Reversing my position on death penalty.

[Boxlicker101]

I doubt I will ever reverse my belief in capital punishment, but I have sharpened it somewhat. I believe only the most heinous criminals should be sentenced to death - people like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy or others like them. As for deterring crime: Bundy raped and murdered dozens of women, but none since he was put to death. As for whether or not life imprisonment would have accomplished the same thing, who knows? There are always loony parole boards or bleeding heart governors, such as Dukakis of MA, who see nothing wrong with letting evil-doers out on the streets.

I also think there should be some kind of review board to examine the evidence when a person is convicted. I don't mean a higher court who looks for Constitutional violations, although they might do that too. I mean something more like a grand jury who will examine the evidence presented and decide whether or not the jury acted correctly in finding a defendant guilty. The idea would be to reduce the results of inflammatory rhetoric or tactics by prosecutors or police or prosecutor misconduct or jury animosity toward defendants. I know courts do this now, but only years after the conviction, while a review board could so in a matter of days.

Of course, an acquittal can not be reversed and would never be the subject of the review I am suggesting.

 

[BONNIEBREA]

THE DEATH PENALTY DOESNT DETER CRIME. Its true.

The research indicates that a group hug and society turning the other cheek is what impresses the average serial killer to change.

Gosh, JBJ, I know I wrote in my last post "I've always been struck by how death penalty supporters are utterly impervious to logic, reason, and fact", but I wasn't expecting anyone to actually post back with an example of the phenomenon!

This is an instructional post for others to understand the 'thinking' of death penalty suppoters.

In the first two sentences JBJ says "The death penalty doesn't deter crime. It's true."

(and here our collective hope that perhaps JBJ has mastered basic factual material, like a crocus in spring, begins to timidly lift its head toward the warmth of the sun and truth - alas, only to be dashed under a late blizzard of freezing, suffocating ignorance)

He then goes on to say "The reasearch indicates that a group hug and society turning the other cheek is what impresses the average serial killer to change."

Two instructional points here.

In spite of getting it right in the first two sentences and acknowedging the truth of these simple facts, JBJ then retreats into a completely contradictory statement: indicating that the death penalty (as opposed to turning the other cheek or group hugs) is indeed what would inspire a serial killer (or any other killer) to change. We, of course, know from factual evidence that death penalties and their use have no deterent effect of any kind or under any circumstance.

Second, this last sentence of JBJ's is what I have found to be typical of the discourse of death penalty enthusiasts. Because they have no informational, rational or substantive arguments that support the existence or use of death penalties, they have to retreat into absurdities. I suppose the idea is to suggest that not having a death penalty is exactly the same as addressing the acts of people who commit murder with only 'hugs' or 'turning the other cheek'. Of course, the linking of those two ideas has no basis in reality, fact, or reason.

I admire Boxlicker's ability to acknowledge and respond to the simple fact that the death penalty system (and the entire criminal justice system) in the US is riddled with bad practices, prosecutorial and police misconduct, lax standards of evidence, and many other weaknesses. Box suggests that perhaps the death penalty should be reserved only for the worst offenders (The Gacys and the Bundys), but, of course, there is no reason to think that those problems of wrongful conviction don't apply to people who supposedly committed more than one murder as much as they do to people who supposedly committed a single murder. (I've also heard death penalty supporters say things like: 'Well, we should only execute the murderers who are REALLY guilty' - try to make an sense out of that).

I think it's great that Box suggests solutions in response to this, although I don't think his remedies would be especially helpful. Many of the people who are being freed from prisons and death rows today are getting their freedom returned only because DNA evidence techniques that didn't exist at the time of their conviction (or immediately after) now exist and can make better and more certain determinations than the more crude techniques that existed at the time of their conviction. A possible solution is to give all prisoners the right at any time to challenge their convictions based on new or changed evidence, and then place the burden on the government to prove that that exculpatory evidence is somehow flawed or invalid.

