You Kill, You Die.

[Groundskeeper_Willie]

David B. said:

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.

David, you may be the moderator, but you’re way out of line here. If you had actually read what I wrote, you would find that at no time did I say that I approved of capital punishment. In fact I disagree with it, for much the same reasons as others have stated. I personally think that Rush Limbaugh is a menace to civil society in the USA. What I was doing, was to try to provide a basis for discussion: how many innocent people die as a result of wrongful convictions, versus how many innocent people die as a result of freed murderers killing again. First of all, I restated the OP as an equation:

If your objective is to reduce the number of deaths of innocent people to a minimum, then it is best to execute nearly all convicted killers, even if you know that there are probably some innocent people among them. For example, assume that you have 100 convicted killers, 10 of who are innocent of the crime that they were convicted.

Say that on average, a released murderer has a 20% chance of killing again. Working out the math, for every 10 convicted killers released we have one ‘innocent’ released and 9 guilty, who go on to kill 1.8 other people.

I followed that up with an admission that those proportions were just guesses, and asked if anyone had better information:

These are not the actual percentages, of course. If someone has the actual percentages, it should be possible to find out how many additional deaths have occurred due to releasing convicted killers, and how that number compares to the number of ‘innocent’ people wrongfully executed.

In between the first two quotes, I inserted a remark about ‘innocents’ convicted of murder, which is what seems to have prompted you to have gone off on a smear campaign:

Of course, ‘innocent’ is a relative term. These people are not choir boys. Most of the 10 ‘innocent’ people would have been guilty of other violent crimes themselves, just not the particular crime that they were convicted of.

Where did I say that they should be executed? I simply stated the verifiable fact that most people convicted of murder also have a rap sheet as well.

If you disagree with the numbers, fine. Show me numbers that prove that more innocents are executed by mistake than are murdered by released killers. No problem. But don’t go around on other threads pissing on me.

Bill

[Scylla]

Pepperlandgirl:

A jury may be aware of the possibility of a death penalty. THat is not the same thing as a certainty of a death penalty. I consider it a crucial difference. “It is possible that if I convict this man may be put to death (after ten years and a zillion appeals of course, at which chance others will have the ability to undo any mistakes I may make.)” Or. “If we convict this person, he will almostly surely die before summer turns to fall.”

I hope you would agree that those are two very different scenarios. I think the distinction I am attempting to draw is a valid one.

You said:

“So, rapists should be castrated?”

I think that’s a “slippery slope argument.”

To answer your question though, I would think castration; chemical or physical, would be cruel and ineffective. Rape is a crime of violence and power, not of sex. The removal of a rapists testicles and/or penis would not necessarily reduce his desire to violently dominate women, nor his ability.

you said:

“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.”

Sorry Pepper, I will do as I please despite your attempts at censorship. Evolution is not “proven” either. It is remotely, conceivably possible that all of life, fossils and all, was deposited on Earth as is by a deity with a sense of homor. That’s why evolution is still called a theory.

Deterrance is also a theory. I gave examples of it that may be valid, and I also mentioned that the death penalty as it exists today doesn’t seem much of a deterrant as it stands. What’s your point?

Then you said:

“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.”

I take it you are arguing for a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole or commutation for all murderers. If you are not, than you have no point. I would think most killers care very much about dying. Why would they not want to live? Why would their desire for life be less than our own?

As I said in my previous post, a prison often provides an excellent finsihing school for young criminals and killers.

Then:

“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.”

Sorry Pepper, that’s clearly a personal opinion of mine. I don’t need to back it up with evidence. I think it makes perfectly logical sense. I believe that some crimes are unfgorgivable. You are free to disagree. What sort of evidence to you expect me to post in support of a moral assertion?

Some things are simply true. Other than from the same moral standpoint, I also can’t back up the statement that “rape is wrong.” That doesn’t make it right.

