[zigzag]

http://www.detroitnews.com/2002/metr...26/-571570.htm

Here's a guy who was released after 17 years in prison when DNA tests proved that he didn't do the crime. He was convicted on a supposed "confession". Over 100 people have recently been freed on DNA evidence, and we can reasonably assume that hundreds if not thousands more innocent people are sitting in prison and on death row.

How anyone could support the death penalty in the face of this is beyond me. It has scant, if any, deterrent value, and even the Republican governor of Illinois has declared a moratorium on it, yet there are still yahoos out there screaming for it. It defies common sense.

What's particularly ironic is that many of the same conservatives who decry the power of the state have no compunction about applying the death penalty. For some reason, they don't trust the state when it comes to search and seizure or gun laws, but they have complete trust in the state to properly apply the death penalty. Somebody explain this to me.

Please don't argue that it's just a matter of cleaning up police and court corruption. There will always be corruption as long as human beings are involved. And a false conviction doesn't require corruption - all it takes is one mistaken witness. The death penalty isn't worth the trouble.

[Zimphire]

I don't support the Death Penalty, but I don't support abortion either.

Both for the same reasons.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't support the Death Penalty, but I don't support abortion either.

Both for the same reasons.

you know a lot of fetuses that have been mis-tried for felonies?

[wingdo]

I used to be a huge fan of the death penalty. I am no longer a fan, however in some cases I do still believe in sentancing someone to death. The reason is simple, in a number of states there is no such thing as 'life without parole'. If someone rapes and murders a child, they should never be allowed out again. If the state where the crime was committed's life sentance allows for parole, than that person should be sentanced to death. They shouldn't be put to death, but they should still carry that sentance.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:


you know a lot of fetuses that have been mis-tried for felonies?

Anyway, the death penalty is barbaric. I don't care if its charles manson or someone who raped and killed every female in your family.

maybe if we didn't lock up people for unconstitutional things (drugs, etc) we'd have more vacancies.

[zigzag]

FYI: I'm not opposed to the death penalty per se. If there is incontrovertible proof of a capital crime, or if someone elects to be put to death, I have no objection. I simply believe it is unethical to apply the death penalty where the evidence is in any way unreliable, which is most of the time.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by zigzag:
FYI: I'm not opposed to the death penalty per se. If there is incontrovertible proof of a capital crime, or if someone elects to be put to death, I have no objection. I simply believe it is unethical to apply the death penalty where the evidence is in any way unreliable, which is most of the time.

evidence is NEVER incontrovertable...

anyway, the state DOES NOT have the right to murder.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by chris_h:


evidence is NEVER incontrovertable...

anyway, the state DOES NOT have the right to murder.

This is my feeling as well.

The only thing I find most troubling is the costs assosiated with prisons. It's hard for me to justify the cost of keeping some prisoners alive when they are so very beyond reform. Since our prisons do not serve any reformative function whatsoever (exceptions prove the rule), we're basically paying astronomical sums to cage them because we don't know what to do with them. That is also cruel and barbaric, IMO.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


This is my feeling as well.

The only thing I find most troubling is the costs assosiated with prisons. It's hard for me to justify the cost of keeping some prisoners alive when they are so very beyond reform. Since our prisons do not serve any reformative function whatsoever (exceptions prove the rule), we're basically paying astronomical sums to cage them because we don't know what to do with them. That is also cruel and barbaric, IMO.

Unfortunately, ostracizing evil doers from society may have a high monetary cost, but that is a cost that society must bear. Better to pay that cost than the moral cost of knowing you live in a society where people attempt to justify death based on revenge, and not justice!

Originally posted by KarlG:


Unfortunately, ostracizing evil doers from society may have a high monetary cost, but that is a cost that society must bear. Better to pay that cost than the moral cost of knowing you live in a society where people attempt to justify death based on revenge, and not justice!

Can't we just drop 'em on Monster Island?

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by hayesk:


Can't we just drop 'em on Monster Island?

You mean Australia?

[MikeM33]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't support the Death Penalty, but I don't support abortion either.

Both for the same reasons.

Right, so by that logic women who were sodomized by serial rapists should bear thier attackers children?

Nope sorry, no agreement on the abortion issue. Oh yeah and the death penalty is fine by me, provided the person being executed really did do it though.

That is all.

MikeM32

[andymcdeee]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::


You mean Australia?

Well said

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
Right, so by that logic women who were sodomized by serial rapists should bear thier attackers children?

mike, i hate to be the one to break it to you, but that's not how women get pregnant.

