Do you support the Death Penalty for...

I brought up this point in another thread that was (rightfully) locked. However, I am curious as to what answer people have.

Do you support the Death Penalty for violent Hate Crimes?

If you murder someone during the commission of the hate crime then yeah, you should get the death sentence. But just beating someone or whatever that you hate shouldn't get you death. You should get the applicable assault/battery charge and consequence.

Listening to the discussion of Tookie Williams on the radio I had to think about my position on the death penalty. I believe that it is not right for people to judge the fate of someone else, it is God's. We are no better than the murderers if we kill them, we still have killed someone. Previously, I had thought that in the most extreme cases I would support the death penalty. But as I thought more about it, my reasoning would still hold true in the extreme cases, so I it would be hypocritical to support for the most extreme cases. Now I am firmly planted in opposition to the death penalty and support life in prison for the most violent crimes. People don't have the right to say who should day and who should not. That is beyond our control. Killing a person is murder, even if that person is a murderer.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

"I believe that it is not right for people to judge the fate of someone else, it is God's."

Isn't it judging someone by putting them in prison to start with? What difference does it make if they are put in prison for life, without the possibility to have contact with the outside world and in solitary confinement, no possibility for parole verses the death sentence?

The difference is, in my eyes, that they have the ability to spread their hateful message to other prisoners and find sympathizers. Killing them eliminates their voice and sends a strong message to those who would follow in their footsteps. (Not to mention making it more painful and horrible. No more, "your going to feel a small pinch in your arm, like a bee sting"... no... real pain and terror and publicly available so that those who seek to follow in the evil persons foot steps realizes that it will be them who will suffer the same fate next.)

and chopping off hands of theifs. That will deter crime AND be very painful.:sarcasm:

I don't believe in God, so therefore I don't believe in Hell. So I have to be content with a few moments of joy as they are burned alive - for real.

I'm sure someone else could be more creative. In fact it may be something enjoyable to have a competition to see who can come up with the most horrid way to die and then serve out the punishment.

I haven't seen any proof that the DP serves to deter crime.

My thoughts exactly.

...make it public and make the actual death penalty fearful. If you stripped them naked, tied them to a wooden stake, dumped gas on them and set them on fire, recorded it and made it publicly available - you would see FAR less hate in this country. I guarantee it'd only take two or three.

I think the US will have plenty of hate in stock.

What would you suggest doing with Nazi's? The two bastards who tied up Matthew Shepard, beat him to near death, and left him to slowly bleed to death and die? Or the bastards who dragged that black man to death down in Texas?

Hell, I think there may have been a hate crime committed just last night on my street - a young black girl was beaten to the point of being in critical condition and the KKK runs strong around where I live.

What would you do with those people? Just let them live their life out peacefully within prison?

What would I do with them? Recognize that my personal feelings and emotions don't (And SHOULD NOT) make law. Realize that hateful actions, while upsetting and infuriating and wrong, aren't deserving of the sacrifice of MY humanity.

YES. I would lock those people away. Unless we find a better solution that doesn't involve torture and murder, the very things we punish them for, I would lock them away.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I don't see any justice in what you propose, only hateful & fairly frightening anger.

The idea that someone is calling for torture and public burnings of criminals makes me feel physically ill.

:shrug:

I don't understand. What is the point of having hate crime laws if we are not going to make people who want to commit acts of hate FEARFUL of committing the crime to start with? How is it in this country you can find yourself in prison for possession of pot longer than if you commit murder?

It's not about the actual killing - it's about DETERRING it from happening to start with. Making the punishment so gruesome and awful that anyone who wishes to commit the actions would be terrified at the prospect of the punishment. Then, if anyone commits the act knowing the consequence, surely they are deserving of the punishment?

But way to try and make me look like I heart nazis or something. Great tactic.

It's proven that capital punishment doesn't deter people from committing their crimes. And if you have a problem with sentencing it, calling for the public torture of human beings isn't exactly the way I think you should go with fixing it. Really.

Punishment ISN'T deterring anyone from committing capital crimes. It just ISN'T. Countries without ANY capital punishment laws have lower murder rates than the U.S. Work that in to your theory, would you? :eyes:

The ends only justify the means if there is something to justify the ends.

It clearly is about the actual killing, as you want to make it as brutal and public as possible. Ruling people by absolute terror is what despotic dictators do. It doesn't work, it's awful, it's scary, and it's wrong.