Finally:

“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)”

Perhaps your confusion has something to do with the fact that you seem to think deterrance and punishment are synonyms.
I see capital punishment as I’ve suggested it being punishment, detterence, and justice. I don’t think it’s particularly merciful. I also don’t think that a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole (that gets carried out) is particularly more merciful than a death sentence.

If you locked your dog in a tiny cage 23 hours a day, untiul it grew old and died, would you be guilty of cruelty against it? I think so. More merciful to shoot it. Of course the animal would disagree with you. If you tried to strangle it it would struggle to live. That’s pretty much hard-wired into most animals.

I have a dog that is a much better “person” than a lot of people I know. I think he has more value and a greater right to life than a cold-blooded murderer. Yet if I were to take him out back and euthanize him I would have committed no crime.

Society does not value his life. He has no advocate.

I can’t understand why somebody would want to protect a person who is a murderer, who is much much less than a dog.

I am sure that the prisoners in question, and perhaps the press (still haven’t checked those articles out) would like you to believe that the jails are full of innocents. I’m not sure I’m that gullible.

Let me remind you that there is a victim too. That victim and their families are entitled to justice.

If the wrong person is in jail than two parties have been deeply wronged and a killer has gone free. This is a tragedy. We need to ensure that this doesn’t happen (as it seems to do 50% of the time in Illinois, Jeez I still can’t get over that.)

The fact that the Illinois legal system seems to be an abject and incompetent failure does not invalidate the justice of putting guilty murderers to death for their crimes, for justice, deterrant, and moral imperative.

[David_B]

Groundskeeper said:

David B. said:

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.

David, you may be the moderator, but you’re way out of line here. … I personally think that Rush Limbaugh is a menace to civil society in the USA.

I’m not sure how you read what I said, but I was talking about the previous guy being an idiot and a Limbaugh fanatic, not you. Thus, there was nothing at all “out of line” about what I said, especially since you did, in fact, make the argument I mentioned. Specifically, you said:

Of course, ‘innocent’ is a relative term. These people are not choir boys. Most of the 10 ‘innocent’ people would have been guilty of other violent crimes themselves, just not the particular crime that they were convicted of.

So I don’t see how you can get upset about us taking your own words at face value.

But don’t go around on other threads pissing on me.

??? ???
The only thing I can think of is that you totally misunderstood what I had said about the other person I was discussing. If so, I suggest you read more carefully next time before leaping into Reply mode. If not, I’d ask that you please explain what on Earth you’re talking about.

Scylla said:

I can’t understand why somebody would want to protect a person who is a murderer, who is much much less than a dog.

No, apparently you really can’t understand. Because if you did, you’d understand that we’re not talking about guilty people, but rather the innocent ones who get trapped in the system. Frankly, by now I had hoped you would understand that… < sigh >

Let me remind you that there is a victim too. That victim and their families are entitled to justice.

Where justice equals killing the wrong person? Somehow, I just don’t get that.

If the wrong person is in jail than two parties have been deeply wronged and a killer has gone free. This is a tragedy. We need to ensure that this doesn’t happen (as it seems to do 50% of the time in Illinois, Jeez I still can’t get over that.)

But apparently you have gotten over it already – to the point that you’re ignoring the problem.

The fact that the Illinois legal system seems to be an abject and incompetent failure does not invalidate the justice of putting guilty murderers to death for their crimes, for justice, deterrant, and moral imperative.

Actually, it does indeed invalidate it, for the reasons I stated in a message earlier. Until we can come up with the perfect system, without room for executing innocent people, I think we have a moral obligation to stop executions.

[Scylla]

Upon reconsideration, equating one of your earlier posts to the vile likes of CB and Pahley is probably a low blow. I would like to retract that with sincere apologies.

BUT! (and don’t tell me you didn’t see this coming,)

I was provoked.

Being an advocate of the death penalty does not mean that I don’t mind or care about innocent people being to death for crimes they didn’t commit.

Assuming that this is true is as false as saying that all proponents of evolution are atheists, or that the Cubs might someday win a World Series. Both are simply untrue.

