The Death Penalty

[Bliss]

The appeals process continues ad nauseum in both Death Penalty and "Life" cases. I don't support wasting tax payer dollars on any of that. The process that exists so that the few innocents who are put on death row have a chance to be absolved also costs millions and millions in wasted funds for the serial killers to appeal for twenty+ years. Sounds like a no win situation.

Only in our country are the accused accorded equal representation and even here it's a joke.

Some innocent person, or thousands if you believe the "statistics" touted so far, get an overworked, underpaid, uninterested public defender, while an obviously guilty famous person gets to have a "dream team" of attorneys, be found not guilty (which is NOT the same as innocent!), claim bankruptcy, and still live life like a king.

If we're supposed to be civilized, I don't think we're doing a very good job of faking it.

Just my two cents...

 

[Laurel]

I don't smile when I hear about the latest execution.

That's good to hear.

I was once staunchly supported the death penalty. I felt that when a person committed certain acts, they lost their right to live in our society - period, end of story. It all seemed so neat, so tidy... till I actually read about how incredibly inept our justice system is.

I think murder is the worst crime a person can commit. Rape, robbery, assault - these are evil, but they still leave the victim with a life, with a chance to recove and move on. Murder steals everything.

It's inconsistent to believe that it's evil for private citizens to deprive one another of life, but perfectly acceptable for the government to do the same. Until we can be 100% sure that we do not put to death the wrong guy or girl, I cannot support the death penalty, any more than I can support a husband killing a cheating wife out of "justice" and "vengeance".

The wonderful thing about the US is that WE THE PEOPLE are the government. We should not encourage attitudes in our government that we would not tolerate in society at large. If anything, government should be more cautious, less emotional, more methodical. The death penalty is an emotional response, not founded in reason or logic of any kind. It doesn't deter crime, it's hellishly expensive, and it's way too inaccurate for my tastes.

 

[Bliss]

What about the families of the innocent 10% you were talking about - the ones the government puts to death who aren't guilty? What do they get?

Far less recompense than the family of an airline crash victim. So what is the solution? How do we not let the rat bastard real criminals live better than underpriveleged kids? What is the just punishment for rape, murder, aggrevated assault and so on? Surely it's not HBO, the Internet, ping pong and laundry duty.

 

[Laurel]

The appeals process continues ad nauseum in both Death Penalty and "Life" cases. I don't support wasting tax payer dollars on any of that.

Well, we could do like they do in the Middle East - one trial, then take them out and shoot them. As an American, I'm appalled by that behavior, but there are those who though Nazi Germany had the answers, too... It's all perspective.

Only in our country are the accused accorded equal representation and even here it's a joke.

I agree. It's not equal. Which is why it bothers me so much.

Some innocent person, or thousands if you believe the "statistics" touted so far, get an overworked, underpaid, uninterested public defender, while an obviously guilty famous person gets to have a "dream team" of attorneys, be found not guilty (which is NOT the same as innocent!), claim bankruptcy, and still live life like a king.

You wouldn't be talking about anyone in particular, would you?

BTW - did anyone shell out the cash for that live "Ask OJ" thing? I heard summaries of it on the news, but I'd love to hear feedback from someone who was actually there...it's be worth a laugh or two...

 

[Rand al'Thor]

"It's inconsistent to believe that it's evil for private citizens to deprive one another of life, but perfectly acceptable for the government to do the same. Until we can be 100% sure that we do not put to death the wrong guy or girl, I cannot support the death penalty, any more than I can support a husband killing a cheating wife out of "justice" and "vengeance". "

It IS acceptable for the government to deprive someone of their life. They have gone through the criminal courts process and have been found guily, by a jury of their peers. As soon as that happens, the constitution no longer applies to you. Private citizens killing for revenge is definitely not right, since there has been no proof of wrong-doing, and the suspected murderer's rights are still in tact. Until proven otherwise, a murderer has the right to life, and for someone to take away that right is wrong.