People who commit hate crimes deserve punishment. Human beings do not deserve public torture to satisfy your blood lust on your personal hot button issue, period. It's selfish, disgusting, and fairly scary that you would even suggest it.

But, way to advocate basic human rights violations! Reminds me of how murderous racists don't view their victims as humans deserving of basic rights.

What would you do differently? How would you deter it from happening other than through fear of repercussions? How would you set someone who murdered in a drug induced haze apart from someone who purposefully set out to "bug smash some fags" or "string up a few negros?"

That's why we have hate crimes laws in the first place, to make the punishment harsher and more fitting to the crime, and to send the message that we won't tolerate it.

Publicly torturing people? Uhm, I would do everything differently from that. There is always a certain amount of fear used (Don't do this or you'll be locked up), but fear isn't total terror of your government.

YES. We send a message we won't tolerate these things. But you can't send that message when you're violating human rights! You can't send the message that violence and pain is WRONG by setting people on FIRE. Jesus.

What would I do? What I already support: Locking people up when they do something, educating people before it becomes a problem, and having strict sentences for people who commit hate crimes.

But you didn't really ask that question in a pointed way.

...and being more than a little extreme. I am severely tired at the moment, and more than a little upset that a young black girl was beaten with a baseball bat just down the road from me. I'm angry at the fact that they are trying to say it was a robbery and not a hate crime, despite the fact that they didn't take anything. I'm also angry at the fact that someone has - yet again - knocked my mail box down and beat it in. Probably the same bastards who beat the girl.

So, okay, maybe setting them on fire is extreme however they certainly deserve some harsh punishment of some kind. They deserve some type of suffering, at least.

I think that would fall under the heading of cruel and unusual punishment. We have to think about those that have to take care of these people. We don't want inmates to become too desperate or depressed as that spells danger for the officers. But I'm all for lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Also, I believe pedophiles should be in a modern type of asylum for life or until there is a real cure. They could hold "in the walls" jobs, have on site shopping, efficiency apartments but keep them off the street, after being diagnosed which should fall after their first offense.

I'm not so sure. The 2 biggest problems I have with the death penalty are that it is irreversable in case of error, and it's too damn easy. What death penalty advocates forget is that there are worse things you can do to a person than kill them.

I don't see how giving the worst of the worst a painless death with plenty of forenotice, benefit of clergy, a hearty last meal, and the opportunity to say goodbye to their loved ones is really a supreme penalty for a supreme crime. To put it differently, is giving a murderer a more peaceful death than his or her victims a good idea?

The McVeighs, Bundys and Gacys (and yes, I place Tookie firmly in this category) of the world deserve to be thrown into a hole and forgotten about. I just can't justify killing them.

so I'm confused by your response. I was talking about making the job of the correctional officers safer by not antagonizing the inmates by treating them cruelly. I only reason I wouldn't cut them off from all contact with the outside world is to prevent innocent people that are wrongly convicted from getting help. As for all the puff pieces that went out to defend Tookie is think that is disgusting especially the pictures where he is posing.

hate crimes
murder for hire
felony murder
premeditated murder
multiple murders (mass or serial)
ANY of the above that involve the murders of children

Rape?
Blasphemy?
Witchcraft?
Theft?
Hoss stealin'?
Being queer?

You're leaving out a whole raft of people who are despicable and not worthy of living in your world.

Death penalty is not justice, it is vengeance, and is driven by fear.

I choose not to be fearful.

Rape?
Blasphemy?
Witchcraft?
Theft?
Hoss stealin'?
Being queer?

I never said anything about these things....
For all you know I am a gay, blasphemous, witchcraft practicing horse thief.
The only people who are not worthy of living in my world are those who take the lives of others in a cold blooded fashion.... Hey, like Tookie Wiliams.

someone. And that's the short list.

Do you believe that it is impossible that the witnesses lied about Williams' involvement when offered deals by the DA? The only witnesses who had nothing to gain, also had nothing to offer, like the guy who drove past the 7-11 and saw a couple black guys go inside. The entire case hinged on testimony by paid informants.

Williams was a bad guy. He was a thug who organized what became one of the biggest, most violent gangs in US history. He admitted as much. He never denied that he was a violent felon. But he never repented the murders, because he claimed his innocence for those particular crimes.

