death penalty

[Oddjob0226]

Re: Re: Re: good point oddjob

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!

I read where the majority of people in the state & U.S. congresses are either lawyers by training or are businessmen.... who employ lawyers, keep them as consultants, on retainer, etc.

Hey -the word "consultant" has the word 'sultan' in it!

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: good point oddjob

I read where the majority of people in the state & U.S. congresses are either lawyers by training or are businessmen.... who employ lawyers, keep them as consultants, on retainer, etc.

Hey -the word "consultant" has the word 'sultan' in it!

In the UK it's a common joke that everyone in America either is a lawyer, is about to call their lawyer, or is training to be a lawyer.

 

[BigJim]

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...

Depends if you're religious or not. I'm not religious, but I am spiritual, so I'll list the reasons why I think it's wrong.

1/ The world and everything in it is created by us, because it is a reflection of what we are inside. This works on a personal, regional, national, planetary and any other kind of scale you can name. i.e. You are a generally nice person, but have a cruel streak hidden deep down. Someone does something unjust or unfair to you and you ask, 'Why did this happen to me? I'm such a nice person, I didn't deserve this!' Everything that happens o every person, community, country or world is in response to some facet of it's character. Sick people and criminals are products of our society's innability to treat or spot them early enough. Therefore if we execute a murderer, we're not treating the cause, only the symptom. We're denying the existence of this person's similarity in some ways to ourselves. We think this person doesn't belong in society or life, so they shuold be killed. Actually this person was created by them and killing them is a cop out and shirking our responsibility. This reason is the closest I can think of that resembles a 'sin' in the biblical sense of the word.

2/ It costs 3 times as much in most cases to execute someone, than to imprison them for '40 years in a single cell, at the highest level of securuity'.

3/ Our justice systems are full of corrupts and incompetents. Juries deliver unbelievably illogical verdicts. DA's and other legal officials act to please a public frothing at the mouth so they can catch a few more votes come the next election, rather than in the interests of justice and fair-play. Our legal and justice system is not perfect, and unlike some people, I cannot accept killing a few innocents so long as the majority of people executed are really guilty. No offence intended to those people, I just believe it's safer to imprison because at least that can be rectified later. Execution can't; as those 23 wrongly executed between 1900 and 2001 in the US and people like Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans in the UK, can testify.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

jim where did you get that number?

please tell me who the 23 suposedly inocent people were? and what proved their inocense?

i believe in the oposite of jim. i think it is just, and not a sin for the "community" to execute a criminal. sorry jim, but your idea of societal responsiblity for making a person a criminal is hog wash! what happened to the idea of personal choice?! it was the criminal who decided to go out and mutilate, rape, kill, etc., no one held an election and it was decided that ted bundy should be the monster he was.

jim in the religious threads aren't you one of the staunch suporters of the idea of personal freedom, and choice?, aren't you one of us who believes that we are given free will? well then how can you, in good conscienous, now say it is society's fault that a vicious killer is the way he is? i for one will never buy it!

my brother-in-law was murdered in 1982, his daughter was only 11 months old, he was shot multiple times at close range, from different angles. the police figured it was a street gang initiation. all the newbies get in a circle around the hapless victim, and the gun is passed around and they all shoot the victim. he was an insurance salesman with allstate ,out seeing clients in chicago. now tell me, how was it his, or society's fault that those pieces of shit killed him? my only hope is that they all died in gang drive by shootings!

no jim, it is the fault of the criminal, period! and they should pay in like coin!
steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: jim where did you get that number?

please tell me who the 23 suposedly inocent people were? and what proved their inocense?

i believe in the oposite of jim. i think it is just, and not a sin for the "community" to execute a criminal. sorry jim, but your idea of societal responsiblity for making a person a criminal is hog wash! what happened to the idea of personal choice?!

jim in the religious threads aren't you one of the staunch suporters of the idea of personal freedom, and choice?, aren't you one of us who believes that we are given free will? well then how can you, in good conscienous, now say it is society's fault that a vicious killer is the way he is?

he was an insurance salesman with allstate ,out seeing clients in chicago. now tell me, how was it his, or society's fault that those pieces of shit killed him? my only hope is that they all died in gang drive by shootings!

no jim, it is the fault of the criminal, period! and they should pay in like coin!
steve

1/ Okay, give me a bit and I'll source the information about the 23 people. (Or at least most of them if not all.) With any luck I'll be able to give dates and states as well.

2/ Yup, every criminal makes a personal choice. I never denied that. But there are always reasons for going the easy and short path, instead of being a decent citizen. One of the biggest reasons for the existence of street gangs and downtown crime, is poverty. Not the only one, but that's the main one I can think of right now. Most crimes that involve violence (that means I'm excluding white-collar crime like fraud and so on) are committed by people on the poverty line. Quite often these people are stealing to feed a drug habit. Quite often they get on drugs in the first place, because they wanted something to blot out the misery of their ghetto life. Same with alcohol a lot of times. Now I'm no communist any more than I'm a fascist, but I disagree with the way the the population of every nation is fleeced and screwed up the arse by multi-national owners and politicians. Quite often it is done deliberatley and some of the biggest drug barons in the world, are people who have led our countries!

I'm very to hear your brother-in-law was killed in that way Steve, that must have been hard to bear. But executing the shits responsible, would have accomplished nothing apart from sating your (completely understandable) thirst for revenge; and it probably would'nt even have done that. It would'nt make society safer, because it's not the deterrant the pro camp like to believe it is. It sure as hell WOULD NEVER stop it from happening again, because executing them would be treating the symptom and not the cause. Stopping it from happening again can only be accomplished by taking away the reasons that street crime occur. It would'nt have saved tax payers money, because it's less financially efficient than life in prison. It would'nt have punished the people involved more than a life sentence without parole, because after a few minutes of fear, they'd be on their way into unconsciousness and a relativley peaceful death, instead of X-amount of years, rotting in misery in a cramped cubby-hole that stniks of shit. (Assuming lethal injection or hanging is the method involved.)

You also have to remember that I'm coming at this debate from a spiritual point of view, Steve. As far as I'm concerned we're shirking our responsibility to God/the Force/mana/spirit/whatever if we cancel someone, instead of offering them a chance to realise that what they did was wrong, and just how wrong it was. That particular point comes down to whether you believe in possible redemption, or that anyone who crosses the line should get instant damnation.


In closing I'll just re-iterate that although each person bears responsibility for their individual actions, everyone bears the responsibility for making sure the reasons a crime could be committed aren't there. I'm not talking about locking away all pretty things so that greedy bastards aren't tempted to steal. I mean making a society where people genuinely have every chance to be stellar. Where it's possible to rise as high as you can be bothered, and there's no predjudice of any kind. Right now, we're not even close to it. There are too many people who are condemned to living lives of penury and unfulfillment, because they're born in the wrong place, with the wrong coloured skin, or to the wrong familly.

 

[BigJim]

Re: jim where did you get that number?

my only hope is that they all died in gang drive by shootings!

I'm making this one a seperate post, because it's something I want to address specifically.

There is no WAY IN HELL that anyone can make a decent society based on sentiments of that type. If a society is vengeful and hate filled (even if it's only towards it's misfits) then it's streets will be full of both. In the above example, all you've got is another street crime, where innocent passers-by might have been slotted by accident.

I know you'd be happy with any horrible death for them Steve, not just the example above. But I think it shows the whole mentality behind your views. I genuinely think you're pro-death penalty because you're full of hatred and the need for revenge. Not because you think it's a good deterrant, cost effective or a really just sentence to give a criminal. Given what you said about your brother-in-law, I can understand and sympathise with it totally. But I can't agree to it. Maybe if a close relative of mine had suffered similarly I would do.

 

[BigJim]

Just out of interest......................

................. I found this artical on the net a few moments ago. Here it is for y'all to see. It written by someone called Michael Manville, if that means anything to anybody; he is apparently, a freelance writer.

We'll start with the crime.

On October 1, 1997, a ten year-old boy named Jeffrey Curley was lured into a van by two men in his hometown of Cambridge, Massachusetts, who had promised him a new bicycle. Once he was inside they tried to rape him. When he resisted they beat him, smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag, and sexually assaulted his dead body. His corpse was found six days later, sealed in a Rubbermaid container at the bottom of a river in Maine.

The murder had an electrifying effect on Massachusetts. Revulsion over the atrocity of child predation was compounded by allegations that the two murderers had a homosexual relationship, and by rumors that literature from the pedophilic North American Man-Boy Love Association had been found in their car. Outrage and fear combined with latent currents of homophobia and boiled into an almost insatiable appetite for revenge. The state's new governor, anxious to make a mark on his complacent, prosperous population, saw an opportunity and pounced. It was long past time, he said, for Massachusetts to have the death penalty.

In the ensuing debate fact and emotion tumbled over another until they were indistinguishable, and then kept tumbling until emotion won out. The death penalty was necessary, proponents said, for the protection of the commonwealth's children. The fact that the death penalty would not have protected Jeffrey Curley--neither of his attackers even had a criminal record-disappeared into the margins. The death penalty was called a crucial deterrent to crime, even though Massachusetts had one of the lowest violent crime rates in America; the murder of Jeffrey Curley could only be described as an awful anomaly. But mitigating arguments like that had no place in the halls of power, where the rhetoric was rapidly degenerating into self-serving sound bites and righteous appeals to law and order.

In the end, one high-profile case trumped another, and the shifting lens of the media eye ended Massachusetts' run at the death penalty. By virtue of nothing save timing, the furor over capital punishment came to a head just as a verdict was handed down in the case of Louise Woodward, the Boston area au pair accused of murdering an infant in her custody. Over the course of two weeks Woodward's lawyers, a legal dream team assembled by her employer, had systematically demolished the prosecution's case, yet the jury came back and convicted her of first degree murder. Amid public hue and cry the judge, Hiller B. Zobel, ruled that the jury had Death Becomes Us erred, and reduced the conviction to manslaughter. All at once a media machine that had been stuck on revenge became obsessed instead with the pratfalls and uncertainties of our justice system. The steamroller of public opinion, for just one moment, slowed down. In the state house, capital punishment failed to pass by one vote. The governor, in a weak effort to save face, accused those who had voted against it of endangering the state's citizens, but it was a feckless challenge. Massachusetts continues to have one of the lowest violent crime rates in America.

