castledoom.com

[Waray]

Always a 'great' issue.

Is death penalty a fitting remedy (the embodiment of the ultimate remedy) in a civilized democratic society? If yes, then how does this compare to the right to life, one of the most important individual rights a human can have in society (if not, you can't do much with other rights, can you?)? And if no, what is a fitting penalty for people which cross the line? And what is the line?

Above is my main question, reason is that last wednesday in class Criminal Law & Human Rights we had a guest lecturer who was a Dutch lawyer who spend 18 years in the USA defending death row convicts and offered us some interesting insights into US law aswell as comparisations with EU law. As to most people on this board are US & Euro based, I thought this might prove an interesting debate on this board. I will expand on my personal opinions after a few reactions, for now I'll keep it at that I'm divided on this subject.

On the one hand I believe the death penalty should be imposed on criminals who deserve it, the problem is only the line when a person would deserve it, and if the justice system is "fair" enough to impose it. In short, maybe another more personal question: is this western society evolved, maybe even ready enough, to deprive a person of his life?
________
Mercedes-benz om611 engine history

[crispybacon]

I say no to the death penalty, but not in the name of 'justice' or 'mercy'. I have two reasons:
1) The death penalty is extremely expensive compared to non-death penalty cases. (the statistics are there, and as this is a forum and NOT a formal debate, I refuse to site sources unless demanded. Its well-proven enough to turn up easily in a google search). As in $a couple hundred K that I'd rather not pay with my taxes. I'd be more supportive if the gap between death and life weren't so costly. Then again, I would be wary of a justice system where life is worth a 99 cent bullet, but it would be a start.

2) Regardless of what you believe in, we do not have any proven way to continue to punish dead people that will affect them. We have created, at least in the US prison system, a violent hellhole for our worst citizens to rot. We call it our prison system. Letting them rot is a worse punishment than any other death.
________
TakeMeNow

[JuntaJoe]

Interesting choice. Even moreso since I come from the Capital Punishment capital of the world.

Good old Harris County in Texas sends one or more a week to death row and Texas actually kills these thugs.

I'm pro death penalty. I'd actually like to see the list of crimes that qualify to be raised. They should add major drug smuggling, kidnapping, and human smuggling to the list, imo.

But I would like to see a new mandate added. Any person on death row who wants to try to prove their innocence with DNA testing should be allowed to do so. It is important we only kill the guilty ones. I would also limit it to a jury sentence. No single man should have the power to decide the ultimate fate of a man's life.


Now for some philosophy.

Why should we bother with the death penalty when it actually costs less to house them forever?

It's about the dignity of freedom.

Life without parole is a cop out. It allows juries to warehouse people because they are unsure about guilt and fear a monster loose on the streets. It also balms their conscience.

No. A jury should either decide a man is unredeemable and put him out of his misery OR give him a chance to redeem himself with a normal jail sentence where he can get out in 20 years and try to make himself a member of society again.

Life without parole is a sin against the greatest gift America can offer. Freedom. Locking them in a cage forever is turning them into an animal. The soul has been killed. This sentence should be levied against only one type of offender. The deeply retarded person. They have already succumbed to their animal side anyway and can never grasp the value of freedom.

Juries need to do their damn job and make the hard decisions.


Why should the state have the right to kill?

Even the Libertarian in me recognizes that the paramount virtue of individual personal freedom has limits. The limit being your neighbor's same rights. Therefore the only workable Libertarian plan is the "rational Libertarian".

Someone must draw the absolute limits. Only the collective society can draw those lines. The collective society needs to be given the entire "tool chest" to make limits that have teeth. The state merely becomes the vehicle to implement the wishes of the citizenry.

So the state has the right to kill simply because it is following the mandates of the citizenry. The state in actuality doesn't have that right, but the citizens are using the state to carry out their desires.

The death penalty penal code should be always be voted on with some regularity.

Rugged individualist Texans want the death penalty? Fine.

Liberal collectivist New Yorkers don't want the death penalty? Fine again.

