death penalty

[BigJim]

If they're guilty beyond a doubt, then the death penalty is fair.

The problem is, that you can't have a statute saying "we can use the death penalty, so long as it's obvious they're guilty", because it'd make the whole legal system look infantile. I get the point that you're saying, but it could'nt work like that. You could'nt even really leave it to judges discretion, because you'll always find some puritanical twats who think it's their job to use it as often as possible. On top of that it would leave too much room for people who did get it to appeal against the sentence.

What I would like to hear from anyone who is pro-capital punishment is what purpose they think it would serve to execute a criminal. Official statistics from multiple countries already prove that it isn't any more of a deterrant than life imprisonment and due to the idiocy of the system, it's not even remotely as economical as it either. As the stat above said, imprisoning someone in a single cell, with maximum security for 40 years is millions cheaper than trying, convicting and carrying out the death sentence. You have to add to that the extremely dodgy legal system we both have. It's far too wide open to incompetency and sometimes downright fraud.( Although I am aware that some people think it's okay for some innocent people to die, so long as a guilty one is nailed occasionally. ) At least someone who was wrongly sentenced to life can be released and financially compensated. None of those 23 mentioned above could have anything done for them. (And they were just the Americans! People like Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley come into this too!)

It's not a good enough deterrant, it isn't financially viable, it's consistently abused on race grounds and it's too merciful in my opinion. I think I posted above that I'd prefer a lethal injection to 40 or 50 years in the company of Benny The Bunghole Buster. 😱

I also think that people have this idea of the prisoners getting nice accomodation and 3 squares a day and living in the lap of luxury for the rest of their lives. Anyone who thinks that doesn't know much about what prison is really like, at all! There was bloody nearly a riot in Belmarsh prison because of the state of the food a couple yeas ago (the budget for a convict's food ration a day is £1.27 I think) and the life ain't luxurious in any way! If I was faced with life in a place like Belmarsh, I'd probably carry out the death penalty on myself.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

i'm pro-death penalty

and if it were carried out in a more timely fassion, then i believe it would be more effective deterent. even if it isn't, at least that killer won't kill again!
steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: i'm pro-death penalty

and if it were carried out in a more timely fassion, then i believe it would be more effective deterent. even if it isn't, at least that killer won't kill again!
steve

But it if was carried out in a more timely fashion, then all the people who get released because their original trials were unsafe because of crooked DA's, simple minded jurors or idiot judges would end up getting slotted. And if it was a more effective deterrant than Life Without Parole, then it would have shown somewhere, as a substantially lower murder rate. But it doesn't. In fact, places with the death penalty are more likely to have higher crime rates than those without.

It's an interesting question really Steve. Do you share Joby's opinion that it's okay for a few innocents to die by mistake, so long as a few genuine murderers are convicted along the way? Also why would'nt being locked in a single cell in a Super Max for life, prevent the killer from killing again? That option is cheaper than all the ramifications of administering the death penalty. (Plus you get fewer thieving bastard lawyers getting their hands on public funds.)

 

[Deleted member 2452]

Re: Re: i'm pro-death penalty

But it if was carried out in a more timely fashion, then all the people who get released because their original trials were unsafe because of crooked DA's, simple minded jurors or idiot judges would end up getting slotted. And if it was a more effective deterrant than Life Without Parole, then it would have shown somewhere, as a substantially lower murder rate. But it doesn't. In fact, places with the death penalty are more likely to have higher crime rates than those without.

It's an interesting question really Steve. Do you share Joby's opinion that it's okay for a few innocents to die by mistake, so long as a few genuine murderers are convicted along the way? Also why would'nt being locked in a single cell in a Super Max for life, prevent the killer from killing again? That option is cheaper than all the ramifications of administering the death penalty. (Plus you get fewer thieving bastard lawyers getting their hands on public funds.)

why do you think that the accused were inocent, just because their convictions were over turned? there was a case here in the chicago area a couple years ago. the appelate court over turned the death sentense due to the trial judge being mean in the sentensing hearing!
he was guilty, and EARNED the death penalty under the law. but we have simple headed judges on the upper levels of the bench!
if it mant 100 guilty would fry, then yes sacrifising 2 or 3 is worth it.
if the death penalty were carried out in 2 years,and not the present average of 20 years, it would be a deterent. also, if done quickly, the cost would go down. also, why not kill them in a more humane way? how about putting them to sleep, and harvesting all their usable organs? at least that way they would have done something good for society.
steve

 

[ShiningIce]

😡

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: Re: i'm pro-death penalty

why do you think that the accused were innocent, just because their convictions were over turned? there was a case here in the chicago area a couple years ago.

