|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 01/24/2005 : 12:32:07 [Permalink]
|
I don't agree with the death penalty.
I also do not think that the death penalty is a deterent, because there are basically 3 cases where people kill other people -
1. Someone is so pissed off that they are not thinking staight.
2. The perpatrator just doesn't care.
3. The criminal plans out the murder.
In case 1 the person doesn't consider the consequences of his actions
In case 2 the person doesn't care
In case 3 the person doesn't believe they will get caught.
In all 3 cases deterence never enters into the equation.
Wendy, I agree with you to a point. As I have said I think the criminals should get a life sentences instead of the death penalty. However, a 'life sentence' must be for life not a 'life sentence, eligible for parole after 7 years".
Starman, I also understand your point. If some scumbag hurt one of my family members I would want to see them dead. The problem is that is revenge and not neccessarily justice. I don't think that we should base our laws on revenge.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 14:08:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
However, a 'life sentence' must be for life not a 'life sentence, eligible for parole after 7 years".
Absolutely. If a life sentence really was what the name leads one to believe, I would change my position on the death penalty. Frankly, I think life in prison would be worse punishment than a death sentence.
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Starman, I also understand your point. If some scumbag hurt one of my family members I would want to see them dead. The problem is that is revenge and not neccessarily justice. I don't think that we should base our laws on revenge.
I do not presume to speak for Starman, but for me it is not about revenge. It is about being damn sure that person does not harm anyone else. Ever.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 14:11:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
But does anyone think
it's acceptable that even one innocent person could be executed?
Nope.
The death penalty is useless. It costs more money than life in prison, just to carry out the incarceration and execution. The costs of the trials for death penalty cases is much higher as well, and the appeals process gets even worse.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial%20facts
But the real reason that I, personally, oppose the death penalty is that I don't think it is usefull as a deterent to capitol crime.
We should make our prisons places where people don't want to be. Run them under military discipline. Control every single aspect of the prisoner's minute to minute existance. Make those who are phisically able earn their own keep and buy their own health insurance. Ect...
Basically, make prisons a place you really don't want to be. Unlike the status symbol for gang members that a prison stint is today.
The major problem that I have with the death penalty is that it's no longer a public spectacle. To be an effective deterrent, the executions have to be public. Otherwise, they just become some faceless nobody that "died". The criminal element have no spectacle to show them what an execution is like. And none of this "lethal injection" stuff either.
In my own state, a girl named Christine Nicarico was raped and murdered. Two men waited on death row for almost 20 years until the evidence finally cleared them. Unless the facts of the case are clearly proven, no one should be put to death for a heinous crime. I'm all for putting inmates in prison for the rest of their natural life with no chance for parole. Now in Illinois, natural life in prison consisted of 40 years. It was thought at the time of the legislation (1950's, I think) people didn't live as long as they do now. Someone who committed a crime at 20 would be released at 60. Someone who committed a crime at 40 would be released at 80. The possibility of recidivism by a senior citizen was considered very low.
I believe that the current system in my state as it relates to death sentances and appeals works pretty well. It usually takes around 20 years to execute someone. (Except in Texas, where they are installing an express lane.)
I'm all for prisoners working and paying a portion of their room and board as well as any restitution. Mandatory education (to reduce recidivism) and constructive work for the state (license plates, street signs, data entry, etc.) should be in place.
These are my opinions. The view on capital punishment may seem barbaric, but there is no deterrent effect of executions which are not public and not graphic. It becomes sanitized. The old basics of hanging, beheading, and firing squads would be much more effective than the gas chamber (dangerous to the people administering it) or lethal injection (putting people to sleep). |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 15:48:15 [Permalink]
|
According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 116 persons have been exonerated after receiving the death penalty since 1973.
