View Full Version : The reason I only support capital punishment in extreme cases.
Because people are full of faults. And the justice system can see and exploit those faults.
A good article about why you don't say anything if you're arrested and ask for legal counsel at the first opportunity (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14confess.html?no_interstitial)
Belmont31R
09-14-10, 20:09
How about you don't give a false confession?
How about you don't give a false confession?
Problem being there are specific interrogation techniques known to produce false confessions and these techniques are still used in many jurisdictions.
I don't claim to be an expert on interrogations by any means, but I did see a pretty in depth documentary about the alarming frequency of false confessions gained using certain techniques known by experts to garner them.
How about you don't give a false confession?
Knowing a few assistant DA's it's amazing the shit they get pressured with, I know of one case where horse DNA was pushed to match a suspects DNA. Innocent people go to jail knowingly.
It's politics, not justice in a lot of high profile cases.
Being that, I'll only support the death penalty when you have an extraordinary amount of proof that the suspect committed the crime.
Being that, I'll only support the death penalty when you have an extraordinary amount of proof that the suspect committed the crime.
That is my one reservation. The legal system is a damn joke. Look how close the Duke Lacrosse team came to being convicted rapists.
Otherwise, I'm generally very much in favor of capital punishment. For "no doubt" offenders I'd remove the electric chair and install an electric bench so we can do 6 at a time.
there's not a lot of evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. It also costs more than just imprisoning an offender for life.
the fact that innocent people are executed really makes it hard to justify. I'm also not a big fan of giving our government the authority to take a life. Having to kill in defense of other people or national ideals is quite different from killing as a punishment. All imho of course..
there's not a lot of evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent.
It is the ultimate deterrent. That person will never again commit a crime.
It also costs more than just imprisoning an offender for life.
I know the studies say that. I still don't believe it. They just counted everything and the kitchen sink. Some of the stuff, like cost of incarceration, should not have been counted except where the costs would be higher. 20 years on death row -- how much more expensive is that than 20 years in prison without parole. (Or more like: how much more SHOULD it cost -- nothing. The fact that they treat it differently does not mean it has to be that way)
It does not have to be that way. It could be cheaper if they would go through a set of appeals and be done with it.
the fact that innocent people are executed really makes it hard to justify. I'm also not a big fan of giving our government the authority to take a life. Having to kill in defense of other people or national ideals is quite different from killing as a punishment. All imho of course..
I think that the sorts of cases that qualify for the death penalty need to be tightened up. Too many cases that should not qualify (circumstantial evidence, etc) get made death penalty cases. But that does not mean it never has a place.
ForTehNguyen
09-15-10, 07:15
for the death penalty to be a true deterrent, you must assume the criminal will be capable of thinking about the consequences in order to be deterred by such a punishment so a crime avoided.
Im pretty sure criminals always think about the consequences of their actions all the time :rolleyes:
John_Wayne777
09-15-10, 07:46
for the death penalty to be a true deterrent, you must assume the criminal will be capable of thinking about the consequences in order to be deterred by such a punishment so a crime avoided.
Im pretty sure criminals always think about the consequences of their actions all the time :rolleyes:
It's a deterrent because they can't commit another crime if they are dead.
I know, I know..."life in prison!!" Well, our society finds it difficult to keep someone truly locked up for life. Even when we sentence them to death the majority end up dying of natural causes before we finally get around to executing them.
It's a deterrent because they can't commit another crime if they are dead.
I know, I know..."life in prison!!" Well, our society finds it difficult to keep someone truly locked up for life. Even when we sentence them to death the majority end up dying of natural causes before we finally get around to executing them.
I'd like to see statistics in regard to how many people sentenced to prison for 1st and second degree murder get out and kill again. I suspect that 20+ years in jail would take the fight out of someone.
ForTehNguyen
09-15-10, 08:41
It's a deterrent because they can't commit another crime if they are dead.
I know, I know..."life in prison!!" Well, our society finds it difficult to keep someone truly locked up for life. Even when we sentence them to death the majority end up dying of natural causes before we finally get around to executing them.
if they killed someone in the first place to land in jail, its pretty clear the deterrent didn't work. True deterrents are suppose to prevent it from happening not letting one slip through. Not stopping things after the fact.
What criminal goes around and thinks before they kill someone, oh crap I might get the death penalty, I guess I wont kill someone today. That's why the death penalty isn't as an effective deterrent as people think it would be.
John_Wayne777
09-15-10, 08:47
I'd like to see statistics in regard to how many people sentenced to prison for 1st and second degree murder get out and kill again.