Anyway,

In glancing through some of those articles quickly, I guess Illinois might not be ready for my plan. You actually need to find the guilty party if you want to execute him. You just can’t grab any old person off the street as a substitute, as these articles might suggest seems to be the common practice there.

For my plan to make sense you actually do need a legal system that has a high degree of accuracy and competence in determining guilt.

[Groundskeeper_Willie]

David B. said:

I’m not sure how you read what I said, but I was talking about the previous guy being an idiot and a Limbaugh fanatic, not you.

The only thing I can think of is that you totally misunderstood what I had said about the other person I was discussing. If so, I suggest you read more carefully next time before leaping into Reply mode.

If I misread what you wrote, then of course I retract my last post. I think that we both were too ambiguous in our posts. I did not clarify the first post that I wrote. I could have added some words putting out my personal position. But your post was also ambiguous, at least to me.

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.

I read the bolded statements as one continuous thought.

One other thing: ‘People convicted of murder have probably done something to deserve it anyway’ I NEVER SAID THAT! I did say that most people convicted of murder have committed other violent crimes. There’s a difference.

Bill

[Scylla]

DavidB:

you sighed:

“No, apparently you really can’t understand. Because if you did, you’d understand that we’re not talking
about guilty people, but rather the innocent ones who get trapped in the system. Frankly, by now I had
hoped you would understand that… < sigh >”

Actually we’ve been talking about both. I oughtta know, I wrote the OP.

I completely understand that you can never create a system that will guarrantee that the wrong man is never being punished. You can also never guarrantee that a person released from prison will not commit another crime. For that matter you cannot guarrantee that I won’t get hit by a meteorite as I drive to work tomorrow.

Innoculations kill a certain percentage of the infants to whom they are given. There is a government institution set up to pay out compensation to the families of these infants.

Despite this hard, and regrettable fact, I doubt many would argue that innoculations are not a good thing. Many more lives are saved, than are lost. If I advocate innoculation does that mean I don’t regret the fact that babies die as a result of them?

Any system is going to create errors. When you are dealing with things like the death penalty and capital punishment, these errors are necessarily going to be enormous and tragic. There is no avoiding that.

A 50% error rate in death penalty convictions in Illinois is so horrendous that it invalidates the entire legal system for dealing with murder if it’s actually correct. If that’s the best we can do we might as well declare murder legal. (being sarcastic)

I would think that with the tools of modern science and forensics we could convict the wrong person WELL under 1% of the time. Is that acceptable? No, but we’d have to live with it while we refined it further and further.

Anyway, I’ll examine your links in detail, and comment on the specifics tomorrow.

[2sense]

1. Revenge.
   I find the concept of a government killing for revenge shockingly barbaric.
   You obviously disagree. Fine, your opinion is just as valid as mine.
   Why is it neccessary for a government to avenge a murder victim?

2. Deterrant.
   It is unproven. OK, lets not argue it then.

3. Moral.
   Why is it neccessary for the government to kill everyone that does not have a right to live?

[Danielinthewolvesden]

DSYesq & David B. you both make the point that “life imprisonment without parole” prevent recidivisms in killers. your wrong. Killers have been paroled by “accident” or deliberately by dumb Govenors, and have killed again. They have escaped, and then often kill again. They have killed Guards. They have killed other prisoners (and some schnook in the Pen for boosting cars does NOT deserve to be killed.) I have no doubt, whatsoever, that these 4 cases add up to far more than the 400 or so “innocents” executed. (And in most cases, where later evidence releases a prisoner, it is not becuase they don’t still think he did it, it is because there is no longer evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt”). Yes, we have a duty to see that no innocent is executed, but we have a higher duty to prevent a murderer from killing another innocent. There is only one sure way to do that- execution.

