Death penalty discussion

[Federal Farmer]

What makes you think that a child rapist actually sits and things about things to the point that they would do it if they got life in jail, but would not if they where killed?

A saying we had in the service was that "your body can't go where your mind hasn't already been". No rational person does ANYTHING, short of an involuntary reaction (breathing, blinking, heart beat, 'fight-or-flight', etc.), without having thought about it first. If someone is going to rape a child, they've thought about it first, and then acted on those thoughts, and if they're capable of that much, then they also have to have thought about the consequences, and utterly disregarded them.

The Death Penalty as a Deterrent is a joke in my view as it puts rational thought on to actions that are never Rational to start with. It may be a just Punishment, but its not going to stop the crime.

Today, I'd have to agree with you, but only because executions have become a sterile medical procedure rather than the public spectacle they're SUPPOSED to be, and prison in general has become a frickin' VACATION. You say that it doesn't stop crime, but only because you're not old enough to remember when crime had REAL consequences. There was a time, not that long ago, when going to prison wasn't an "all expenses paid vacation" where you could get a State funded Bachelors Degree. Have you ever seen JFK? If so, do you remember the scene at Angola State Prison? THAT'S what being a prisoner USED to mean. 12 hours a day, out in the bright hot sunshine, working on the Prison Farm. What about Cool Hand Luke? THAT'S what prison was like when I was growing up. Chain gangs? My folks made it perfectly clear that THAT was where we were going to end up if we did ANYTHING wrong. Deterrence? You're damned Skippy it was a deterrence!

And again, talking about it as if the case was 100% and there was no question is worthless as Dagree of how sure you are has nothing to do with Sentencing. Also it would reflect very few actul cases that would ever make it to court.

I beg to differ. There are MANY cases where the perpetrator is literally caught, in the act, of committing their crime, and it is these crimes I've specifically limited the discussion to since delving into the various types and degrees of evidence presented in court would be an exercise in futility in a forum of this type. What I'm talking about is SHOULD the death penalty be allowed in such cases where guilt is not in question, or should it be abandoned altogether.

Also, degree of certainty DOES enter into sentencing guidelines. In most States, if the Jury cannot come to a unanimous decision in such a case, the death penalty is automatically off the table, and they are told to continue their deliberations for Life in Prison (usually without the possibility of parole). In such cases, the Jury oft times then comes to a unanimous decision to convict, but only once the death penalty has been removed, which means that they felt that there is sufficient evidence to lead them to believe that the "defendant" is guilty, but not to a degree of certainty to warrant execution. In such a case, I myself might not vote to convict unless there were credible eye witnesses to the crime, or other incontrovertible evidence which precluded any other possible perpetrator.

The taking of a human life is a VERY serious matter, and not one to be bandied about lightly, but as a good friend of mine is wont to say, "there are too many people walking around today only because it's illegal to kill them", which is why the "he needed killin'" defense was perfectly legal in most Southern States for so long.

Personally I believe that it should not only be allowed in such cases, but that for certain crimes (premeditated murder, rape of ANY kind, arson of an occupied building, etc.) that the death penalty should be MANDATED.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

OK, fine, then please present your proposal for a "fair" system, as I'm sure that we would all be interested in seeing it. SERIOUSLY! I'm not trying to provoke you, or poke fun at you, if you have a BETTER system, I would dearly LOVE to hear about it. I despise the fallicy of Argumentum ad antiquitatem, since just because that's the way it's always been done that way doesn't answer the question of SHOULD it be done that way. At the same time however, I don't believe in the fallicy of Argumentum ad misericordiam either since that prohibits punishing the guilty on the off chance that we may punish an innocent by mistake.

Again, let me be clear, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm only interested in discussing situations where the guilt of the perpetrator is NOT in question.

