Capital Convictions:

Bump.

Pathfinder, I'm just guessing here, but are you really really old?

Yes.

I am against capital punishment.

#1. There is not equal and uniform justice.

#2. Innocent people are occasionally put to death and since DNA testing we know that over the years the numbers are probably in the hundreds, if not the thousands.

#3. It is not cost effective.

#4. It is my opinion that when a society plots the death of an individual, it is the most cold blooded form of murder.

What is even worse is the cities and states that will not foot the bill for DNA testing to disprove or prove someones guilt! Now THAT is cold blooded murder. 4-600 bucks and a couple weeks and it can usually be over with one way or the other.

Yet they are willing to watch millions in tax dollars be spent to put to death someone who may not even be guilty. Great way to spend those tax bucks guys! Keep up the great work.

There is going to be legislation proposed to correct some of the problems with allowing defendants and convicted persons, access to DNA testing.

I doubt that it will be, but part of the lesgislation should contain a moratorium on executions, untill all of the cases that have samples, that could be DNA tested, are tested.

Even with DNA testing, it's still possible to send innocent people to the gas chamber. Consider the situation where a guy has sex with a girl he just met at a bar and somebody sees him leaving her apartment. Later one, the angry boyfriend comes and strangles her and nobody sees him leave the apt. DNA testing is going to show only that the first guy was there and he'll get blamed for the rape and murder.

LOL LOL LOL ....: : : : :::::::::::: : : :

Some cases there is not any DNA available for testing, so yes; innocent people can still be convicted, with or without DNA.

DNA testing is a great thing, but I agree with Pathfinder 100%. I'm not talking about killing in a war situation. I'm not a pacifist. There's just nothing good or even useful to be gained by allowing the state to execute anyone, for anything.

Anyway, even if I thought capital punishment were fine in principle, the system for meting it out is FUBAR. If you're poor or non-white (especially if you're both), and you're on trial for a capital crime, you're a fly in the hands of wanton gods.

I suspect some of you fancy yourselves to be rich, but are in fact not really rich enough to hire a top-notch defense attorney, so yeah, this means you too.

For those few of you who actually have lots of money, you can rest assured that you will never be executed in the US. Fly into Singapore with a nickel bag for that.

I forgot who I was talking to. You porn freaks could be executed anytime if it's "gangland-style."

I actually had to debate this topic in college. It's been a while, but $23 mil to execute someone I find VERY hard to believe. And what about all the $$$ spent for DNA testing, appeals, etc. while the criminal is in jail? People convicted on Death Row are allowed up to EIGHT appeals...yes 8! Ever think that's why it costs so much? They could die in prison before they're already put to death. Besides, what about the family of the victims...the murder victims, not what you people are calling victims (the criminals). Criminals have it WAY too easy as it is. It should be an eye for an eye.

When the death penalty was abolished, violent crime rate went UP...until it was re-instated and has been slowly decreasing every since. People know the laws, and if it's broken they should be punished w/ the same or equal consequences.

I believe the $23 mil takes into consideration the costs of the appeals. One obvious reply will be that we should reduce the number of appeals allowed to people on death row, so it will cost less to kill them.

That might sound good as a logical reply, but think about what it means:

1) The chances of killing an innocent person go up because the defendants get fewer appeals.

2) More people overall will be killed because it will be easier and cheaper to do so.

3) Point #2 raises the chances of an innocent person being killed even more -- because more people are being killed, in addition to point #1.

In any case, I don't think that the possibility of killing an innocent person is even the main issue. Nobody is seriously claiming that the criminals are victims and should therefore be set free like butterflies. Life in prison is an alternative that:

1) Punishes the criminal.

2) Keeps the criminal from ever being a danger to society.

3) Does not take human life.

I see that people are concerned that the convicted criminals be punished and never allowed the chance to commit another crime. Life in prison takes care of those points. SOME people are concerned about the possibility of killing an innocent person, and life in prison takes care of that. (Yeah, it would suck to be an innocent person in jail for life, but at least it would be possible for that person to be released, unlike the case of an executed person.) People are concerned about the cost of things. Life in prison is cheaper than execution. (Life in prison, I believe, does not allow as many appeals as a death sentence, and so would be cheaper.) People are concerned about the deterrence effect of capital punishment; they want a punishment that will deter people from committing a crime in the first place. Every study of this that I have ever seen indicates that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. It SEEMS as if it should, but it's just not the case.

For me, the main point is that execution is barbaric, and is most certainly "cruel and unusual," and so unconstitutional as well. Except for a few other countries in the world, most of which are not one whit democratic (Japan is an exception: it is also a democracy that also executes people), capital punishment is not an option. The Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, China, etc.: these are some that make up this list, and the US is on it too. Nice company we're keeping there, eh?

