I really think death penalty opponents blow it when they focus on stuff in individual cases like "oh this guy's written BOOKS! we can't kill him!" or "but this guy's really OLD!" instead of drawing everyone's attention to how fucked up the jucidicial system is.
why didn't they just kill the fucker years ago then
thats why I'm against the current death penalty. Too many appeals clogging up the system. Not saying that there aren't some innocent ones out there but its the ones that are guilty and just wasting the court & taxpayers time that piss me off. I wish they would just DNA test peoples and end the appeal process for those that are guilty of 1st degree without a shadow of doubt.
No one gave the victim a stay of exectuion
The only problem with the death penalty is that it's not efficient enough?
I really think death penalty opponents blow it when they focus on stuff in individual cases like "oh this guy's written BOOKS! we can't kill him!" or "but this guy's really OLD!" instead of drawing everyone's attention to how fucked up the jucidicial system is.
I agree--those are not arguments against the death penalty at all; they are simply arguments as to why it shouldn't be applied to certain individuals.
So let me ask all of the people who are against this (no matter what the case is):
What do you propose as an alternative?
Why should people who commit horrific crimes be spared?
Maybe we put the teachers of the little girl who was getting raped in jail. Maybe we throw her friends that never invited themselves over for dinner in jail. Maybe we lock up the clerk at the porn shop who didn't take the time to have a conversation with the dude trying to buy kiddie porn and see if he might be harmful. Maybe we lock up the social workers or doctors who were not paying close enough attention. Maybe we lock up the parol board for letting some freak out early. Maybe we lock up all high school jocks for not inviting nerds to their parties. Maybe we lock up all nerds for not inviting jocks to their parties.
The death penalty is a lazy fucking copout that gives the impression of solving a problem.
Opinions do change over time and I might be young, but do you savages and murderers around us really think killing anyone can solve a problem? A problem that the world has been having since the beginning of time? Has the death penalty been proven to be a successful deterant and America the only civilized country to endorse detering dreadful crimes?
The use of the death penalty is more costly to tax-payers than life imprisonment.
Use of the death penalty does not deter crime - show me some evidence that it does, belivers?
A dozen or so states do not have the death penalty. There is no absolute right or wrong in applying the death penalty - a judge is supposed to uphold the law - the law varies by the state. The same twisted murder will get you killed in Texas and spared in Mass. So where is the black and whiteness of this issue? This is a case-by-case, state-by-state issue, and that is a major flaw.
I'll never support this - I'd vote for solitary confinement, life w/o parole, large communal cells w/ "death row" inmates, and a whole list of other punishments, restrictions, etc before death. The death penalty reduces the legal process to a selfish, terminal act.
Maybe, it's because I'm European, but anyways, the death penalty is inapprehensible. Killing is a base motive. Why does America kill people? It's not like you can kill someone for killing someone. That would be revenge. Who's gonna kill the court and its judges? It would be justified in your jurisdiction, wouldn't it? America is a killer?!
It's a also written in the Ten Commandments: "You shall not murder". Or do you make a distinction between murdering and killing?
why didn't they just kill the fucker years ago then
thats why I'm against the current death penalty. Too many appeals clogging up the system. Not saying that there aren't some innocent ones out there but its the ones that are guilty and just wasting the court & taxpayers time that piss me off. I wish they would just DNA test peoples and end the appeal process for those that are guilty of 1st degree without a shadow of doubt.
No one gave the victim a stay of exectuion
The only problem with the death penalty is that it's not efficient enough?
Charming.
This is EXACTLY how I feel.
Since the Death Penalty was resurrected in 1979 there have been 450,000+ murders in the U.S. Just sit back and think about that number....that is one every 1/2 hour for 26 years. That in itself is the REAL problem. And the murder rate in the U.S. hit it's height in the early 90's with virtually no difference between states that have and do not have the Death Penalty.
There has never been more than 3,563 people on Death Row during that same period. That means that more than 99 out of every hundered MURDERERS never face the death penalty. You see the Death Penalty is only used on the scum of the scum, the very worst of what has become a murderous society.
And during those 26 years only slightly over 1,000 murderers have actually been executed. So the average murderer has a 400:1 shot in his advantage that he will ever get the Death Penalty.....pretty good odds for someone who made the decision themselves to take another human's life.
So for those of you who look at these numbers and say that the Death Penalty obviously doesn't work because of the high murder rate I say, let's make it more of a reality and see if it doesn't become more effective. Let's kill the worst 2%-3% of our murderous scum and see if some folks don't start thinking twice before committing murder.
The statement about it being more expensive to kill them than keep them in prison for life is based on the ridiculously long appeals process. If you have a video of a guy torturing and killing a little girl....KILL HIS ASS NOW!!! There really is no reason that I can think of to keep this guy alive and spend $25K a year to do so. I know people who work their ass off 40 hours a week and don't make $25K.
The problem with our society has become a lack of personal accountability. Even here on SS we have to be responsible with our actions....say something racist, get banned. Commit murder and face the Death Penalty....pretty simple concept. Don't blame society, don't blame parents, don't blame friends or family, don't blame the Goverment. The blame lies in ONE place...the person who committed the murder...plain and simple. And if 3 out of every hundred of these people who destroy our society by committing the ultimate crime gets executed.....I support it 100%.
And if one of these scumbags makes my children , wife or family members one of their victims, I'll do whatever I can to kill him personally and not put the burden on the State.
But there is one sure way to end the Death Penalty forever....DON'T COMMIT MURDER. As that is the ONLY crime that carries this penalty.
Would any of you Anti-Death penalty folks put a bumper sticker on your car that says "Help Support Murderers"?? I doubt it, yet that is the crux of your argument. To me it's as ridiculous as you think my stance is!!
I know, 'humanitarians' like George Bush and Ahhnold Schwarz. The possibility of that alone should convice you that the death penalty is a bad thing.
I don't buy the whole 'come up with the most digusting story possible' to justify killing someone. To me, the death penalty is a soo-phisticated update of gladiator combat or the severed head on a post outside the castle. Society is more mature now but we still like a little legal blood and guts. Except we don't show it on TV...wonder why? Maybe people would realize how fucked up it is.
To me its straight out revenge, and that does not equal justice. Revenge equals revenge.
And not saying there's a bunch of zealots here, but I do think its pretty damn hypocritical that religious fundamentalists would be against the death penalty with 'Thou Shall Not Kill'. We don't believe in killing--unless of course its justified. Then let 'em burn in hell!
As other people have stated, what does the death penalty accomplish? Does it deter violent crime? Oh, that's right, 'closure'. By frying someone. I say lets put it on TV. Lets all have closure, lets really see whats going on here. Lets kill someone and all feel better. Its sick.
Extreme examples are also used to justify torture, etc. The whole 'what if...' scenario. What if it was your mom they did this two, your brother, your wife, etc. Of course I'd be emotional, distraught, probably want them dead or worse. But you can't run a justice system on personal emotion. Or you shouldn't, in my opinion.
Also, the whole system is totally skewered. People with serious cash/lawyers are probably not going to get the death penalty (shee-it, they may not even be guilty!) while broke as hell mofos are going to...hell. Also tilted against minorites, etc. The system is flawed...do you really want to give it the power to take human life?
Have somebody like dubya deciding your fate? Sorry to bring this up again, but the shit is extremely scary. And its reality.
