quite impossible.

In such circumstances where the guilt is uncertain, why should this person be incarcerated?

Who said anything about uncertain guilt?

On the one hand we have the potential execution of convicted criminals who are actually innocent. On the other hand we have the release of actual murderers who may murder again, killing innocents.

Wrong. You say that’s the crux of the issue, but you’re missing the main point:

Just because a convicted criminal is not executed does not put him back on the street.

I’ve mentioned this before, as have others. Life without parole. Throw away the key. You don’t have to worry about him killing innocents, and the rest of us don’t have to worry about the government killing innocents. Should make everybody happy.

In a perfect world neither of these things would happen. I do not see wasting a man’s life in prison as an acceptable alternative to this quandary.

Well, that’s your problem. You begin by ignoring the obvious solution. If he’s truly guilty, what do you care if he rots in jail? And if he’s innocent, the error is at least partially reversible.

I would think that if a witness provided false testimony that sent an innocent man to death, than that witness would be guilty of murder, wouldn’t you?

I would think so. I would also think prosecutors and cops who did similar things should be guilty of the same thing. Unfortunately, in the Dupage 7 trial (you can read about it in at least one of the series I mentioned above), the prosecutors and cops weren’t even charged with attempted murder, just some prosecutorial misconduct type stuff. And they didn’t even get convicted on that (or they may have gotten a few minor convictions – I don’t recall exactly).

As it stands now I agree that the death penalty does not provide much of a deterrant.

The problem is that, as DSYoung noted, there seems to be no evidence that it will, except the “gut feelings” of some people. I’m not willing to risk innocent lives on gut feelings.

A criminal can think “Hey if I kill, and I’m convicted, than MAYBE I get the death penalty. That can take lots of years before it ever actually happens . IT will be so far down the road, and I will have lots of opportunity to overturn the decision or get it commuted.”

Do you really think criminals think that way? Most of 'em probably don’t even think they’ll be caught, let alone what kind of punishment there would be. You’re acting like most criminals are logical, rational folks who plot out the plusses and minuses of committing a murder. Sorry, but I’ve seen no evidence of that.

You can’t say that these people in Illinois would be dead today under my system, because what I’m describing is a very different process.

Yeah – worse. They would almost certainly be dead under your system, for reasons I’ve already explained.

You said:

"Under the current system in Illinois, for example, we can rest assured that no innocent person will die. "

Really? Now who’s being ridiculous?

You know full well the context that was in referred to government executions. Don’t play games with me.

[Scylla]

BobT said:

"A big problem with this “all or nothing” approach to murder convictions is that it prevents the state from
obtaining convictions for people for whom the evidence isn’t the greatest. "

Yes. I consider this a good thing.

“Wouldn’t it more likely make them more hesitant to issue indictments and take the more marginal cases to
trial?”

Probably. Convicting somebody of Murder is a pretty big deal though. If you don’t have a compelling case, you probably shouldn’t try to do it.

[BobT]

But the state usually doesn’t have an open and shut case against a suspected murderer. The prosecution needs to have some sort of bargaining chip most of the time to get a conviction.

Also what will this “you kill, you die” system do to deter murders where the killer is drunk, under the influence, psychotic, et al.

Don’t you think it’s possible that this system will result in fewer murder convictions, but not fewer murders?

[pepperlandgirl]

Nobody even commented on my stats I spent my time trying to find Oh well, moving on…

Probably. Convicting somebody of Murder is a pretty big deal though. If you don’t have a compelling case,
you probably shouldn’t try to do it.

THere are more manslaughters, and 2nd degree murder convictions because most DAs are very very cautious about 1st degree murders. If they KNOW they can convict on a lesser charge, and only kinda sure about 1st Degree, they’ll go with the lesser charge everytime.

A criminal can think “Hey if I kill, and I’m convicted, than MAYBE I get the death penalty. That
can take lots of years before it ever actually happens . IT will be so far down the road, and I
will have lots of opportunity to overturn the decision or get it commuted.”

Now that’s just ridiculous. WHen somebody is plotting someone else’s murder, that is probably NOT what they are thinking about. I know if I was considering taking somebody out, I would be more concerned with the details of the murder, not the possible outcome after the fact.

The idea that “Oh well, he’s probably guilty, let’s lock him up for 20 years or so while we
check it out,” is more horrifying to me than the death penalty. If long term incarceration be an
option in uncertainty, if it’s a soft option, than it will be used extensively.