-r.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
Right, so by that logic women who were sodomized by serial rapists should bear thier attackers children?

I think I know why your wife left...

I say replace the death penalty with a "Permanent Imprisonment" sentence.

[dampeoples]

What if a woman is raped and has an abortion? Do you kill the rapist and the woman too?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by dampeoples:
What if a woman is raped and has an abortion? Do you kill the rapist and the woman too?

Woohoo, three deaths for the price of one! Well, it would really be the price of three I suppose. But you know what I mean. ...probably not.

[derien]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The only thing I find most troubling is the costs assosiated with prisons. It's hard for me to justify the cost of keeping some prisoners alive when they are so very beyond reform. Since our prisons do not serve any reformative function whatsoever (exceptions prove the rule), we're basically paying astronomical sums to cage them because we don't know what to do with them. That is also cruel and barbaric, IMO.

In general, it is actually more expensive to carry out a death sentence than to imprison a criminal for life. Most cases involve years and years of appeals and millions in court fees. So from a pragmatic economic perspective, it is wiser to sentence to life without parole. Either that, or make it easier for the state to kill people--I mean, could any more innocents be killed than already are?

[SimeyTheLimey]

This is not really new. I know about these cases where DNA evidence has helped overturn a conviction. In fact, I met one gentleman who spent several years on death row in Maryland. I and did a portrait of him for an ad campaign in favor of mandatory DNA testing. Nevertheless, I still believe in the death penalty. I know the evidence will never be 100% reliable. Nor is the evidence in any other case. Justice is administered by humans and as such it will always be fallible. I accept that as inevitable, although that is not a reason for complacency. If DNA evidence is available that can either confirm a conviction, or exonerate a person, it should be used.

All the attention on the death penalty ignores the fact that life imprisonment destroys a life just as much as execution. Death penalty cases get far more attention and legal care than life imprisonment cases. But there isn't the same industry devoted to ensuring that people sent to prison for life are truly guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted. It seems that people are quite willing to ignore the fact that innocent people are convicted, just as long as they don't face execution.

If the possibility of unfairly punishing the innocent is really the concern (and not just a convenient anti-death penalty argument) then shouldn't we be worried about false convictions regardless of the punishment used? Isn't innocence really the issue?

[chris_h]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I still believe in the death penalty. I know the evidence will never be 100% reliable.

How these two ideas could co-exist in the same head is beyond me.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by chris_h:


How these to ideas could co-exist in the same head is beyond me.

Note certain, but, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs," comes to mind.

BG

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:


Not certain, but "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" comes to mind.

BG

about which you should seriously ask yourself, "is this justice?"

-r.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Note certain, but, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs," comes to mind.BG

Correct. Saying that you can only support the death penalty if it can be made 100% accurate is deliberately setting up an impossible condition. No justice system can ever deliver 100% accuracy. The question is do you face that reality or not.

[nana4]

Originally posted by chris_h:


How these two ideas could co-exist in the same head is beyond me.

Why not answer address the other two paragraphs?

[macvillage.net]

[slight sarcasm]I'm the minority, but I believe in massive expantion of the death penalty:


For every crime you commit you get a ticket similar to a draft ticket. Every 6 months there is a draft.... get the idea? Crime will finally not pay![/slight sarcasm]

Seriously... let "pro life" people pay for keeping these guys alive in prison, and let "pro executioners" not. If the whole country really feels strongly about this, it will mean a few dollars a person.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
All the attention on the death penalty ignores the fact that life imprisonment destroys a life just as much as execution. Death penalty cases get far more attention and legal care than life imprisonment cases. But there isn't the same industry devoted to ensuring that people sent to prison for life are truly guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted. It seems that people are quite willing to ignore the fact that innocent people are convicted, just as long as they don't face execution.

If the possibility of unfairly punishing the innocent is really the concern (and not just a convenient anti-death penalty argument) then shouldn't we be worried about false convictions regardless of the punishment used? Isn't innocence really the issue?

There's undue attention on death penalty cases? Could have fooled me. Most of the over-100 cases that have been released due to DNA weren't captial cases. Most of the releases I hear about on the news aren't capital cases. Even the guy in zigzag's article wasn't a capital case.

Maybe it's just your own guilty conscience for being a death-penalty supporter that draws your own attention to those cases.


I think these cases tell us about our criminal justice system in general, rather than just about capital punishment. A report just came out that over 3% of the adult population is in prison or on probation or parole in the US: over 6 and a half million.


How many of those are innocent? A couple hundred thousand? A million?