The incident is instructive, I think, because it shows the true motivation behind capital punishment. The appeal of this very permanent punishment is based, ultimately, on the impermanent emotion of outrage. This gives it a limited utility as an instrument of justice, but a decidedly powerful one in the building of political consensus through fear. I have no sympathy for criminals, and the idea that no one deserves to die is not one to which I necessarily subscribe. There have been crimes so hideous-I think the one I just described qualifies-that I don't think the world would be any worse for the permanent absence of their perpetrators. But that has never been what the death penalty is about. Language matters, and if we are going to assert that some people should die, we would be remiss if we did not ask, correspondingly, if some governments should kill.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The death penalty has never been illegal in America and, despite recent controversy over its effectiveness, does not appear to be headed for extinction here anytime soon. This sets our country well apart from the rest of the industrialized world, which has spent the latter half of the twentieth century not just divesting itself of capital punishment, but loudly calling for the rest of the planet to do the same. America and Europe have always had (to put it mildly) cultural differences. Nevertheless, there is something odd about watching the 15 states of the European Union call for a worldwide ban on death sentences (as they did June 5), while the pace of executions in America reaches a torrid peak. And it is a bit jarring to see the United States, leader of the free world, sitting on a list of countries that still use capital punishment, when said list reads like a catalog of repression. Our esteemed company in the practice of state death includes such human rights luminaries as the Sudan, Kuwait, China, and republics of the former Soviet Union.

None of this seems to faze Americans, who as a rule give not a damn what the rest of the world thinks. Domestic approval for the death penalty remains well over sixty percent. In fact, the closest execution has ever come to being illegal was back in 1972, when the Supreme Court, in its 5-4 decision Furman vs. Georgia, struck down the capital punishment statutes of 39 states. Even then, although the court ruled that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, it emphasized that it was only illegal in the way it was then administered. Execution itself, it said, was not unconstitutional.

As Justice Potter Stuart wrote at the time, capital punishment was "cruel and unusual" only in the "same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual." That is, there seemed no reason why it happened to one person and not another-ten men might be convicted for murder, but only would be sentenced to die. The Eighth Amendment, Stuart continued, "cannot tolerate the infliction of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and freakishly imposed."

Although it was this random sentencing that led to the court's decision, in hearing the case the justices had actually wrestled with darker demons, because many of the arguments brought against the penalty showed it to be anything but arbitrary, and contended instead that it was outright discriminatory. Blacks and the poor, opponents charged, were being executed for murders that sent white middle class felons to jail. And substantial evidence had been amassed that showed murderers whose victims were white were condemned to death far more often than those whose victims were black. The state was not only racist in whom it killed, but also in its decisions about who was worth killing for.

In the end the court found insufficient evidence to indicate that race played a role in death sentencing, and the majority contented itself to a condemnation of the penalty's chaotic nature instead. But although it was considered a landmark piece of jurisprudence, Furman was at bottom a technical decision, one that judged the death penalty's efficiency rather than the penalty itself. As such, it did little to alter the public's opinion of capital punishment. Indeed, when it left the door open for states to rewrite their statutes, legislators who understood capital punishment's popularity fell to it with gusto. It took Florida a mere five months to reintroduce death sentencing, and others soon followed suit.

In the near-thirty years that have followed, it has been documented almost to the point of certainty that the machinery of capital punishment is slipshod and myopic, driven by all the prejudices of the society it purports to serve. The death penalty, opponents rightly say, doesn't work. It doesn't deter crime. It isn't cost effective. It is racist and classist. Eventually, an innocent person will die, if one hasn't already, and more than one probably has. In June, the Columbia University School of Law released a devastating study of capital punishment, charging that the system is "collapsing under the weight of its own mistakes," and calling most death penalty prosecutions "so flawed that they need to be done over again."

A more pressing question, one could argue, is whether they should be done at all.

At the center of the death penalty debate lies the Eighth Amendment, the constitutional clause that prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment. It is a problematic pile of words, because its meaning is necessarily relative. How does one define "cruel?" History offers little guidance-much of what was considered acceptable at the time the Constitution was written would be considered appalling today. Colonial New Orleans, for example, executed five mutineers by stretching them naked on a wheel, breaking their bones with sledgehammers, and leaving them to starve to death.

The Supreme Court "solved" this problem in 1958, in Trop vs. Dulles, when it ruled that Eighth Amendment should be interpreted based on an "evolving standard of decency." The court, in other words, acknowledged that what was cruel and unusual had changed, and could be expected to change again, and there wasn't much to be done about it other than staying on top of society's tolerance.

Although Trop vs. Dulles was not a capital punishment case, it laid the foundation for future discussions of the death penalty. Or, more accurately, future non-discussions. Because Trop vs. Dulles didn't solve the problem at all; by replacing the vague notion of "cruel and unusual" with the equally vague "evolving standard of decency," it simply created a new, highly elastic standard for judging the morality of death. More importantly, as we shall see, it also shifted the responsibility for making that judgment away from the judicial arena and into the political one.

In 1976 the Supreme Court heard Gregg vs. Georgia, the first death penalty case after Furman to be challenged. Gregg, in his appeal to the high court, eschewed the complaints of arbitrary sentencing that had won Furman his reprieve, and charged that capital punishment was by its nature cruel and unusual.

The case was long and contentious, and the Court, in the end, made what has to be one of the most bizarre decisions in its history. It upheld the death penalty on grounds that 35 states had it. The fact that so many elected legislatures had passed capital punishment statutes, the court reasoned, demonstrated "society's endorsement of the death penalty," and thereby meant it fell within America's "evolving standard of decency." It added, however, that any execution must be carried out in a way that preserves the "dignity of man," and accomplishes nothing more than the "mere extinguishment of life." But we'll get back to that.

For the moment, let us concentrate on "society's endorsement of the death penalty." Problems fairly scream from this line of argument. It is, if nothing else, a classic case of circular logic; the Court used the cause of the complaint as the basis for throwing it out. The fact that a state had the death penalty was, after all, what prompted the appeal in the first place. But the Court was essentially saying the law couldn't be challenged because it was a law in many places, so it must be legal.

More disturbingly, the constitutional charge of the Supreme Court is to prevent precisely what it endorsed in Gregg: allowing the majority to mindlessly dictate what is right. By citing the will of the majority as a basis for keeping the death penalty, the Court acted as a de facto elected institution, and capitulated to the popular will it was designed to check. Trop vs. Dulles allowed the Court to surrender back to the majority the very powers it was given to keep that majority contained.

Does this matter? History overflows with the dangers of letting a society become its own moral barometer. Morality is best determined with hindsight-any "evolving standard of decency", sadly, is best examined after the evolution has taken place. For hundreds of years an American majority found little that was troubling in the idea of enslaving other people, and the Supreme Court's affirmation of that popular will (Dred Scott) now stands as one of the most shameful chapters in its history. Likewise most Germans today look back on the Holocaust with shame and revulsion, but for those caught up in its seductive malevolence, there was no cause more decent than the extermination of a hated minority.

I make the point not to say that the death penalty is on par with slavery or the Holocaust, but to point out that the philosophical justifications are the same. "Decency," in the sense that Trop vs. Dulles intended, is inextricably linked to equality. Our idea of what is right extends only as far as those we consider worthy of the same protection we give ourselves. The Germans considered the Jews subhuman, just as Americans considered a slave to be only three-fifths of a white. For this reason Americans found nothing contradictory about Thomas Jefferson's ideas of life and liberty and the small army of slave labor he kept at Monticello. It took a foreigner, Alexis de Tocqueville, to note the double standard: in his Democracy in America, the French journalist pointed out that America's otherwise progressive system of justice was marred by its appalling tolerance of slavery. Americans didn't agree, for the simple reason that at that time the word "equal" didn't apply to blacks.

From one perspective, then, if justice is dependent on equality, then absolute justice--i.e., the execution of a human being-requires a state of absolute equality. Since not even the most ardent proponent of capital punishment could argue that this condition exists in the United States, the death penalty would without question be an unjustifiable institution. But this is admittedly a cerebral argument. The more troubling aspect of the death penalty is that it reinforces the factors that gave rise to inequality in the first place, by giving us not only people to hate, but permission to hate them. And therein, sadly, lies its largest purpose.

Society pays lip service to the idea that capital punishment deters crime, but in truth we shroud the death penalty in so many layers of obscurity that it has become an abstraction, and abstractions cannot be deterrents. Death sentences are carried out at midnight, in far-flung areas of far-flung prisons. The number of people allowed to view them is sharply restricted-in 1991 California went to court to prevent KQED-TV from televising executions. It is hard for something to be a deterrent if no one can see it.

So long as the death penalty remains ambiguous, however, it can continue to exist, and so long as it exists it can be used by demagogues. So it is spoken of in clinical language, intended to dehumanize the act and demonize the condemned. We in the United States, it tells us, do not selectively kill prisoners. We administer capital punishment, in a manner neither cruel nor unusual, and always preserving the dignity of man, to attain the mere extinguishment of life in accordance with our evolving standard of decency. The language has a sedative effect: it sounds professional and reassuring, and encourages us to leave it be, never inquire as to what those words mean, or pause to wonder how a judiciary nominally opposed to murder ever could modify the phrase "extinguishment of life" with the word "mere."

An example: in 1983 Jimmy Lee Gray went to federal court seeking relief from his death sentence in Mississippi. He brought with him affidavits attesting to the barbarity of execution by lethal gas. Among them was testimony from Dr. Richard Traystman, a professor at Johns Hopkins Medical School, who described in detail how cyanide gas induces a heart attack on its victims. "We would not use asphyxiation, by cyanide gas or by any other substance," Traystman said, "to kill animals that have been used in experiments."

The court wasn't impressed. Not because it didn't believe him; to the contrary, it accepted everything Gray offered as true. But it ruled that "pain and terror" were an expected part of capital punishment, and thus not sufficient to be "cruel and unusual."

Gray was executed that May. Eight minutes after the gas was released, prison officials had to clear the viewing area, because his desperate gasps for air were horrifying witnesses. Gray's lawyer, wanting everyone to see what was happening, tried to stop the warden from clearing the room, but was overruled. Only the media stayed. "Jimmy Lee Gray," attorney David Bruck later said, "died banging his head against a steel pole in the gas chamber while reporters counted his moans."