Do you even think before you type? The system is designed so that nobodyy is locked away because the jury said “oh well, he’s probably guilty” Like David said, sentencing happens only after the verdict.And if the jury makes a mistake (and they do all the time) then it’s nice to know that they have 20 years to make it right. If I was wrongly accused of a murder I’d rather wait 20 years for someone to prove my innocence rather then just die.

Just because a convicted criminal is not executed does not put him back on the street.

Thank you David.

On the one hand we have the potential execution of convicted criminals who are actually innocent. On the
other hand we have the release of actual murderers who may murder again, killing innocents. In a perfect
world neither of these things would happen. I do not see wasting a man’s life in prison as an acceptable
alternative to this quandary.

So let’s just murder them all…ooops I forgot. WHen the state does it, it’s justice, not murder. Got it :rollseyes:

f the police, a judge, a jury, prosecuters, and witnesses all know that the results of their actions will
directly and immediately send a man to his death without a second chance, then they will be a lot more
careful about how they proceed since there will be nobody else to sort out their innacuracies.

Or they might just decide it would be best to prosecute for manslaughter, and that way nobody would have to die. The reason the buck is passed is because the State says it’s ok to murder someone who is found guilty, but I doubt many people are that eager to send someone to the Chair. So they Judicial System offers all the chances in the world to be SURE…and thank God, because at least 86 people were innocent and didn’t die.

I would think that if a witness provided false testimony that sent an innocent man to death, than that
witness would be guilty of murder, wouldn’t you?

And the state that gives them a chance to be guilty of murder would at least be an accessory to the crime, right?

[Scylla]

Pepperlandgirl:

Sorry for not responding earlier to your stats. I would guess that the reason that the cost is so high is because it is such a long drawn out process. My system would probably make it a lot cheaper for the state to execute a convicted criminal (I cringe as I write that. Obviously “kill people. Save money.” is not my battle cry, and it’s not a good reason to change policy by itself.

You said:

“Now that’s just ridiculous. WHen somebody is plotting someone else’s murder, that is probably NOT what
they are thinking about. I know if I was considering taking somebody out, I would be more concerned with
the details of the murder, not the possible outcome after the fact.”

I would think that crimes of passion not withstanding (which might be manslaughter,) most criminals are very aware of the potential consequences of their actions.

THen:

"Do you even think before you type? The system is designed so that nobodyy is locked away because the
jury said “oh well, he’s probably guilty” Like David said, sentencing happens only after the verdict.And if the
jury makes a mistake (and they do all the time) then it’s nice to know that they have 20 years to make it
right. If I was wrongly accused of a murder I’d rather wait 20 years for someone to prove my innocence
rather then just die. "

Have you ever been on jury duty? I would think it is much more likely for a jury to convict when they don’t have to make the decision if that person should be executed. They get to wash their hands of it, and pass it on to somebody else. This seperation actually makes it easier to get a conviction. That means more innocent people convicted.

"So let’s just murder them all…ooops I forgot. WHen the state does it, it’s justice, not murder. Got it
:rollseyes: "

I was quite careful in my OP. If you commit murder, you are no longer entitled to live. If you disagree, fine. but if you are gonna be trite you might as well at least be original. We just discussed this “kill them all, let God sort them out” point a few posts ago.

"And the state that gives them a chance to be guilty of murder would at least be an accessory to the crime,
right? "

Again. I do not see the execution of convicted murderers as murder. I see it as a necessary evil, like killing a rabid dog. I see it as a moral imperative.

If I tell you not to pick up a handgun, point it at your face, and pull the trigger or you will die, and you do it anyway, have I killed you?

There is this thing called personal responsibility. If you commit first degree murder in a capital offense state, and are sentenced to death, you have nobody to blame for your death but yourself.

BobT:

“Also what will this “you kill, you die” system do to deter murders where the killer is drunk, under the
influence, psychotic, et al.”

Probably not much. As I mentioned in the OP, such circumstances would probably constitute manslaughter.

DavidB:

Got “not found” on both links. Thanks anyway.

You said:

"In at least one case, the time for the execution had already been there once (the one who “failed” the IQ
test, as I mentioned in a previous message) and the witness hadn’t changed anything. So why later under
your scenario? "

A sample of one does not proof make. Again, when this witness testified, he did not have positive knowledge that his false testimony would directly result in the death of an innocent man. As others have mentioned, sentencing comes later. It makes it easier to justify perjury to oneself “I didn’t kill him. I had nothing to do with the sentencing.”