"The wonderful thing about the US is that WE THE PEOPLE are the government. We should not encourage attitudes in our government that we would not tolerate in society at large. If anything, government should be more cautious, less emotional, more methodical. The death penalty is an emotional response, not founded in reason or logic of any kind. It doesn't deter crime, it's hellishly expensive, and it's way too inaccurate for my tastes."

I think the death penalty is perfectly logical. Look waaaay back at Hammurabi's Code. An Eye for an Eye. That system, however harsh, seems logical at first glace. But that system can also be very cruel, and nobody deserves undue cruel treatment. We have refined this system over the past few thousand years to something that I think is a little too leniant. As for the death penalty being emotional- no way. It is based on a system that is still in use today that makes the punishment fit the crime.

Rand al'Thor
The Dragon Reborn

 

[Bliss]

Originally posted by Laurel
BTW - did anyone shell out the cash for that live "Ask OJ" thing? I heard summaries of it on the news, but I'd love to hear feedback from someone who was actually there...it's be worth a laugh or two...

Sorry, I was at Mickey D's buying French Fries

 

[CreamyLady]

[BAs for the death penalty being emotional- no way. It is based on a system that is still in use today that makes the punishment fit the crime.

Rand al'Thor
The Dragon Reborn [/B]

You have more faith in human detachment than I do. The penalty phase of a trial is always emotional; the jury gets to look at photos of the crime; the relatives of the deceased grieve on the stand; the quite often inarticulate family members of the defendant seldom make a good showing.

There is so much sadness, and anger, and confusion, how can anyone possibly say the choice is unemotional?

 

[Laurel]

Sorry, I was at Mickey D's buying French Fries

And another thing... why is that all the fast food restaurants have started selling these wacky coated fries?> McD's the only place with good french fries anymore...

Well Rand, Payne, CL, and all - I'm off to answer email, edit stories, and do some of my "real" job. I'll be back in a few hours... keep the board in check for me, will ya?

 

[Rand al'Thor]

Creamylady-

I am a very detatched person. I would make a good moderator at a debate or seomething like that. I agree that a family and other individuals will have very strong emotional responses to a capital trial. But SOCIETY, as a whole, can (should) see it as what it is-- punishment. Perhaps I am setting the bar too high for the rest of society, but I have no trouble with it what-so-ever.

Laurel-

I've enjoyed the debate, Laurel... You definitely show your opinions in an intelligent manner better than most. I just submitted a story, too- hope you enjoy!

Rand al'Thor
The Dragon Reborn

 

[CreamyLady]

No doubt you would be a good moderator at a debate, Rand. However, when a trial has gone on for weeks or months, and you are locked away with the same people forever; when you are battered with mindnumbing technical testimony; when you are forced to look at atrocities; when, at the end, you find the defendant guilty, you have to go through it again, PLUS the weeping and anger of family and friends -- well, I think "detached" is not quite the word to describe a person.

A trial, for all its insistence on the facts, is not a debate nor an exercise in detachment.

 

[Rand al'Thor]

When you are thinking about someone's LIFE, I do not believe any amount of discomfort (I'm talking about on a jury, here), should affect your decision in any way. I think most people see these sorts of things as serious business... Of course, The Rand al'Thor meter for society may be acting up... I just like to think human civilization isn't as primitive as I know it really is.

Between you and Laurel, and think I'm going to have an anuerysm! Off topic, Creamylady, what does your signature mean? I have no idea who those people are!

Rand al'Thor
The Dragon Reborn

 

[Roland Gilliad]

I fully support the death penalty and have a few suggestions for new methods
1.throwing them off into the grand canyon
2. makeing them watch nothing but al snow matches
3. blasting their ass into outer space with a big gun
4. realeasing them into outer space without a space suit
5. stoneing should be brought back

 

[CreamyLady]

It's a line from a poem by Kipling, basically saying that no matter what her station in society, a woman shares traits with her sisters, "under the skin;" they can be counted on to behave in a similar fashion.

