The Death Penalty

[Foamy Dog]

The death penalty, like abortion, presents us with some tough issues. This article is to present these issues for discussion in the forum; I'm not offering solutions, that's up to you.

Why did I bring up abortion in an article about the death penalty? I'm glad you asked. I do this in order to compare the ideas of Conservatives and liberals on these issues. Let's make note up front that all Conservatives may not agree 100% with the general Conservative views and not all liberals may agree 100% with the general liberal views.

Sure, I'm going to offer some opinion (though no conclusions) on this; this is after all, commentary.

Let's start with the general liberal views. They believe that it is wrong to put a convicted criminal to death. In contrast, they also believe that it is okay to take the life of an unborn child. I don't get it.

Next, let's look at the general Conservative views. Conservatives believe that it is okay to take the life of a convicted criminal. Conservatives also believe that it is wrong to take the life of an unborn child. This makes more sense to me. At least the person being put to death here has been convicted of doing something very wrong. But . . .

Is it still right to take another person's life?

Is it an eye for an eye or thou shall not kill?

With the growing uncertainty in the legal system can we be sure we won't be putting an innocent person to death? The number of people that are convicted only to be found innocent (sometimes after years in prison) seems to be on the rise.

On the other hand, if we repeal the death penalty, will we make would be murderers less fearful of committing such crimes?

Just so that we don't start the discussion with some of the same old questions:

"If someone killed a member of your family, wouldn't you want them to be killed?" -- Sure, I would, as would most anyone faced with the same situation.

"If someone in your family was convicted of murder, wouldn't you want their life spared?" -- Sure I would, as would most anyone faced with the same situation.

Okay, with that said, hash it out!

[Moe B]

This is an issue I have argued both sides of (devil's advocate kinda thing.) Sure, if one of my family members was murdered, I may want the guilty party put to death, but that does not make it right. A young lady who was made pregnant by her step-father might make an excelent argument for abortion, but thats not right either. When you look at an issue on an individual case-by case basis, you have no basis for social analysis. Society disapears and there is only individual people. The problem with conservatives backing the death penalty is that they are putting a govt. they claim to distrust in charge of making life and death decisions. One out of every hundred pieces of mail gets lost- no doubt innocent people have been put to death. I don't trust the govt. enough to put lives in their charge. They have proved that you don't even have to commit a capital crime for them to put you to death. Decide to drop out of society and join a religious cult- Reno's thugs will burn you all. Get so paranoid about the govt. hunting you down and shooting you that you decide to buy a home on a mountain and live off the land-what will the govt. do? Hunt you down and shoot you! No- they can't be trusted-they need to be forced to just throw away the keys! So innocent people have a chance to be vindicated.

[barral69]

It all comes down to this...

"Vengence is MINE! Sayth the Lord."

Yes we need prisons. We have to keep dangerous criminals away from where they can hurt others. Well, let me make a theroretical statement.

You are an 18 or 19yr old computer hacker. But, you do not hurt anything, you just look around and use your skills to get some free screen savers or some bootleged movies or any number of not really harmful stuff. Well, the FBI does not like the fact you know more than them. They don't like the fact that you are skilled. So now they call you a cyber terrorist. This gives them enough reason to come and arrest you, take your computer and all other electronics having to do with it and literaly destroy it in the process of "investigation." Now your in prison. Not a county jail or a prsion for hackers. No. You are in a FEDERAL PRISON with VIOLENT offenders. You don't belong here. You may not survive here. You are not a violent person but you better become one very quickly or your bound to be hurt by someone else there. Why not have specifics? Is a criminal just a criminal or are they seperated into catagories in prison as well as in booking.