That's enough to be concerned about how many should have been exonerated that weren't. You could argue this shows the system weeds out it's errors, but the DNA science that is currently exonerating innocent persons tells another story. There isn't DNA evidence in all cases. If DNA is the main avenue for overturning wrongful convictions, you should be able to extrapolate what percentage of cases without DNA evidence for review are also likely to be wrongful convictions.
I am making a crude assessment here. I haven't had time to research how many exonerations were due to DNA evidence. There would also be other variables between cases with and without DNA that would need to be considered. And I don't know what percentage of cases do and do not have DNA evidence stored. But these calculations could be made with current data.
Since I don't believe we should execute even one innocent person, I'm convinced we need a moratorium. Life without parole certainly seems achievable.
Wendy, are you valuing the person murdered by the released murderer more than the innocent person executed to prevent such an event?
Starman, your idea of punishing the cops and using the illegally obtained evidence is a nice idea but it isn't done that way and I can see several reasons it wouldn't work. Besides a fair system of punishment, (would cops punish their own or is there another way to do it?), the biggest drawback is it would create an atmosphere where police were afraid to make decisions in the field. I see the police in action quite often in my job. They have to ask for advice on laws, look laws up, and generally do not automatically know if everything they do under every different circumstance is correct or not. If you make your best decision should you be punished for it? What about the next time you had to decide? I think getting the evidence thrown out discourages them from illegal search and seizure.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/24/2005 15:51:31 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 00:52:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Starman, I also understand your point. If some scumbag hurt one of my family members I would want to see them dead. The problem is that is revenge and not neccessarily justice. I don't think that we should base our laws on revenge.
No, but we also use the justice system instead of revenge. This is one, often ignored in these kind of discussions, function of a juridical system.
If someone hurts me or someone close to me, I would want to see them get hurt in return. I would want revenge.
If I don't belive that the justice will give me sufficient revenge I will carry it out myself.
"Sufficient" is of course subjective. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 01:14:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Starman, your idea of punishing the cops and using the illegally obtained evidence is a nice idea but it isn't done that way and I can see several reasons it wouldn't work. Besides a fair system of punishment, (would cops punish their own or is there another way to do it?), the biggest drawback is it would create an atmosphere where police were afraid to make decisions in the field. I see the police in action quite often in my job. They have to ask for advice on laws, look laws up, and generally do not automatically know if everything they do under every different circumstance is correct or not. If you make your best decision should you be punished for it? What about the next time you had to decide? I think getting the evidence thrown out discourages them from illegal search and seizure.
I understand that the reason is to discourage such activities, and I agree they should be discouraged, but are you really saying that cops that break rules and laws should not be held personally responsible?
Should a serial killer be allowed to continue, because a policeman stepped out of line?
What if an illegal seized piece of evidence believed to frame the suspects really exonerate them?
This is a really stupid way of making the police follow the rules. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 02:01:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
I understand that the reason is to discourage such activities, and I agree they should be discouraged, but are you really saying that cops that break rules and laws should not be held personally responsible?
Should a serial killer be allowed to continue, because a policeman stepped out of line?
What if an illegal seized piece of evidence believed to frame the suspects really exonerate them?
This is a really stupid way of making the police follow the rules.
If everything were so black and white, one would have to agree with your points. But it isn't so.
As to the first point, police can error from an innocent mistake to outright criminal behavior. Errors fall on a continuum. I believe there are lawsuits and criminal charges allowed under the current system. Maybe there aren't enough prosecutions but they are allowed.
Neither of us are advocating allowing illegal search and seizures. We are just in disagreement on how to reach that goal. While your idea sounds good in principle, I don't think it would work in practice.
As to the second point, maybe there should be some mechanism for a judge to say this time the evidence is so crucial to the safety of society, the evidence will be allowed. I often think common sense leaves the courtroom and is replaced by rules that are not always in everyone's best interest. I'd vote for this change if asked.
Your third point isn't likely to happen. I don't think the defense is hampered by the illegal search and seizure law.