I was refering to people who's convictions had been found to be unsafe, not like the one you mentioned. When Tron brought up the subject initially, the conversation never got around to cases like that one.

if it mant 100 guilty would fry, then yes sacrifising 2 or 3 is worth it.

That is something we can never agree on. I don't agree with much that the church says, but something the Pope said in the movie End Of Days comes to mind.
"If we sacrifice the innocent we do not deserve to be redeemed". It makes it even worse for me, if I knew that we were knowingly sacrificing the innocent, just so we could get our vengeance in the most final way possible, when the SuperMax or Belmarsh would provide just as effective a deterrant and solution to that particular murderer. Besides which, I seriously doubt that the statistics of 2 or 3 innocents to 100 guilty criminals could be achievable. Given the fucked up state of the legal system, It'd probably be closer to a 20% innocent to 80% crim rate. I don't think it's the same as anti-war people saying that we're sacrificing the innocent in the war in Iraq though. War is something that has always and unavoidably caused civillian casualties. At the moment we are bending over backwards to prevent them. If it was Iraq who were invading us, you can bet the civvie casualty rate would be a hell of a lot higher.

if the death penalty were carried out in 2 years,and not the present average of 20 years, it would be a deterent.

It wasn't during the transition period when the UK got rid of it. The murder rate didn't change appreciably during that period. And the UK had a turnaround period of less than a month between conviction and execution! (Including the time needed for a judicial appeal and appealing to the Home Secretary if and when that failed.)

 

[t s s]

lol,love the line bout 2-3 per hundred being worth it....would actually being in the group of 2-3 per hundred in real life be acceptable if you were wrongly convicted?😛 , btw....i`d pull the trigger no problem on any kiddy fiddlers if it was a 100% certainty,d.n.a. evidence and no doubt at all conviction against them.

 

[Oddjob0226]

I could do it myself, I'm sure - as long as it's the RIGHT guy!

As it is now, I think the death penalty should be re-examined even put on moritorium if need be. However, if it ever gets made right or more fair & precise (ie, not just poor people getting the death penalty, or the wrong people being convicted, etc...) well, I'm cool with it. Not proud, neccissarily, but o.k.

We should really bring back the guillotine. It's quicker than any other method we use now, so we could still be humane about killing the bad guys, but it's also pretty damn scary, so not only will the thirst for revenge be satiated for those who have it, but this might be the one and only way that the death penalty becomes a deterrent.

Aw, what do I know.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

i disagree that it's broke

as far as more poor people getting the death penalty, than rich people, did any of you concider to reality that it's poor people comminting the crimes???

not too many rich folks out there robbing, and raping, and murdering. they have the money to buy what they want! and their not stupid enough to go out and endanger it!

if you look at the crime ststistics, it is the poorer people that commit the crimes. it's also men more than women, it's also minorities more than white's.

you have a good idea in using the guillotine, but take it a step further, and televise it! lf people really see it, then you can bet it will be a deterent. i like my idea of harvesting body organs for transplant more though.

steve

 

[Oddjob0226]

Re: i disagree that it's broke

as far as more poor people getting the death penalty, than rich people, did any of you concider to reality that it's poor people comminting the crimes???

not too many rich folks out there robbing, and raping, and murdering. they have the money to buy what they want! and their not stupid enough to go out and endanger it!

if you look at the crime ststistics, it is the poorer people that commit the crimes. it's also men more than women, it's also minorities more than white's.

you have a good idea in using the guillotine, but take it a step further, and televise it! lf people really see it, then you can bet it will be a deterent. i like my idea of harvesting body organs for transplant more though.

steve

Well, keep in mind I am for the death penalty.

On the other hand, rich people are able to afford a better defense, too. The Enron/Tyco/Worldcom guys and the Kennedys alone show that there are plenty of robbin' & rapin' rich guys. There was Cullen Davis, Walker Railly, O.J. Simpson, the Menendez boys, and that's just from pop-culture memory. They do it less than poor folks, that's true, but they also get caught less when they do commit such acts and do more time rather than pay the capital price, and have a greater success with the plea bargan, can afford to draw out the case until witness' memories become foggy, evidence deteriorates - and they have the social skills or name recognition to charm those 12 jury folks. Then there are the numerous cases where middle & lower class people get convicted of somethingthey never did. But as long as you've got the right person, kill 'em all!