Of, course, the Death penalty should be for only 1st degree murder. In every one of those “I killed him because he killed my wife” type cases, I have no doubt that a DA would accept a plea for 2nd degree murder, or even Homicide. And it should be further restricted to:1: 2nd Offenses (the 1st count could be a 2nd degree). Now, the chance of being convicted wrongfully of TWO unconnected murders is infintesimal. or :2; especially heinous crimes (Psycopaths) or :3: If the Jury is conviced beyond ALL doubt(not just “reasonable doubt”). This 3rd I am willing to be talked out of.

The especial use for this would be the “lifer” who escapes & kills again, or kills a guard or another prisoner. After all, what can you DO to a guy who is in for life w/o parole? Can you 2 (DSYesq & David B)STILL disagree with the Death Penalty for THESE Offenders? If so, then the blood from any furthr killings is on the hands of those Politicians who agree with you, and to a lesser extent, your hands.

[pepperlandgirl]

A jury may be aware of the possibility of a death penalty. THat is not the same thing as a certainty of a
death penalty. I consider it a crucial difference. “It is possible that if I convict this man may be put to death
(after ten years and a zillion appeals of course, at which chance others will have the ability to undo any
mistakes I may make.)” Or. “If we convict this person, he will almostly surely die before summer turns to
fall.”

              I hope you would agree that those are two very different scenarios. I think the distinction I am attempting to
              draw is a valid one. 

And I think people will be less likely to convict somebody of 1st degree murder if that was the case. That is as big a problem as people sitting in prison waiting to die. Forget about innocent people being sent to the Chair, NOBODY would be sent to the chair.

“So, rapists should be castrated?”

              I think that's a "slippery slope argument."

              To answer your question though, I would think castration; chemical or physical, would be cruel and
              ineffective. Rape is a crime of violence and power, not of sex. The removal of a rapists testicles and/or penis
              would not necessarily reduce his desire to violently dominate women, nor his ability. 

You yourself said that the punishment should fit the crime. And I’m sure the woman who was raped doesn’t give a fig if the person who raped her wanted power. All she knows is she was brutally assaulted. What if murder wasn’t about death? What if it was about power and violence? That wounldn’t make a big difference to the person killed. So, if you believe all murderers should be murdered in turn, then that line of reasoning should be extended to all people who commit crimes.

“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.”

              Sorry Pepper, I will do as I please despite your attempts at censorship. Evolution is not "proven" either. It is
              remotely, conceivably possible that all of life, fossils and all, was deposited on Earth as is by a deity with a
              sense of homor. That's why evolution is still called a theory.

You said it was unproven by both sides. I was the only one who offered any kind of evidence, you did not offer a shred anyway. Evolution is not ‘proven’, yet when people argue over it, they at least put forth the effort to cite examples and give evidence. You have done neither for any of your arguements. Why should we believe anything you say? As far as we know, all you have is WAG. You have not done anything to prove otherwise. If you are going to argue deterrence at least cite SOMETHING that will back you up, anything! This is a debate, not a “I feel this! And because I feel this way, it’s valid and everybody should agree!”

I take it you are arguing for a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole or commutation for all
murderers. If you are not, than you have no point. I would think most killers care very much about dying.
Why would they not want to live? Why would their desire for life be less than our own?

Yes, I certianly am arguing for mandatory life sentence w/o possiblity of parole. I think that is the best possible solution.

              Sorry Pepper, that's clearly a personal opinion of mine. I don't need to back it up with evidence. I think it
              makes perfectly logical sense. I believe that some crimes are unfgorgivable. You are free to disagree. What
              sort of evidence to you expect me to post in support of a moral assertion?

              Some things are simply true. Other than from the same moral standpoint, I also can't back up the
              statement that "rape is wrong." That doesn't make it right. 

I’m the kind of person who would accept ANY religious doctrine in a debate,(even if it’s there is no God and the only religious doctrine I believe in is my own personal morality) not to prove the veracity or validity of a statement, but to simply understand where one is coming from. You have not even done that.

I see capital punishment as I’ve suggested it being punishment, detterence, and justice. I don’t think it’s
particularly merciful. I also don’t think that a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole (that gets
carried out) is particularly more merciful than a death sentence.