To people from most other countries, the fact that the US has capital punishment is just astounding (or, I should say, just what is expected, because by now they expect use of force from us at any time, as long as it's on our own terms). If we did away with it, we'd go a good way toward restoring international respect for us.

(Now, in case you're about to call me a pinko faggot or something because you think I'm so unpatriotic, etc., I think we should kill any al Qaeda we can find if we can't capture them. -- And yeah, if we capture them, we shouldn't kill them, but keep them locked up in an iron box forever, unmartyred.)

I'd love to hear what you Europeans think, too. Since none of you live in a place that has capital punishment, do you think it should be used? Would you like to see it in your country? Or is the US a special case that NEEDS to use it in some way?

Well, life is a privileage & why should some murdering scum bag be granted that privilage? Also, at least in Illinois, the death penalty doesn't even apply unless the murder was premeditated & in most cases includes some kind of drastic circumstances such as mutilation, shot/stabbed number of times, etc. &/or done while another crime was being commited, such as robbing a house & end up killing the family.

And keeping someone in jail for life will cost the tax payers a fortune. Plus, why should we pay to keep this scumbag alive for the rest of his life? I'm gonna have to look up your facts about 23 mil for an execution. I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe.

And once again...what about the families of the victim? They have lost a loved one due this sick fuck & what do they get now? Their taxes to pay to keep the murderer alive.

You commit the crime, be prepared to pay. It's that simple. An eye for an eye.

If you are from Illinois, I am pretty sure that it is your Governor that has put in place a moratorium on executions due to the large number that have been released from death row in that state, because DNA testing proved them to be innocent.

The twenty-three million dollars is the figure that was provided to the Senate Hearing, by the study that was done, and I would assume that it is a combined total of all costs involved in a Captital crime conviction, from trial to execution.

What ever the current cost is, it has always been a known fact, a Capital conviction, to execution, costs much more than it does to house the person for life.

As for the families of the victims:

We are all aware of some cases that are obiviously cut and dried as to guilt, but the fact is, we are now aware, many innocent persons in the past must have been put to death. This is obvious because the Innocent Program has only been in existence for a relatively short period of time (DNA testing is relatively new) and more than one hundred people that had been sentenced to death have been proven innocent by the program, via DNA testing. So some of these families of victims have not seen the guilty individual executed, but instead have seen an innocent man executed, while the guilty was/is still at large.

As has been stated, there are cases where there is not any evidence available for DNA testing, so undoubtedly in some of these cases innocent people have been convicted.

Anyhow I have outlined my reasons for being against Captital punishment, and I think they are valid.

Redbone:

You are correct when you stated that; "Every study of this that I have ever seen indicates that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. It SEEMS as if it should, but it's just not the case."

In fact there have been studies that showed an increase in capital crime in states that had once been without capital punishment and then introduced/re-introduced it. They did not have any conclusive explanation for this, but one line of thought was; having killed once and knowing that they are facing capital punishment for the one murder it makes it easier to kill again.

life is a privileage

<p align="center"><b><font size="7" face="Arial" color="#FF3300">???</font></b></p>


Are you from a third World country?!

I used to be a big supporter of capital punishment. Of all the people in the world, my wife convinced me to think otherwise.

While I don't agree with the Liberal B.S. that "It's the easy way out" for the criminal (I hazard to guess that their last hour on this planet isn't exactly a jubilant time in their life), I will go so far as to agree that one wrongly convicted man put to death, is one too many.

On this note, it's time for those convicted of murder ( and only murder ) to stop living in a penal society and begin their punishment. Alcatraz style.

Live in an 8' by 4' cell. Three square meal a day. Yep, that's it. No rec time. No reading material. No TV. No radio. NO TALKING EVEN. No visitors (except their lawyer). No anything. Sit in your cell, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, alone with your thoughts.

Cruel and unusual punishment you ask. As far as I'm concerned, aside from your rights to the legal process, you have given up your rights. The person you killed lost their rights. You've lost yours.

How many of us have brushed by the bum on the street asking for change, thinking he's gonna use it for booze? Well, with our prison system as it is now, some of these people would be better off putting a bullet in your head.

No more cold nights under a bridge. No more empty stomach. Nope. A warm place to sleep, 3 squares a day and an education. Either a university ecucation, OR learn even more than they already know about crime.

As for my sadistic side, I say let them outside alone for 5 minutes on Christmas or their birthday. A little tease, to show them what they've given up. A life with nothing to look forward to isn't a life worth living

P.S. The only variation on this punishment that I would be happy with, is sending them to the equivalent of Siberia. All the rules as stated above, except they have to WORK for their room and board.

Life is a privilege? Do you know the difference between a privilege and a right? What do you think the difference is?