Televise it on cable, or on broadcast t.v.? Cable is fine, but if people whine about the fake violence on grown-up oriented shows NOW, I can just imagine waht it would be like on a broadcast channel.

In some cases, they do harvest the organs. Perhaps the most famous instance was when Gary Gilmore donated his corneas to a younger man. I don't know how often this occurs,though, since gas, electricity and lethan injection will generally damage the organs to the point where they are useless.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

good point oddjob

but i said to put them asleep, and harvest their organs. just use the normal anestesia, harvest away, then throw out the carcas.
yes there have been many rich murderers, but the vast preponderence of capital crimes are commited by regular folks.
but that brings up a good point, why all these stalling tactics? reforming of the trial system might be a good place to start.
steve

 

[BigJim]

lol,love the line bout 2-3 per hundred being worth it....would actually being in the group of 2-3 per hundred in real life be acceptable if you were wrongly convicted?😛 , btw....i`d pull the trigger no problem on any kiddy fiddlers if it was a 100% certainty,d.n.a. evidence and no doubt at all conviction against them.

I think there would be a lot of competition for someone to flip the lever on a paedophile! I know I'd like to do it, and I'm anti!

You brought up a good point there though, tss. Someone else who supported the same line as Steve (that it's okay to slot a few innocents so long as a few crims are nailed now and again) and she also has a young son. Now imagine the scene 20 years down the line. He's grown up, is the apple of his mother's eye and maybe he even has a wife and a child of his own. A corrupt DA decides he needs some more votes and decides to fiddle the figures on a brutal murder case, so someone (anyone) can be convicted and the public mouth-frothing can get it's revenge ritual. Or a particular jury is full of idiots. Or a particular judge is particularly puritanical and judgemental.It desn't matter what particular reason it is. The judicial system is full of corruption, more so than honesty in my opinion. This poor chap gets convicted and deprives a mother of not only her son, but also her grandson and daughter-in-law of their father and husband. Then 2 years later, said judicial official is tried and convicted of corruption and the poor chap gets a posthumous pardon from Mr. Pres. Is she so happy about a few innocents getting whacked so some crims will too, now? She did say that people didn't truly know whether there should be a death penalty until they'd lost a close loved one to a murderer. Well perhaps the same applies to someone who loses an innocent loved one to Old Sparky because of a shite and corrupt judicial system? And what about you Steve? Could you handle that happening to your son or wife or whatever? I know I could'nt!

*P.S. I apologise to the lady in question if it seems like I'm referring to her in the third person, but I'm not certain she's still following this thread. No disrespect was intended by not actually addressing her directly.*

 

[Deleted member 2452]

re-read my post jim

i said 2 or 3, if it ment 100 or more get what's comming to them.
i did not say a 1 for 1 exchange!
i don't know about the problems you're having in england with all that coruption, but here in america it's not so wide spread and rampant. and of what we do have here it's mainly on the bech, and on the defense side. believe it or not, we have many prosecutors who woun't go for the death penalty, and will usually ple-bargin to lesser charges to avoid asking for a capital sentence.
as i said before, many of those released, or have their sentences reduced are still guilty, but some higher court asshole is too soft in the head, and changes things.
steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: re-read my post jim

i said 2 or 3, if it ment 100 or more get what's comming to them.
i did not say a 1 for 1 exchange!

Yeah, I know what you said Steve. In the post immiediatley after that I said it would more likely be a 50-50 thing, because of the various idiots and sticking points in the system. I was being tongue-in-cheek, I didn't mean actually 50-50. But I'd bet my pension, my dog's ashes, my hope for immortality and the lovely socks I got for my birthday from Aunty Agnes, that 2 or 3 to 100 is hard to aim for. Even if it wasn't hard to aim for, I still find the odds you mentioned personally unnaceptable. Not when there's a cheaper and just as effective alternative, that allows people who're wrongly convicted to be compensated. There's also the reasoning that we're all going to die anyway; so why give them a quiet and dignified death when then can suffer in a stinking shithole for a few decades? In the end, their death from natural causes might end up being a lot more painful and full of suffering than the lethal injection would have done.

 

[Admiral Trouser]

The best argument I ever heard against the Death penalty came from the TV, lol.