The capital cases that sometimes come up just highlight the problem because 1. it's our harshest penalty and 2. it's conntroversial, at least among our international peers.

The DNA releases should make us less confident about the law-and-order perspective that's so dominant in the US, and one result of that reduced confidence should be a re-examination of the death penalty.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Seriously... let "pro life" people pay for keeping these guys alive in prison, and let "pro executioners" not. If the whole country really feels strongly about this, it will mean a few dollars a person.

GODDAMNIT.

GOD GOD GODDAMNIT

How many times... how many GODDAMN TIMES... does it have to be said that it costs more to execute someone that it does to keep them locked up...

PAY FVCKING ATTENTION JESUS CHRIST EVERYTIME THIS DISCUSSION HAPPENS PEOPLE SAY "hello i don't want to spend money so lets just kill people"

YOU LOSE MORE OF YOUR MONEY KILLING THEM JESUS CHRIST DAMN FVCK SH!T

HULK SMASH

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is not really new

I know - I just get irate about these cases when I see them. I'm sure I've started similar threads before.

Nevertheless, I still believe in the death penalty. I know the evidence will never be 100% reliable. Nor is the evidence in any other case. Justice is administered by humans and as such it will always be fallible. I accept that as inevitable, although that is not a reason for complacency. If DNA evidence is available that can either confirm a conviction, or exonerate a person, it should be used.

All the attention on the death penalty ignores the fact that life imprisonment destroys a life just as much as execution. Death penalty cases get far more attention and legal care than life imprisonment cases. But there isn't the same industry devoted to ensuring that people sent to prison for life are truly guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted. It seems that people are quite willing to ignore the fact that innocent people are convicted, just as long as they don't face execution.

If the possibility of unfairly punishing the innocent is really the concern (and not just a convenient anti-death penalty argument) then shouldn't we be worried about false convictions regardless of the punishment used? Isn't innocence really the issue?

I agree that innocence is the ultimate issue, whether the death penalty is involved or not - note that this particular case didn't involve the death penalty, and there are people working on non-capital cases as well as capital cases. But IMO death is generally more egregious than even life imprisonment, and if there were ever an argument against the use of the death penalty, this is surely it. I disagree with the notion that because the system is inherently fallible, there's no more danger in applying the death penalty than any other penalty.

Ironically, I happen to believe that there are cases where the evidence is, for all practical purposes, incontrovertible, and I have no problem with the use of the death penalty in those cases. But they are rare, and because of the theoretical and practical difficulties presented in deciding which cases are which, I would just as soon eliminate the penalty. I don't think the rewards justify the risks.

I certainly agree that DNA should be used where available. The problem being, of course, that bad cops can manipulate DNA evidence as well as anything.

[chris_h]

Originally posted by nano4:
Why not answer address the other two paragraphs?

Because they were just as stupid?

Sigh. Ok, fine.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

All the attention on the death penalty ignores the fact that life imprisonment destroys a life just as much as execution.

Jesus H.
Putting someone in a box is not the same as fvcking KILLING them.

I will now pay tribute to Pulp Fiction:

Killin' a bitch and lockin a bitch up is NOT in the "same ballpark." It's not even the same motherfvcking league... Sh!t, it's not even the same motherfvcking SPORT.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Death penalty cases get far more attention and legal care than life imprisonment cases. But there isn't the same industry devoted to ensuring that people sent to prison for life are truly guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted. It seems that people are quite willing to ignore the fact that innocent people are convicted, just as long as they don't face execution.

Did you just pull this out of your ass? Very few cases are publicly scrutinized at all.
I don't ignore the fact that innocent people are convicted... It happens every day in marijuana cases, for example.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

If the possibility of unfairly punishing the innocent is really the concern (and not just a convenient anti-death penalty argument) then shouldn't we be worried about false convictions regardless of the punishment used? Isn't innocence really the issue?

Again, what the hell? Who said they weren't concerned with false convictions? NOBODY, THAT'S WHO.

Maybe there is slightly more concern about death row cases... because THE STATE IS TRYING TO MURDER THEM. This isn't rocket surgery.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by chris_h:


evidence is NEVER incontrovertable...

anyway, the state DOES NOT have the right to murder.

I agree that arguments can always be made about a given piece of evidence (indeed, about the very nature of reality), but I believe that there are cases where the evidence is, for all practical purposes, incontrovertible. However, they are the exception, and it is very difficult to distinguish them, and therefore I think it would make more sense to simply eliminate the death penalty altogether, unless someone asks for it.