I think Kipling had a healthy fear of women.

 

[Fallen Angel]

I have in the past voiced my support of the death penalty. I will not go into my reasons why again. I do have several questions.

Why is it suggested that it is more expensive to put to death a prisioner than to keep them in jail for life?

If an alarming percentage of those convicted to die are found to be wrongfully convicted then what about all the others in prision for lesser crimes?

Would you cut out part of your body if there was a 90% certainty that it had cancer?

Why do we worry so about criminals and if the goverment has the right to kill them but gloss over the killing done by our goverment and others as long as it is somewhere away from us?

This one goes with the one above
Why is it not alright to kill those who would take away our lives and freedoms here but it is considered patriotic and honorable to go elsewhere and kill those that we feel might be a threat?

I do understand why there is such reluctance to put people to death. I wish that I had a good solution to the problem that was acceptable. Someday we may have the power to do a brain wipe or reprogramming.

 

[Rand al'Thor]

Putting someone to death is much more expensive because of the appeals process. You have to keep paying attourneys, court reporters, etc, throughout an extremely long process, and the bill really adds up! As for your other question, I'll let someone else field them, since I'm on your side...

Rand al'Thor
The Dragon Reborn

 

[Magic Merlin]

A Very Hot Topic Indeed!

In my late teens and early 20s I was very opposed to the death penalty. I thought the taking of another human life was wrong, no matter what the circumstances. And I was loud and vocal in my opinion. At the time I had the luxury to hold that position because I had never been that close to a crime of such magnitude.

Two experiences have played a great part in changing my position on the death penalty. The first was a friend of my dad's and our family who was a deputy sherriff, with a wife and child and a second child about to be born. One night he responded to a bar fight and attempted to calm everyone down. The bartender who was involved in the fight, decided he didn't want to calm down and shot the deputy, leaving behind a pregnant wife and little child. The murderer was out of prison in two years because the judge decided it was committed in the heat of the moment.

The second experience was the murder of my 1st cousin who tried to break up a fight between two of his friends. One of the guys went to his home, picked up his gun and came back and shot my cousin twice in the head. Again leaving behind a wife and six young children. The murderer in this case received three years behind bars before he was out on parole. In this case he was the son of a prominent politician and did not serve his full term.

My business at times takes me into some of California's worst prisons. My conversations with guards, wardens and some of the other convicts has lead me to understand that there are some people in prisons and in life that are pure evil without any regard or compassion for human life.

The time I have spent visiting prisons has made me realize how glad I am that we have prisons. There are people there that belong no where else, particuarily in free society.

Now, I am a strong suporter of the death penalty. Perhaps it has something to do with a revenge factor. At this point I won't argue that point with anyone. I believe that sentencing and carrying out the death penalty should go through very rigorous procedures, but I very much support the death penalty.

For those that say the death penalty is not a deterrent or is not effective. I disagree. In my opinion the death penalty is 100% effective in keeping the persons that committed cold-blooded murder from ever killing again. That is my prime concern.

 

[Skibum]

I have also worked in a prison, and can say that I am glad there are bars between me and some of the people I met there.

I would like to offer a different arguement to this debate. I believe it was Flagg who said there is no evil, only sickness in criminals. I do belive that there are evil people in this world. I can not for a minute regard someone like Hitler, Stalin, Jeffery Dahmer, or Charles Manson as anything but evil. Prison is not a 100% effective way of dealing with these people. There are prison escapes, and Charles Manson is up for parole again soon. These evil people must be put away from society, and the only 100% effective way of keeping them off the street forever is execution. And it is not the Government that decides the fate of any criminal. It is a jury of your peers.

I know that I will not change any ones opinion with this arguement. It is too emotional a subject for any single, simple arguement to make that much of an impression.

BTW, the prosecution was NOT seeking the death pnalty for OJ.

