I couldn't find a death penalty thread so here we go...
I am opposed because we can't trust the government to get it right and I don't like the government killing people who are not an immediate threat to anyone. People are sent to jail because they have proven they can't be members of society. Killing them after they're locked up is only revenge.
Not only can the government get it wrong, but we can't trust the government agents (police, prosecutors, judges, and juries) to be either honest or infallible.
An Arizona woman who spent more than two decades on death row in her 4-year-old son's killing was exonerated Monday, bringing an end to a controversial case that relied almost entirely on the work of a detective with a long history of misconduct.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Moliere wrote:I couldn't find a death penalty thread so here we go...
I am opposed because we can't trust the government to get it right and I don't like the government killing people who are not an immediate threat to anyone. People are sent to jail because they have proven they can't be members of society. Killing them after they're locked up is only revenge.
Not only can the government get it wrong, but we can't trust the government agents (police, prosecutors, judges, and juries) to be either honest or infallible.
An Arizona woman who spent more than two decades on death row in her 4-year-old son's killing was exonerated Monday, bringing an end to a controversial case that relied almost entirely on the work of a detective with a long history of misconduct.
I'm with you on circumstantial cases, but on those where it is irrefutable that they killed another I support the death penalty.
Rip wrote:I'm with you on circumstantial cases, but on those where it is irrefutable that they killed another I support the death penalty.
Define "irrefutable"? Test labs can be incompetent or fraudulent. Witnesses and cops lie all the time or they are simply wrong on what they saw. Prosecutors conspire with cops to control evidence presented in a court case. Videos and pictures can be faked. What infallible evidence are you willing to kill someone over?
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
I don't mean to make light of this really, but while I agree with you on this in general, I also agree with RIP (shudder) only in that sometimes it's not up for debate if the person did it at all - it's not even defended.
Insanity is something else... And that's where I struggle with the death penalty.
Rip wrote:I'm with you on circumstantial cases, but on those where it is irrefutable that they killed another I support the death penalty.
Define "irrefutable"? Test labs can be incompetent or fraudulent. Witnesses and cops lie all the time or they are simply wrong on what they saw. Prosecutors conspire with cops to control evidence presented in a court case. Videos and pictures can be faked. What infallible evidence are you willing to kill someone over?
That is why you do blind multiple lab tests to verify. I only see witness and cop statement as corroborative they are useless without physical evidence to support them. Videos and pictures can be faked to where you don't know the difference but an expert will be able to discern the difference.
An example(s) would be the Boston bomber, Eddie Ray Roth, James Eagan Holmes, and Jared L. Loughner.
I've always been torn on this. What is beyond a reasonable doubt?
Let's take Bin-Laden as an example. If he's admitted it and is calling for more murder, can a community or state try him and decide that the penalty is death?
If any group should have that power, it should be the institutions which were created of the people, by the people and for the people. But I've always been wishy-washy on whether it is appropriate for the state (created by the community, for the community, and made up of the community) to have that power or if it is better that no group/person/human entity have that power.
There is also the element of justice. Are there some crimes for which it is just that the perpetrator be put down by his peers? Either for the good of the community or the victims, etc.?
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I don't rule out capital punishment in practice--I definitely think there are crimes that merit death.
The problem is that not all such crimes can be established beyond a shadow of a doubt, and we have a history of presuming guilt when we shouldn't. It's better to let 1000 of the vilest killers linger in prison than to execute one innocent person; justice not fully served is better than ultimate punishment misapplied.
Holman wrote:I don't rule out capital punishment in practice--I definitely think there are crimes that merit death.
The problem is that not all such crimes can be established beyond a shadow of a doubt, and we have a history of presuming guilt when we shouldn't. It's better to let 1000 of the vilest killers linger in prison than to execute one innocent person; justice not fully served is better than ultimate punishment misapplied.
Is being put to death that much worse than spending the majority or all of your life getting ass pounded in prison? There needs to at least be an option for the prisoner to choose they would prefer death over life in prison. I for one would make that choice in a heartbeat. No way I want to spend a lifetime in prison, I would prefer a cruel and unusual death.
Prison ass-pounding isn't judicial punishment, it's casual torture, and it's as much a perversion of justice as the execution of innocent people. It doesn't have to be that way.
It's worth noting that not all sexual abuse of prisoners is at the hands of other prisoners. (David Kaiser has written a lot on this.) Our system sucks.
Holman wrote:I don't rule out capital punishment in practice--I definitely think there are crimes that merit death.
