Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 12:50:50 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. Thank you. My stance is BECAUSE of my military background. During my last overseas tour I was very deeply involved in the "military justice" system - and saw that very often there was no real justice in it. Some people (we called them "latrine lawyers") knew just how to game the system - they'd arrogantly break the law and get away with it, because they knew just how. Then along would come some kid who really hadn't done anything wrong - but couldn't prove it; and they'd all but crucify him to make an example. Then, too (not mentioned yet on this forum) I once shot an Arab while I was posted as an armed sentry, and he refused my command to halt. On Wheelus AFB at the time, there were two kinds of infiltrators - those who were simply scrounging firewood, and those with deadly intent. True, they never found the body - so I wasn't "credited" with having killed him - but I'm a 3-time winner of the Sharpshooters' medal and know damned well I killed him. The problem with that? Thinking about it later - realizing I'd PROBABLY killed a man who didn't deserve to die. I do not wish that sick realization on anybody. And, I was once busted for stealing my own car, but that's another story. There is more than enough injustice already in our "justice" system, without making it worse by unnecessary killing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 12:52:29 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. The deterrent value of capital punishment is firmly established if only one person is deterred from committing an act of murder who would not otherwise have been deterred. It strains credulity to suggest that none would ever be deterred from committing murder after witnessing, or gaining personal knowledge of, someone's execution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 13:00:41 GMT -5
" . . . strains credulity to suggest that none would ever be deterred from committing murder after witnessing, or gaining personal knowledge of, someone's execution."
Then take a deep breath and strain away, Joseph. During the "glory days" of the DP in Britain, you'd be publicly hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. And many of those attending your hangings would have their purses stolen.
As I posted elsewhere - In Turkey, when I was there, hangings were public and frequent (and cruel; they weren't dropped, they were basically strangled). And yes, habitual thieve were hanged as well as other criminals - of all sorts. I had to watch several of them (not my choice). I'm not at all squeamish, but those things were ghastly.
Few in the crowd even knew who was being hanged, and even fewer knew why - but it made good blood sport. Deterrence? Not a bit.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 13:03:22 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. 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. Hi Joseph, While I basically agree with your post, I think Lewis does have a point in stating that we should not execute any innocent, which very likely happened during the days of segregation in this country, although as far as I know, there has been no definitively proven wrongful execution in the US for the past century. Where Lewis is wrong, is refuting the statement I made stating that there is nothing more barbaric than a heinous murder of an innocent who has not been convicted of anything. Lewis thinks that the wrongful execution, if it exists, is more barbaric than the heinous murder of a person who hasn't been convicted of anything. He is wrong. Even in a wrongful execution, if there are any, the executed has a trial by a jury of his peers, is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and put to death by a process that is quick and relatively painless. A murder victim does not have a last meal of his choice, have a chance to say "goodbye" to those he loves and love him, is given the time to make his terms with God, or has his remains readily available for a proper burial or disposal. AK
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 13:07:45 GMT -5
Then take a deep breath and strain away, Joseph. During the "glory days" of the DP in Britain, you'd be publicly hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. And many of those attending your hangings would have their purses stolen. I would have done the same, were I starving to death anyway. The same cannot be said for typical 21st century murderers in California, who are well-fed, well-off sociopaths. In Turkey, when I was there, hangings were public and frequent (and cruel; they weren't dropped, they were basically strangled). And yes, habitual thieve were hanged as well as other criminals - of all sorts. I had to watch several of them (not my choice). I'm not at all squeamish, but those things were ghastly. Few in the crowd even knew who was being hanged, and even fewer knew why - but it made good blood sport. Deterrence? Not a bit. That is wishful thinking. Mathematically, at least one person was deterred. One is enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 13:11:12 GMT -5