 

[Maniac]

I do believe in the Death Penelty. I use to work for the Texas Prison system and I agree with Skibum. The criminals who sit in our prison's living tax free, and getting three square meals a day are evil. They are not ill or sick. If they were ill or sick then we as a well educated society should have found a cure for their illness.

For those of you who believe that the government controls the death penalty then you are highly mistaken. We the people of the state can vote "for" or "against" the death penelty. Then for someone to recieve the death penelty that person must be judged by 12 members of his/her peers.

There was a lady in Texas last summer who drank all night and neglected her 18month old baby. The next morning she woke up hung-over. She placed her baby in the car seat and then strapped her in. She then drove to a store a few blocks away. The lady then turned off the car, stepped out, and then locked the car with the child still in the seat. She then proceeded into the store and was gone for more than one hour. During this time the 18 month old baby had to sit in that car with the windows up in the middle of a Hot Texas August Day. The temperature outside the car reached 100 degrees, and inside the car it reached up to 120 degrees. When officials were finally able to get inside the car the 18 month old baby's brain had litterly fried to death.
My question to you is this. Can you honestly tell me that women doesn't deserve the death penelty. Hell if it were up to me, I would sentece her to die in the exact same way that baby did.

 

[teresafannin]

Death Penalty

I have debated about posting this, but need to get it off my chest. My 17 year old son was murdered in a mass shooting last year, although not at Columbine. The bastard who did it committed suicide. Did he deserve to die, you bet, did my son deserve to die-NO WAY! My son was my reason for getting up in the morning, now I have to sometimes force myself to get through another day without him. Because of the easy accessibility for just about anyone to buy guns, I picked up my son's high school diploma, posthumously, he only lacked 3 credits to graduate, I didn't get to see him go to the prom,I will never be a grandma, so many things I was cheated of. I know there will be people who disagree with this, but I live this nightmare every day. I actually found this board on one of the many nights I couldn't sleep. Thanks for listening.

 

[Weird Harold]

An argument for...

I believe it was Flagg who said there is no evil, only sickness in criminals. I do belive that there are evil people in this world. I can not for a minute regard someone like Hitler, Stalin, Jeffery Dahmer, or Charles Manson as anything but evil.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/tvschedule/episode.jsp?episode=21141027

The link is to the schedule for an episode of the "FBI Files" on the discovery channel titled "Killer Abroad."

It's about an Austrian man who was convicted of the rape and murder of a young girl, sentenced to life in prison in Austria, Paroled after nine years, and celebrated as "reformed by art" because he became a writer while in prison.

After his parole, he killed at least 11 women spread over Austria, Prague, and Los Angeles, California.

If Austria had imposed the death penalty, those 11 women would be alive today.

How many people have died because "Life in Prison" means "just long enough to convince the parole board you've reformed?"

Which is the greater threat to society? The possibility that some innocent people will be executed, or the certainty that innocent people will die if killers are allowed to be paroled?

As pointed out above, there is absolutely NO recidivism if the death penalty is imposed, while "Life in Prison" means no such thing.

There are problems with the way the death penalty is imposed. Numerous appeals drag out the process to the point where it's more expensive than simply feeding and housing a criminal. Money buys better defense attorneys for the wealthy. Prosecutors often have the option as to whether to seek the death penalty. Each State has different rules and laws about the death penalty.

All of these need to be addressed; there is no question about that.

Despite the flaws in the way it's imposed, the death penalty is needed. Viscious dogs, and rabid animals of all kinds are killed to protect society; viscious criminals are just as great a threat to society as a dog that has been teased and torutered into attacking someone, if not greater.

If nothing else, the death penalty should be available as a last resort for criminals who commit murder while serving a life sentence. If there is no greater penalty than what has already been imposed, what can be done to "punish" a lifer that commits a crime while in prison?

