Executions to Resume After High Court OKs Lethal Injections - THE PATH ::
News to Pray For: April 17, 2008. Executions to Resume After High Court OKs Lethal Injections COURT (AP) U.S. executions are all but certain to resume
http://www.thepath.fm/news/newsitem.cfm?id=30416HOME |
Executions to resume after high court OK's lethal injections
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_lethal_injection
WASHINGTON - The longest pause in executions in the U.S. in 25 years is about to end. A splintered Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday, approving the most widely used method of lethal injection....
-----
Not quite splintered--it was a 7-2 decision.
Let's see what happens if McCain is elected and Ginsburg/Stevens retire...
While I can think of several guilty, do you have any actual cites of an innocent one in mind? Or is it simply "BAU" (Blather as usual)?
I doubt that you will bother to check, but here you go (http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/).
While I can think of several guilty, do you have any actual cites of an innocent one in mind? Or is it simply "BAU" (Blather as usual)?
I recommend the work of the Innocence Project. Very compelling.
Texans, your express killing lane is now open! You may resuming killing the guility (and the occasional innocent) people at your usual breakneck pace!
Yesterday's DMN had an interesting cover story on the death penalty in Texas.
Redemption for these criminals is possible and they should understand that the redemption they should seek is between them and their maker along with the family and friends of their victims.
Article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-deathpenalty_20met.ART.State.Edition1.46287d4.html )
...He thinks the death penalty is a deterrent and, "The ultimate punishment has to be there to make the rest of the system work. ....
.....Even the possibility that an innocent person may be executed doesn't shake him. "That's always a risk in the system," he says. "It's a human system, it's going to be fallible. Mistakes happen, he says. "People die by friendly fire...
.....we have to work to make sure that the system works perfectly.''......
....Mr. Weeks, now a Methodist, can quote the Bible with ease. He's familiar with the commandment not to kill and with Jesus' demand to turn the other cheek.
But, he says, "Jesus said, 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.' And he forgave the thief on the cross – but he didn't remove him from the cross.'"......
Counter opinion (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/crime/stories/DN-deathpenalty2_20met.ART.State.Edition1.4624da2.htm l)
..."Mr. Millsap is not particularly comfortable with the movement, which often lionizes death
God certainley ordains killing--just read about the accounts of Israel in the OT. I don't have time now to pull up specific passages at the moment, but I can if you want.Then modern Israel is clearly out of order, having no capital punishment. In fact, does not Jewish religious law prohibit it?
Strange... pretty much most of European society survives just fine without the death penalty, and according to you being in denial about societal behaviour.
Wonder why that is? :confused:
As a semi-related aside. If you ever find yourself in Fremantle, Western Australia I suggest you take the highly recommended tour of Fremantle Prison. As part of the tour you get to visit death row and the gallows (last used in 1964). Hard to find a more eerie place.
Execution is a logical solution. Only if you don't believe in the importance of life. And since you are killing to uphold the fact that life is important and should not be taken - actually execution is an extremely illogical solution. You kill to show you shouldn't kill...
You know, you can characterise those of us against the death penalty as thinking redemption is always possible if you like, but unfortunately that is coming entirely out of your head. You might like us to make those arguments, but I don't actually see too many of us actually making them.
Let me state this extremely clearly. I don't believe in the death penalty. I do believe that there are some people who are too dangerous to be allowed out into the populace, but where you have someone like that, killing them is not morally the answer. Incarceration has several functions - to punish, to reform, to demonstrate some actions are against the public good and to protect the public. It's the last function that is important when it comes to the type of people you describe. And it's a solution which many countries around the world have arrived at, and have used very successfully for decades.
It is interesting though that you state that murderers will not reform. There was a case discussed in OMNI a while back about a guy on death row who had reformed - was doing a lot of work to try and show his community why gangs are bad (he had been heavily involved in gangs, which lead to his death penalty) and stop kids ending up where he was. He was executed anyway, despite the fact he had reformed. So it seems that the death penalty in the US is not just reserved for the type of criminal that you discuss, the sociopaths, the psychopaths, the ones who have little regard for life other than their own, but also those who have realised that what they did was wrong and have tried to attone for it.
I think I can sleep more easily at night with my system of justice thanks. We had some pretty grave miscarriages of justice during the anti-terrorist campaigns, and no doubt a number of innocent people would have been executed if it wasn't for the fact we didn't have a death penalty.
ratsah = murder
ratsah is what appears in the original text
The KJV is not the only translation of the Bible--try the NIV or NASB. Hint: those translations are more literal.
--
God certainley ordains killing--just read about the accounts of Israel in the OT. I don't have time now to pull up specific passages at the moment, but I can if you want.