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. 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. Of course, but the ends justify the means. Murder isn't a social problem. It's a moral problem, requiring a moral response. Hi Joseph, While I basically agree with your post, I think Lewis does have a point in stating that we should not execute any innocent, which very likely happened during the days of segregation in this country, although as far as I know, there has been no definitively proven wrongful execution in the US for the past century. Where Lewis is wrong, is refuting the statement I made stating that there is nothing more barbaric than a heinous murder of an innocent who has not been convicted of anything. Lewis thinks that the wrongful execution, if it exists, is more barbaric than the heinous murder of a person who hasn't been convicted of anything. He is wrong. Even in a wrongful execution, if there are any, the executed has a trial by a jury of his peers, is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and put to death by a process that is quick and relatively painless. A murder victim does not have a last meal of his choice, have a chance to say "goodbye" to those he loves and love him, is given the time to make his terms with God, or has his remains readily available for a proper burial or disposal. AK Well, let's look at that a little more closely. Elsewhere I cited the case of Ruben Cantu, executed for a murder he did not commit. The proof? It was a multiple shooting - and one of the victims survived, now testifying that Cantu was not even present at the time. But thereby hangs a tale. "No proven ... etc."? How would you prove (or disprove) that? As there is no way of addressing the question after you killed someone - how do you prove it - no matter WHAT evidence you have? Now, as to which is more cruel - the "unofficial" murder, which occurs relatively quickly - or the "official" murder of a factually innocent person - who has months and years in which to build up fear? Wild animals kill one another - but none of them stuffs a fellow animal into a cave, to let him live in fear until they drag him out later to kill him with great ceremony.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 13:42:15 GMT -5
Elsewhere I cited the case of Ruben Cantu, executed for a murder he did not commit. He was lawfully executed pursuant to a lawful conviction. There is no injustice there. The proof? It was a multiple shooting - and one of the victims survived, now testifying that Cantu was not even present at the time. What's important is that the legal procedures were followed prior to his conviction and during his appeal. The process is more important to the commonweal than the "factual" innocence or guilt of any one condemned convict. But thereby hangs a tale. "No proven ... etc."? How would you prove (or disprove) that? As there is no way of addressing the question after you killed someone - how do you prove it - no matter WHAT evidence you have? You misunderstand the point of law, Lewis. Perfect justice is neither attainable or desirable. Our system of criminal justice doesn't have to work perfectly -- it just has to work.Now, as to which is more cruel - the "unofficial" murder, which occurs relatively quickly - or the "official" murder of a factually innocent person - who has months and years in which to build up fear? The state cannot commit murder, since, by definition, murder is a killing without the state's permission. Killing without moral authority is much more of a threat to the law-abiding public than the occasional killng of an innocent. After all, every Californian risks his life at the hands of his/her government every day. A bridge may collapse, a train may derail -- any of a thousand circumstances in which a law-abiding citizen loses his life because of honest mistakes committed by public servants. Deaths like that happen a lot more often than the execution of murderers who may or may not be factually "innocent." Wild animals kill one another - but none of them stuffs a fellow animal into a cave, to let him live in fear until they drag him out later to kill him with great ceremony. An excellent point. We should execute the condemned with greater alacrity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 13:47:21 GMT -5
Then take a deep breath and strain away, Joseph. During the "glory days" of the DP in Britain, you'd be publicly hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. And many of those attending your hangings would have their purses stolen. I would have done the same, were I starving to death anyway. The same cannot be said for typical 21st century murderers in California, who are well-fed, well-off sociopaths. In Turkey, when I was there, hangings were public and frequent (and cruel; they weren't dropped, they were basically strangled). And yes, habitual thieve were hanged as well as other criminals - of all sorts. I had to watch several of them (not my choice). I'm not at all squeamish, but those things were ghastly. Few in the crowd even knew who was being hanged, and even fewer knew why - but it made good blood sport. Deterrence? Not a bit. That is wishful thinking. Mathematically, at least one person was deterred. One is enough. Wishful thinking? Hardly. I posted that the crowd thought it was free "blood sport". In fact - for each hanging - the city called in an infantry detachment to augment the police, because of the increase in violent behavior. One is enough? If that one was wrongfully convicted, then one is too many. "Execute with more alacrity"? Fine - but first provide two things: (1) A means of proving factual innocence, if present; even coming back later - even YEARS later - to clear the name of someone wrongfully convicted and executed. (2) Suitable punishment for those whose outcry for the DP contributed to an innocent person's execution.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 13:52:13 GMT -5
. [/quote] The deterrent value of capital punishment is firmly established if only one person is deterred from committing an act of murder who would not otherwise have been deterred.