The gun toting psycho then had better remember where he is when he pulls his pistol.

[crispybacon]

I would say there are those who have forfeited their right to freedom. There are people in this world who have committed crimes that lower them below animals, for animals do not reason and thus cannot be faulted for lapses in their reasoning. There are people who I would place lower than dogs in this world, for I would show a dog some basic kindness, and would put it out of its misery rather than have it suffer overmuch. These people deserve every part of the punishment they are recieving. Let them rot.
________
California dispensaries

[NibbyCat]

I do NOT see how executing a prisoner costs more than giving him housing, food, clothing, etc., for life. Perhaps the appeals process can drag it out, but that's not executing him. We need to make the rules of evidence stricter, if corpses of previous victims are found in the freezer, it's safe to say that person is guilty. Just DNA and fingerprints aren't enough, there can be other reasons for them to be there. Then you cut the length of time between sentence and execution. Say, one year. If new evidence hasn't been brought to light that can cast doubt in that time, he's offed.

For one-off murders, I'm willing to let them live, sometimes emotions can override rationality. Even other crimes, if it's the first time they've been caught and they don't seem to be too set in the life. But if there is no way we can safely have the person back in society, like serial killers, there is no point in keeping them in prison.

It's not just a play that someone will commit a small crime to get into jail for the amenities, so it's really not that much of a deterrent.

[s_stabeler]

I am against the death penalty, but only for one significant reason. there have been too many cases where soemone either would have been executed or has been executed, and has been proved innocent. when someone has been proven guilty beyond ALL doubt, then the death penalty is possible, however, life in prison ( with or without parole) should be the default sentence rather than death. simply because if someone is sentenced to life in prison, and is later found innocent, then they can be released and be given compensation for the time spent in jail in error ( I'm NOT going to get into a debate on if compensation is just, remember the crown has sent them to jail, they shouldn't have been there, therefore they are given compensation) and carry on with their life. wheras if they have been executed, how can the sentence be revoked? ( once you are actually dead, I know about cutting the rope if you are being hanged or whatever)

[Waray]

JuntaJoe wrote: It is important we only kill the guilty ones. I would also limit it to a jury sentence. No single man should have the power to decide the ultimate fate of a man's life.

And what about the guilty ones sentenced to death usually tend to be black and/or poor? Especially in Southern states?

Crispybacon wrote: I would say there are those who have forfeited their right to freedom

If one forfeits their rights, wouldn't it be easier to say he also forfeited his right to life thus must die?

Nibbycat wrote: I'm willing to let them live, sometimes emotions can override rationality.

Then what of damaged individuals, for instance people abused as child, etc. who tend to mostly let emotions override rationality? And killing more then 1 person?

s_stabeler wrote: there have been too many cases where soemone either would have been executed or has been executed, and has been proved innocent.

A common used phrase in relation to the death penalty. But... do you have any statistics on that? Isn't your argument more about "what if" then "it is"?
________
Suzuki Rg150

[s_stabeler]

not off the top of my head, but I know there have been cases where people have proven their innocence in potentially capital cases long after the crime was committed, sometimes decades later. i.e. after they would have been executed.

[NibbyCat]

Waray wrote: Nibbycat wrote: I'm willing to let them live, sometimes emotions can override rationality.

Then what of damaged individuals, for instance people abused as child, etc. who tend to mostly let emotions override rationality? And killing more then 1 person?

I was thinking of a situation like if a woman walks into her home and sees her husband in bed with another person, then shoots both the husband and the lover. It's not likely to happen again.

For the wackos, like John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer... If they can't be put in a loony bin, and certainly can't be allowed into the general population, why keep them alive?

There are many people who were abused as children, but they grew up without feeling the need to cause harm to others, that's not an automatic excuse.

[NibbyCat]

s_stabeler wrote: not off the top of my head, but I know there have been cases where people have proven their innocence in potentially capital cases long after the crime was committed, sometimes decades later. i.e. after they would have been executed.
Yes, that's why I'm talking about making the rules of evidence stronger. How many bodies in the crawl space does it take to be beyond a shadow of a doubt?

