The Death Penalty

[Geoff332]

Sorry, a slightly confusing sentence there. I mean that GWB went off on a rant, not Sodfather. Either way, can we try dealing with the topic instead of your rather (and unintersting) random rants?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Okay, let's attack your random rants instead...

We have at least one occurance of someone sentenced to life rather than death killing again. We have zero occurances of dead people killing again, so your assertion that they are equal is complete BS.

[Downwiththestereotype]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@09-27-2003 09:55 AM Let me get this straight, we all agree that the system needs changing. Both sides agee that the appeals system is too costly. Both sides admit that criminals go free and the innocent sometimes get caught in the system. Therefore what we need is a better system, or fix the flaws in this one, not a bunch of people pointing at the flaws in this one to claim support of their opinion. The current cost of appeals does not have a damn thing to do with effectiveness of CP, that is a lame (but apparently effective) attempt to distract attention. No one knows the number of people that would be killed of we simply let all the murders go, so pointing at the numbers of "innocents" killed by CP has nothing to balance it against. I have searched and never found a good accounting on what "innocents" have actually been killed by CP, all I have ever found were murderers and rapists that might not have committed the crime that put them to death. Why is it that people wish to solve this problem with wishful thinking rather than using problem solving skills. It seems that the more important a subject is, the more likely man will stop using his brain and start using his feelings to solve it. Like I often say, irrational.

GW of B

Can you describe to me a system that can garantee 100% that an innocent person will never be convicted? and can you suggest a fair version where several different leveles of appeal are inevitable? Because theese leveles of appeal arent there for the sheer hell of being there, they are there to serve a purpose That purpose being to make sure that inocent person is not executed (The effectiveness of theese appeals systems is another matter).

You seem stuck with this Idea of freedom versus CP, this is nonsense, No one has said they should be set free, just drop it! What we are all saying is that Life imprisonment is the more civilised and Morally correct option.

1. So is life imprisonment, you seem to miss the point of my question, which was specificly what greater advantages does CP have Imprisonment? And im talking about the real world, not an idealistic world with an effective and super accurate judicial system

2. 90% was an ideal figure, I was trying to ilistrate the point that jurers may be swayed by the idea of having a persons death on there conscience. If jurers and inclined to vote not guilty because they dont want to condem someone to death, then your overwhelming fear of killers going free might be a reality.

3. see 1

[Downwiththestereotype]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@09-28-2003 09:13 AM Okay, let's attack your random rants instead... We have at least one occurance of someone sentenced to life rather than death killing again. We have zero occurances of dead people killing again, so your assertion that they are equal is complete BS.

I would llike to see the figures regarding people cleared from death row killing again before I am inclined to accept that argument

[Geoff332]

OK, so some murders do reoffend. That raises two issues.

Should we execute people if there is a reasonable probability if them killing someone in their future? Is the only indicator of them murdering someone in the future the fact that they have murdered in the past? Are they better indicators and, following your logic, we should then execute these people. What is the cut-off proability of a future murder at which we decide that someone should be executed?

Secondly, some people are unjustly executed. How many future murders does one have to prevent to justify each unjust execution?

[Sodfather]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@09-28-2003 09:13 AM We have at least one occurance of someone sentenced to life rather than death killing again. We have zero occurances of dead people killing again, so your assertion that they are equal is complete BS.

Wait - I thought we were arguing CP versus life (without paroll)? When you say "killing again," I guess you mean fellow inmates, not civilians - because if they were imprisoned they obviously couldn't kill civilians.

Edit: Oh yeah, and Geoff, I love how you bunch everyone else together, as GW of B stated, as one big fat Geoff's Enemies - even to the point when you begin to argue with those on your side (me). I never even implied the cost being a valid reason to continue sentencing criminals to death - I just said it was a downside, something that would have to be dealt with. But instead of saying, "No, Sodfather, it costs less to care for a lifer so there are in fact virtually no downsides," you began to argue. Fool...

[Geoff332]

Oh yeah, and Geoff, I love how you bunch everyone else together, as GW of B stated, as one big fat Geoff's Enemies - even to the point when you begin to argue with those on your side (me).