Then you said:

“Who said anything about using it in uncertainty? Juries still are supposed to be sure “beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Remember, they determine guilt first, and then sentencing later. So if somebody is guilty, they’re
guilty. The only thing removing the death penalty does is make it possible to at least partially correct an
error. The death penalty makes it quite impossible.”

I disagree on both points. It is easier for a jury to convict if they are not directly responsible for the death sentence.

As I mentioned in the OP. If you lock somebody up for twenty years and set them free, there isn’t much left of the man who walked into prison two decades ago. One convicted killer made that point in a book I read a few years ago (forget the title, sorry.) He admitted his guilt. He even admitted that he probably deserved to die becuase of his crime. He also made the point that after thirty years in prison he was no longer the same young man who murdered an innocent girl. THAT young man escaped the death penalty.
It works the other way too. After an extended period of time, the man that was locked up falsely no longer exists. His life has been irrevocably taken from him. Setting this man free after 15 or twenty years doesn’t “partially fix the error.” It just makes it ironic. I might even argue that that scenario is even crueler than a quick execution.

“Who said anything about uncertain guilt?”

I think you started it, by bringing up the fact that a certain percentage of inmates on death row are actually innocent.
"Just because a convicted criminal is not executed does not put him back on the street.

              I've mentioned this before, as have others. Life without parole. Throw away the key. You don't have to worry
              about him killing innocents, and the rest of us don't have to worry about the government killing innocents.
              Should make everybody happy."

A valid point.

Life without parole IS a death sentence though. Does it somehow make it better that a person who is wrongfully convicted rots in jail for 50 years and then dies. Again, that may be crueler than executing him quickly.

A false conviction is a tragedy no matter what the sentence.
Granted there is the possibility of turning over the conviction, but leaving that one faint improbable glimmer of hope is quite cruel. I remember reading that if you really want to torture somebody you can’t take away all hope.

"You said:

                   "Under the current system in Illinois, for example, we can rest assured that no innocent
                   person will die. "

                   Really? Now who's being ridiculous?
              You know full well the context that was in referred to government executions. Don't play games with me."

I’m not playing games. Do you really think that locking somebody up until they die isn’t equivalent to killing them?

Since we are talking about wrongfully convicted criminals here, is it preferable to lock an innocent man up for 50 years until he dies, to executing him quickly? Both are death sentences.

[pulykamell]

Jello –

Here is your list of countries who still have the death penalty: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/dp/abrelist.htm

Lemme give you some of the highlights of capital punishment retentionist countries:

Afghanistan, Algeria, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Russian Fed., Sierra Leone, Vietnam, and, of course, USA.

Countries that don’t have the death penalty, but you may suspect would: Azerbaijan, Colombia, Nicaragua, Romania, etc…

We’re in lovely company, aren’t we? This is not meant to prove or disprove anything…just to make you think for a moment.

A false conviction is a tragedy no matter what the sentence.
Granted there is the possibility of turning over the conviction, but leaving that one faint improbable glimmer of hope is quite cruel. I remember reading that if you really want to torture somebody you can’t take away all hope.

I’m not quite sure I understand the logic behind this: That it is better to kill an innocent than to leave him with the “faint improbable glimmer of hope”? Hmmm. I would beg to differ. It seems to me that Anthony Porter (one of the Illinois cases that Prof. Protess’s class helped poke holes in) was pretty happy to be set free and at no point did he seem like he was gonna give up fighting. It seems that most people on death row were not ready to give up without a fight. Sounds to me like life in prison is the preferred choice to death for these prisoners.

[pepperlandgirl]

Have you ever been on jury duty? I would think it is much more likely for a jury to convict when they don’t
have to make the decision if that person should be executed. They get to wash their hands of it, and pass it
on to somebody else. This seperation actually makes it easier to get a conviction. That means more
innocent people convicted.

You are wrong about that. In some states the jury DOES decide whether or not the guilty party is executed.
From http://www.essential.org/dpic/firstpage.html
Who Decides Sentence: Jury
Arkansas-
California
Connecticut
Georgia
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisianna
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas (Which destroys your theory BTW)
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming
So, of the 37 states that actually have the death penalty, in 29 of them the jury makes the decision.

I would think that crimes of passion not withstanding (which might be manslaughter,) most criminals are
very aware of the potential consequences of their actions

And most probably don’t care either way.

