Death Penalty ????

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Hi all. Hawk brought up some food for thought on another thread so now my curiousty is at its peak.

How do you feel about the death penalty?

Should WE allow people to sit on death row apeal after apeal, while we pay for this?

How many appeals should one get?

I am not so much interested in 'what it is now' as to how YOU feel it should be, but feel free to enlighten me.

Thanks,

Consumer

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 07, 2000

Answers

Are you questioning the death penalty itself or its swift execution?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 07, 2000.

Considering how many people on "death row" have been cleared recently, I think it's clear that before we decide on the morality of the death penalty, we must first find a way to ensure that it is accurate. The state should ensure that someone is guilty first before deciding whether or not that person will die.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 07, 2000.

Several months ago I started a thread on this topic. I cannot remember if it was on this board or the original, but I believe the leading question was "How many innocents given the death penalty is too many" or something to that effect. I cannot find it now.

I am with Tarzan-justice is green in this country-you can buy yourself an acquittal(hey there, OJ)-I have read too many cases where innocent men were let go-some of them by a college class-I believe in Wisconsin or Michigan-If we kill ONE innocent person the state is a murderer.

I know this is not the popular view on this board, BUT I do not condone the ritualized murder of anybody-Even if the murderer killed my own.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 07, 2000.


What if the murderer killed 33 sons (John Wayne Gacy) or 25 daughters (Ted Bundy)? If you believe in justice then these men should be executed as soon as they are convicted.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 08, 2000.

I'll have to say that in cases as such that Lars mentioned the penalty should be death,swift and certain,a bullet or public hanging,killer take your pick.They have the stench of a waste of human skin.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 08, 2000.


Or what about that guy in the Pacific Northwest (name escapes me at present) that (Barry Singleton I think) cut off some girl's arms and left her in a ditch to die? I'd tend to believe her testimony if she said she knew who did it!

Death and quickly would ASSURE the state the killer will have no more victims. Remember, if the killer becomes infected with HIV in prison, he STILL can continue killing, and likely won't be punished for it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 08, 2000.


FS,

Just reread your post, you said,

I know this is not the popular view on this board, BUT I do not condone the ritualized murder of anybody-Even if the murderer killed my own.

Drawing a parallel to legalized abortion in this country (which kills LOTS of innocents every year) wouldn't you agree then that the victim's family should have the right to choose death for the convicted killer if they wanted to, rather than saying the state must allow all killers to live?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 08, 2000.


To all:

This is one of those issues that could lead to major flames, and an issue on which no one is going to change their mind. With this in mind, I am going to say early in this thread that I agree to disagree with you'all. I think some subjects are just not "debateable". We could go around and around, point-counterpoint, but when it comes down to it, this is a very very personal issue for all.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 08, 2000.


FS: Are you trying to censore me? (*wink)

I think ANY thread can lead to flaming. Personally, I believe that what Hawk said and Capn fun (not because hes 'fun')

If someone took my childs life, I know I would want to see justice swiftly.

It burns me up to know that some are on death row (gacy) on my tax money, having had killed many and then get paid for artwork, etc.

I feel they should get two appeals. IMHO, I know the chance of that happening are slim to none, but Swift justice For ALL.

It eliminates the red tape.

Look at foreign countries, when they dole out punishment, it is swift and quick, no playing around.

Remember When: America had the public Outcry against the 'flogging' of a college student?

We as a nation say, Justice for All, then most times are forever about enforcing it.

BTW, if you read the original post, I just wanted to know, didnt intend to start flames, and i dont see any.

I simply asked for opinions, is all.

Now you know how I feel, next....

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 08, 2000.


I can see you folks like to address meaty issues!

My take is this: I subscribe to the "reap what you sow" school of thought combined with the theory of karma/reincarnation. Therefore, the killer will pay for his/her crimes sooner or later.

As to what to do with the killer, well, I just don't know. Let's just say death by government is not an attractive choice in my book.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 08, 2000.



