The Death Penalty

[RankStranger]

I'll never understand how some of ya'll can put this much faith in our "justice" system.

 

It's not a matter of faith in the system; I simply want murderers and abusers killed- end of case. I don't care if Uncle Sam does it above board, or if Fat Vinny does it under cover of night. I just want those sociopaths exterminated, one way or the other.

 

So you also don't care if in this system of yours that clearly lacks much in the way quality assurance that a number of innocent people get caught in the meat grinder?

 

Not particularly, no. Accidents happen.

 

Wow. That's disgusting.

 

No, what's disgusting are plea bargains, parole for convicted murders, and the racism that sends a murderer of color to death row while the white guy ends up free in a few years' time. Also disgusting is Western leftists' sympathy for their "human rights". As far as I'm concerned, sociopaths forfeit them when they commit violent crimes against innocents. Murderers & rapists, etc., are a waste of breath; I have no concern for their "human rights". Some people breathe for far too long.

 

We're not talking about sociopaths and murders. We're talking about innocent people who are wrongly convicted- and the fact that you explicitly DON'T CARE that innocent people WILL be caught up in our meat-grinder of a "justice" system.

 

Personally I'm with Thomas Jefferson on this: I'd rather see 10 murders go free than to see 1 innocent man imprisoned for 10+ years. But unfortunately, millions of our fellow Americans agree with you- and as such The Land Of The Free now has the most expansive prison system in the world.

 

We KNOW that the death penalty is not a deterrent. We KNOW that it's not less expensive than life in prison. We KNOW that innocent people have been and will be executed in our system. And you just don't care??

 

You value vengeance over protecting innocent people from our brutal and incompetent government. THAT is sick.

[Djoker]

I don't know how it is in other countries, but I don't have enough confidence in the U.S. justice system to trust it with the death penalty.

[SilentLoner]

I'll never understand how some of ya'll can put this much faith in our "justice" system.

 

Do you have a better alternative?

[Ro-bear]

Life without parole is a better option. Suppose you are an innocent person condemned to die? At least the State has a chance to catch the real killer and make things right.

 

That applies to both a death sentence and life without parole.

 

Not really. The state can't set anything right if the wrongly convicted person is dead.

[Ro-bear]

I used to support the death penalty. Now I think we need to do away with it.

[florduh]

Yeah, yeah! I don't care if it's the right guy or not as long as somebody dies for the crime!!! Fuck yeah!!!!!

 

Where did I put my meds........

[RankStranger]

I'll never understand how some of ya'll can put this much faith in our "justice" system.

 

Do you have a better alternative?

 

Well yeah- that's kinda what this thread is about.

 

I would prefer that we just do away with the death penalty. It doesn't really do anything productive. It costs us more than imprisonment. And our "justice" system obviously can't be trusted to convict only guilty people.

 

And while imprisoning an innocent person is horrible- and I would prefer to avoid it as much as possible (even to the point of letting some guilty people go free)... at least the person is still alive and can be let out of prison WHEN (not if) it turns out that we've wrongly convicted an innocent person.

[RankStranger]

Actually, my previous points were relevant to the topic; however, if you insist on diverting it:

 

I care less by comparison, for the small minority of innocents executed, than I do for the permanent punishment of the guilty majority. Technological advancements have improved these numbers greatly. The number of innocents executed is a very small percentage compared to the guilty, who, IMO, do deserve it.

 

If that makes me an incorregible sicko in your book, hey- you're entitled.

 

Well yeah, I do think you're a sicko. But it isn't personal- I think our whole culture is sick and punishment-obsessed. It's our universal response to every problem under the sun- without regard to consequences, collateral damage, or even effectiveness. So you're well within the main-stream.

 

Now I will agree that technology is improving- but it's got a LONG way to go. Have a look at the innocence project, and you'll see some numbers showing just how many people are PROVEN to have been wrongly put on death row- later exonerated by DNA evidence (actual numbers are probably much higher IMO- these are just the low-hanging fruit, so to speak). Note that DNA evidence is not used or even available in LOTS of trials. The real world ain't CSI. That kind of technology, certainty, and integrity in our justice system is pure FANTASY.

 

Here's an excerpt from the website for the innocence project that points out many (but by no means all) of the problems with our justice system that lead to wrongful convictions:

 

Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions

These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.

 

Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses). Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions.Read more.

 

Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct. Read more.

False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 27 percent of cases. 28 of the DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings.

 

Informants contributed to wrongful convictions in 18 percent of cases. Whenever informant testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most informant testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the informant might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and informants should be recorded. Read more.

 

 

Also I kinda agree with your stance against plea bargains- but for very different reasons. IMO, plea bargains are a method by which our "justice" system routinely threatens and coerces innocent people to plead guilty- just to reduce their sentence or even stay ALIVE. If it were up to me, plea bargains would NEVER be allowed for any reason.