If he did commit them, and was an unrepentant gang leader, wouldn't acknowledging the murders improve his street cred? And if he did commit them, and was a repentant gang leader, surely he knew that showing repentance would make a difference at the clemency hearings, and not showing repentance would be held against him, not to mention that admitting to the killings would add to his credibility in his anti-gang activism. And if he did commit them, and was an unrepentant gang leader, he would know the same thing -- surely he would have no compunctions about lying about his repentance to save his own life.

The only logical conclusion I come to is that he did not commit those particular crimes, though he certainly committed others, and he could not and would not show repentance for crimes he did not commit, even to save his own life. Would you?

I believe it is very possible that he was set up by the DA's office because of his gang leadership, that the murders were committed by one or more of the people who testified against him, and that he was, indeed, a changed man who was trying to mitigate some of the damage he had done in his youth.

Now that he's been executed, that work has stopped. And as an example for all the gangbangers who saw what happened, they are now assured that there is no point in trying to change because there is no redemption, there is no hope, and all there is is thug life.

oh, most of the free world. And uh, really doesn't do much to further your point.

I can't even deal with this :puke: It's too fucking sick

If we are torturing innocent people, why not torture some people who are really guilty and are deserving of it?

It's not like most Americans even care. Do you see the outrage? I don't. I just see embarrassment that we got caught.

"If we are torturing innocent people, why not torture some people who are really guilty and are deserving of it?"


Yeah...................ok........................... :puke:

If so I'd like to know. I'm open to suggestions. I don't think getting a free ride with three square meals per day, spreading a message of hate, writing a book, getting a movie deal, and having TV interviews is very shall we say... appropriate... to someone who, you know, is a bigot.

gays deserve to live, or blacks, or jews, or whatever.
Just like they don't deserve to eat.

How about addressing the things that are NOT to do with life (you know, eating) and addressing the spreading of hate or giving interviews. Maybe, just maybe, there is a way to deal with those concerns of yours that don't involve public torture of human beings.

Just a thought.

"No, but I support life in jail, without the possibility of parole or contact with the outside world, and permanent placement in solitary confinement."

I support that as well. :) Either is fine with me, I just prefer the public death as I believe that would be a better deterent for future haters.

I really don't think that there is anything left to say between us on this subject. :puke:

Oh edit:
You also had in your OP an option for repealing hate crimes laws, which you clearly don't support, and in other threads you said that choice #1 was something you supported. I didn't see anywhere you actually say you supported just locking them away.

At least ten studies within the United States since 1919 have shown that there is no consistent, demonstrable deterrent effect of capital punishment on homicide rates, one of which noted that between 1907 and 1963, in New York state, there was an average increase of two homicides in the state in the month after an execution.

On top of that, cross-national studies were conducted on 14 cases (Austria, 1968; England and Wales, 1965; Finland, 1949; Helsinki, 1949; Israel, 1954; Italy, 1890; Sweden, 1921; Switzerland, 1942; Vienna, 1968; Canada, 1967; Denmark, 1930; Netherlands Antilles, 1957; New Zealand, 1961; and Norway, 1905) of the abolition of the death penalty, testing three different forms of the deterrence hypothesis: general deterrence,(the idea that any jurisdiction that abolished the death penalty will see an increase in homicide rates), residual deterrence, (the idea that the deterrence effect won't fade away directly after abolition, but after a few years, homicide rates will begin to dincrease as residual deterrence erodes), and offense deterrence, (the idea that the death penalty will specifically deter the type of crime that results in the death penalty, specifically first-degree murder, and that its abolition will result in a higher increase in capital crime rates than non-capital crime rates).

Studies of all three hypotheses showed the exact same resultsin both the short, medium and long term: 8 cases saw decreases in homicide rates, 5 saw increases in homicide rates, and one saw no noticable change in homicide rates. The results, (in more detail), also show that capital crime rates do not increase at higher rates than non-capital rates.

All the evidence runs quite strongly in contradiction to any idea that the dath penalty is an effective deterrent against homicide.

So just because you believe it to be a deterent, doesn't actually make it one.