 

[rgraham666]

If the death penalty ever comes back I'm going to lobby to fill the job of executioner by conscription. Any person of voting age might receive a letter that states, "On this day you will be at this prison where you will execute this person." The penalty for not carrying it out will be the same as refusing to serve during wartime.

I'll also change the method to a 9mm hollow point bullet in the back of the head. Cheap, efficient and it doesn't disconnect the person that did the killing emotionally from the act. There will be no doubt in their mind or anybody else's that they killed someone.

Sure you might end up executing Robert Picton but you might also end up killing Guy Paul Morin or Steven Truscott.

Capital punishment is simple solution to a complicated problem, and so, a failure.

 

[topace]

If the death penalty ever comes back I'm going to lobby to fill the job of executioner by conscription. Any person of voting age might receive a letter that states, "On this day you will be at this prison where you will execute this person." The penalty for not carrying it out will be the same as refusing to serve during wartime.

I'll also change the method to a 9mm hollow point bullet in the back of the head. Cheap, efficient and it doesn't disconnect the person that did the killing emotionally from the act. There will be no doubt in their mind or anybody else's that they killed someone.

Sure you might end up executing Robert Picton but you might also end up killing Guy Paul Morin or Steven Truscott.

Capital punishment is simple solution to a complicated problem, and so, a failure.

Weren't the Morin and Truscott bunglings done before DNA evidence became standard? If the evidence is clear (like DNA is) that someone did the crime, then they should do the sentence - no matter what the sentence is.

 

[pierrelarue161]

If the death penalty ever comes back I'm going to lobby to fill the job of executioner by conscription. Any person of voting age might receive a letter that states, "On this day you will be at this prison where you will execute this person." The penalty for not carrying it out will be the same as refusing to serve during wartime.

I'll also change the method to a 9mm hollow point bullet in the back of the head. Cheap, efficient and it doesn't disconnect the person that did the killing emotionally from the act. There will be no doubt in their mind or anybody else's that they killed someone.

Sure you might end up executing Robert Picton but you might also end up killing Guy Paul Morin or Steven Truscott.

Capital punishment is simple solution to a complicated problem, and so, a failure.

But then the day might come when you are drafted to execute someone. What would you do then? It's obviously something that you oppose, so what to do with it?

 

[ottohauser1977]

If the death penalty ever comes back I'm going to lobby to fill the job of executioner by conscription. Any person of voting age might receive a letter that states, "On this day you will be at this prison where you will execute this person." The penalty for not carrying it out will be the same as refusing to serve during wartime.

I'll also change the method to a 9mm hollow point bullet in the back of the head. Cheap, efficient and it doesn't disconnect the person that did the killing emotionally from the act. There will be no doubt in their mind or anybody else's that they killed someone.

Sure you might end up executing Robert Picton but you might also end up killing Guy Paul Morin or Steven Truscott.

Capital punishment is simple solution to a complicated problem, and so, a failure.

Wrongful execution was the main issue for me, yes.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I cant imagine anyplace allowing ROB to be an executioner as it would be cruel and undignified punishment.

 

[sr71plt]

I think that JBJ was mainly going for the "get a rise out of someone," Bonniebrae.

I would keep the death penalty in the mix for heinous crimes but I certainly wouldn't let the victim's family members pull the switch. The desire for bloodthirsty vengeance isn't much better than the original crime.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Weren't the Morin and Truscott bunglings done before DNA evidence became standard? If the evidence is clear (like DNA is) that someone did the crime, then they should do the sentence - no matter what the sentence is.

DNA evidence is not as infallible as you'd like to think, any more than lie detector tests or drowning witches is.

 

[Boxlicker101]

If the death penalty ever comes back I'm going to lobby to fill the job of executioner by conscription. Any person of voting age might receive a letter that states, "On this day you will be at this prison where you will execute this person." The penalty for not carrying it out will be the same as refusing to serve during wartime.