The problem is that not all such crimes can be established beyond a shadow of a doubt, and we have a history of presuming guilt when we shouldn't. It's better to let 1000 of the vilest killers linger in prison than to execute one innocent person; justice not fully served is better than ultimate punishment misapplied.
That rather depends on how many people there are, and how many the 1000 vilest killers may kill again. If you can't (won't?) afford to perpetually imprison 1000 people appropriately, then maybe it's appropriate to off them.
Think of a smaller ecosystem, e.g. a spaceship with no jail. maybe spacing someone is appropriate then, because of the risk, etc. What do you do with true sociopaths in a closed ecosystem situation where the individual threatens the collective's existence?
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Holman wrote:Prison ass-pounding isn't judicial punishment, it's casual torture, and it's as much a perversion of justice as the execution of innocent people. It doesn't have to be that way.
It's worth noting that not all sexual abuse of prisoners is at the hands of other prisoners. (David Kaiser has written a lot on this.) Our system sucks.
Whose system doesn't?
The biggest problem in our prisons is mixing people who are violent felons especially murderers together with those who are not. There are only like 200K prisoners who are in for Murder/Homicide/Manslaughter.
Actually I could always go with a compromise. Bring back real hard labor, none of this willy nilly 40 hours limit.
Utah's governor signed a bill Monday that brings back firing squads as a potential way to execute some death row prisoners.
Lethal injection remains the primary method for carrying out executions in the state, Gov. Gary R. Herbert said in a statement. A firing squad would only be used in the event the necessary drugs cannot be obtained.
"Those who voiced opposition to this bill are primarily arguing against capital punishment in general and that decision has already been made in our state," said Marty Carpenter, a spokesman for Herbert.
Have you seen people shot to death? Why are you cheering this? Does it make more of a spectacle for your entertainment?
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Unagi wrote:I don't mean to make light of this really, but while I agree with you on this in general, I also agree with RIP (shudder) only in that sometimes it's not up for debate if the person did it at all - it's not even defended.
Insanity is something else... And that's where I struggle with the death penalty.
Boston Marathon bomber being a current case in point. He was caught red-handed and wrote a confesssion while he was hiding in the boat. The defense isn't debating the facts of the prosecution's case. He's 100% guilty.
Philosophically, I'm uncomfortable with formally ceding the power of life and death over an individual to the state. I also believe that life in prison is a crueler punishment than death -- I, at least, would rather die than spend decades in that hell.
OTOH, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to victims' desire for revenge. Thankfully, I've never been in their shoes, but I can see where only execution might bring closure for some people.
So I can go either way on this issue depending on what kind of mood I'm in on any given day and with whom I'm talking.
Why do no states let the condemned choose how to die? Would it be more humane to let them choose between the needle, a bullet to the heart, Old Sparky, a necktie party, or the gas chamber? Is it unrealistic to expect a state to provide multiple capabilities?
Jaymann wrote:Killing another human being is never the answer.
Depends what the question is.
How about what would Jesus do? Who, by the way, received the death penalty. Would you consider the state justified in that case? Of course not! What about the Boston bomber? Of course yes! What about all the gray areas in between? Whom do you trust to make those calls? Do you expect the scumbag politicians to pull their heads out of the feeding trough long enough to get it right? The legal system? Spare me.
If you want to sit in judgment of your fellow man, knock yourself out. Not me pal.
Jaymann wrote:Killing another human being is never the answer.
Depends what the question is.
How about what would Jesus do? Who, by the way, received the death penalty. Would you consider the state justified in that case? Of course not! What about the Boston bomber? Of course yes! What about all the gray areas in between? Whom do you trust to make those calls? Do you expect the scumbag politicians to pull their heads out of the feeding trough long enough to get it right? The legal system? Spare me.
If you want to sit in judgment of your fellow man, knock yourself out. Not me pal.
You drew far too many conclusions from a 5 word response. But as you say, knock yourself out
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
hepcat wrote:I wasn't aware that prisoners on death row were provided people to endanger.
I don't know that the statement "Killing another human being is never the answer." is referring to prisoners on death row. Would it not make more sense to then say "Killing a prisoner is never the answer."?
Jaymann wrote:Killing another human being is never the answer.
Depends what the question is.
How about what would Jesus do? Who, by the way, received the death penalty. Would you consider the state justified in that case? Of course not! What about the Boston bomber? Of course yes! What about all the gray areas in between? Whom do you trust to make those calls? Do you expect the scumbag politicians to pull their heads out of the feeding trough long enough to get it right? The legal system? Spare me.