Anyways I respect where anyone comes from with this, just my opinion.
Also, the whole comment about people writing books or doing things in prision, my answer is, why not? If people did something horrible why not let them try to do some positive shit, maybe we can learn from that. No, that doesn't mean they should get parole or some shit. But I think it does prove that its a more complicated issue than people want to believe. Yeah folks do terrible things, but they also have the possibility to change, and do something positive.
why didn't they just kill the fucker years ago then
thats why I'm against the current death penalty. Too many appeals clogging up the system. Not saying that there aren't some innocent ones out there but its the ones that are guilty and just wasting the court & taxpayers time that piss me off. I wish they would just DNA test peoples and end the appeal process for those that are guilty of 1st degree without a shadow of doubt.
No one gave the victim a stay of exectuion
The only problem with the death penalty is that it's not efficient enough?
Charming.
Perhaps, but you've got to admit that it is one very slowwww process. I don't think I'd ever want to have to be behind making a call like that, but why just let people linger for decades? Seems kinda cruel for all involved.
not to take away from this discussion, but arnold got in a motorbike accident? is that why there's this gigantic herpe on his lip? i was like damn get some valtrex son. but now im thinking he got in an accident and all he got was a big ass sore on his raplips. odd.
I think for the majority of people you may as well kill them. Humans are social animals, to do that would drive them insane.
From a social standpoint, what part of killing makes someone deserve the company of others?
I think that he's saying years of solitary confinement would border on cruel and unusual punishment. It's safe to say most people go mad being isolated from human contact for prolonged periods of time.
Maybe in some ways for the victim's families that's better than killing them?
I don't know.
There's been some thought provoking points made that I agree with, but I still think when faced with indisputable evidence of say, someone torturing and murdering a child, they should be killed. And I'm not saying that as any kind of crime deterrent because we all know that doesn't work. I'm saying that you lose your right to live when you do something so horrific, and they will never be able to harm another person again.
Smallchange said society is more mature now, but looking back since the dawn of time we are barbaric by nature. As much as I would like to think we can rise above that, and I believe one day we will, revenge and emotion are inherent in human beings.
I see this as people wanting to make society better by abolishing things like the Death Penalty, but in doing that you let those who ruin it continue to do so.
What is the answer? Lock em' up and throw away the key?
My opinions on this are more or less based in emotion. It genuinely pains and angers me to think of people hurting/killing defenseless people and I want them to pay for it.
In honor of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who would stand against the unjust administration of the death penalty in the United States, I have emerged from my soulstrut hibernation with a lengthy and (I hope) relevant post.
First principles:
1. Everyone in this country who is accused of a crime, whether they committed it or not, should have the same rights. Those rights include, but are not limited to, the right to effective assistance of counsel, the right to be tried by an impartial jury, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent a.k.a. to enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment..
2. Reasonable people can differ on the acceptability of the death penalty as an abstract principle. At base, it is a moral and philosophical question.
I come down firmly against the death penalty on the moral and philosophical side. I think that a society that treats even its most abhorrent offenders with a measure of compassion and a whisker of a hope of redemption, the likes of which is absent from the death penalty, is a better society than one that kills its most abhorrent offenders.
The point where I don't think that reasonable minds can differ is on the fairness of our current system. It is fundamentally unfair. Ask yourself if you were wrongly accused of murder, would you rather be white or black? would you rather be rich or poor? would you rather have a lawyer that you pay or a public defender? would you rather be in California or Alabama? would you rather be in your hometown or a strange town? If you have an affirmative answer to any of these questions (which you should if you know anything about criminal justice in this country), then you must acknowledge that variables unrelated to the crime and the accusation enter into the calculus of punishment, and these variable make it more likely that someone who is black, poor, poorly defended, away from home, in the South and accused of a crime is more likely to confront and receive the death penalty than someone who is white, rich, well defended, at home, and in the north or west. On this basis, support for a moratorium until we resolve these broader rifts in our society is the only principled, defensible position.
Now let's move on to the simple-minded, knee-jerk feelings about the death penalty that unsurprisingly predominate on Soulstrut. First up, Guzzo.
thats why I'm against the current death penalty. Too many appeals clogging up the system. Not saying that there aren't some innocent ones out there but its the ones that are guilty and just wasting the court & taxpayers time that piss me off. I wish they would just DNA test peoples and end the appeal process for those that are guilty of 1st degree without a shadow of doubt.
No one gave the victim a stay of exectuion
This is deeply problematic, and yet another example of the unthinking positions that pass for discourse on this site that have driven me into hibernation. Let's dissect the problems.
Too many appeals clogging up the system.
The appeals that are "clogging up the system" are being made in defense of rights that are routinely disregarded by police officers, prosecuting attorneys, and trial judges across this nation. If you were convicted of a crime (don't act as though you haven't committed one) because the police intimidated, coerced, and possibly beat a false confession out of you that your inattentive attorney failed to suppress, wouldn't you want to "clog up the system" with an appeal?
its the ones that are guilty and just wasting the court & taxpayers time that piss me off
The "ones that are guilty" deserve to have their rights respected as much, if not more, than the ones that are innocent. Our entire edifice of rights depends on the theory that it is better for one guilty man to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. We have enough innocent ones being convicted now to make enforcing the rights for the guilty that much more important. In the words of Kirk Bloodsworth, a man who was wrongly convicted of CHILD RAPE AND MURDER (such convicts tend to receive more brutal treatment in prison-from both the guards and their fellow inmates- than others), "Because this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone, and that means no death penalty ever."
I wish they would just DNA test peoples and end the appeal process for those that are guilty of 1st degree without a shadow of doubt.
Wonderful to know that your conception of "Due Process of Law," is equivalent to "Due Process of DNA." Only a tiny fraction of cases are even amenable to DNA testing, and DNA testing itself is not foolproof. The quality of work being performed in many forensic laboratories across the country, particularly in regions that have a penchant for enforcing the death penalty, is pitiful. The guilty and the innocent alike must enjoy the same rights else the rights of the innocent will be eroded from the point of the accusation.
No one gave the victim a stay of exectuion
Comparing the victim of the crime to someone facing the death penalty is a facile and deeply flawed analogy. Carrying it out, society becomes the murderer and the convict becomes the victim. I don't want or need that person's blood on my hands (but there it is).
Now for the greek chorus that is ready to sing along, and add misleading facts in the process.
Since the Death Penalty was resurrected in 1979 there have been 450,000+ murders in the U.S. Just sit back and think about that number....that is one every 1/2 hour for 26 years. That in itself is the REAL problem. And the murder rate in the U.S. hit it's height in the early 90's with virtually no difference between states that have and do not have the Death Penalty.
Most supporters of the death penalty run like hell from the lack of a difference in the murder rate between jurisdictions with and without the death penalty. It's comforting to know that you embrace one of the fundamental problems with a major criminological underpinning of the death penalty: the myth that it deters others from committing murder. If it was an effective deterrent, then there would be a difference between the murder rate in states with the death penalty and states without the death penalty. Since murder in states like Maine and Massachusetts is not punishable by death, they should have more murders because the murderes are less deterred. They don't. There goes deterrence.
Moreover, the vast majority of murders are not crimes that are amenable to the kind of rational calculus necessary for the death penalty to deter them effectively. They tend to be quick and unplanned crimes committed by folks who have never had much of a chance in society, either because of early childhood abuse, diminished mental capacity, or a host of other factors.
