The Death Penalty.

I was just watching this comedian on Real Time With Bill Maher talk about the death penalty and he stated his position on why he supports it. His logic is the same I hear from all death penalty supporters, which is that if a person murder's another person then they themselves deserve to be killed, and, that he has no problem with that because he doesn't give a shit about people who's murdered another person.

I feel these people just don't get people like myself who are against the death penalty. We don't give a shit about people who's murdered another person either. What we give a shit about is ourselves. Executing people who've been convicted of murder is still an act of killing another human-being and we don't want to be involved with killing another human-being unless its in self-defense, and, a murderer sitting in prison is not requiring someone to defend themselves against him/her.


:rant:

Excellent post.

Some of us do care about the rights of murderers. Not all of them are soulless monsters.

But your argument against CP is right,

what right does a government who murders, have to judge anyone a murderer?

"We should kill people who kill people." So what happens to me when I kill the judge, jury and executioner for killing? I get killed. Then who kills them? It's like the old, "What's beyond the edge of the universe?" Logical fallacy.

and it certainly has killed more than one innocent, then it is wrong. Simply, utterly wrong.

"I feel these people just don't get people like myself who are against the death penalty. We don't give a shit about people who's murdered another person either. What we give a shit about is ourselves. Executing people who've been convicted of murder is still an act of killing another human-being and we don't want to be involved with killing another human-being unless its in self-defense, and, a murderer sitting in prison is not requiring someone to defend themselves against him/her."


It seems to me, though, that some of the people who prefer life in prison are also the same ones who decry the "Prison Industrial Complex"..

I understand some of the argument against the death penalty, though. Yes, there have been innocent people who have been executed before. However, with the advance in technology today (DNA evidence), it is easier to convict with 100% certainty. I would support a clause in the death penalty laws which would allow executions only in cases where DNA, video evidence or outright confession proved guilt 100%.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being.

There are a variety of circumstances in which it is legal to kill another human being. To do so is not murder.

Black's Law Dictionary defines murder as the killing of a human being with malice aforethought and defines that malice as the intent to kill. So when the executioner does his job, he is murdering someone, but the governing body that he is working for has said it's okay.

grab what appeals to argument.

so

there is another defintion of murder. i thank you. you dont know how many advocates of death penatly pulls out that bullshit murder is UNLAWFUL killing. so someone innocent on death row is a lawful killing.

murder

The killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent or malice aforethought, and with no legal excuse or authority. Many states make killings in which there is torture, movement of the person (kidnapping) before the killing, or death of a police officer or prison guard first degree murders with or without premeditation, with malice presumed. A killing that happens during the course of specified crimes (known as felony murder) may also be first degree murder. (See also: first degree murder, second degree murder, felony murder)

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/murder-term.html

In the case of the death penalty, the convict is killed pursuant to a lawful order of the courts. It is there for not murder, because "legal authority" exists.

the definition. cause though the person was convicted legally.... still an innocent person.

no

i dont by your definition. a wussy and weak argument to killing an innocent

we know innocent have been killed on death row. that is as much a murder as a murderer killing.

The practical reasons:

1. It doesn't deter crime in any sense

2. It can never be fool proof, and that means innocents will continue to be wrongly put to death.


The moral reason:

1. It's wrong to kill a person convicted of a crime, no matter what the crime. Life with no parole affords the possibility that we got it wrong and can correct it. Besides, is life in prison really getting off easy?

Life in prison is much easier than life on the streets. There are many cases of released criminals who have promptly committed crimes to get back in. One guy robbed a bank and then sat down on the sidewalk and waited for the police, surrendered quietly.

In another thread, there is a story about a criminally insane murderer who escaped while on a weekend outing to a county fair. No matter how grievous the deed, there will always be somebody who wants the burden of punishment on the criminal to be lifted, who will beg for mercy, until the criminal is released to victimize people again. With the DP, such monsters are placed forever beyond the efforts of the blindly soft-hearted.

Yes, I am aware of the recent article about the Texas guy. I also found the reports on the internet, and I am convinced of his guilt.

What, specifically, convinced you of his guilt?

Life without the possibility of parole is not a stay at the fictionalized version of prison in which you believe.

Please save your homilies for those who read such things in emails and promptly believe and repeat them.

I said "prison" not "solitary". The poster I had responded to said "prison". Perhaps you may wish to address what I actually say instead of what you imagine me to say.

My information comes from the book: Beggars and Thieves: Lives of Urban Street Criminals by Mark S. Fleisher.

Before you label him as some RW, he is a professor at Kent State. You can read more about him here: http://dept.kent.edu/ispv/bios/fleisher.html

Your line Please save your homilies for those who read such things in emails and promptly believe and repeat them. is simply a personal attack.

Yours are fantasy based.

They are not the same. You built a strawman to attack. When you feel like talking about what I actually talk about, and not what you want to imagine me as talking about, get back to me.