I never thought I was arguing with you. As I said, you commented on cost. I said this wasn't really an issue, then GWB told me I was a liberal for even suggesting we look at the facts. The only other reference I made to you was that this particular thread of the debate started with a point you raised.

As I said, I was a little unclear about who I was disagreeing with but, for the record, the only thing that you said and I disagreed with was that single factual point.

[Anarchist Patriot]

Originally posted by Geoff332@09-24-2003 05:34 PM OK then. You go out and find a country that uses the death penalty and doesn't have an appeals process that you would like to live in. I'll even help you with a list of countries that still have the death penalty. AFGHANISTAN ALGERIA ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA BAHAMAS BAHRAIN BANGLADESH BARBADOS BELARUS BELIZE BENIN BOTSWANA BURUNDI CAMEROON CHAD CHINA COMOROS CONGO (Democratic Republic) CUBA DOMINICA EGYPT EQUATORIAL GUINEA ERITREA ETHIOPIA GABON GHANA GUATEMALA GUINEA GUYANA INDIA INDONESIA IRAN IRAQ JAMAICA JAPAN JORDAN KAZAKSTAN KENYA KOREA (North) KOREA (South) KUWAIT KYRGYZSTAN LAOS LEBANON LESOTHO LIBERIA LIBYA MALAWI MALAYSIA MAURITANIA MONGOLIA MOROCCO MYANMAR NIGERIA OMAN PAKISTAN PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PHILIPPINES QATAR RWANDA SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS SAINT LUCIA SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES SAUDI ARABIA SIERRA LEONE SINGAPORE SOMALIA SUDAN SWAZILAND SYRIA TAIWAN TAJIKISTAN TANZANIA THAILAND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO TUNISIA UGANDA UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UZBEKISTAN VIET NAM YEMEN ZAMBIA ZIMBABWE Why don't you pick one and then tell us about the superiority of their appeals process over the US? Since what you're advocating is such a good idea, there must be a place that actually uses it.

Afghanistan, Somolia, Congo, Cuba...

A real list of countries there. The US is part of the same group of nations. Yes, the US of A is indeed part of a distinguished group!

(rolling eyes)

[RebelWithanAK]

The only first-world countries on that list are the US, Japan, and S. Korea, and Japan and S. Korea's death rows are not all that long...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

DWtS & Sodfather
I live a mile from a sporting goods store where a police officer was murdered by escaped criminals because he tried to stop them from robbing the place. This gang of seven escapees consisted of two that were convicted murderers and had they not escaped would have been in prision serving life sentances. So they obviously can still kill, even if they are "locked up"...SodFather!!!

I do not think any system can be perfect, but what does that have to do with anything? I am not advocating perfection. I am only advocating that corrections should regard future victums as having a bit more right to life than a murderer.

You are the one that is claiming that lifetime lockup is a perfect system. But in the world I live in, they can still escape, and they always cost us resources.

[Section 8]

GWB, I completely agree with you that the neither system is perfect. I just think that the death penalty is the more faulty of the two.

People aren't expendable, government is
Shalom

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Then why do you demand statistics from me, but use phrases like "I think" when stating your own opinion. I, personally do not like statistics, I see too many of them abused to show things that are not true.

Statistics are paticularly bad with CP because:
a) "Innocent" and "Not Guilty" have unqualifiable meanings. By that I mean that we have no way of knowing how many "Not Guilty" folks in actuality were 'the real killer'.
b) Prior records are illegal to mention to the public, because that is part of our legal process. They are legal to mention after the trail is over, but who ever looks except during the trial? Ever try and look these people up after the fact, I have and it is not easy.
c) There are no statistics on criminals doing crimes while escaped from prison. Or none that I have been able to find.
d) In order for any statistical breakdown to have meaning, you must list:
I] The entire population at the time
II] The entire prison population
III] The entire prison murderer population
IV] The number of people murdered by people with no prior record
V] The number of people murdered by people with no prior murder convictions
VI] The number of people murdered by escapees (murderers and non-murderers)

Therefore, you expect a lot of work from me, since I refuse to give unqualified statistics. I do so because I refuse to accept unqualified statistics. All I have to go on is my failure, at this time, to find a "not guilty" man that was innocent. A lot of them were mentally retarded, but I do not consider that innocent.

