I could be convinced to be anti-DP

I really could. I admire those who will stand up for their beliefs that the DP is wrong in all cases and will defend not imposing a death sentence on the most heinous of criminals like Timothy McVeigh. They have the courage of their convictions. This argument weighs more heavily in my mind than nearly every pro-DP arguments I can come up with. Hearing somebody say, "yes, he's a heinous criminal. Yes, I deplore his acts, but he's still a human and killing him only lessens all of us collectively." I can buy into life in prison with no chance for parole as this means the person is removed from general human society, I really can. It would also make it easier for jurists if they knew they would not be called upon to determine whether or not a person should eb put to death. This could only have an effect of making the justice system work more smoothly.

Heck, I can be (and have been) convinced that commuting the sentence to life without parole is the right thing when somebody has admitted their guilt and demonstrated remorse. Karla Faye Tucker is a good example of this and she deserved to have her sentence commuted to life without parole, IMO. It's not a far leap to move from there to opposing the DP.

When I hear disingenuous arguments about "redemption" when tagged to a mass murderer who never admitted his guilt, never showed remorse, and never cooperated to put his thuggish gang cohorts behind bars, it merely hardens my stance in favor of the death Penalty.

This might be a lesson to those who oppose the Death Penalty. When it comes to the DP, stick with the arguments that work and alter opinions over the long haul rather than cheap "mediatastic" attempts that really move your cause backwards.

In Virginia we just got an anti-death penalty Democrat elected Governor. And people wonder why. Virginia is a state that loves the death penalty - Virginia kills more yearly than every state except Texas. So you might ask, how did Tim Kaine win?

When his Republican opponent, Kilgore accused him of being against the death penalty in liberal Northern Virginia and for it in conservative Southern Virginia Kaine stated that yes as a Christian he opposed the death penalty but would uphold the law. I think people admired him for his convictions. He would not say he supported the death penalty. Or maybe people just figured out what a jerk Kilgore was, I'm not sure which.

His ads were so negative, it was appalling. And Kaine seemed relatively normal, while Kilgore has an Eddie Haskel quality to him.

penalty is this. It is only acceptable if it is perfect. No human system is perfect by definition that it is created by humans, most of all the justice system, ergo, by default, innocent people have been and will continue to be executed. Think of the amount of people who had sentences commuted, or were freed from jail, not because of any concept for redemption, but because of reasonable doubt. The Death Penalty, as practiced in this country, is both racist and classist.

Yes, forensics is much better today, but they still don't remove the two biggest reasons for false convictions, human error, and human malfeance. Whether its the infamous Virginia lab, that fudged results to get convictions, many of them capital cases. Or simple error and mishandling of evidence. I don't see a justification for a system that by default has to execute innocents to get at the guilty.

There are probably quite a lot of people on Death Row today (and off it) whose execution could be justified. There are, however, some who couldn't. As neither I nor the state know which are which, the only acceptable policy is not to execute any of them. Life in prison is a perfectly acceptable alternative.

The real problem that I have is with people like the scumbag who grabbed the 11 year old on video tape and murdered her...or the disgusting creature who buried the 9 year old kid alive and admitted to it.

Serials and child killers really make it difficult for me to think they are even human.

I guess what I am trying to say is if some whacko has admitted to killing children, or a number of random people just because they enjoy the experience then why should they be allowed to roam free or establish a life for themselves even in prison?

I don't believe those types of people could ever become anything but a threat or a cancer to any society that they are hanging around in--including to other inmates in prison.

Let's say you're some stupid guy that shot and killed someone in a drug deal when you were young and on drugs yourself and you have to be subjected to the likes of a Gacy, or a Bundy, or a Dahmer?

But in normal non-psychotic cases I agree with you there is too much room for error in hanging the wrong person.

I don't include the guy they executed last night in the psycho category but I really don't know anything about the case.

this is way too personal for many of you on the pro DP side, and i fail to grasp the why of alll your fervor. i will assume that most of you didn't know any of his victims, and i will further assume that most of probably wouldn't give a damn about them if they weren't his victims. maybe you would...but i don't believe you would. so...why is this man, his life and actions, his crimes, so personal to you? perhaps understanding that that will help you release some of your judgement.

i don't know if williams was redeemed or not. i do know he seemed to change in the last years of his life, and that's more than i can say for most people, let alone most death row inmates.
williams would have been killed in two seconds flat for "cooperating" with the police.
he claimed he was innocent, so why would he "show remorse"...and what difference would that have made anyway...to someone like you, who is so convinced about his character anyway? none.

the lesson here is for you, actually. if you support a principle, personality shouldn't matter. if you support free speech, you have to put up with speech that you find personally distasteful. if you are against the death penalty, then you are against it, even for people you dislike.

