I read with great joy and then great dismay yesterday about the release of Earl Washington Jr. from death row in Virginia. He was exonerated via DNA testing after spending over 9 years in prison. 9 years for a crime he did not commit.

I started a post many moons ago on the old uncensored forum which questioned how many deaths are acceptable of innocent people in the zeal to kill those actually guilty. I do not remember the responses all that well, but I ask it again. How many? How much "collateral damage" is acceptable.

As far as Texas, the sheer number of executions done there leads me to believe that some innocent folk were murdered. There have been a large number of exonerations in the last few years-so many that Illinois has suspended executions, and now Virginia is looking at changing their own laws in response to this new information.

There is no way around this. Innocent people have been and will be executed in this country. Poor people have little defense against this, and are lucky to have zealous anti-death penalty folks as well as zeaolus justice fighters taking up their cause.

I am appaled that Mr. Washington was,at one point, days away from execution. How many are too many? Texas has its day coming, I am sure of it. And I have to ask Mr. Bush-are you 100% absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt, which you would be able to face your maker with, that no innocent person died under your watch? I do not think any governor in any state can say with absolute certainty that no innocents have been killed.

oh, and by the way, right-to-lifers, this is a thread about the death penalty, so any references to abortion will rightfully be ignored.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), February 13, 2001

Answers

till there are no more...

-- innocent (once@accu.sed), February 13, 2001.

"Geez, it must be a full moon....."

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), February 13, 2001.

This is the single most difficult societal issue for me with which to deal. It can be easy to speculate on most issues, to toss out an opinion with a modicum of thought, but until I have lived through the murder of a loved one I cannot be completely certain my current stance is realistic. It's the best I can do under the circumstances.

All that I've learned and all that I feel tells me the taking of a life is only acceptable in the cases of self defense and the defense of those around you in the heat of the moment. Once life is no longer threatened and the safety of those involved are assured, taking a life is murder.

I don't want TPTB murdering people, yet this is what they have done throughout history and continue to do on behalf of the citizens of the U.S.A.

Life is sacred.

I recommend the movie The Green Mile to those who have not experienced it.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 13, 2001.

KoFe - this is a serious topic and certainly didn't deserve your snide, condescending, smart-ass remark.

I'm with FS on this one. The death penalty should be abolished. It always seemed so hypocritical for the "State" to say "We think you killed someone so we're going to kill YOU just to show you how wrong YOU are." DUH! Pot, kettle, black.

Here are Eight Objections to the Death Penalty

- Capital Punishment Is Not A Deterrent To Capital Crimes

- Capital Punishment Is Unfair

- Capital Punishment Is Irreversible

- Capital Punishment Is Barbarous

- Capital Punishment Is Unjustified Retribution

- Capital Punishment Costs More Than Incarceration

- Capital Punishment Is Less Popular Than the Alternatives

- Internationally, Capital Punishment Is Widely Viewed As Inhumane And Anachronistic

-- Quiet (Knight@peace.com), February 13, 2001.

Ya know, KoFE -- on this one I agree with you.

-- EHPorter (Just.Wondering@About.it), February 13, 2001.

Capital punishment is relatively inexpensive. It’s the 20 years of appeals that costs a fortune. Is capital punishment a deterrent? Tough question to answer as there are few ‘reluctant’ killers on the interview circuit. Is it a ‘just’ punishment for intentionally taking the life of another human being? Another tough question to answer unless that lost life was your loved one or a close friend. Is it thinkable that a few innocent people have been executed? Quite possibly. Is that acceptable in the big picture?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 13, 2001.

Quiet:

Not a very strong case there. Of your 8 reasons, 6 are pure opinion. The cost difference is easy to correct, but as it stands reflects a serious effort not to make fatal mistakes. Finally, it is quite true that there is no clear evidence that the death penalty has any relationship whatsoever with either deterring or encouraging crime. We can only say that those put to death will commit no subsequent crimes.

Of course, there are those (perhaps a majority) who feel that life in prison is a penalty worse than death anyway. Maybe we should only commute sentences for those on death row who sincerely prefer death to life in prison? That way, we maximize the bang for our incarceration/punishment buck.

Personally, I regard the fight against crime as being like any war -- we end up killing real soldiers and innocent civilians generally trying (not always successfully) not to suffer a net loss, whereby the side effects of law enforcement are not worse than the side effects of crime. To be effective, justice must be both swift and certain. We've arranged to make it extremely spotty, and glacially slow when it happens. The worst of all possible worlds. Capital punishment itslef is only one thread in the whole tapestry, and either way you go won't change the picture significantly or even noticeably.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 13, 2001.