Hell, after writing this, I am probaly in danger of an FBI agent seeing it, getting mad and issuing a warrent for my arrest. Well, just in case they are reading this....F YOU! hehehe Did I mention I hate our goverment the way it stands? When it comes to the death penelty, I don't think it is a deturrent at all. If it was then why do people still comment sane, premeditated murder? They know damned well that if they get caught they are going to die. Or mabey thats what they want? Mabey these killers think that if they kill the people they hate, get arrested and convicted, and sentenced to death, they can repent for their crimes and sins against God and then be technicly murdered instead of punished by the state. Thus the murdered soul goes to heaven. Is that what they think? I don't remember what the bible says about a murdered soul.
He says if you take your own life you automaticly burn. So does that mean if someone kills you on purpose you automaticly get to go to heaven? Lets say I'm right. Your murdered you go to heaven. You repent before they put you to death. Therefore you are going to heaven so what we need to do is eliminate this free ride. Killers should be givin life. Not only is this for them to think about what they did wrong for the rest of their life but also that if one of these people was found to be truly inocent, they can be relased instead of saying, "Whoops Fred, I think we just fried an inocent man." Because Whoops is too late!

[nospace]

DEATH PENALTY should be issued by those effected by the crime!

If you are stupid enough to try raping or killing my wife or son - watch EVERY LAST shadow - I WILL BE in one of them and I will assure you that you will not face the chair or death penalty!

Your own mother will not recognize you when I am done with you!

I do not need anyone to throw the switch and tax payers won't have that massive administrative bill to pay!

My family is MY Responsibility - and I am very responsible when it comes to their well being!

[Hyrote]

I have noticed that this discussion has sort of ended considering no one has written a post for a while on it, but I have a question. What if any good, do the people on death row provide to society. It seems to me that a person on death row found it ok to kill someone considering that is how they got on death row. If they found it moral and ok to kill someone, then what is wrong with the death penalty? What would you propose their sentences be? I have done some research on this subject and have you seen the types of crimes these people committed to get on death row? Most, if not all, are sickening and are down right wrong. To me the idea of a death penalty could be a very good detterent if there were standards for which a death penaltly will be awarded. As it stands, different states have different standards and most of the time it is up to the discression of the judge. Another major flaw of capitol punishment is the amount of time allowed for men on death row. I mean, I am not for killing someone immidiately after arriving to death row because I know there are rare instances in where a person after a long time, is proven not-guilty due to dna analysis and such. In my opinion the death penalty needs nation wide standards. I dont advocate death in any sense, but I fail to see what is wrong with the idea of capitol punishment for people that have commited some seriously disturbing crimes.

[Desarollo]

the problem with the death penalty is two fold...one, people can change for the better, like a rapist can reform and become a benefit to society, but if u kill them thats it no chance for reform and those who kill them play God...two, there is no coming back from death and sometimes people who were put to death are innocent but now their dead and we cant do anything but say "o sorry" to the thier family...i think the death penalty mite be necessary in some circumstances but its really a hard subject...does killing a person solve anything? why did they kill in the first place and isnt that what we should stop?

its such a complex issue, really

[garrett7855]

To kill, or not to kill, that is the question.

Tough one. I have to come down on the side of kill---or maybe not kill---or maybe kill---or ---gee, how do we decide these things?

Maybe we shouldn't be deciding them at all. I have to admit, If it were someone I know who was the victim, my blood would be screaming to put the perp right up against the wall and blow his brains out.

At the same time, I worry that with the criminal justice system being as messed up as it is, the wrong person could be easily convicted and put to death.

The safest thing does seem to be to take the presumably guilty person out of circulation until and unless innocence can be proven.

Of course, then you have the question over our already overburdened penal system. Where do you put them? What's it going to cost?

There are no easy answers on this one. That really sucks!

[general lee01]

TEXTTEXTTEXT[shadow=red,left,300]TEXT[/shadow]

TEXT

TEXTThis is a rather interesting debate, however I seem to think that one's opinion on the matter is religion driven and not a true expression of one's true decision making attributes. Is death a bad thing, yes it is frightening to think of a non existence after having just the opposite here on earth, but however you may look at it as maybe the taking of anothers life is only to grant a portal into another realm of possibilities. The unknown such as life and death can't be judged against moralistic values or possibilities of retrubitions from something as unknown as this disciplining force. I tend to feel one has the capability to decide their own path in this life, and if the path they choose is leading them into a possibility of death, then this is their choice. There is no room for unappreciative, demonic, and power hungered murderers in this world. To kill them in a punishing way is a decision deemed justifiable by the people who inhabit this land. Be it as it may ,I only choose to follow these justified laws and orders passed onto my existence due to the simple reason of my wanting of a path of longevity ,and not one of destructivity.

