U.S. State Connecticut Abolishes Death Penalty

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
And Troy Davis was guilty as sin.

Another thing you often see in proponents of murder as punishment is that they are blind to the failings of the justice system.

...in the US, recidivism rates for murderers are an argument against the death penalty. It's so extremely rare it can't justify killing people as punishment.

I'm fine with it. I think it more likely to happen than an innocent being executed. In one recent case, a released killer killed 5 people in a single spree.

pyrate:

Based on what evidence? He was convicted on the back of witness testimony that was recanted. Police pressured witnesses into testifying against him. The only 'evidence' against him is a witness, who also happens to be a suspect.

This former airman is a suspect?

"Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone." Who were the other 2 airmen? Were they among those that did give statements to the police that a guy in a white shirt (which Davis was wearing)did the shooting?

Gorfias:
Who were the other 2 airmen? Were they among those that did give statements to the police that a guy in a white shirt (which Davis was wearing)did the shooting?

You're quoting selectively. One denied it was Davis, the other said he couldn't identify him.

reonhato:

Luna:

Zekksta:

I'd imagine many of the people sentenced to death might not be too excited by the prospect, so they lodge about a million appeals/motions/whatever to delay it/stop it.

Eugh... Bureaucracy....

I don't even know what else to say to that. 15 years...

the problem is even with the years and years of appeals and all that stuff, innocent people still get executed

that sounds like a reform problem.

Basically, if its incredibly obvious you did it and are still dangerous even if you are in jail (example, Charles Manson) then its the death penalty in a short amount of time. The reason I say Charles Manson is because even the warden of the jail he is in is scared of him. The warden claims Manson is still a danger, and has a "charismatic influence" that could extend beyond prison if a gullible person is near him.

Considering he had a cult that crawled on their hands and knees outside the courthouse during his trial, convinced them of "helter skelter", and was involved with murders its not surprising.

Basically, if you are anything below Charlse Manson's level, you go to prison. If you are on the charlse manson level of danger, death penalty.

That way the death penalty becomes rarer, and only for the absolute worst cases that most likely come only once in a century.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Who were the other 2 airmen? Were they among those that did give statements to the police that a guy in a white shirt (which Davis was wearing)did the shooting?

You're quoting selectively. One denied it was Davis, the other said he couldn't identify him.

and as we know eye witness testimony is amongst the most credible and reliable of evidence, i put it right up there with DNA.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Who were the other 2 airmen? Were they among those that did give statements to the police that a guy in a white shirt (which Davis was wearing)did the shooting?

You're quoting selectively. One denied it was Davis, the other said he couldn't identify him.

Do you have a link? I thought neither could provide a positive ID, so they didn't take the stand, but they said it was the guy in the white shirt (which Davis was wearing).

reonhato:

and as we know eye witness testimony is amongst the most credible and reliable of evidence, i put it right up there with DNA.

I'm sure the bullet casings matching those used in an earlier shooting along with all these eye witnesses was all pure coincidence.

reonhato:

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Who were the other 2 airmen? Were they among those that did give statements to the police that a guy in a white shirt (which Davis was wearing)did the shooting?

You're quoting selectively. One denied it was Davis, the other said he couldn't identify him.

and as we know eye witness testimony is amongst the most credible and reliable of evidence, i put it right up there with DNA.

Exactly, they couldn't even get a consensus on what shirt he was wearing. Some said it was plain white, some said it was white with writing on it, some said it was a batman shirt.

The US judicial system puts far too much emphasis on eye witness testimony. We know that the brain does not remember exact details, it remembers a broad picture and fills in the gaps. What we remember is not actually exactly what we saw. Add to the fact that witnesses are involved in a stressful situation and you have a perfect situation for people to be mistaken.

Regardless of your thoughts on the morality and cost of the death penalty, it simply does not work as a deterrent, which is what ANY punishment of a crime is supposed to be.

All the states that have the death penalty show that if you look at their crime rates.

Gorfias:

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Who were the other 2 airmen? Were they among those that did give statements to the police that a guy in a white shirt (which Davis was wearing)did the shooting?

You're quoting selectively. One denied it was Davis, the other said he couldn't identify him.

Do you have a link? I thought neither could provide a positive ID, so they didn't take the stand, but they said it was the guy in the white shirt (which Davis was wearing).

reonhato:

and as we know eye witness testimony is amongst the most credible and reliable of evidence, i put it right up there with DNA.

I'm sure the bullet casings matching those used in an earlier shooting along with all these eye witnesses was all pure coincidence.