Right here you say that capital punishment is not merciful. Then you say

If you locked your dog in a tiny cage 23 hours a day, untiul it grew old and died, would you be guilty of
cruelty against it? I think so. More merciful to shoot it

So, you say that capital punishment is not merciful, then you turn around and contradict yourself by saying it would be more merciful to kill. Which is it?

I can’t understand why somebody would want to protect a person who is a murderer, who is much much
less than a dog.

Because, maybe he is a human as well as a murderer, and some of us believe in forgiveness. “To forgive is divine”

              Let me remind you that there is a victim too. That victim and their families are entitled to justice. 

So according to you all victims families recquire death for justice? Sorry, that’s another broad statement, that’s more then a personal belief. The least you could do is offer some poll results or something. Your idea of justice is not the same as everybody’s.
It’s hard to debate with you when you don’t offer anything other then personal opinions to argue against.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Pepper: Killers who are sentenced to life- “wopop”, still kill, and they kill innocents. Where is the mercy there?

If someone could guarantee that no one in prison for Life wopop would ever kill again, I might buy it, but they do, and you can’t. So the only way to protect the innocent from repeat killers is Death, not “Life”.

[Satan]

To me, the only reason you would be in favor of the death penalty is revenge. It’s obviously not a deterant. A killer is equally unable to harm society under lock and key. It is far more costly to have the death penalty than not contrary to what others say because of the appeals process which is guaranteed in this country (in spite of the OP).

Revenge. That’s the only thing that the death penalty gives us. We’re getting even with you, fucker. Now you die too.

nd you know what? I’m all for revenge. If anyone hurt Drain Bead, I would do all I could to exact that revenge personally, and I would see no problem having the state do it for me.

So, I would be pro Death Penalty. I really am at heart, however, I doubt we humans have the ability to do it right.

We’re been talking here about innocents killed and innocent people let go who would have otherwise been killed. Let’s forget them for a monent (though I’ll come back to them later).

Let’s talk about how a upper-middle class white male kills another white man. Then, let’s have that same white guy who was killed offed under the same circumstances, exacpt it was done by a lower-class black man.

Which one would you want to be at sentencing?

So, we’re killing innocents, the punishment is not being enforced consistantly at all, and having a death penalty is more costly, and takes the criminals out of society effectively anyway.

But I can agree that revenge is enough of a motivator to overlook the reality. I do it myself.

Still, to me if you are going to come right out and say you are all for the death penalty, you have to meet the following criteria:

(1) Admit that it is revenge alone that makes you want to do this, because every other argument really falls hollow.

(2) Say (and truly mean it) that you would gladly be the innocent sacrifice that is guaranteed to happen with the death penalty. That you would die in a gas chamber for a crime you did not commit. Or that you would send your mother, your spouse, or even your own child to death for a crime they did not commit so that some guilty people will die.

You agree with both of those statements, and you are perfectly entitled to be pro-death penalty. If you do not, they you are not being honesty with yourself, or are delusional about thee issue.

After spending much time and hearing much debate and seeing many statisttics from both sides of the camp, this is the only logical conclusion I have been able to come up with.

---

Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, one week, six days, 4 hours, 37 minutes and 18 seconds.
1727 cigarettes not smoked, saving $215.96.
Life saved: 5 days, 23 hours, 55 minutes.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

SATAN: “a killer is unable to harm society under lock & key”? He can still kill a guard can’t he? They do don’t they? And killers DO escape, right? And idiot Govenors parole them, right? So, “lock & key” is no ironclad defence vs repeat “lifer” killers. But DEATH is.

[Satan]

**SATAN: “a killer is unable to harm society under lock & key”? He can still kill a guard can’t he?

**

I submit that far fewer guards are killed by inmates who are on death row or have committed crimes which could be punishable by death than than innocent men and womjen have been unjustly put to death. Prove me wrong, since you are the one who brought this up.

