Death Penalty Moratorium?
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
Oh hell...
...yes!
Just yesterday read about one man (mentally retarded and black) released after 22 years in prison for serial murders. DNA tests on semen from one of the victims (a little girl) was found to belong to another man. TWENTY TWO YEARS. He could have been executed years ago.
Also yesterday read that the governor of Texas vetoed a law to prevent the execution of mentally retarded criminals saying the state had never executed someone who was mentally retarded. Experts disagree and cite eight cases since 1987.
Again...yes.
...yes!
Just yesterday read about one man (mentally retarded and black) released after 22 years in prison for serial murders. DNA tests on semen from one of the victims (a little girl) was found to belong to another man. TWENTY TWO YEARS. He could have been executed years ago.
Also yesterday read that the governor of Texas vetoed a law to prevent the execution of mentally retarded criminals saying the state had never executed someone who was mentally retarded. Experts disagree and cite eight cases since 1987.
Again...yes.
PL~Shadow Lover
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Posts
- 198
Murder is murder, no matter what guise you use when doing it.
The Death Penalty is inhuman and they should do away with it altogether(sp?).
The Death Penalty is inhuman and they should do away with it altogether(sp?).
unusuallyconfused
BLUE EYED BABE
- Joined
- May 22, 2001
- Posts
- 1,253
I am actually for the death penalty, but not when it affects the innocent. Therefore, I would say yes, I would support it. If the statistics are accurate that you gave, I would have no choice but to support the moratorium.
Texan
'nuf said
- Joined
- May 31, 2001
- Posts
- 2,146
with all due respect
lavender, the article you cited has some SERIOUS problems.
The article freely mixes references to "federal" death penalty cases with "state" death penalty cases, in an effort to distort the appearance of what is happening.
In the past 30 years there have only been 12 federal death penalty cases brought to court. There have only been 8 federal death penalty sentences issued, and only ONE execution (Tim McVeigh). Terms like 80% and 40% used in the article have NO statistical importance when you realize those percentages are derived from only 12 cases in 30 years. The author of the story uses these statistics from federal cases and then draws conclusions about the state cases. This is intellectually unethical.
The moratorium legislation proposed by the distinguished Senator and Representative (Feingold & Jackson Jr.) would have absolutely no effect on state executions. It would only effect the 6 murderers currently on death row from "federal" death sentences. Because of current Supreme Court decisions, the congress does not have the authority to declare a moratorium on state executions.
I know this doesn't address the whole death penalty issue, I'm not trying to do that. I'm just pointing out the "bias" of the article.
lavender, the article you cited has some SERIOUS problems.
The article freely mixes references to "federal" death penalty cases with "state" death penalty cases, in an effort to distort the appearance of what is happening.
In the past 30 years there have only been 12 federal death penalty cases brought to court. There have only been 8 federal death penalty sentences issued, and only ONE execution (Tim McVeigh). Terms like 80% and 40% used in the article have NO statistical importance when you realize those percentages are derived from only 12 cases in 30 years. The author of the story uses these statistics from federal cases and then draws conclusions about the state cases. This is intellectually unethical.
The moratorium legislation proposed by the distinguished Senator and Representative (Feingold & Jackson Jr.) would have absolutely no effect on state executions. It would only effect the 6 murderers currently on death row from "federal" death sentences. Because of current Supreme Court decisions, the congress does not have the authority to declare a moratorium on state executions.
I know this doesn't address the whole death penalty issue, I'm not trying to do that. I'm just pointing out the "bias" of the article.
morninggirl5
Secret Dream Machine
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Posts
- 10,647
Re: Oh hell...
If you read the entire article, the bill would have given the authority to determine mental competence to the judge in the case rather than the jury.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/17/texas.deathpenalty.02/index.html
Closet Desire said:
If you read the entire article, the bill would have given the authority to determine mental competence to the judge in the case rather than the jury.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/17/texas.deathpenalty.02/index.html
Closet Desire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2000
- Posts
- 1,177
I've said it before...
