Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Sept 5, 2011 19:05:35 GMT -5
Lewis, with you being in Texas and a former military man, I would have thought you definitely pro death penalty. What a pleasure to see you move away from my silly stereotype and show yourself a thoughtful individual. Good post. A karma point for you.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 6, 2011 1:26:16 GMT -5
the thousands of years killing of people who had committed murder was not to show that murder was wrong...but was to punish those who had taken a life by taking their lives... And the purpose of punishment is . . . ? We punish children to teach them right from wrong, and to deter them (and others present) from doing the same thing. The most effective punishment I remember was watching a misbehaving kid get his backside warmed with a paddle, in front of the entire class. but we are not talking children and childish misdeeds
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2011 6:40:36 GMT -5
Absolutely. But we're reacting in a childish way . . .
If someone is judged "unfit to live", who makes that judgment, and by what right?
How can you revoke a person's right to live, when that life did not come from you? Can you restore that life, if a human court has made a human error of judgment?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Sept 6, 2011 8:15:00 GMT -5
if they have murdered one of mine i am quite happy to make the judgement and to activly revoke that persaons right?? to live....no problem can i restore life no.....but as a woman i have co created life..nurtured life and who makes the judgement..i do if some one has destroyed one of mine...and by the right as a human to exterminate those who harm and destroy wantonly
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2011 17:25:05 GMT -5
But that's just the problem, isn't it? "If they murdered one of (yours) " -
But did they? You may have undeniable evidence that murder was done - but factually proving guilt isn't as reliable as many people think.
Ohio just recently released a man who spent 29 years in prison for a rape that he did not commit. New DNA testing conclusively proved that he had nothing to do with it .... Had the victim been murdered as well, he would have been executed and dead long ago. And the actual guilty person still free to do it again . . . .
All (repeat, ALL) courts are made up of humans, and humans make human errors.
Let's address it from the other side. If your (husband, father, son, daughter, whatever) was arrested for a crime that you knew damned well he didn't commit, and subsequently executed - how would you feel?
Under our present system, you couldn't even clear his name - no matter WHAT evidence you had of innocence.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 6, 2011 19:22:05 GMT -5
Hi, Putting my $0.02 in on this, I shall first declare that I am pro capital punishment. In response to the initial post on this thread by Beth, I shall first comment on the costs of capital punishment.
Does capital punishment cost more? What are the facts? The trial seeking a death sentence does cost more than a trial in which a death sentence is not sought. That is a fact. The appeals for a death sentence also costs more than the appeals for a case where the sentence is not death. That is a fact.
Why? In California, a capital trial has two phases. One to establish guilt, and the other is to establish the punishment as far as sentence. Trials, to establish guilt, regardless of whether or not a death sentence is sought costs the same. For instance, the OJ Simpson murder trial cost approximately $9 million, while they didn’t get to the sentencing stage because of his acquittal.
Appeals? All legal appeals must be reviewed by law. An appeal of a death sentence costs more, because of the time limits in order to file the appeals and the time limit to review it. No legal death sentence appeal is reviewed after an execution.
HOWEVER, that is where it ends, and the comparisons are made on the individual basis by the anti capital punishment factions as far as costs. Is there more? You bet!
What should be calculated, should be the SAVINGS because of the presence of capital punishment. 90% of all felony convictions are attained by plea bargain. It is no different when it comes to capital crimes. Many convicted felons will plea bargain to avoid a death sentence.. When a plea bargain is offered and accepted, the courts costs is very minute. For instance, while the OJ Simpson trial cost $9 million, if he was offered, and he accepted a plea bargain, the court costs would have been under ten thousand dollars.
If a murderer faces a death sentence possibility, he may take a plea offer in order to live. Many murderers who believe their conviction is certain will gladly take such a plea offer for LWOP instead of death. If there was no death sentence threat, a felon would have basically nothing to lose if the choice was LWOP, to plea out to about 30 years. I cannot comprehend living 30 years from now, can you? If facing a LWOP sentence, would I plea bargain for a 30 year sentence instead? I will most likely not live another 30 years.