The police as I see them could benefit from better training and higher entry level education in some cases. But they don't necessarily break rules in defiance of laws. It really is a bit harder than that to know what all the rules are. Even in courts the rules are not always interpreted the same by different judges.
There was a case in the news today that just got reversed where the guy was stopped for speeding or something. When a second cop arrived it happened to be the canine officer and the dog hit on drugs in the trunk. The guy was convicted, reversed on appeal and reversed again by the US Supreme Court and it was all over whether or not it was a legal or illegal search and seizure. So had the guy with the drugs successfully had the evidence thrown out, you'd punish the cop?
quote:
Officers say the ruling supports a tool they already use to combat illegal drug trafficking.
Criminal defense attorneys say the ruling provides too much power for police and further erodes Fourth Amendment rights barring unreasonable searches and seizures.
It's a grey world. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/25/2005 02:05:01 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 03:15:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
... While your idea sounds good in principle, I don't think it would work in practice.
It does work in practice. The US is not the whole world, remember?quote:
As to the second point, maybe there should be some mechanism for a judge to say this time the evidence is so crucial to the safety of society, the evidence will be allowed. I often think common sense leaves the courtroom and is replaced by rules that are not always in everyone's best interest. I'd vote for this change if asked.
Common sense is much needed in the courtrooms, but courts should stick to enforcing laws. The laws should be sensible and provide justice. quote:
Your third point isn't likely to happen. I don't think the defense is hampered by the illegal search and seizure law.
Maybe you are right. I'll guess a crime lab will examine the evidence anyway.quote:
There was case in the news today ... So had the guy with the drugs successfully had the evidence thrown out, you'd punish the cop?
If the cops violate the civil rights of suspects, they should be punished. If its a mild transgression a warning or a fine might do. If you can prove that the suspect committed a crime he should be punished, even if his girlfriend, cousin, neighbor or the arresting officer also commit crimesquote:
It's a grey world.
It sure is, but it gives us plenty of subjects to discuss.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 08:12:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Wendy, are you valuing the person murdered by the released murderer more than the innocent person executed to prevent such an event?
I am valuing the innocent victim above the convicted murderer/rapist/insert heinous crime here.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 13:14:54 [Permalink]
|
On a personal level, I think anyone who murders someone should be punished brutally. Death is usually too good for them. Take the snipers, the Columbine kids, Jeffry Dahmer, the 9/11 highjackers, the beheaders in Iraq and so on. There is no earthly punishment suitable for these people - indeed death is often something they WANT. Furthermore, in the case where an execution is possible, there is some satisfaction that the criminal is deprived of his life, but that's not really any kind of balance for the crime they committed. It's a cheap stab at revenge, which is not particularly useful to civilization in general.
So, the Death Penalty is part of our criminal justice system, right? What kind of justice is obtained by killing the killer? Depending on who it is, it might be a relief for them to die - relief from guilt or the drudgery of incarceration. It certainly cannot balance the crime that was committed. The horrors that Jeffry Dahmer unleased on people were not in any way balanced by his execution. He took so much away from his victims and their families, there is no possible way to right that wrong. The same goes for any murder.
I think we've already established that the Death Penalty is useless as a detterant. It doesn't work.
So, the last possible justification I can think of is that the death penalty is used to remove bad elements from society so they can never harm society again. Ok, this is all well and good but it doesn't do anything incarceration wouldn't do just as well. Except that little bit of revenge. Although it's arguable that incarceration for a life time is no picknick. Of course, it's probably better than being murdered brutally, so I dunno. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 13:35:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Ok, this is all well and good but it doesn't do anything incarceration wouldn't do just as well. Except that little bit of revenge.
Sure it does. It insures they will not escape or be released.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 14:56:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
On a personal level, I think anyone who murders someone should be punished brutally. Death is usually too good for them. Take the snipers, the Columbine kids, Jeffry Dahmer, the 9/11 highjackers, the beheaders in Iraq and so on. There is no earthly punishment suitable for these people - indeed death is often something they WANT. Furthermore, in the case where an execution is possible, there is some satisfaction that the criminal is deprived of his life, but that's not really any kind of balance for the crime they committed. It's a cheap stab at revenge, which is not particularly useful to civilization in general.