[s_stabeler]

yeah, personally, I can only support the death penalty if there is NO doubt AT ALL they did something, like say, did the murder in the courtroom itself. if they did, then sure, the sooner the better, but if there is any doubt at all, then life with or without parole should be the punishment. and usually with parole. life without parole should be reserved for those that have re-offended while out on parole.

[Torden]

I say no to capital punishment.

First you must ask yourself this one simple question. How many innocent citizens does a country have a right to kill?

Usually innocent kills would have been the last argument against since it is often viewed as the strongest argument against. I see it as the weakest argument against capital punishment. Strong enough but in truth the weakest.

What is the purpose of the capital punishment?
1. To deter? Capital punishment has never ever worked as a deterence. Murder, for example, is mostly a crime when logics dont come in to play. Countries, like my own, who have no capital punishment have no higher rate of serious crimes. If anything quite the opposite. That would be impossible if capital punishment actually was a deterence. If it worked it wouldn't have to be used more than once.

2. To protect society from the perpetrators future crimes? The first and simplest reason why not to kill for example murderers is that the law does always send a message. In that the pros are right. The problem is that capital punishment says it is sometimes right to kill. Only for states or also by men? It is my strong belief that to be able to teach a valuesystem you have to be a carrier of that valuesystem. You have to show the values you want to be followed. You simply can't show the sanctity of life by killing for example murderers.
Secondly, if it worked then why aren't the rates of serious crimes lower in Texas than in other states? Why aren't the rates of serious crimes lower in the US than in European countries who have no capital punishment?
Or is it simply to save a buck? Well then the US have proved that argument false. Capital punishment isn't cheaper as long as you want some degree of safeguards against wrongful convictions. The only way to make it cheaper is to skip those safeguards. In that instant the country, in my view, ends being a democracy and the criminal system forfits its first purpose. To protect its citizens.

3. Because they deserve it? First it is an emotional argument and not a logical one. When emotions run the law then it has turned into being nothing but a system for revenge. Laws have a purpose, revenge doesn't and neither does it sooth the victims. It will not make mothers and fathers cry any less. It has no soothing effect.


To put it simply: If capital punishment is a good system then why doesn't it work?

[crispybacon]

Torden wrote: I say no to capital punishment.
What is the purpose of the capital punishment?
2. To protect society from the perpetrators future crimes? The first and simplest reason why not to kill for example murderers is that the law does always send a message. In that the pros are right. The problem is that capital punishment says it is sometimes right to kill. Only for states or also by men? It is my strong belief that to be able to teach a valuesystem you have to be a carrier of that valuesystem. You have to show the values you want to be followed. You simply can't show the sanctity of life by killing for example murderers.
Secondly, if it worked then why aren't the rates of serious crimes lower in Texas than in other states? Why aren't the rates of serious crimes lower in the US than in European countries who have no capital punishment?


Sorry, but I think that #2 works. The law is not about the sanctity of life. It is about the protection of rights, of which the right to life is one of them. If you interfere with the rights of others, you yourself forfeit YOUR rights as punishment. Their rights are modified or taken away as punishment, from their right to do with their time as they wish (ex: community service) up to and including their right to life itself. You cannot show the sanctity of life by killing murderers. You CAN show that taking away the rights of others will not be tolerated by the society. There is no reason that the society should continue to tolerate repeated offenses by criminals that continually violate the rights of others. The choice is to interr them, reform them or execute them. There are some that the second doesn't work for, so if we refuse to resort to the first permanently, the only way to deal with these people is the last.
________
AmelieLove

[JuntaJoe]

Waray wrote: JuntaJoe wrote: It is important we only kill the guilty ones. I would also limit it to a jury sentence. No single man should have the power to decide the ultimate fate of a man's life.

And what about the guilty ones sentenced to death usually tend to be black and/or poor? Especially in Southern states?


I'm going to throw this out and I expect not to be bit in the ass over this until you fully read what I'm saying.