There has never been more than 3,563 people on Death Row during that same period. That means that more than 99 out of every hundered MURDERERS never face the death penalty. You see the Death Penalty is only used on the scum of the scum, the very worst of what has become a murderous society.
And during those 26 years only slightly over 1,000 murderers have actually been executed. So the average murderer has a 400:1 shot in his advantage that he will ever get the Death Penalty.....pretty good odds for someone who made the decision themselves to take another human's life.
Almost all of these "facts" are wrong and/or frightfully misleading.
First, in 2000, the size of Death Row USA was 3,593 people, not 3,563. Thirty may not seem like a lot (less than 1 percent), but I can assure you that it makes
a difference to those thirty who got it.
Second, the premise that the Death Penalty is reserved for "the scum of the scum" is simply and flatly false. Your own unhealthy anecdote about your unfortunate friend and the heinous murderer reveals that "the scum of the scum" do not routinely receive the death penalty. In fact, the race of the victim, the social class of the accused, and the quality of the defense lawyering are three variables that are much more likely to result in a death sentence being sought and imposed than any independent aggravating circumstance of the crime.
Third, the death penalty was actually resurrected in 1976, not 1979 as you said above. The first execution in what is known as "the modern death penalty era" occurred in Utah in 1977, when Gary Gilmore volunteered to face the firing squad (in a Guzzo-pleasing waiver of rights to appeal). Norman Mailer's "The Executioner's Song" is a stirring fictionalization of this execution which I recommend.
Fourth, your number of murders is artificially inflated, as it inevitably includes many murders for which the death penalty was never considered as an option. In most jurisdictions, there are three categories of crimes that are considered murder, only one of which is punishable by death. Limiting the number of murders to "death-eligible murders" would increase the odds of facing the death penalty and being executed substantially.
Fifth, regarding the 1004 people executed since 1978. During this same time frame, 122 people who were sentenced to death were exonerated. If you want to play with ratios, this means that for every ten people who are executed, there is one person who should not have been sentenced to die in the first place. This makes the "appeals clogging the system" seem somewhat more valuable, don't you think?
So for those of you who look at these numbers and say that the Death Penalty obviously doesn't work because of the high murder rate I say, let's make it more of a reality and see if it doesn't become more effective. Let's kill the worst 2%-3% of our murderous scum and see if some folks don't start thinking twice before committing murder.
I'll let you choose the people who will be slaughtered on your fast track to social improvement. Murder is caused by underlying social and economic conditions, and executing those who commit murder or are accused of committing murder does nothing to alter those conditions.
The statement about it being more expensive to kill them than keep them in prison for life is based on the ridiculously long appeals process. If you have a video of a guy torturing and killing a little girl....KILL HIS ASS NOW!!! There really is no reason that I can think of to keep this guy alive and spend $25K a year to do so. I know people who work their ass off 40 hours a week and don't make $25K.
The "Due Process of 'KILL HIS ASS NOW!!!'" is even more charming than the "Due Process of DNA." The innocent and guilty alike enjoy the presumption of innocence, and are entitled to all the same constitutional protections as you and I. The theory that we can take shortcuts to justice because we "know" people are guilty sounds startlingly similar to the President's theory about indefinite detention. I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with the President having unilateral power to detain anyone on the flimsiest of suspicion. Or do you feel more threatened because the fourteen-year old Guantanamo detainee was repatriated to Afghanistan?
The problem with our society has become a lack of personal accountability. Even here on SS we have to be responsible with our actions....say something racist, get banned. Commit murder and face the Death Penalty....pretty simple concept.
Banning from soulstrut is hardly similar to being poisoned to death by the government with chemicals that veterinarians have banned from use on domestic animals. pretty simple concept...pretty stupid analogy.
Don't blame society, don't blame parents, don't blame friends or family, don't blame the Goverment. The blame lies in ONE place...the person who committed the murder...plain and simple. And if 3 out of every hundred of these people who destroy our society by committing the ultimate crime gets executed.....I support it 100%.
You're right. My client, who was sexually abused by his cousin from the age of five to eleven, physically abused by his uncle to within an inch of his life, neglected by his alcoholic mother, and is afflicted with the same psychological disorders that have plagued his family for three generations is ENTIRELY to blame for his failure to succeed in this society. He couldn't possibly have learned that violence was an acceptable form of social conduct, or that he needn't care about the well-being of others, from the tragic circumstances of his upbringing. Nor could his stay at the notoriously racist and torturous Sheridan correctional facility as a 15 year old have had anything to do with his view of society, personhood, and violence.
I shouldn't be facetious because it's obvious that you are passionate about this, but people who commit murder are not born with an abandoned and malignant heart. Violence is a learned behavior, and those who teach violence are at least complicit in the process of creating murderers. I believe that paying attention to the social conditions that breed crime and working to eradicate those conditions is a much more effective way to prevent crime than killing people who have already committed it.
And if one of these scumbags makes my children , wife or family members one of their victims, I'll do whatever I can to kill him personally and not put the burden on the State.
This is why friends and family of the victims of a crime are not eligible to serve on the jury.
But there is one sure way to end the Death Penalty forever....DON'T COMMIT MURDER. As that is the ONLY crime that carries this penalty.
I agree with this. But I don't think that executing people who commit murder will have anything to do with the disappearance of murder from our society. There are conditions that create crime, and it is on those conditions that we should focus. Executing people does nothing to eradicate the social, economic, and psychological problems that led to the commission of the murder we aim to punish.
Would any of you Anti-Death penalty folks put a bumper sticker on your car that says "Help Support Murderers"?? I doubt it, yet that is the crux of your argument. To me it's as ridiculous as you think my stance is!!
Defending people who have been accused of murder is among my professional responsibilities. "Protect Constitutional Rights For the Accused" could also be phrased as "Help Support Murderers." Similarly, "Protect a Woman's Right to Choose" could also be phrased as "Help Support Abortions." Similarly, "Kill his Ass Now!!!" could also be phrased as "I don't believe in constitutional rights for the accused." Rhetorical games are silly.
I think it's possible that a society could determine that certain types of conduct are so egregious that individuals who engage in that conduct forfeit their right to life. On the general point of whether the death penalty is acceptable in society, reasonable minds can differ. I don't think it's possible for our society, with its structural inequality, to administer the death penalty fairly and equally on the basis of criminal conduct alone. Instead, the determinative factors in whether someone gets the death penalty tend to be unrelated to the crime (race of defendant, class of defendant, quality of attorneys available, race of victim, class of victim). This introduces such abhorrent arbitrariness in a judicial system that masquerades under the banner of E
qual Justice Under Law that it's a shame and a disgrace. We all have blood on our hands.
I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.
-Martin Luther King, Jr. April 4, 1967 New York, NY
Just a question. No where in there did I read anything about the people that are guilty. What are your thoughts? I'm not talking about their rights and such. Since I kinda agree with you. I was just curious about your thoughts. Are there guilty people out there? What should be done with them?
Just a question. No where in there did I read anything about the people that are guilty. What are your thoughts? I'm not talking about their rights and such. Since I kinda agree with you. I was just curious about your thoughts. Are there guilty people out there? What should be done with them?
Reasonable people can differ on the acceptability of the death penalty as an abstract principle. At base, it is a moral and philosophical question.