Tp be precise, the West Wing:

Leo to Bartlett:

"Are you going to wake up to reality or are you going to become another one of those idiots who beleives that the Death Penalty is going to act as a deterrent to stop drug-peddlers from peddling? As if there lives weren't under the constant threat of death already, and I'll tell you now, the death they face on the streets is a damn site more grissly than the one we'll give them!"

Eh, I paraphrased horrificly there, but I beleive thats the jist of it. The majority of people who are worthy of execution are already under the threat of death from far more unsanitary sources, and indeed the people who take such "careers", for want of a better description, know this from the outset. So threatening to kill them with lethal injection some 10 years after they've been convicted is a pretty tame threat considering what someone might end up doing to them on the street.

Poor people commit the most crimes? Wrong. Poor people commit a different type of crime than rich people, and vice versa. Not many poor people out there commiting mass fraud, are there Areenactor? Or tax evasion (and if pressed I'll explain why thats such a bad crime to commit), or indeed any other crime that requires momey in the first place. Stop generalising, think: Even without the addage that absaloute power corrupts absaloutely, and therefore there a degrees of corruption proportional to your power, there is no rule that states that the poor are bad and the rich are good, by and large. Its purely dependant upon the individual, don't you think?

AT

 

[Deleted member 2452]

now who's generalizing?

first i didn't say poor folk were bad, and rick folk good.
second, do you mean to equate tax evassion to rape, and murder?
cause that's the way you are making it sound.just because rich folks MAY commit "white collar crime", doesn't excuse anyone else from commiting capital crimes. one has nothing to do with the other.
steve

 

[Blackrook]

I've said it before and I will say it again...

The death penalty is poor public policy all the way around. It doesn't deter. It's expensive (cost over $1.5 million for Fl to execute Ted Bundy). And it diverts scarce public resources in these fiscally conscious times away from other more important public expenditures such as police and firefighters, new prisons, improving public schools and roads. You might feel better when you see someone you believe is guilty executed (I don't). But the death penalty is wrong. It is cruel. It is irreversible. It is expensive. And it is biased against people of color and low income people. It does not deter. It risks executing the innocent. There are few public policy issues as lopsided as the death penalty. This is why most of the Western World has given it up and we are in the company of China, Singapore and South Africa. Now ask me how I really feel about it.

Rook

 

[redway10]

The best argument against the death penalty is that it is not much of a deterrent, and sometimes innocent people are executed (after 10 years on death row and an extensive appeals process).

This best argument for the death penalty is that there are circumstances where you can forfeit your right to live - such as showing depraved indifference to other humans in torturing or murdering them.

Those who say that capital punishment is flawed in its application make a good point. Those who say that it is not possible to forfeit one's right to live are quite wrong.

As the death penatly is applied today, I have a much greater fear of being murdered by an individual than being wrongly executed by the state. If the death penalty was applied more "fairly", this would be even more true.

Are there Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Bundys in Europe? Is America really that different? It is unfortunate that a number of people are rotting in jail based upon an incorrect conviction. It is even more unfortunate that some of the wrongly convicted have been put to death.

However, I don't want to live in a society where a man can rape, torture, mutilate and murder a child with the ultimate punishment of living out the rest of his life in quiet contemplation.

I believe in our justice system enough to pull the switch myself. Otherwise, everyone should be working to free all wrongly convicted criminals, not just death row inmates.

 

[BigJim]

Re: I've said it before and I will say it again...

The death penalty is poor public policy all the way around. It doesn't deter. It's expensive (cost over $1.5 million for Fl to execute Ted Bundy). And it diverts scarce public resources in these fiscally conscious times away from other more important public expenditures such as police and firefighters, new prisons, improving public schools and roads. You might feel better when you see someone you believe is guilty executed (I don't). But the death penalty is wrong. It is cruel. It is irreversible. It is expensive. And it is biased against people of color and low income people. It does not deter. It risks executing the innocent. There are few public policy issues as lopsided as the death penalty. This is why most of the Western World has given it up and we are in the company of China, Singapore and South Africa. Now ask me how I really feel about it.

Rook

I agree with all your points buddy, but South Africa got rid of the death penalty when Nelson Mandela was in power.

 

[BigJim]

Are there Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Bundys in Europe? Is America really that different? It is unfortunate that a number of people are rotting in jail based upon an incorrect conviction.