FS, I disagree with you that "no one is going to change thier minds." I have, on the death penalty. At least, I've changed my mind so as to look into it a lot more. I am no longer sure the death penalty is a good idea.

Last night, on "The Practice", the episode was about a death row case which had been appealed for 12 years, until one defendant attorney who took the case 5 weeks before the execution, found out about inmates who easily got information via the prison's phone from the DA's office and "sold" such info to help convict some innocent guys.

That particular death row case got a break when the defense were finally successful in obtaining DNA from a piece of clothing the victim had worn the night of the murder, and the family had burried with the victim. They had to fight to get the coffin exhumed. Turned out the DNA semen sample did not match the accused. Anyhow, the whole story made me think and reconsider. The 12 years of appeals cost tax payers around a million. Is an innocent man's life worth a million? I say it is. Could be a loved one's or myself accused wrongly. Could spending millions on appeals be saved if the death penalty was abolished? I don't know, how many appeals are allowed for life sentences?

"What if the murderer killed 33 sons (John Wayne Gacy) or 25 daughters (Ted Bundy)? If you believe in justice then these men should be executed as soon as they are convicted."

Personally, I think that death is too compassionate a sentence for such monsters. Such murderers should be forced to give something productive back to society in some way. Forced labor which gives something tangible back to society, and life in isolation with maximum security/confinement? Just throwing an idea. I don't pretend to have any good answer to this dilemma, but I do think (anymore)that the death penalty is not something one should advocate without really pondering and learning about the consequences.

-- (y@x.x), May 08, 2000.


I live in Texas, and we have the death penalty here. We heard the verdict on the news last night about a man who had killed his wife in front of their 3 children. He got 60 years instead of the death penalty. In 30 years, he's eligible for parole. The jury couldn't decide whether this was a crime of passion or pre-meditated. He almost completely decapitated his wife [in FRONT of his children] with a SCISSORS because she'd asked him for a divorce.

I don't know how sharp y'all keep YOUR scissors, but I'd have to saw for quite a while to almost completely decapitate someone with mine. IMO, a crime of passion doesn't take this long.

In 30 years this guy is eligible for parole. He can visit his kids.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 08, 2000.


--y

I stand corrected. And I commend you on your open-mindedness. There is a preponderance of evidence that innocent people are being killed by the state. This is totally unacceptable. I reject the utilitarian argument that the greatest good is the action which creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In this case, the conjecture that the death penalty is really a deterrent, and many lives are saved by the government executions.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 08, 2000.


FS,

Is it really a "government execution" when it's a jury that makes that decision?

To me a "government execution" is for cases such for spying,espionage etc. or for crimes against the state vs crimes against the citizenry.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 08, 2000.


Anita: Hopefully the sob will get "dahmered" before he comes up to the board, but most likely IF he makes it to the board, he will not get released anyhow...so great, we get to pay for his sitting around.

Capn, good point, jury of our peers, guess that is us.

FS, I see your point to as far as peeps getting death who are innocent, mainly I am focusing on those like Anita have stated and Jeffey Dahmer, and John Gacy.

Those we KNOW did the crime, and wasted our $$$$$ on appeals.

They should have been executed immediately.

See we can agree to disagree, and I am enjoying the feedback.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 08, 2000.



Consumer- How do you KNOW that Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and others did the crime? Were you there when it happened?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 08, 2000.

CapnFun:

I stand corrected. Yes, a jury convicts. A state, however, decides on wether or not the sentence is available. The supreme court says it is okay. That is why I said "government execution". I have applied the term incorrectly.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 08, 2000.


Anita, I agree with you that is a gruesome crime, no doubt about it. In that case, the parole in 30 years is a very wrong sentence IMO, crime of passion or not. Life without parole would be more appropriate.

The difference in sentence for crime of passion vs. "cold blooded" ones is another issue I'm having a problem with. It is in effect excusing impulsive acts out of anger. Anger management is something everyone should learn to deal with and there should be no excuse for those who won't control their angers. A stiff life sentence without parole for such crime of passion should be given as well, because that man I doubt strongly would ever learn to manage his anger and impulses effectively in a tough prison setting.