Beyond the inhumanity of Gray's death, a dangerous hole had been opened in the Eighth Amendment. Although no American can be subjected to "cruel and unusual" punishment, a death row convict can, apparently, be subjected to a death filled with "pain and terror." This is an uncomfortable exception, particularly since "pain and terror" do not jibe well with the "mere extinguishment of life." The court had ripped a seam in the Bill of Rights, and tacitly endorsed torture. When Alabama executed Tommie Smith in 1996, prison officials could find no vein on his arms suitable for his lethal injection (he had been an intravenous drug user). He remained fully conscious while the officials-not doctors, doctors are prohibited from performing executions-plunged an angio-catheter into his heart, a procedure that took 35 minutes. It still took him almost an hour to die.

But there is the temptation to ask: we can ask, so what? A murderer meets a horrible fate: does this matter? Yes it does. When we open holes in the Constitution, it is far easier to tear them wider than it is to mend them. We as a majority, in other words, tend to get carried away. In 1996, in response to the atmosphere of dread that followed the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. It was sold to the American public as an antidote to the crime-coddling and needless bureaucracy that had waterlogged our system of justice. Few people, filled as they were with revulsion over Timothy's McVeighs crimes, bothered to object. They didn't realize that nothing in the bill would have stopped the bombing. Nor did they notice that quietly dropped into its final section was a clause that all but destroyed the writ of habeas corpus. Despite statistics showing that 7 out of every 10 habeas appeals had merit, the new law drastically restricted the ability of federal courts to review the cases of state prisoners, and forced federal judges to accept as fact large portions of the state court's findings. It also slapped a one-year limit on the right of inmates in state prisons to request a review at all, in many cases regardless of new evidence that may surface. Unbeknownst to most Americans, the constitutional protection against unlawful imprisonment now expires after twelve months.

For Congress, the bill was constituent-friendly: tough-on-crime legislation is rarely unpopular. For a death row prisoner, the law had slightly darker implications. After 12 months have passed, a prisoner is left no recourse except an appeal to his or her governor for clemency. And so justice, again, gets cycled into the realm of politics. Often poor, and almost always disenfranchised (virtually every state has laws that bar felons from voting) death row inmates offer politicians nothing but a target-the ability to campaign on what everyone doesn't like, rather than on a platform of issues.

Take Kirk Fordice, who in 1995 ran for governor of Mississippi on a promise to make it the "capital of capital punishment." Or Bill Clinton, who in 1992, fearful of the soft-on-crime smear tactics that George Bush had used to ruin Michael Dukakis, flew home to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally retarded man convicted of killing a police officer. For Clinton, it proved a pivotal moment in his presidential campaign, because it allowed him to seize the crime issue for the Democratic Party. Rector, for his part, even minutes before his execution had no idea what was about to happen to him. Before being led to the gas he asked prison guards not to remove the dishes from his last supper, because he would want dessert when he returned. Federal law says no one can be executed if they aren't mentally fit; being unaware of one's impending demise would certainly qualify. But that didn't matter to Ricky Ray Rector, because the only man who could save him was the one who most needed him dead. And so to the gas...

Then, of course, there is George W. Bush. Elected Governor of Texas partly on a pledge to be more vigorous with executions, he was given a litmus test by Karla Faye Tucker. Convicted of a brutal, drug-induced murderer 20 years before, she had become a born again Christian while on death row, and her victim's brother actively agitated for her sentence to be commuted. When asked by reporters about Tucker's pleas for her life, Bush laughed. Executive clemency is rarely granted because death row inmates are politically more valuable as objects of fear than they are as human beings. As human beings they pose a haunting moral problem. As objects of fear they can unify us through hatred: they are stepping stones for cynical kings, one more source of amusement for the empty-headed scions who feel entitled to America.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a hole in all of this, I know. I have just talked about the manipulative effect of the language of capital punishment, and yet even as I write a vigorous debate about the death penalty is raging in America. How can that add up?

The answer, I think, lies not in that we are discussing capital punishment, but in how we are discussing it. We have, in our country, an obsession with efficiency, one that easily transcends our concern with less-pragmatic values. Different people have come up with different names and reasons for this phenomenon, but almost all agree that it exists, and it is fair to say that this obsession has successfully constricted the parameters of our discussion on capital punishment. The debate that rages today is an appeal to our practical sense, with supporters arguing that the death penalty works and opponents rushing to prove them wrong. The opponents are right, of course, but they are winning the argument on the wrong terms. They have won in the language of the death penalty, and legitimized it in the process. They have said we're spending too much money, possibly killing the wrong people, and not deterring crime. Underlying this is a tacit acceptance: if we can spend less money, deter crime, make sure we kill the right people, this thing might just be okay. Such is the culture of efficiency: so concerned have we become about whether it works that we have forgotten to ask whether it should exist at all.

When, in Gregg vs. Georgia, the Supreme Court reaffirmed capital punishment, it offered in its majority opinion a justification for the morality of the death penalty, and calling it "an expression of society's outrage at particularly offensive conduct":

The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man, and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by law. When people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they "deserve," then there are sown the seeds of anarchy.
Not so. Societies do themselves no favors when they answer vile and inhuman acts by committing those acts in kind. Government is designed to stifle man's worst instincts, not accommodate them. Criminal justice, for its part, is designed to reaffirm standards of right and wrong, and to reassure those who have borne witness to crime-be it in person or in the media-that society remains intact and orderly, and has withstood the hostile actions visited upon it. The death penalty undermines this goal, because it validates the utility of those actions, and says a society can only survive by adopting the tactics of those who would destroy it. It asserts the primacy of violence.
The death penalty, in other words, is predicated on the idea that the primary goal of justice is revenge. But revenge is not law; it is derived from emotion rather than principle, and justice is by definition a principle blind to emotion. The death penalty is therefore antithetical to justice, a form of codified vigilantism based on the hollow promise of vengeance and the untenable dream of human infallibility. It is an arrogant institution that says juries are never wrong, that individuals, when gathered under the umbrella of government, can become flawless to the point where life and death is a matter for their discretion, that they are divine, gods in a secular land.

It is long past time to stop talking about the efficacy of capital punishment, and long past time to stop the killing. The death penalty can't be "fixed." It isn't broken. It's just wrong.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or put it another way: in May of 1999, Random House posthumously published Juneteenth, Ralph Ellison's final, unfinished meditation on America. A chaotic masterpiece, the novel at one point poses a series of questions that its main character insists are the defining questions of any free society. Among them is: "How does the light deny the dark?"

Overtones of race pervade this question, which is not surprising, since the dilemma of race haunted Ellison and haunts still the country he chronicled. But in a larger sense, the question addresses the fundamental problem of a democracy: how does a nation ruled by its majority protect itself from that majority's worst instincts?

Seen in this light, the death penalty represents a failure of democracy-or more accurately, a democracy undiluted, and teetering as a result on the brink of totalitarianism. Capital punishment is an action of the majority, a natural instinct for retribution that has been legitimized, rather than contained, by the institutions of government. It knocks down the wall between civility and barbarity that government is supposed to erect. By pretending humans are perfect, it gives them access to those parts of their character that are most flawed-the raw emotions of anger and bloodlust-and bestows on them the mantle of righteousness.

There is nothing more repugnant than what the governor of Massachusetts did in 1997, grandstanding over a still-warm grave, hijacking the legacy of a little boy and turning it into political capital. But until we change the way we discuss the death penalty, and focus not who is being killed but instead on who is killing, we will always be in favor of it. We will always be susceptible to demagogues who manipulate our fears, to politicians who drag corpses from the ground, lay claim to the memory of innocents, and ask us to kill in their name.

 

[BigJim]

There's another question I'd like to ask of Steve and anyone else who's participated in this thread and is pro-death penalty. What do you think about the policy of certain states in the USA who execute minors? Like it or not, this does happen and is a trait shared with the USA by such human rights champions as The People's Democratic Republic Of Congo ( formerly Zaire and anything but 'the People's' or 'democratic'! ), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

The main and most recent case I can think of was Gerald Mitchell, who was executed in October 2001 for a murder committed when he was a minor. He was sentenced to death in 1986.

Here are some more though.


Dalton Prejean,17 at time of offence
Johnny Garrett,17 at time of offence
Curtis Harris,17 at time of offence
Frederick Lashley,17 at time of offence
Christopher Burger,17 at time of offence
Ruben Cantu,17 at time of offence
Joseph John Cannon,17 at time of offence
Robert Anthony Carter,17 at time of offence
Dwayne Allen Wright, 17 at time of offence
Sean Sellers, 16 at time of offence
Steve Edward Roach,17 at time of offence
Chris Thomas,17 at time of offence
Glen McGinnis,17 at time of offence
Gary Graham,17 at time of offence
Gerald Mitchell 17 at time of offence,
Their dates of execution were respectivley, 18 May 1990,11 February 1992,1 July 1993,28 July 1993,7 December 1993,24 August 1993,22 April 1998,18 May 1998,14 October 1998,4 February 1999,10 January 2000,13 January 2000,25 January 2000,22 June 2000,22 October 2001. (There is another one called Scott Allen Hain that I'm aware of, but I can't recall his date of execution.

Here is a list of child offenders who are currently imprisoned on death row.
ALABAMA

Adams, Ranaldo: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 7-1-1980); rape and murder; sentenced on 12-11-1998.

Bonds, James Willis: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 19 (DOB: 7-24-1983); robbery and murder of white male age 59 in Houston County on 9-?-1999; sentenced on 11-11-2002.

Davis, Timothy Charles: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 41 (DOB: 3-18-1961); robbery of store and rape and murder of white female age 60 in Coosa County on 7-20-1978; sentenced on 7-28-1980.

Duke, Mark Anthony: White male; age 16 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 5-15-1980); murder of white male age 39 (his father), white female age 29, white female age 7, and white female age 6 in Pelham (Shelby Co.) on 3-22-1997; sentenced on 3-25-1999.

Duncan, Trace: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 27 (DOB: 11-15-1976); kidnaping and murder of white female age 37 in St. Clair County on 2-22-1994; sentenced on 3-8-1996.

Hart, Gary Davis II: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 30 (DOB: 9-19-1972); robbery and murder of white male age 22 in Mobile on 8-12-1989; sentenced on 5-9-1990.