in spite of all their fervor, there appear to be some who haven't really taken the time to develop a well-reasoned philosophical basis for their position. these folks are reacting on a gut level to something they oppose but they seem to read that as an emotion, and from what i read their arguments are emotional. then again, once the emotions are involved it becomes much more difficult to articulate a coherent position, let alone argue the rational underpinnings of the position.

i see it all as a point in the evolution of a philosophy. mine was once based on an emotional revulsion at the thought of executing a possibly innocent person. then, as i got older i saw and heard things that made me think death was the appropriate punishment. i glossed over for myself the injustice inherent with that as i reasoned that some innocents always get caught in the maws of justice and that it's the price we all pay for law and order.

coming to DU a while back I was forced to face the lack of reason in my schizophrenic philosophy. thanks to the discussions i had here and there, more often than not with a rabid supporter of dp, i finally connected with the larger, more overarching picture: that no matter what a person has done, the state (society) elevates life when it refuses to act on the bloodlust that is part of our lower nature. it also thus sets an official standard of behavior for its citizens.

i also believe that we actually KNOW the truth of this. it is why we try not to act on our baser instincts. we know that we must strive for the best within ourselves.

thanks for posting

Firstly, we're not smart enough to impose it fairly, and i see no reason to believe our wisdom is achieving the exponential growth required.

Secondly, it must be a zero error process, and unless we can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE it impossible to execute an innocent person, then the risk is unacceptable. One single "wrong guy" is an unacceptable level of failure.
The Professor

But, I still need more convincing that the government should abrogate its right to put certain criminals to death.

Time will tell......

the government has the RIGHT to kill its citizens?

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

The guarantee of a republican form of government guarantees each state has the power to execute certain criminals.

At this point in time, 12 of those states have abrogated that power.

And, if this republican form of government decides it wants to guarantee each state has the right to torture people in the name of protecting them, that's just fine with you?

By the same logic you used for the death penalty, you're saying that the state could conceivably have the right to torture (or a number of other nasty things the legislature or executive branch would want to do) guaranteed in the Constitution?

Anbd yes, the government has every power that the people choose to give it.

And, until we're all smart enough to develop a zero error system, i won't grant them the right. Remember, the people grant the government rights, not the other way around.
The Professor

... exactly which human endeavor is error free? What part of life is guaranteed?

I'm against the death penalty AS IT IS CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED, as I agree that the system is not accurate enough to determine actual guilt or innocence.

But what if the law was changed? What if a new standard of evidence was required to prosecute a death penalty case? What if stuff like testimony given as a quid pro quo was not allowed in death penalty cases? Would you argue that there are crimes in which the guilt of the accused is not really in question - such as cases where there is surveillance video or multiple eyewitnesses and physical evidence?

The fact is, I find "liberals" somewhat inconsistent. They think a person should have the right to end their own life (I agree with that) but the disavow the idea that someone can forfeit their own life because of their own well pre-defined indefensible actions against society.

Vicious murdering scum like Tookie, Mumia and Michael Ross. If anything these cases make me more pro-DP.

As I have mentioned in a couple of other threads I hope the next case they focus on is Cory Maye, an innocent black man who was sentenced to death by a predominantly white Mississippi jury. After the verdict two members of the jury said one reason they convicted him was that he wasn't very respectful of elders and authority figures.

See http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025962.php

And they could have done better with the bad poster children. With Williams, had they focused on "the DP is wrong even though Mr. Williams crimes are heinous and he shows no remorse", I could have been swayed. One thing is certain, without the bomnbardment of "Tookie has redeemed himself" day after day after day there is no way I would have hardened my pro-DP stance as I did.

For days on DU, I said nothing. I got sick of it and hardened my stance.

solely based on the general issue or principle of the death penalty itself? You just didn't like what some of the Tookie supporters were saying and reacted against it, taking not just an opposite view on the "redemption" issue but "hardening" your stance on the DP? So it wasn't so much a matter of principle? Just reacting against the "bombardment" of the redemption thing?

Just trying to understand here, your stance on the DP was hardened by what appears to be essentially pique at some folk's views and behavior on a chat board? Whereas "had they focused on "the DP is wrong even though Mr. Williams crimes are heinous and he shows no remorse", I could have been swayed."

Since the matter of "the DP is wrong" is based on a general principle regardless of a specific individual case, it seems rather disingenuous to suggest your stance on the general principle of the right or wrong of the DP would be swayed by the arguments of others here if only they made an argument or picked a person whose circumstances appealed to you. For there will always be people who have done horrible things that merit capital punishment under the law on the books and even admit it (or don't), just as there also will be people who are discovered to have been wrongly convicted of capital crimes. How you determine and conclude the general rightness or wrongness of the administration of the DP is entirely up to you, it's really not dependent on others here or their arguments on a chat board. You already know what the arguments for and against are. And there's plenty of material available on the subject to research for anyone that's interested.