I never claimed to have a better system...but what I do know is I do not trust the current system . And In any system a innocent can be found guilty, but any sentence so long as they are alive, if the case is shown to have been wrong, can be free...once dead, you cant make them undead.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I never claimed to have a better system...but what I do know is I do not trust the current system . And In any system a innocent can be found guilty, but any sentence so long as they are alive, if the case is shown to have been wrong, can be free...once dead, you cant make them undead.

OK, but do you have any suggestions at all?

Also, the exception you bring up is exactly why I'm trying to limit the discussion to only those cases where there is not doubt, at all, of whether or not the perpetrator committed the crime so please stop equivocating. If I walk in the restroom of a store in the mall and CATCH someone raping a child, I mean pants around his ankles and his **** in the kids ***, there IS no doubt, so would you support the death penalty in that case (assuming I hadn't already killed the sick, twisted SOB by ripping his **** off, shoving it in his mouth so that nobody could hear his screams, and letting him bleed to death)?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Again I will state that I am not going to debate the merits of a whole classification of Crime, based on the idea of the Perfect case of 100% guilt, as the ruling has nothing to do with that. You can have imperfect cases that are not 100% , yet they can be found guilty....They are not immune from the Death penalty just because they where not caught red handed or something. The court was not ruling on was not, if in a perfect case can it be done, its ruling on if found guilty...that's it. Like I said, if you want to have it in a perfect world of all cases are 100% proven, I am all for killing them. The fact is we don't live in the world.

Your issue about how hard it is to be in prison...that's a different issue completely. And While yes some prisons may be to soft, getting locked up in Super max as also not anything any rational person would ever want.

As for you saying that someone that rapes a child, clearly thought about it first...I would agree, its not like it just happens and you have no idea. But also would you agree that anyone who is willing to rape a child, there brain clearly is not working in same way a rational person thinks? They clearly are metaly screwed up in a major way, and the kind of rational thought that we would make, does not apply to them. They dont sit at home thinking, hmm maybe I should rape a child, but I dont want the Death penalty so I will not...if it was Life in jail I would do it though. Saying that I am not making a excuse for what they did, I could care less why, I am just stating the fact that they are not a product of rational thought. So I see very little if any Deterrent in the Death Penalty.

You said there are to many people walking around only because its against the law to kill them....who people who committed crimes like raping a child? Are there really alot of them walking around town? No most are in jail, and get out of there cell very little..if not they should be and that is different issue of letting people out to early, and has nothing to do with killing them. And I think some of the terms for what we put people away for are to short, mostly do to pleas. But also there are people serving way to much for other crimes.

as for what you said about the Federalist papers used in court, I am not a legal scholar or anything, so I dont know how they would use those or anything. And as far as I know, while they may use them to site what they ment...they are not in fact legal binding documents. But Law is not a area I focus much on in that type of Detail, I look more at Elections, and Terrorism/Security issues then legal constitutional law. So maybe you are correct.

As for your mandated idea....that would at least be a step to making it a more fair punishment , but fact is most people with money would be able to still spend spend spend till they could plea down to 2nd Degree murder or something, while poor with there DA would never be able to do that. And I see no reason one should live, and the other die, just because they had the money to fight it out for so long.


Like I said, in a perfect world ( setting aside in a perfect world we would not need to even debate child rape anyway) I would be for it, and willing to pull the trigger...but we dont, and I will not support any death penalty case under our current system, as much as I on a case by case basis often would love to watch them Fry.

There was alot in all those posts, so I try to adress most of them.

And I will tell you that I was a firm beliver in the Death Penalty for some time, but have changed my mind on it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

OK, but do you have any suggestions at all?

Also, the exception you bring up is exactly why I'm trying to limit the discussion to only those cases where there is not doubt, at all, of whether or not the perpetrator committed the crime so please stop equivocating. If I walk in the restroom of a store in the mall and CATCH someone raping a child, I mean pants around his ankles and his **** in the kids ***, there IS no doubt, so would you support the death penalty in that case (assuming I hadn't already killed the sick, twisted SOB by ripping his **** off, shoving it in his mouth so that nobody could hear his screams, and letting him bleed to death)?