No witness identified Davis from the earlier shooting. Even the man who got shot said he didn't know if it was Davis or not. A witness who had reported to police that he saw Davis shoot reversed his statement in court, citing that police threatened him with prison if he didn't cooperate, he was 16 at the time. The other witness stated that the shooter was wearing a batman shirt, but under cross examination admitted he never saw the shooter.

No one saw Davis shoot Cooper and no gun was found on Davis. The forensics that linked the two crimes has no meaning when Davis cannot be linked to the earlier crime.

pyrate:
The US judicial system puts far too much emphasis on eye witness testimony. We know that the brain does not remember exact details, it remembers a broad picture and fills in the gaps. What we remember is not actually exactly what we saw. Add to the fact that witnesses are involved in a stressful situation and you have a perfect situation for people to be mistaken.

Totally that. Actually what I found is that if you're the one doing the killing, the image burns itself into your memory crystal clear to the smallest detail. If you're just witnessing violence, it starts to fade in a matter of hours because it's something we prefer to shut out to protect ourselves mentally, unless you really make an effort to remember it. I'd have trouble describing the culprits of various confrontations I've seen at work and in the rare occasion outside of that, while you'd expect to get used to it if you are called to those as a matter of your job.

Especially if it's a while ago, witnesses should not be relied upon, maybe unless what they witnessed is so routine for them it doesn't switch them out of normal rational gear, but I think that would be a one in a million case.

pyrate:

Gorfias:

Blablahb:
You're quoting selectively. One denied it was Davis, the other said he couldn't identify him.

Do you have a link? I thought neither could provide a positive ID, so they didn't take the stand, but they said it was the guy in the white shirt (which Davis was wearing).

reonhato:

and as we know eye witness testimony is amongst the most credible and reliable of evidence, i put it right up there with DNA.

I'm sure the bullet casings matching those used in an earlier shooting along with all these eye witnesses was all pure coincidence.

No witness identified Davis from the earlier shooting. Even the man who got shot said he didn't know if it was Davis or not. A witness who had reported to police that he saw Davis shoot reversed his statement in court, citing that police threatened him with prison if he didn't cooperate, he was 16 at the time. The other witness stated that the shooter was wearing a batman shirt, but under cross examination admitted he never saw the shooter.

No one saw Davis shoot Cooper and no gun was found on Davis. The forensics that linked the two crimes has no meaning when Davis cannot be linked to the earlier crime.

Sources? What I'm finding seems convinced Cooper was shot by Davis.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-17/justice/georgia.rally.davis_1_pool-party-execution-davis-shot?_s=PM:CRIME

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/opinion/stories/2008/10/21/lawtoned_1021.html?cxntlid=inform_sr

Prosecutor posted that Davis was convicted of shooting Cooper.

And I still don't have information on these guys:

"Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone.""

Gorfias:

pyrate:

Gorfias:

Do you have a link? I thought neither could provide a positive ID, so they didn't take the stand, but they said it was the guy in the white shirt (which Davis was wearing).

I'm sure the bullet casings matching those used in an earlier shooting along with all these eye witnesses was all pure coincidence.

No witness identified Davis from the earlier shooting. Even the man who got shot said he didn't know if it was Davis or not. A witness who had reported to police that he saw Davis shoot reversed his statement in court, citing that police threatened him with prison if he didn't cooperate, he was 16 at the time. The other witness stated that the shooter was wearing a batman shirt, but under cross examination admitted he never saw the shooter.

No one saw Davis shoot Cooper and no gun was found on Davis. The forensics that linked the two crimes has no meaning when Davis cannot be linked to the earlier crime.

Sources? What I'm finding seems convinced Cooper was shot by Davis.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-17/justice/georgia.rally.davis_1_pool-party-execution-davis-shot?_s=PM:CRIME

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/opinion/stories/2008/10/21/lawtoned_1021.html?cxntlid=inform_sr

Prosecutor posted that Davis was convicted of shooting Cooper.

And I still don't have information on these guys:

"Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone.""

It was already explained, it is a bit hard for two of them to recant because they never testified that they saw Davis.

Steven Sanders is one of nine key witnesses in the case, seven of them have recanted. The only other witness not to recant is Coles, who is the other suspect.

The argument from your side is that there were 30 odd witnesses in the trial and that the media is wrong. What you ignore is the nine witnesses the media talks about are the nine that implicated Davis. There were other witnesses, but none of them implicated Davis. Out of the nine that implicated Davis, seven recanted. That is the issue here.