[Vigile]

Less than 300 proven innocent in the entire country, over a period of years and years. Negligible.

 

You're an asshole.

 

You want vengeance so badly for VICTIMS, you don't care if VICTIMS are created in the process -- I'm guessing because if they look guilty enough to be charged, there must be something wrong with them anyway. People like you support the election of pro-prosecutorial judges, atty generals with strong win records (as if winning and not truth were the goal) and politicians at all levels who vote in tough on crime measures that have led to a justice system that often gets it wrong and that jails more people than the entire industrial world combined. And why? You don't care about humanity, you are simply led by the basest of desires.

[RankStranger]

Less than 300 proven innocent in the entire country, over a period of years and years. Negligible.

 

Got anything else besides namecalling, cheap personal shots, armchair psychology and condescension, BTW? Interesting that you consider me so unbalanced, yet you're the one getting all emotional over the topic...

 

Really? 300 innocent people put on death row is negligible to you? That's um... interesting.

 

What number would you consider unacceptable?

 

BTW, I'm not getting emotional. Sure, I put in a few snide remarks- but I'm just having a fun debate here. I've got no illusions that I'm gonna change your mind.

 

But Vigile- now THERE'S a guy who's getting emotional about this.

 

And I kinda admire that in him. But I'm too soulless to get wound up over something like this that doesn't affect me personally. Doesn't change the fact that I think our culture is sick, though.

[Vigile]

But Vigile- now THERE'S a guy who's getting emotional about this.

 

I wasn't until he called 300 innocent people negligible. I find that sick.

[Vigile]

 

What do you care? You don't even live here anymore.

 

BTW, namecalling? is the hallmark of the guy who can't handle debate worth shit. Stay classy.

 

Now you're taking debating notes from BO? Great.

[RankStranger]

Less than 300 proven innocent in the entire country, over a period of years and years. Negligible.

 

Got anything else besides namecalling, cheap personal shots, armchair psychology and condescension, BTW? Interesting that you consider me so unbalanced, yet you're the one getting all emotional over the topic...

 

Really? 300 innocent people put on death row is negligible to you? That's um... interesting.

 

What number would you consider unacceptable?

 

BTW, I'm not getting emotional. Sure, I put in a few snide remarks- but I'm just having a fun debate here. I've got no illusions that I'm gonna change your mind.

 

But Vigile- now THERE'S a guy who's getting emotional about this.

 

And I kinda admire that in him. But I'm too soulless to get wound up over something like this that doesn't affect me personally. Doesn't change the fact that I think our culture is sick, though.

 

 

300 over a period of how many years, over how much geographical territory, among a population so huge, and overwhelmed by how many thousands of truly guilty convictions?

 

Do you not see how small that number becomes?

 

Of course I'm not happy to see it happen; however, in an imperfect system, it does. That's unfortunate, sure, but about as strong a rationale for your case as saying that we should let off all thieves on community service programs in order to prevent incarcerating even one falsely-accused shoplifter ever. Are you not seeing how incredibly over-sensitive that is?

 

Impressive how you knocked own that straw-man.

 

Now what about the argument that I actually made?

[RankStranger]

Now what about the argument that I actually made?

 

The one where you were sobbing about how 300 people got executed out of a zillion who deserved it? That one?

 

Yeah, that one. Go ahead and ignore the rest.

 

I'm bored with this.

[SilentLoner]

Question. How many people oppose a death sentence in cases where guilt is unquestionable?

[RankStranger]

Question. How many people oppose a death sentence in cases where guilt is unquestionable?

 

I have some doubts, but I don't necessarily oppose it.

 

Problem is that our system simply can't be trusted to make that determination.

[Paine]

It's vengeance.

 

Very perceptive.

 

And it feels fucking FABULOUS when your child was tortured for ten days, raped and cut into little pieces and buried in a ditch three hundred miles away. Your mind replays their horrifying-----HORRIFYING------TORTURED last moments on earth---CRYING FOR THEIR MOTHER----EVRY. SINGLE . DAY. for the rest of your natural life.

 

I only wish that the sick fuck's MOTHER had to watch him get his LIKE KIND punishment. The Chair is too easy. But I'll take foaming at the mouth and cooked brains under a hood.....YOUBETCHA.

 

I would single handedly carry out every single sentence for any child killer. I am a mother. Our family was a "victim" of a heinous crime, and all you soft peddling Monday Morning QB's (but of course, no one on this board in particular) can go STRAIGHT TO HELL on this one....

[Thurisaz]

I would prefer that we just do away with the death penalty. It doesn't really do anything productive. It costs us more than imprisonment. And our "justice" system obviously can't be trusted to convict only guilty people.