I was quite careful in my OP. If you commit murder, you are no longer entitled to live. If you disagree, fine.
but if you are gonna be trite you might as well at least be original. We just discussed this “kill them all, let
God sort them out” point a few posts ago.

I wasn’t being trite. Tell me, what’s your defintion of murder? I’m just curious why the tax payers as a whole gets to decide who lives and who dies, and single tax payers (criminals) can’t do the same. With the death penalty in effect, it’s the same as saying the government has god-like powers, and individual people do not. It is, at best, a double standard. Why do I have to comply with the laws of the land if the government does not?
Murder is executing somebody on an individual basis. Capital Punishment is murdering somebody on a state basis.

[2sense]

I am glad that you agree that a modern government should not unneccessarily kill its citizens.

I would consider that barbaric.

We have a sophisticated society that is capable of keeping murderers from harming the general public ( prison ). So, why is it neccessary to kill them?
To save money?

[David_B]

Scylla said:

Got “not found” on both links. Thanks anyway.

Crap! You’re right. Sorry.

Let’s try again:

http://www.chicago.tribune.com/news/metro/chicago/ws/0,,37842,00.html

And:

http://www.chicago.tribune.com/news/nationworld/ws/0,1246,21398,00.html

Hopefully, those will work.

I had said: “In at least one case, the time for the execution had already been there once (the one who “failed” the IQ test, as I mentioned in a previous message) and the witness hadn’t changed anything. So why later under your scenario?” You replied:

A sample of one does not proof make.

Nope. But it’s one more than you have, I’m afraid. And that was just one off the top of my head. I bet if I decided to go through all those Tribune articles again, I’d find more.

If you lock somebody up for twenty years and set them free, there isn’t much left of the man who walked into prison two decades ago.

More than if you simply execute him.

Frankly, that isn’t your call to make. If somebody is found guilty of a murder they didn’t commit and they think life in prison is too much for them to face, they can find a way to commit suicide. But obviously none of the guys in Illinois felt that way. They kept fighting and eventually got out. I bet if I asked them all if they would rather have just been executed quickly, none would say, “Yes.”

One convicted killer made that point in a book I read a few years ago (forget the title, sorry.) He admitted his guilt. He even admitted that he probably deserved to die becuase of his crime. He also made the point that after thirty years in prison he was no longer the same young man who murdered an innocent girl. THAT young man escaped the death penalty.

What’s your point? We’re talking about innocent men. So you bring up an admittedly guilty one.

It works the other way too. After an extended period of time, the man that was locked up falsely no longer exists. His life has been irrevocably taken from him.

I’m sorry, but bullshit. His life would have been irrevocably taken from him if he were executed, as under your idea. Yes, those 15 years have been irrevocably taken from him, but he may have many more left. Most people would much rather still be alive. I know I would.

Setting this man free after 15 or twenty years doesn’t “partially fix the error.” It just makes it ironic. I might even argue that that scenario is even crueler than a quick execution.

You might argue that, but you’d be wrong. Dead wrong.

I had asked: “Who said anything about uncertain guilt?” You replied:

I think you started it, by bringing up the fact that a certain percentage of inmates on death row are actually innocent.

That had nothing to do with the way you used it, though, as I explained in that message.

I had noted: "Just because a convicted criminal is not executed does not put him back on the street.

I’ve mentioned this before, as have others. Life without parole. Throw away the key. You don’t have to worry
about him killing innocents, and the rest of us don’t have to worry about the government killing innocents.
Should make everybody happy." You replied:

A valid point.

Gosh, thanks.

Life without parole IS a death sentence though.

For a person who is never proven not-guilty, yes. For an innocent person who can fight, not necessarily.

Does it somehow make it better that a person who is wrongfully convicted rots in jail for 50 years and then dies.

It doesn’t make it “better,” but it gives a lot more chance to prove his innocence than your couple-months-and-then-you-die scenario, as we see with the innocent men in Illinois who I’ve mentioned.

If I were convicted of a murder I didn’t commit, I’d certainly rather spend it in jail than die immediately. While jail is no picnic, at least I could have hope of the truth coming out. And, well, I’d be alive. Like I said, if I ever got to the point where I completely lost hope, I’d find a way to kill myself. That would be my choice – not you making the choice that I’d be “better off” dead.

Again, that may be crueler than executing him quickly.

In your opinion. Who are you to be making that choice for somebody?