I come down firmly against the death penalty on the moral and philosophical side. I think that a society that treats even its most abhorrent offenders with a measure of compassion and a whisker of a hope of redemption, the likes of which is absent from the death penalty, is a better society than one that kills its most abhorrent offenders.
I have not read the thread, but I've got a pretty clear idea where a lot of strutters stand. The same strutters who want to shoot someone breaking into their house will be the ones calling for the death penalty.
Some question that lead me to oppose the death penality:
Do you want your goverment to decide who lives and who dies? Do you want you goverment to be killing people? Do you belive in forgiveness? Do you belive in vengences?
I don't think these are easy questions. Most of us do want vengence when wronged. Most of us are not about to forgive someone who harms us or our loved ones. Many of us do want our goverment to decide who lives and who dies.
Vengence is a very natural response. Forgiveness is a very difficult concept and a harder emotion to embrace.
In my heart I know that forgiveness is the only hope for the world, and that vengence will always lead to more violence. It is on days like today that we contemplate a true peace maker like MLK that we try to strive for these high ideals.
On Tookie specificaly I have no more compassion than anyone else on death row. I have not read a lot so please correct me if I am wrong. It is my impression that he was one of the founders of Crips. The Crips are directly responsible for 100s (1,000s?) of murders. It seems like even if he did not pull the trigger he is directly responsible for all of them. And what did he do to make amends? Write some childrens books? If he wanted to make amends for those murders he should have worked with the DA and the FBI to dismantle the Crips.
I'm not saying he should have been executed, but he ain't no hero.
To JRoot: Thank you for your (as always) insightful, intelligent, even-tempered at well-thought-out response. You are a sorely-missed asset to this board.
This is deeply problematic, and yet another example of the unthinking positions that pass for discourse on this site that have driven me into hibernation.
Again, you have a point. Still, we could use more posts like yours.
And I wholehearted agree that execution is little more than vengeance played out on a governmental scale, something that saddens me. It is painfully clear that the death penalty does nothing at all to deter crime.
I was talking to a friend years ago and he said, "Do you know how scared I am of prison? You can't even imagine." For him (and for me), that's more than enough of a deterrent from a life of crime. But for many, prison is not that scary--certainly not scarier than their day-to-day lives, it would seem. And the threat of execution at the hands of the government seems to scare them even less.
JRoot, You have obviously thought out your position well and appear to live closely to the topic on a daily basis.
Only a lawyer would say that "Now for the greek chorus that is ready to sing along, and add misleading facts in the process" [/b] and claim that a # of 3,563 instead of 3,593 out of 450,000+ is "frightfully misleading". Actually the 450,000 might have been misleading too as it is more like 480,000.
The fact is that 99.75% of the murderers in this country have NOT been executed and the fact that we spared them has NOT worked as a deterrent to murder.
The scumbag that is being executed tonight ordered 3 murders from prison....that is 3 people that would be alive if we had executed him swiftly.
On a related topic I have always found it odd that many of the Anti-Death Penalty folks are Pro Choice. The only thing more hipocritical to me than a Right Wing Christian who opposes abortion on principle but supports the Death Penalty is an Anti-Death Penalty supporter who has no problem with abortion.
To me, in simple terms this means that neither is opposed to ending a life. One wants to kill a person who has proven he can't be a part of our society by committing murder and the other has no problem ending a totally innocent, potential life that could, if given the chance, be a contributor to our society.
I support the Death Penalty and am Pro Choice.
I agree that the Death Penalty is not a good deterrent in it's current form. What punishment, if only applied to 0.25% of the offenders WOULD be effective?? We need to execute more offenders, quicker and broadcast it on TV.
And your pal Norman Mailer learned his lesson the hard way....his name was Jack Abbott and quite honestly I don't know how Mailer slept at night after helping free a man who once back in society, murdered again.
If keeping 99.75% of murderers in jail is(obviously) not the answer and the Death Penalty isn't the answer....what is??
Death is inevitable.....and my guess is that more prisoners die in prison from "natural causes" than execution....what's humanitarian about that??
"I'll let you choose the people who will be slaughtered on your fast track to social improvement. Murder is caused by underlying social and economic conditions, and executing those who commit murder or are accused of committing murder does nothing to alter those conditions"[/b]
First off no one who is simply "accused" of murder is executed. There are numerous appeals process and years of scrutiny. And there are PLENTY of people who have terrible lives who DON'T turn to murder. Suggesting that murder is "taught" by our society is a cop out and a blow against personal accountability.
If our system is so broken let me ask you this....
"Have YOU ever defended an innocent man who was found guilty and put on Death Row?? And if so, what went wrong with your representation that caused this to happen??
And if not, are you saying that our legal system has a bunch of incompetent lawyers who can not or do not do a good job defending the innocent??
Neither one of us is going to convince the other to change our stance on this, but since what I support is applied 0.25% of the time and what YOU support is applied 99.75% of the time I'd say that YOUR solution is not working.
To JRoot: Thank you for your (as always) insightful, intelligent, even-tempered at well-thought-out response. You are a sorely-missed asset to this board.
This is deeply problematic, and yet another example of the unthinking positions that pass for discourse on this site that have driven me into hibernation.
Again, you have a point. Still, we could use more posts like yours.
And I wholehearted agree that execution is little more than vengeance played out on a governmental scale, something that saddens me. It is painfully clear that the death penalty does nothing at all to deter crime.
I was talking to a friend years ago and he said, "Do you know how scared I am of prison? You can't even imagine." For him (and for me), that's more than enough of a deterrent from a life of crime. But for many, prison is not that scary--certainly not scarier than their day-to-day lives, it would seem. And the threat of execution at the hands of the government seems to scare them even less.
Jroot, I appreciate what you had to say and thank you for taking the time to write it.
While I agree with basically everything you said, and consider those to be completely valid reasons for ending the death penalty, I find it extremely hard to seperate my own emotions from the equation. Especially when it concerns the abuse and murder of helpless people.
While I believe the state is incappable of administering this punishment with any kind of purity, something more than going to prison needs to be done for people who commit certain crimes.
Btw, I am not some Charles Bronson type dude. I do not own a gun and I'm not down with violence (does Pride Fighting count?), I just have no mercy for those who prey on the weak and defenseless.
On a related topic I have always found it odd that many of the Anti-Death Penalty folks are Pro Choice. The only thing more hipocritical to me than a Right Wing Christian who opposes abortion on principle but supports the Death Penalty is an Anti-Death Penalty supporter who has no problem with abortion.
If you belive that the goverment should not be involved in deciding who lives and who dies this is a consistant position.
I don't doubt that there are people who deserve to die. I do doubt that our goverment is competent to make those choices. Look at who are making that decision, George Bush, Arnold Schwartznegger and Clarence Thomas.
Likewise I do not want those people deciding who may and may not get an abortion.
We could cut off the hands of thieves and execute murderers swiftly on live TV (The ultimate reality show) and perhaps reduce the crime rate. Or you could move to Saudia Arabia where they already live like that. Personally I will choose to live in a free and just free socitey than in the opressive crime free country you envision.
On a related topic I have always found it odd that many of the Anti-Death Penalty folks are Pro Choice. The only thing more hipocritical to me than a Right Wing Christian who opposes abortion on principle but supports the Death Penalty is an Anti-Death Penalty supporter who has no problem with abortion.