Dunno about Europe, but Britain is blessed with such luminaries as Derek Benley, James Hanratty, Thomas Hamilton and Timothy Evans. Bentley was atrociously executed for a crime he played no part in; Hanratty was believed to have been wrongly convicted and hanged for the best part of 35 years before DNA evidence proved he really was guilty; Evans was another wrongly convicted simpleton like Bentley and Hamilton was the most notorious murderer we have ever known. He was the one responsible for 17 schoolchildren and a teacher being gunned down at Dunblaine. It was a direct result of that case that Thousands of British people had legally owned property confiscated by the state. (The handgun laws.) As is typical of most vote-catching in the wake of public hysteria, it did nothing to decrease gun crime or make British people any more safe.

 

[BigJim]

However, I don't want to live in a society where a man can rape, torture, mutilate and murder a child with the ultimate punishment of living out the rest of his life in quiet contemplation.

Like a few people here mate, I don't think you truly appreciate the reality of life in a prison like Belmarsh, The Maze or a Super-Max. Quiet contemplation isn't how I'd describe it.

I would also say that that the world around us is a reflection of everything that is inside us and the society we live in. Slotting the products of our and our societies own faults instead of trying to correct them, will only breed more arseholes like Ted Bundy and Thomas Hamilton.

 

[Oddjob0226]

Re: Fuck That Shit...

Whack em and stack em I always say. One of the reasons I voted for Bush was Texas was popping them at the rate of one or two a week for quite some time.

Problem is, a few of 'em went to death row & weren't guilty in reality. That's the big isseu with the death penalty now - too much doubt in the human system.

 

[Oddjob0226]

Re: good point oddjob

but i said to put them asleep, and harvest their organs. just use the normal anestesia, harvest away, then throw out the carcas.
yes there have been many rich murderers, but the vast preponderence of capital crimes are commited by regular folks.
but that brings up a good point, why all these stalling tactics? reforming of the trial system might be a good place to start.
steve

I could live with this - if the person is truly guilty. It might be one of those funky "God works in mysterious way, blessing in disguise" things. There's bad guy who has done nothing on earth but commit evil - possibly he even got that way by having evil committed upon himself (read the book Manson In His Own Words and you'll see that becoming a crazed criminal was about the only conclusion that this guy would ultimately have in his life). Now this bad guy has a chance to bring improved life to several people. If the death penalty is a given, and the guilt is true not a terrible idea.

But reforming the system is a good idea, too. I was thinking about this one day. In cases both civil & criminal, the lawyers are often the only ones involved with the system that are in it for profit, barring frivilous lawsuits. Sure, they belive in justice and everyone's right to a fair trial, I don't doubt it, but ....

The police aren't in it strictly for the money. There has to be some sense of doing good to put yourself in that kind of danger & in the way of that much unpleasantness to do such a job for the kind of $$ they get.

The judges aren't in it for $$. They get paid of course, but not by the case, or by the verdict.


The plaintiff is there because there was a wrong committed to him. The defendant sure doen't want to be there.

Witnesses are ususally subpenoed. The ones that volunteer are there becuase they want to serve justice.

Often, even, the public defenders are on salary and ahve to serve a huge amount of people who can't afford to pay.

But the "regular" attourneys. Well, they are the ones who get paid big money. That's why so many wealthy clients get off or get a better sentance. Rich guys get a high priced lawyer & get off more often. Poor guy from el barrio gets an overworked, case-loaded public defender, and for a similar crime he gets put away. In big cases, you get the justice you can pay for. If you can afford good, expensive lawyers, the odds are greater you walk. Take out the profit motive so everyone has an equal chance at getting Cocraine, Bailey, or Jimmy Joe who just graduated from his college courses, and things might actually be more fair & just. But it won't happen anytime soon, because it would be like Dr.s who oppose socialized medicine. The profits aren't there for them, they will lose money. But it's worse than that, because the lawyers are also the law makers in many cases.

REVOLUTION!

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: good point oddjob

But it's worse than that, because the lawyers are also the law makers in many cases.

REVOLUTION!

The lawyers will make the laws, then get paid plenty by arguing with each other about what the laws mean. It's a system of self-perpetuating shite!

 

[grippedchimp]

Just noticed this thread and I want to ask one thing? Is capital punishment/death penalty a sin? I asked that question once in a Religion lesson in secondary school, and I can't remember the answer told to me, so I need re-enlightening...