I'll also change the method to a 9mm hollow point bullet in the back of the head. Cheap, efficient and it doesn't disconnect the person that did the killing emotionally from the act. There will be no doubt in their mind or anybody else's that they killed someone.

Sure you might end up executing Robert Picton but you might also end up killing Guy Paul Morin or Steven Truscott.

Capital punishment is simple solution to a complicated problem, and so, a failure.

I agree the hangperson should be chosen by lot, either from the jury that pronounced the sentence or from the population at large, using the same method as is now used to select juries. When I say "hangperson" that's what I mean, because I believe the method of execution should be public hanging.

This is not as complicated a problem as you seem to be saying. When you have garbage, you dispose of it, and that should be the case with Robert Pickton. As for the others you mention, they should have never been convicted.

To prevent sentences from being carried out in the cases of wrongful convictions, I believe in a review of the evidence that led to a conviction, but not by the judicial system. An organization of distinguished citizens, something like the current grand jury, could review the evidence and, without prosecutorial or police malfeasance or grandstanding, decide whether or not the evidence should have led to a conviction. That's in addition to judicial examination for Constitutional violations.

 

[sr71plt]

You would force someone who doesn't believe in taking another's life to do so because they drew a number? That's certainly idiotic.

I took the thrust of Rob's post to be if this were the criteria for enforcing the death penalty, there would be a whole heckaofa lot more folks opposing the death penalty.

 

[topace]

I agree the hangperson shojuld be chosen by lot, either from the jury that pronounced the sentence or from the population at large, using the same method as is now used to select juries. When I say "hangperson" that's what I mean, because I believe the method of execution should be public hanging.

This is not as complicated a problem as you seem to be saying. When you have garbage, you dispose of it, and that should be the case with Robert Pickton. As for the others you mention, they should have never been convicted.

To prevent sentences from being carried out in the cases of wrongful convictions, I believe in a review of the evidence that led to a conviction, but not by the judicial system. An organization of distinguished citizens, something like the current grand jury, could review the evidence and, without prosecutorial or police malfeasance or grandstanding, decide whether or not the evidence should have led to a conviction. That's in addition to judicial examination for Constitutional violations.

That would work for me.

Yeah, DNA evidence may not be perfect, but it's a lot more accurate than fingerprints!

 

[TE999]

The death penalty is a deterrent in the sense that one less murdering scum walks the earth. As far as innocence goes, Florida just took care of one killer that had fifteen years of playing the system before he got the needle. There is always the possibility that someone will be railroaded into execution, but that is becoming increasingly remote with today's forensics.and legal system.

Getting all weepy-eyed and soft-hearted over things like executions, owning a gun, fighting wars, etc are a fine intellectual exercises but that's about it. Life can be, and is, brutal and history teaches us will continue to be so. Moral relativism and rationalizing are attempts to paper over the cracks in humanities existence, but don't change a thing.

 

[topace]

The death penalty is a deterrent in the sense that one less murdering scum walks the earth. As far as innocence goes, Florida just took care of one killer that had fifteen years of playing the system before he got the needle. There is always the possibility that someone will be railroaded into execution, but that is becoming increasingly remote with today's forensics.and legal system.

Getting all weepy-eyed and soft-hearted over things like executions, owning a gun, fighting wars, etc are a fine intellectual exercises but that's about it. Life can be, and is, brutal and history teaches us will continue to be so. Moral relativism and rationalizing are attempts to paper over the cracks in humanities existence, but don't change a thing.

Amen!

 

[Boxlicker101]

You would force someone who doesn't believe in taking another's life to do so because they drew a number? That's certainly idiotic.

I took the thrust of Rob's post to be if this were the criteria for enforcing the death penalty, there would be a whole heckaofa lot more folks opposing the death penalty.