If you belive that the goverment should not be involved in deciding who lives and who dies this is a consistant position.
I don't doubt that there are people who deserve to die. I do doubt that our goverment is competent to make those choices. Look at who are making that decision, George Bush, Arnold Schwartznegger and Clarence Thomas.
Likewise I do not want those people deciding who may and may not get an abortion.
We could cut off the hands of thieves and execute murderers swiftly on live TV (The ultimate reality show) and perhaps reduce the crime rate. Or you could move to Saudia Arabia where they already live like that. Personally I will choose to live in a free and just free socitey than in the opressive crime free country you envision.
Dan
If you lived in a society where the Government killed 450,000 of it's citizens in 26 years you wouldn't consider that "free" but if a country's own citizens kill 450,000 of it's fellow citizens it IS considered "free"......sorry......not in my book.
It's the same old thing over and over. I agree with LaserDudes post but the opposing side will bring up examples of sick fucks that deserve to die. That says nothing of the governments competency to decide who lives and who dies. I'm waiting for someone to say it's worth killing a few innocents as long as most of the sick fucks get theirs. Come on, say it. lol
i am happy to read so many points of view. most of the friends i see in the real world share similar opinions, so it is only through discussions like these that i am able to see other points of view. jroot thanks for taking the time you did to write your response. like r.hogg said we could use more posts like the ones you???ve made today.
i am against the death penalty. i believe that every sentient being should have equal rights.. i am a vegetarian because i do not believe we should be killing animals either. i???m sure this will get much opposition, but taking a life is taking a life. none of it is necessary and all of it leads our world down the path of aggression and violence.
as for those who offer they would kill those who harm their family. where does the cycle end? are you the next one on death row? is it then fine for that persons brother to come after you? this is not an attack, i???m just raising the question. maybe you already have considered this. to be honest i don???t know how i myself would react. i don???t think i would be able to kill another person. i could yell at them, hit them, throw up on them because they would make me sick to my stomach as some violence does. anger has gotten the better of me, and i have done things i am not proud of both as an instigator and as revenge.
i have only read this one page article on the case so it is obvious i do not know all of the facts. but taking the article on face value i found this to be a particularly good moral question. in discussions with others it is often easy to get stuck in the same rhetoric. meaning when you don???t know what to say fall back on what you have already said. i am against the death penalty. but looking at this case, this man was given the chance i would have offered had i been told that one person killed another; life in prison. but now from there he was able to kill again. is there another punishment? is it punishment to add another life sentence onto this one? what if this time he decides to kill the judge or jury on the next case? how do you stop a killer who has nothing left to lose?
thanks to everyone for taking the time to respond and help me with this question.
i have only read this one page article on the case so it is obvious i do not know all of the facts. but taking the article on face value i found this to be a particularly good moral question. in discussions with others it is often easy to get stuck in the same rhetoric. meaning when you don???t know what to say fall back on what you have already said. i am against the death penalty. but looking at this case, this man was given the chance i would have offered had i been told that one person killed another; life in prison. but now from there he was able to kill again. is there another punishment? is it punishment to add another life sentence onto this one? what if this time he decides to kill the judge or jury on the next case? how do you stop a killer who has nothing left to lose?
thanks to everyone for taking the time to respond and help me with this question.
On a related note, he was in his 50's when he ordered the hit on 8 people (the guy he paid to do the killings shot one on the list and 2 innocent teenagers. He was apprehended before finishing the hitlist the police found on him).
He had a very sucessful security business, owned 2 planes, horses etc, then for some reason in his 40's decided to turn to a life of crime.
That, I think, is a very pertinent aspect to this case.
On a related note, he was in his 50's when he ordered the hit on 8 people (the guy he paid to do the killings shot one on the list and 2 innocent teenagers. He was apprehended before finishing the hitlist the police found on him). He had a very sucessful security business, owned 2 planes, horses etc, then for some reason in his 40's decided to turn to a life of crime. That, I think, is a very pertinent aspect to this case.
Perhaps this is an indicator of some sort of mental illness or breakdown??? How do supporters the death penalty feel about those on death row with obvious mental impairment/disability???
On a related note, he was in his 50's when he ordered the hit on 8 people (the guy he paid to do the killings shot one on the list and 2 innocent teenagers. He was apprehended before finishing the hitlist the police found on him). He had a very sucessful security business, owned 2 planes, horses etc, then for some reason in his 40's decided to turn to a life of crime. That, I think, is a very pertinent aspect to this case.
Perhaps this is an indicator of some sort of mental illness or breakdown??? How do supporters the death penalty feel about those on death row with obvious mental impairment/disability???
I feel that cases of murderers with questionable mental capacity be put waaaay on the back burner.....there are enough cold hearted, evil murderers whom everyone would agree are guilty to keep us busy for years.
Comments
The only problem with the death penalty is that it's not efficient enough?
Charming.
I agree--those are not arguments against the death penalty at all; they are simply arguments as to why it shouldn't be applied to certain individuals.
Maybe we put the teachers of the little girl who was getting raped in jail. Maybe we throw her friends that never invited themselves over for dinner in jail. Maybe we lock up the clerk at the porn shop who didn't take the time to have a conversation with the dude trying to buy kiddie porn and see if he might be harmful. Maybe we lock up the social workers or doctors who were not paying close enough attention. Maybe we lock up the parol board for letting some freak out early. Maybe we lock up all high school jocks for not inviting nerds to their parties. Maybe we lock up all nerds for not inviting jocks to their parties.
The death penalty is a lazy fucking copout that gives the impression of solving a problem.
Opinions do change over time and I might be young, but do you savages and murderers around us really think killing anyone can solve a problem? A problem that the world has been having since the beginning of time? Has the death penalty been proven to be a successful deterant and America the only civilized country to endorse detering dreadful crimes?
I am not for Murder anywhere, anytime.
What Would Josh Do?
The use of the death penalty is more costly to tax-payers than life imprisonment.
Use of the death penalty does not deter crime - show me some evidence that it does, belivers?
A dozen or so states do not have the death penalty. There is no absolute right or wrong in applying the death penalty - a judge is supposed to uphold the law - the law varies by the state. The same twisted murder will get you killed in Texas and spared in Mass. So where is the black and whiteness of this issue? This is a case-by-case, state-by-state issue, and that is a major flaw.
I'll never support this - I'd vote for solitary confinement, life w/o parole, large communal cells w/ "death row" inmates, and a whole list of other punishments, restrictions, etc before death. The death penalty reduces the legal process to a selfish, terminal act.
Maybe, it's because I'm European, but anyways, the death penalty is inapprehensible. Killing is a base motive. Why does America kill people? It's not like you can kill someone for killing someone. That would be revenge. Who's gonna kill the court and its judges? It would be justified in your jurisdiction, wouldn't it? America is a killer?!
It's a also written in the Ten Commandments: "You shall not murder". Or do you make a distinction between murdering and killing?
This is EXACTLY how I feel.
Since the Death Penalty was resurrected in 1979 there have been 450,000+ murders in the U.S. Just sit back and think about that number....that is one every 1/2 hour for 26 years. That in itself is the REAL problem. And the murder rate in the U.S. hit it's height in the early 90's with virtually no difference between states that have and do not have the Death Penalty.
There has never been more than 3,563 people on Death Row during that same period. That means that more than 99 out of every hundered MURDERERS never face the death penalty. You see the Death Penalty is only used on the scum of the scum, the very worst of what has become a murderous society.