[Maineh]

I think the real question is...
"Can we trust a government that has had YEARS of being dumbed down by liberal shit with the power to make life or death decisions?"

[garrett7855]

I sure don't trust the government to make those choices! Unfortunately, the government IS in control of the legal system and as a result they DO make the decisions for us.

I'm not saying that's a good thing--just that as things stand right now that's the way it is.

Hopefully, some bright person while invent a method that can tell us 100% of the time the innocence or guilt of a person in a criminal proceeding--yeah, right!

If we could know with no uncertainty--FRY THE GUILTY
I really dislike supporting someone financially for the rest of their natural life for commiting crimes that warrant the death penalty. Besides, we could use the space in our already overburdened penal system.

[Sentinel]

As with most issues, the right thing to do is very clear in spite of efforts by others to muddy the waters.

The only moral position is pro-DP.

In modern times, there's not one example of an innocent person being executed. However, executions do save many innocent lives. Even if an innocent person should be executed, is that really any worse than an innocent person being stuck in prison for life or an innocent person being killed accidently by any and everything else that society approves? And, it's very easy, and getting easier, to minimize the chance of a truly innocent person being killed (I support efforts to make justice more accurate).

Did you get that? Executions save lives! They keep executed murderers from killing again and they provide real incentive for other criminals not to kill in the first place. Some of you people who are so worried about the miniscule chance of an innocent person being killed need to focus more on the indisputably innocent who die by the thousands in America every year at the hands of murderers.

And, for those of you who envoke the Bible, the Bible is 100% for the Death Penalty. God instituted the practice in His Israel and wanted it liberally applied. Even the New Testiment promotes the Death Penalty in various parts (for an example, see my earlier post on homosexuals).

[expat]

"In Modern times there's not one example of an innocent person being executed."

If only that were true:

Case 1: Malcolm Rent Johnson, executed January 6, 2000, in Oklahoma mostly on testimony from Oklahoma City police chemist Joyce Gilchrist. Gilchrist has been found guilty of lying under oath and falsifying evidence in order to gain a conviction.

Source: www.ccadp.org/killerkeating.htm
Lists 17 people executed on testimony from Ms Gilchrists. Perhaps some of these really were open and shut cases and the accused guilty as charged; but when the police falsify evidence because it is their belief that the peson is guilty, or that the defendant is an otherwise inconvenient person, then the death penalty can never be truly justified. in Malcolm Johnson's case, it was almost exclusively falsified police evidence the case was built around.

Case 2: In 1995, a man in Texas named Jesse Jacobs was put to death, despite the prosecution's admission that he was the wrong suspect.

Source: archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1996/101896/live.101896.html

Over 100 persons have had death sentences overturned based on DNA or other later evidence.

Source:
www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12923


It is not known how many of the more than 600 persons executed in the US since the reinstatement of the death penalty were actually innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced. Even the Death Roe Warden Jim Willner Texas admits innocent men have probably been executed during his tenure.

Source: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/newvoices.pdf

The sad truth is that police willingly falsify evidence or testimony to ensure conviction and pressure witnesses (actual or not) into false testimony. Houston, Texas destroyed the contents of its evidence archive on the claim of "needing the space" rather than allow retrospective DNA tests to verify the accuracy of convictions there.

If for no other reason than police corruption, the death penalty is one irrevocable step too far. The cost of life imprisonment is less than the all the death row appeals.

You claim the death penalty is a deterrent, but this has never been demonstrated: the violent crime rate of states with and without the death penalty is statistically indistinguishable.