There is one other issue with Sanders. On the night of the shooting Sanders said he would not be able to identify the shooter, he could only describe his clothes. He was asked again a month later and he still insisted that he could not identify the shooter. Sanders was not asked to identify the shooter again by police. It was not until court that Sanders identified Davis as the shooter.

I am no expert at this, but last time I checked this sort of thing usually does not hold up in court. You cannot declare to the police that you can't identify the shooter and then identify the shooter in court and expect your testimony to have weight to it....well except if you are the only witness left that is not also a suspect.

pyrate:

There is one other issue with Sanders. On the night of the shooting Sanders said he would not be able to identify the shooter, he could only describe his clothes.... It was not until court that Sanders identified Davis as the shooter.

Sources? And is Sanders the one that I quoted earlier?

Did you read

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/opinion/stories/2008/10/21/lawtoned_1021.html?cxntlid=inform_sr

It's pretty compelling.

EDIT: This only references Sanders identifying the killer as the one wearing the white shirt:

http://www.cjlf.org/files/DavisExcerpt.html

I think its a bad idea not to at least have the Death Penalty on the books as an option but Conneticut has every right to decide for itself on matters like this.

Forensics use in the U.S. Justice System is a joke honestly. If you have time and any serious interest in this kinda thing, I'd suggest watching this episode of Frontline I saw a week or so ago. It's pretty insane: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/

Like seriously, watch that. Especially you Gorfias. It shows pretty clearly just how screwed up and abused our justice system is, both for incarcerating innocent people and letting the real criminals getting away.

Gorfias:

Luna:

'Any punishment not reversed during the convicted's lifetime is irreversible.'

This implies that if you don't kill the guy then you can completely compensate things. I don't think this is generally true.

Not at all. I get a $5 parking ticket I did not deserve. 125 years later I die of extreme old age. The unjust $5 fine was never reversed. Should we stop giving out parking tickets because there's a chance that someone will suffer this irreversible punishment? (yes, my estate may be reimbursed $5. Lotta good that does me.)

The fact that you can seriously equate a parking fine with the taking of a life says far more about you than anything else you've said here.

For myself, it's a simple question; is murder wrong, yes/no? If murder is wrong, then state-ordered murder must also be wrong. The death penalty isn't self defense, it isn't warfare, it is the premeditated, cold-blooded and entirely unnecessary taking of a life. Or, in other words; Murder. So, if you believe in the death penalty, you must also logically execute the executioner, and the executioner of the executioner, and so on and so on, because the same reasoning you use to justify the initial murder continues to apply to every person that "throws the switch".

Magichead:

If murder is wrong, then state-ordered murder must also be wrong... So, if you believe in the death penalty, you must also logically execute the executioner, and the executioner of the executioner, and so on and so on, because the same reasoning you use to justify the initial murder continues to apply to every person that "throws the switch".

LOL. And we need to jail jailers for kidnapping, and then jail the jailers of the jailers. And fines are a theft action, so, we need to jail those who levy fines, and then jail their jailers for kidnapping.

There is basically no counter to these points. This man has it water tight. There is no logical arguement for it. Revenge, "compensation" and other various "i wanna feel better at night"s will try and justify it. But they are shallow. This video summarises it nicely.

Ill never understand some conservatives:

"I dont want government healthcare! It will make death panels!"

"I want government to decide who lives and dies! I want a death panel!"

Uhuh...

Gorfias:

Magichead:

If murder is wrong, then state-ordered murder must also be wrong... So, if you believe in the death penalty, you must also logically execute the executioner, and the executioner of the executioner, and so on and so on, because the same reasoning you use to justify the initial murder continues to apply to every person that "throws the switch".

LOL. And we need to jail jailers for kidnapping, and then jail the jailers of the jailers. And fines are a theft action, so, we need to jail those who levy fines, and then jail their jailers for kidnapping.

Good point, if we follow Magichead's logic then why is state-sponsored holding someone against their will ok?

My view on the death penalty is that its an option I think I would like to keep but its used far more than it should be. The use of the death penalty should only be reserved for the most heinous of criminals and then used only when there is no reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty of what they are accused of.

BiscuitTrouser:

There is basically no counter to these points. This man has it water tight. There is no logical arguement for it. Revenge, "compensation" and other various "i wanna feel better at night"s will try and justify it. But they are shallow. This video summarises it nicely.

