|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 16:57:55 GMT -5
Correct. If it deters ONE, it deters. AK No, it's not correct. If it deters ONE, it deters, er, one. Well, you have agreed with me, which means I am correct. If it deters one, it deters. I don't recall anyone saying if it deters one, it deters all.... THAT would be incorrect. Thank you. Ak.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 7, 2011 17:01:12 GMT -5
No, it's not correct. If it deters ONE, it deters, er, one. Well, you have agreed with me, which means I am correct. If it deters one, it deters. I don't recall anyone saying if it deters one, it deters all.... THAT would be incorrect. Thank you. Ak. You're havin' a laugh. I just lurrrrv that logic
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 17:13:50 GMT -5
Well, you have agreed with me, which means I am correct. If it deters one, it deters. I don't recall anyone saying if it deters one, it deters all.... THAT would be incorrect. Thank you. Ak. You're havin' a laugh. I don't think a human life is a laughing matter. If it deters one, it saves a human life. That is a huge thing to most of us. I just lurrrrv that logic
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 17:34:12 GMT -5
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. There have been at least two attempts in the federal legislature to reduce dilatory appeals in capital cases. Notwithstanding Americans' "support" for capital punishment, such legislation never makes it to the floor. Americans give one opinion to pollsters, but when push comes to shove they are squeamish about executing murderers. As a matter of fact, they are squeamish about harsh, determinate sentencing of murderers as well. As much as I believe in the expressive potential of capital punishment, the issue is moot. We execute less than one quarter of one percent of our murderers. You can chain saw a baby in half, in this country, and the "pros" will trip over themselves to spare you ultimate punishment. The antis, meanwhile, are eating popcorn on the sidelines amused by the stark contrast between "pros'" rhetoric and their actions. You are correct -- justice delayed is justice denied, but the "pros" do absolutely nothing to rectify their own sabotage of the criminal justice system as it pertains to capital punishment. 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. If it is, then the American public does not have the moral authority to execute anyone. Absolute certainty of guilt is neither required or desirable to convict or condemn or to execute anyone. Pros have choked capital punishment to the point of irrelevance. Pros killed the death penalty in this country. No one else. 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. It ought to insult one's intelligence to be told the abolitionists are wrong about everything. They're not. Innocent people are convicted. Innocent people are executed. In a less-than-perfect system of jurisprudence it is not only going to happen, it has to happen. The rectitude of capital punishment accrues from the sincerity and honesty of its proponents, and from sound moral argument. I haven't seen much of that from alleged proponents of the death penalty, and neither have the U.S. Supremes. That's why the issue is academic here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2011 17:47:15 GMT -5
I don't think a human life is a laughing matter. If it deters one, it saves a human life. That is a huge thing to most of us. Yes, I agree. We are not taking murderers to the mat. The slain deserve more from us.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 7, 2011 23:27:22 GMT -5
Hi again, Now that I covered costs and deterrence of capital punishment, I shall now move on to the innocent, or wrongful execution. I think we should all concede that the possibility of a wrongful execution is possible, because we have had wrongful convictions. However, there has been no execution, where the executed has been found to be definitively innocent in the USA in the past 100 years.
While it is highly possible that it happened, especially during the days of segregation and discrimination, all of the executed have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial by judges or jury. This, of course, does not include lynching.
Lewis pointed out the Cantu case. Again, it is possible that Ruben Cantu was innocent, but again, there is no definitive proof of the claims. What some went by, is the recanting of testimony, which only proves that the person recanting lied either when testifying under oath, or while recanting.
Ak
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 8, 2011 1:53:42 GMT -5
Hi Akamai, welcome to the board.
I haven't been following the thread -- I am going to catch up on this discussion eventually though! -- so it's cheeky of me to interject but the documentary ''The Thin Blue Line'' gives ample pause for thought, I reckon.
True, an innocent man escaped injustice, but only after spending years in prison, some of them on death row, and only by the grace of a dedicated film-maker. And a guilty man was not in the least bit deterred by any death penalty.
The Thin Blue Line is just one example in many of an apparently arbitrary system when it comes to choosing which criminal dies and which one lives.