**And killers DO escape, right?

**

:rolleyes:

Why yes, there certainly is a huge problem with inmates escaping. And then killing while they are escaped. I would like to see statistics on this, thanks.

If you can unearth any stats that show a person being killed by an inmate who was in prison for crimes that are punishable by death after that criminal broke out of jail is more likely than a person dying by lightning, I will retract my statement.

**And idiot Govenors parole them, right?

**

What about “life without parole” is so hard to understand here?

So, “lock & key” is no ironclad defence vs repeat “lifer” killers. But DEATH is.

So, are you ready to die to prevent an escaped convict kill someone on the outside, or to spare a prison guard? Because with the death penalty, innocent people are dying, and in far more numbers than the hypothesis you suggest - and have to back up, I might add.

So, ready to die from a crime you didn’t commit? Ready to have your child die for a crime they didn’t commit?

---

Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, one week, six days, 5 hours, 44 minutes and 27 seconds.
1729 cigarettes not smoked, saving $216.19.
Life saved: 6 days, 5 minutes.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

SATAN: Since, my list of those to whom the Death penalty should apply is short, I could confidently say that there are more “Lifer” killers than Innocents to be executed. My main “to be executed” is SECOND offenders. And in those MAYBE 400 “innocents” executed in the USA (just somebodies guess, I have not seen any figures), I can say with complete confidence that there were none who were TWICE convicted of
(unrelated) murders they did not commit. You say “struck by lightning”? I’d say that # is lower than those killed by meteorites in the last 100 years. (ie 0). Can you say not ONE guard was killed? We lost several just in this State in the last 10 years. Can you say not ONE person was killed by an escaped murderer? And as far as “without possibility of parole”, any Govenor can commute any sentence, any time. despite what the Court decided was the sentence. Remember “willie Horton” in that Presidential Campaign?

I have said that we must ensure no innocents are executed. I am sure with 2nd offenders.

Here is my challenge: to all you “death penalty opposers” - can you REALLY say a second offender deserves to live? If so, you are no longer debating, you are just giving out emotional nonsense.

[pulykamell]

a little aside:

growing up catholic, i remember a nice little section from genesis regarding god’s intent to smite sodom and gomorrah. basically, (starting at genesis chapter 18 or so)lot is worried as to whether the innocent would be struck down with the innocent. The basic point is Lot said, would you strike down the city if there were 50 innocents? No, says God? 45? No, says God. 30? No, says God. etc, etc, etc.

Even Old Testament doctrine is against killing any innocent
with the guilty. I don’t understand why so people of the religious persuasion are for it then, considered the poor batting average of our legal system.

Anyhow, to the question about applying only the death penalty to twice-convicted offenders. I am absolutely not
convinced that it isn’t possible to convict the same person twice on a murder charge. I don’t care if it’s only one person in a thousand, I believe it’s still wrong. But if we apply lifetime-without-parole to every murderer, then we won’t have twice-convicted murderers anyhow, now would we?

[pepperlandgirl]

And in those MAYBE 400 “innocents” executed in the USA (just somebodies
guess, I have not seen any figures)

I haven’t found any stats either, but I will continue to look. In the mean time, 86 innocent men on death row ALMOST died, but after years were found not guilty on appeals. Of the 632 deaths since Capital Punishment was brought back in the 70’s, how many do you think was innocent? I doubt all 632 were guilty.

I can say with complete confidence that there were none who
were TWICE convicted of
(unrelated) murders they did not commit.

Oooh, you can say it with complete confidence? Well, then obviously it must be true! How can we doubt anything * you* say, if it’s with complete confidence. To hell with evidence! (that was sarcasm BTW0

Can you say not ONE guard was killed? We
lost several just in this State in the last 10 years. Can you say not ONE person was killed by an
escaped murderer?

Can you say how many guards were killed? Can you say how many 1st degree murderers (Who are locked up in Max security BTW) escaped and killed again? Or are you just trying to make a point without any evidence again?