Some reasons for the death penalty

Kenneth McDuff

John Wayne Gacy

Ted Bundy

Timothy McVeigh

Colin Ferguson

Richard Speck

Jeffrey Daumer

Charles Manson

Zodiak (never captured)

David Berkowitz

Ted Kaczynski

Richard Ramirez (Nightstalker, on death row since 1986?)

Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono (Hillside Stranglers)

Etc, etc, etc

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

Ah Lars, you have crafted quite a list here. Did any of you see the A&E special on the prison life of Richard Speck? The best case for swift executions to ever come down the pike.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 13, 2001.

Actually, Quiet, I agree with FS. But, I couldn't pass the opportunity to take a cheap shot to illustrate what inconsiderate bullshit looks like behind a serious post that someone took the time to write because it meant a great deal to them. There is a lot of that around here. But, back on topic, there couldn't be a worse tragedy, than to kill an innocent person; large or small. Those that kill innocent people while "just following orders," are operating under a blunted or seared conscience. And that goes for those who think "legal" theft is acceptable, as well.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), February 13, 2001.

Barry, I did see something on Speck where he had taken hormones to grow breasts. He made a good living in jail (payment in drugs) by being a punk. He once said something along the lines of "if the taxpayers knew how much fun I was having in here...)

I wonder what his incarceration cost the state of IL?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

If this guy's case had come up on Dumbya's shift, he would have said "fry him" instead of giving him a stay to review the case.

-- guaranteed (cuz@he's.a.blackun), February 13, 2001.

Earl Washington confessed openly and repeatedly that he raped and killed the girl. What the hell do you do with that? A 68 IQ notwithstanding, how do you handle an open confession?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Earl was spared death by mistake but his case sez whole lot more for mandatory DNA testing than it does for the abolition of capital punishment.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 14, 2001.

"How many deaths are acceptable of innocent people in the zeal to kill those actually guilty?"

IMO, none. Not one death of an innocent is acceptable. For that reason and that reason alone, I'm against the death penalty.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), February 14, 2001.

A very tough question, and several thought provoking responses to consider.

I think Debra's viewpoint that one innocent life taken in error is unacceptable is a very common sentiment.

Although I do feel that we should not rush to judgement, and should take every precaution to ensure that no innocent person is executed, I don't feel that capital punishment should be abandoned.

This raises the very real question of how does the state fulfill its' responsibility to safeguard the law abiding citizens from murderers and other extremely violent criminals, while ensuring that only the guilty are punished?

What do we say to the family of someone who is murdered by a convicted murderer that was paroled or escaped? Will they find solace in our policy of not executing anyone, inluding the guilty?

It is irrefutable that execution is 100% effective in preventing a repeat offender. As it is also an irreversable action, it is the duty of the state to take every measure to ensure that this sentence is excercized only on those who are guilty of the crime.

The appeals process is usually very long and convulted in legal and courtroom procedures that can hinge on technicalities. Personally, I would prefer that some of the technical, procedural appeals were eliminated, in favor of unlimited appeals based upon the admission of evidence, or testimony, that have a bearing on the question of innocence or guilt.

There was a thread recently on last meal requests. The intent of the thread was a somewhat macabre take on the humor of these requests. However, for each case there was an option to click on the document citing the particulars of the murder/s. I don't know how many others bothered to look at the conviction information, but I was curious enough to reviw a number of them. After looking at the the details of the crimes some of the individuals were convicted of, I was so outraged and sickened at the barbarism and savagery of some of the them, that I felt that capital punishment was the only possible action warranted of a sane and responsible government.

If we, as a society, are to seriously and honestly debate the merits of this particular legal penalty, I think that we must consider ALL the cases, and not just publicize an emotional appeal from a single example.

If the arguement is that the conviction of one innocent person is unacceptable, then the same arguement can be, albeit illogically, extended to advocate the abolishment of all criminal prosecutions. I recognize that the severity of the death penalty versus 30 years in prison will be debated, but either way, you have effectively taken a convicted persons life. In only one of these punishments have you absolutely guaranteed other law abiding citizens they will not be killed by someone proven to have killed another for profit or pleasure.

I cannot envison an infallible criminal justice system, but for what it's worth, I would put my life on the line in our system over any other system on the planet. And if an error were made, and my life was forfeit, I could only count my life as a price that must be paid, to guarantee that other innocents would not be brutally murdered by the savage few amongst us.

-- (Wolverine_in_nc@hotmail.com), February 14, 2001.

Wolverine, part of the reason for wrong convictions is that the juries look at those (true) horror stories, and react emotionally; assuming that the police would surely not arrest anyone for doing *that* unless they were guilty. Unfortunately, they are all too often mistaken. As for the statement that capitol punishment prevents recurring crime, that only works if you have the right person, Duh! If not, then the state is doing exactly what the accused is accused of.