(Thanks for the study help by the way, I have a final in this stuff on Thursday night. :hi:)

All knowledge dropped in this post has been brought to you by:
Barq's Root Beer, "Has bite since 1898!"
Ruffles All Dressed Potato Chips, "Canada's favourite ridged chip brand!"
And "Violence & Crime In Cross-national Perspective," written by Dane Archer and Rosemary Gartner (Pages 118-139)

Granted many Americans don't care but we leave human rights up to the whims of public opinion. A large reason many don't care is because they don't know the full details. Some may only be embarrassed they got caught so they hide the details, shift the blame, and scare the public making it easier for people to accept and forgive torture that they don't know the full extent of.

Some cases merit the DP such as Ted Bundy. He killed over hundred women including a 12 year old girl. He lost his rights when he became a non-human.

it's always a lot easier to deal with issues like this if you can totally separate yourself from the person in question by deeming them not of the same species as you. It's hyperbole that makes it easier for people to deal with the ideas put forth, but it's a crutch.

Ted Bundy WAS a human being. A fucked up human being who should have been locked the hell away. But what he did didn't change his genetic make up.

Humans are capable of committing heinous acts. Calling them "non-human" when they do only makes it easier to accept when people who seem trustable do bad things and easier to excuse actions towards them we wouldn't normally otherwise.

The death penalty does nothing for the victims because they are already dead and it won't bring them back. If we care about a victims rights then we shouldn't allow victims to be trashed in the court room but forcing a criminal to give an eye for an eye has never been a victim's right. Capital punishment isn't about victims. It is about revenge and giving society a false sense of security. If we want to keep people safe then sometimes like in the case of Ted Bundy we need to lock people up for the rest of their lives and make sure they never come into contact with the public. If we can't be trusted to lock them up appropriately then that is yet another reason why we shouldn't murder them.

Killing them doesn't deter or give justice to anyone.

All human endeavors are subject to mistakes. There's no way to completely prevent innocent people from being punished. It's a fact that innocent people are in prison at this moment, a fact that innocent people have been put to death. It can't be any other way because human institutions are subject to the same flaws and failures as are individual humans.

It doesn't work to say the death penalty is justified "just as long as it's only applied in cases where we are really, extra, supery-dupery positive." Because there are too many different ideas about what it takes to attain absolute certainty. Witnesses have been wrong. They have been known to lie. Prosecutors and police have been known to withhold exonerating evidence. They've been known to ignore or suppress testimony that contradicted their case, because they were so sure they had the right guy and they didn't want anything to threaten victory in court. Or because of how hard it is to admit being wrong, or because it was politically inconvenient to admit they'd prosecuted the wrong guy.

Can anyone honestly claim they've never screwed up at their job? I can't. All of the mistakes, errors in judgement, and occasionally, ethical shortcomings, that we are all subject to, come into play. The justice system can't be perfect, because we can't be perfect. Which is why I think it's arrogant to hand out death sentences.

As for some of the more violent fantasies regarding how desirable it would be if the death penalty could be made more horrific, I'm at a loss. Fond descriptions of how public torture could be utilized as a method of behavior control for the citizenry at large would seem to indicate much deeper issues at work than a desire for sober justice.

there are many crimes for which I would love to see the perpetrator killed, even in a horrific and cruel manner, I am nevertheless opposed to the death penalty.

Hate crimes, sexual assaults, crimes against children, particulary involving abuse, neglect, and murder, all make my blood boil, and make me want to see retribution. But part of civilization means overcoming our baser instincts. On a rational level, I believe that execution, and various forms of cruel and unusual punishment simply make our society as a whole, more cruel and barbaric, and in the end, help to create the very conditions that perpetuate those sorts of crimes in the first place.

So no. I cannot support the death penalty, even for crimes for which it would provide a feeling of gratification, such as violent hate crimes. I apologize if this position is offensive to some people on this board.

After thinking over my statements I'm the one who should feel bad. *sighs*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5592441&mesg_id=5592845

I'm going to go to bed in a bit, and hopefully when I wake up I'll have my wits about me again. ...and hopefully no one will try and break into my home or something. (There have been several attempted house robberies in the area.)