It strains credulity to suggest that none would ever be deterred from committing murder after witnessing, or gaining personal knowledge of, someone's execution.[/quote]
Correct. If it deters ONE, it deters. AK
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 13:56:11 GMT -5
While I basically agree with your post, I think Lewis does have a point in stating that we should not execute any innocent, which very likely happened during the days of segregation in this country, although as far as I know, there has been no definitively proven wrongful execution in the US for the past century. Proponents of capital punishment would do better to concede the factual innocence of a small but acceptable number of executed murderers. Opponents do not have to prove the innocence of anyone executed in the past one hundred years. Statistically there has to be several out of the many thousands who have been executed who did not actually commit murder. The question is whether the ends justify the means. I say they do. Where Lewis is wrong, is refuting the statement I made stating that there is nothing more barbaric than a heinous murder of an innocent who has not been convicted of anything. Lewis thinks that the wrongful execution, if it exists, is more barbaric than the heinous murder of a person who hasn't been convicted of anything. He is wrong. Even in a wrongful execution, if there are any, the executed has a trial by a jury of his peers, is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and put to death by a process that is quick and relatively painless. I would repeal the 8th Amendment to the federal constitution. Nothing deserves as much moral approbation and condemnation, nothing is more threatening to the stability of a society, than unpunished or underpunished murder. We're not talking about shoplifting here. We're talking about Maria Hicks, a grandmother who was brutally murdered a mile from my home in 2007, by a gang of armed thugs spray-painting a wall. A murder victim does not have a last meal of his choice, have a chance to say "goodbye" to those he loves and love him, is given the time to make his terms with God, or has his remains readily available for a proper burial or disposal. AK True.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 14:05:22 GMT -5
One is enough? If that one was wrongfully convicted, then one is too many. That's a noble point of view. Are you a pacifist? "Execute with more alacrity"? Fine - but first provide two things: (1) A means of proving factual innocence, if present; even coming back later - even YEARS later - to clear the name of someone wrongfully convicted and executed. Nope. No can do. It's not important. I said before perfect justice is neither attainable or desirable. Why? Because society has to settle on a judicial apparatus that works. There has to be finality. There has to be closure. Jury verdicts have to mean something. Your pursuit of perfect justice only encourages the violent to go ahead and murder. Suitable punishment for those whose outcry for the DP contributed to an innocent person's execution. Not in a million years. The law-abiding does more than enough already to safeguard the rights of the condemned. Again, perfect justice is neither attainable or desirable. Justice not only has to work, it has to be seen to work. Right now, it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 14:20:40 GMT -5
Hi Joseph, While I basically agree with your post, I think Lewis does have a point in stating that we should not execute any innocent, which very likely happened during the days of segregation in this country, although as far as I know, there has been no definitively proven wrongful execution in the US for the past century. Where Lewis is wrong, is refuting the statement I made stating that there is nothing more barbaric than a heinous murder of an innocent who has not been convicted of anything. Lewis thinks that the wrongful execution, if it exists, is more barbaric than the heinous murder of a person who hasn't been convicted of anything. He is wrong. Even in a wrongful execution, if there are any, the executed has a trial by a jury of his peers, is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and put to death by a process that is quick and relatively painless. A murder victim does not have a last meal of his choice, have a chance to say "goodbye" to those he loves and love him, is given the time to make his terms with God, or has his remains readily available for a proper burial or disposal. AK Well, let's look at that a little more closely. Elsewhere I cited the case of Ruben Cantu, executed for a murder he did not commit. The proof? It was a multiple shooting - and one of the victims survived, now testifying that Cantu was not even present at the time. But thereby hangs a tale. "No proven ... etc."? How would you prove (or disprove) that? As there is no way of addressing the question after you killed someone - how do you prove it - no matter WHAT evidence you have? Now, as to which is more cruel - the "unofficial" murder, which occurs relatively quickly - or the "official" murder of a factually innocent person - who has months and years in which to build up fear? Wild animals kill one another - but none of them stuffs a fellow animal into a cave, to let him live in fear until they drag him out later to kill him with great ceremony. Hi Lewis, I just got through reading about the Ruben Cantu case, thanks to you. Now these are my comments on it. There is no definitive proof of a wrongful execution in the Cantu case. The recanting of testimony only proves one thing. It proves that the person who recanted lied, either when testifying under oath, OR while recanting his testimony. Still, Cantu was not convicted solely on eye witness testimony and hear-say. Was Cantu factually innocent? NO ONE can definitively prove it, although it is possible, while Cantu was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. I will have to agree with Joseph on this one. Cantu's conviction and execution was legal, lawful, and while there are people with doubts, it was not wrongful. Ak
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 14:38:20 GMT -5
Was Cantu factually innocent? NO ONE can definitively prove it, although it is possible, while Cantu was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. I will have to agree with Joseph on this one. Cantu's conviction and execution was legal, lawful, and while there are people with doubts, it was not wrongful. Ak Exactly. Thank you. The average time served for murder, nationally, is still around a dozen years (even though it's a lot longer in California). THAT is the problem. It's not whether or not convicted murderers are "innocent."
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 15:04:26 GMT -5
Was Cantu factually innocent? NO ONE can definitively prove it, although it is possible, while Cantu was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. I will have to agree with Joseph on this one. Cantu's conviction and execution was legal, lawful, and while there are people with doubts, it was not wrongful. Ak Exactly. Thank you. The average time served for murder, nationally, is still around a dozen years (even though it's a lot longer in California). THAT is the problem. It's not whether or not convicted murderers are "innocent." Hi Joseph, The problem with 10 or so years of appeals is the fact that people will try to create "reasonable doubt" in any case, but especially in cases were the convict faces execution.. In the Cantu case, it is after the fact, but not saying that there hasn't been any wrongful execution, if just one can be definitively proven wrongful, that would be a very powerful argument against capital punishment. So far, there are none that is definitively proven wrongful, although I would say that because of the high discrimination during the years of segregation, is is likely that a few wrongful executions did take place.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 7, 2011 15:24:43 GMT -5
Correct. If it deters ONE, it deters. AK No, it's not correct. If it deters ONE, it deters, er, one.
|
|