If you want to sit in judgment of your fellow man, knock yourself out. Not me pal.
You drew far too many conclusions from a 5 word response. But as you say, knock yourself out
Jaymann wrote:Killing another human being is never the answer.
Depends what the question is.
How about what would Jesus do? Who, by the way, received the death penalty. Would you consider the state justified in that case?
Hmm. Were the Jews justified in giving Jesus the Death Penalty? Rome apparently acquiesced out of political expediency, but it was the Sanhedrin who had him on trial for claiming to be the Son of God.
I'd be inclined to argue that it was Religion which killed him, not necessarily the State.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
In 1984, I was 33 years old. I was arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic and very full of myself. I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning. To borrow a phrase from Al Pacino in the movie "And Justice for All," "Winning became everything."
After the death verdict in the Ford trial, I went out with others and celebrated with a few rounds of drinks. That's sick. I had been entrusted with the duty to seek the death of a fellow human being, a very solemn task that certainly did not warrant any "celebration."
In my rebuttal argument during the penalty phase of the trial, I mocked Mr. Ford, stating that this man wanted to stay alive so he could be given the opportunity to prove his innocence. I continued by saying this should be an affront to each of you jurors, for he showed no remorse, only contempt for your verdict.
...
Glenn Ford deserves every penny owed to him under the compensation statute. This case is another example of the arbitrariness of the death penalty. I now realize, all too painfully, that as a young 33-year-old prosecutor, I was not capable of making a decision that could have led to the killing of another human being.
No one should be given the ability to impose a sentence of death in any criminal proceeding. We are simply incapable of devising a system that can fairly and impartially impose a sentence of death because we are all fallible human beings.
The clear reality is that the death penalty is an anathema to any society that purports to call itself civilized. It is an abomination that continues to scar the fibers of this society and it will continue to do so until this barbaric penalty is outlawed. Until then, we will live in a land that condones state assisted revenge and that is not justice in any form or fashion.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.
The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Rip wrote:Of course overstated doesn't mean they were wrong.
Would you be saying that if it was you or someone you loved on trial?
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Rip wrote:Of course overstated doesn't mean they were wrong.
Would you be saying that if it was you or someone you loved on trial?
I guess that depends on whether or not they did it.
Until more details come out there is no way of knowing just how much of an effect the mistating had. Many of those cases may have had enough evidence without the hair and other it may be the difference of 1 in a billion versus 10 in a billion, thus still a match but less certain of one. Not all evidence is created equal and I find it unsurprising that some is given more weight than it should have been and some not enough.
It certainly doesn't mean they executed 14 innocent people.
Rip wrote:It certainly doesn't mean they executed 14 innocent people.
Putting aside your callous disregard for these specific lives, I didn't post this article for them specifically. It was for the idea that lives are in the balance based on potentially faulty and fraudulent testing procedures. How many innocent people get to die until we can be sure it's a foolproof system?
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
rip, so you're fine with the government overstating their confidence in the effects of their actions with little to no oversight until after the impacts are irreversible?
Rip wrote:It certainly doesn't mean they executed 14 innocent people.
Putting aside your callous disregard for these specific lives, I didn't post this article for them specifically. It was for the idea that lives are in the balance based on potentially faulty and fraudulent testing procedures. How many innocent people get to die until we can be sure it's a foolproof system?
No such thing as a foolproof system. It is a balancing act and always has been. Is some improvement called for sure. Does it mean we should never ever execute criminals? Not in my opinion.
Isgrimnur wrote:rip, so you're fine with the government overstating their confidence in the effects of their actions with little to no oversight until after the impacts are irreversible?
No, I just reject this being used as a rallying cry to do away with the death penalty. Law enforcement and testing facilities should always be obligated to disclose the truth and factual statistical information. If they fail they should be punished harshly. Especially in cases like this where it appears there was an effort to hide it.
My issue is that this pertains to all criminal proceeding and does very little to alter my opinions on the death penalty.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
Rip wrote:Of course overstated doesn't mean they were wrong.
Inaccurate evidence should introduce reasonable doubt, which is by design a much tougher standard than preponderance of evidence.
If I said something proves Kraken did it 1 in 100 billion but it was actually 1 in 10 billion it is inaccurate but still shows you did beyond reasonable doubt.
Until it is disclosed what exactly was testified to versus the actual evidence accuracy was it is impossible to know.