If you are going to start quoting the Old Testament as a justification for capital punishment, I can only assume that you favor the stoning of adulterers and blasphemers and the restoration of slavery. Perhaps you would feel more at home in Iran.
You know that it's cheaper to house for life then the costs of an execution, right?
(Unless, once the sentence is pronounced, you think we should just spend the cost of a bullet and execute them right in the courtroom.)
Worked fine for hangings and executions during the 1800's. I don't recall my history teacher lecturing us on innocent men being hung.
Callous? Damn right! But not near so callous as the records and actions of those who await execution.
I'm SO glad two wrongs make a right. That way the next time someone dings my car I can key them.
BTW, the drugs which may again be used to kill human beings are prohibited in most states for use by veterinarians to euthanize pets.
I would say that the cost argument is one of the weakest ones because so much of that cost is caused by death-penalty opponents' numerous appeals in every death penalty case.
I only usually bring it up when people complain about the cost of housing the convicts for life.
The truth is that housing someone for life is a mistake that can't be reversed. Kill someone and you can't bring them back. I have no problem with appeals making sure that everything is in order.
Last time I heard it cost around $30k/year to house a prisoner. Multiply that over a 20 year period and it's $600,000. Show me some numbers on what bullets or rope costs. Even the drugs for lethal injection aren't very expensive.
The cost is in all the appeals these thugs get. I wish we could nip some of those too--al la Tookie Williams.
Still, it is more expensive to execute someone.
You can't. It would be an abomination to even consider amending the 13th amendment for the express purpose of getting a marginal amount of labor from America's prison population. Better to address the underlying causes of crime (lack of education, poverty, etc).
What do you mean amend the 13th amn? That is the 13th amn!!!
I remember an old Richard Pryor stand-up from the 70's when he said:
"Ever notice that there are a lot of brothers in prison? Well, I visited one of those prisons. All I got to say is----thank God we have prisons!" :D
Would you want one for your spouse? Your neighbor? Your son-in-law if you had a daughter?:confused::confused:
Want one what??
Dave
Unless the defendant has money and is white.
How do you explain OJ?
You know that it's cheaper to house for life then the costs of an execution, right?
(Unless, once the sentence is pronounced, you think we should just spend the cost of a bullet and execute them right in the courtroom.)
Hire Accenture or PWC. They'll figure out a way to make the execution more efficient.
Let's see what happens if McCain is elected and Ginsburg/Stevens retire...
Well Ginsburg voted against so I would say it would be 8-1, almost unanimous :D
Executions to resume after high court OK's lethal injections
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_lethal_injection
WASHINGTON - The longest pause in executions in the U.S. in 25 years is about to end. A splintered Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday, approving the most widely used method of lethal injection....
-----
Not quite splintered--it was a 7-2 decision.
Let's see what happens if McCain is elected and Ginsburg/Stevens retire...
(From OP link)
Almost immediately, Virginia lifted its moratorium on the death penalty.
... on the one year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.
Killing is not bad. Murder is.
He didn't dictate, "Thou shalt not murder," the word was "kill".
Correct. The distinction is quite clear. Murder was the word used in the original text.
The same word used in Numbers 35:27-30 when dealing with killings that weren't regarded as murders?
He didn't dictate, "Thou shalt not murder," the word was "kill".
Actually, He did.
"There are several strong arguments for the case that the sixth commandment should be translated as "Thou shalt not murder." First, the verb used in the Torah commandment is "ratsah," which generally is translated as murder and refers only to criminal acts of killing a human being. The word "kill" generally refers to the taking of life for all classes of victims and for all reasons. This generalization is expressed through a different Hebrew verb "harag."..."
Do we really want to employ people to exterminate prisoners?
You would prefer volunteers?? ;)
Best, Dave
If they want to eat or sleep--they will work, just like any other American.
That is not cruel and unusual punishment.
Although I agree with the death penalty in some circumstances, I think that withholding food & sleep from death row prisoners to force them to work would clearly fail the 8th Amendment test, even in our current Supreme Court.
While I can think of several guilty, do you have any actual cites of an innocent one in mind? Or is it simply "BAU" (Blather as usual)?
No, but they've found at least 2 guys that *would* have been killed had they not stepped in. How many more do you think they're are?
If you think it's a necessary risk then I assume you'd offer no resistance to being killed if it came to that?
The poster is residing in the state of Denial, where justice is both blind and 100% accurate.
The decision is, in fact, pretty splintered. Concurring in the judgment, it is a 3-2-1-1 plurality.
Quite correct. I should have looked deeper than the 7-2 vote in the AP article.