Thought it pretty lame:

1) not a deterent: Conservative socioligist say differently.
2) If a deterent, who cares, dispropotionately carried out against the poor. So is prison. Get rid of prison?
3) Even if applied to rich and poor alike, still wrong as you may execute an innocent, irreversible. See earlier in this thread: any punishment not reversed before death is irreversible.
4) Youth are and have been executed: recall a recent case where cold blooded killer committed murder boasting, as he was 17, he would not face death. Sadly, he was right, and he shoudn't have been.
5) Even if you didn't have to worry about any of the above, it Violates basic human rights. Not having a death penalty is to be blase and indifferent to the violations of human rights the criminal has committed. That is wrong, and must be addressed.
6) Human rights are for all. This includes liberty, which we take away when we put someone in prison.
7) Sets an arbitrary line between prison and death penalty. Arbitrariousness is not an argument.

Gorfias:
citizenry support this?

I saw you use this word several times in at least one of your posts, and while I admire your wish to uphold Democratic principle I think I also need to point out that tyranny of majority is among the primary faults in any democratic system, so much so that we have safeguards (such as the constitution (in the US) or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (in Canada) etc to defend against it. The government I think has a duty to defy the will of its constituancy when the will of the consitutancy lies in shady or immoral grounds. If 260 million US citizens were in favor of the imprisonment and execution of anyone who commits over 5000 dollars in property crime and the other 60 million were indifferent does that mean the government should allow that law to implimented? Or if the US held a referendum where 100% of the population favored the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the US should the government support that law?

I don't believe that anyone has the right to put anyone else to death. Killing in warfare is one thing, killing in self defence is another. But I think the notion that people can say "for what you have done you deserve to die and so it shall be" is antiquated and needs to be abandoned; no one should have the authority to say those kind of things.

Also, you mentioned that this represents a failure by the government to do it's job which is something I think you need to explain to me. In war or assassination, okay, not killing someone is a failure. In the civilian world, executing someone (to me) represents an inability to rehabilitate or bare any sort of responsibility for societal burdens, instead choosing the easy and frankly unjust way out. Last I checked, an eye for an eye is a concept that first existed in ancient Babylon and has since been abondoned in almost all avenues of justice except murder. Who does the death penalty help exactly? All it does is propogate the "kill before they kill again" attitude that I see mirrored best in the idea of a pre-emptive strike.

MoNKeyYy:

Gorfias:
citizenry support this?

I saw you use this word several times in at least one of your posts, and while I admire your wish to uphold Democratic principle I think I also need to point out that tyranny of majority is among the primary faults in any democratic system, so much so that we have safeguards (such as the constitution (in the US) or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (in Canada) etc to defend against it.

Too true. Democracy must mean more than two wolves and one sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. But there is another type of tyranny: that of a powerful, exploitive, indifferent and unrepresentative minority. There is expressed language in the US Constitution that shows it was not meant to block a just and comensurate capital punishment.

Also, you mentioned that this represents a failure by the government to do it's job which is something I think you need to explain to me.

I'm writing specifically of the repeal that is the topic of this thread. If you read the links, the elected officials legislating this repeal do not argue against the death penalty. They say that this thing, that has been a part of western tradition for upholding the law for millenia, is a thing a modern government is incompetent to do, particularly due to expense. I pointed out earlier, bullets are $0.25 and rope is reusable. The costs of the death penalty are caused by a malfunctioning due process. In the 20th century, a convicted murderer could go from conviction to execution in 30 days. Troy Davis, who commited a cold blooded cop killing in plain sight of many witness in public was able to game the system for 20 years. Outrageous.

Gorfias:

Thought it pretty lame:

1) not a deterent: Conservative socioligist say differently.
2) If a deterent, who cares, dispropotionately carried out against the poor. So is prison. Get rid of prison?
3) Even if applied to rich and poor alike, still wrong as you may execute an innocent, irreversible. See earlier in this thread: any punishment not reversed before death is irreversible.
4) Youth are and have been executed: recall a recent case where cold blooded killer committed murder boasting, as he was 17, he would not face death. Sadly, he was right, and he shoudn't have been.
5) Even if you didn't have to worry about any of the above, it Violates basic human rights. Not having a death penalty is to be blase and indifferent to the violations of human rights the criminal has committed. That is wrong, and must be addressed.
6) Human rights are for all. This includes liberty, which we take away when we put someone in prison.
7) Sets an arbitrary line between prison and death penalty. Arbitrariousness is not an argument.