...and I'll say it again.
Times change and we evolve. Fifty years ago I think we were sure of ourselves when we convicted someone, be it for shoplifting or first degree murder. Now, with DNA testing it is becoming very apparent that bias, prejudice, and just plain poor investigative work has sent people to prison for crimes they didn't commit. In my mind it's a horrible thing to have to release a man after 22 years and say, "gee, we feel really bad about this, but now you're free." But the alternative is to send a letter to his survivors that begins "We regret to inform you..."
Nobody and nothing is perfect. I think we should always have a margin of error in which to back out of.
...and I'll say it again.
Times change and we evolve. Fifty years ago I think we were sure of ourselves when we convicted someone, be it for shoplifting or first degree murder. Now, with DNA testing it is becoming very apparent that bias, prejudice, and just plain poor investigative work has sent people to prison for crimes they didn't commit. In my mind it's a horrible thing to have to release a man after 22 years and say, "gee, we feel really bad about this, but now you're free." But the alternative is to send a letter to his survivors that begins "We regret to inform you..."
Nobody and nothing is perfect. I think we should always have a margin of error in which to back out of.
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
It is wrong to take life outside of battle.
Texan
'nuf said
- Joined
- May 31, 2001
- Posts
- 2,146
lavender said:
Those newspapers are still a little pissed at G.W. after all, they all endorsed Ma Richards over G.W. and lost. Rick Perry is still receiving their wrath. (especially from the Austin American Statesman)
It is still against the law in Texas to execute someone who is mentally retarded...!!!!!... The bill that Perry struck down only had to do with WHO decides if a defendant is retarded..... the jury or the judge... I don't care one way or the other... I think it's a tiny difference....
The next to last paragraph is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my criticism of the article.... The author took statistics from federal death penalty cases and applied his mistaken conclusions to state cases.
.. (with only 12 federal cases in 30 years, the statistics are completely meaningless. There have only been federal death penalty cases in less than 25% of the states, and only one state has had two federal cases, how can anyone draw geographical conclusions about bias?) There may be other statistics that draw viable conclusions about bias in death penalty cases. (You even mentioned something in your reply.) But the author of the article in question repeatedly used federal statistics to draw eroneous conclusions about state cases.
Ask For More
Mystery Man
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2000
- Posts
- 15,877
Um....what's a moratorium?
Ask For More
Mystery Man
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2000
- Posts
- 15,877
aaah...thanks all-seeing lavvy 
It would seem that there are obvious flaws in the system. And please don't lynch me for this, but I thought of this as a possibllity; if minority groups are being overwhelmingly commited to death row, certain socio-economics factors have to be taken into account.
It would seem that there are obvious flaws in the system. And please don't lynch me for this, but I thought of this as a possibllity; if minority groups are being overwhelmingly commited to death row, certain socio-economics factors have to be taken into account.
Texan
'nuf said
- Joined
- May 31, 2001
- Posts
- 2,146
lavender said:
I hope you don't ever think my posts are disrespectful to your responses. Your conservative posts rank up there with UncleBill and OliverClozoff as my favorite to read. I just have to be a little pissy at times. It's the Texas female in me.
hahahaha.....lavender.... I would call you darlin.... or sweetheart...or some other Texas term-of-endearment... except then you wouldn't take me seriously....hahaha...
I also hope I have not been disrespectful. I usually ignore posting replies to those for whom I have little respect. Just not worth the time.... I grew up with three sisters (no brothers) and learned how to argue with women. That transfered into college where I earned my first MA in speech and competed in intercollegiate debate. My wife won't listen to my political opinions... she tends to agree with me... and is extremely well informed. She just dismisses me... telling me ... that I don't need to preach to the converted....
lavender.... I am in favor of a state's right to execute it's worst offenders. I may be verbally hung for this next statement, but here goes. Even if the state makes mistakes, I believe the use of the death penalty is beneficial to society. Of course, I believe the state should do EVERYTHING possible to eliminate mistakes.