Hyde, James Matthew: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 25 (DOB: 3-2-1977); murder of white male age 36 (police officer) in Albertville (Marshall County) on 1-24-1995; sentenced on 7-9-1996.

Knotts, William Thomas: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 31 (DOB: 11-20-1971); burglary and murder of black female age 37 in Montgomery County on 10-18-1989; sentenced on 8-1-1992.

Loggins, Kenneth: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 25 (DOB: 9-15-1976); kidnaping and murder of white female age 37 in St. Clair County on 2-22-1994; sentenced on 3-8-1996.

Pressley, Marcus Dewayne: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 24 (DOB: 11-24-1978); robbery and murder of white male age 44 and white female age 48 in Sterrett (Shelby County) on 7-25-1996; sentenced on 10-10-1997.

Slaton, Nathan D.: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 33(DOB: 10-5-1969); rape and murder of white female age 68 in Albertville (Marshall County) on 5-28-1987; sentenced 5-22-1990.

Wimberly, Shaber Chamond: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 23 (DOB: 9-6-1979); murder of white male age 67 and white female age 53 in Midland City on 1-27-1997; sentenced on 7-30-1998; reversed in 1999; resentenced to death on 5-?-2001.

Wynn, Gregory: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 21 (DOB: 12-9-1981); robbery and murder; sentenced on 9-17-1999.



ARIZONA

Davolt, James Edward, II: White male; age 16 at crime and now age 19 (DOB: 4-12-1982): murder of white female age 85 and white male age 84 in Lake Havasu City (Mohave County) on 11-26-1998; sentenced in fall 2000.

Huerstel, Christopher "Bo": White male; age 17 at crime and now age 21 (DOB: 9-22-1981); robbery and murder of female age 20 and male age 17 in Tucson on 1-17-1999; sentenced on 2-23-2001.

Jackson, Levi Jaimes: White male; age 16 at crime and now age 26 (DOB: 1-15-1976); car jacking and murder of white female age 40 in rural Pima County on 12-7-1992; sentenced on 1-26-1994.

Laird, Kenneth Jeremy: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 27 (DOB: 3-21-1975); burglary, robbery and murder of white female age 37 in North Phoenix on 9-3-1992; sentenced on 4-15-1994.

Soto-Fong, Martin Raul: Chinese/Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 28 (DOB: 10-6-1974); robbery and murder of 3 Asian males, ages 32, 45, and 77, in Pima County (Tucson) on 6-24-1992; sentenced on 2-3-1994.



FLORIDA

Bonifay, James Patrick: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 29 (DOB: 12-26-1973); robbery and murder of white male age 36 in Pensacola on 1-26-1991; sentenced on 9-20-1991; reversed in 1993; resentenced to death on 12-6-1994.

LeCroy, Cleo Douglas: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 39 (DOB: 3-7-1963); robbery and murder of white male age 27 and white female age 25 in Palm Beach County on 1-4-1981; sentenced on 10-1-1986.



GEORGIA

Gibson, Exzavious Lee: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 29 (DOB: 3-31-1972); robbery and murder of male age 46 in Eastman (Dodge County) on 2-2-1990; sentenced on 6-14-1990.

Jenkins, Larry Leonarde: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 27 (DOB: 11-10-1975); robbery, kidnaping and murder of white female age 37 and white male age 15 in Jessup (Wayne County) on 1-9-1993; sentenced on 9-30-1995.



KENTUCKY

Stanford, Kevin Nigel: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 39 (DOB: 8-23-1963); rape and murder of white female age 20 in Louisville on 1-7-1981; sentenced on 9-28-1982.



LOUISIANA

Bridgewater, Roy: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 23; burglary and murder of white female age 70 and white male age 45 in Marrero (Jefferson Parish) on 10-31-1996; sentenced on 3-1-1999.

Comeaux, Adam: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 34; rape and murder of white female age 63 and white female age 72 in Alexandria on 9-1-1985; sentenced on 2-14-1986; reversed in 1987; resentenced to death in 1993.

Craig, Dale Dwayne: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 28 (DOB: 9-22-1974); car-jacking and murder of white male age 18 in Baton Rouge on 9-14-1992; sentenced on 1-13-1995.

Howard, Cedric D'Wayne: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 24 (DOB: 6-6-1978); robbery and murder on 10-24-1994; sentenced on 7-14-1997.

Matthews, Ryan: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 3-21-1980); robbery and murder of white male age 43 in Bridge City on 4-5-1997; sentenced on 9-2-1999.

Williams, Corey D.: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 20; robbery and murder of male age 26 in Shreveport on 1-4-1998; sentenced on 11-20-2000.

Wilson, Aaron: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 19; kidnaping, robbery, rape, and murder of white (?) female age 48 in Caddo Parish on 12-23-2000; sentenced on 8-17-2002.



MISSISSIPPI

Blue, David: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 28 (DOB: 10-20-1974); robbery and murder of black female age 35 in Greenwood (Leflore County) on 6-6-1992; sentenced on 4-2-1993.

Dycus, Kelvin: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 23 (DOB: 9-19-1979); robbery and murder; sentenced on 6-19-1998.e 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 1-25-1980); robbery and murder of female age 34 in Grenada County on 12-2-1997; sentenced on 1-26-1999.

Eskridge, Roderick: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 1-25-1980); robbery and murder of female age 34 in Grenada County on 12-2-1997; sentenced on 1-26-1999.

Foster, Ronald Chris: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 30 (DOB: 1-8-1972) robbery and murder of white male adult in Lowndes County on 6-10-1989; sentenced on 1-18-1991.

Holly, William Joseph: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 28 (DOB: 8-6-1974); robbery and murder of black male age 37 in Grenada County on 7-12-1992; sentenced on 3-3-1993.

McGilberry, Stephen Virgil: American Indian/white male; age 16 at crime and now age 24 (DOB: 2-7-1978); four death sentences for murders of white female age 44 (his mother), white male age 44 (his stepfather), white female age 24 (his stepsister), and white male age 3 (his stepsister's son) in St. Martin (Jackson County) on 10-23-1994; sentenced on 2-9-1996.



MISSOURI

Richardson, Antonio: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 28 (DOB: 9-3-1974); rape and murder of two white females ages 19 and 20 in St. Louis County on 4-4-1991; sentenced on 7-2-1993.

Simmons, Christopher S.: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 26 (DOB: 4-26-1976); burglary and murder of white female age 46 in Jefferson County on 9-9-1993; sentenced on 8-19-1994.



NEVADA

Domingues, Michael (AKA Miguel): Latin male; age 16 at crime and now age 25 (DOB: 1-29- 1977); burglary, theft, and murder of Asian female age 24 and Asian male age 4 in Las Vegas on 10-22-1993; sentenced on 9-16-1994.



NORTH CAROLINA

Adams, Thomas Mark: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 32 (DOB: 7-20-1970); robbery and murder of white female age 70 in Iredell County on 12-13-1987; sentenced on 11-19-1988; reversed in 1994; resentenced to death on 9-1-1995.

Chapman, Lamorris J.: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 20 (DOB: 12-12-1982); murder of black female age 16 in Johnston County on 7-9-2000; sentenced on 11-2-2001.

Golphin, Kevin Salvador: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 23 (DOB: 12-26-1979); murder of white male age 48 (Highway Patrol officer) and white male age 58 (Sheriff's Corporal) near Fayetteville on 9-23-1997; sentenced on 5-13-1998.

Tirado, Francisco Edgar ("Paco"): Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 21 (DOB: 4-7-1981); burglary, kidnaping and murders of white female age 19 and white female age 25 in Cumberland County on 8-17-1998; sentenced on 4-11-2000.

Walters, Travis LeVance: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 7-8-1980); murder of American Indian female age 18 in Lumberton on 1-6-1998; sentenced on 4-5-2001.



OKLAHOMA

[Hain, Scott Allen: White male; 17 at crime and now age 32 (DOB: 6-2-1970); robbery, arson and murder of white male age 27 and white female age 22 in Creek County on 10-6-87; sentenced on 5-24-1988; reversed in 1993; resentenced to death in 1994. Hain was executed on 4-3-03.]



PENNSYLVANIA

Hughes, Kevin: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 40 (DOB: 3-5-1962); rape and murder of black female age 9 in Philadelphia on 3-1-1979; sentenced on 10-27-1983.

Lee, Percy: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 34 (DOB: 8-24-1968); murder of two black females, ages 17 and 33, in Philadelphia on 2-27-1986; sentenced on 1-28-1988.

Ligons, Antoine Miguel: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 2-12-1979); robbery and murder of black male adult in West Philadelphia on 4-6-1996; sentenced on 6-1-1999.



SOUTH CAROLINA

Conyers, Robert Lewis: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 27 (DOB: 1-6-1975); murder of white female age 2 in Clarendon County on 11-24-1991; sentenced on 2-17-1994; [may have been reversed?].

Hughes, Herman Lee, Jr.: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 25 (DOB: 7-26-1977); robbery and murder of male age 20 in Orangeburg on 3-18-1994; sentenced in 1995.

Powers, Ted Benjamin: White male; age 16 at crime and now age 29 (DOB: 9-19-1973); burglary, robbery, and murder of white male age 68 in Lexington County on 9-8-1990; sentenced on 2-23-1996.



TEXAS

Alvarado, Steven Brian: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 28 (DOB: 8-11-1974); robberies and murders of adult Latin male and adult Latin female in El Paso on 9-22-1991; sentenced on 10-5-1993.

Arroyo, Randy: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 23 (DOB: 10-31-1979); kidnaping and murder of Latin male age 39 on 3-11-1997 in San Antonio; sentenced on 3-6-1998.

Arthur, Mark Sam: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 23 (DOB: 8-1-1979); murder of Latin male age 41 in Harris County on 12-21-1996; sentenced on 12-17-1997.

Barraza, Mauro Morris: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 30 (DOB: 5-5-1972); murder of white female age 73 in Haltom City (Tarrant County) on 6-14-1989; sentenced on 4-8-1991.

Bernal, Johnnie: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 26 (DOB: 8-20-1976); murder of white (?) male age 19 in Houston on 8-19-1994; sentenced on 5-8-1995.

Capetillo, Edward Brian: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 25 (DOB: 5-13-1977); murders of white male age 19 and white female age 20 in Harris County on 1-16-1995; sentenced on 2-6-1996.