You do know that a eye wittness account is about the least reliable proof you can have in court right? Jurys buy it of course, but that does not make it 100%. If you walked in and saw it, yes maybe its 100% for you, but you are going to be not on the Jury. The Jury is going to hear who knows what about why you would accuse someone of it. Someone Bribed you, you had a grudge against them, you where drinking and stoned...who knows, but as a Jury they will pull all that stuff out at you to make you question it. You come to me on a jury with that story, and say they can't find DNA for some reason , I am not going to be able to convict on that, as its your word basically.

Clearly there would be more to it, but my point is, what is Clear to you, as the one who saw it, will not be what convicts them. But hey if you walk in and see it happening and shot him in he head....More power to you, I got no issue with you ending his life.

And as for making the system better, no , because the fault lies in the fact that Juries are not reliable, and Good lawyers can get guilty people off , while cheap bad lawyers can screw up and get people convicted when they did nothing wrong. SO long as Money, and a jury who have no background in DNA, and come with there own bias as we all do, then I really don't see a system that can ever be 100% accurate.

Just go and look at all the countless cases of Death Row cases overturned or reduced after evidence of lack of guild, unfair Trials, and such came out after and it makes it realy hard to think that will all of them, that somehow the ones that we did kill we can know did not have the same things.

And I could also bring up that it just flat out costs alot more to kill someone then it does to jail them. Some people say well cut cost and don't let them appeal to much, but somehow cutting appeals to people who we wish to kill, does not help me feel any more sure they are guilty and had a fair trial.

 

[Federal Farmer]

As for you saying that someone that rapes a child, clearly thought about it first...I would agree, its not like it just happens and you have no idea. But also would you agree that anyone who is willing to rape a child, there brain clearly is not working in same way a rational person thinks? They clearly are metaly screwed up in a major way, and the kind of rational thought that we would make, does not apply to them. They dont sit at home thinking, hmm maybe I should rape a child, but I dont want the Death penalty so I will not...if it was Life in jail I would do it though. Saying that I am not making a excuse for what they did, I could care less why, I am just stating the fact that they are not a product of rational thought. So I see very little if any Deterrent in the Death Penalty.

Anybody who is that screwed up needs to be dispatched to the nether regions as quickly as possible. Frankly I don't buy the "insanity" defense in most cases. If they don't have a LOOONNG and clearly demonstrable history of mental instability, then "too bad, so sad, is sucks to be you".

You said there are to many people walking around only because its against the law to kill them....who people who committed crimes like raping a child? Are there really alot of them walking around town? No most are in jail, and get out of there cell very little..if not they should be and that is different issue of letting people out to early, and has nothing to do with killing them. And I think some of the terms for what we put people away for are to short, mostly do to pleas. But also there are people serving way to much for other crimes.

I'm not limiting the discussion strictly to child rape. Take Charles Manson for instance. There's a PRIMARY candidate for a necktie party. If it weren't for the State of Californication losing their collective minds back in the 70's, that POS would be nothing but bones right now, and they wouldn't STILL be paying to keep him fed, housed, clothed, and breathing. Jeffrey Dahmer is an example of our "Justice" system failing most heinously, but at least he got what he justly deserved while in prison.

as for what you said about the Federalist papers used in court, I am not a legal scholar or anything, so I dont know how they would use those or anything. And as far as I know, while they may use them to site what they ment...they are not in fact legal binding documents. But Law is not a area I focus much on in that type of Detail, I look more at Elections, and Terrorism/Security issues then legal constitutional law. So maybe you are correct.

I am.

As for your mandated idea....that would at least be a step to making it a more fair punishment , but fact is most people with money would be able to still spend spend spend till they could plea down to 2nd Degree murder or something, while poor with there DA would never be able to do that. And I see no reason one should live, and the other die, just because they had the money to fight it out for so long.

Cases of "the rich" being able to do that are so few and far between that they're really not worth mentioning. Teddy Kennedy? Sure, his daddy BOUGHT his freedom, but he is so much of an example of the exception to the rule that you'd be hard bent to produce even 1/10th of 1% of all homicides that fall into that category.