So what's the answer? I dunno, but I'm glad I live where capitol punishment does not occur... we've had our errors too (even the Mounties don't always get their man! ;-)

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), February 14, 2001.

I say fry 'em or hold public hangings.

I am curious what Unk's opinion on this matter is. As the closest thing this forum has to being a supreme being with the power of life or death over the posters of this forum he surely has an opinion.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), February 15, 2001.

In Amerika it is better to be rich and guilty than poor and innocent....

-- Will (righthere@home.now), February 15, 2001.

The same DNA evidence that is proving some people were falsely convicted is also helping to correctly convict many others.

I think that you ask a straw-man question FS. The real issue is capital punishment. Of course no one wants an innocent person to be executed. But should a truly guilty person ever be executed?

Some here would say "no", some would say "yes". I'm sure this has been debated many times and with no conclusion.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.

The extraordinary accuracy of the DNA "fingerprint" may someday lead to a significant civil liberties argument. It will be proposed that everyone be DNA fingerprinted at birth. The pitch will be very humanistic--avoid miscarriages of justice, solve crimes, find missing children, etc.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.

And do you think that the plan will succeed, Lars? If it does, what kind of misuses do you see for the information?

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), February 16, 2001.

Tricia--

In a police-state, I think DNA fingerprinting is a natural. Sure, it would be of great value in crime-prevention and crime-fighting but it would also enable our political benefactors to more easily control us citizens.

I can't see it ever being universally legalized in a constitutional state. That doesn't mean there won't be those who try.

-- Lars (larguy@yahoo.,com), February 16, 2001.

How many innocent people have been put to death in Texas?

How many more have been spared from becoming a victim in Texas because the criminal thought twice about the punishment if caught?

-- (just@nother.opinion), February 16, 2001.

Statistically speaking, none. There is *no relationship* between imposing death penalty and any crime at all, whether the penalty for that crime would be death in that jurisdiction or not. We can speculate as to whether the perpetrators don't expect to get caught, or don't care, but the reason is not relevant. There is no measurable deterring effect whatsoever.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 16, 2001.

Flint:

Although there is no "statistical" evidence that the death penalty deters or prevents killings, this doesn not preclude the possiblity that in some cases it does.

I would suggest that interviews with criminals who committed robberies with unloaded firearms, or toy guns, might indicate some gave thought to the possibility of the death penalty.

Although this is purely speculation, there have been cases where criminals have used an unloaded weapon, or a toy gun, to ensure that no one was killed.

It is impossible to provide facts for the number of deaths that didn't happen because a potential murderer was deterred by the contemplation of the death penalty. How many would volunteer the information that "I would have killed that SOB if it weren't for the death penalty"?

I don't advocate it as a deterant. Whether it is or not can be debated endlessly. Statistical evidence will not be available, and only hearsay evidence from questionable individuals will provide any indication of whether it ever enters into the mind of a potential perpetrator.

I advocate it as a fiduciary promise of the state that the same individual will not be able to murder another innocent citizen. Nothing more or less. (A life sentence, or incarceration in a mental facility, does not guarantee that the convicted will not be released at some point.)

How many innocent people live, or die, by these state actions should be carefully considered. Although I do advocate the death penalty, I feel that the public scrutiny of individual cases is much more important than the debate on the practice itself.

-- (Wolverine_in_nc@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001.

Wolverine:

Be careful not to confuse a wholesale with a retail viewpoint. I'm quite sure there have been cases where some individual was deterred by the death penalty, just as I'm sure there have been cases where some individual was motivated BY the death penalty. However, the idea that the death penalty, *as a public policy*, deters crime does not hold water. We see no significant changes in the rates of any particular crimes that correlate meaningfully with the institution or abolition of the death penalty in any location.

I seriously wonder if we'd see any significant change in the crime rate if death were the *only* penalty for any crime at all. I'm sure the *absolute number* of crimes would go down, because we'd be putting half our population to death each generation. But the *rate* probably wouldn't change at all.

We have lots of studies (of people as well as lab animals of all variety) showing that to be effective as a deterrent, punishment must be both swift and certain. If it only happens at all for less than 5% of the acts to be deterred, and even in those cases happens only after many months have passed, not even people really make the connection -- and NO lab animals at all. Law enforcement is regarded as a threat only to the most stupid or unlucky few, *whether or not* they actually commit a crime. The punishment actually meted out is irrelevant, kind of like being struck by lightning.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 16, 2001.

Flint:

I must admit I am confused by your "wholesale or retail" reference to capital punishment.