 

I may be walking on thin ice here, judging the US justice system from afar as a German, but unless I'm totally mindbogglingly wrong in all I heard and read...

 

...the above assumes that "the system" in fact tries to pass out death sentences on the basis of whether the culprit is really guilty. Which all too often doesn't seem to be the case - like already mentioned above in this thread, quite a few times the sentence seems to depend quite heavily on skin color (and probably at least partly the poverty level, which is often related to skin color on the basis of living in a ghetto and such) of the culprit.

 

Just my 2 cents but at least that has to be fixed before it's in any way "safe" to stick a death sentence to anyone's head.

[Vigile]

Question. How many people oppose a death sentence in cases where guilt is unquestionable?

 

If I were sure it wouldn't bother me, but I'd still find it impractical given it costs something like 3x as much to kill someone than to keep them in prison. The appeals costs are necessary in a system that claims fairness, so I wouldn't support streamlining the process.

[Thurisaz]

Let alone that if you put someone behind bars for life, you can also put him to work and so make him pay for at least part of what it costs to keep him detained. I don't know how the numbers will work out but I'd think we shouldn't forget that.

[Ro-bear]

 

Less than 300 proven innocent in the entire country, over a period of years and years. Negligible.

 

 

If I were one of the three hundred, or if a loved one were one of the three hundred, it would be of little comfort to me that the number was so small.

[Overcame Faith]

I have struggled with the issue of the death penalty. There is something to be said for having the death penalty available for a particularly heinous crime when the criminal has proven that nothing will stop him/her from taking another's life. For example, some years back there was a person in prison for life for murder (actually a number of murders). While in prison, this person was hired by the a relative of a crime victim to kill the person who perpetrated the crime who was in the same prison. The prisoner who was hired did, in fact, murder the criminal for which he was hired to kill. He was discovered, tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed. This is an example of someone that simply could not be stopped from killing.

 

With that being said, I have several major problems with the death penalty:

 

1. As others have already brought up, the thought of the government executing an innocent person is horrifying to me.

 

2. As has been pointed out, also, there are the uncomfortable statistics that race (blacks are more likely to be executed than whites), economic status (the poor more likely to be executed than those with more money), and gender (males are more likely to be executed than females) plays a major role in decisions about who is executed and who is not even when the crimes being compared are very closely matched.

 

3. And this is a big one for me. As a general rule, we as a society believe that those murders that are undertaken in a cold-hearted, well planned out, and merciless fashion are the worst kind of murders. For example, if a person plans out the murder carefully and then goes about the task in a methodical fashion without showing any mercy seems to be far worse than when two people get into an argument which escalates into one killing the other. The first one is calculated and tends to show no regard for the sanctity of human life while the other is killing that was brought on by raw human emotions and speaks more to the moment. Now think about this: when someone is executed the execution is very much like what we view as the most vile of killings. The execution is well planned with those charged with carrying it out even rehearsing to make sure it all goes according to plan. It is carried out in a methodical fashion and no mercy is shown once the execution procedure is begun.

 

One might be tempted to say that one distinction is that generally the murder victim is innocent whereas the murderer being executed is guilty. Assuming the person being executed is, in fact guilty of the crime, I will concede this point for many murders (though the murder victim in my example was not innocent). And this is one major reason that my analogy is not perfect.

 

One might also be tempted to say that a major distinction is that many murder victims are brutally killed, often with torture. I do not think this is necessarily a valid distinction because murderers on death row go through their own set of "tortures." Once on death row they are segregated from the prison population, kept in solitary confinement, and are watched 24 hours per day. But the worst thing is that they have a known date that their life will be ended. To me, knowing the exact date and time when the vengence will be carried out would be tortuous to endure.

 

It is a difficult issue for sure, but on the whole I lean toward abolishing the death penalty.

[SilentLoner]

 

Problem is that our system simply can't be trusted to make that determination.

 

Note that I said UNDENIABLE. As in the offender was caught on tape doing the crime or other indisputable evidence.

[RankStranger]

 

Problem is that our system simply can't be trusted to make that determination.

 

Note that I said UNDENIABLE. As in the offender was caught on tape doing the crime or other indisputable evidence.

 

That's all fine and good in theory. And in theory I wouldn't necessarily oppose capital punishment in such a case.

 

But in practice real life is rarely that clear-cut. And that's not our "justice" system's standard of proof. Nor can we trust prosecutors and police to act in a professional and ethical manner.

 

So that hypothetical case doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

[RankStranger]

 

Problem is that our system simply can't be trusted to make that determination.

 

Note that I said UNDENIABLE. As in the offender was caught on tape doing the crime or other indisputable evidence.

 

And being caught on tape is NOT "undeniable" proof. Many people have been caught on tape murdering somebody. And the ones in uniform are routinely acquitted. They can and DO deny what's plainly on video.