[Edited by Weird Harold on 08-01-2000 at 11:19 PM]

 

[Softly]

Revenge is Sweet

Lets get up tight and personal. Your 18 year old daughter is raped and killed. The police catch a man running from the scene.DNA matches the skin under your daughter's nails to the man, as well as his semen in her. Tell me that you would not pull the switch yourself.I would not care about anything else, except to extract my revenge.

I have worked for a company owned by the mafia. Money is the object of their killing. The killers that I have met, thought of it as a duty for which they were paid. No emotion whatsoever. They refer to honest citizens as "Suckers."

I spent four hours with the father of Ted Bundy. He was a very nice person. Why Ted Bundy became Ted Bundy had nothing to do with his upbringing.

I interviewed a woman that was a battered woman. She shot her husband seven times. She got out in ten years. I agree with that.

 

[Bliss]

Re: An argument for...

Originally posted by Weird Harold

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/tvschedule/episode.jsp?episode=21141027

The link is to the schedule for an episode of the "FBI Files" on the discovery channel titled "Killer Abroad."

We watched this show last night. Very, very frightening how charismatic this guy was. One thing that he did do there, that is illegal here, is to write a best selling book about his experiences and keep the profits. Viewed as profiting from the crime here. What I found odd was how the Investigators kept emphasizing how he was their only serial killer in Modern History. America may be much, much more violent but that's still convenient memory at it's worst. Anyhow, he was a true ass to the end, and (suprise) hanged himself in his holding cell, while awaiting his return to prison.


Incidentally, Manson originally received the death penalty, but his sentence was commuted to life while California was flip flopping on the issue.

 

[Bliss]

BTW, the prosecution was NOT seeking the death pnalty for OJ.

I know, was merely contrasting 'innocents getting executed' with the guilty getting "sentenced" to a life of leisure. Besides, it gave us an excuse to lament all the crappy french fries in America. Blame Kato.

________________________________________
Speak clearly, into the clown's mouth

 

[Stitchface]

"Which is the greater threat to society? The possibility that some innocent people will be executed, or the certainty that innocent people will die if killers are allowed to be paroled?...Despite the flaws in the way it's imposed, the death penalty is needed"

If you're going to argue that line, you're accepting that the death of a few innocents is a 'price worth paying' for the greater social good. I wonder if you'd say the same thing if you were on death row for a crime you didn't commit...

So how is anyone supposed to get out of this one? There's the need to punish on one hand, and the possibility of *dreadful* error on the other. I haven't seen anywhere a solution that's anywhere near satisfactory. People simply choose what they perceive as the lesser of two evils.

If you're going to argue that the death penalty is wrong because of the possibility of error, you have to argue that any sort of punishment at all is wrong. It's just less seriously wrong.

Maybe the reason that there's no answer to this - and I'm on rather dodgy ground here! - is that we think from too many prior assumptions, the most obvious being that every crime requires commensurate punishment. Maybe we should completely forget the 'eye for an eye' concept, and try and think up a completely different way of dealing with crime.

IMO the legal system on both sides of the pond stinks, and in more ways than I could possibly list here. Perhaps if people began thinking completely from scratch, without assuming the necessity of stuff like 'prison' or 'lawyers', and tried to think up an entirely new system capable of adequately dealing with stuff like this, we'd get somewhere...

 

[Bliss]

IMO the legal system on both sides of the pond stinks, and in more ways than I could possibly list here. Perhaps if people began thinking completely from scratch, without assuming the necessity of stuff like 'prison' or 'lawyers', and tried to think up an entirely new system capable of adequately dealing with stuff like this, we'd get somewhere...

In several US States, there are "registered sex offender" laws whereby convicted pedophiles and rapists have to register their current address with the local government. Reason being so that his new neighbors will know that the kindly old gentleman that moved in next door is really an old perv in the truest sense, and they need to be on guard for the safety of their children, grandchildren, and so on.

Now, since this already throws the concept of 'time served and anonymously back to society' out the window, how about treating all ex-cons to this down home hospitality? Aren't you entitled to know if a convicted felon of any sort lives on your block?