Cobb, Raymond Levi: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 26 (DOB: 6-18-1976); murders of white female age 23 and white female age 16 months in Huntsville on 12-27-1993; sentenced on 2-27-1997; reversed in 2000; resentenced to death in 2001.

Dewberry, John Curtis: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 25 (DOB: 1-30-1977); murder of white male age 57 in Beaumont (Jefferson County) on 12-25-1994; sentenced on 11-21-1996.

Dickens, Justin Wiley: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 26 (DOB: 7-28-1976); murder of white male age 50 in Randall County on 3-12-1994; sentenced on 5-17-1995.

Dixon, Anthony Tyrone: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 26 (DOB: 11-7-1976); robbery and murder of white female age 34 in Houston (Harris County) on 5-15-1994; sentenced on 2-8-1995.

Guillen, Derek Jermaine: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 10-20-1980); robbery, rape and murder of white female age 52 in Tempe on 3-26-1998; sentenced on 6-1-1999.

Horn, Patrick: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 28; kidnaping and murder of black (?) male age 8 in Tyler on 10-13-1991; sentenced on 10-4-1999 [currently serving life sentence in federal prison in Atlanta, GA.].

Johnson, Eddie C.: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 24 (DOB: 11-26-1978); robbery and murder of white male age 42 in Fort Worth on 3-6-1996; sentenced on 7-31-1997.

Jones, Anzel Keon: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 24 (DOB: 2-4-1978); murder of white female age 49 in Grayson County on 5-2-1995; sentenced on 6-4-1996.

Little, Leo Gordon: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 7-14-1980); kidnaping, robbery and murder of Latin male age 22 in San Antonio on 1-22-1998; sentenced on 3-5-1999.

Lopez, Michael Anthony, Jr.: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 4-28-1981); murder of male age 25 (deputy constable) in Harris County on 9-29-1998; sentenced on 5-25-1999.

Monterrubio, Jose Ignacio: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 26 (DOB: 8-26-1976); rape and murder of Latin female age 16 in Brownsville (Cameron County) on 9-5-1993; sentenced on 8-25-1994.

Perez, Efrian: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 27 (DOB: 11-19-1975); rape and murder of white female age 14 and white female age 16 in Houston (Harris County) on 6-24-1993; sentenced on 9-22-1994.

Reeves, Whitney: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 21 (DOB: 8-21-1981); murders of white female age 14 and white male age 40 in Beaumont on 8-20-1999; sentenced on 9-8-2000.

Salinas, Jorge Alfredo: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 18 (DOB: 4-1-1984); robbery and murder of Latin male age 20 and Latin female age 21 months in Mission (Hidalgo County) on 7-28-2001; sentenced on 8-?-2002.

Solomon, Christopher Julian: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 1-30-1980); robbery and murder of white male adult in Texarcana on 9-19-1997; sentenced on 6-4-1999.

Soriano, Oswaldo Regalado: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 27 (DOB: 6-26-1975); robbery and murder of white male age 59 in Amarillo on 11-17-1992; sentenced on 5-4-1994.

Springsteen, Robert Burns, IV: White male; age 17 at crime and now age 28 ( DOB: 11-26-1974); robbery and murder of white female age 13 in Austin on 12-6-1991; sentenced on 6-1-2001.

Tran, Son Vu Khai: Asian-American male; age 17 at crime and now age 22 (DOB: 5-11-1980); murder of Latin male adult and Asian-American male age 20 in Houston on 10-25-1997; sentenced on 12-18-2000.

Villareal, Raul Omar: Latin male; age 17 at crime and now age 27 (DOB: 9-25-1975); rape and murder of white female age 14 and white female age 16 in Houston (Harris County) on 6-24-1993; sentenced on 9-22-1994.

Williams, Bruce Lee: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 21 (DOB: 12-16-1981); car-jacking, rape and murder of Asian-American female age 24 in Dallas on 2-3-1999; sentenced on 12-10-1999.

Williams, Nanon McKewn: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 28 (DOB: 8-2-1974); murder of white male age 19 in Harris County on 5-14-1992; sentenced on 9-22-1995.

Wilson, Geno Capoletti: Black male; age 17 at crime and now age 21 (DOB: 5-24-1981); robbery and murder of male age 19 in Houston on 12-2-1998; sentenced on 12-10-1999.



VIRGINIA

Johnson, Shermaine Ali: Black male; age 16 at crime and now age 25 (DOB: 12-30-1977); rape and murder of black female age 22 in Petersburg (Prince George County) on 7-10-1994; sentenced on 2-22-1998; reversed in 2001; resentenced to death on 10-28-2002

As far as I'm concerned this ranks right up there with the forced sterilisation of all those kids whose IQ was below a certain level in the 1950's. On top of that, from all the countries I mentioned at the top, the only ones who out-slot the USA are China, Singapore and Yemen. There is something inherrantly 'cruel and unusual'(that's for all you legal-eagles out there) about any society that kills for crimes committed by people who were legally children at the time of the offence. If the death penalty itself could be considered inhumane and barbaric, then this is nothing short of the mentality that rules (or should I say ruled) Iraq. I'm not saying that an older minor isn't capable of distinguishing right from wrong, and I hope that no-one trys to score a cheap point by suggesting I am. I don't believe however, that executing children is an act carried out by a cultured and developed society. I wish to God I could remember now the name and circumstances of the 16 year old girl who went to the gas chamber for a crime committed in 1986, because it's the most telling case in this debate.



*an internet article*

As long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated.

Since 1973, 102 prisoners have been released from death row in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Some had come close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.

The Governor of the US state of Illinois, George Ryan, declared a moratorium on executions in January 2000. His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA reinstated the death penalty in 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed.

Announcing the moratorium, Governor Ryan said: ''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.''


Dunno about anyone else, but this says it all for me.

 

[BigJim]

A prelude for the information you requested Steve.

Steve this isn't exactly what you asked for earlier, but it is relavent and hopefully it won't be too long before I'm able to give all the details about the '23'.

This is information about unsafe convictions and subsequent executions or release. Try taking a trip through the legal incompetency and inflexibility that's led to some serious travesties of justice.

Larry Dean Smith Oklahoma Conviction 1978 Released 1984
Smith was convicted of the murder of a man who burned to death in a camper pick-up truck. Although he at first admitted his involvement in the related robbery, he maintained he had nothing to do with the murder. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated his death sentence, and the Oklahoma Attorney General recommended that the murder conviction be set aside. On remand, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals refused to uphold Smith's conviction for the robbery. Lucky break!

*Sonia Jacobs Florida Conviction 1976 Released 1992
Jacobs and her companion, Jesse Tafero, were sentenced to death for the murder of two policemen at a highway rest stop in 1976. A third co-defendant received a life sentence after pleading guilty and testifying against Jacobs and Tafero. The jury recommended a life sentence for Jacobs, but the judge overruled the jury and imposed death. A childhood friend and filmmaker, Micki Dickoff, then became interested in her case. Jacobs's conviction was overturned on a federal writ of habeas corpus in 1992. Following the discovery that the chief prosecution witness had given contradictory statements, the prosecutor accepted a plea in which Jacobs did not admit guilt, and she was immediately released. Jesse Tafero, whose conviction was based on much of the same highly questionable evidence, had been executed in 1990 before the evidence of innocence had been uncovered.It's a shame the wheels of 'the system that works' didn't turn quickly enough for Tafero isn't it?

*Mitchell Blazak Arizona Conviction 1974 Released 1994
Blazak was originally convicted of a murder in which a ski-masked gunman killed a bartender and a customer at a bar in Tucson in 1973. The conviction was based largely on the testimony of a small time con man, Kenneth Pease, who was arrested for a number of felonies in New Mexico and Arizona. Pease testified after being granted immunity. A federal court in 1991 termed Pease's testimony to be "a mass of contradictions." The court also ruled that the trial judge had failed to ensure that Blazak was competent to stand trial. Rather than pursue a new trial, the prosecutor offered a no contest plea in September, 1994, which allowed Blazak to be released before the end of the year. There was some evidence that a deputy sheriff named Michael Tucker planted hair evidence in the case. Three days after Blazak walked out of prison, Tucker was arrested for car theft. A good case of trusted officials being crooked.

Anthony Scire Louisiana Conviction 1985 Released 1994
Scire was sentenced to death for hiring Clarence Smith to murder a police informant. The chief witnesses at the trial were members of a motorcycle gang given immunity for this and other crimes in exchange for their testimony. The convictions of both Scire and Smith (see #56 in Innocence Report) were overturned. At retrial, Smith was acquitted. Scire pleaded guilty to manslaughter, while maintaining his innocence. He was immediately released in exchange for time served. A plea that he later claimed he made, just so he could get out of prison. Under the circumstances I'd probably do the same.

Victor Jimenez Nevada Conviction 1987 Scheduled release: Dec. 1, 1999
Jimenez's first trial in 1987 ended in a hung jury. A second trial convicted him and sentenced him to death for the stabbing death of two men in a North Las Vegas bar. The Nevada Supreme Court unanimously granted him a new trial in 1996 because of police misconduct including false testimony bordering on perjury. Rather than face the risk of a new trial, Jimenez reluctantly entered a special plea, without admitting his guilt, on June 9, 1998 to 2nd degree murder. He will be required to serve an additional 18 months in prison and has agreed not to sue those responsible for putting him on death row. A classic example of how people have to fight against petty regulation to avoid the chop. This guy would have dearly loved to fight all the way, but when offered the way out, he took it.

Joseph Spaziano Florida Conviction 1976 Not Released
Spaziano was tried for the murder of a young woman which had occurred two years earlier. No physical evidence linked him to the crime. He was convicted primarily on the testimony of a drug-addicted teenager who, after hypnosis and "refreshed-memory" interrogation, thought he recalled Spaziano describing the murder. This witness has recently said that his testimony was totally unreliable and not true. Hypnotically induced testimony is no longer admissible in Florida. Death warrants have been repeatedly signed for Spaziano, even though the jury in his case had recommended a life sentence. In January, 1996, Florida Circuit Court Judge O.H. Eaton granted Spaziano a new trial, and this decision was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court on April 17, 1997. In November, 1998, Spaziano pleaded no contest to second degree murder and was sentenced to time served. He remains incarcerated on another charge. Probably nig big loss to society, but a good example of a judge ignoring a jury and going for what would looj good in the tabloids.