Start by looking at how much of their sentence they actually end up serving. Then consider just how hard they had to work to catch that conviction in the first place given their previous record. Then consider that their convictions represent only a fraction of their actual criminal offenses. The faulty assumption is that because they catch a 20 year sentence that they serve 20 years. Unfortunately that's not always the case. Recent parole reform laws have helped improve the situation somewhat, but the amount of time someone ends up serving for serious violent offenses is still shockingly low.
...and remember that a murder conviction (especially first degree) is a very difficult standard for the state to meet, meaning that a lot of cases are plea-bargained down to something less severe.
if they killed someone in the first place to land in jail, its pretty clear the deterrent didn't work.
If you look at the typical person convicted of murder, the murder sentence isn't their first time in jail. Generally they have been a fairly frequent guest at the graybar motel, and generally simply jailing them doesn't seem to get them to knock it off. Making them dead, however, is very effective at preventing them from re-offending.
If you want some sort of punishment that will make criminals not murder other people because they are afraid of what might happen to them, keep dreaming. That assumes that criminals are rational individuals. I'm telling you flat out that many of them are not rational as you would recognize it.
There are people walking among us who are stone cold predators whose thoughts never go much past their next meal. You cannot deter that kind of animal with rational arguments about penalties. You simply put them down so they can't hurt anyone other than the victims they've already tallied. The death penalty is like flushing the toilet.
Gutshot John
09-15-10, 09:11
I don't view it as justice...there is no payback for murder...certainly not by lethal injection.
I don't view it as a deterrent...no one who commits a crime thinks they're going to get caught.
I view it as I would a dog with rabies...The person is too dangerous to be allowed to live and needs to be put down.
That said the threshold for the death penalty needs to be raised significantly. Eyewitness testimony isn't enough it needs to be confirmed by multiple sources of scientific/objective evidence. Prosecutors must hold with the highest possible ethics. The crime also should be aggregious and in the 1st degree.
More than likely an innocent man murdered by a jury of his peers (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/10/did_texas_kill_an_innocent_man)
Gotta love how the expert witness claims he was pressured by the governor.
So my question I guess is this, if you support the death penalty and an innocent man is murdered, does that make you an accomplice in the crime? It's still a crime in my eyes to murder an innocent person, even if the government does it.
I recall a big trial in Germany that happened after WW2, they decided it was a capital offense for a bunch of fellas who supported the death of some innocent folks.
And I can understand people wanting revenge, I'd personally wouldn't want to kill the murder of one of my loved ones, I'd want to torture the ****er for as long as humanly possible, death is an easy way out.
But our government shouldn't commit acts of vengeance. It's a body of laws, not emotions.
By the way, I was a huge fan of the death penalty, but after finding out about all of the questionable cases where people have been killed or wrongfully convicted by our government, I can no longer support capital punishment as it is now.
But our government shouldn't commit acts of vengeance.
I truly believe they should, as long as those receiving it are guilty themselves. I don't know about you, but I'd be PROUD to live in a country that had the motto of "Don't &%^& with us... or else."
I truly believe they should, as long as those receiving it are guilty themselves. I don't know about you, but I'd be PROUD to live in a country that had the motto of "Don't &%^& with us... or else."
Ok, I'm not talking against other countries, I guess I should have made that clear, I'm talking about the court system. And I know people will make the argument vengeance is justice. But at the same time it involved emotions, and I don't like emotions playing a role in law.
Gutshot John
09-15-10, 12:06
So my question I guess is this, if you support the death penalty and an innocent man is murdered, does that make you an accomplice in the crime?
False premise.
No because it's not neither murder nor a crime. More significantly being in support of the death penalty doesn't make you complicit in any way shape or form of a jury reaching an incorrect result.
There is no guarantee anywhere of "perfect" justice.
The legal system is a damn joke. Look how close the Duke Lacrosse team came to being convicted rapists.
YEs, I agree.
But when we have one dead to rights, he does not get sufficient punishment.
It also costs more than just imprisoning an offender for life.
That is actually not true.
The cost to execute an inmate is almost nothing. The cost to house them is quite a bit. Where the actual costs exist are in the continuous appeals of having an inmate on death row.
And when they compare the two, they don't factor that in for an apples to apples comparison. They do it like this.
Cost of housing an inmate for life (without including any cost of appeals or other legal fees) vs. cost of execution plus the cost of appeals and other legal fees.
So the argument that life imprisonment is cheaper is based upon the assumption that a person with a life sentence will not endlessly appeal their case at every given opportunity. And if done with similar frequency, a person serving a life sentence can add up to more than a person given the death penalty.
I'd like to see statistics in regard to how many people sentenced to prison for 1st and second degree murder get out and kill again. I suspect that 20+ years in jail would take the fight out of someone.
Just like it works for sex offenders, huh?
False premise.
No because it's not neither murder nor a crime. More significantly being in support of the death penalty doesn't make you complicit in any way shape or form of a jury reaching an incorrect result.
There is no guarantee anywhere of "perfect" justice.
So you knowingly support capital punishment that you know is imperfect and murders innocent people? But your not guilty of supporting the murder of innocent people?
How does that work out?
Yes I'd agree, the justice system isn't perfect, but we're not talking about a speeding ticket when you're not speeding. We're talking about innocent people being put to death for crimes they never committed by their government.
This is why our justice system has appeals and such, but death is an absolute, while imprisonment isn't.
The bottom line is simple, support of the death penalty knowing innocent people will die makes you complicit in the murder of said innocent people. It's pretty simple and factual.
the kinds of people that commit heinous murders are not the type that can be "deterred" by anything. not prison, not death. and like somebody touched on, there probably arent too many situations where a person might think "oh.. wait.. if i kill this guy, i might get the death penalty."
it's not about deterrence. it's about punishment. death penalty. it's the consequence for taking another's life. it's the consequence for committing crimes so heinous that only the taking of the perpetrator's life can make the first payment for it.
parishioner
09-15-10, 13:06
The bottom line is simple, support of the death penalty knowing innocent people will die makes you complicit in the murder of said innocent people. It's pretty simple and factual.
Lets say you support the invasion of Afghanistan. You damn well know innocent civilians are going to die in a war. By your logic, you are complicit in their murder.
You knowingly support the war effort that you know is imperfect and murders innocent people so you are therefor guilty for supporting the murder of innocent people.
So you knowingly support capital punishment that you know is imperfect and murders innocent people? But your not guilty of supporting the murder of innocent people?
How does that work out?
Yes I'd agree, the justice system isn't perfect, but we're not talking about a speeding ticket when you're not speeding. We're talking about innocent people being put to death for crimes they never committed by their government.
This is why our justice system has appeals and such, but death is an absolute, while imprisonment isn't.
The bottom line is simple, support of the death penalty knowing innocent people will die makes you complicit in the murder of said innocent people. It's pretty simple and factual.
Your argument is an emotional appeal used commonly by leftists. Execution was never supposed to be a deterrent, it's a punishment. People PAY for their actions and those who think that a person's life can be payed for by X number of years in prison have no moral compass whatsoever and are as guilty as the murderers they let live. If you can't respect life, you should not be allowed to live.
Further, people who are innocent and still get convicted tend to not act defiant nor do they blatantly act proud of what they're convicted for, hence imprisonment instead of execution. I'm not saying they can't be, but you're acting like this happens regularly when in reality the only people executed nowadays are those who are known to be murderers beyond a shadow of a doubt, or those who openly confess and take credit for the murders themselves. As sad as it is, those who confess to a murder deserve whatever they receive, guilty or not. If you didn't do it, don't confess.
Gutshot John
09-15-10, 14:12
So you knowingly support capital punishment that you know is imperfect and murders innocent people? But your not guilty of supporting the murder of innocent people?
You don't understand the fundamental principles involved.
If the state subjects an individual to due process and executes them, then by definition it's NOT murder. Only the individual can commit murder. Whether the person is innocent or not the state is NOT committing murder. This is why you have due process, the process may be imperfect, but it applies to all accused equally. Murder is extra-legal....execution is not.
So yes I support capital punishment but while the threshold of conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt" IMO the threshold for capital punishment is "beyond ANY doubt."
Yes I'd agree, the justice system isn't perfect, but we're not talking about a speeding ticket when you're not speeding. We're talking about innocent people being put to death for crimes they never committed by their government.
Ya think? Gee thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:
This is why our justice system has appeals and such, but death is an absolute, while imprisonment isn't.
Yes that's the point. That's why they call it DEATH.
The bottom line is simple, support of the death penalty knowing innocent people will die makes you complicit in the murder of said innocent people. It's pretty simple and factual.
Abject nonsense.
There are people walking among us who are stone cold predators whose thoughts never go much past their next meal. You cannot deter that kind of animal with rational arguments about penalties. You simply put them down so they can't hurt anyone other than the victims they've already tallied. The death penalty is like flushing the toilet.
Man you just keep them coming. Sheer brilliance.
I've had several dealings with individuals who meet this criteria, couldn't be any truer words on the planet.
Lets say you support the invasion of Afghanistan. You damn well know innocent civilians are going to die in a war. By your logic, you are complicit in their murder.