And as far as “without possibility of parole”, any Govenor can commute any
sentence, any time. despite what the Court decided was the sentence. Remember “willie Horton” in
that Presidential Campaign?

And, and God knows they are doing it all the time! Why just yesterday the Governor of CA released at least 15 of the 512 inmates on Death Row. Get a grip, Dan, the Governors are not releasing people every day, or pardoning them. I’m sure it happens very very rarely. Unless you can find proof that it happens all the time and prove me wrong.

Here is my challenge: to all you “death penalty opposers” - can you REALLY say a second offender
deserves to live? If so, you are no longer debating, you are just giving out emotional nonsense.

That’s just the thing, if the guy is a first offender, he probably wouldn’t be walking around anyway. 1st Offenders of what crime? Murder? So, if a first offender somehow gets out of prison, and kills again…wait, how many times has this happened? If you can cite a source that says the number of times, when, etc etc. And it’s obviously a growing problem, then I’ll be persuaded to your side of the arguement.

If so, you are no longer debating, you are just giving out emotional nonsense.

And so far you are just giving out nonsense, period.

[Scylla]

An interesting analysis on the death penalty as deterrance:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5258/deathdet.htm

[Scylla]

Here’s a link to another interesting article. It shows, among other things, why the analysis on the cost of executing a criminal vs. imprisoning him for life that was cited by Pepperlandgirl and others is false. It does not account for judicial costs accrued by lifers, but simply assumes they will have none. Based on this the integrity of the study is questionable.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/haagarticle.html

[Scylla]

Trying to do this in order:

2sense said:

“2. Deterrant.
It is unproven. OK, lets not argue it then.”

If it were “proven” it wouldn’t be arguable, would it?
If you don’t want t argue it, don’t. I will.
Pepperlandgirl quoted and replied:

"quote:

A jury may be aware of the possibility of a death penalty. THat is not the same thing as a certainty of a
death penalty. I consider it a crucial difference. “It is possible that if I convict this man may be put to death
(after ten years and a zillion appeals of course, at which chance others will have the ability to undo any
mistakes I may make.)” Or. “If we convict this person, he will almostly surely die before summer turns to
fall.”

I hope you would agree that those are two very different scenarios. I think the distinction I am attempting to
draw is a valid one.

---

And I think people will be less likely to convict somebody of 1st degree murder if that was the case. That is as big a problem as people sitting in prison waiting to die. Forget about innocent people being sent to the Chair, NOBODY would be sent to the chair."

Yes. They would be less likely to convict. This is my point. Both the jury and the DA would need a more rigid proof of guilt, before they were willing to implement the Death Penalty.

There probably would be fewer convictions. There would also likely be less false convictions, since the stakes are so high.

COncerning rape and castration:

“You yourself said that the punishment should fit the crime”

Yes I did, but castrating a rapist would not necessarily prevent him from perpetrating sexual violence against women in the future.

THen:

"I was the only one who offered any kind of evidence, you did not offer a shred anyway. Evolution is not ‘proven’, yet when people argue over it, they at least put forth the effort to cite examples and give evidence. You have done neither for any of your arguements. Why should we believe anything you say? As far as we know, all you have is WAG. You have not done anything to prove otherwise. If you are going to argue deterrence at least cite SOMETHING that will back you up, anything! This is a debate, not a “I feel this! And because I feel this way, it’s valid and everybody should agree!”

Yes, you posted evidence. I replied with why that evidence wasn’t valid. You didn’t respond. To recap, the death penalty is not implemented enough, or consistently for it’s detterance factor to be measurable. (See my first link.)
About 1 in 2,000 murders actually results in an execution. You stand a better chance of dying in a car crash than you do of being executed if you commit murder. How do you expect that to create a detterant?

You also need to remember that there are more types of evidence than cites from people who happen to agree with you, statistics of questionable value. An argument founded on logic can be evidence in support of an assertion until it’s refuted.

Then:

"So, you say that capital punishment is not merciful, then you turn around and contradict yourself by saying it would be more merciful to kill. Which is it? "

Obviously there are degrees of mercy, just as there are degrees of cruelty. THe world is not lack and white.

And:

"Because, maybe he is a human as well as a murderer, and some of us believe in forgiveness. “To forgive is divine”

THen leave it to God, if that’s what you want to do. Or, forgive them. WHile you are at it why don’t you invite some of these convicted murderers to live with you in your home?

A murderer has willingly stepped outside the farthest bounds of humanity. I think they no longer deserve the rights, you and I enjoy as human beings. To think otherwise acknowledges that you would be responsible for any subsequent crimes such a killer might commit.

Finally:

"quote:

Let me remind you that there is a victim too. That victim and their families are entitled to justice.

---

So according to you all victims families recquire death for justice? Sorry, that’s another broad statement, that’s more then a personal belief. The least you could do is offer some poll results or something. Your idea of justice is not the same as everybody’s.
It’s hard to debate with you when you don’t offer anything other than personal opinions to argue against."

You took that out of context. My quote was in referance to the fact that when the wrong man is convicted, the victims families have received no justice. Nowhere does that say that families of victims recquire death.

First you think punishment and deterrant are synonyms. Second, you expect me to post poll results in support of arguments I didn’t make. You cry for evidence, but don’t respond to it when it’s not in the form you prefer.

If you don’t like the way I argue, than don’t argue with me. I’m not going to change to suit your personal preferance, and especially when your complaint is an invalid one.

[Scylla]

Satan:

I don’t think that it is obvious that deterrance doesn’t work. Studies have gone both ways.

Today, if you are convicted of murder, the chances are less than 1 in 2000 that you will be executed (see my first link.) What kind of a deterrant is that supposed to produce?

If I put a million dollars in a jar, and hooked it up to a random number generator and a huge electric current, so that if you reached in the jar and took all the money you stood a 1 in 2000 chance of being fried, well a lot of people might take that chance.

Secondly, I don’t think you need to be willing to gladly die for a crime you didn’t commit in order to advocate the death penalty. I think this for the same reason that you don’t need to be willing to gladly sacrifice your child’s life because a certain percentage of innoculations produce fatal reactions in the children that they are given to if you are in favor of innoculations.

You do of course have to accept the risk. You don’t have to like it.
DavidB:

I worked my way through the first series of links and partially through the second.

The bias of the articles notwithstanding, they point to a very real and significant problem in Illinois.

It appears that a combination of three factors have coalesced to produce this disgusting phenomenom.

1. Police misconduct. This includes torture and falsification of evidence. John Burge may indeed be guilty of murder if any of the victims of his misconduct were executed.

2. Incompetant defense. Illinois seems behind the curve here. Appointing tax attorneys and rookies to defend capital murder cases is the worst kind of incompetance on the court’s part. It reeks of conspiracy. THis is especially ironic when the Cook county Public Defenders Homicide Task Force is widely acknowledged as containing some of the most highly regarded trial attorneys in the entire country.

Defendants must not realize that the public defenders offices typically contain excellent lawyers out to make a name for themselves. A position within the office is highly sought after and often will provide a first rate defense.

If it’s free, they figure it’s not very good, so they hire an incompetant attorney on their own.

(I am wondering why if the Cook’s County Public Defender’s Homicide Task Force is so highly regarded, how they managed to let so many ofthese cases slip through their fingers.)

Anyway, at least 12 states have established minimum standards for attorneys rying capitol cases. Hopefully Illinois will follow suit.

3. Prosecutorial Misconduct. This seems particulary heinous. Perhaps if the Prosecutor knew that a death sentence awaited him if it was uncovered that his misconduct resulted in death, he would be less likely to engage in the practice.

The only one that was significantly punished was John Burge. He got fired. Nobody else got anything worse than a slap on the wrist.

The Illinois situation is a travesty. In searching the net I’ve seen it elsewhere. The consensus seems to be that it is an example of a worst case scenario, and not typical of the justice system throughout the country.