*Paris Carriger Arizona Conviction 1978 Released 1999
Carriger was scheduled to die on December 6, 1995 for a murder he steadfastly maintains he did not commit. Another man, Robert Dunbar, twice confessed that he lied at Carriger's trial, and that it was he who committed the murder. As a result of his original trial testimony against Carriger, Dunbar was given immunity for other charges. Dunbar has since died. A three judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Carriger's death sentence, noting that while his case raised doubts, he must prove by clear and convincing evidence that "he is unquestionably innocent." Review of the case by the entire 9th Circuit was granted in February, 1997. Carriger was granted a new trial by the 9th Circuit in December, 1997 because of the new evidence. In January, 1999, he accepted a plea to a lesser offense and was immediately released from prison. Another one who took the easy road, instead of risking a full fight. And since when the F**K does someone have to prove they're innocent? I thought it was up to us to prove them guilty?

Lee Perry Farmer California Conviction 1992 Release 1999
Farmer was acquitted at a re-trial in California of capital murder. He had spent 9 years on death row. He was, however, convicted of burglary and being an accessory to murder. He was credited with time already served and will be released. A federal court had overturned his first conviction because of incompetent counsel. Another man confessed to the murder. (Sacramento Bee, 1/18/99)

Kerry Max Cook Texas Conviction 1978 Released Nov. 1997 Concluded 1999
Cook was originally convicted of killing Linda Jo Edwards in 1978. In 1988, he came within 11 days of execution, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Texas Court to review its decision. Cook's conviction was overturned in 1991. He was re-tried in 1992, but the trial ended in a hung jury. In 1993, a state district judge ruled that prosecutors had engaged in systematic misconduct, surpressing key evidence. In 1994, Cook was tried again, and this time found guilty and again sentenced to death. On Nov. 6, 1996, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction, saying that "prosecutorial and police misconduct has tainted this entire matter from the outset." The court ruled that key testimony from the 1994 trial could not be used in any further prosecution. Prior to the start of his fourth trial in February, 1999, Cook pleaded no contest to a reduced murder charge and was released. He continued to maintain his complete innocence, but accepted the deal to avoid the possibility of another wrongful conviction. Recent DNA tests from the victim matched that of an ex-boyfriend, and not that of Cook. This tended to contradict testimony from the ex-boyfriend. Another wonderful example of wankers in the legal field deliberatley mis-usig their position to get the easy conviction.

*Lloyd Schlup Missouri Conviction 1985 Not Released
Schlup was convicted in 1985 of a murder while in prison. However, a prison videotape shows him to be in the cafeteria around the time of the murder at a different location. One prison guard has testified that the tape, along with his observation of Schlup just before he went to the cafeteria, prove he could not have been present at the murder. Twenty other witnesses also swear that he was not at the scene of the crime. The U.S. Supreme Court gave Schlup the opportunity for a hearing concerning his new evidence, despite the fact that he had exhausted his ordinary appeals. Following the hearing in federal District Court in December 1995, the court held that no reasonable juror would have found Schlup guilty. On May 2, 1996, Schlup was granted a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his original trial attorney failed to adequately represent him. The State of Missouri unsuccessfully attempted to apply the new federal habeas corpus law which was signed on April 24, 1996 to Schlup's case. Under the new law, Schlup probably would have been executed. On the second day of his re-trial, Mar. 23, 1999, Schlup agreed to plead guilty to second degree murder to avoid the danger of another death sentence. Schlup's appellate lawyer, Sean O'Brien, said he remained convinced of Schlup's innocence. Another example of someone who could only fight for so long and against so much.

Donald Paradis Idaho Conviction 1981 Released 2001
After spending 14 years on death row, Donald Paradis was released from prison when his 1981 murder conviction was overturned. Judge Gary Haman, who originally sentenced Paradis to death, came out of retirement to accept Paradis' plea to moving the body after the murder. Paradis, who always maintained that he was not involved in the slaying of Kimberly Anne Palmer, was sentenced to 5 years and released for time already served.
The deal came after a federal court of appeals ruling that Paradis was denied a fair trial because prosecutors withheld potentially exculpatory evidence. Paradis was scheduled for execution three times before his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in 1996 by then-Governor Phil Blatt who had doubts about Paradis' guilt.
Paradis' trial lawyer, William Brown, never studied criminal law, never tried a felony case, and never tried a case before a jury. While representing Paradis, Brown also worked as a police officer. His defense lasted only three hours. In addition, Dr. Brady, the pathologist who performed the autopsy of Ms. Palmer, testified that Palmer had been killed in Idaho, not in Washington where Paradis had already been acquitted of the murder. Dr. Brady was fired as a medical examiner soon after the Paradis trial when it was discovered that he had sold human tissue for profit and saved human blood, collected during autopsies, for use in his garden. And doctors are supposed to be pillars of society?

Charles Munsey North Carolina Conviction 1996 Died in prison
In May, 1999, Superior Court Judge Thomas Ross threw out Munsey's murder conviction and ordered a new trial for the 1993 beating death of Shirley Weaver. The judge cited evidence that the state's key witness had lied, that prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence, and that another man's confession to the crime was probably true. The state decided not to appeal Judge Ross's ruling and plans to indict the man who confessed to the murder. Munsey may have been re-tried, perhaps for a lesser charge involving the sale of the gun used in the murder. Munsey died in prison before an official decision was made on dropping the charges agianst him or retrying his case. He was someone who could'nt be compensated.

There's more than these, but they're much the same. Corrupt police looking for their next promotion, D.A.'s looking for votes etc. Hopefully I'll be able to provide the info you were after in the next couple of days Steve.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

too many questions jim!

so i'll try to work from memory, and answer what i think needs my input.
yes i am upset about my brother-in-law being murdered! what good would it serve for them to get the death penalty? for one, those 6 bastards would never kill again! who knows how many others those 6 sick fucks have gone on to kill?!?! you act like wanting them dead is a bad thing?!

sorry but i don't think it's up to me, you, or anyone else to make sure we live in a perfect society. we only have to make sure WE do our best to be good law abiding people! and if we can, so can any/every one else. i have no sympathy for any drug addict who commits crime.

those "children" knew they were commiting a crime, they snuffed out the lives of inocent people, yes they should be executed, with exteem prejidice! i don't care if they were 16, or 17 when they commited their crimes, they "earned" what they got!

those other cases you reported on, where the defendents were later released, gives me 2 seperate feelings; 1) see the system works. 2) just cause some simple minded liberal judge let's a murder go, doesn't mean the perp was really inocent!

by executing a criminal we are passing off our responsibility to god?!?! huh? just the opposite in my view, we are dealing with hardened criminals in the best way we can, and providing an object leson to future murders, kill, and you'll be killed! too bad it's not really handled it that matter. it's more like *shh, let's do it quietly*. hell if it were up to me, we'd have public hangings again, with forced watching in schools, and a discussion afterwards about the penalty for being a criminal. if it were done that way, it would be a deterent!

i know you've said it a few times, about death row being so expensive ,but that's only cause the bastards are on it for an average of 20 years! in todays technological era, we can make sure through dna, and drug interogation ,if a convicted person is the real killer, if they are, then carry out the sentence right away!

in the past inocent people were wrongly put to death, but that is no reason to stop the system. but it is a reason to advance criminal science.

on your benighted shores you don't have the same crime rate we have, so maybe england can afford to be leniant(sp?)

steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: too many questions jim!

so i'll try to work from memory, and answer what i think needs my input.
yes i am upset about my brother-in-law being murdered! what good would it serve for them to get the death penalty? for one, those 6 bastards would never kill again! who knows how many others those 6 sick fucks have gone on to kill?!?! you act like wanting them dead is a bad thing?!

Yes it would stop them killing again, but so would putting them in a Super-Max. And I do believe that wanting someone dead is a bad thing. Not because the people you want dead would be any loss to society, but because I think that sort of hatred boiling endlessly inside, will seriously damage you. To be honest, I think it already has.

sorry but i don't think it's up to me, you, or anyone else to make sure we live in a perfect society. we only have to make sure WE do our best to be good law abiding people! and if we can, so can any/every one else.

WRONG! And coming from an ex-cop, quite a disappointing remark too! It's basically "I'm alright Jack and the rest of the world can sort its-fucking-self out!" Taking a quote from the Bible, when Cain asked God if he was Able's keeper, God should have replied........."You bet your fuckin' ass you are sonny-boy!" You saying it's not up to us to ensure our society is as good as it can be (that's us as normal citizens, not us as police officers), is basically abdicating all responsibility to someone else. Someone else who probably wants you to feel that way, so they can take away all your "freedoms" in return for placitudes about keeping the crime rate down. It's attitudes like that, if you don't mind me venting my spleen, that have resulted in people being able to manipulate us like bloody marionettes on strings. It is EVERYONE'S reponsibility to work for society's betterment and someone who doesn't bear by that in their everyday life might just as well move to Mars.

those "children" knew they were commiting a crime, they snuffed out the lives of inocent people, yes they should be executed, with exteem prejidice! i don't care if they were 16, or 17 when they commited their crimes, they "earned" what they got!

Does that go for the mentally ill and the retarded who have been executed as well? Does this actually stop somewhere Steve? 15? 14? 5?Neither you, nor anyone else who is pro death penalty have put forward a case that refutes any of the 'evidence' against it being viable. I've suspected for some time that you had been personally touched by something that would involve the death penalty. That last quote makes me realise just how badly. Few coppers even after a full 30 years TOD are that strident. Quite frankly I find it heartbreaking that you think executing minors is one key to society's problems. Then there's you thinking that it'd be worth a handful of innocents getting judiciously murdered, so long as the majority convicted were really guilty. I'm not sure what I fear most, the society we have, or the one you'd replace it with.

those other cases you reported on, where the defendents were later released, gives me 2 seperate feelings; 1) see the system works. 2) just cause some simple minded liberal judge let's a murder go, doesn't mean the perp was really inocent!