A society should have the ability to feel "armed" against it's worst foes. I believe that a society needs the "catharsis of closure" that comes from the finality of execution.
On a personal level, I couldn't care less if the state executes the criminal or sends him to prison for life. I think society needs the death penalty for it's collective mental health. Again, my age might have something to do with this. I can remember the societal angst when Manson was sentenced to death but immediately had his sentence changed to life in prison, as a result of the Gregg moratorium against the death penalty. I also remember the societal frustration when horrible crimes were committed and everyone knew that the criminal would not face the same fate as his victim(s).
For me, it's not about the economics or the fate of the criminal... it's about the benefit to society. If the American population ever decides that the death penalty is wrong... or bad for society... then I'll change my opinion.... but when +-70% of the population is in favor of the death penalty.... then I think society needs it.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
I think a death penalty crematorium is a great idea.
Burn the bastards right there on the premises after we lethally inject them, or electrocute them, or gas them. Kansas still has hanging on the books, don't you guys?
Personally I'd like to get the firing squad like Gary Gilmore in Utah.
What a way to go....
Burn the bastards right there on the premises after we lethally inject them, or electrocute them, or gas them. Kansas still has hanging on the books, don't you guys?
Personally I'd like to get the firing squad like Gary Gilmore in Utah.
What a way to go....
Another problem
If I'm not mistaken, potential jurors in cases where the death penalty might be a possibility can be disqualified if they admit that they would NEVER sentence someone to death, regardless of the accused crime or guilt. In other words, the jury is made up of people in favor of the death penalty. Would we be willing to agree that people who are in favor of the death penalty tend to be tougher on crime? How the hell is THAT fair?
I understand that it seems to be a waste of time to have a jury consider sentencing a convicted felon to death when there are jurors who have already stated they would never agree to condem someone to death. But that just further points out the absurdity of capital punishment in a democracy. You have the right to a trial before a jury of your peers...provided those peers think executing the guilty is a good idea. Those who are opposed can go sit on an insurance fraud case.
If I'm not mistaken, potential jurors in cases where the death penalty might be a possibility can be disqualified if they admit that they would NEVER sentence someone to death, regardless of the accused crime or guilt. In other words, the jury is made up of people in favor of the death penalty. Would we be willing to agree that people who are in favor of the death penalty tend to be tougher on crime? How the hell is THAT fair?
I understand that it seems to be a waste of time to have a jury consider sentencing a convicted felon to death when there are jurors who have already stated they would never agree to condem someone to death. But that just further points out the absurdity of capital punishment in a democracy. You have the right to a trial before a jury of your peers...provided those peers think executing the guilty is a good idea. Those who are opposed can go sit on an insurance fraud case.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
Re: Another problem
Nice use of logical fallacy, Christo.
Being willing to consider the death penalty does NOT mean you are in favor of it.
On the other hand, if a defendant can get just one person who would rather put a serial killer back on the street than consider the death penalty, he's won his case without presenting one item of evidence.
Jurors can be disqualified for admitting any prejudice or moral stand that would present a comflict of interest in a case. That's because everyone has a right to a fair trial by jury, not a trial by moral fantatics that have made up their mind before being summoned for jury duty.
christo said:
Nice use of logical fallacy, Christo.
Being willing to consider the death penalty does NOT mean you are in favor of it.
On the other hand, if a defendant can get just one person who would rather put a serial killer back on the street than consider the death penalty, he's won his case without presenting one item of evidence.
Jurors can be disqualified for admitting any prejudice or moral stand that would present a comflict of interest in a case. That's because everyone has a right to a fair trial by jury, not a trial by moral fantatics that have made up their mind before being summoned for jury duty.
Similar threads