FS, I understand the supposed detterant aspect of the death penalty, but obviously it is not working as intended, as serial killers and gruesome crimes still happen far too often. My question is, should the innocents that get convicted to death be the ones paying the price for the justice system's cracks and imperfections? Consumer said "those we KNOW did the crime". The irony is that in the cases where innocent people were sentenced to death, the jury felt they KNEW beyond the shadow of a doubt to convict. But still, later evidence like DNA proved them all wrong as in the case I mentioned earlier, or at least in some other cases introduced major doubts.

Once a life is snuffed out, there's no going back and say "oops, sorry, we were wrong." Could be anyone of us on death row if we happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, or known from a "witness" who swore s/he saw us at the scene comitting the crime.

-- (y@x.x), May 08, 2000.


Tarzan: You couldnt resist trying to 'start something'?

Answer: WERE YOU?

I guess you are right those bodies in his backyard just buried themselves.

As for Dahmer, well, ok, so he kept his in the refrigerator.

*sigh*

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 08, 2000.


Consumer, I am not trying to start something. I am trying to make the point that "everyone knows" a person is guilty does NOT make that person guilty. The entire NATION believed that Bruno Hauptman was guilty of the Lindbergh kidnapping, but it turns out that he was not. Of course, this discovery only occured after he was wrongfully executed. The same goes for the eleven men who were released from Illinois' death row during the last two years.

When it comes to those who "everyone knows" are guilty, please try to remember that sometimes "everyone" makes mistakes. Please try to remember that just because a fact is repeated several times in the news does not make it truth.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewitouta.net), May 08, 2000.


Y:

"The difference in sentence for crime of passion vs. "cold blooded" ones is another issue I'm having a problem with. It is in effect excusing impulsive acts out of anger."

I agree.

I'm SURE mistakes are made when some folks are sent to death row. Mistakes are made EVERYWHERE in life. Innocent lives are taken when car accidents occur, in wars [including gang wars], in shootings at MacDonalds and other public places, etc. I'll start worrying about the death penalty over these others when it becomes apparent to me that the folks on death row are as innocent as these others. As it stands now, however, the preponderance of cases indicate things like, "He may be a thief, but he's NOT a murderer.", or "He may have RAPED that woman, but someone ELSE killed her, and we have PROOF." I suppose doppelgangers stole the goods and raped the woman as well.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 08, 2000.


Ok Tarzan, I conceded awhile back that 'some' maybe innocent, maybe more than I think....

I am talking about Gacy and Dahmer, do you 'really' believe they were innocent? Give me a break..

Toasting to OJ while I'm at it.

Jury rendered the verdict, why shoot the messenger?

Ok, with OJ they rendered a verdict, so ya got me there. No I dont believe everything simply because its repeated a few times.

Are you familiar with the Sam Sheppard Case?

Mysteries, who done it's God only knows and those involved if you really wish to be honest.

Susan Smith ring a bell? Crybaby on tv begging for prayers, I KNEW she was guilty in my mind and heart before she EVER confessed, told the entire family to watch and see...they thought I was nutz..

go figure.

I think most here on this forum are pretty good judge of character and hey lets face it, Gacy and Dahmer are no longer up for grabs, do you feel they were innocent?

Enquiring mind wants to know, if you care to share. I am not trying to come down on you Tarz, just MHO.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 08, 2000.


It is simply taking out the trash.

-- huh (123@456.com), May 09, 2000.

I know this is not the popular view on this board, BUT I do not condone the ritualized murder of anybody-Even if the murderer killed my own.

I, regrefully, can speak from experience here. I much preferred that the perpetrator spend a dismal, horrid existence in prison than having it end quickly. If the survivors were to spend a lifetime of loss, so should the killer.

-- LunaC (LunaC@LunaC.com), May 09, 2000.


Consumer, you said, "I think most here on this forum are pretty good judge of character and hey lets face it, Gacy and Dahmer are no longer up for grabs, do you feel they were innocent?""