I don't see any difference between that and forcing somebody to sit on a jury in a capital case, or drafting somebody into the armed forces. Possibly there could be an exemption for conscientious objectors or members of the clergy or other such classes. Personally, I would have considered it an honor and a privilege to place the noose around the neck of somebody such as Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez or John Wayne Gacy or a few others, followed by pulling the lever that opened the trapdoor under his or her feet.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't see any difference between that and forcing somebody to sit on a jury in a capital case, or drafting somebody into the armed forces. Possibly there could be an exemption for conscientious objectors or members of the clergy or other such classes. Personally, I would have considered it an honor and a privilege to place the noose around the neck of somebody such as Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez or John Wayne Gacy or a few others, followed by pulling the lever that opened the trapdoor under his or her feet.

Fine with me if you don't. I do.

 

[TxRad]

Reversing your position on the death penalty didn't change a thing. They are still dead.

 

[sr71plt]

Reversing your position on the death penalty didn't change a thing. They are still dead.

Or not. But eventually, yes.

 

[PennLady]

I don't see any difference between that and forcing somebody to sit on a jury in a capital case, or drafting somebody into the armed forces. Possibly there could be an exemption for conscientious objectors or members of the clergy or other such classes. Personally, I would have considered it an honor and a privilege to place the noose around the neck of somebody such as Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez or John Wayne Gacy or a few others, followed by pulling the lever that opened the trapdoor under his or her feet.

But if there was jury selection going on with a capital case, one side or the other would most certainly ask the prospective juror their feelings on the death penalty. If the juror stated anything other than total support, I would think the prosecuting side would get them off the jury. I don't think you can force someone to sit on a capital case if they have strong objections.

Although I assume I could and would kill in self-defense or defense of my family, I would not kill, or want to kill, someone in the circumstances you describe.

I'm against the death penalty. I think it wastes money and does not deter anything. TE999 said:

The death penalty is a deterrent in the sense that one less murdering scum walks the earth

That's not a deterrent. A deterrent is meant to prevent something from happening.

 

[topace]

I hate to say this but 80% (4/5) of those who are released from prison wind back up in prison in under a year, usually on more serious charges, not less.

Would you think twice if you knew that if you killed someone on purpose and was found criminally guilty in a court of law that you would be killed? I know I would, and I act like it is the reality here, when the max sentence is life imprisonment with no chance of parole. Then again, the whole parole system up here is in shambles from what I read in the news.

 

[sr71plt]

That's not a deterrent. A deterrent is meant to prevent something from happening.

It's a deterrent for that convicted killer to kill again--to get out of prison and to kill again, which does happen.

I suspect that's what TE999 meant.

 

[PennLady]

It's a deterrent for that convicted killer to kill again--to get out of prison and to kill again, which does happen.

I suspect that's what TE999 meant.

If I misunderstood, then my apologies. Still, I'd say executing someone doesn't deter them from killing again, although it certainly prevents it.

 

[TexasWife25]

The death penalty doesnt make sense. Besides the fact that on average, it cost the state more money to put people to death then it does to house them for life, its unacceptable to take another humans life when there is a possibility ,however slim, that they never actually committed the crime. From a personal standpoint, I'm a small government type of girl, and allowing the government to decide whether someone lives or dies, has always felt like big government run amok to me.

 

[topace]

The death penalty doesnt make sense. Besides the fact that on average, it cost the state more money to put people to death then it does to house them for life, its unacceptable to take another humans life when there is a possibility ,however slim, that they never actually committed the crime. From a personal standpoint, I'm a small government type of girl, and allowing the government to decide whether someone lives or dies, has always felt like big government run amok to me.

Does it cost more to put people to death than to house them for 30+ years? That argument makes no sense at all to me!

Take in the costs of health, food, space, etc. and clearly keeping them alive should cost more than executing them!

 

[TexasWife25]

Does it cost more to put people to death than to house them for 30+ years? That argument makes no sense at all to me!

Take in the costs of health, food, space, etc. and clearly keeping them alive should cost more than executing them!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28mon3.html

When you factor in all the extra court costs, the lawyers, the appeals, then yes. It is considerably cheaper just to keep them alive.