Just a couple cases in the news this year that may be of interest to some. Not trying to sway any minds, I just find it interesting. I imagine the folks who weighed the evidence and convicted these guys were sure of their judgment based on the evidence provided them in court.

Texas may have put innocent man to death, panel told
Nobody would listen, lawyer, expert say

By Steve Mills
Tribune staff reporter
Published April 20, 2005

AUSTIN, Texas -- With Texas' criminal justice system the subject of intense scrutiny for a crime lab scandal and a series of wrongful convictions, a state Senate committee heard testimony Tuesday about the possibility that Texas had experienced the ultimate criminal justice nightmare: the execution of an innocent person.

Fourteen months after Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in the nation's busiest death chamber, a renowned arson expert and Willingham's lawyer told the Senate Criminal Justice Committee that they believed Willingham might have been innocent but found nobody willing to listen to their claim in the days before the execution in February 2004.

"This was a frustrating case, and it was frustrating because it appeared that we could not get anybody to listen," said attorney Walter Reaves, who represented Willingham...

...The scientific advances that Hurst and the other experts cited in the Willingham case played a role in the exoneration last year of another Texas Death Row inmate, Ernest Willis. Hurst told the Senate committee that the two fires were identical, and that an investigation is needed to determine why Willingham died and Willis lived. http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-0504200146apr20,1,4986999.story?coll=chi-bbspecials-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Executed man may have been innocent
Witness, co-defendant tell newspaper man wasn't guilty

Sunday, November 20, 2005; Posted: 11:32 p.m. EST (04:32 GMT)

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- Doubts are being cast on the guilt of a Texas man executed more than a dozen years ago after the crime's lone witness recanted and a co-defendant said he allowed his friend to be falsely accused under police pressure, the Houston Chronicle reported Sunday.

Ruben Cantu was 17 in 1984 when he was charged with capital murder in the fatal shooting of a man during an attempted robbery in San Antonio. The victim was shot nine times with a rifle before the gunman unloaded more rounds into the only eyewitness.

The eyewitness, Juan Moreno, told the Chronicle that it wasn't Cantu who shot him. Moreno said he identified Cantu as the killer during his 1985 trial because he felt pressured and was afraid of authorities. (Watch the reporter investigating the case -- 3:16)

Meanwhile, Cantu's co-defendant, David Garza, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be accused, even though Cantu wasn't with him the night of the killing. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/texas.execution.ap/

Opposing the DP in even the worst cases only strengthens the argument to oppose it in all cases.

Like protecting the right to free speech, especially for speech you don't like.

Sid

However, I am sure that publicizing the cases of death row inmates who are probably innocent will win more people over to the anti-DP cause than focusing on gangsters, cop killers and serial killers whose guilt is not in doubt.

that you would apparently accept the abolition or suspension of capital punishment, but it's not the penalty itself that affects you, but attitudes surrounding it.

I've been following the cases of a number of death row inmates and some of them claim repentance, but most either proclaim their innocence or just don't give a damn about their crimes. Frankly, even though I'm a prison rights advocate, I don't believe a damn word any of them say. One of the first things you learn is that just abut any prisoner will say anything he or she thinks you want to hear or will get them some kind of favor, or get some chips off their shoulders.

Specifically with this Tookie guy, he's another one who simply says he didn't do it so he has nothing to be sorry for-- a not uncommon position with prisoners. OK, that's reasonable, although the usual answer at things like sentencing and parole hearings is that he was found guilty by a jury, so he's gotta be sorry. Kind puts him in a bind if he is actually innocent. Makes him out a liar if he does admit he did it and claims to be sorry-- just can't win no matter what he does.

More to the point about the sentence, though, is that all of this, and victim impact statements and all the other hoopla around sentencing, appealing and carrying out executions, is really irrelevant.

To my mind, there are only two questions:

"Is the death penalty right or wrong?"

Then, if you answered some version of "right" to that one, "Are we better off if this person is dead or alive right now."

In Tookie's case, whether or not he's still the street thug he was years ago and a better conman now, is what he's doing worthwhile enough to keep him around?

I can't read his mind or heart any more than anyone else can, but I can see the outward effects of what he's doing to try to keep kids out of the gangsta life, and that works for me.

Bill Clinton offered this nation a heartfelt, humbling confession of his guilt in violating the vows he made to his spouse (something that is NONE of this nations business) AND for lying to the American people-
How many people were 'placated' by that? How many republicans said "well, he's truly sorry"??? How many people were willing to change their desire to see him have his face rubbed in the shit that was dragged up for all the world to see, and joke about???

Clinton didn't need to answer to me for the harm he caused his wife, and sadly (often overlooked and dis-counted) his daughter. Who was indeed an innocent by-stander.

Tookie wouldn't have made anyone 'happy' with ANYTHING he did- he wouldn't bring back the lives of 4 people- change his past, or effect his future- People would say "he's only doing this to save his ass"-

This society is very 'vengeful'- and does NOT forgive, excuse, or give mercy very easily, or graciously. And until WE- each and every one of us, individually make a CHOICE to live our OWN lives with the courage of our 'creedo' as to how we believe a responsible, respectable, compassionate, patient, and worthwhile human being should conduct themself regardless of the temptation to bend the rules, and justify our own short-comings, we will NEVER truly be anything more than fancy speaking, fancy dressed neanderthall hypocrites.

we cannot 'control' others- we can only control ourselves, and even that is impossible alot of the time.

We need to LIVE our talk- without excuse, or justification. Pointing fingers doesn't change what we do- it is deceptive distraction.

peace-
blu

I will not go about the business of convincing anyone to change their mind about the DP.

Just from following the debate at DU, it is vivid in my mind that those that believe in the DP will have to see it on their own, I can't control anyone.

That is the problem now, GW and his Crooks have the power to tell us what to think.

I "think" he would be delighted to see anyone die,he loved to kill frogs when he was little, so therefore I want to do the opposite.

He is NOT my moral compass.

There is nothing that anyone can tell me to make me change my mind on the DP.

I do know what clarified it for me.

George W. Bush and IRAQ!

When I saw the wasted lives of our soldiers and innocent Iraqi children, I knew that I would study War No More.

I also decided over time that if GW could still walk this earth than Tookie and Earl, the KKK gentleman that is up for the DP, should both rot in jail but they should NOT be killed.

guess there is more hope alive in this world than i'd thought... i'm trying to chose to believe that-

peace,
blu

Either you believe that government has the right to terminate its own citizens or you don't. Personally, I don't believe that. Jail them forever, keep them away from the public, fine. But judging who lives and dies? That's something best left to forces more righteous than government.

The issue to me is first whether or not the government should exercise that right in individual cases and second, whether the government should abrogate that right.

that judgement than a collective government, but if they did it, it would be considered murder. Long story short, matters of life and death are best decided by a higher power.

collective government? Isn't the reason we HAVE a collective government to be able to make these decisions in the best and most qualified way? Are you talking about a priest class? Or an aristocracy? Help me understand.

I am willing to bet that I would be able to decide death penalty cases more accurately and with an eye towards its inherent racial and socioeconomic bias than the assorted state governments do now.

Of course, I wouldn't, because I oppose the death penalty and am not running for office.

But the fact remains that George W. Bush got to decide whether or not to let people live or die in Texas. Surely there are better qualified individuals out there, right?

elected that asshole as their Governor, thereby assuring that an unqualified person would make those decisions. I moved away from Texas just after he was elected, choosing places where better people are regularly put into office. But I can't make, interpret or enforce laws on my own (although I'd really like to), 'cause that would not be a civil society.

I too oppose the death penalty, but to me the most important aspect of penology and "criminal justice" is that the offender have a chance to "get it," and to me that means repentance and forgiveness.

Since when can The People rightfully 'delegate' that which The People don't have?

same argument, different word.

:shrug: I don't.

among them at the federal level is the ability to levy taxes, make war, and execute criminals.

States are empowered to levy taxes and execute criminals.

This leaves two questions regarding the death penalty:

1) Should the government exercise the power to execute certain criminals in specific cases?

2) Should the government abrogate its power to execute certain criminals?

It still comes back to the same argument for me.

The "might makes right" exercise of POWER by government ...
(1) Kill people deliberately because ...
(a) They got in my way as I went after something I deserved ('entitled' to). (e.g. Iraq)
(b) They 'deserved' it. (e.g. death penalty, 'illegal combatants')
(2) It's 'acceptable' that innocents are killed.
(a) As collateral damage. (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan)
(b) They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. (e.g. death penalty, detainees)

I see no essential difference between the self-centered rationalizations of murderers and a government that engages in 'preemptive' war and capital punishment. In my opinion, it's moral corruption to the point of bankruptcy.

:shrug:

Oh well. Calling me a murderer because of my stance really fails to convince me to change my stance.

That's the predominant insight that convinced me way back when I changed from being loosely supportive of capital punishment to adamantly against it.

When the foo shits ... some folks wear it and others take a shower. :eyes:

You said it with those words!
In my brain, anyone that believes we should not be in Iraq should be Anti DP.