Whether or not I believe Gacy and Dahmer were innocent or guilty is irrelevent; I wasn't on the jury, I had nothing to do with the case. Being a good judge of character doesn't make on infallible. History is full of instances in which people who were also good judges of charecter condemned innocent people to die by mistake. Eliminating or curtailing the appeals process only increases the likelihood that innocent people will be condemned, leaving the actual perpetrators of the crime to walk free.

The state of Illinois put a moratorium on further executions because eleven men on death row were found innocent after the fact. I'm sure those men, their families, and the families of the victims, were grateful that all those "good judges of character" weren't considered infallible.

If it weren't for the appeals process, the state of Illinois would have executed eleven innocent men this year alone.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 09, 2000.


Tarzan:

"If it weren't for the appeals process, the state of Illinois would have executed eleven innocent men this year alone."

WHERE did you get this figure? It looks to me like 13 men were found innocent in Illinois since capital punishment was reinstituted in 1976. 2 were exonerated in 1987, 1 in 1994, 2 in 1995, 4 in 1996, 3 in 1999, and 1 in 2000.

13 exonerated in Illinois

In this same time-frame, 12 have been executed in Illinois, meaning that in 34 years only 25 people have been sent to death row in Illinois. Having freed more people than they executed, Illinois decided to revisi t the death penalty. I can't say I blame them.

There are currently 38 capital-punishment states [37 now with Illinois figuring out what to do.] There have been 486 executions since 1976. 74 of these executions were in 1997 [the peak year.] There are currently 3,517 prisoners on death row in the U.S.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.


What a math wizard. Please correct that to 24 years.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

Well, Consumer, I have to thank you for starting this thread. I'm still looking into it and have another correction to some stats I presented. 486 executions since 1976 is an old figure, which means that 3,517 is probably an old figure as well. 612 executions have taken place since 1976.

Statistics on executions by state

Check out Texas on the graph.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.


Anita, you are absolutely correct. It was thirteen men who were exonerated, not eleven.

Clearly, the question of certainty in conviction should be settled before we consider capital punishment.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 09, 2000.


Tarzan:

Yes...13, but the point I was making that these 13 were spread over 24 years and not just one.

Florida actually ranks higher than Illinois in making these mistakes. Unlike Illinois, however, Florida isn't willing to question these mistakes. Several factors are indicated in this article regarding who does/does not support the death penalty. Older, uneducated, white folks from the south seem to support it more than other segments of the population. Some think it's simply a North/South issue, which would make some sense based on the alternatives available in each state. If you click on the "Death Penalty Information Center" for each state in the above alternative link, you'll notice that both Illinois and Florida have the option of life imprisonment with no parole. In contrast, Texas [the state that kills the most] doesn't have this option. I would think this would influence a jury to error on the side of extreme punishment in Texas, but Virginia [second highest killer, although no match for Texas] has the option of life imprisonment with no parole as well.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.


In April 1979, in Houston, Texas, my brother Wayne was beaten to death at home. He was 26. Police found rags in the dumpster outside the building with blood and bone particles on them, as well as blood all over the apartment. The killer put Wayne's body in the trunk of his own car and then dumped it in a ditch, where highway workers found it a week later. On a plea bargain, the murderer was sentenced to seven years in prison. He did three and a half. His rich doctor father got him a good deal. I wished him dead then, and I certainly hope he's dead by now.

Still, although I am definitely an eye-for-an-eye kind of gal, and am thus pro-death penalty IN THEORY, I recognize the failures of the system as it currently exists, and would never say one innocent life taken is worth the benefits for the greater good. Eyewitness testimony has proven to be frequently erroneous, evidence can be easily tampered with; basically, the possibilities for unforgiving mistakes are infinite.

Therefore, with my acknowledgement that human-meted justice is basically flawed, I must ultimately entrust the gods with the final answers.

But in the cases of scientifically proven guilt, I say, "kill 'em, and kill 'em quickly, before the lawyers make alot of money."