It is 100% not a deterent. It is impossible to argue this point. All facts say it is not a deterrent.

image
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/murder.jpg

It doesnt matter what "thinking" says so. It isnt. It factually isnt. You cannot argue this. Its proven time and time and time and time again.

Your cost arguement is short sighted. And purposfully ignorant. Yes a bullet costs 25 cents. But a simple question. Do you want innocents executed? No? Well we are going ot need a very carefull legal precident to make sure this doesnt happen. Ah. Llegal president. This costs money. For lawyers and court time and evidence and police assistance. This will take a while. The criminal needs to stay in jail while we sort the case out 100% for sure. That costs a lot of money. See the issue we have here?

It costs more to keep an innmate in jail and to run a long number of cases to ensure his guilt for execution that just to keep him. Be in the real world. We dont just shoot people and ask expensive questions later.

It isnt blase to treat a case not as a matter of revenge by sinking to the criminals level. Its blase to through killing around in society as an answer and to lessen the meaning of a life. How can we say that murder is such a horrible crime when we kill people to show killing people is wrong?

BiscuitTrouser:

Gorfias:

Thought it pretty lame:

1) not a deterent: Conservative socioligist say differently.
2) If a deterent, who cares, dispropotionately carried out against the poor. So is prison. Get rid of prison?
3) Even if applied to rich and poor alike, still wrong as you may execute an innocent, irreversible. See earlier in this thread: any punishment not reversed before death is irreversible.
4) Youth are and have been executed: recall a recent case where cold blooded killer committed murder boasting, as he was 17, he would not face death. Sadly, he was right, and he shoudn't have been.
5) Even if you didn't have to worry about any of the above, it Violates basic human rights. Not having a death penalty is to be blase and indifferent to the violations of human rights the criminal has committed. That is wrong, and must be addressed.
6) Human rights are for all. This includes liberty, which we take away when we put someone in prison.
7) Sets an arbitrary line between prison and death penalty. Arbitrariousness is not an argument.

It is 100% not a deterent. It is impossible to argue this point. All facts say it is not a deterrent.

image
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/murder.jpg

It doesnt matter what "thinking" says so. It isnt. It factually isnt. You cannot argue this. Its proven time and time and time and time again.

Your cost arguement is short sighted. And purposfully ignorant. Yes a bullet costs 25 cents. But a simple question. Do you want innocents executed? No? Well we are going ot need a very carefull legal precident to make sure this doesnt happen. Ah. Llegal president. This costs money. For lawyers and court time and evidence and police assistance. This will take a while. The criminal needs to stay in jail while we sort the case out 100% for sure. That costs a lot of money. See the issue we have here?

It costs more to keep an innmate in jail and to run a long number of cases to ensure his guilt for execution that just to keep him. Be in the real world. We dont just shoot people and ask expensive questions later.

It isnt blase to treat a case not as a matter of revenge by sinking to the criminals level. Its blase to through killing around in society as an answer and to lessen the meaning of a life. How can we say that murder is such a horrible crime when we kill people to show killing people is wrong?

Your graph does not come from a non-partisan source, try again.

Still I think its fairly well established that the death penalty doesnt discourage murders anymore than prison discourages crime in general. However the death penalty does act as a 100% effective way of making sure that the individual who is punished with it does not ever do anything to inconvenience anyone ever again. Jail does this to a large extent but you still have guards and other prisoners that have to put up with them.

As for the death penalty costing more than life in prison. I know that it does but I can't see any reason why it should. I am sure if you looked people could find a way to cut down on costs.

Seekster:

BiscuitTrouser:

Gorfias:

Thought it pretty lame:

1) not a deterent: Conservative socioligist say differently.
2) If a deterent, who cares, dispropotionately carried out against the poor. So is prison. Get rid of prison?
3) Even if applied to rich and poor alike, still wrong as you may execute an innocent, irreversible. See earlier in this thread: any punishment not reversed before death is irreversible.
4) Youth are and have been executed: recall a recent case where cold blooded killer committed murder boasting, as he was 17, he would not face death. Sadly, he was right, and he shoudn't have been.
5) Even if you didn't have to worry about any of the above, it Violates basic human rights. Not having a death penalty is to be blase and indifferent to the violations of human rights the criminal has committed. That is wrong, and must be addressed.
6) Human rights are for all. This includes liberty, which we take away when we put someone in prison.
7) Sets an arbitrary line between prison and death penalty. Arbitrariousness is not an argument.

It is 100% not a deterent. It is impossible to argue this point. All facts say it is not a deterrent.

image
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/murder.jpg

It doesnt matter what "thinking" says so. It isnt. It factually isnt. You cannot argue this. Its proven time and time and time and time again.