The DP and the War in Iraq, or anywhere, go hand in hand.
How many wars can we coutinue to fight ?

In the 21st Century we should be able to co exist in another way.

GW opened a hornet's nest in Iraq and the Middle East.

We have gained nothing but a phony election in Iraq, thousands dead and $$'s for Halliburton and other bullies.

sorry a pet peeve of mine, governments have power, and democratic governments get their power from the people. The question should be, should the government have the power to decide whether an individual lives or dies?

it's important to note that HE WAS NOT AFRAID TO DIE. IMHO, *death* was not the ultimate punishment for Tookie's crimes. Because he never admitted his crimes, because he never helped to put gangmembers behind bars (I don't know if he never showed remorse, do you know this for sure?), spending the rest of his life behind bars to bare witness to the heinousness of his crimes would have been a far greater punishment than the one he received. He is now removed from his earthly misery. On to another place where, depending on your beliefs, he's burning in hot, fiery seas and being prodded with a pitchfork for eternity, has repented and sits on fluffy clouds for eternity, or is just a lump of flesh and bone, permanently removed of all ability to sense remorse or regret. Only one of these scenarios ensures that Tookie gets the fate that he deserves. That's a 1:3 ratio; not very good, if you ask me. If he'd have been kept alive at least we would be secure in the knowledge that he is rotting out the last of his miserable life in a 7x7 cell. Oh yeah, and he may have gone on to help even more at-risk youth from escaping his same fate but, as you request, let's stick to arguments that work. I think that killing people is wrong.

Personally (and I speak as someone who has never had a family member killed violently by a sick bastard) I would feel better knowing that Timothy McVeigh was in a 23 1/2 hour-a-day lock-down in a tiny cell in Alabama, living in constant fear of being raped, brutally beaten, or killed.

But here again, Timothy McVeigh was not afraid to die and I would wager that most violent criminals are *not afraid to die*. So the only justification left for continuing the practice of killing violent criminals is the feeling of retribution it brings to the families of the victim. As a progressive, I have to believe that humans can overcome this primal urge.

But hey, as a progressive I believe that one day all humans can live in peace and harmony with one another, how's that for being out of touch with reality?!?!

"I would feel better knowing that Timothy McVeigh was in a 23 1/2 hour-a-day lock-down in a tiny cell in Alabama, living in constant fear of being raped, brutally beaten, or killed."

Wow, it's not ok for the state to kill him, but ok for some other inmate?


Strange way of being progressive.

Personally I abhorrer the Death Penalty, because it teaches us two things:

1) It is ok to kill if you feel justified in doing so.

2) No need to better your self. There is no redemption. No matter how much you turn around your life, in the end ,you will die.

If my home is invaded and I fear for my life or more importantly, the lives of my family, I will not hesitate to squeeze off a round into the kill zone of the intruder.

And I would be 100% justified in such a case.

I'm not brave enough to be a pacifist. The world is a dangerous place.

I said that he deserved to live in constant fear of meeting a terrible fate in prison, surrounded by peolpe as sick, or more so, than he. He would fully deserve living like that for his hienous crime.

As Walt states, the world is a dangerous place and there are many bad people in it. I do not support killing them. I believe that they deserve to live with thier crimes.

change is an important part of the process and should indeed be considered in the administrattion of the death penalty. It's certainly wrong to execute a different person from the one who did the crime.

I would rather see every guilty person rot for life in prison than watch one innocent person die because of a mistake or just plain meanness. Read this...http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/13/deathrow.restitution/

On Edit: I don't think you can rehabilitate someone like J.D. I lived in Tallahassee during the Ted Bundy murders and trail. No way he would have ever been rehabilitated. But he was railroaded at his trail. I am not saying he was not guilty but there was not any physical evidence (except for the bite mark evidence that had never been allowed in a court of law before), no eyewitnesses (except for the one person that saw Bundy for .7 seconds and only recalled it after hypnosis).

But Pitts and Lee were innocent. Lee came within 6 hours of dying. All because of a racist and mean community. That is why I'm against the DP.
Besides, it demeans us all.

your opinion in the first place? If that is your only reasoning for maintaining the DP, than why let it stand? Why let the reasoning of a group, or someone you feel to be disingenuous in the first place, shape your view on such a serious matter?

For me there are two questions about this right.

1) For each individual case, should the government exercise its right to execute this specific criminal? In the case of Tookie Williams, the answer for me was yes.

2) Overall, should government abrogate its right to execute some criminals? This is the one you need to convince me on because it overrides the first question. Where I sit right now, the answer is no. The Tookie Williams arguments only hardened my resolve on this question.