Judiciously,

-- (Miss Ann@th.rope), May 10, 2000.


I like EXILE on an island. Drop the prisoners there, drop some supplies now and then, and some food that might be hard for them to grow for themselves now and then when we feel charitable.

I resent paying taxes to be used for their room and board, as well as their attorneys and all the other nice things that they enjoy in our prisons in the US. I am appalled that they have access to the internet. Let them write letters, period.

I would be willing to pay for security that would make sure that no one escape.

Those found guilty wrongly would be able to sue the system as well as the prosecutors (together as well as personally) so that they would be darn certain that they don't prosecute blindly, and so that they would be penalized for making serious mistakes.

Folks wrongly charged by the govt. should have their legal costs paid for by the govt (meaning you and me) as well as the prosecutors.

I say the guilty should pay, and folks who make other's lives hell should pay as well, and that goes for civilians as well as gubmint types the same. I also think that folks that embezzle money should be in exile for the same length of time that it would have taken their victims to earn that amount of money. Folks would be darn careful with other people's money if they would be tossed onto an island with a bunch of criminals, if they weren't careful with their fiduciary responsibilities.

I am not certain that I feel any concern over keeping these prisoners safe from each other. I think a good part of the deterrent effect of this type of prison would be the fear of being treated exactly the way they have treated others. Mainly, this idea of exile simply removes the human trash from the presence of decent people. I don't like the idea of human predators roaming freely, I think that if they do something bad enough, they simply lose their right to live among the rest of us, just like very very naughty children.

I think victims input should be more important than it is, as well. I think as long as the victim suffers, the criminal should pay.

-- (formerly@nowhere.zzz), May 10, 2000.


Dear Miss Ann...,

I'm truly sorry at the loss of your brother. I dare say I can't imagine my reaction to such an incident.

As you stated you are an 'eye for an eye' type of gal, why is it you haven't murdered your brother's killer? Or hired someone to do so?

I'm sorry for the apparent coldness of the above questions. Your post raised them, I'm merely 'voicing' them.

Understand, I'm not an advocate of retribution, be it undertaken by common citizens or TPTB. "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" is one of my all-time favorite adages.

Best,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 10, 2000.


MissAn:

I am truly sorry for your lose-I am at a loss to explain how a cold- blooded murderer could get out after 3 and a half years. Sentencing guidelines in so many cases are out of touch and antiquated.

Hawk:

I am getting back to you on your proposal regarding implants. I thought about it and I do not think it will work. You said that you would advocate these implants, which would be tied in with the GPS system, for violent criminals, You would put these people to work and feel that having these implants would be a deterrant to them committing another crime. This would save the state much money because the criminal would not be getting "three hots and a cot" at our expense.

Here is the problem. I believe that the threat of more time in prison is not a deterrent for violent criminals. These people have no respect for human life, especially their own. If they have no respect for themself, they do not care what happens to them. The person who commits a violent crime is not afraid of prison life-In many cases, they know they do not know how to survive in society, and will just "keep on keeping on" in prison. I have a problem with the whole idea that serious penalties deter serious crimes. THe violent criminal's mindset does not allow for worrying about consequences. The number of multiple offenses committed by these people is a testament to this.

Many of these criminals have been in the "system" since they are teenagers. Prison is just part of their life, and they are not afraid to go back. Just my thoughts.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 10, 2000.


Bingo,

No offense taken; I appreciate your thoughtful response. 'Tis a logical question. I have been thinking about this for twenty-one years, and ultimately, I suppose I am unwilling to risk spending my life behind bars. To me, an eye for an eye is not about vigilanteism (sp?), it's about the society at large imposing punishment equal to the crime. For example, even castration for rapists is not severe enough, in my opinion, although I can't imagine we'd ever have a system that hired guys to rape rapists.

"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" makes a great quote, (MLK Jr., I believe,) but I respectfully disagree with it. Were the first eye not taken, the second wouldn't need to be. But when it is, remember that the blind can often "see" things the sighted cannot.

-- (Miss Ann@th.rope), May 11, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