You knowingly support the war effort that you know is imperfect and murders innocent people so you are therefor guilty for supporting the murder of innocent people.
Two different things, a raid in sangin where a civilian is accidentally killed is different than the police raiding your by mistake and shooting you. The morals of war are different than that of a functional society. And that's accepted, at the same time targeting civilians in a war zone is still seen as immoral by just about every one.
I'm going to stop debating now since I'm not willing dedicate the time to have a good discussion about the subject, and with out the dedication my arguments aren't going to be all that great. So I'll stfu now. :D
Moose-Knuckle
09-15-10, 17:33
I call BS on this thread, IMO every oxygen thief who has ever been convicted of a violent crime i.e. murder, rape, robbery resulting in SBI, child molestation, assault resulting in SBI, etc ought to be disposed of post haste! DONE & DONE!
We don't need wolves in the sheep herd. The world is black and white, not gray. There are good people and there are bad people. All of this PC bleeding heart monkey spunk is going to get us killed.
parishioner
09-15-10, 18:22
Two different things, a raid in sangin where a civilian is accidentally killed is different than the police raiding your by mistake and shooting you. The morals of war are different than that of a functional society. And that's accepted, at the same time targeting civilians in a war zone is still seen as immoral by just about every one.
I'm going to stop debating now since I'm not willing dedicate the time to have a good discussion about the subject, and with out the dedication my arguments aren't going to be all that great. So I'll stfu now. :D
I don't see the distinction.
You claim that knowingly supporting something that is imperfect and sometimes murders the wrong people makes you complicit in their murders.
In criminal trials, jurors are shown evidence that supports that an individual committed the crime. They then deliberate and decide whether that person is guilty or not, based on the evidence, knowing that a guilty verdict means the death penalty in some cases. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they get it wrong.
Military commanders have to make similar decisions based on the intel they receive. I'm sure that in some point during the war, a decision was made to call an air strike on a target based on what they thought was good intel, only to find out they had the wrong people. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they get it wrong.
In both cases, innocent people are sometimes killed in pursuit of the real bad guys. Neither is targeting the innocent. War is imperfect. The justice system is imperfect.
If you want to believe that supporting the death penalty makes you complicit in the mistaken murders that unfortunately happen in the justice system, you have to believe supporting the war effort makes you complicit in the mistaken murders that come with war as well.
variablebinary
09-15-10, 18:25
I have concerns about the death penalty, but I support it in the cases where we are talking heinous crimes with overwhelmingly, irrefutable evidence.
You catch in a guy with 10 bodies buried in his crawl space, and a couple of heads in the freezer, there is no doubt he should be put down
Life is valuable and we shouldn't be quick to take it unless we are 100%, even if the person isn't what any of us will call an ideal citizen; they might not look how we want them to look or conduct themselves in way we regard as acceptable, but that doesn't mean we should be quick to pass judgment and fry someone to death.
I call BS on this thread, IMO every oxygen thief who has ever been convicted of a violent crime i.e. murder, rape, robbery resulting in SBI, child molestation, assault resulting in SBI, etc ought to be disposed of post haste! DONE & DONE!
We don't need wolves in the sheep heard. The world is black and white, not gray. There are good people and there are bad people. All of this PC bleeding heart monkey spunk is going to get us killed.
I agree, problem is the legal system.
We have prosecutors and defenders who are rewarded for winning rather than making sure justice is served. How many guilty men have gone free because somebody was a hell of a defender, how many innocent men are jailed because somebody was a great prosecutor?
We need to fix that first. I wouldn't want ANY innocent person to be jailed, let alone be put to death. And I sure as hell wouldn't want it to happen to me.
Moose-Knuckle
09-15-10, 20:10
I agree, problem is the legal system.
We have prosecutors and defenders who are rewarded for winning rather than making sure justice is served. How many guilty men have gone free because somebody was a hell of a defender, how many innocent men are jailed because somebody was a great prosecutor?
We need to fix that first. I wouldn't want ANY innocent person to be jailed, let alone be put to death. And I sure as hell wouldn't want it to happen to me.
Agreed, the whole judicial system is a cluster ****. Most tax payers would be flabbergasted at the amount of felony case that are not even prosecuted and just put on "probation". Think in terms of "repeat offenders" or "habitual criminals", these oxygen thieves are not afraid of the police, prosecutors, judges, jurors, and or prison as this country has long since given up on PUNISHING criminals. There is a mind set in this country that is rampant in some sub-cultures that it is a badge of honor or a right of passage to go to prison. They have no regard for human life other than that of their own. These reprobates need to be deprived of that very thing.