An arbitrary death penalty is morally abhorrent and undermines the deterrent effect.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 8, 2011 2:59:20 GMT -5
Hi Akamai, welcome to the board. I haven't been following the thread -- I am going to catch up on this discussion eventually though! -- so it's cheeky of me to interject but the documentary ''The Thin Blue Line'' gives ample pause for thought, I reckon. True, an innocent man escaped injustice, but only after spending years in prison, some of them on death row, and only by the grace of a dedicated film-maker. And a guilty man was not in the least bit deterred by any death penalty. The Thin Blue Line is just one example in many of an apparently arbitrary system when it comes to choosing which criminal dies and which one lives. An arbitrary death penalty is morally abhorrent and undermines the deterrent effect. Hi Trubble, I agree that we should not have an arbitrary death penalty, but I really don't think that it would undermine any deterrent effect. If the laws were so strict, that if you are put to death if caught with a minor infraction, there would be far less minor infractions. In Muslim countries, they chop of an arm for theft, and there are very few thieves. If the penalty was death, you would see no difference in the amount of thefts, but you cannot say that death sentences do not deter. It may not deter more than chopping off a limb, but nevertheless, it does deter. On the Thin Blue Line, of course, they made the story bad for the pro DP faction, but you must remember the fact, that the problem really was the wrongful conviction rather than capital punishment. Just as you cannot give a person his life back, you cannot give him the years of lost freedom back either. A wrongful conviction is a travesty, but if we are afraid to punish because we are afraid to make mistakes like that, then we should not punish. Ak.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Sept 8, 2011 3:10:39 GMT -5
(That could be accidentally misleading if someone hadn't seen the film so I'll just be pedantic and say they didn't ''make the story bad for'' anyone, they just presented the truth.)
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 8, 2011 7:48:20 GMT -5
[quot e author=fretslider board=gone thread=4249 post=50253 time=1315432872] You're havin' a laugh. I don't think a human life is a laughing matter. If it deters one, it saves a human life. That is a huge thing to most of us. I just lurrrrv that logic [/quote] Human life isn't a laughing matter, but i don't claim that state sanctioned killing is an effective deterrent. It's barbaric and puts you on the same level as the murderer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 9:44:18 GMT -5
The "No innocents executed ..." is a total red herring and an absolute falsehood.
If you're going to continue presenting that - then please name the court (any court) in any jurisdiction - any at all - in which the question of innocence can be addressed once the condemned has been killed.
Of course, we all know that there IS no such court - and therefore no proof, either way, is possible.
Those in favor of capital punishment, please respond to this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 10:27:06 GMT -5
Perhaps it's time to show my cards.
I'm just a little to the right of Attila the Hun. I believe firmly in stiff punishment - IF it's fair (however, I know all too well that sometimes it isn't fair).
My objection to the death penalty is not what it does to the condemned; after all, MOST (but not all) of those executed deserve it.
What I object to is what it does to SOCIETY;we effectively declare some people as "disposable", thereby further cheapening human life.
What, we're "justified" in taking criminals' lives? Don't you suppose that THEY also felt justified in what they did?
Does the difference between murder and execution come down to a badge and title?
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 8, 2011 10:35:24 GMT -5
[quot e author=fretslider board=gone thread=4249 post=50253 time=1315432872] You're havin' a laugh. I don't think a human life is a laughing matter. If it deters one, it saves a human life. That is a huge thing to most of us. I just lurrrrv that logic Human life isn't a laughing matter, but i don't claim that state sanctioned killing is an effective deterrent. It's barbaric and puts you on the same level as the murderer. [/quote] Actually, it doesn't. A child may be spanked for being beating up another child. Does that put his parent at the same level as his child? A murderer picks his victim, and his/her victim's body is found decaying wherever it is found. A cop speeds to catch a speeder breaking the law. The cop is ENFORCING the law with his speeding. To provide safety for our society, we kill this murderer, who is apt to kill again. The state kills ENFORCING the law. That does not put us at the same level as someone who will break the law.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 8, 2011 10:43:50 GMT -5
Perhaps it's time to show my cards. I'm just a little to the right of Attila the Hun. I believe firmly in stiff punishment - IF it's fair (however, I know all too well that sometimes it isn't fair). My objection to the death penalty is not what it does to the condemned; after all, MOST (but not all) of those executed deserve it. What I object to is what it does to SOCIETY;we effectively declare some people as "disposable", thereby further cheapening human life. What, we're "justified" in taking criminals' lives? Don't you suppose that THEY also felt justified in what they did? Does the difference between murder and execution come down to a badge and title? Killing someone who commits a heinous murder is not cheapening human life. What is done when the state executes a murderer, is we take away his most valuable possession. His life. Taking away anything less, cheapens the life of his victim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 10:44:03 GMT -5
Actually, it isn't always quite that simple.
The plotting, scheming, and picking of the victim happen in relatively few cases.
Many years ago, a boyhood friend of mine was electrocuted by the state of Texas for murder - and he didn't pick his victim or plan ANYTHING. A drunken stranger assaulted him in a bar, with a knife; and in the ensuing struggle the drunk was killed with his own knife.
The ruling was that he indeed was entitled to defend himself, but that once he had the knife away from his assailant that should have been the end of it.
On another forum, we had a lady whose son had just been sent to death row. Her son was a paraplegic that required two canes to walk with. He was getting gasoline in his car when he was attacked by two thugs attempting to rob him (they had no guns; they were using a piece of pipe as a club). He struck one of the thugs in the head with one of his canes, and the man died. The prosecution claimed (successfully) that he'd planned the whole thing and initiated the attack.
Face it - human courts make human errors.
|
|