Granted there is the possibility of turning over the conviction, but leaving that one faint improbable glimmer of hope is quite cruel.

How do you know how “faint” or “improbable” it is? I’ve already noted a number of cases where that actually happened. So far, in Illinois, there has been a 50% chance of your case resolution being an execution and a 50% chance of it being freedom if you’re on death row!

[Kamino_Neko]

David B wisely entoned:

Just because a convicted criminal is not executed does not put him back on the street.

You’d be surprised the reactions that comment gets at times.

If I hear ‘When they escape, you’ll be sorry’ one more time…

Never if, always when…

Yeeeesh…

[David_B]

I wouldn’t be surprised – I’ve seen it before.

I must say, I was surprised to see Groundskeeper’s comment that people convicted of murder have probably done something to deserve it anyway. I’ve only known one other person to make that “argument,” and he’s an idiot who would basically accept whatever Rush Limbaugh and/or the GOP told him. I never thought I’d see that again, and have even made fun of it as being one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen in several threads around here.

[Scylla]

Pepperlandgirl:

The determination of guilt and the sentencing are two seperate events. My point is that the jury does not know that their conviction will result in a death sentence.

I would define murder as the unjustified deliberate killing of another human being.

Certainly there are some circumstances in which the taking of another life can be justified. Self-defense is one example. Another might be the execution of a convicted murderer by the state.

2sense:

It is necessary to kill them not for financial reasons but for moral ones.

1. Revenge. If you commit a crime, you should be punished for it. The punishment should fit the crime. If you murder, you forfeit your right to life. Your life should be taken from you.

2. Deterrant. As others have pointed out, this is unproven. Both ways. However, there have been claims that the crackdown and harsher penalties for drunk driving have resulted in fewer fatalities and drunk driving convictions in spite of increased vigilance. At least in PA.

Our whole legal system is basically founded on the deterrant factor. If you are caught committing such and such a crime, you will recieve such and such a penalty. Most people don’t park in front of fire hydrants because they are afraid a fire truck won’t have access to a fire hydrant. They don’t do it becuase they don’t want to get a ticket.

I had a problem with a repeat tresspasser on my property until I called the police on him. He was fined, and told that the next instance would result in a night in jail (he was poaching.) I haven’t seen him since.

When I was a kid I stole a playboy magazine from a drugstore. I was caught. I had a frightening discussion with a policeman, and my parents about the penalties for what I had done, and what would happen if I ever did it again. I never did. I was never even tempted.

While training my horses, undesirable behavior results in discipline. Desirable behavior is rewarded. The horses understand this quite well.

If a young man is convicted of a drive-bye killing, and sent to prison for several years, he joins a society of peers where he may be respected, and his behavior reinforced. He may learn how to be a better criminal, a better killer. It is doubtful that he will become more fit for society as a result of his incarceration. After several years he may be released and enjoy respect for his deed. This is not rehabilitation. This is reinforcement.

If that same person is put to death, and others know that the same fate awaits them if they commit a similar deed, how can that fail to be a deterrant?

Most criminals are aware of the risks they take in their actions. The problem is that these risks are acceptable. In order to create an effective deterrant the risks have to become unacceptable.

3. Moral. A murder simply no longer has the right to live.

pulykamel:

Without getting to grisly, if you torture somebody and you immediately inflict catastrophic irreparable damage to a person, there isn’t much more you can do to that person. They become resigned to their fate. You have taken from them that which they wish to preserve, and you don’t have the power to take it again. You create despair. You no longer have any leverage from which to inflict further pain. They have escaped, and the torture is over.

If you maintain hope you have a lot more leverage. You can continue to torture by slowly taking away that hope little by little.

Someone in prison, in death row, undergoes just this kind of torture. The difference of course is that it is not physical in nature. Day after day, they grow older and older. The hope of returning to a normal free life is slowly disapearing. As the days, and months, and appeals wind down, the day if execution groes closer and closer. Hope is taken away piece, like the death of a thousand cuts.
It is torture.

[pepperlandgirl]

The determination of guilt and the sentencing are two seperate events. My point is that the jury does not
know that their conviction will result in a death sentence.

A jury doesn’t know what they are convicting the accused party of? Every jury in the country knows that when they find somebody guilty of 1st degree murder, the guilty party could be handed down the death sentence. Not only that, but they could get the death sentence from the same jury that found them guilty. What makes you think the jury doesn’t know the possible result of a 1st degree murder verdict?