What I really meant to do is distinguish myself from those who object to the penalty on moral grounds in all cases. I respect that view even though I don't share it, but my own objection to the penalty is more pragmatic - while I don't object to its use on the truly guilty, I don't think the risk of executing innocent people is worth the real or theoretical benefits, therefore it would be best to eliminate the penalty altogether.

[chris_h]

I think the death penalty should be run somewhat like the jury system.

Whenever someone is to be executed, a random person should be called on to pull the switch or inject the needle. It would be their 'civic duity'.

Because if you support the death penalty and wouldn't do it yourself personally, then you are a coward and have a small penis.

[chris_h]

oh p.s. it shouldn't be called "death penalty"

a hundred dollar fine is a 'penalty'

the "death penalty" is just fvcking death.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

i would like to see alternative punishment for some of the borderline jailbirds

like:

make one a janitor for life w/ half his salary taken away to give to victims.

or cut their jail time in half and make them pay their victims 30% of all future salary annually for 50 years.

tattoo "convicted felon" on their neck

make the jailbird eat rat testicles for 2 years

make them shave all hair off their body everyday for 20 years (including eye-brows)

handcuff the convicted person to a 20 pound ball and chain for 20 years

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
make the jailbird eat rat testicles for 2 years

You're saying that's a bad thing? And all along I thought rat testicles were a delicacy . . .

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:


you know a lot of fetuses that have been mis-tried for felonies?

No, I know for a fact we don't 100% know babies younger than the cutoff age aren't real people. We are assuming they aren't. Just liek we assume these people that aren't guilty are.

The way I seee it, unless we are sure 100%, we shouldn't be doing either.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MikeM33:


Right, so by that logic women who were sodomized by serial rapists should bear thier attackers children?

Nope sorry, no agreement on the abortion issue.

So it's the babies fault that it's father is a rapist how?

BTW I am mostly talking about abortion used as a form of birth control.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by chris_h:


GODDAMNIT.

GOD GOD GODDAMNIT

How many times... how many GODDAMN TIMES... does it have to be said that it costs more to execute someone that it does to keep them locked up...

PAY FVCKING ATTENTION JESUS CHRIST EVERYTIME THIS DISCUSSION HAPPENS PEOPLE SAY "hello i don't want to spend money so lets just kill people"

YOU LOSE MORE OF YOUR MONEY KILLING THEM JESUS CHRIST DAMN FVCK SH!T

HULK SMASH

[Metzen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


No, I know for a fact we don't 100% know babies younger than the cutoff age aren't real people. We are assuming they aren't. Just liek we assume these people that aren't guilty are.

The way I seee it, unless we are sure 100%, we shouldn't be doing either.

And yet America is going after Osama bin Laden, but the US of A isn't 100% sure it was him either. Maybe 99.9% but not 100%.

Juries work the same way. If the jury is convinced, then they are probably 99% convinced that it is him that did the killing. To argue death for Bin Laden but not for the Death Penalty is contradictory NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.

Now, the question I pose, who thinks Bin Laden should live?

My belief? The crime committed should be the punishment.

Why? That way victimless crimes go about victimless, murder's are murdered and rapists are ruthlessly raped (or tortured as rape is a form of torture).

Sort of an eye for an eye. Accidents should be handled exactly as they are today.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by chris_h:
...or someone who raped and killed every female in your family.

If someone even attempted to rape a female in my family, I would first drop him in the worst correctional facility with all the sodomites, then I'd personally castrate him, cut his eyelids off, take a razor to him and show him the finer points in life. After that I'd break every bone in his body one by one, dip him in pigs poesies, then set him on fire... but not so he's dead. I'd then remove his toenails and fingernails, followed by his fingers and toes, his tongue, his ears, his nose, burn his eyes out, and then tie him to the back of a truck and drag through barbed wire. I would then feed his lifeless corpse to the crows.

Death is too good for a rapist.

Originally posted by MikeM33:
Right, so by that logic women who were sodomized by serial rapists should bear thier attackers children?

You can't get pregnant from sodomy.

[Spliffdaddy]

remind me not to piss off the pigeon dude.

[IUJHJSDHE]

I have never been a fan of the death penalty.

In fact I beleve that life in jail is worse.
If your sentenced to death you won't have to do the time at all.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

In the case initially cited, was the guy on death row?

Personally, I love the idea of organizations doing DNA analysis of cases before such testing was available. If an innocent person was convicted, by all means let them go.

Maybe a good solution would be to allow everyone on death row access to such testing if they were convicted before such things were available. Yeah, it would be costly. So what isn't these days? Especially when you talk about our government and our criminal justice system.