You claim the "Even the New Testiment[sic] promotes the Death Penalty in various parts". Yet in various parts it also speaks against the taking of life. You consistently select only the parts of the Bible that support your prior convictions and ignore the inconvenient and contradictory sections. Since the Bible is not consistent, and since the Constitution is based in a secular state, the religious argument holds no legal precedence. It is the civil codes, not religious fatwahs, like in Shi'a law, that determines US and its constituent states' laws.

You claim that executions save lives. Is this "net of those executed"? You assume that murderers recidivate. Some most definitely do. But isn't it the keeping them out of society that prevents the murder of innocents, and this can be accomplished by life-time incarceration, including isolation from other inmates. Their death is not required for meeting this goal.

You even claim that we "need to focus more on the indisputably innocent who die by the thousands in America every year at the hands of murderers." yet by far the majority of murders are acts of passion committed by first-time murderers (or people not yet apprehended for earlier murders. The murder rate is marginally affected by recidivist murder, yet you try to claim that thousands will be saved by executing those already locked up behind bars on death row. Tilt! It doesn't work that way.

[Sentinel]

expat said:

Case 1: Malcolm Rent Johnson,

Okay, one expert witness appears to have lied (only about detecting spirm, but no testimony about who the spirm belonged to, as far as I know, none of her cases involved something as powerful as DNA). But, disregarding all the testimonly from that witness still doesn't show he was innocent. Johnson was caught redhanded with stuff he stole from the victim. That proves he was there when he says he wasn't. He's a murderer and everyone familiar with the case knows it. Even Johnson's attorny is reduced to pleading that even though his client is a murderer that he shouldn't have been executed because the alleged rape is in question.

but when the police falsify evidence because it is their belief that the peson is guilty, or that the defendant is an otherwise inconvenient person, then the death penalty can never be truly justified.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Any excuse to let murderer go free?

In matters as serious as muder and the death penalty, you shouldn't embrace such sloppy and mentally lazy nonsense. Only the scope of that lie should be considered. If the lie is about something irrelevant then it has nothing to do with the justification of the death penalty.

If 10 witnesses saw someone kill another person and an 11th lied and claims to have seen the crime too, that doesn't mean the murderer shouldn't be executed.

Case 2: In 1995, a man in Texas named Jesse Jacobs was put to death, despite the prosecution's admission that he was the wrong suspect.

Jesse Jacobs, already a convicted murderer, admits to kidnapping the victim and taking the victim into the woods. And, then he confessed to the murder. His only deffense is that his partner in crime, his sister, was the one who pulled the trigger, contrary to his earlier confession. Even if true, he's still guilty of murder.

You should feel like a big fat putrid douche for applying the label "innocent" to these very guilty monsters. And, if a known innocent person were really executed, you wouldn't need to resort to such a pathetic and disgusting tactic.

Over 100 persons have had death sentences overturned based on DNA or other later evidence.

See, the system works. And, now that DNA is standard in trials, these people released by DNA won't be convicted in the first place.

BTW, in spite of being cleared by DNA, a number of them probably are guilty. They weren't necessarily proved innocent as much as DNA proved that some evidene against them was misinterpreted.

It is not known how many of the more than 600 persons executed in the US since the reinstatement of the death penalty were actually innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced. Even the Death Roe Warden Jim Willner Texas admits innocent men have probably been executed during his tenure.

There may have been a very few. But, even those very few were certainly hardened criminals and their criminal background played a role in them being sentenced to death. The vast majority are guilty beyond a doubt.

If for no other reason than police corruption, the death penalty is one irrevocable step too far. The cost of life imprisonment is less than the all the death row appeals.

It's an absurd standard to demand that there never be a chance that an innocent person is executed. EVERYTHING GOOD still has the oppertunity of killing innocent people. But, you're not going to close down hospitals because doctor mistakes kill thousands every year, are you? Close swimming pools, ban cars. Are you getting the point?

That it costs more to kill someone than give them life in prison is sad. We need to kill a lot more criminals and make it cheaper to do so. Still, I'd prefer to pay a extra to execute someone than give them life in prison. Prison life sucks and a person with no hope of release has nothing to lose by trying to escape or punish fellow inmates and guards how he sees fit. So, many monsters get stuck locked alone in a virtual closet for the rest of their life -- how human of you to desire such a thing.