On the flip side to this coin we have the mentality in the country that a law abiding citizen should never fight back, i.e. defend themselves. Citizens who use force to defend their loved ones, their selves, and or their property are treated as the very criminals in which they were forced to defend against. It really makes me want to puke my entrails on the ground.
The justice system is by and large a jobs program scam. States just need to start killing these people irregardless of what the feds deem to be constitutional.
In crimes where the perp hurt or stole from someone, give jurors a choice between, fines, up to 364 days in jail, or death. Don't like it? Go harass people in some other state, we'll give you a free one way bus ticket to moral-relativism.
...irregardless...
"regardless" means without regard. "ir" means, basically, "not."
therefor, "irregardless" would mean, literally, "not regardless."
The justice system is by and large a jobs program scam. States just need to start killing these people irregardless of what the feds deem to be constitutional.
In crimes where the perp hurt or stole from someone, give jurors a choice between, fines, up to 364 days in jail, or death. Don't like it? Go harass people in some other state, we'll give you a free one way bus ticket to moral-relativism.
yeah hell with that constitution thing! we need the government to protect us from violent people!
:suicide2:
For the first 200 years of the Republic it wasn't an issue.
I met a guy a few weeks ago who's niece was murdered by a habitual predator. The perp had a rap sheet a mile long, most of it would have gotten him executed 60 years ago. He'll be cruising around with goodies for your daughters in a decade or so, probably less. Heck he might be out there right now, California has some bad overcrowding issues and a prison guard union that supports locking up everybody but dangerous members of society.
sexual predators cannot be rehabilitated. period. like rabid dogs, there's nothing you can do for them. like rabid dogs, they deserve nothing more and nothing less than a calmly fired .45 through the dome.
For the first 200 years of the Republic it wasn't an issue.
I met a guy a few weeks ago who's niece was murdered by a habitual predator. The perp had a rap sheet a mile long, most of it would have gotten him executed 60 years ago. He'll be cruising around with goodies for your daughters in a decade or so, probably less. Heck he might be out there right now, California has some bad overcrowding issues and a prison guard union that supports locking up everybody but dangerous members of society.
violent crime has been on a downward trend for the last 30 something years, despite what the liberals may tell you. The idea that we're under attack by this well armed dangerous group of criminals is created by the media and the government to convince us to give up more of our rights.
bottom line: your safety and security is your own responsibility. no amount of witch burning is going to make you safer.
I have no moral objections to capital punishment but it is too expensive. I would prefer laws that broadly encourage the use of lethal force against violent criminals.
Especially for douchbags like the ones up in CT that murdered and raped the wife and daughters of that (doctor?) and then set the house on fire to cover it up. He escaped but his whole family was killed.
I would just put a rope on their necks and be done with it.
That is my one reservation. The legal system is a damn joke. Look how close the Duke Lacrosse team came to being convicted rapists.
Otherwise, I'm generally very much in favor of capital punishment. For "no doubt" offenders I'd remove the electric chair and install an electric bench so we can do 6 at a time.
variablebinary
09-17-10, 03:03
Especially for douchbags like the ones up in CT that murdered and raped the wife and daughters of that (doctor?) and then set the house on fire to cover it up. He escaped but his whole family was killed.
I would just put a rope on their necks and be done with it.
That story makes me feel especially ill.
A Doctor, worked hard, had a family
http://www.accessola.com/data/4/rec_imgs/1779_William%20Petit.jpg
All taken away by these two pieces of walking feces.
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070727/070727_homeinvasion_hmed_12p.grid-6x2.jpg
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070727/070727_homeinvasion_hmed_12p.grid-6x2.jpg
There are not and never could be any words to describe my feelings toward these two.
Moose-Knuckle
09-17-10, 16:04
In our society the very worst that will happen to an individual if they are tried, then if convicted, and then sentenced to death (provided they reside in a state that even has the death penalty) will sit on death row, appeal their case for twenty years all the while sucking the tax payers dry for their heath care, the guards to supervise them, etc and then they will have the opportunity to sit and part take of their favorite meal of their choosing, they get to say good bye to their loved ones, and then they get a little needle prick in the arm and go to sleep. If we could all be so lucky and go so peacefully. . .
The justice system is supposed to be a deterrent to crime but instead in our society it’s an encouragement. We no longer punish the guilty as we now “rehabilitate” them. Some "people" only understand one thing, brute force.
The apprehensible sexual torture and murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom) are one of just millions of cases that remind me why we need to put oxygen thieves to death. I possess a rather medieval stance on the subject myself. The punishment should be worse than the crime IMO. A needle, noose, or nay even a bullet is too good for most. These vile damnable creatures who perpetrate such horrors on the innocent should suffer to the last.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.