So, the savings as far as the presence of capital punishment is far greater than the amount spent for death sentences. This does not include the costs savings of lengthy incarcerations compared to an average of 10 years and an execution.
Besides all of that, using common sense, the people who earn their livings on the death penalty, will not get part time, or night jobs to make up the differences. What they will do, is increase the amount they charge for the non-death penalty trials. So, if you think there will be a savings, where money can be better spent? Guess again!
So, now, does capital punishment cost more than LWOP? I don’t think so. Akamai
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 6, 2011 22:27:20 GMT -5
Hi, Now that I have covered costs of capital punishment, and seemingly there is no rebuttal, I will move on to deterrence.
The anti DP faction claims that capital punishment does not deter, because while we capital punishment, we still have murders. This is true, but it doesn’t mean that capital punishment does not deter. A little more conclusive, is during the years where executions were prohibited in the USA, the homicide rate did not increase. This is also true, and while murderers know the penalty for their crime can be death by execution, they commit murder anyway.
So, does capital punishment deter? I say that correct, is that capital punishment does not deter MORE than a true LWOP in most cases. Of course, if you had no punishment at all for murder, or, if the penalty for murder was one day in prison, we would experience a lot more murders. Now, if the only punishment for murder was death, with no time sentence available, would you expect the murder rates to decline or remain the same compared to very little, or no punishment? Of course, a death sentence deters. While murderers are daring enough to take the chance when they do, they are not stupid enough to not consider the consequences if they get caught.
So, does capital punishment deter? The correct answer to this, is YES. But not more, or not much more than a very long time sentence. A.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 11:23:34 GMT -5
Good post, Akamai - and PERHAPS accurate - as far as it goes.
However - there are some dozen states that do not practice the death penalty. Not only is their murder rate no higher than those states who do - but their murder rate DECLINED when they stopped the practice.
But, most of all, realize that you're dealing here with human lives - and human beings are not widgets of accounting units.
If even ONE person is executed because of wrongful conviction - then that's entirely too many.
There is a world of difference between a "convicted murderer" and a person "convicted OF murder".
I've seen entirely too many miscarriages of justice to have any faith whatsoever in the "inerrancy" of our courts - knowing damned well that they DO make mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 7, 2011 11:42:21 GMT -5
Hi, Now that I have covered costs of capital punishment, and seemingly there is no rebuttal, I will move on to deterrence. The anti DP faction claims that capital punishment does not deter, because while we capital punishment, we still have murders. This is true, but it doesn’t mean that capital punishment does not deter. A little more conclusive, is during the years where executions were prohibited in the USA, the homicide rate did not increase. This is also true, and while murderers know the penalty for their crime can be death by execution, they commit murder anyway. So, does capital punishment deter? I say that correct, is that capital punishment does not deter MORE than a true LWOP in most cases. Of course, if you had no punishment at all for murder, or, if the penalty for murder was one day in prison, we would experience a lot more murders. Now, if the only punishment for murder was death, with no time sentence available, would you expect the murder rates to decline or remain the same compared to very little, or no punishment? Of course, a death sentence deters. While murderers are daring enough to take the chance when they do, they are not stupid enough to not consider the consequences if they get caught. So, does capital punishment deter? The correct answer to this, is YES. But not more, or not much more than a very long time sentence. A. I have nothing to rebut, we don't kill in the name of the state. I see the DP as the hallmark of a barbaric society. Now that would include Islamic countries, China etc etc. What a shame the biblical response is alive and well in the US. It does you no credit whatsoever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 12:21:55 GMT -5
"What a shame the biblical response is alive and well in the US. It does you no credit whatsoever."
As I've posted before - those who would use the bible to justify it have not thoroughly read the bible - or, at least, not with any great understanding.