You will never be able to convince me a government does not have the right to execute certain criminals.

"You will never be able to convince me a government does not have the right to execute certain criminals."

If that last statement is true, how could you really ever be convinced to be anti-DP?

Question number two lays it out.

I've been thinking for close to 48 hours how to best convince you that the government should abrogate its right to execute some criminals. The biggest issues for me, in relation to the death penalty, is how it is applied racially, the economic cost, the chance that an innocent could be wrongfully killed, and its effectiveness as a deterrent.

I also worry about the "unforeseeable" consequences of the death penalty, like what message it sends. I find it inappropriate for a government to send a message to its citizenry that killing solves social problems. In fact, I've often wondered if the death penalty in fact sends a message opposite of its intention. Instead of sending a "deterrent," or "killing is bad" message, could it be sending the message that killing is "okay" if done for the "right reasons?"

Killing in the name of government, unless for national security purposes such as war, or treason, is in my belief wrong. You would not rape a rapist, in the name of justice, so why would you kill a killer in the name of justice?

Is the the death penalty racially fair?

http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/newab017/
snip-
The death penalty is racist.
snip-
That was the official conclusion of a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) review of the federal death penalty system released in September. The study shows that the federal death penalty is used disproportionately against minorities, especially African Americans -- and that it is applied in a geographically arbitrary way, with some states, like Virginia and Texas, accounting for a large share of death penalty prosecutions.
snip-
As Feingold pointed out, "The same serious flaws in the administration of the death penalty that have plagued the states also afflict the federal death penalty. All Americans agree that whether you die for committing a federal crime should not depend arbitrarily on the color of your skin or randomly on where you live."
------
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=539#Conclusion
snip-
The new studies revealed through this report add to an overwhelming body of evidence that race plays a decisive role in the question of who lives and dies by execution in this country. Race influences which cases are chosen for capital prosecution and which prosecutors are allowed to make those decisions. Likewise, race affects the makeup of the juries which determine the sentence. Racial effects have been shown not just in isolated instances, but in virtually every state for which disparities have been estimated and over an extensive period of time.

Those who die because of this racism are not the kind of people who usually evoke the public's sympathy. Many have committed horrendous crimes. But crimes no less horrendous are committed by white offenders or against black victims, and yet the killers in those cases are generally spared death. The death penalty today is a system which vents society's anger over the problem of crime on a select few. The existing data clearly suggest that many of the death sentences are a product of racial discrimination. There is no way to maintain our avowed adherence to equal justice under the law, while ignoring such racial injustice in the state's taking of life.
------
http://www.coadp.org/thepublications/pub-v1n2-itseasy.html
snip-
Empirical studies repeatedly show a persistent pattern of racial disparities in seeking and imposing the death penalty, revealing discrimination based on the race of the defendant, the race of the victim, or both. A recent Philadelphia study showed that a defendant who is African-American is almost four times more likely to receive a death sentence than a Caucasian defendant. A striking disparity was discovered in a study comparing those executed for interracial murders. Nine white men have been executed for killing black victims, while 130 black men have been executed for killing whites.
--------------------------
The economic cost of the death penalty.
------
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
snip-
Florida spends millions extra per year on death penalty
Florida would save $51 million each year by punishing all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to an approximate cost of $24 million for each execution. This finding takes into account the relatively few inmates who are actually executed, as well as the time and effort expended on capital defendants who are tried but convicted of a lesser murder charge, and those whose death sentences are overturned on appeal. (Palm Beach Post, January 4, 2000)
------
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html
snip-
"Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis."
-- Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999
----------
http://www.coadp.org/thepublications/pub-v1n2-itseasy.html
snip-
The death penalty costs more than life imprisonment.
Most studies estimate that the average capital case from arrest to execution costs between $1 million and $3 million. The enormous amount spent on capital punishment reduces available county, state and national resources for education, health care, public safety, capital improvements and other essential services. In contrast, cases resulting in life imprisonment cost an average of $500,000, including the cost of incarcerating convicted murders.
--------------------
There is always a chance of taking innocent life.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/factsinnocence.html
snip-
“I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state’s taking of innocent life… Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate.”
-- Governor George Ryan of Illinois, January 2000, in declaring a moratorium on executions in his state, after the 13th Illinois death row inmate had been released from prison due to wrongful conviction. In the same time period, 12 others had been executed.
----
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510691998
snip-
No one knows how many of the approximately 7,000 people put to death in the USA during this century were innocent. Since the resumption of US executions in 1977, Amnesty International has documented numerous cases where serious doubts concerning the prisoner's guilt still existed immediately prior to the execution. According to one prominent study, at least 23 innocent people had been executed in the USA this century prior to 1984.(3) Significantly, the authors of the report do not claim that the numbers represent the total of all innocent victims of the US death penalty, but merely those cases which their own research uncovered.