I feel shitty for saying that I'd like to see people burned alive, but ugggh... it just makes me so sick. And my emotions are running so high right now. *sighs*

I'm sure I would be feeling the same way if I were in your shoes. Keep safe, get some rest, and I hope you feel better soon.:pals:

Choosing extreme and violent punishment for hate crimes is no different than choosing extreme and violent punishment for not going to church, for speeding, for exercising free speech, for reading the wrong books, for not saluting el presidente with proper fervor. The enthusiastic support and endorsement of such punishments cuts across political ideologies, its still violent and extreme, it depends on whose ox is being gored would seem to be your argument. So it comes down to, who gets to choose the ahorrent crime du jour? I suggest, that the tables can turn swiftly and with vengence. A sign of civilization is not how creative we can be in our punishments, but how compassionate and just we can be. Otherwise, lets just go back to Roman rule, Caligula, Nero e.g.

I'm not convinced that 'hate crimes' rise to some level that exceed other crimes, sorry. I don't feel that these are a special case that justify cruel and unusual punishment.

and war crimes are the only instances where I could ever support the death penalty. Nuremberg was the only place it was justly carried out.

All violent crimes are "hate" crimes. Only someone full of hate could commit acts of violence on someone.

Adding extra penalty to a crime simply due to having certain thoughts in their head at the time they commit the crime is moronic.

Nuff said.

it should, IMO, be highly limited in it's application. There should be two conditions which hold true for it to be considered:

A) The charge should have been proven beyond any doubt*. While I wouldn't go quite as far as Talmudic rules, I'd approach them. Circumstantial evidence, no matter how much of it there is, should not be sufficient to sentence someone to death; you need several witnesses or pieces of forensic evidence, to start with.

B) Only particular crimes should be subject to the DP:

1. Crimes which are especialy heinous - I'd include here rape+murder of children, homicide with a high body count, serious war crimes (e.g. genocide), treason in wartime, and such. Note that here I'm assuming the DP does not have a deterrent effect; if it did have such an effect, I might support broadening the list a bit. Also, this is under the civilian justice system; in the military, you could make a case for the DP for additional crimes**, some of which wouldn't even be crimes in a civilian context (e.g. desertion in combat)
   
2. Serious crimes (i.e. homicides, attepted homicides, and such) where other means would be insufficient. For example, murder committed in prison, or ordered by a prisoner, or committed by someone who's escaped from prison. While these could be prevented by life in solitary, I consider that to be crueler than execution.
   
3. I'd also make perjury or the fabrication of evidence on behalf of the prosecution in a capital case a capital crime (the prosecution would have to prove that the person charged knew it was a capital case at the time, however). I'm of two minds as whether to add making a false accusation of a capital crime (again, assuming the complainer knew the charge was false, and that it was a capital crime) to this.
   

As far as the method is concerned, while I think there are times the DP might be necessary, that doesn't mean the barbarity of it shouldn't be minimized. No torturing to death; find a painless method and use it.

I should note that I don't think hate crimes should be in a seperate category from other violent crimes. If someone commits assault, charge him with assault. The sentencing options should give latitude when setting the punishment, so for hate crimes you could give a punishment toward the harsher end of the range, but there's no need for a special category.


*For practical purposes - e.g. an alternative theory of the crime under which aliens did it doesn't count
**Not necessarily saying I'd agree with the case, but it could be made

It does nothing but make us all complicit in murder, sometimes of innocent people. We should be better than this.

Since the great majority of prisoners will be released into society, rehabilitation should be the most important goal.

I do think that some should never be released. But torturing them or killing them will not help anyone. If someone kills more than once you cannot execute them more than once. The circumstances of the crime may have been heinous but torture damages all of society.

If there is an after-life, the ultimate "judgment" happens after death--when the soul goes to Heaven or Hell, is reincarnated or moves to some other plane. Why do so many who claim to believe in God fear that he will treat sinners too gently? And why do they doubt that some sinners may be "saved"? Perhaps they will die in prison, but their spirits will be freed. I'm mostly atheist, but think there is something to the concept of spirit or soul.

I think charging someone with a hate crime for a violent crime is prosecutorial overkill, especially in murder cases, where the defendant is facing life without parole, or the death penalty.

In cases of vandalism, I do support the hate crimes penalties. I do think that the intent of a person who paints a nazi symbol on a jewish family's garage, or burns a cross in a black family's front yard is to terrorize the victims. That's different than painting "John loves Marsha" on the side of the neighborhood liquor store, which should be punished, but not to the same degree. Although, after having lived in a large, crime-ridden city, I would want to see the hate crimes legislation expanded to include gang symbols, since there is an element of terrorizing enemies by painting their symbols all over.