The two way street is, DNA testing and other advanced forms of testing aren't just 'get off the hook free' passes. They can possibly exonerate an innocent person, and they can possibly confirm a guilty one. The standard of the law for guilt is not 'beyond all realm of possibility' but 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Personally, I think it's far better to let a 100 guilty people go free than convict one innocent person and sentence him to death. By the same token, if a legally recognized 'reasonable doubt' cannot be reached, then I'm also in favor of the death penalty.

Case in point: I wouldn't cry a drop for the Dhamers/Bundys/Gacys/Westerfields of the world being snuffed out- provided they've been convicted 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

But sure, go ahead, use DNA or whatever technology to prove that Stayner (for example) didn't actually rape and murder those people in Yosemite and that the Energize bunny must have done it, -heck all you have to do is produce ONE measly little reasonable doubt that says otherwise- then by all means, let the guy go. Otherwise, fry his sorry ass, and really, what reasonable person is shedding a single friggen tear?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Metzen:


And yet America is going after Osama bin Laden, but the US of A isn't 100% sure it was him either. Maybe 99.9% but not 100%.

Juries work the same way. If the jury is convinced, then they are probably 99% convinced that it is him that did the killing. To argue death for Bin Laden but not for the Death Penalty is contradictory NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON.

Now, the question I pose, who thinks Bin Laden should live?

My belief? The crime committed should be the punishment.

Why? That way victimless crimes go about victimless, murder's are murdered and rapists are ruthlessly raped (or tortured as rape is a form of torture).

Sort of an eye for an eye. Accidents should be handled exactly as they are today.

I think any man that has not done anything wrong, should be the man that puts Osama to Death.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


This is my feeling as well.

The only thing I find most troubling is the costs assosiated with prisons. It's hard for me to justify the cost of keeping some prisoners alive when they are so very beyond reform. Since our prisons do not serve any reformative function whatsoever (exceptions prove the rule), we're basically paying astronomical sums to cage them because we don't know what to do with them. That is also cruel and barbaric, IMO.

Due to all the procedures, a death penalty is far more expensive.

Besides, we cannot argue for or against a death penalty, because it is too expensive.

When my family would be killed by someone, even then I wouldn't want another person killed (by the state).
Wouldn't do any good.

[sunrunnerfire]

Lets just give up on the whole thing and just run ads on TV advocating free love. After all if you can never be 100% sure of guilt why ever arrest anyone? Lets just let all the murderers and rapists free, since we can never be "sure" enough for some of you apologists out there. While some innocent people will always get caught up in things, all we can do is do our best to be as accurate as possible.

In addition I can 100% guarantee that if your wife/girlfriend/sister was raped and/or murdered by some serial offender you would be an instant death penalty advocate; and if your wife was inpregnated by said rapist, I suppose you would make her bear and raise his child? Please, give me a break.

Some people are so busy hiding behind their own sheltered version of morality they have become blind to the real world.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


I think any man that has not done anything wrong, should be the man that puts Osama to Death.

That's original.

How about: we shouldn't decide that Osama is guilty so that others won't decide that we are guilty.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by sunrunnerfire:
Lets just give up on the whole thing and just run ads on TV advocating free love. After all if you can never be 100% sure of guilt why ever arrest anyone? Lets just let all the murderers and rapists free, since we can never be "sure" enough for some of you apologists out there.

I'm not aware that anyone has advocated this. We're talking about the death penalty, not dismantling the entire criminal justice system.

In addition I can 100% guarantee that if your wife/girlfriend/sister was raped and/or murdered by some serial offender you would be an instant death penalty advocate . . . Please, give me a break.

In addition I can 100% guarantee that if your wife/girlfriend/sister was falsely convicted and sentenced to death you would be an instant death penalty opponent. Please, give me a break.

[sunrunnerfire]

Originally posted by zigzag:


I'm not aware that anyone has advocated this. We're talking about the death penalty, not dismantling the entire criminal justice system.



In addition I can 100% guarantee that if your wife/girlfriend/sister was falsely convicted and sentenced to death you would be an instant death penalty opponent. Please, give me a break.

There is nothing like a nonreply reply with a nonanswer to make your day

[ringo]

I am not convinced that indefinite imprisonment is any more humane than the death penalty. With respect to those who oppose it on moral grounds, I think that the death penalty is the ultimate punishment and should be reserved for those whose crimes are especially heinous and whose guilt is unmistakably clear.

Re: Costs. This isn't the fault of the penalty, but of the administration of it. Certainly a bullet in the head would be both faster and more humane than lethal injection or electrocution.