[Downwiththestereotype]

GW of B


A court of law can not and should not be expected to predict if someone is likely to escape and murder again. the job of a court is to prosecute on crimes commited, not on possible future crimes.
Il acept that this depends on your philosophy of the prison system, if you beleive prisons are for punishing murderers or protecting society, but even so, no judge or juryt has a magic ball.

You also did not answer my earlier question
How many inmates who have escaped or been freed from death row have also killed again?

[Waychel]

The death penalty is only exercised in the most extreme of cases, and even then, inmates are kept on death row for anywhere from 10 to 20 years or more before being executed.

I have no problem with the death penalty personally, because I would rather see that child molester or serial killer get the penalty than have my tax dollars go to providing them with television, air-conditioning and general living for the rest of their not-so-miserable life. We already have enough people on the welfare system, why do we have to siphon off even more tax dollars to keep people like Charles Manson alive in Corcoran Prison, living decently at that? People who never will be beneficial to society or a part of it again in the first place?

Besides, their deaths are humane (death by electric chair is no longer given by courts, only death by lethal injection), which is more courtesy than they treated their victims with, I am sure.

[castille]

I believe most sane criminals can be reformed. They have a specific reason for committing their act, and if we dig deeper, we can discover it, and perhaps help them adapt to society.

In return, they should be able to try and help others, as they were helped.



However, the crazy ones should be shot. Like the man who blows up buildings because the voices in his head tell him to. Yes, maybe he has a missing thyrodexterous pintament in his thyriod gland, but lets face it - there is no deterrant for those people.

[G. Adams]

But at the same time, those people are not choosing to commit crimes, they have no control over themselves. So you are killing someone for a disability. As a civilised state we should be looking after these people, not executing them.

[Waychel]

Criminals are not given the death penalty if it can be proven that they are insane, or something similar. Actually, in many cases these days, murderers have plead "temporary insanity" and avoided the death penalty AS WELL as prison.

Defense attorneys are pretty tough in their defense of "the accused", as they choose to refer to them. Some of the most intelligent and clever attorneys I know are criminal defense and they're unwavered in their defense even if it is pretty evident the person is guilty of whatever crime. Believe me, if there is enough question as to if the person was insane, coerced, emotionally destraught (crime of passion) or the like, their chances of getting the death penalty for murder aren't very high.

[Section 8]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Criminals are not given the death penalty if it can be proven that they are insane, or something similar. Actually, in many cases these days, murderers have plead "temporary insanity" and avoided the death penalty AS WELL as prison.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Actually, in the US it's legal to kill a mentally retarted person.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Defense attorneys are pretty tough in their defense of "the accused", as they choose to refer to them. Some of the most intelligent and clever attorneys I know are criminal defense and they're unwavered in their defense even if it is pretty evident the person is guilty of whatever crime. Believe me, if there is enough question as to if the person was insane, coerced, emotionally destraught (crime of passion) or the like, their chances of getting the death penalty for murder aren't very high.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This all depends on your social status. If your poor, then your pretty much screwed. If your rich, then you have no need to fear as you are "innocent."

[Waychel]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Actually, in the US it's legal to kill a mentally retarted person.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I'm pretty sure that the death penalty isn't applicable in the cases of the mentally disabled anymore. This does sound possible though, so I won't claim it is false. Which state is this supposedly permitted?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This all depends on your social status. If your poor, then your pretty much screwed. If your rich, then you have no need to fear as you are "innocent."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Oh, you REALLY should meet a public defense attorney! =PpP

[RebelWithanAK]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel)
I'm pretty sure that the death penalty isn't applicable in the cases of the mentally disabled anymore. This does sound possible though, so I won't claim it is false. Which state is this supposedly permitted?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Actually, 25 states still permit it.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel)
Oh, you REALLY should meet a public defense attorney! =PpP<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What, those state-ordained desk jockeys who care as much about you as the shit they took not half an hour before? Who get paid the same whether you get off free or get the chair? Oh, yeah, they'll be reeeal interested in long, drawn-out trials that look over the evidence with a hawk's eye when there were 40 million similar cases just preceding yours and that was just this morning.

Conversely, as Robert Shapiro will tell you, money makes all the difference in the world.