You claim the death penalty is a deterrent, but this has never been demonstrated: the violent crime rate of states with and without the death penalty is statistically indistinguishable.

It has been demonstrated. Just a couple of years ago there was a big study that showed that every execution saves about 17 lives. Anyway, the burden is on you to prove it isn't a deterrent. It's a given that punishment reduces crime and the greater the punishemnt the greater the deterrent. If you think executions are an exeption, it's up to you to prove they're an exception.

Granted, the odds of getting executed are so low that a criminal need not worry too much about it. But, we should be killing enough criminals that they would really worry about it.

Yet in various parts it also speaks against the taking of life. You consistently select only the parts of the Bible that support your prior convictions and ignore the inconvenient and contradictory sections.

Where does the Bible ever say the state should not take a criminal's life? Where is such a thing even implied. Why do you accuse me of being selective without revealing what I'm selecting against?

You assume that murderers recidivate.

Some do. You provided an example with one of the monsters you claimed to be innocent. Jacobs, serving time for murder, was out on parole when he killed again. As a matter of fact, most murderers are prior convicts (although, usually of strings of offenses less than murder).

But isn't it the keeping them out of society that prevents the murder of innocents

Use to be at least a hundred people/year were murdered inside prisons (and, most of those murdered were not guilty of murder). I think that has come down in recent years. But, without a cruel degree of confinment, it's hard to keep a convicted killer out of society.

You even claim that we "need to focus more on the indisputably innocent who die by the thousands in America every year at the hands of murderers." yet by far the majority of murders are acts of passion committed by first-time murderers

Oh yeah, the stupid defense. Murderers are acting in passion and therefore are too stupid to think about the consequences. Some cases, I'm sure you're right. But, in many cases, you're certainly wrong. Nearly all murders include thoughtful premeditation to some degree (in fact, the legal definition murder requires premeditation). An act in blind passion brings a manslaughter conviction, not murder. Oops, I'm addressing the deterrent argument, not your recidivism argument.

If every potential murderer knew that he would be fried if he pulls the trigger, there would be a lot fewer murders in this country.

[dollygal]

I am a true, hypocrite. I actively do not believe in abortion, BUT if my daughter got pregnant, who is to say I wouldn't rush her to the nearest clinic to have one. I don't think I would, but who is to say.

Ditto with the Death Penalty thing. I do not believe in it--BUT if Ted Bundy took my baby girl or boy as he did in that college Dorm and do the things he did to them---I'd want his heart torn out.

So where does that leave me? I'm a hypocrite because I say one thing, but don't know really if I'd follow thru. Not having "been there" how can I make a decision?

[expat]

It's an absurd standard to demand that there never be a chance that an innocent person is executed. EVERYTHING GOOD still has the opportunity of killing innocent people. But, you're not going to close down hospitals because doctor mistakes kill thousands every year, are you? Close swimming pools, ban cars. Are you getting the point?

What sort of logic is THAT? Talk about absurd! The things you list are not designed to kill people, while death chambers are! The point, my reactionary friend, is that the FUNCTION of the institution matters greatly. Jeez, what a nutty comparison!

That it costs more to kill someone than give them life in prison is sad. We need to kill a lot more criminals and make it cheaper to do so. Still, I'd prefer to pay a extra to execute someone than give them life in prison. Prison life sucks and a person with no hope of release has nothing to lose by trying to escape or punish fellow inmates and guards how he sees fit. So, many monsters get stuck locked alone in a virtual closet for the rest of their life -- how human of you to desire such a thing.

It costs 5 times to execute than imprison for life
(http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/deathpenaltyforum.htm Rutgers University death penalty forum).

Your crocodile tears over the people locked into closets is a sham. You are defining a "mercy killing" here, because our prisons are hell holes. Yet most Western European nations, instead of killing prisoners to avoid misery, simply do not let their prisons become hell holes. They are not resorts, either. But if your argument is that people must be killed because prison life is inevitably miserable and it's the merciful thing to do, then you are either just making an excuse, or know nothing about penal conditions in the rest of the world, where some states have avoided hell holes. They are not inevitable. Your assumption is false. Since they can, we can, and your stated rationale for killing them is gone.