What Pathfinder says about Illinois is correct. The Governor, who is not himself an abolitionist, declared a moritorium based on the state's record of erroneous convictions/executions. It is not uncommon that people sentenced to death are later found to be innocent and set free. Recently the 100th such person was released (I'm talking about the whole of the US, not only Illinois). Think about that: 100 people who were condemned to die for a crime they did not commit are alive today because many people fought to have the evidence in their cases re-examined. I think it's likely that at least as many innocent people have been executed, but it's too late for them. (Remember, I'm talking about INNOCENT people now, not some child-murdering bastard getting off on a technicality.) Does that make any difference to you as a supporter of the death penalty?

Pathfinder is also correct about the $23 million figure, in that it was testimony to the Senate Hearing, and in that it represents the combined total of all costs involved in trial, appeals, and execution of a capital crime conviction. What I surmised earlier:

"Life in prison, I believe, does not allow as many appeals as a death sentence, and so would be cheaper."

is also correct, as I have found out tonight. That is, it is felt that capital crimes must be scrutinized even more thoroughly than others because of the "death-oops" factor, and therefore more appeals are allowed. Ostensibly there is closer scrutiny in a capital case than in a regular case, and this also raises costs, but I am not convinced that this extra degree of scrutiny is actually present. In any case, if the death penalty were abolished, costs would go down because there would not be these extra costs associated with the special nature of a capital trial.

The family of the victims will pay less to keep the fucker alive than to kill him, ultimately. This difference in cost to the taxpayers is by an order of magnitude; these are not trivial amounts, as you would agree. How do you respond to this as a supporter of capital punishment?

Remember, people who are anti-death penalty are not pro-crime or pro-criminal. Even the lunatic fringe of that movement, who believe the criminal is a victim of circumstances, etc., and should be punished with that taken into account, don't believe that a heinous crime should go unpunished.

I'm not attacking you, of course. I AM debating you, though, and invite your considered rebuttals to the points above.

I still want to hear from the rest of you porn freaks! Are these posts too long and boring for you? If so, I can try to be more succinct. (How the hell can I enable those graphical smiley faces?)

kronic, I don't have much of a problem with any of that. I think you're maybe going a bit too far, but I'm not concerned about what the terms of confinement are, just about the existence of the death penalty itself.

I used to be a supporter of capital punishment, but only because I thought it was the cheapest thing to do, and also that pretty much everyone who was executed was PROBABLY guilty of something worth executing them for. I don't believe the former anymore because it's not factual, and the latter is irrelevant to the argument, at least to me. (Not attributing this to any of you.)

Pathfinder, that may be a useful explanation. To put it another way, once they've committed a capital crime, even if they've not been caught for it (yet), what have they got to lose by commiting another? They know their lives could be taken from them if the first crime is discovered, so anything else they can do can't make it any worse for them. The only people who you really have to fear are those with nothing to lose.

Come on Redbone you are being so naive.
The first useful things is votes. It gets the Govenor votes if the electorate think he's "tough on crime"
Second, look at the profession of most politcians, how many of them were lawyers? Do you honestly think they are going to stop this gravy train for their ex/present/future bosses/firms?
and then their is the publicity, burn a few guys a year to get your name in the papers, no problems.

It is clear to me that you have put some thought into and some time into studying this subject.

Another line of thought (in the study that showed an increase of captial crime in states that had introduced/re-introduced capital punishment) was the "fifteen minutes of fame" factor. I will repeat that they did not have any definitive explanations for the increase, but did offer speculation.

There is alot of truth (to much) in this thinking. I am sure Redbone is cognizant of this line of thought, as I was/am.

Hey charly,

If the electorate is presented with reasoned arguments against the death penalty and actually spends time giving them serious thought, your first point could become irrelevant. The problem as I see it is that nobody thinks about this. People are stupid in general, I know, and some of them are too stupid to even begin to put together an argument for or against anything. But there are certainly some articulate and highly intelligent DP-supporters who are capable of reason, and if they're capable of this, then they're capable of being convinced by argument (as I am; I'm willing to listen and seriously consider any arguments against my own position, and I will change my mind if I'm convinced). For me, this isn't an emotional issue but a rational one. I know it's not for some, particularly for those whose lives have been affected by a terrible crime. Yet even some of these people do not want their attackers/offenders killed, whether for religious or rational reasons, or something else personal to them. To sum up, I think your first point is a tautology because you are just stating the way things are, not making an argumentative point.