It is unconscionable to inflict the punishment of death without the most stringent safeguards protecting the innocent. Fatal miscarriages of justice serve only to undermine public confidence in the fairness and efficacy of the entire legal system. Yet, by its own admission, the USA has failed to maintain the safeguards required to minimize the risk of wrongful death sentences and executions.
---
http://teacher.deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/argument3a.htm
snip-
The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 982 people have been executed. Thus, for every eight people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business.
---------

The death penalty does not work as a deterrence.

snip-
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/deterrence.html
snip-
A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.
---
http://teacher.deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/argument1b.htm
snip-
Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.
snip-
States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.
snip-
The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas's executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse."
-----
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/oldnews/death1.htm
snip-
Among the experts, there is overwhelming consensus that the death penalty never has been, is not and never could be a deterrent to homicide over and above long imprisonment," said Michael Radelet, chairman of UF's sociology department and a longtime researcher of death penalty issues. "The rates of consensus were much higher on this question than I ever thought possible. We never see 90 percent of criminologists agree on anything."

-------
I don't believe the DP is equally applied to all racial classes. I do not believe that the DP is economically effective. I think it's a good idea to maintain the DP, if there is a chance a single innocent life could be taken. The evidence clearly suggests that the DP does not work as a deterrent. In my opinion the DP, is just not worth its cost.

others, I've decided that the proper course on the DP is for all states to immediately implement a moratorium to re-examine how it is applied and decide how to proceed.

It's a start, isn't it?

It's a great start. Thank you for keeping an open mind.


:yourock:

122 convicted and sentenced to death, "beyond a reasonable doubt," and then PROVEN INNOCENT (not merely doubt of guilt!) should be more than enough for any sane and rational person to acknowledge that there's no such thing as absolute certainty in death penalty cases.

Williams was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.

That is the question, I don't care that much about Tookie, so forget about him for a minute. There are and have been cases that casted great doubt on people's guilt and in some of them, the sentence was already carried out. The question now is to ask, is it worth killing one innocent person so that an additional hundred guilty people are also killed?

this leaves only two questions:

1) Is the Death Penalty correct in a specific case?
2) Should the government abrogate it's right to impose a death penalty?

Until the people of a state determine the answer to 2) is "yes", all cases fall under question 1) and must be handled on an individual basis.

That is not, and should not, be a question. In a democratic society, that means that the people bestowed that power on the state through their elected officials. Problems I have with the death penalty have little to do with those types of questions, mine have to do with the criminal justice system itself. Can the death penalty be imposed equitably, and more importantly, how accurate are the results of said system?

To be honest, I think this debate is a waste of time, you seem to have no interest in changing your mind, regardless of what your OP said. The fact that you base such an important issue on the attitudes of SOME of the opposition makes me think you are being intellectually dishonest.

because of the problem where you have people who didn't do a thing and then they have to lie - to get paroled or whatever. While I'm sure the victims family would like to hear it from someone - I don't think it's relevant for the rest of us.

The main problem is that convictions are not 100% sure - there is the reasonable doubt thing and even the problem of people who falsely confess under pressure - the NYC "wilding" case as an example (later the real perp. confessed & there was actual DNA evidence to back it up).

I didn't look at all of the possible documents on Tookie - and I don't pretend to know - but what if he had committed other murders that he wasn't charged with - but didn't want to apologize for ones that he didn't commit?

The movie "Shawshank Redemption" gets into this.


My main worry is murderers who are able to keep murdering in prison and managing to get people murdered outside of prison - even while they are in prison.

he was convicted of murdering. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

the state to have the right to do it to certain criminals, you also give them the right to kill innocent people.

I am absolutely convinced that innocent people have been put to death.

I don't support the death penalty for that reason. Better to let all live with life in prison, no parole, than to kill one innocent person.

The system is fallible and broken. It can't be fixed. If I can't be guaranteed that an innocent person will not be executed, then don't support executing anyone.

two wrongs don't make a right.

How can society say, on one hand, that killing is wrong, and then kill someone, in the most cold blooded way possible, as retribution for that wrong?

What message does this send?

Those of us who oppose the death penalty appreciate the olive branch.

I don't oppose the death penalty for any reason other than I feel it is wrong to kill another person. Period.

:toast:

Sid

First, you're right. Of all the executions to argue about, they chose to concentrate on a man with a hand in the murders of hundreds, maybe thousands, of young men. Has anyone who has ever murdered this many people ever been executed outside of Nuremburg?