I gave you my reference work. You ignored that.

I don't know what your game is, but you don't speak the language.

Or you can keep you eyes and ears shut.

They fall far short of the mark.

Fraud.

Staffing and insurance/workman's compensation liability is a lot less in Supermax facilities -- two 5'0, 90lb women can run a block in a Supermax prison by themselves. States built them to make their constituents happy and keep the residents who lived near the prisons less scared of a prison break -- now that they're built they are cheaper per cell to run, so it only makes sense budget wise to shift prisoners who might not actually be escape risks over to those units to keep them full if someone dies/is released/is executed.

In my state every person on death row is in the Supermax unit, whether or not they are considered a true escape risk or not. A friend of mine who worked for another state's DoC indicated that any person who wanted (or the state felt needed) to be segregated from other prisoners for personal safety reasons was put in their Supermax unit, and they kept it full.

I personally think that the death penalty is kinder than life in a Supermax unit. I do have some very serious doubts about how the death penalty is applied in this country, and do believe that my state executed an innocent man -- Barry Lee Fairchild.

I could not vote to put someone to death if there was scientific evidence that was exculpatory. In the Fairchild case, he didn't have the same blood type as the person who raped and murdered Greta Mason. If I was convinced with other data that a person was involved but there was that kind of glaring mismatch, I would probably vote to convict but not for the death penalty. I don't know whether that would be enough for me to pass the separate death penalty "voir dire" required to become a juror in Arkansas on a death penalty case -- and that process right there is one of my doubts about application of the death penalty. It has been proven that "death-qualified" jurors are more likely to convict given the same set of facts.

So I think its pretty reasonable to assume the that life in prison is a very preferable option to death.

I didn't ask "do criminals convicted of capital offenses prefer life to execution?" That's a question you invented, a straw man you made to support an argument you wished to impose.

And this discussion is about life versus DP.

I get it. You think because death row inmates don't want to be executed, LIFE is getting off easier than the DP.

Again, you avoided my words. I said "getting off easy." Not "getting off easier."


This discussion is about the death penalty. You're having your own conversation.

:hi:

Second, no backtracking either.

Let's examine your post. You say that life in prison isn't getting off easy, correct?

Compared to what? Let's make your hidden assumption more explicit so that we really know what alternative you are using.

I never said I wouldn't continue to respond to your goofy replies.

I can ignore your inane content and still make fun of it.

It commits the crime it's punishing. The state should be more civilized at this stage in our evolution.

We can never achieve 100% certainty and that proviso simply let's people off the hook for their bloodthirstiness. The real test is security. If the state can hold a murderer in prison to stop him from murdering again, it has met its responsibility for public safety. To act beyond that is cold-blooded and the crime is on us.

You said we NEVER can. Never is an absolute. All I have to do is find only one example of certainty to disprove your claim. I have in mind a particular crime. The murderer was known to the victim and several people that were at the scene. One of the people was a reporter conducting an interview, on camera, at the woman's birthday party. On camera, her ex-husband showed up with a gun and repeatedly shot her.

Multiple eyewitnesses and video of the murder. How is that for 100%. (I don't remember the outcome of that case.)

There have been numerous cases of murderers that have been caught red-handed on the scene, on tape, and with eyewitnesses.

How about this one? Mugger attacked and killed a woman, stole her purse. Observed by three eyewitness, left fingerprints at the scene, chased by police until captured, (Never was out of sight) had woman's purse in his van, had woman's blood (DNA confirmed)on his clothes, had murder weapon in his van. (He was executed.)

And like a said, the argument doesn't really justify CP, it's just a salve to the conscience.

Real world, please. No space-aliens-switched-us type stuff.

And even the physical evidence is not 100% proof of guilt, just action. Like I said, this doesn't address justification.

I have shown two clear examples of certainty. In both cases there was certainty that the actor did do the deed of which they were accused.

Read my previous post.

:eyes:

murder is.

I see nothing wrong with killing someone who has taken the life of another for no good reason. Why should they continue to exist, to breath, eat, and think while their victims do not.

Self defense, the death penalty, and abortion are all legal methods of killing.

There is a difference between killing someone for a good reason (such as the 3 methods above) and killing someone for no good reason. That you somehow think killing a murderer is the same as killing and innocent person shows that either your logic or your mind is flawed.

pretty much regarded as the Holy Bible of jurisprudence, then get back to us.

And I swear to god I will keep saying that until someone fucking gets it.


Why should they continue to exist? Because justice is not about vengeance.

Legal does not mean moral. Why can't you guys get that through your fucking head?

Also its entirely possible that in some situations justice and vengeance are one in the same.

I know legality and morality are not one in the same. Anti-abortion activists often claim that abortion isnt moral even though it is legal.

Vengeance is intrinsically unjust.

that.... is .... wrong.