Your second point concerns self-interest, right? I don't disagree that prosecutors are generally better-paid than count-appointed defense attorneys (this fact can be used as another point in support of abolition, if you think about it -- fair trial and all that). However, the money in the legal profession isn't in this area, and if a lawyer wants to be rich, it's better to do divorce, or real estate, or -- ironically -- defense. Yep, prosecutors burn a few guys a year to get their names in the papers because proescutors are ELECTED (odd if you think about it), but again, if the electorate would actually give this matter some thought and were convinced that executions should not happen, imagine how quickly these same prosecutors would begin to avoid asking for the death penalty. So, I'd have to say that your second point is also a tautology, although in both cases I'm not disagreeing with your precise statements. I'm just saying they don't have a bearing on the argument itself, and are irrelevant to it.

Yes, Pathfinder, that's what I mean: I don't think charly is wrong, just that the two points are not really about the debate regarding the pros and cons of capital punishment.

Rebone:

Once again very good points. As you pointed out, the key is to educate the public (very difficult to do) and the politicians will bend at the expressed will of the people.

Unfortunately people are very self centered and have hedonistic tendencys, having little interest in anything that does not affect them directly. Polls have shown that the average person seldom reads a news paper, or even watches the news on T.V., let alone reads a book of any import.

Yep. It's tough to change the views of large numbers of people like that. But it's possible: as you know, at one time in this country the majority thought it was OK to own slaves, or at least tolerated the practice.

The people who opposed them were also called abolitionists.

I have slaves, myself, but they're all made of plastic and silicon and crap like that. I work 'em silly.

I don't think that the public at large understands the lack of uniformity of the laws from state to state and the seriousness of the lack of equal justice.

In example; one state, and I believe it may be Oklahoma but my memory may be incorrect, $1000.00 dollars max is allowed for an indiginent defendants defense. This amount is to cover the cost of the Court appointed attorney, investigator, and expert witnesses. Compare this to the assests the prosecutor has available to him.

More than one state has a thirty day rule. After a conviction the defense has thirty days to present new evidence that will exculpate the defendant. After that thirty day period is over no evidence (even evidence that will prove the client innocent, beyond anyones doubt, can be introduced to the court).

The defense can introduce the evidence to the Governor then, if convinced, the Governor can commute the sentence but cannot vacate the conviction.

This happened today: The US Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/20/sc...ons/index.html

Note what Justice Stevens said in the majority opinion regarding public opinion (not about the death penalty in general, but still interesting).

I guess this means that spacedog cannot be executed now.

Unless it's "gangland-style."

Interesting indeed. Now for the next step....

Yes indeed Spacedog can breathe a sigh of relief.

I wonder if he got his act together....hmmm....not.

Redbone
I agree with you, but never start a debate with the word IF. And try not to use it at all.

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

I stated the facts as they are today, not if this or that.

Pathfinder.
The flaw in Democracy is politicians will do anything to get a couple of votes, Tony Blair has just given Mick Jagger a knighthood. What for services to the woman he serviced?

Uhhh...what do think? And do you think life is NOT a privilage?

I still say fry 'em. It sucks that some innocent people are being convicted, but if ya wanna make an omlette...ya gotta break some eggs. That's just life & there's no way around it. I rather see a few innocent people die then a whole shitload of murderers walk the streets.

Well, in fact the USA is not a Democracy, it is a Republic, and the real fault is with the uninformed electorate, that polls show, seldom reads a news paper, watches a news broadcast, or reads a book.

It is true that a professional politician will say anything to get himself elected. They are like the joke; "How can you tell when a politician is lying? When you see his lips moving."

Yes, charly, you did. It's just that they don't have a bearing on the argument.

eRock, please go back and look at what I asked you about what you think the difference is between a right and a privilege, and let me know what you think it is (if you think there is a difference).

And eRock, why does anyone have to die to keep murderers off the streets if they are sentenced to life without parole?

You are entitled to your opinion. You need to hope that you are never one of the innocent eggs that gets mixed into the omlette.

It sucks that some innocent people are being convicted

Let's see how you think if its one of YOUR family or friends and that happens to THEM.

I think executions should take place only when there is evidence that can't be argued (murder with 5 witnesses and they pin the guy down, etc...). And with such evidence, an execution should be mandatory, and take place within 30 days of conviction (and be open for public view).

I'm also for execution on attempted murder charges. You shoot someone in the head, and they live anyway. It's quite obvious what you wanted the end result to be.

As for everyone currently on death row who has been there for a long time, I say give them all a new trial. Too many people have been proven innocent recently. Just think of all those people strapped to the electric chair knowing they did nothing wrong.

One more step foward.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/24/sc...ons/index.html

Here's Justice Antonin Scalia's take on the judge's proper role in Death Penalty cases: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/...es/scalia.html

Although I don't agree with many of Scalia's viewpoints, there is no doubt that the guy is fucking bright. Makes me proud to be Italian Regardless, playing clairvoyant and trying to read the "original intent" of the framers both of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment is a bit of a stretch.

Agreed, very well written. Agree to your points also.