It has been demonstrated. Just a couple of years ago there was a big study that showed that every execution saves about 17 lives. Anyway, the burden is on you to prove it isn't a deterrent. It's a given that punishment reduces crime and the greater the punishment the greater the deterrent. If you think executions are an exeption, it's up to you to prove they're an exception.

Granted, the odds of getting executed are so low that a criminal need not worry too much about it. But, we should be killing enough criminals that they would really worry about it

Seventeen persons saved per execution! Wow! That's incredible! Here is my evidence (bottom of posting) that against the deterrent theory. I post my links, as I did before. You tell me to prove it. All I can do is give evidence.

But where is your link to the claim of 17 lives saved? This is such a remarkable claim, that there is no way I am taking it at face value; So show us the site, and it had better be a reputable legal site, like a law school, or from case law decisions, and not some Biblical Center for Hanging 'Em High. Seventeen people saved per execution?! Provide your link, if you want to have any credibility in your future claims on this site. Provide a reputable study demonstrating this, I will apologize for doubting you.

Even if an innocent person should be executed, is that really any worse than an innocent person being stuck in prison for life or an innocent person being killed accidently by any and everything else that society approves?

Yes, when a good part of the evidence to execute is cooked by the state authority. For heaven's sake, Sentinel, YOU are the one who hates the state (our "master"), yet when it comes to them conspiring to remove someone unsavory, inconvenient (or racially undesirable) you are suddenly all for it!!!

What we anti-death penalty folks are greatly worried about is not simply that some sleaze bags get killed (although that too is important on moral grounds, for many of us), but that the state (in the body of police forces and DA offices) willingly doctor evidence. It is this cheating, which so easily becomes habitual, that is the scary thing here, and not necessarily that John Doe is or is not guilty in any particular case, as important as that is for John Doe and family!

Mr. Sentinel, given your other convictions on the state and its abuses, why do you so easily sanction police and prosecutors manipulating evidence? What if you should ever fall afoul of these guys, maybe on false, planted testimony, and you had had a ongoing gripe with the DA or police about some property you refused to sell them, or their fatcat buddies, for a holiday home by your lake? Or you knocked up the DAs sister back in 1968? Or they are tired of your showing up at city council meetings criticizing taxes? Of course it makes little difference to the world, whether your property is used by you or the DA, but it makes a great difference if they acquire it through doctoring your case, because they can go on and on and become a small state within a state, with no real citizen oversight. You know power corrupts, you remind us of it all the time. So corrupt cops and prosecutors are one of the greatest threats to personal freedom around. Yet, your focus on the ins and out of particular cases seems to put in bed with this state within a state; illegal actions to enforce a repressive agenda. Although it is still a far step up to the SA or SS or KGB, it is a more of a difference in degree and not of kind.

I am against the state being in the business of killing. It’s bad enough citizens do it, worse when it is state policy. Americans kill each other to a much greater degree than other western nations, and we are virtually the only western nation with a death penalty. Could it be it is our appetite for violence in its many forms that allows us to kill the imprisoned? Or is it that we have become inured to death? I do not have answers, these are only philosophical contemplation, but our culture is more violent than other economically developed states. Do we have the capacity to fix this? Or are we to remain forever more violent than other well-developed nations?

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

There is plenty of evidence that the death penalty does not significantly deter people from murder.

Webs sites on death penalty, innocent persons on death row, police manipulation of evidence, deterrence and politicians exploiting the death penalty for votes.

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=404&scid=45

members.aol.com/marspd/death_penalty_testimony.html

If deterrence works, then Texas, the nation’s execution capital, should have the lowest murder rates in the nation, or even seen a drop once executions returned. Nothing like this has happened.

www.txdpinfo.org/issues/deter.htm

The Legal Information Institute reviews the death penalty from both pro and con legal viewpoints.

www.law.cornell.edu/topics/death_penalty.html