Your cost arguement is short sighted. And purposfully ignorant. Yes a bullet costs 25 cents. But a simple question. Do you want innocents executed? No? Well we are going ot need a very carefull legal precident to make sure this doesnt happen. Ah. Llegal president. This costs money. For lawyers and court time and evidence and police assistance. This will take a while. The criminal needs to stay in jail while we sort the case out 100% for sure. That costs a lot of money. See the issue we have here?

It costs more to keep an innmate in jail and to run a long number of cases to ensure his guilt for execution that just to keep him. Be in the real world. We dont just shoot people and ask expensive questions later.

It isnt blase to treat a case not as a matter of revenge by sinking to the criminals level. Its blase to through killing around in society as an answer and to lessen the meaning of a life. How can we say that murder is such a horrible crime when we kill people to show killing people is wrong?

Your graph does not come from a non-partisan source, try again.

Still I think its fairly well established that the death penalty doesnt discourage murders anymore than prison discourages crime in general. However the death penalty does act as a 100% effective way of making sure that the individual who is punished with it does not ever do anything to inconvenience anyone ever again. Jail does this to a large extent but you still have guards and other prisoners that have to put up with them.

As for the death penalty costing more than life in prison. I know that it does but I can't see any reason why it should. I am sure if you looked people could find a way to cut down on costs.

I see a reason it does. Because we need to very carefully consider the case before we execute a person. Very carefully. Courts are expensive. You cant just shoot people without making 100% sure the case is examined and re examined. And remember that any criminal has the right to plead a different angle to a case in an attempt to get a lighter scentence. Try and get evidence revaluated. Plead insanity. It takes a while. And we cant remove these rights. Every criminal has the right to put forward a new point in their defence at any time. If they are to be executed they have a finite time to logde these claims before they cant forever.

BiscuitTrouser:

It doesnt matter what "thinking" says so. It isnt. It factually isnt. You cannot argue this. Its proven time and time and time and time again.

Picking your favorite stats doesn't create an air tight case. Maybe not even a good one. I suggest we make a law: anyone convicted of committing murder on a Tuesday gets summarily executed. Life for anyone else. Let's see if homicide rates go down on Tuesday. My hypothesis: they would.

Seekster:

As for the death penalty costing more than life in prison. I know that it does but I can't see any reason why it should. I am sure if you looked people could find a way to cut down on costs.

Exactly. I think you'd have a tough time showing that innocent lives were really saved by drawing out the process for decades. If anything, thinking you have all the time in the world to review a case may slow down justice for the wrongly convicted. Have that hard second look shortly after conviction, while evidence is still fresh. You might save lives, time, money and avoid a "justice delayed is justice denied" kind of thing.

Gorfias:

BiscuitTrouser:

It doesnt matter what "thinking" says so. It isnt. It factually isnt. You cannot argue this. Its proven time and time and time and time again.

Picking your favorite stats doesn't create an air tight case. Maybe not even a good one. I suggest we make a law: anyone convicted of committing murder on a Tuesday gets summarily executed. Life for anyone else. Let's see if homicide rates go down on Tuesday. My hypothesis: they would.

Find any stat that shows that murder rates are lower in states/countries with the death penalty. You cant. It isnt a trend. It simply doesnt exist. It just doesnt. Factually it doesnt. Find some stats. Ill give you graph after graph after graph showing that countries and states without the death penalty have the same or higher murder rates as those that dont. It isnt a correlation.

Your "reasoning" doesnt cover facts. Criminals dont think about being caught because they never consider being caught. No amount of punishment deters people.

http://nmrepeal.org/files/images/murder_rates.jpg

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2008murderratesinstates2.jpg

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/MurderRateBarGraph.jpg

http://fullfact.org/sites/fullfact.org/files/styles/large/public/Homicides.JPG

(note the above doesnt show that death penalty increases rates like the others do but its a good indicator that it has no effect on crime rates)

Sorry its just fact. You cant deny this. Find any stats at all. Any. That show a marked reduction of murder in places with the death penalty. Im waiting. Go get em.

I can do this all day.

Gorfias:

Stagnant:

Xan Krieger:
A step backwards in my views, I'm pro-death

Why, though?

From a justice perspective, it's an unlimited punishment for a limited crime.

How so? The whole point of the death penalty is that it is commensurate and proportional to some offenses.

From a moral perspective, revenge is ridiculous.