So, the Death Penalty is part of our criminal justice system, right? What kind of justice is obtained by killing the killer? Depending on who it is, it might be a relief for them to die - relief from guilt or the drudgery of incarceration. It certainly cannot balance the crime that was committed. The horrors that Jeffry Dahmer unleased on people were not in any way balanced by his execution. He took so much away from his victims and their families, there is no possible way to right that wrong. The same goes for any murder.
I think we've already established that the Death Penalty is useless as a detterant. It doesn't work.
So, the last possible justification I can think of is that the death penalty is used to remove bad elements from society so they can never harm society again. Ok, this is all well and good but it doesn't do anything incarceration wouldn't do just as well. Except that little bit of revenge. Although it's arguable that incarceration for a life time is no picknick. Of course, it's probably better than being murdered brutally, so I dunno.
I hate to correct you on this, but Dahlmer wasn't executed. He was beaten to death by a mentally disturbed inmate. The Columbine killers took their own lives. Ditto for the 9/11 hijackers.
My take on executing prisoners is that after all available appeals are exhausted and there is a very high probability that the person sentanced is the one who did it, you put the rabid human to sleep. If deterrence is the goal, then you need a nice public execution which is graphic. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 18:56:06 [Permalink]
|
Fuck 'em. Kill 'em all and let God sort it out. What the hell, most of them are from the lower classes anyway, and probably would have killed somebody sooner of later.
And get rid of the stupid appeals process. All it does is put money in the pockets of incompentent lawyers calling themselves 'Public Defenders'. Give the bastards one appeal and if that's lost, ZAP 'em the very next day. Or that afternoon, if feasable. All this lallygagging around on death row is a crock. One appeal and good-bye, one way or another. That's justice!
And expand the death penalty to cover other crimes. If the loser gets caught too many times, he is habitual and a drain on society. He should be offed because if he gets out of jail, he'll just go back to crime and will continue to do so as long as he lives. I know about the three strikes laws, but why should we pay for the room and board of someone that will just rip us off again if he does get out?
And who the hell needs to see some junkie on the nod and pisssing in his pants, in the streets? If a very basic rehab fails to work, they can go as well.
And God will clean up any mistakes we poor mortals might have made.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 19:04:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wendy
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Wendy, are you valuing the person murdered by the released murderer more than the innocent person executed to prevent such an event?
I am valuing the innocent victim above the convicted murderer/rapist/insert heinous crime here.
But the issue is in order to get all murderers, you will get some innocent persons as well in our current imperfect system. So is the life saved by not allowing a murderer free worth more than the innocent person put to death in order to get all the murderers?
Why not life without parole until the system is fixed?
We aren't in disagreement about giving guilty persons the death penalty. We are in disagreement about innocent persons being convicted as a reason to not have the death penalty. So if you keep the death penalty and the current justice system as it is, there will be innocent persons executed. Is it better to execute that innocent person so a murderer doesn't get out and kill again? |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 19:13:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
... While your idea sounds good in principle, I don't think it would work in practice.
It does work in practice. The US is not the whole world, remember?
Care to name the country that does this successfully?
quote:
quote:
There was case in the news today ... So had the guy with the drugs successfully had the evidence thrown out, you'd punish the cop?
If the cops violate the civil rights of suspects, they should be punished. If its a mild transgression a warning or a fine might do. .....
You are equating a mistake with a crime. What does your occupation entail? If you make a mistake, is it a crime?
As a health care practitioner, I can say no matter how good you are at your job, no matter how careful you are, human beings will still make mistakes. There is always room for improvement, and really bad health care workers need to be weeded out, but no system could function, health care or policing if you made every mistake a crime. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