1. Revenge. If you commit a crime, you should be punished for it. The punishment should fit the crime. If
   you murder, you forfeit your right to life. Your life should be taken from you.

So, rapists should be castrated?

2. Deterrant. As others have pointed out, this is unproven. Both ways. However, there have been claims that
   the crackdown and harsher penalties for drunk driving have resulted in fewer fatalities and drunk driving
   convictions in spite of increased vigilance. At least in PA.

If it’s unproven, don’t name it as a factor. As a matter of fact, I’m the only one who has posted evidence about deterrence, and it’s not in your favor.

                   The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder
                   rate. In
                   1997, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The South accounts
                   for 80% of
                   executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the
                   lowest murder
                   rate. 

If a young man is convicted of a drive-bye killing, and sent to prison for several years, he joins a society of
peers where he may be respected, and his behavior reinforced. He may learn how to be a better criminal, a
better killer. It is doubtful that he will become more fit for society as a result of his incarceration. After
several years he may be released and enjoy respect for his deed. This is not rehabilitation. This is
reinforcement.

So killing this person is the obvious answer. Taking his freedom away and keeping him in jail would be too simple. So let’s not do that. Many people would rather be dead then be in prison, so if you are going to punish them, at least make it a bit more strict. Many killers don’t care if they live or die anyway.

              3. Moral. A murder simply no longer has the right to live

According to you. If you are going to make such broad statements, back it up with evidence. Something you have not done yet, but I’m sure you can figure out how.

Someone in prison, in death row, undergoes just this kind of torture. The difference of course is that it is not
physical in nature. Day after day, they grow older and older. The hope of returning to a normal free life is
slowly disapearing. As the days, and months, and appeals wind down, the day if execution groes closer
and closer. Hope is taken away piece, like the death of a thousand cuts.
It is torture.

So, is capital punishment intended as punishment, justice, or mercy? You have stated a murderer needs to be deterred. (Punishment) But then you turn around and say that keeping them in prison would be closer to torture, and too much of a punishment, so you advocate the death penalty (Mercy) But you do not seem concerned with the innocent men and women that may die if your plan went through (Lack of justice)

Maybe if you clear that up, you’re arguements will be a bit easier to understand.

[Scylla]

Yeah, GW didn’t really help my argument with that one.

Gotta take this first:

DavidB said:

“How do you know how “faint” or “improbable” it is? I’ve already noted a number of cases where that
actually happened. So far, in Illinois, there has been a 50% chance of your case resolution being an
execution and a 50% chance of it being freedom if you’re on death row!”

I find that genuinely scary on more than one level.

By no means do I beleive that are legal system is anywhere near infallible, but without having yet read the articles I find it very difficult to believe that rigorous as the system is, 50% of the inmates on death row are actually innocent.

I don’t know which scenario is worse, but it certainly doesn’t speak well for the judicial system in Illinois either way. If only a fraction of the murders in Illinois reesult in a conviction, and fully half of those result in the incarceration of the wrong man (perhaps even larger with a non-capitol murder trial since a death penalty case is treated more rigorously than a non-death penalty case,) than this more of an argument about the innefectual nature of our legal system than the validity of various punishments for crimes.

(Note to self: If you need to commit murder, do it in Illinois.)

What I have been proposing is of course a much more rigorous (liking that word today) trial and appeal process than we have today. Fast doesn’t necessarily mean sloppy.

You have neglected to comment on the aspects of my suggestion which may in fact prevent wrongful conviction in death penalty cases.

In my scenario if the DA decides to go for a murder charge, and fails to get a conviction the murderer goes free. Even if he gets the conviction there is an automatic appeal, and a waiting period during which the only alternative to execution is release of the plaintiff. The DA better have a super rock solid case if he goes for the death penalty, otherwise his plaintiff may be turned free over the merest glimmer of doubt just to avoid the possibility of the execution of an innocent man.

Death penalty cases in my scenario would be relatively rare. In all but the most solid of cases a plea bargain for manslaughter would almost certainly result.

By the way, I would gladly settle for mandatory life sentences for all convicted murderers.

[David_B]

Pepperlandgirl said:

Every jury in the country knows that when they find somebody guilty of 1st degree murder, the guilty party could be handed down the death sentence.

Indeed, at least in some (most?) states, if not all, the prosecutors decide ahead of time if they will be seeking the death penalty, and then the jury must be questioned as to whether they could impose the death penalty if the person is found guilty. They know damned well what the possibility is.