And during those 26 years only slightly over 1,000 murderers have actually been executed. So the average murderer has a 400:1 shot in his advantage that he will ever get the Death Penalty.....pretty good odds for someone who made the decision themselves to take another human's life.
So for those of you who look at these numbers and say that the Death Penalty obviously doesn't work because of the high murder rate I say, let's make it more of a reality and see if it doesn't become more effective. Let's kill the worst 2%-3% of our murderous scum and see if some folks don't start thinking twice before committing murder.
The statement about it being more expensive to kill them than keep them in prison for life is based on the ridiculously long appeals process. If you have a video of a guy torturing and killing a little girl....KILL HIS ASS NOW!!! There really is no reason that I can think of to keep this guy alive and spend $25K a year to do so. I know people who work their ass off 40 hours a week and don't make $25K.
The problem with our society has become a lack of personal accountability. Even here on SS we have to be responsible with our actions....say something racist, get banned. Commit murder and face the Death Penalty....pretty simple concept. Don't blame society, don't blame parents, don't blame friends or family, don't blame the Goverment. The blame lies in ONE place...the person who committed the murder...plain and simple. And if 3 out of every hundred of these people who destroy our society by committing the ultimate crime gets executed.....I support it 100%.
And if one of these scumbags makes my children , wife or family members one of their victims, I'll do whatever I can to kill him personally and not put the burden on the State.
But there is one sure way to end the Death Penalty forever....DON'T COMMIT MURDER. As that is the ONLY crime that carries this penalty.
Would any of you Anti-Death penalty folks put a bumper sticker on your car that says "Help Support Murderers"?? I doubt it, yet that is the crux of your argument. To me it's as ridiculous as you think my stance is!!
I know, 'humanitarians' like George Bush and Ahhnold Schwarz. The possibility of that alone should convice you that the death penalty is a bad thing.
I don't buy the whole 'come up with the most digusting story possible' to justify killing someone. To me, the death penalty is a soo-phisticated update of gladiator combat or the severed head on a post outside the castle. Society is more mature now but we still like a little legal blood and guts. Except we don't show it on TV...wonder why? Maybe people would realize how fucked up it is.
To me its straight out revenge, and that does not equal justice. Revenge equals revenge.
And not saying there's a bunch of zealots here, but I do think its pretty damn hypocritical that religious fundamentalists would be against the death penalty with 'Thou Shall Not Kill'. We don't believe in killing--unless of course its justified. Then let 'em burn in hell!
As other people have stated, what does the death penalty accomplish? Does it deter violent crime? Oh, that's right, 'closure'. By frying someone. I say lets put it on TV. Lets all have closure, lets really see whats going on here. Lets kill someone and all feel better. Its sick.
Extreme examples are also used to justify torture, etc. The whole 'what if...' scenario. What if it was your mom they did this two, your brother, your wife, etc. Of course I'd be emotional, distraught, probably want them dead or worse. But you can't run a justice system on personal emotion. Or you shouldn't, in my opinion.
Also, the whole system is totally skewered. People with serious cash/lawyers are probably not going to get the death penalty (shee-it, they may not even be guilty!) while broke as hell mofos are going to...hell. Also tilted against minorites, etc. The system is flawed...do you really want to give it the power to take human life?
Have somebody like dubya deciding your fate? Sorry to bring this up again, but the shit is extremely scary. And its reality.
Anyways I respect where anyone comes from with this, just my opinion.
Also, the whole comment about people writing books or doing things in prision, my answer is, why not? If people did something horrible why not let them try to do some positive shit, maybe we can learn from that. No, that doesn't mean they should get parole or some shit. But I think it does prove that its a more complicated issue than people want to believe. Yeah folks do terrible things, but they also have the possibility to change, and do something positive.
$??
Perhaps, but you've got to admit that it is one very slowwww process. I don't think I'd ever want to have to be behind making a call like that, but why just let people linger for decades? Seems kinda cruel for all involved.
From a social standpoint, what part of killing makes someone deserve the company of others?
I think that he's saying years of solitary confinement would border on cruel and unusual punishment. It's safe to say most people go mad being isolated from human contact for prolonged periods of time.
Maybe in some ways for the victim's families that's better than killing them?
I don't know.
There's been some thought provoking points made that I agree with, but I still think when faced with indisputable evidence of say, someone torturing and murdering a child, they should be killed. And I'm not saying that as any kind of crime deterrent because we all know that doesn't work. I'm saying that you lose your right to live when you do something so horrific, and they will never be able to harm another person again.
Smallchange said society is more mature now, but looking back since the dawn of time we are barbaric by nature. As much as I would like to think we can rise above that, and I believe one day we will, revenge and emotion are inherent in human beings.
I see this as people wanting to make society better by abolishing things like the Death Penalty, but in doing that you let those who ruin it continue to do so.
What is the answer? Lock em' up and throw away the key?
My opinions on this are more or less based in emotion. It genuinely pains and angers me to think of people hurting/killing defenseless people and I want them to pay for it.
Terrible, I know, but it's the truth.
First principles:
1. Everyone in this country who is accused of a crime, whether they committed it or not, should have the same rights. Those rights include, but are not limited to, the right to effective assistance of counsel, the right to be tried by an impartial jury, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent a.k.a. to enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment..
2. Reasonable people can differ on the acceptability of the death penalty as an abstract principle. At base, it is a moral and philosophical question.
I come down firmly against the death penalty on the moral and philosophical side. I think that a society that treats even its most abhorrent offenders with a measure of compassion and a whisker of a hope of redemption, the likes of which is absent from the death penalty, is a better society than one that kills its most abhorrent offenders.
The point where I don't think that reasonable minds can differ is on the fairness of our current system. It is fundamentally unfair. Ask yourself if you were wrongly accused of murder, would you rather be white or black? would you rather be rich or poor? would you rather have a lawyer that you pay or a public defender? would you rather be in California or Alabama? would you rather be in your hometown or a strange town? If you have an affirmative answer to any of these questions (which you should if you know anything about criminal justice in this country), then you must acknowledge that variables unrelated to the crime and the accusation enter into the calculus of punishment, and these variable make it more likely that someone who is black, poor, poorly defended, away from home, in the South and accused of a crime is more likely to confront and receive the death penalty than someone who is white, rich, well defended, at home, and in the north or west. On this basis, support for a moratorium until we resolve these broader rifts in our society is the only principled, defensible position.
Now let's move on to the simple-minded, knee-jerk feelings about the death penalty that unsurprisingly predominate on Soulstrut. First up, Guzzo.
This is deeply problematic, and yet another example of the unthinking positions that pass for discourse on this site that have driven me into hibernation. Let's dissect the problems.
The appeals that are "clogging up the system" are being made in defense of rights that are routinely disregarded by police officers, prosecuting attorneys, and trial judges across this nation. If you were convicted of a crime (don't act as though you haven't committed one) because the police intimidated, coerced, and possibly beat a false confession out of you that your inattentive attorney failed to suppress, wouldn't you want to "clog up the system" with an appeal?