You don't think #2 swings both ways though? You don't think that some people wuold like to fight all the way and prove their 100% innocence, but go for a plea bargain because they havn't got the nerve to walk sparky's razor's edge again? As for #1, watch this space.

by executing a criminal we are passing off our responsibility to god?!?! huh? just the opposite in my view, we are dealing with hardened criminals in the best way we can, and providing an object leson to future murders, kill, and you'll be killed! too bad it's not really handled it that matter. it's more like *shh, let's do it quietly*. hell if it were up to me, we'd have public hangings again, with forced watching in schools, and a discussion afterwards about the penalty for being a criminal. if it were done that way, it would be a deterent!

Just the opposite? He sent them into this world in that condition and we send them back without bettering it? We ignored His Son's instructions about redemption being for all of mankind, not just the shiny and snuggly people? (If you look at it from a Christian perspective.) As for the second part of that paragraph; I sincerely hope you were being flippant. If those are your genuine opinions, then that is some of the sickest and most heartless filth I've ever heard. Quite frankly it borders on psychological terrorism, and I'd fear for the minds of any kid brought up in a society with those values! Not only that but no-one brought up in those sort of conditions is ever going to love or respect their 'civilisation'. Bring someone up in fear, hatred and terror and that's all they'll manifest. Either that or they'll be utterly introspective and not grow any more than a flower kept in a cupboard.

i know you've said it a few times, about death row being so expensive ,but that's only cause the bastards are on it for an average of 20 years! in todays technological era, we can make sure through dna, and drug interogation ,if a convicted person is the real killer, if they are, then carry out the sentence right away!

Break out the sodium pentathol? If our sciences are so exact, why do we still get dozens of wrongful convictions? We have so much respect for our technology, only because it's the best WE'VE ever known. People in the last half of the 19th century thought the same when they brought in fingerprinting. It helped certainly, but it didn't even come close to eliminating all injustices. DNA is the most exact phorensic science we've had in combatting crime, but it has it's flaws and pit-falls. Sometime in the future, something even more advanced will replace or supplant it. For all it's advantages, DNA evidence is either not available or not applicable to some cases. It isn't the magic antidote to the judiciary's problems.

in the past inocent people were wrongly put to death, but that is no reason to stop the system. but it is a reason to advance criminal science.

Sure it is. It's a damn good reason to advance criminal science. Something well worth spending taxpayers money on. But what happens in the meantime? Oh I forgot, it's okay if some innocents get trampled underfoot, so long as an example is made of the majority. Sure, it only costs a few tax dollars to send the familly a bunch of flowers when the verdict gets quashed.

Just because we temper sterness and punishment with understanding and compassion, doesn't mean it would result in the system being stopped. It means we would have a more effective, more economic and more civillised way of dealing with our criminals.

on your benighted shores you don't have the same crime rate we have, so maybe england can afford to be leniant(sp?)

steve

And coincidentally enough, we havn't had the death penalty for nearly 40 years either. Strange that isn't it? (Although I think the addition of Life Without Parole would be a damn good idea!) Even stranger is that our crime rates have fallen some, since the late 1950's. It's not the only factor I'm certain, but it's not something to be ignored either.

I'll repeat something I said in an earlier post in this thread. Both you and another member have said you'd be willing for '2 or 3 innocent people' to die by execution, so long as 100 real criminals were properly convicted. That's quite understandable. You might even be willing to say that you'd run the risk of being wrongfully convicted yourself, if it was for the good of society. That in itself is a noble POV. But imagine this Steve. If you feel full of hate and anger right now, how would you feel if your daughter was wrongly sentenced to death for murdering someone? (This daughter is hypothetical, I can't remember if you have kids or not. It could just as easilly be sister, mother, whatever.) She comes in and finds her boyfriend dead. She calls the police who totally fuck up the investigation, or the DA decides he needs to appease the frothing 90% of the electorate in his parish by sending someone up, and she ends up getting convicted. When you go to visit her the last time before she's due to get the needle or the chair and she's crying through the window, you try to comfort her. You walk out even more of a mess than you though you ever could be after 2 or 3 decades pounding the streets of the Windy City. You look in the mirror in the bathroom and you try to convince yourself that it's worth 2 or 3 poor innocent fuckers dying, just so long as the majority get executed in a ritual that no more takes down the crime rate or saves money than life imprisonment does. Could you convince yourself? I seriously doubt it. Well if a magic genie snapped his fingers and granted you the option of deciding whether all 50 states had the death penalty or not, you would be putting someone, somewhere, in exactly the position I've just described. If you feel like life has kicked you in the nuts at every turn so far, how do you think you would feel if that person was you? Do you really think you'd feel benevolent and loving towards your society? Do you think you'd feel like it was worth supporting and protecting? Do you think it would be worth having 2 or 3 innocent people die, so long as 100 guilty ones died too, when there was a perfectly good alternative? Do you?

 

[Deleted member 2452]

jim you need to calm down...

...one would think you have a friend, or family member on death row. but not to worry, as i said, they're safe for a good 20 or more years!

yes i have know far more than my fair share of tribulation, so what?
that doesn't negate my convictions on this or any other issue! save your pity for the criminals you so love... odd to see your attitude in a police officer, but then maybe that's another difference between america and england.

i seem to recall that back in the 1970's, or 1980's there was so much crime being commited by immagrants from the carabien, africa and far east, that england was debating on ending immagration! it's also when they started to arm police officers there.

my daughter is planning on going into the military, (my only son too) they could die there, in combat, or more likely, in training. that doesn't make my support of the military any less. so your hypothetical situation doen't wash. another big problem with it, i have raised my kids (4 of them, where's your memory gone) to be law abiding! the chance of them commiting crime is between zero, and none!
which leads to the other problem, the way some people raise, or don't raise their kids!

i'll pass on your insults, and just chalk them up to misplaced passion.
steve

 

[BigJim]

Re: jim you need to calm down...

my daughter is planning on going into the military, (my only son too) they could die there, in combat, or more likely, in training. that doesn't make my support of the military any less. so your hypothetical situation doen't wash. another big problem with it, i have raised my kids (4 of them, where's your memory gone) to be law abiding! the chance of them commiting crime is between zero, and none!


i'll pass on your insults, and just chalk them up to misplaced passion.
steve

My hypothetical situation? I think you misunderstood my point a bit Steve. I never counted on you bringing your kids up to be anything less than law-abiding; I know I'll do the same should I ever become a father. I was talking about your *insert random relative here* being convicted wrongly of a crime she DIDN'T do. I was trying to make the point, that in an effort to be selfless about wanting the death penalty, you were accidentally being selfish. The reason I say that is because it's all very well to say that you'd happily risk 2 or 3 innocents, even if one of them was yourself; but I doubted you could face one of them being your own child. And child it might very well be, too! If what you said earlier holds hard, then a 15,16 or 17 year old kid of yours might get slotted for a crime they didn't commit.

Which goes on to something I'm genuinely curious about. You said you were happy for a 16 or 17 year old to be executed if they committed a capital crime, because they know right from wrong at that age. Well to be honest, I knew right from wrong when I was 8. If you'd execute on the basis that the perpetrator knew killing someone was wrong, not right......... where does it end? Would you agree to the execution of a 10 year old? A 15 year old? Where does it stop? Would you have executed John Venables and Robert Thompson? Those two (who were the killers of a young lad called Jamie Bulger near Liverpool in the early 1990's) committed a crime of such sickening depravity, that it would make most hardened crims vomit. They were 11 and 12 at the time and both members of dysfunctional and abusive families. Not an excuse, because they certainly knew wrong from right, but would you send them to Sparky for it?

As for loving criminals and there being a difference between America and the UK............. well yes I probably am unusual, even for here. But the attitudes between the UK and the US aren't. Most people in the UK would vote for the re-instatement of capital punishment, if there was a referendum next week. I don't love criminals, but I do love humanity as a whole. I think of it as a whole body, with each person being a cell. I'd prefer to give someone the opportunity to learn, rather than arbitarily remove them from existence. Of course I come at it from a spiritual angle as well, which makes me even more different.

Yes I am quite passionate about it, but why should that be misplaced? I don't hold these views because I wring my hands like a liberal over every poor little itty-bitty murderer who comes our way. I'm not that naive. My views come from everything that makes me up as a person, not just what I've seen through my job or experienced at the roll of life's dice. I may have insulted your views, because I found them quite Vader-ish, but I don't intend to insult you. I appreciate the tone of decorum you brought to the discussion with your last sentence, so I'll leave it there.


I'm still assembling the details of the 23 we talked about yesterday. When I post it to this thread, just look it over and let me know what you think about the evidence that sent them to die. Even if you believe their deaths were worth it, it will be thought-provoking reading material.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

it has to be a case by case system

when dealing out capital punishment to youthfull offenders.
those 2 pieces of work from england you mentioned, are indeed ones that i'd happily throw the switch on! i actually was thinking of them when you mentioned kids the other day, seems we are on the same page.

as for loving humanity, and respecting the societal body. i liked that analogy, and i'll ask you in turn, would you then not cut out a cancer that is killing off other good healthy cells?
see jim, i too love my fellow man, and society(i wouldn't have been a police officer, and now a nurse if i didn't). we just differ on the methods to use to keep it safe from the scum. i do believe in the revenge factor of capital punishment.

it's also like dealing with a savage animal, once they taste human blood, they want more. i see no difference in a lion, or a street thug, both want to kill the inocent.
steve

 

[ShiningIce]

it's also like dealing with a savage animal, once they taste human blood, they want more. i see no difference in a lion, or a street thug, both want to kill the inocent.

Most street thugs tend not to eat their victims. Some kill because they like it others for money, some because they see no way out of the life they're in. Better to understand why the cancer is formng so u wont HAVE to cut it out again.

 

[Limeoutsider]

I don't think age should matter, if you did it, you obviosuly knew what you were doing. I don't think that it's right that they can sit on Death Row for 20 or more years using appeals. If they're convicted, they should have to wait, at maximum, 6 weeks.

 

[BigJim]

I don't think age should matter, if you did it, you obviosuly knew what you were doing.

Does that you'd encourage the execution of a 10 year old if he'd committed a capital crime Lime?

 

[BigJim]

Re: it has to be a case by case system

when dealing out capital punishment to youthfull offenders.
those 2 pieces of work from england you mentioned, are indeed ones that i'd happily throw the switch on! i actually was thinking of them when you mentioned kids the other day, seems we are on the same page.