More minority poor are sentenced to death because they commit more murder per capita.

Now for the important part. Poverty is a significant factor in illegal behavior. But discussing poverty is a COMPLETELY different issue. There are so many schools of thought on this that we would derail this topic completely delving into it.

In the end, a person committed an act of gross abuse of society's values and deserves to face what society has laid out as punishment.

My original statement was about ensuring that multiple minds were in complete agreement about a person's fate. Texas always requires a unanimous verdict to reach a capital verdict of guilty.


Now I'll discuss what Stabeler found objectionable. People found innocent many years later were always exonerated by DNA evidence. The science of DNA has only been a science for a short time. Those sitting on death row should be allowed to avail themselves of the latest science out there, no matter if it was unavailable in the past when they were convicted.


Torden is next.

Quote: To put it simply: If capital punishment is a good system then why doesn't it work?

It is not a deterrent. It is society sanctioned vengeance for the dead. You stepped over a person's right to life and now you must PAY for that abuse with the only thing of equal value you have.

If you murder me, I want you dead. I want you to feel my fear and pain. I want you staring at the hopeless pit you sent me to and realize you have no way out.

I want society to send you to me so I can meet you in hell.

[s_stabeler]

also, what about jurors affected during the trial by the media, i.e. " Court of public opinion" cases. ( the speech marks are to show it is a hypothetical court). in several countries, there is no way to appeal absurd convictions, including the US, it needs new evidence. and if viewing the new evidence is also coloured by the media.......... it would be impossible to prove yourself innocent, therefore you would be excecuted for a crime you didn't commit. i agree with JuntaJoe on black/poor people. and with the poor people, there is an even simpler reason- they can't afford decent lawyers.

[Brf]

I remember comedian Steve Martin saying if he ruled a country, he would have the Death Penalty for jay-walking :twisted:

Doesnt China have death penalty for economic pyramid schemes?

[Waray]

JuntaJoe wrote: More minority poor are sentenced to death because they commit more murder per capita.

Ah, so the fact that somebody who is prosecuted in the US justice system with more resources is likely to have less penalty has nothing to do with it?

-------

Torden, just for your information, but every justice system in anything of a shadow of a civilized society has the concept that no rights will be taken away from you unless (ofcourse when it's prescibed by law, blabla, etc. etc.) you take away someone else his right.

That's why -every- single statement/charter/convention that is taken seriously (no, UN right does not count, there is no international law) has listed exceptions to why certain rights may be violated.
________
CANNABIS COLLECTIVE

[Waray]

Brf wrote: Doesnt China have death penalty for economic pyramid schemes?

If not, they should.
________
Yamaha Tg77 History

[Brf]

Waray wrote: Brf wrote: Doesnt China have death penalty for economic pyramid schemes?

If not, they should.

I got that from this:

http://castledoom.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31332#31332

Quote: The death penalty is used broadly in China. Though usually reserved for violent crimes, it is also applied for nonviolent offenses that involve large sums of money or are deemed to have a pernicious social impact.

[JuntaJoe]

Waray wrote: JuntaJoe wrote: More minority poor are sentenced to death because they commit more murder per capita.

Ah, so the fact that somebody who is prosecuted in the US justice system with more resources is likely to have less penalty has nothing to do with it?

I didn't say that. Good legal representation is always a point in your favor in the courtroom.

But you are assuming the poor don't get good legal representation in capital cases. You would likely be right in other types of offenses as you get whatever the US justice system pays for. But capital cases are different.

Many excellent and expensive lawyers offer free representation for murder cases. Murder cases are the limelight. The big show. Getting an acquittal in a murder case is real money in the bank later when rich clients go looking for effective help for their smaller problems they wish to make disappear. Some of the most famous trial lawyers in America cut their teeth on defending poor murder suspects.

Most capital murder suspects are assured of at least competent representation, if not downright excellent assistance.


Want to jumpstart your trial law career? Come to Texas and jump on a pro bono capital defense team. Win a couple and you could head back to Holland and name any hourly rate you desire to the rich criminals there. ;)