Like I said, in a perfect world ( setting aside in a perfect world we would not need to even debate child rape anyway) I would be for it, and willing to pull the trigger...but we dont, and I will not support any death penalty case under our current system, as much as I on a case by case basis often would love to watch them Fry.

There was alot in all those posts, so I try to adress most of them.

And I will tell you that I was a firm beliver in the Death Penalty for some time, but have changed my mind on it.

Changing your mind on it is all well and good, provided you can properly and fully elucidate the reasons for that change, what confuses me is when people say that they've changed their mind, and they can't even say why.

A perfect world? Would that such a thing existed, but since it doesn't, we have to deal with the realities that we live with in THIS world, and in THIS world, there are people who DESERVE to die for what they've done, and rich v poor doesn't cut it for me, if you did it, you did it, and you're going to DIE because you're entirely too worthless to be allowed to continue to breath MY air.

 

[Dr.Who]

See, when people start talking about "perfectly" and "fairly", that in my book is just a cop-out and justification for inaction. We can't perfectly deal out speeding tickets. That's totally unfair. We should do away with all speeding tickets. We can't perfectly meet out rape charges, that's not fair, we should do away with all of them.

Nothing is fair or perfect this side of heaven. I would rather error on the side of trying, than give up. I think that multiple-time convicted murders is a crime itself. It means we caught a murdered, convicted a murder, sentenced a murdered, and yet he was able to murder again. That innocents blood is on our head. We had him, and allowed him, by virtue of our inability to deal justice, the chance to murder again.

If we eliminated penalties based on 'fairness' or 'perfect justice', there wouldn't be any laws at all. Total anarchy would be the only perfect and fair system.

There is an amount of unfairness that we can agree is acceptable and an amount that neither of us could accept. We just have do decide what that point is. What point are we at now and can we support the death penalty at the present point. More in the next post...

 

[Dr.Who]

You are correct, I am specifically referring to those whose guilt is NOT in question.

Given that the individuals in question are, in fact, guilty of the crime of which they are charged, in what way do you see the application of the death penalty as being "imperfect" or "unfair"?

Given 20 guilty men, ten black and ten white, more of the white men will go free than the black men.

I think the studies by and large are flawed but here is a paragraph from one:

"And the study used in the McCleskey case, conducted in Georgia back in the 1980s, found that more than 20 percent of black defendants convicted of murdering white victims received the death penalty, compared with 8 percent of whites who killed other whites and 1 percent of blacks who killed other blacks. "

If there is a race gap how large a gap can we tolerate before we say that we need to hold off on executions until the problem is solved?

I am not opposed to the death penalty in theory just in practice.

My views are also shaped by my religious views. God is a perfect judge and he does enact the death penalty. He even instructed Moses and his followers to do the same. But He also instructed them that mercy and forgivness was a more important part of the law. IMO God expected us to feel the tension between the demand for justice and the desire to be merciful. We can do and be both.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Given 20 guilty men, ten black and ten white, more of the white men will go free than the black men.

I think the studies by and large are flawed but here is a paragraph from one:

"And the study used in the McCleskey case, conducted in Georgia back in the 1980s, found that more than 20 percent of black defendants convicted of murdering white victims received the death penalty, compared with 8 percent of whites who killed other whites and 1 percent of blacks who killed other blacks. "

If there is a race gap how large a gap can we tolerate before we say that we need to hold off on executions until the problem is solved?

I am not opposed to the death penalty in theory just in practice.

My views are also shaped by my religious views. God is a perfect judge and he does enact the death penalty. He even instructed Moses and his followers to do the same. But He also instructed them that mercy and forgivness was a more important part of the law. IMO God expected us to feel the tension between the demand for justice and the desire to be merciful. We can do and be both.