I had the DP argument with a pair of DP advocates last night. One of them reached the following point beyond which we both agreed there was no reason to continue arguing:

HIM: It bothers me that someone who deserves the death penalty might get to live a minute longer than he should.

ME: Which do you think is worse: a guilty person getting off, or an innocent person getting executed?

HIM: A guilty person getting off.

ME: Really?

HIM: Absolutely. The occasional innocent person getting executed is worth the risk.


The other person tried the "cost" gambit. She was surprised when the other DP advocate backed me up in my assertion that the death penalty is actually more expensive than life in prison. However, even with that argument already "won" I revisited it with her after the above thread hit a brick wall.

ME: And let's go back to your position and pretend that it actually does cost more to keep the person in prison. I notice that you also say nothing about the possibility, the admitted certainty, that sometimes an innocent person will get convicted. Are you suggesting that is worth the risk ... because it will save us money?

HER: I never thought about it that way.


At which point I let her walk away thinking about it. Of course, if she went home and talked to her hubby about it, I'm sure he quickly buoyed up her faith in the DP as he is one of those like the first guy I mention above. I am less certain he actually believes his own bullshit. He would just rather shout down in doubts. The guy above is a very thoughtful fellow who knows exactly what he is saying, and has convinced me of his sincerity.

Isn't it a fact that Tookie openly admitted crimes he committed but was not arrested, tried and convicted for, but expressed his remorse for those crimes? I think, if he were guilty of the crimes that he was executed for, would have been very easy for him to express remorse, so why didn't he?

would you admit guilt to a crime you know you did not commit?

The media did not deal with the evidence in this case when covering the story yesterday. Apparently there were serious problems with the case presented to the jury, which raises the issue of guilt and innocence.

there have been many wrongful guilty verdicts in our judicial system over these centuries. far too many people, especially people of color that have been wrongly accused, convicted, and executed - to even begin to argue that the prosecutors had their case without question on this one.

when confronted with that question, one of potential wrongful conviction against a possible innocent person, what would have been the harm in commuting his sentence to life in imprison without parole?

the question on the lack of righteousness of the death penalty should not hang on the perpetrators expression of remorse.

if found guilty, are we to require judges to instruct the juries to hand down Life in Prison (without possibility of parole)solely to those who express an acceptable level of remorse, but if not enough remorse is expressed then that defendant should be given the death penalty?

is that the challenge you're trying to advance?

But Stanley Williams did commit those crimes and the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming.

He didn't admit to his crimes because he was an arrogant thug and a habitual liar, who never showed an ounce of remorse for the four families who's lives HIS actions completely shattered.

I'm 100% in favor of his execution, and it's not about vengeance, it's about justice. Stanley Williams had a far more peaceful death than he gave his victims...Albert Owens for example, where Williams shot him in the back and then stood over him laughing for five minutes listening to "the gurgling noises that he made as he was dying"...then five minutes into his little sadistic kick, Williams put Owens out of his misery and shot him in the head.

I've got little human compassion for the Stanley Williams of society.

in the thread where you ended up shrieking at me about how the DP had nothing to do with vengeance and everything to do with justice.

This might be a lesson to those who oppose the Death Penalty.

Gee, thanks.

i do recall trying to the make the point that the Death Penalty had everything to do with VENGENCE and NOTHING to do with Justice.

If you think I said the reverse, it may be because of a typo on my part or other grammatical error that i made, which i am prone to do - i say this because I have been *against* the death penalty for decades - for this simple reason among others.

the link that you provide below seems to be bad so I'm unable to review what grammatical or spelling errors i made which inadvertently reversed my meaning and intention.

try here.

That should be enough.

--IMM

I'm not surprised to read your position. I've noticed that you are conservative on many issues, and I really doubt that you could be convinced to be more liberal about anything. Nice try, though.

I just looked at some of your previous posts and found that I was wrong about you. Maybe there were a few of your posts that stuck in my mind as being very conservative, but my search showed that you generally are not. I should have searched before I made that statement. Sorry.

If convicted criminals are locked in a small concrete room for the rest of their existence, they won't be able to hurt anyone else.

Is it to save money? Not having to house and feed prisoners? If justice is truly important, how can we put a price on it?
As I understand our current system, it is more expensive to execute someone that house and feed them for 50 yrs.

Is it to serve as a deterrent? Is execution really a worse punishment than living in a small box for the rest of your life?

Having said that I do think that those who are put in prison without the possibility of parole should be kept isolated from society.

People who will be in prison for the rest of their life should not be continuing a career, or have a social life. (On the other hand, those who will be released someday should definitely be given counseling, training and be prepared to re-enter society)

I feel bad for the families of Tookie's victims, when others try to make Tookie into a celebrity, and nominate him for a Pulitzer Prize.