The "ones that are guilty" deserve to have their rights respected as much, if not more, than the ones that are innocent. Our entire edifice of rights depends on the theory that it is better for one guilty man to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. We have enough innocent ones being convicted now to make enforcing the rights for the guilty that much more important. In the words of Kirk Bloodsworth, a man who was wrongly convicted of CHILD RAPE AND MURDER (such convicts tend to receive more brutal treatment in prison-from both the guards and their fellow inmates- than others), "Because this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone, and that means no death penalty ever."
Wonderful to know that your conception of "Due Process of Law," is equivalent to "Due Process of DNA." Only a tiny fraction of cases are even amenable to DNA testing, and DNA testing itself is not foolproof. The quality of work being performed in many forensic laboratories across the country, particularly in regions that have a penchant for enforcing the death penalty, is pitiful. The guilty and the innocent alike must enjoy the same rights else the rights of the innocent will be eroded from the point of the accusation.
Comparing the victim of the crime to someone facing the death penalty is a facile and deeply flawed analogy. Carrying it out, society becomes the murderer and the convict becomes the victim. I don't want or need that person's blood on my hands (but there it is).
Now for the greek chorus that is ready to sing along, and add misleading facts in the process.
Most supporters of the death penalty run like hell from the lack of a difference in the murder rate between jurisdictions with and without the death penalty. It's comforting to know that you embrace one of the fundamental problems with a major criminological underpinning of the death penalty: the myth that it deters others from committing murder. If it was an effective deterrent, then there would be a difference between the murder rate in states with the death penalty and states without the death penalty. Since murder in states like Maine and Massachusetts is not punishable by death, they should have more murders because the murderes are less deterred. They don't. There goes deterrence.
Moreover, the vast majority of murders are not crimes that are amenable to the kind of rational calculus necessary for the death penalty to deter them effectively. They tend to be quick and unplanned crimes committed by folks who have never had much of a chance in society, either because of early childhood abuse, diminished mental capacity, or a host of other factors.
Almost all of these "facts" are wrong and/or frightfully misleading.
First, in 2000, the size of Death Row USA was 3,593 people, not 3,563. Thirty may not seem like a lot (less than 1 percent), but I can assure you that it makes a difference to those thirty who got it.
Second, the premise that the Death Penalty is reserved for "the scum of the scum" is simply and flatly false. Your own unhealthy anecdote about your unfortunate friend and the heinous murderer reveals that "the scum of the scum" do not routinely receive the death penalty. In fact, the race of the victim, the social class of the accused, and the quality of the defense lawyering are three variables that are much more likely to result in a death sentence being sought and imposed than any independent aggravating circumstance of the crime.
Third, the death penalty was actually resurrected in 1976, not 1979 as you said above. The first execution in what is known as "the modern death penalty era" occurred in Utah in 1977, when Gary Gilmore volunteered to face the firing squad (in a Guzzo-pleasing waiver of rights to appeal). Norman Mailer's "The Executioner's Song" is a stirring fictionalization of this execution which I recommend.
Fourth, your number of murders is artificially inflated, as it inevitably includes many murders for which the death penalty was never considered as an option. In most jurisdictions, there are three categories of crimes that are considered murder, only one of which is punishable by death. Limiting the number of murders to "death-eligible murders" would increase the odds of facing the death penalty and being executed substantially.
Fifth, regarding the 1004 people executed since 1978. During this same time frame, 122 people who were sentenced to death were exonerated. If you want to play with ratios, this means that for every ten people who are executed, there is one person who should not have been sentenced to die in the first place. This makes the "appeals clogging the system" seem somewhat more valuable, don't you think?
I'll let you choose the people who will be slaughtered on your fast track to social improvement. Murder is caused by underlying social and economic conditions, and executing those who commit murder or are accused of committing murder does nothing to alter those conditions.
The "Due Process of 'KILL HIS ASS NOW!!!'" is even more charming than the "Due Process of DNA." The innocent and guilty alike enjoy the presumption of innocence, and are entitled to all the same constitutional protections as you and I. The theory that we can take shortcuts to justice because we "know" people are guilty sounds startlingly similar to the President's theory about indefinite detention. I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with the President having unilateral power to detain anyone on the flimsiest of suspicion. Or do you feel more threatened because the fourteen-year old Guantanamo detainee was repatriated to Afghanistan?
Banning from soulstrut is hardly similar to being poisoned to death by the government with chemicals that veterinarians have banned from use on domestic animals. pretty simple concept...pretty stupid analogy.
You're right. My client, who was sexually abused by his cousin from the age of five to eleven, physically abused by his uncle to within an inch of his life, neglected by his alcoholic mother, and is afflicted with the same psychological disorders that have plagued his family for three generations is ENTIRELY to blame for his failure to succeed in this society. He couldn't possibly have learned that violence was an acceptable form of social conduct, or that he needn't care about the well-being of others, from the tragic circumstances of his upbringing. Nor could his stay at the notoriously racist and torturous Sheridan correctional facility as a 15 year old have had anything to do with his view of society, personhood, and violence.
I shouldn't be facetious because it's obvious that you are passionate about this, but people who commit murder are not born with an abandoned and malignant heart. Violence is a learned behavior, and those who teach violence are at least complicit in the process of creating murderers. I believe that paying attention to the social conditions that breed crime and working to eradicate those conditions is a much more effective way to prevent crime than killing people who have already committed it.
This is why friends and family of the victims of a crime are not eligible to serve on the jury.
I agree with this. But I don't think that executing people who commit murder will have anything to do with the disappearance of murder from our society. There are conditions that create crime, and it is on those conditions that we should focus. Executing people does nothing to eradicate the social, economic, and psychological problems that led to the commission of the murder we aim to punish.
Defending people who have been accused of murder is among my professional responsibilities. "Protect Constitutional Rights For the Accused" could also be phrased as "Help Support Murderers." Similarly, "Protect a Woman's Right to Choose" could also be phrased as "Help Support Abortions." Similarly, "Kill his Ass Now!!!" could also be phrased as "I don't believe in constitutional rights for the accused." Rhetorical games are silly.
I think it's possible that a society could determine that certain types of conduct are so egregious that individuals who engage in that conduct forfeit their right to life. On the general point of whether the death penalty is acceptable in society, reasonable minds can differ. I don't think it's possible for our society, with its structural inequality, to administer the death penalty fairly and equally on the basis of criminal conduct alone. Instead, the determinative factors in whether someone gets the death penalty tend to be unrelated to the crime (race of defendant, class of defendant, quality of attorneys available, race of victim, class of victim). This introduces such abhorrent arbitrariness in a judicial system that masquerades under the banner of E qual Justice Under Law that it's a shame and a disgrace. We all have blood on our hands.
I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
April 4, 1967
New York, NY
Speak truth to power,
JRoot
Just a question. No where in there did I read anything about the people that are guilty. What are your thoughts? I'm not talking about their rights and such. Since I kinda agree with you. I was just curious about your thoughts. Are there guilty people out there? What should be done with them?
My view in a nutshell:
Guilty people should be punished. They should not be killed.
Thx faux_rillz
And Thank You Root
I have not read the thread, but I've got a pretty clear idea where a lot of strutters stand. The same strutters who want to shoot someone breaking into their house will be the ones calling for the death penalty.
Some question that lead me to oppose the death penality:
Do you want your goverment to decide who lives and who dies?
Do you want you goverment to be killing people?
Do you belive in forgiveness?
Do you belive in vengences?
I don't think these are easy questions. Most of us do want vengence when wronged. Most of us are not about to forgive someone who harms us or our loved ones. Many of us do want our goverment to decide who lives and who dies.
Vengence is a very natural response. Forgiveness is a very difficult concept and a harder emotion to embrace.
In my heart I know that forgiveness is the only hope for the world, and that vengence will always lead to more violence. It is on days like today that we contemplate a true peace maker like MLK that we try to strive for these high ideals.
On Tookie specificaly I have no more compassion than anyone else on death row. I have not read a lot so please correct me if I am wrong. It is my impression that he was one of the founders of Crips. The Crips are directly responsible for 100s (1,000s?) of murders. It seems like even if he did not pull the trigger he is directly responsible for all of them. And what did he do to make amends? Write some childrens books? If he wanted to make amends for those murders he should have worked with the DA and the FBI to dismantle the Crips.
I'm not saying he should have been executed, but he ain't no hero.
Dan
Again, you have a point. Still, we could use more posts like yours.
And I wholehearted agree that execution is little more than vengeance played out on a governmental scale, something that saddens me. It is painfully clear that the death penalty does nothing at all to deter crime.
I was talking to a friend years ago and he said, "Do you know how scared I am of prison? You can't even imagine." For him (and for me), that's more than enough of a deterrent from a life of crime. But for many, prison is not that scary--certainly not scarier than their day-to-day lives, it would seem. And the threat of execution at the hands of the government seems to scare them even less.
You have obviously thought out your position well and appear to live closely to the topic on a daily basis.
Only a lawyer would say that "Now for the greek chorus that is ready to sing along, and add misleading facts in the process" [/b] and claim that a # of 3,563 instead of 3,593 out of 450,000+ is "frightfully misleading". Actually the 450,000 might have been misleading too as it is more like 480,000.
The fact is that 99.75% of the murderers in this country have NOT been executed and the fact that we spared them has NOT worked as a deterrent to murder.
The scumbag that is being executed tonight ordered 3 murders from prison....that is 3 people that would be alive if we had executed him swiftly.
On a related topic I have always found it odd that many of the Anti-Death Penalty folks are Pro Choice. The only thing more hipocritical to me than a Right Wing Christian who opposes abortion on principle but supports the Death Penalty is an Anti-Death Penalty supporter who has no problem with abortion.
To me, in simple terms this means that neither is opposed to ending a life. One wants to kill a person who has proven he can't be a part of our society by committing murder and the other has no problem ending a totally innocent, potential life that could, if given the chance, be a contributor to our society.
I support the Death Penalty and am Pro Choice.
I agree that the Death Penalty is not a good deterrent in it's current form. What punishment, if only applied to 0.25% of the offenders WOULD be effective?? We need to execute more offenders, quicker and broadcast it on TV.
And your pal Norman Mailer learned his lesson the hard way....his name was Jack Abbott and quite honestly I don't know how Mailer slept at night after helping free a man who once back in society, murdered again.
If keeping 99.75% of murderers in jail is(obviously) not the answer and the Death Penalty isn't the answer....what is??
Death is inevitable.....and my guess is that more prisoners die in prison from "natural causes" than execution....what's humanitarian about that??
"I'll let you choose the people who will be slaughtered on your fast track to social improvement. Murder is caused by underlying social and economic conditions, and executing those who commit murder or are accused of committing murder does nothing to alter those conditions"[/b]
First off no one who is simply "accused" of murder is executed. There are numerous appeals process and years of scrutiny. And there are PLENTY of people who have terrible lives who DON'T turn to murder. Suggesting that murder is "taught" by our society is a cop out and a blow against personal accountability.
If our system is so broken let me ask you this....
"Have YOU ever defended an innocent man who was found guilty and put on Death Row?? And if so, what went wrong with your representation that caused this to happen??
And if not, are you saying that our legal system has a bunch of incompetent lawyers who can not or do not do a good job defending the innocent??
Neither one of us is going to convince the other to change our stance on this, but since what I support is applied 0.25% of the time and what YOU support is applied 99.75% of the time I'd say that YOUR solution is not working.
Jroot, I appreciate what you had to say and thank you for taking the time to write it.
While I agree with basically everything you said, and consider those to be completely valid reasons for ending the death penalty, I find it extremely hard to seperate my own emotions from the equation. Especially when it concerns the abuse and murder of helpless people.
While I believe the state is incappable of administering this punishment with any kind of purity, something more than going to prison needs to be done for people who commit certain crimes.
Btw, I am not some Charles Bronson type dude. I do not own a gun and I'm not down with violence (does Pride Fighting count?), I just have no mercy for those who prey on the weak and defenseless.
I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
If you belive that the goverment should not be involved in deciding who lives and who dies this is a consistant position.
I don't doubt that there are people who deserve to die. I do doubt that our goverment is competent to make those choices. Look at who are making that decision, George Bush, Arnold Schwartznegger and Clarence Thomas.
Likewise I do not want those people deciding who may and may not get an abortion.
We could cut off the hands of thieves and execute murderers swiftly on live TV (The ultimate reality show) and perhaps reduce the crime rate. Or you could move to Saudia Arabia where they already live like that. Personally I will choose to live in a free and just free socitey than in the opressive crime free country you envision.
Dan
Or could equally turn out to be another criminal...
If you lived in a society where the Government killed 450,000 of it's citizens in 26 years you wouldn't consider that "free" but if a country's own citizens kill 450,000 of it's fellow citizens it IS considered "free"......sorry......not in my book.
i am against the death penalty. i believe that every sentient being should have equal rights.. i am a vegetarian because i do not believe we should be killing animals either. i???m sure this will get much opposition, but taking a life is taking a life. none of it is necessary and all of it leads our world down the path of aggression and violence.
as for those who offer they would kill those who harm their family. where does the cycle end? are you the next one on death row? is it then fine for that persons brother to come after you? this is not an attack, i???m just raising the question. maybe you already have considered this. to be honest i don???t know how i myself would react. i don???t think i would be able to kill another person. i could yell at them, hit them, throw up on them because they would make me sick to my stomach as some violence does. anger has gotten the better of me, and i have done things i am not proud of both as an instigator and as revenge.
i have only read this one page article on the case so it is obvious i do not know all of the facts. but taking the article on face value i found this to be a particularly good moral question. in discussions with others it is often easy to get stuck in the same rhetoric. meaning when you don???t know what to say fall back on what you have already said. i am against the death penalty. but looking at this case, this man was given the chance i would have offered had i been told that one person killed another; life in prison. but now from there he was able to kill again. is there another punishment? is it punishment to add another life sentence onto this one? what if this time he decides to kill the judge or jury on the next case? how do you stop a killer who has nothing left to lose?
thanks to everyone for taking the time to respond and help me with this question.
On a related note, he was in his 50's when he ordered the hit on 8 people (the guy he paid to do the killings shot one on the list and 2 innocent teenagers. He was apprehended before finishing the hitlist the police found on him).
He had a very sucessful security business, owned 2 planes, horses etc, then for some reason in his 40's decided to turn to a life of crime.
That, I think, is a very pertinent aspect to this case.
Perhaps this is an indicator of some sort of mental illness or breakdown???
How do supporters the death penalty feel about those on death row with obvious mental impairment/disability???
I feel that cases of murderers with questionable mental capacity be put waaaay on the back burner.....there are enough cold hearted, evil murderers whom everyone would agree are guilty to keep us busy for years.