Your quote is a primary example of selective conclusion. Unless one actually looks at each of those death penalty cases by itself, you have no idea WHY they were sentenced to death, since it doesn't specify the NATURE of the crimes involved. Also, what difference does the race of the victim make? The fact that people generally kill those of their own race is a known quantity, and it's usually a family member or someone who is known to the assailant.

If you look at the information on THIS page about Federal Death Row Inmates, and specifically under the heading entitled "Sentenced Since the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994:", you'll see that of the 48 persons sentenced to death, 22 are black, 22 are white, 3 hispanic/latino, and 1 is asian. If you look further down at the actual Federal executions, you'll see that ONE was white, ONE was black, and ONE was hispanic. Even if you look at persons resentenced after clemency or reversal on appeal, 2 were white and one was asian.

More importantly, unlike the selective conclusion argument made by race baiter's, this information specifically details the crime for which they were sentenced to death, and it becomes easy to see that it is their crimes, and NOT their races, that are the primary reason for their convictions and sentences.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

1)There is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent.
2)Heinous punishment brutalises society and makes it worse for everyone
3)Locking someone up for ever solves the problem in a way with the option for release in the event of a miscarriage of justice
4)The only thing missing is that none of these points above satisfy the emotional desire for revenge and regarding your point about 'sketchy' evidence... are you saying that people should be locked up for life on the basis of 'sketchy' evidence but executed when the evidence is stronger or have you just not thought the logic through?
If you are black and poor in the US there is a significant chance that you will be convicted whatever the facts when on trial. The evidence will be 'sketched' with darker crayons

 

[Dr.Who]

Your quote is a primary example of selective conclusion. Unless one actually looks at each of those death penalty cases by itself, you have no idea WHY they were sentenced to death, since it doesn't specify the NATURE of the crimes involved. Also, what difference does the race of the victim make? The fact that people generally kill those of their own race is a known quantity, and it's usually a family member or someone who is known to the assailant.

They were all sentenced for murder. And while it should not make a difference what race the victim was apparently it did make a difference.

If you look at the information on THIS page about Federal Death Row Inmates, and specifically under the heading entitled "Sentenced Since the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994:", you'll see that of the 48 persons sentenced to death, 22 are black, 22 are white, 3 hispanic/latino, and 1 is asian. If you look further down at the actual Federal executions, you'll see that ONE was white, ONE was black, and ONE was hispanic. Even if you look at persons resentenced after clemency or reversal on appeal, 2 were white and one was asian.

Let's stipulate that federal sentencing is fair. How about Georgia? And the other states?

 

[Federal Farmer]

They were all sentenced for murder. And while it should not make a difference what race the victim was apparently it did make a difference.

OK, I'm NOT trying to be harsh here, but I keep hearing people say that "race" was a factor, yet I have yet to see ANY evidence to support that allegation, unless it is a reference to the FACT that blacks, who, according to the US Census Bureau, make up only 12.8% of the US population, commit, according to the FBI Bureau of Justice Statistics, 52% of all homicides in the US (compared to 48.5% by whites), 48.5% of all rapes and sexual assaults (compared to 32.8% by whites), and 41.2% of all robberies (compared to 27.7% for whites). If THAT is what you're referring to when you say that race makes a difference, then you're absolutely correct, BUT, if you're saying that the court system is "picking on the poor black man", you'd better have more than simple accusations and VERY thinly veiled innuendo to back up that assertion.

It's a FACT (not supposition, not speculation, not theory, FACT) that of all homicide victims in 2004, 7939 were white (3.3 per 100,000) and 7557 were black (19.7 per 100,000), while in the case of the perpetrators, 8521 were white (3.6 per 100,000) and 9223 were black (24.1 per 100,000). The FACT of the matter is that someone is 7 times more likely to be killed by a black perpetrator than by a white one, so maybe the sentencing ratios are actually in line with the CRIMES COMMITTED, and has nothing to do with some alleged "racist agenda".

Let's stipulate that federal sentencing is fair. How about Georgia? And the other states?