Justice isn't revenge. It's about balance. I heard that in "Batman Begins" :-) But seriously, a just society owes it's own fairness. Mercy is fine, if it is what the citizenry want. I wonder what the polling data in CT is on this subject. Do the citizenry support this?

From a legal perspective, many convictions are incorrect, and death sentences cannot be overturned once executed.

You don't treat the innocent and guilty alike: the punishment should fit the crime. Any punishment that is not over-turned during the convicted's lifetime is irreversible and that's a tragic reality. But the question is, unless the citizenry wants this level of mercy (the only winning argument in my book) what is a fair, reasonable, measured response to the crime.

From a fiscal perspective, death sentencing costs more than life in prison does.

You're writing of a ridiculously prolonged process. A bullet cost $0.25. Rope is reusable. Babysiting a psychopath while giving him/her free room, board, medical, educational and recreational facilities for life is very expensive by comparison.

As it currently exists, there is literally no rational reason to be in favor of the death sentence other than revenge porn.

How about closure for a wounded society? How about the sense that we're living in a society that is inconsolably outraged by some crimes and our government has shown it is not blase and indifferent to our suffering?

A lot of people know the story of Willie Horton, a first degree murderer who was given vacations out of prison rather than being put to death. He went on a violent spree. But do you know about the crime he commited to be put in prison in the first place? He hacked apart a 17 year old gas station attendent for fun. There's something very unsettling about a society that responds to that by giving a guy free room and board.

cartooner2008:
I don't know how many people know this, but a few days ago, Connecticut became the 17th state to abolish the death penalty, and the 5th in 5 years.

Two articles on the subject:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-25/justice/justice_connecticut-death-penalty-law-repealed_1_capital-punishment-death-penalty-information-center-death-sentences?_s=PM:JUSTICE

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75619.html

Sad, from what I can tell, this is not in response to changing values in the citizenry but Government stating, "Gee, we cannot do our job." Glad I'm turning over my health care to them.

We do not punish rapists by raping them. We do not do so because rape is seen as inherently barbaric. It's the same with the death penalty. Murder is inherently barbaric, even if it is done by the state. Indeed, more so, because in the death penalty all citizens, in whose name the judicial murder is carried out, are made complicit in the crime.

BiscuitTrouser:

Seekster:

BiscuitTrouser:

It is 100% not a deterent. It is impossible to argue this point. All facts say it is not a deterrent.

image
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/murder.jpg

It doesnt matter what "thinking" says so. It isnt. It factually isnt. You cannot argue this. Its proven time and time and time and time again.

Your cost arguement is short sighted. And purposfully ignorant. Yes a bullet costs 25 cents. But a simple question. Do you want innocents executed? No? Well we are going ot need a very carefull legal precident to make sure this doesnt happen. Ah. Llegal president. This costs money. For lawyers and court time and evidence and police assistance. This will take a while. The criminal needs to stay in jail while we sort the case out 100% for sure. That costs a lot of money. See the issue we have here?

It costs more to keep an innmate in jail and to run a long number of cases to ensure his guilt for execution that just to keep him. Be in the real world. We dont just shoot people and ask expensive questions later.

It isnt blase to treat a case not as a matter of revenge by sinking to the criminals level. Its blase to through killing around in society as an answer and to lessen the meaning of a life. How can we say that murder is such a horrible crime when we kill people to show killing people is wrong?

Your graph does not come from a non-partisan source, try again.

Still I think its fairly well established that the death penalty doesnt discourage murders anymore than prison discourages crime in general. However the death penalty does act as a 100% effective way of making sure that the individual who is punished with it does not ever do anything to inconvenience anyone ever again. Jail does this to a large extent but you still have guards and other prisoners that have to put up with them.

As for the death penalty costing more than life in prison. I know that it does but I can't see any reason why it should. I am sure if you looked people could find a way to cut down on costs.

I see a reason it does. Because we need to very carefully consider the case before we execute a person. Very carefully. Courts are expensive. You cant just shoot people without making 100% sure the case is examined and re examined. And remember that any criminal has the right to plead a different angle to a case in an attempt to get a lighter scentence. Try and get evidence revaluated. Plead insanity. It takes a while. And we cant remove these rights. Every criminal has the right to put forward a new point in their defence at any time. If they are to be executed they have a finite time to logde these claims before they cant forever.

You have to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt so there is no reason why execution should be more expensive than life in prison. I can imagine appeals add to the cost but you can have appeals in non-death penalty cases too so that shouldnt matter much.