However, as I it appears I did not communicate very well in my prior post, I will attempt to elaborate.

"Statistical" evidence for capital punishment as a deterrent will probably never exist. It is a strawman asking for statistical verification of events that never occurred. My point was that specific individual cases might be cited through interviews with individuals that did consider the consequences and subsequently commited felonies with unloaded firearms as a result.

Although poorly stated, my point was to raise the question of murders that MAY have been prevented by contemplation of the death penalty. I realize that it is a question without an answer, but I believe that the answer is at least greater than one. By the same token, the number of innocent persons that have been executed for murder is almost impossible to determine. Although specific, concrete individual examples can be found, a true number probably cannot be determined any more than the number that were not commited by the deterance factor.

Let me reiterate here that, in my opinion, this is merely a discussion point, to highlight the need for public scrutiny and debate about the states actions.

My principal contention is that it is a guranteed, 100% effective, and certain means of preventing repeat offenders. In this respect, the state is fulfilling its obligation to its' citizens that an individual convicted of this crime will NEVER kill another person.

I recognize that irrevocable errors will be made, and I do not mean to minimize the consequences. However, to cripple the criminal justice system with the requirement that not one single error can ever be made, is tantamount to abolishing the system entirely.

Micro management by publicizing an individual error in the system as justification for abandoning the entire system is a call to anarchy.

Over the past few years we have all seen individuals paraded before the media as examples of where the "system" has failed. This is a blatent propaganda tool for public consumption that equates an individual, specific error with a systemic failure. I won't elaborate here with the obvious distinction between an individual error and a system failure, but I think you get my point.

I hope this clarifies my position and my earlier post.

-- (Wolverine_in_nc@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.

Wolverine:

I'm not disagreeing with you, so much as trying (also badly) to prevent another viewpoint.

["Statistical" evidence for capital punishment as a deterrent will probably never exist.]

But from the viewpoint of public safety, statistical evidence is a critical requirement. After all, if punishing crimes has no deterrent effect, why bother to even have police or courts or laws? Presumably, we have these things for two important reasons - to remove offenders from circulation at least temporarily if not permanently, and to cause rational people to weigh the potential consequences of criminal activity differently. That is, to present a downside to crime as well as the obvious pure benefit to the individual.

[It is a strawman asking for statistical verification of events that never occurred.]

No it's not. What we are supposed to be doing is reducing the incidence of serious crime throughout the society, by those two means listed above. How can it be a straw man to examine and find that a given deterrent does not deter to any degree we are capable of measuring? Granted, we do not execute enough people for their subsequent crimes to have otherwise had an impact, so the only thing left from the standpoint of social policy is a deterrent effect. And we don't get that either. So capital punishment is irrelevant from a public safety standpoint. We favor or oppose it on varying philosophical grounds, but as a society we get no safety benefit either way.

[My point was that specific individual cases might be cited through interviews with individuals that did consider the consequences and subsequently commited felonies with unloaded firearms as a result.]

And I'm sure such people exist. But I've also seen interviews where the perp says, in effect, "I was willing to die just so long as s/he did as well. And s/he was SURE to die, whereas I stood a good chance of getting away with it. It was worth it." And far more homicides remain unsolved than are solved.

So I agree it's likely that some people are deterred, but not enough to make any social difference. We simply don't see ANY variation in the incidence of such crimes, capital punishment or not. So we're back to a religious, moral or philosophical argument (which is fine), where anecdotes are what matter. Anecdotes don't impact public safety.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 17, 2001.

I think it was about a year or so ago that I looked into the statistics on capital punishment, crime statistics for states that had it, didn't have it, etc. Unfortunately, I've slept a few times since then, and don't really remember what I found. I DO think I remember finding that Texas has no "life in prison with no parole" option. I ALSO seem to remember that Florida DOES have the option, but it still has the second-highest [or close] execution rate. My research was concentrating on demographics of how folks in various segments of the country "saw" the death penalty and the variances on alternatives available.

It's scary to me that innocent [used loosely there, since there usually seems to be SOME crime committed that put these people in this position] people can be put to death. As we well know, SOME folks see life in prison as more of a deterrent than death [Timothy McVeigh comes to mind].

Philosophically, I'm not opposed to the death penalty, although life imprisonment is fine in my mind, as well, and DOES allow for the cases where folks are guilty of lesser crimes, yet proven by various means innocent of the more heinous crimes of which they were accused.

Again, if I remember correctly, I looked into all this because there was a guy here in Texas who DIDN'T get the death penalty, although he hacked his wife to death in front of his children. I don't dwell on the thought, but it's pretty scary to me that in 23 years or so he can come and ring the doorbell of one of his kids and say, "Daddy's home!"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.