If you have EVIDENCE to support a claim that Georgia, or any other States sentencing guidelines, trial procedure, on any other aspect of the Police, or Courts process is prejudiced or "racist", then by all means, PLEASE present your evidence, but to me, until such evidence IS presented, and verified, it's just so much unfounded, and specious speculation.

 

[Federal Farmer]

1)There is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent.
2)Heinous punishment brutalises society and makes it worse for everyone
3)Locking someone up for ever solves the problem in a way with the option for release in the event of a miscarriage of justice
4)The only thing missing is that none of these points above satisfy the emotional desire for revenge and regarding your point about 'sketchy' evidence... are you saying that people should be locked up for life on the basis of 'sketchy' evidence but executed when the evidence is stronger or have you just not thought the logic through?
If you are black and poor in the US there is a significant chance that you will be convicted whatever the facts when on trial. The evidence will be 'sketched' with darker crayons

Pure unadulterated and unsupportable DRIVEL, with not a shred of evidence to support it.

Would YOU care to present incontrovertible evidence to support your assertions, or should we just chalk you up as another "drive by" race baiter?

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, I'm NOT trying to be harsh here, but I keep hearing people say that "race" was a factor, yet I have yet to see ANY evidence to support that allegation, unless it is a reference to the FACT that blacks, who, according to the US Census Bureau, make up only 12.8% of the US population, commit, according to the FBI Bureau of Justice Statistics, 52% of all homicides in the US (compared to 48.5% by whites), 48.5% of all rapes and sexual assaults (compared to 32.8% by whites), and 41.2% of all robberies (compared to 27.7% for whites). If THAT is what you're referring to when you say that race makes a difference, then you're absolutely correct, BUT, if you're saying that the court system is "picking on the poor black man", you'd better have more than simple accusations and VERY thinly veiled innuendo to back up that assertion.

It's a FACT (not supposition, not speculation, not theory, FACT) that of all homicide victims in 2004, 7939 were white (3.3 per 100,000) and 7557 were black (19.7 per 100,000), while in the case of the perpetrators, 8521 were white (3.6 per 100,000) and 9223 were black (24.1 per 100,000). The FACT of the matter is that someone is 7 times more likely to be killed by a black perpetrator than by a white one, so maybe the sentencing ratios are actually in line with the CRIMES COMMITTED, and has nothing to do with some alleged "racist agenda".




If you have EVIDENCE to support a claim that Georgia, or any other States sentencing guidelines, trial procedure, on any other aspect of the Police, or Courts process is prejudiced or "racist", then by all means, PLEASE present your evidence, but to me, until such evidence IS presented, and verified, it's just so much unfounded, and specious speculation.

This is theone I am talking about:

"And the study used in the McCleskey case, conducted in Georgia back in the 1980s, found that more than 20 percent of black defendants convicted of murdering white victims received the death penalty, compared with 8 percent of whites who killed other whites and 1 percent of blacks who killed other blacks. "

They all committed the same crime except that the victims were of different color. If the court system were fair we would expect that say 20% of guilty blacks received the death penalty for murdering anyone and 20% of whites received the death penalty for murdering anyone.

 

[Federal Farmer]

This is theone I am talking about:

"And the study used in the McCleskey case, conducted in Georgia back in the 1980s, found that more than 20 percent of black defendants convicted of murdering white victims received the death penalty, compared with 8 percent of whites who killed other whites and 1 percent of blacks who killed other blacks. "

They all committed the same crime except that the victims were of different color. If the court system were fair we would expect that say 20% of guilty blacks received the death penalty for murdering anyone and 20% of whites received the death penalty for murdering anyone.

No wonder I couldn't figure out what you were talking about! You're digging up a dead subject. In McClesky, SCOTUS ruled that the Baldus study failed to present any factual basis for concluding that race was a factor in sentencing, which is why McClesky was executed in 1991.

The McCleskey case is precisely why the Baldus Study isn't used by anyone in a serious discussion about the death penalty, it's FLAWED.