You'd throw the switch on an 11 and a 12 year old? There is something here that doesn't ring true. At 11 or 12, a child (although he or she will have their own cnoception of right and wrong) is largely a product of the enviroment they were born into. I don't believe that kids who could remove a toddler's eyes and replace them with batteries, and decapitate him, have stable minds or emotions. They made a choice certainly, but that crime was not all their failiure. No child has the capacity to be that depraved unless someone has seriously fucked up their upbringing. Given that rather (to me) obvious deduction, I could never have stomached the thought of executing them. That really is quite nazi-ist.

as for loving humanity, and respecting the societal body. i liked that analogy, and i'll ask you in turn, would you then not cut out a cancer that is killing off other good healthy cells?
see jim, i too love my fellow man, and society(i wouldn't have been a police officer, and now a nurse if i didn't). we just differ on the methods to use to keep it safe from the scum. i do believe in the revenge factor of capital punishment.

Now I'll use the analogy of complimentary medicine and conventional, scientific medicine. You get the choice between the scalpel and the syringe for cancer and if you manage to live, you'll be deeply scarred. You try the far more effective methods that have existed for centuries longer, but don't get publiscised because they don't make fortunes for companies like Eli Lily or Glaxo Welcome and if you live, the only scars you'll have will be psychological. I would sooner treat a cancerous tumour, than cut it out forcibly and damage the healthy flesh around it.

it's also like dealing with a savage animal, once they taste human blood, they want more. i see no difference in a lion, or a street thug, both want to kill the inocent.
steve

There's a lot of difference. The lion won't be killing because he's got a drug habit to block out the despair of his life. He won't be killing someone in the street because it's self defence. He won't be killing because he's an alcoholic and loses his temper over something trivial. He won't be killing because he was doing a burglary to get money for a habit or for anything else, panic and blow someone away. And similarly the human would'nt kill because he wanted to eat his victim. (Unless he was a satanist I suppose. 🙄

You also can't correct a lion, because it was born that way, because it has to use it's hunter's instinct to live. If you can show someone they don't have to hunt a person to live, then you can change them. And if you can't change them, then they can rot in the Super-Max for years, doing hard labour for 5 bucks a week. I believe that killing is wrong, except if you or another innocent will die if you don't kill. I also believe that two wrongs don't make a right. I think fighting fire with fire, is fun but impractical. And if you wanna go down the Star Wars road, I believe that using the Dark Side to fight the Dark Side, will end up destroying you. I think the only advantage in the death penalty is that it feeds the baser instincts for revenge, and I believe that any society that thinks stooping that low in something as sacrosanct as justice, is inherrantly uncivilised. (ESPECIALLY if it kills children as well!)

Hell even Iraq will take a step higher in the next year when it outlaws the death penalty. And this was the coutry who was supposed to be so barbaric that they threatened our very existence?

 

[BigJim]

Most street thugs tend not to eat their victims. Some kill because they like it others for money, some because they see no way out of the life they're in. Better to understand why the cancer is forimng so u wont HAVE to cut it out again.

Very profound Ice. Treating the cause as opposed to the symptom, no?

 

[BigJim]

Sorry if the columns are slightly wonky, I'm not too sure how to set it up.


Convict Name State Race Date Executed
Adams, James FL B 1974
Anderson, William Henry FL B 1945
Applegate, Everett NY W 1936
Bambrick, Thomas NY W 1915
Becker, Charles NY W 1912
Cirofici, Frank NY W 1912
Collins, Roosevelt AL B 1937
Dawson, Sie FL B 1960
Garner, Vance AL B 1905
Grzechowaik, Stephen NY W 1929
Hauptmann, Bruno Richard NJ W 1935
Hill, Joe UT W 1915
Lamble, Harold NJ W 1920
Mays, Maurice F. TN B 1919
McGee, Willie MS B 1945
Rybarczyk, Max NY W 1929
Sacco, Nichola MA W 1921
Sanders, Albert AL B 1917
Sberna, Charles NY W 1938
Shumway, R. Mead NB W 1907
Tucker, Charles Louis MA W 1905
Vanzetti, Bartholomeo MA W 1921
Wing, George Chew NY A 1937

( Source: Bedau, Hugo Adam and Radelet, Michael: )


These are cases that have been proved innocent, but have not been forwarded through judicary channels as would happen if the convict was still alive. United States courts have a policy of refusing to rubber stamp cases in which the execution has already taken place. The cases are proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'. (And some cases, beyond any doubt at all.)

The absence of a case more recent than 1974, is due in part, to the Freedom Of Information Act not being able to legally disclose all details of some cases. This list will grow in time.
---------------------------------------------------------------



These are the names were talking about the day before yesterday Steve. If I come across anything else that is relavent to the discussion I'll post them. The fact that there are 23 that have been 'proven' show that there are many more. As more details come out from the FOIA then more cases will come to light. I dunno what the FOIA entails exactly, but I gather there is a time limit for disclosure of certain documents. I'm sure you know more about it than I do.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

you've cut me too deep jim

maybe it's just the inharent arogence that you liberals seem to have, or maybe you just go around throwing out highly offensive insults. either way it doesn't matter, you've crossed the line, i'm through with you.

just to clarrify something; i am a jew! maybe in your perfect world the nazi s would have me, but in the real world, they want to bake me!
steve

 

[BigJim]

And since when did race come into this? Nazi-ism focused primarilly on hating jews through international politics, for a realativley brief period of the 20th century. Anyone of any race is perfectly able to have far-right leanings, your genetic make-up has nothing to do with it. (Unless it means that you should know better, because you should already know just how dangerous ultra-conservatism is.)But it's your decision Steve. For what it's worth, I'm of Jewish descent myself,(quite a few generations back) so I don't use comparisons like that willy-nilly.

By 'having you' I presume you mean being on your side as opposed to killing you? Well maybe that's true. But having jewish descent doesn't stop someone from having far-right leanings obviously. Just because those leanings aren't based on race or someone's bloodline (as it was with Hitler who hated anyone who had semitic blood) doesn't stop them being far right.

And you can say all you like about NOT being far right, but there is no other way to describe an opinion that it's okay to execute children. (Unless it's the far left of course. Opposames, the lot of them. On the far right you have Hitler who was into centralised control, military dictatorship and concentration camps. On the far left you had Stalin who was into centralised control, military dictatorship and concentration camps. Perhaps you'd prefer being called a commie?)

And before you go howling that I'm a liberal, or that I'm calling you a nazi literally, just try laying out the exact words I used.

"No child has the capacity to be that depraved unless someone has seriously fucked up their upbringing. Given that rather (to me) obvious deduction, I could never have stomached the thought of executing them. That really is quite nazi-ist."

In other words, that particular opinion of yours seems nazi-ist to me. I'm not calling the whole package of you a nazi. (Although I would describe you as an especially enthusiastic Republican.) I compared it to nazi-ism because you expressed the opinion that kids who are damaged and emotionally fucked up, should be arbitarilly killed if their fucked-upedness is bad enough for them to have committed a capital crime. Any society treats adults differently to children, because they've had more time to judge things for themselves and rise above any difficulties they had in their upbringing. But how anyone with an ounce of compassion in them can say they'd happily throw the switch on an 11 and 12 year old is beyond me. Thompson and Venables committed a crime that is hard if not impossible to equal, but as I said earlier, the failiure was not all theirs. It is bloody nearly impossible to get a kid who is that warped, whose parents don't have to share a MASSIVE amount of the blame. Executing them would serve only to partially placate those people who were frothing at the mouth a lot. It would'nt make society any safer, it would'nt bring Jamie Bulger back and it would never achieve a single decent thing. All it would ever do is give far-rightists and far-leftists something to drink to.

And as an afterthought, since when does being in favour of Life Without Parole and hard labour for long term prisoners make me a liberal? Just because I'm not in favour of executing children especially and adults also but with less vehemence, doesn't make me weak-kneed. Only someone who was an extremeist (for whatever reason) would ever call ME a liberal!

 

[ShiningIce]

maybe it's just the inharent arogence that you liberals seem to have, or maybe you just go around throwing out highly offensive insults. either way it doesn't matter, you've crossed the line, i'm through with you.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL ROFLMAO !!!! This guy gets funnier everytime I see him 😀 🙄

 

[Oddjob0226]

"No child has the capacity to be that depraved unless someone has seriously fucked up their upbringing. Given that rather (to me) obvious deduction, I could never have stomached the thought of executing them. That really is quite nazi-ist."

Here's why this debate is never all that easy to answer:

Comedian Bobby Slayton says that we shoulnd't have an electric chair, we should have an electric couch where the entire family who created a killer could be executed. He's not half wrong.


There was a woman on death row in Florida a few years ago - the youngest woman on death row there, which is why there was so much attention on her. She may be dead by now, I don't know. Anyway, she killed 2 people, she was even videotaped by her boyfriend doing one of 'em, and of course she confessed. Interesting stuff came out in the trial, though. She ran away from home as a kid because she was abused, and ran into the arms of an abusive boyfriend. Even thought she didn't like abuse, it was what she'd known all her life and was therefore what she was conditioned, or trained towards. She killed because her boyfriend intimidated and beat her. On the witness stand, under oath, her mother testified that her father would get drunk and beat her (the mom) in front of the girl. The mother would get drunk and beat the girl. So this girl's view of right vs. wrong was skewed by the most basic source that a developing mind would learn of such a thing. So the woman was going to die for murder. THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED HER HAD NOTHING HAPPEN TO THEM, no charges, no civil suits, nothing... In fact, if anyone could benefit from fame or finances related to this case, it would be these people -mom & dad.


Manson was abandoned by his mother and never knew his father. He was sent to juvenile detention centers and kiddie jails. Here he was beaten & sodomized on an almost daily basis from his single digit ages 'till his mid-teens by sexual sadist pedophiles who guarded the place, the people who were suppsoed to take care of him. This was the safty net that CA had in place when a child had the bad luck to be born to a parent that couldn't care for the child. The American taxpayer paid for the creation of Charles Manson.

So... in general, I'm for the death penalty. But I'm not a fanatic about it.

Heil Oddjob!

 

[Limeoutsider]

Does that you'd encourage the execution of a 10 year old if he'd committed a capital crime Lime?

After sitting here, thinking about it, the answer would be yes. I think that something had to snap for them to committ the crime, and I don't believe in rehabilitating murders.