Seekster:

You have to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt so there is no reason why execution should be more expensive than life in prison. I can imagine appeals add to the cost but you can have appeals in non-death penalty cases too so that shouldnt matter much.

And yet, it is.

Why? Because the Constitution says it has to be, apparently.

So either amend the Constitution or get rid of the Death Penalty. Guess which one is easier, faster, and cheaper?

BiscuitTrouser:

I can do this all day.

Me too!

You can pick your statistics, but you cannot pick your facts.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-death-penalty-20120418,0,7628733.story

"The Committee of Deterrence and the Death Penalty concluded that studies on the death penalty and its potential effect on homicide rates -- both pro and con -- contain fundamental flaws that essentially make them moot."

Like I wrote: I want to see what happens with the "Tuesday" idea. Again, my hypothesis is homicide rates would drop.

Leadfinger:

We do not punish rapists by raping them. We do not do so because rape is seen as inherently barbaric. It's the same with the death penalty. Murder is inherently barbaric, even if it is done by the state. Indeed, more so, because in the death penalty all citizens, in whose name the judicial murder is carried out, are made complicit in the crime.

But we do punish kidnappers with imprisonment and fine tax evaders. And you are not addressing my point: fine, you think the death penalty is "inherently barbaric". Argue that. Convince people. But don't shrug and go, "Doh! Our government's a failure. Mind if we have Willie Horton bunk with you?"

Gorfias:

"The Committee of Deterrence and the Death Penalty concluded that studies on the death penalty and its potential effect on homicide rates -- both pro and con -- contain fundamental flaws that essentially make them moot."

Oh so now we suddenly started to believe and follow comittees and studies, when it's convenient? Who are you and what have you done to the Gorf we know and love, who categorically rejects expert opinions because "experts can be paid off"?

Vegosiux:

Gorfias:

"The Committee of Deterrence and the Death Penalty concluded that studies on the death penalty and its potential effect on homicide rates -- both pro and con -- contain fundamental flaws that essentially make them moot."

Oh so now we suddenly started to believe and follow comittees and studies, when it's convenient? Who are you and what have you done to the Gorf we know and love, who categorically rejects expert opinions because "expers can be paid off"?

It's called "an admission against interest" which is inherently more credible than self serving statements. These are experts, admitting they don't know shit.

Gorfias:

It's called "an admission against interest" which is inherently more credible than self serving statements. These are experts, admitting they don't know shit.

You'll have to explain the leap of logic between "we don't know whether or not death penalty is a deterrent" and "death penalty is a deterrent." I mean, it's a bit silly to try and argue your case with a study that doesn't speak in favor of it.

Ah well the fact that counties with no death penalty have a lower homicide rates is just pure coincidence, guess people living there are just nicer overall, or something...saaaaay, that's actually a pretty neat conclusion.

Gorfias:

BiscuitTrouser:

I can do this all day.

Me too!

You can pick your statistics, but you cannot pick your facts.

But you cant. Because you didnt provide a single statistic or graph. Provide one. Now. I provided 7. As in the top 7 i could find by googling "Homicide rates per state/country". Since ALL of them show the trend i had no need to pick. They all show it. Google it yourself. Show me the other data that im selectively picking. Do it. Do it now. Or admit youre wrong.

I say it wouldnt go down. Criminals do not commit crimes on the basis of being caught. If they thought they would be caught they wouldnt commit them. Therefor any punishment is irrelivant to them since they dont believe it will happen to them. Your hypothosis is wrong. I have data to prove it. You have none. Zero. You havnt presented anything. You claim i select one half the stats. Show me the other half. SHow it to me. Show me it exists. I cannot find it. You showed me an article that claimed "data doesnt show it". But i googled the data. And trust me when i tell you that i saw a trend. I didnt select from it. I didnt pick data to support my view. I drew my view from the data. And the data clearly shows that deterrence isnt a thing.

Amnestic:

Seekster:

You have to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt so there is no reason why execution should be more expensive than life in prison. I can imagine appeals add to the cost but you can have appeals in non-death penalty cases too so that shouldnt matter much.

And yet, it is.

Why? Because the Constitution says it has to be, apparently.

So either amend the Constitution or get rid of the Death Penalty. Guess which one is easier, faster, and cheaper?

I would question where the Constitution even mentions the death penalty. Its true a lengthy process must be followed to take away someone's rights but this doesnt only apply to death penalty cases. If the death penalty were only marginally more expensive I could get that but it should NOT be millions of dollar more expensive.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked