201. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:02 AM PT
Speaking of deterrents,
Here in Texas, Kenneth McDuff was tried and found guilty of capital murder years ago. Yet his death sentence was commuted to life in prisonment when the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconsitutional. He was paroled early because of good behavior. He went on to murder as many as 15 (!!!!) people and was caught after murdering two.
A couple of weeks ago, he was finally excecuted. Before he was actually executed, he confessed to an inmate where he hid the bodies of four women he killed.
Had his original punishment been carried out, a minimum of six people would be alive today.
202. VicKuligin - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:04 AM PT
Adrianne
"Your argument was that the race AND poverty arguments were spurious.
Neither of them are.'
Actually, I qualified my arguments, and those qualifications didn't involve the JURY discriminating against them.
What I said was, if we have a law and to break said law means you get CP, THEN I think it is spurious to argue that the LAW discriminates against blacks, or low income, or what have you. The law if the law and WHOEVER breaks it gets the punishment.
If the 'system' ie, the jury, is discriminating, then what should we do about it? Is this just another necessary evil of our system? How much better could we do it, when both attorneys have the chance to screen the jury?
If a jury sits there and thinks, "Ah, this guy is white, we won't give him CP, but THAT guy is black, so we will," what can be done about it? And is this *really* what is happening, or are some people playing games with statistics here??
203. VicKuligin - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:08 AM PT
Jade
"we could eliminate CP tomorrow without any impact on our judicial system."
I'm not sure this is or is not the case, and thus my questions.
My gut feeling tells me that in the CURRENT system in the US, CP is NOT a deterrent. But, if the process were sped up and the punishment more quickly on the heels of the crime/conviction, that it would be a deterrent. And thus my questions about other countries.
Jenerator, well, that problem wouldn't have occurred had we just locked that guy up for good, with no chance of parole.
Of course, he could always kill some inmates.
Of course, he could always escape I suppose, to kill again.
204. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:17 AM PT
Earlier in the thread, Pseudo pointed out that no one is agitating to stop imprisonment based on the fact that people are wrongfully convicted. And yet, this happens.
Similarly, no one is arguing to end imprisonment just because the justice system clearly rewards those who are wealthy enough to hire a lawyer--whether or not capital punishment is the end result. So I don't see that these arguments are any more persuasive.
The only way to rebut the argument *for* capital punishment is to argue that there is something inherently different between taking a life and imprisonment. That taking a life, *by definition*, in an entirely different plane, rather than just a point on the punishment spectrum.
If you can't get anyone to believe that taking a life is inherently different from imprisonment, *any* argument to end capital punishment will also fail the Pseudo-test--why is it any worse to wrongfully kill someone than wrongfully imprison someone? Why aren't you arguing for an end to imprisonment?
Besides, if one believes that taking a life *is* inherently different, then all practical arguments are irrelevant.
So is there any way to argue that taking a life is inherently different from imprisonment? No. Not without asking that someone else adopt your own moral values.
Then Pseudo also asked for pragmatic (as opposed to moral) reasons not to use capital punishment.
I thought Coral came up with one interesting one:
"Waste: that it wastes a life that could be put to better purpose."
Interesting in the sense that most of the others could also be applied to wrongful imprisonment and the rest were moral as opposed to pragmatic objections.
205. VicKuligin - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:19 AM PT
On the issue of race, from Irv's first hotlink, some stats:
Number of death row inmates, by race:
white - 1649
black - 1495
hispanic - 282
other - 91
Race of defendants executed:
white - 279 (56%)
black - 176 (36%)
hispanic - 33 (1%)
206. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:21 AM PT
VK;
You aren't serious.
What you want to do is get a ratio of white v black death penalty sentences in capital crimes.
207. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:24 AM PT
Concern for the wrongful execution of innocents doesn't seem a sincere rationale for opposing capital punishment. Would, for example, Elliot, support capital punishment if there were no risk of executing the innocent?
208. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:26 AM PT
How about torture? Perhaps proponents of capital punishment might find long-term imprisonment plus excruciating torture an adequate substitute for execution? Surely there is not much more problem in imprisoning and torturing the wrong person than in simply imprisoning the wrong person. After all, the state can amends to the living.
209. VicKuligin - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:26 AM PT
Jade
Sure I'm serious. We can easily see that whites were executed at a 58.5% higher rate than blacks.
If you have other statistics, find them and post them here. I'm not doing your work for you.
210. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:29 AM PT
I find imprisonment + torture an adequate substitute for execution. Surely no one is going to make the finality argument against torture!
211. VicKuligin - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:30 AM PT
Jade and elliot
What about life imprisonment, so that if the person is later found innocent, he can still live, but locking the guy up with no contact with other human beings, so that he can't kill any of the inmates? What do you think of that?
Personally, my concern is that he doesn't kill again. And that would include inmates and prison guards as well as people on the "outside."
212. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:30 AM PT
PE;
Looks like you have a new groupie. Throw her a word of encouragement and see if she rolls over.
If we could eliminate wrongful execution, CP would still be wrong for the reason that it teaches retribution (an emotion) against the criminal, not the act. We should not base our laws on emotion but logic.
213. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:32 AM PT
VK;
You're selectively using statistics in a dishonest way. Using your methodology, I could easily surmise that Thais are the most law-abiding, non-violent people in the US since so few have been executed.
214. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:35 AM PT
JaDeGoLd (Message #212)
"If we could eliminate wrongful execution, CP would still be wrong for the reason that it teaches retribution (an emotion) against the criminal, not the act."
But imprisonment is just a milder form of retribution. So what's the difference?
215. VicKuligin - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:36 AM PT
"CP would still be wrong for the reason that it teaches retribution (an emotion) against the criminal, not the act."
Perhaps I am missing something, but this makes no sense to me at all.
How else can you show that you don't like the crime, without punishing the guy that does the crime??!
And what is wrong with "retribution" anyway? Isn't it basically what happens in a court of law, when one person sues another for this or that??
For the life of me, I don't understand what you mean above. It makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain it??
And use this example for me. A man rapes and kills a dozen women. We want to punish him for that.
Isn't ANY punishment a form of "retribution?" If not, what form of punishment IS a form of retribution and what form is not?
216. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:37 AM PT
PE,
I don't know any libertarians who give the "proximate harm" theory the value you do. The Libertarian Party platform does not oppose the death penalty.
217. teller - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:38 AM PT
Pseudo--have you retreated from your argument about BU? Did I provide you with your own rhetorical, "lethal injection."
218. VicKuligin - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:39 AM PT
JadeGold
"You're selectively using statistics in a dishonest way."
Of course I am!!
Therefore, show me the statistics upon which YOU are basing your POV.
This goes back to my initial questions. Statistics are misused all the time.
But, I could easily say, "More whites are executed each year in the USA than are blacks, therefore CP discriminates against whites."
I just don't trust the wanton use of stats in this issue. Nor do I trust the blanket statements, like "CP discriminates against 'fill in the blank.'" Jade, what stats do you look at to base your POV?? Can you provide them here, like the Stanford matter??
219. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:39 AM PT
As for the notion that no one is opposing imprisonment as a punishment despite the fact that the State makes mistakes in this area as well as in executions, I do not see the point of this argument. Imprisonment can be ended. A dead person cannot be brought back to life.
220. pseudoerasmus - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:40 AM PT
Kuligan: Your Message #205 is idiotic. The salient measure is not the racial composition of the executed, but the relationship between the racial composition of the executed population and the larger population. 36% is more than twice the proportion of blacks in the U.S. population.
221. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:41 AM PT
I also do not see what makes the argument against the death penalty based on the State's errors insincere. Elliot would still be opposed to the death penalty, I'm sure, but we are not making the same arguments, plainly.
222. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:42 AM PT
Actually, I oppose the death penalty. I just see no reason to come up with *reasons* for doing so. Since Pseudo's argument is valid within the parameters given, why bother coming up with more reasons that fail the same test?
"If we could eliminate wrongful execution, CP would still be wrong for the reason that it teaches retribution (an emotion) against the criminal, not the act. "
(Retribution is not an emotion.) How is killing a person for their act substantially different from imprisoning them, in terms of acting against the criminal, not the act?
If punishing only the act were required, why not just make the criminal pay a fine and be done with it?
223. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:43 AM PT
Re Message #122
Cigarlaw has hit the nail squarely. It is easy to argue for capital punishment on a theoretical basis, or out of a sense of moral conviction. Once you see the real thing in action, you see how fine the line is between life and death in these cases. If, by some random assignment, you are tried before a judge not sympathetic to the death penalty, you live, if not, good night nurse.
As for confidence in the system not convicting the innocent, I am afraid it is not well grounded. Like cigarlaw, I've seen many verdicts that I can't rationally explain. Our system is perhaps the best available, but it is by no means foolproof.
As for executing the innocent, this does not seem to bother a majority of the Supreme Court, so don't rely on the fact that you or your loved ones won't ever murder someone to save you from execution.
224. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:44 AM PT
PE,
Torture. Now, that is beginning to sound libertarian, as long as the survivors get the first crack at turning the wheel (restitution).
225. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:46 AM PT
PE Message #214;
WRT retribution, any society that responds to crime by committing more of the same teaches people that it is not the act itself which is reprehensible, but the person to whom you do it. But the classification of people who you might have killed is an intellectual exercise, one that changes with the mores of society. The result is moral relativism.
Our laws WRT punishment ought to be based on reforming the reformable and quarantining the unreformable. Punishments based on retribution serve no purpose.
226. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:48 AM PT
Jade's post Message #225 is insightful and succicient.
227. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:49 AM PT
I was a witness in a capital murder trial last year. The State sought (and got) the death penalty, because if the defendant had been given life in prison, he would have been eligible for parole in 15 years! So the only way to protect society, in this case, is to execute him.
(He confessed, by the way, but then pled no contest at the trial. He met all the criteria for a capital punishment.)
Believe me, I thought often, before testifying, of what would happen if he got "life" and then was released in 15 years. I would not relish being surprised to find him at my door or in my garage, waiting to repay me for my testimony.
228. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:56 AM PT
Re Marshame's concern over parole for killers. I think that this can be answered without resort to execution. If we apply the principals Jade pointed out in her post, we need not release killers who pose a continuing threat to society. In the federal system parole has been abolished. Life imprisonment is just that. If we assume that we will quaratine killers who are not responsive or ameanable to treatment, then folk such as Marshame will not have to live in fear of their release, and the state will not have to resort to CP.
229. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:56 AM PT
Marshame,
Jen made the same argument earlier. Are you saying that it is far better to just kill people than to eliminate the possibility of parole?
230. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:58 AM PT
cp
(as in cross-post not CapPun)
231. Seguine - Dec. 8, 1998 - 11:59 AM PT
"In this case, brain-death is equivalent to death, since a mind is
required for a person to be free."
Is it? The convict is still free to breathe. He is free to digest his food. He is free to shit in his diaper. He is free to continue being alive, whatever that means.
"Freedom is not a "value", but a condition, a state of being."
A "condition, a state of being" to which you have attached a value. A non-objective, demotic value.
S: "...the prisoner who considers life imprisonment a fate worse than
death?"
PE: "Then we might as well kill him"
But we don't. Because it is not his interests, not his dissent from moral opinion, that we care about. Because what we care about, whether the subject is life imprisonment or execution, is the retributive aspect of revenge.
I maintain that societies and victims either want or require revenge. The interesting questions, as far as I'm concerned, are
1) How much?
2) Where is the line drawn between the desire for revenge and the necessity for revenge?
232. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:01 PM PT
I think there are cases where the appropriate penalty is death. In this case, there was no question as to his guilt (although I can imagine that after 6 or 8 years on death row, he will have convinced himself that he is innocent.) He is a sociopath who is certainly not going to be rehabilitated. He is a sexually motivated murderer.
He took a life, and left a little boy an orphan. If death is reserved for the most heinous of crimes, then this one fits. (I will spare you the gory details. But he was smart enough to go undetected for 5 years.)
233. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:04 PM PT
To ANY:
Incarceration is a necessary evil. Capital Punishment is not. It is necessary to isolate criminals from the population at large it is not necessary to kill them in order to isolate them.
Does anyone have an argument as to why Capital Punishment is necessary?
I also want to know why Murderer X gets the death penalty for killing an innocent person but it's okay for the State to pay off the family of an innocent person wrongly executed.
234. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:11 PM PT
marshame:
"In this case, there was no question as to his guilt.."
There is never "no question" of guilt. Some of the most famous cases of innocent people on death row have involved wrongful confessions of guilt.
235. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:15 PM PT
marshame:
"The State sought (and got) the death penalty, because if the defendant had been given life in prison, he would have been eligible for parole in 15 years! So the only way to protect society, in this case, is to execute him."
Nonsense. First, you're assuming he's guilty. Second, you're assuming he will in fact be released in 15 years or later. Third, you're assuming that after release he will kill again. Fourth, you're assuming that the death sentence will not be overturned on appeal.
And if he isn't guilty, you may be partly responsible for sending an innocent man to his death.
236. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:19 PM PT
CalGal:
"Actually, I oppose the death penalty. I just see no reason to come up with *reasons* for doing so."
Right. Our position on the death penalty, and presumably every other significant social and political issue, should be ENTIRELY ARBITRARY. Who needs reasons? You certainly never seem to have any that make sense to justify your various opinions.
237. Raskolnikov - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:22 PM PT
I personally find the "revokability" argument against erroneous sentencing quite valid.
If I sentence an innocent person to life imprisonment, and the error is discovered after X years, the life sentence is revoked, and my error only cost the person X years of his life, which he can partially be compensated for with money.
If I sentence an innocent person to death, and the error is discovered after he has been killed, I cannot revoke the death sentence, or compensate him at all (while his family may be compensated, the man himself receives no material benefits from the compensation, as he is dead), and the dead man would presumably have preferred to be alive, even in prison, than to being dead. The death penalty, therefore, creates greater harm when an error is made.
Since my personal sense of justice tells me that I should prefer to do less harm in the event of an erroneous sentence, I will prefer life imprisonment to the death penalty, all else being equal.
Of course, all else is not equal. For instance, some capital cases are more iron-clad than others, reducing the likelihood of an error, and there is a cost associated with imprisonment. But the risks and costs of making an error should certainly be factors in the decision.
238. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:23 PM PT
Elliot,
I don't think it is fair to say there is never a situation where guilt is not questionable, but you are right to point out that there are cases where people have confessed to crimes they did not commit. In some instances, it is the result of extreme pressure or threats from authorities, usually coupled with either a sense of hoplessness on the part of the accused or some mental or emotional deficiency. There are other motivations as well, such as the desire to protect the real criminal, though that may be more common in mystery stories than real life.
239. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:27 PM PT
I think I added an extra negative in my last post. I meant to say there *are* some instances where guilt is plain, that is beyond question.
240. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:28 PM PT
elliot:
first, quoting me: "The State sought (and got) the death penalty, because if the defendant had been given life in prison, he would have
been eligible for parole in 15 years! So the only way to
protect society, in this case, is to execute him."
Now, you weigh in: "Nonsense. First, you're assuming he's guilty."
Elliot, we've got a signed confession, DNA, and finger prints. Also, he was the next door neighbor. Also, he assaulted another woman and attempted to abduct her(which is how he finally got caught.)
You again: "Second, you're assuming he will in fact be released in 15 years or later."
The DA actually said that he was the type who would be killed in prison, if he didn't get segregated lock-up. But according to the laws in effect at the time of the crime (1991) he would be eligible for parole in 15 years. I'm not making it up. And of course, the jury cannot be told that.
You again: "Third, you're assuming that after release he will kill
again."
That's what the psychiatrists said.
You" "Fourth, you're assuming that the death sentence
will not be overturned on appeal."
True. The judge was very meticulous, from what I could see (I could only attend the trial after I was dismissed as a witness). Even though he signed a confession, they still presented the case to the jury, who took a grand total of 8 minutes to find him guilty.
And if he isn't guilty, you may be partly responsible for
sending an innocent man to his death.
241. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:30 PM PT
Advocates of the death penalty should be aware of the following cases. In Texas (of course!) A kidnaps B at the request of C. B was rumored to be romantically involved with C's husband. A turns B over to C, who takes her into a farm house. Without A's knowledge, C shoots B. B dies. C panics and comes outside to A, claiming that she only intended to scare B, but the gun went off. A agrees to bury B. During a police investigation, A confesses to killing B in order to protect C. He later recants this confession, and implicates C as the actual killer. The state at trial, obtains a conviction, arguing that A's first confession is the truth. A is sentenced to death.
The state then tries C, and the same prosecutor argues that A's first confession is false. The state then relies on A's recantation implicating C, claiming that she fired the fatal shot. Only one shot is fired, and the state never claims that both were in the house at the same time.
The Supremely moronic court, refuses to hear A's appeal and A is executed.
Is this just retribution?
242. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:31 PM PT
Marshame,
So the only way to ensure that this man didn't kill again was to risk the life of an innocent person? How does that make sense?
243. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:33 PM PT
Ell
"And if he isn't guilty, you may be partly responsible for
sending an innocent man to his death."
I have no doubt in my mind as to his guilt. I would feel far worse if I had participated in helping him go free.
This guy admitted the murder to FOUR people, none of whom notified the authorities. Two of them were counselors (not psychiatrists) who checked with their own legal counsel and determined that they were not legally bound to tell the police (!!) therefore, they didn't tell anyone.
I wonder how well THEY sleep at night. The other two were his father and his AA sponsor. They also protected him by not spilling the beans. A hard working police crime scene investigator is the one who busted him by finally connecting his fingerprints to another arrest, 5 years later.
244. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:35 PM PT
Ronski:
"Some people would call it punishment or justice. Blood lust, retribution, or vengeance suggests an absence of principle, a reaction far out of proportion to the facts of the crime. Your characterization of people mourning a loss is bewildering."
You're doing it again--completely misrepresenting what I have said. I am not characterizing "people mourning a loss," I am characterizing people who demand that other people be put to death. Do you understand that "mourning" and "killing" are different concepts?
And, yes, I don't for one second believe that anyone who trots out this "murderers have forfeited their right to life" crap is really acting out of "principle." They're acting out of anger, out of a desire for revenge, out of an emotional drive to inflict pain and suffering on those who (they think) have inflicted pain on others. They're acting out of the thirst for vengeance.
But of course, they can't expose their ugly motives for what they really are, so they engage in this elaborate deception and solemnly intone about "closure" and "healing." It's sickening.
245. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:35 PM PT
ChristinO
You say "So the only way to ensure that this man didn't kill again
was to risk the life of an innocent person? How does that make sense?"
Sorry, I don't follow. What innocent person are you talking about?
246. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:36 PM PT
Marshame,
You worry that the guy would be released to kill innocent people. Why do you not have the same worries for innocent people killed by the State?
247. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:39 PM PT
Elliot,
I suppose you were talking only about death penalty advocates who have never lost a loved one to a murderer? Whereas I was talking about the living victims of murder.
I still don't agree with your description of most people who favor the death penalty. I think you are being monumentally unfair to them.
248. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:40 PM PT
marshame:
"I have no doubt in my mind as to his guilt."
That is completely irresponsible. If you truly have no doubt, you haven't really considered the question. A rational person should always harbor doubt, especially about something as provenly fallible as the criminal justice system.
And as for your attempt to justify your opinion by running through the evidence, you seem to need reminding that many of the people sentenced to death and later exonerated were convicted on the basis of cases as seemingly airtight as the one you describe.
249. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:41 PM PT
ChristinO
I'm telling you about a murder case that I was a witness in. I know the murderer. I am afraid of him. He deserved the death penalty, and that is what a jury of his peers gave him, after convicting him of capital murder.
Are you saying that I should have the same level of concern for unknown numbers of people who may be wrongfully on death row???
Sorry, but I'm not following your logic.
250. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:45 PM PT
Sorry, Marsh, I forget to make all the points when I get "het up".
The existence of capital punishment ensures that innocent people are in danger of execution because our legal system isn't perfect. As long as we execute people under our imperfect system we risk the lives of the innocent. If we risk the lives of the innocent in order to kill a murderer how does it follow that he needed to die to protect the innocent? Which innocents are more valuable? We can more easily protect the possible future victims of Murderer X than we can future victims of our legal system. To fail to protect those people in order to commit an uneccesary execution is warped.
251. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:45 PM PT
Ronski:
"I suppose you were talking only about death penalty advocates who have never lost a loved one to a murderer?"
I was talking about anyone who makes the "closure" argument in support of the death penalty. It's a crock of lying, self-deceiving bullshit no matter who is making it.
"I think you are being monumentally unfair to them."
I think you are perpetuating a deception that helps to kill people.
252. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:50 PM PT
Elliot
There are so many topics in the world where you can be legitimately argumentative. Why oh why do you try and tell me that you know a situation I was directly involved in better than me?
253. CalGal - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:51 PM PT
"Who needs reasons? You certainly never seem to have any that make sense to justify your various opinions."
But Elliot. You always say I make no sense. I don't see that it's ever made any difference whether or not I have *reasons*.
I see no reason beyond the fact that I'd already stated. It is inherently different to punish someone by killing them than by imprisoning them. I see no reason for a government to take life if there is another alternative. In this case, there is an alternative.
But if someone said WHY I think that, I wouldn't come up with the reasons people give here--that we might convict the wrong person, that poor people are more likely to receive punishment than rich, that vengeance is bad.
No. To me, it is simply wrong for the state to take a life as a means of punishment. One either sees the value of that position or one doesn't. But I see no reason to justify my position any further. What reasons are necessary?
I believe that capital punishment will end when the majority of people share that moral view. Until they do, I see no point in trying to argue practicalities with anyone who believes that killing someone as punishment is acceptable. This is a fundamental rift.
254. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:53 PM PT
Marshame re 249
What I'm asking is why you are more concerned about some innocent victims than about others.
Yes, you are talking about a specific instance. Yes, I understand your concerns about that particular instance, BUT is your one singular experience to set the rule for the rest of society? Was that one man's death worth the lives of other innocents? Sure, he's dead and can't kill anyone else, but in order to execute him we had to invoke a law that endangers and even ends the lives of other innocents. This murderer might have had future victims, but the state most certainly has future victims as long as we have capital punishment. Why are the victims of the state of less importance than the victims of any killer?
255. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:55 PM PT
ChristinO
I can't argue your point without knowing the numbers of innocent people who are executed. Obviously this speaks to improvements that need to be made to our judicial system. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional (was it in the 60's?) because of unfair prosecution and inadequate legal representation of poor people and minorities.
But then, presumably, these problems were rectified and capital punishment was reinstated (mid-to late 1970's).
Anyhow, I definitely agree that people charged in capital murder cases should have good legal representation. However, I find it to be quite arrogant on our parts to second guess the juries who have heard all the details of the cases,who have listened to the defendent's presumably best defense and who have come to a verdict.
256. lazygeorge - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:56 PM PT
ChristinO,
"Society does not agree with you which is why there is a place in the law for manslaughter and criminal negligence."
As long as we use cars for transporatin we know from past history that we will kill thousands of people. It does not matter what laws we pass. We know what will happen. We have collectively decided to pay a cost measured in human life so we can drive our cars.
257. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 12:59 PM PT
Lazygeorge,
We know that women will die in childbirth regardless of medical advances. By your logic we should no longer breed.
258. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:02 PM PT
Ronski:
"I don't think it is fair to say there is never a situation where guilt is not questionable,..."
Guilt is ALWAYS questionable. Outside of math and logic, there's no such thing as real proof. And in the monumentally imperfect criminal justice system, the risks of error are substantial, no matter how seemingly good a prosecutor's case may be.
Indeed, it is the inability to sufficiently eliminate error and arbitrariness from the use of a penalty as irrevocable and powerful as death that led former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun to ultimately conclude that it cannot be reconciled with the demands of the Constitution.
259. ChristiPeters - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:05 PM PT
"What is your opinion on capitol punishment?"
I am against the death penalty because I believe it is wrong to kill a human being. I believe it is as wrong for the state to kill as it is for an individual. I feel no need to dress up my belief with reasons concerning whether death is or is not a *proper* punishment, or deterrent. I also feel no need to justify my belief to anyone.
(well, that ends *my* participation in this discusion. y'all have fun.)
260. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:07 PM PT
marshame:
"Why oh why do you try and tell me that you know a situation I was directly involved in better than me?"
Because you said you had no doubt, and I know that that is a dangerous and unjustified attitude by the very nature of the criminal justice system.
Of course, pretending that there is "no doubt" makes it easier to avoid confronting the disquieting possibility that you helped send an innocent man to his death.
261. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:07 PM PT
Marshame - 255,
I'm not saying that I know more than a jury who has heard the evidence I'm saying that regardless of how much evidence and how thorough we think the system has been we still make mistakes. Abolishing capital punishment in no way undermines a jury's decision of guilt or innocence. It simply means that if and when a jury is mistaken they won't be responsible for condemning an innocent person to death.
262. VicKuligin - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:24 PM PT
PseudoE
Your Message #220
Of course it was idiotic you dope!! Can't you read?? I said as much in my Message #218
But, the "proportion to the population" argument doesn't wash ultimately anyway. You see, our prisons currently are 49% black, whereas the population is ~ 16%. With the same sort of lame reasoning, are you going to tell me that ALL our laws are discriminatory?!
As a % of criminals and the population, the execution of blacks is really no different than the execution of whites in this country.
If you disgree, don't just lamely yell "idiot." Give us the stats man!!
263. VicKuligin - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:27 PM PT
marshame
I sympathize with your feelings concerning elliot and the obvious *fact* that he knows better than all of us, even you in the instance of the case for which you were a witness.
I am so glad he corrected you on *your* experience!
264. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:37 PM PT
From a recent letter to "Commentary" magazine:
"From 1973 to 1993, at least 48 persons on death row in the United States had their convictions overturned, were exonerated, and were freed outright. From 1993 through mid-1997, an additional 21 persons on death row were exonerated and released. This amounts to 69 exonerations, nearly three per year over 24 years. These 69 unfortunate persons, some of them imprisoned for nearly twenty years, were not freed because of legal technicalities. In at least nine of the most recently documented 21 cases alone, the defendant not only did not commit the crime but was convicted because of prosecutorial misconduct. The reasons for the other acquittals included the use of DNA evidence that excluded the "guilty" person to a scientific certainty or incompetent defense counsel who failed to uncover obvious proof of his client's innocence.
There are many reasons why our application of the death penalty is capricious and unfair. Among them is the fact that the U.S. has 50 states with 50 different sets of laws that are enforced by thousands of individual prosecutors, many with petty political ambitions or a hunger for publicity. Some trials are conducted before judges who must face reelection aware that it is political suicide to appear "soft on crime." Finally, it is a fact that racial prejudice permeates our criminal-justice system. African-Americans who murder white victims are legion on death row but it is virtually impossible to find a white or African-American sentenced to death in a case where the victim was African-American.
[continued]
265. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:37 PM PT
It is well-documented that the U.S. stands virtually alone among the civilized countries of the world in retaining the death penalty. Further, the U.S. leads the world in executions of persons who were under eighteen years old at the time they committed the offense. In this category we lead such enlightened countries as Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen--the only other nations in the world that legally execute juvenile offenders."
266. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:42 PM PT
Elliot,
"Kill" people? Me? Now you are really being silly, especiallly since I have said that I do not even approve of the death penalty.
Closure a deception? Do you really think I seek to deceive? Do you really think I do not know the difference between people who hide an agenda from those who believe in something as a matter of principle?
267. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:42 PM PT
BTW, I recommend "The Thin Blue Line" to anyone who wants to see how someone can get convicted and sentenced to death, despite being innocent. This documentary recounts how one man came within 8 hours of execution despite not having committed a crime.
At your video stores.
268. This message either failed to post, has been archived, or (less likely) was deleted by the Fraymaster.
269. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:48 PM PT
Ronski:
You are perpetrating a deception by pretending that vengeance isn't really some vengeance but rather kind of emotional therapy, a deception that helps perpetuate a penalty to claim to oppose.
"Do you really think I do not know the difference between people who hide an agenda from those who believe in something as a matter of principle?"
I don't know if you really can't see the deception or if you're just pretending not to, but either way you're supporting it.
270. Raskolnikov - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:51 PM PT
Jade: I was just thinking of that film as well (wonder why). I'll second the recommendation. It strongly shook me out of my ambivalance toward the death penalty.
271. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:51 PM PT
Elliot,
re Message #248
Marshame: "I have no doubt in my mind as to his guilt."
You: "That is completely irresponsible. If you truly have no doubt, you haven't really considered the question. A rational person should always harbor doubt, especially about something as provenly fallible as the criminal justice system.And as for your attempt to justify your opinion by running through the evidence, you seem to need reminding that many of the people sentenced to death and later exonerated were convicted on the basis of cases as seemingly airtight as the one you describe."
I don't understand your paranoia Elliot. I know which case Marshame is discussing, it was a well publicized trial.
Tell me how YOU would have doubt surrounding the case she testified in if you were a witness and you saw:
-the hand written confession
-the interview tape in which the killer confessed voluntarily and soberly
-the crime scene evidence including: DNA samples, semen samples, blood samples, saliva samples, fingerprint samples, hair samples, skin samples, duct tape samples
-four witnesses who had first hand confession from the killer himself
-affadavit of an inmate who killer bragged to about killing the woman
Let's see, he said he did it and *ALL*(!!!) of the evidence matches him.
What part of this would cause you to doubt?
272. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:55 PM PT
Jenerator:
"I don't understand your paranoia Elliot. I know which case Marshame is discussing, it was a well publicized trial."
Doubting a murder defendant's guilt is not "paranoia." Claiming that there is no doubt is irrational and unjust. I'm not surprised you don't understand this.
273. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:55 PM PT
Not to mention that A&E's American Justice did a show on the case! (hrumph, so there!)
274. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 8, 1998 - 1:56 PM PT
Rask: The movie is powerful and goes to show how, despite all the good efforts of the judicial system, things can can go horribly wrong.
275. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:00 PM PT
Elliot,
Answer my question in #271, please.
276. Raskolnikov - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:01 PM PT
Jade: Of course, I still want to give Randall Adams a head slap for suing Errol Morris, after Morris' film got him released. Friggin' ingrate.
277. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:01 PM PT
Jenerator:
You cannot be serious about the trustworthiness of confessions. Confessions are *routinely* thrown out of court because they are suspect. In a high-profile case here in Phoenix a few years ago, a group of young men "soberly" and "voluntarily" confessed, repeatedly, to the killings of a group of Buddhist months. The confessions were later shown to be false.
And physical evidence has been tainted, tampered with, planted or in some other way wrongly used to establish guilt in countless cases.
God help the poor accused man whose jury you serve on. You are apparently so gullible and uncritical that you will blindly accept any argument or claim made by the prosecution.
278. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:02 PM PT
Jesus, PE, are you really going to start up that nonsense about punishing future crimes again?
We don't punish future crimes. We punish, if anything, past crimes. And I don't even think that's the case -- we punish the present, visible tendency to commit crimes. Rehabilitation, you know. This future crimes stuff is sophistry. You may say that we deter future crimes by punishing past ones. That hardly equates to punishment of putative as-of-yet-uncommitted crimes.
I'd like to see someone offer a reasonable answer to Message #233. So far, all I've seen is a bunch of casuist nonsense. None of it demonstrates just why it's necessary to execute a criminal. We've seen retribution arguments -- but eye-for-eye retribution isn't a part of our legal system. We've seen deterrence arguments, but the available data do not support the concept of capital punishment as a deterrent. It pretty much reduces down to 'well, hyuck, some folks needs killin'!' And that's no justification at all.
279. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:02 PM PT
Elliot,
On the one hand you say I'm pretending, on the other you don't know if I am pretending. Can't you accept that a rationale human being can view facts and arrive at a different conclusion? Closure is neither therapy nor vengeance; it is the end to a source of pain suffered by the survivor. It is the honest belief that justice is not served by keeping a murderer alive at the people's expense. Why do you so often question the integrity and intelligence of people who disagree with you? You find evil where it does not exist, much the way fundamentalists view gay people.
280. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:03 PM PT
Make that Buddhist *monks*.
281. cartman69 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:03 PM PT
Jade:
You beat me to it. "Thin Blue Line" is excellent, and really made me think about capital punishment. Didn't change my mind though, just drove home the point that prosecutors in capital cases who engage in misconduct ought to subject to prosecution themselves. The idea that a prosecutor would withhold exculpatory evidence in ANY case is abhorrent, and far more so in a capital case. Yet what happens to these assholes as a penalty? Usually nothing. That is a bigger flaw in the justice system than whether or not it is morally sound to execute murderers.
I was watching a "48 Hours Later" the other night, the topic was serial killers. They interviewed Westley Allan Dodd, who sexually tortured and murdered several young boys in WA in the late 80's-early 90's. He calmly described to them how he did what he did, and kept a diary. He described one of his final victims, a 4-year-old boy, as "a good kid". He (Dodd) attempted to "make friends" with the boy while he was raping him, but for some odd reason, the kid wasn't going along with it. Finally he strangled the boy and stuffed him in a closet.
Dodd was hanged in '93. Frankly I think he should have been drawn and quartered.
282. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:03 PM PT
Rask: Well, as the movie demonstrated, Randall Adams isn't the brightest bulb out there. He's not a cop-killer, but he's no Einstein.
283. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:03 PM PT
I do not know the case Marshame was involved in, and don't see the need to debate the guilt or innocence of that particular defendant. What I am bothered by is the fact that the death penalty is so arbitrarily enforced. It is not unusual for some murders to receive the death penalty while their co-conspirators or co-perpetrators do not for the same crime, and with similar criminal histories.
Yes, PE before you get started, this is a problem in other cases and I don't argue that we should never attempt to imprison people because we cannot perfectly balance sentences between co-defendants or others committing serious crimes. But, when the state undertakes the power to kill people, an absolute punishment, we should have a more absolutely perfect system of justice.
284. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:04 PM PT
Marsha,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the killer savagely rape the victim anally and then blow her head off as she was pleading for mercy? Then wasn't it her 5 yr old son who walked in the bathroom (?) and found his mother naked from the waist down, bleeding from her anus, and lying in a pool of blood with half of her head missing?
285. marshame - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:04 PM PT
Elliot
With your outlook, you can be confident you will never be picked as a juror on a capital murder trial. You are basically saying that no matter the mountain of evidence, there is always an element of doubt, and even if there were not, you could not vote for the death penalty. That would give you a "pass" in these parts.
So by your hard headedness, you are handing over the jury duty and decision making to the very people you condemn.
286. ChristinO - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:06 PM PT
Marshame,
I don't mean to badger you so if you don't understand me or if you just choose not to answer let me know, but doesn't it bother you even a little bit that innocent people are condemned to death and executed?
We could avoid that entirely simply by abolishing the death penalty.
What would be the disadvantage to abolishing the death penalty? That we don't punish someone enough?
To insist on capital punishment in spite of the risk to the innocent is to put more importance on the punishment of the guilty than on the protection of the innocent. I cannot agree with that.
287. ScottLoar - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:07 PM PT
Resonance re Message #278 I offered Message #13.
288. Ronski - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:07 PM PT
jonesatlaw,
I'm troubled by the fact that so many of our laws are arbitrarily enforced; the death penalty is probably just the most egregious example.
289. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:07 PM PT
Cart: When you talk about cop-killing in Texas, you'd better expect some prosecutorial excesses. Plus, as noted earlier, Adams was just some dumb, low-life shnook who happened to pick up the wrong hitchhiker and spend some time with the guy.
As for the rest of your comments--hogwash.
290. Raskolnikov - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:09 PM PT
Marsh: You bring up another point. Prospective jurors who are opposed to the death penality are removed from the juries of capital crimes, in at least some states. I find this rather appalling, since it biases the jury toward the more bloodthirsty.
291. ScottLoar - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:09 PM PT
It should be obvious from my post that the argument for capital punishment exceeds the execution of murderers.
292. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:15 PM PT
Apparantly the law in Saudi Arabia did not distinguish between intentional killings and negligent ones years ago. A man fell out of a date tree and fell onto another, killing him. The courts found that the widow was entitled to "blood money" of 30,000 riyals. The widow appealed to King Saud. The king explained that should she insist on the life of the man in the tree, his family would be burdened, and her children would be without the blood money as support lost from their dead father. The woman, in her grief insisted on having the mans life, as her right.
The king ordered that the man be tied under a tree so the woman could fling herself out of it, killing the man as her husband was killed, "or perhaps you would like the blood money?"
I say perhaps we should.
293. cartman69 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:15 PM PT
Jade:
Message #289 Yes, I suppose overzealous prosecutors are a dime a dozen, especially in the South. But when their zeal endangers an innocent man's life, and they know it, something needs to be done about that.
"As for the rest of your comments--hogwash."
How so?
294. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:15 PM PT
Elliot,
re Message #277
"You cannot be serious about the trustworthiness of confessions.
Confessions are *routinely* thrown out of court because they are
suspect."
What is suspect about this one?
" In a high-profile case here in Phoenix a few years ago, a group
of young men "soberly" and "voluntarily" confessed, repeatedly, to the
killings of a group of Buddhist months. The confessions were later
shown to be false."
Why did they confess? Also, since I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about Marshame's case, can we stick to *it*?
" And physical evidence has been tainted, tampered with, planted or in
some other way wrongly used to establish guilt in countless cases."
Elliot, please don't be so dense. The samples they had they took from the crime scene *5* years prior to finding the killer through fingerprint analysis. Do you mean to tell me that the police "could have" collected the crime scene evidence (which was enormous and all pointed to ONE person) and then waited to find someone it matched, or that there was some sort of huge conspiracy in which the police collected DNA, blood, semen, fingerprints, hair, skin, and saliva from the killer, and then "planted" it at the scene? Funny that the defense nor the killer seemed to remember such a thing happening to him (oh yeah, because he CONFESSED)
.
295. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:16 PM PT
All rights exist on a continuum. They're mental constructs built around the proposition that humans are entitled to certain things. We can line them all up. All rights have the same premise -- I, you , he, she, it, we, they, thou, whatever has a legitimate claim to be treated in such and such a manner. Whether or not this claim is 'I have the right to say what I want to say' or 'I have the right to practice a bloodthirsty and moronic variant of a misshapen religion' or 'Ah have the raht to far mah shootin' arn at the po-lice'. Or 'I have the right to live'. IT's the same basic thing -- you're declaring a right for something.
And the right to life is privileged, in this system, as a general rule. Yet this privileging is entirely arbitrary, because if you agree that the government has the *RIGHT* to take even one of your rights away, then in principle the government's right trumps your right. Because all our individual rights have the same genesis -- we decide we've a right, and that's that. It isn't graven in stone someplace. The principled justification for the right to a fish sandwich is every bit as pressing as the principled justification for the right to live.
And we've arbitrarily decided that life is important enough that it should be all but sacrosanct. It's arbitrary. That doesn't mean that it isn't useful, or important, or anything else -- it just means that we can't trace it from first principles. What's the problem with it?
296. Jenerator - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:16 PM PT
(cont.)
"God help the poor accused man whose jury you serve on. You are
apparently so gullible and uncritical that you will blindly accept any
argument or claim made by the prosecution."
Huh? The overwhelming physical evidence and signed, videotaped confession, and witness testimony makes me "blind"?
How much have you donated to the "O.J. IS innocent" fund this year Elliot?
297. jonesatlaw - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:19 PM PT
Resonance- "we hold these truths to be self-evident, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
298. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:21 PM PT
ScottLoar:
I'm not sure what you're getting at -- are you saying that the death penalty is necessary because it tells everyone in our society what we, as a society, will absolutely not tolerate?
If so, that's false --we don't need the death penalty to do that. Because the worst meted punishment will take the place of the death penalty.
And surely we could find other ways of expressing where the utmost taboo lays. No, I don't think we need the death penalty for that -- no matter whether or not it has served such a role in the past.
299. elliot803 - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:23 PM PT
Ronski:
I said you're helping to perpetuate a deception. Whether that's willful or not I don't know. Either way, it's bad.
"Closure is neither therapy nor vengeance; it is the end to a source of pain suffered by the survivor."
Oh please. When someone says, "I need for so-and-so to die in order to bring closure to my grief" what they really mean is "I want that son-of-a-bitch to fry for what he did!" It's VENGEANCE, plain and simple.
"It is the honest belief that justice is not served by keeping a murderer alive at the people's expense."
The only plausible theory of justice for which that claim makes sense is one to which VENGEANCE is central.
"Why do you so often question the integrity and intelligence of people who disagree with you?"
I question it when I think it's lacking, which it often is.
300. JaDeGoLd - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:23 PM PT
Cart;
You suggest that the serial murderer should have drawn and quartered. This is nothing more than a call for retribution. Retribution is an emotion which has no place in our system of laws.
A civilized society juggles the concept of crime with proportionality. We don't rape rapists, we don't embezzle money from embezzlers. Instead, we isolate criminals from society bearing in mind that our judicial system is imperfect.
301. resonance - Dec. 8, 1998 - 2:24 PM PT
Message #297
Is that intended to be support or counterargument? I should think that it would be support, because there is no hierarchy there in the words. And therefore all three rights are equally privileged.