To kill Jews, intellectuals, Gypsies, the mentally ill, etc. The U.S. Gov't. thought it had a million "good reasons" to eradicate the Native Americans, and so on.

To you, killing someone who has taken another life (for no good reason, another subjective call) is done for a good reason. To someone else, killing someone who is black is a good enough reason, and in their world, they would think it completely justifiable.

Who is to say who is innocent? And if religion gets mixed into the equation, things really get nebulous. Would Jesus volunteer to be on a firing squad? Some truly mixed up "Christians" actually think he would -- again, their idea of a good reason!

The state becomes guilty of manslaughter at best and murder at worst.

Captial puniishment can't be made perfect and should be outlawed, there is no going back to fix a mistake or injustice after someone has been executed.

Thanks for the thread, Xicano.

Please don't claim that we can never be certain. Upthread I have posted two cases in which certainty was achieved.

In modern times, there have been no cases found of an innocent being actually executed.

I'm pretty sure you're full of shit. So please, post a link or something to justify your response.

"In modern times, there have been no cases found of an innocent being actually executed."

Prove it. Show me where you got your evidence to support that claim.

If you think I am going to do that for an internet discussion, then you will be disappointed. But there are groups that have been combing through all the executions looking for a single wrongly executed person. They thought they had it with that Texas guy, but a close reading of the new report shows that the report is biased.

You will have to prove that one has been wrongly executed in modern times.

You assumed that a negative was proven without doing your homework. Nice job.

Here's a good place to start your education:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

investigation by the state have said that there was no proof of arson and that the arson investigators were awful. The testimony of witnesses at the scene changed over time as well.

Here's what the top arson expert hired by the independent commission had to say:

In 2005, Texas established a government commission to investigate allegations of error and misconduct by forensic scientists. The first cases that are being reviewed by the commission are those of Willingham and Willis. In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny “rational reasoning” and was more “characteristic of mystics or psychics.” What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, “not only the standards of today but even of the time period.”

An innocent man was executed in TX and I hope everyone will read this story and see what often happens in these situations:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all

Most groups that do death penalty work don't have the time or resources to look for an innocent person who's been executed because they are too busy trying to stop the next person from being killed by the state. What group has been "combing through all the executions looking for a single wrongly executed person"? I'd sure like to know what group that is.

So the argument that there hasn't been a case proving innocence after the fact is really being disingenuous.

They have been searching for years for just one.

It's hard to prove innocence after the fact if a court won't take the case.

convicts from death rows around the nation by proving their innocence.

Texas, what can you do...
:eyes:

If the system can be that dysfunctional, there is nothing that says it can't go all the way.

And throughout history innocent people have been executed but one thing that happens after they've been executed, the motivation to uncover the truth as to whether they were guilty or innocent drops dramatically. Nobody; state or individual wants to believe they were responsible for an innocent person being executed.

We can be certain of one thing though, if the worst punishment allowed by the state is life in prison without the possibility of parole, the state will never be guilty of man slaughtering or murdering an innocent person.

And so on until the murderer is free. Notice that a "criminally insane" murderer in WA was allowed to go to a county fair, and didn't come back.

In 1988 we had Willie Horton hung around our necks. He was serving LWOP and was released for a weekend furlough.

commutation of a Life without the possibility of parole sentence, they shouldn't be allowed furloughs or trips to the county fair.

It's one thing to reform life sentences making them more difficult or impossible to overcome, unless the prisoner can prove their innocence.

But it's entirely different to open a can of worms of risking having the state execute innocent people, just because it may be politically convenient.

If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton came off the campaign trail to return to Arkansas for the execution of someone. He wanted to be in state to prevent clemency for the guy, and thereby demonstrate his tough-on-crime credentials. (I will apologize if my memory is in error.)

In 1988, Willie Horton got hung around our necks and helped the first Bush to get elected. (I think Mike would have lost anyway, but that is beside the point.)

Would you sacrifice a guilty person to the DP if it meant the difference between getting a Democrat elected or a Republican elected?

I don't believe "sacrificing" a guilty or innocent person is required to get a Democrat elected over a Republican.

I've stated my position quite clearly, no death penalty period, because I don't believe in supporting a policy that may allow the state to manslaughter or murder it's own innocent citizens, and I damn sure wouldn't support it for political convenience to get someone or party elected.

The issue isn't capital punishment, the issue is allowing violent offenders to go free either through furlough or commutation, if someone gets life without parole, that's exactly what it should mean.

He was wanting to make a statement to the voters and was using that executation as a means to do so.

BTW, on the DP, Obama is pro-DP. He says, "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage." and he supports the DP for child rapists.

Various public opinion polls show American VOTERS overwhelmingly support the DP. The latest poll, released today, by ABC news shows that 55% of Democrats support the DP.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/dailynews/poll000619.html

Here is are some interesting poll results: http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/09/death-penalty-polls--support-remains-very-high--80.aspx
81% of the American people supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh,

85% of Connecticut respondents voiced support for serial/rapist murderer
Michael Ross' "voluntary" execution. (Quinnipiac University Poll, January
12, 2005).

79% support the death penalty for terrorists (Survey USA News Poll #12074,
Sponsor: WABC-TV New York, 4/26/2007 New York State poll)

"78% of (Nebraska's) 3,232 respondents said they supported the death
penalty for heinous crimes

73% of Connecticut voters support the death penalty for the two parolees
accused of the Cheshire (Ct) home invasion rape/murders of a mother and her
two daughters.

In most areas, having a platform of anti-DP will be interpreted as soft-on-crime and will cost points in the election. That is a simple reality.

The ABC article contains an error. Texas governors aren't able to do anything about the DP. They are only able to issue one 30-day stay of execution per prisoner, and that is all they can do. They can't pardon, parole, or commute a sentence. That is done by the Board of Pardons and Parole.

innocent, wrongly convicted person? I don't care if 99.99% of Americans support the death penalty, I don't.

My point is simple if you go down the road of supporting the death penalty for those that may deserve it, you will inevitably end up executing those that don't. That's been consistent throughout history and regardless of what you believe about "modern times" those human frailties; of mistake and corruption are inescapable, unless you're so naive as to believe humanity has reached perfection.

You can call that soft on crime if you like, I call it strong on justice and wary of draconian punishment, when the state kills an innocent person any and everyone supporting the death penalty has some responsibility for that state sanctioned manslaughter or murder.

We need to evolve past the point of killing people as a pseudo means of justice and superficial salve for an angered or hurt conscious.

Perhaps that candidate may be strong enough in other area to overcome the loss, or the area may be a deep blue one. But in a close election, it could easily make the difference between a D filling the seat or an R.

so that you can feel morally pure? The vote will still go for the DP and you lose the good that a D could do on other issues.

You would accept the loss of a D seat in an attempt to keep scumbag murderers alive?

so that you can feel partizanly pure in a dysfunctional system?

You would accept innocent people being murdered or man-slaughtered by the state to satisfy your loyalty to partisanship or sense of blood-lust vengeance?

I guess everybody draws their lines at different places.

I don't accept that.

The question is how many innocent people on death row would you be willing to accept being killed along with the guilty?

In my book one innocent person being executed for every 100 guilty ones is one too many.

What about that guy that was taken to a county fair?

That could keep the state out of it.

considering the human frailties of hate, anger, fear and blood-lust vengeance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x375333

That thread is not about an execution but it does demonstrate how casual inflicting pain can become when peoples' passions or lower instincts are aroused.

It's from the New Yorker magazine article.

Link:
http://abcnews.go.com/nightline

Basically, the new study was full of shit. I found both on the internet and read them. The new study twists and distorts the finding of the orginal to arrive at their pre-ordained conclusion.

He was guilty. He killed his own kids.

independent experts who have all said the same thing. The original witness statements supported his statement that he tried to save his children and was very distraught. In fact, the people on the scene said they had to hold him back to keep him from running back in the burning trailer. After he was arrested and the police started forming the story to fit, witnesses started remembering things differently. This happens all the time. The only proof they had was the arson investigation which turned out to be junk science.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all

Go ahead and cite exactly where the new study was 'full of shit'.

I'm not sure it's even wrong to have situational preferences for the DP (example: some here have called for outlawing of the DP, yet have prayed for a Hague conviction and hanging of GWB). My situational preferences are: if it's scientifically and forensically provable that the person murdered someone in cold blood, then that person should be put to death.

That would excuse, I imagine, at least half the people on the nation's death rows.

for the conviction and/or hanging of GWB?

On the other hand, perhaps not, and this may be your point: GWB was often the object of death/murder fantasies here, and those posts and threads were removed, as they should have been.

no doubt running the political spectrum on capital punishment, so I thought your post was a broad brush attack against people that believe capital punishment should be outlawed.

I always thought Bush and Cheney should have been impeached and imprisoned for war crimes but I never wished death on them.

I won't get into all of the nuances, but there ARE some people who deserve to be put to death for their heinous crimes.

What good is done for humanity when we put someone down like a dog?

It's not bad enough that you don't know what you are talking about. Now you're just being an asshole.

a murderer sitting in prison is not requiring someone to defend themselves against him/her.

In prison, yea, but if they escape on field trips? :shrug:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6585723

believe the answer to be in throwing the baby out with the bath water and support a system that would inevitably execute innocent people.

Period.

And I assume most people here are against torturing prisoners, so it's always quite interesting to see who supports killing them.

To support the death penalty, and oppose torture, would require one to believe that torture is worse than killing. Maybe you do think this, but you'd be wrong.