Jesus spoke to that little matter over a thousand years ago.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 12:25:10 GMT -5
Good post, Akamai - and PERHAPS accurate - as far as it goes. However - there are some dozen states that do not practice the death penalty. Not only is their murder rate no higher than those states who do - but their murder rate DECLINED when they stopped the practice. But, most of all, realize that you're dealing here with human lives - and human beings are not widgets of accounting units. If even ONE person is executed because of wrongful conviction - then that's entirely too many. There is a world of difference between a "convicted murderer" and a person "convicted OF murder". I've seen entirely too many miscarriages of justice to have any faith whatsoever in the "inerrancy" of our courts - knowing damned well that they DO make mistakes. Hi Lewis, Again, your post, as far as capital punishment states, and non-capital punishment states is true. The non-capital punishment states actually have a lower homicide rates than the capital punishment states. However, I think we should look a little beyond that. You may pick a state in this website: <http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm> While it will verify your post stating that non DP states have lower murder rates than DP states, you will also see, that the homicide rates in these states were also lower BEFORE they abolished capital punishment. Not only that, but most of these states, if not all, had an increase in homicides after its abolishment. This may not be because of the abolishment of capital punishment, as there are many other factors that affect the homicide rates. The BEST way to measure that, would be to do a US comparison, and compare the rates with the respective state. AK
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 12:30:31 GMT -5
A. [/quote]
I have nothing to rebut, we don't kill in the name of the state. I see the DP as the hallmark of a barbaric society. Now that would include Islamic countries, China etc etc. What a shame the biblical response is alive and well in the US. It does you no credit whatsoever. [/quote]
Hi Alpha. Actually, we DO kill in the name of the state. Whenever there is a death sentence, the trial is named "The PEOPLE against whomever". While you may believe that it isn't right, the state does impose death for certain criminals.
Barbaric? Nothing can be more barbaric than the heinous murder of a human who hasn't been convicted of anything. AK
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 12:40:42 GMT -5
I have nothing to rebut, we don't kill in the name of the state. I see the DP as the hallmark of a barbaric society. Now that would include Islamic countries, China etc etc. What a shame the biblical response is alive and well in the US. It does you no credit whatsoever. [/quote] Hi Alpha. Actually, we DO kill in the name of the state. Whenever there is a death sentence, the trial is named "The PEOPLE against whomever". While you may believe that it isn't right, the state does impose death for certain criminals. Barbaric? Nothing can be more barbaric than the heinous murder of a human who hasn't been convicted of anything. AK[/quote] There's one thing even more barbaric: The needless and wanton execution of a person who ALSO hasn't done anything. And, please don't say it doesn't happen - I posted proof of just such a recent case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 12:44:12 GMT -5
If even ONE person is executed because of wrongful conviction - then that's entirely too many. I used to feel that way, back when I was an anti. I got over it. Murder should be punished as harshly as possible. That is a more important goal, in and of itself, than perfect justice. There is a world of difference between a "convicted murderer" and a person "convicted OF murder". No, not really, particularly since most murder convictions, at least in California, follow guilty pleadings. The public is a lot more concerned about murderers that get away with murder than murderers who are improperly convicted. I've seen entirely too many miscarriages of justice to have any faith whatsoever in the "inerrancy" of our courts - knowing damned well that they DO make mistakes. Of course, but the ends justify the means. Murder isn't a social problem. It's a moral problem, requiring a moral response.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 12:48:25 GMT -5
I have nothing to rebut, we don't kill in the name of the state. I see the DP as the hallmark of a barbaric society. Now that would include Islamic countries, China etc etc. What a shame the biblical response is alive and well in the US. It does you no credit whatsoever. Hi Alpha. Actually, we DO kill in the name of the state. Whenever there is a death sentence, the trial is named "The PEOPLE against whomever". While you may believe that it isn't right, the state does impose death for certain criminals. Barbaric? Nothing can be more barbaric than the heinous murder of a human who hasn't been convicted of anything. AK[/quote] There's one thing even more barbaric: The needless and wanton execution of a person who ALSO hasn't done anything. And, please don't say it doesn't happen - I posted proof of just such a recent case.[/quote] Hi Lewis, I am new to this board. Please repost the proof in that recent case? Or at least the name of the alleged wrongfully executed? AK
|
|