This case is not about the death penalty. It's not even about lethal injection being right or wrong. It's only about the method used to perform the execution.
Why bother with the expense of a trial? Since the police and prosecutors are ALWAYS right, let's just go right to summary executions.
Oooh, Judge Dredd time! "I AM the law!"
Feel free - it is Friday night, and I will have better things on my mind.
:confused: Well aren't you special.
If you are going to start quoting the Old Testament as a justification for capital punishment, I can only assume that you favor the stoning of adulterers and blasphemers and the restoration of slavery. Perhaps you would feel more at home in Iran.
Didn't your mother ever teach you not to assume? (.../u/me)
Never did I quote the OT as justification for capital punishment. anonplz claimed that God commanded us not to kill. I simply stated there were many incidents in the OT where God commanded the Israelites to kill (such as in Joshua 8:18,22) or did the killing himself (think Sodom and Gomorrah or killing of the Egyptian first-borns during first Passover).
Not quite splintered--it was a 7-2 decision.
The decision is, in fact, pretty splintered. Concurring in the judgment, it is a 3-2-1-1 plurality.
With that said, it is a very illuminating opinion. Justice Ginsburg's dissent is almost comical for someone who is supposed to be applying the Constitution. She, I kid you not, apparently believes that "gently strok[ing] the condemned inmate’s eyelashes" when administering lethal injection is required by the Eighth Amendment. :rolleyes:
If lethal injection is a cruel and unusual punishment, it is difficult to see how any method of capital punishment can comport with the Constitution. Of course, the notion that capital punishment is at odds with the Constitution is expressly refuted by nothing other than the Constitution itself. From the Fifth Amendment (emphasis mine):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
What do you mean amend the 13th amn? That is the 13th amn!!!
Well aware. I said to "consider amending", which I thought implied that what you'd posted was in fact the 13th amendment. If that was confusing, mea culpa.
Only if you don't believe in the importance of life. And since you are killing to uphold the fact that life is important and should not be taken - actually execution is an extremely illogical solution. You kill to show you shouldn't kill...
I never claimed any moral grounds for executions. I see it as a penalty by the strictest definition of the word.
You know, you can characterise those of us against the death penalty as thinking redemption is always possible if you like, but unfortunately that is coming entirely out of your head. You might like us to make those arguments, but I don't actually see too many of us actually making them.
Didn't say that at all. I only characterized those people who oppose the death penalty on the basis that hardened criminals can be rehabilitated. I understand and respect other views, and I understand that there are other reasons to oppose the death penalty. I only singled out those who bring up the rehab argument. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then don't worry about it; clearly, it doesn't apply to you.
Let me state this extremely clearly. I don't believe in the death penalty. I do believe that there are some people who are too dangerous to be allowed out into the populace, but where you have someone like that, killing them is not morally the answer. Incarceration has several functions - to punish, to reform, to demonstrate some actions are against the public good and to protect the public. It's the last function that is important when it comes to the type of people you describe. And it's a solution which many countries around the world have arrived at, and have used very successfully for decades.
Obviously we have different views. And I can respect that. My comments were directed at a poster who attacked my views and attempted to characterize me as someone who is either simple-minded or of limited intelligence. I truly do respect your view as I would hope you respect mine. The other poster, however, attempted to portray me as some uncivilized idiot with some bloodlust.
It is interesting though that you state that murderers will not reform. There was a case discussed in OMNI a while back about a guy on death row who had reformed - was doing a lot of work to try and show his community why gangs are bad (he had been heavily involved in gangs, which lead to his death penalty) and stop kids ending up where he was. He was executed anyway, despite the fact he had reformed. So it seems that the death penalty in the US is not just reserved for the type of criminal that you discuss, the sociopaths, the psychopaths, the ones who have little regard for life other than their own, but also those who have realised that what they did was wrong and have tried to attone for it.
Actually, if you re-read what I posted, I said that many murders are committed on the spur of the moment, usually out of anger between people who are otherwise supposed to love and care about each other. These are truly situations that simply went too far and resulted in tragedy. These people will never commit murder again; they will probably punish themselves more than any prison sentence ever could. But there are those few who simply feel no remorse about killing.
Digg - Executions to resume after high court OKs lethal injections::
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The longest pause in executions in the U.S. in 25 years is about to end. A splintered Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday, approving the most
http://digg.com/world_news/Executions_to_resume_after_high_court_OK_s_lethal_injectionsHOME |
As for how the sentence is applied: I agree. Could be done better. But the topic, I thought, was whether or not there should be lethal injection executions. I never once argued about whether or not death penalties are 100% correct. To me, that's not part of the discussion. The fact that there's a death penalty has no bearing on whether or not an innocent man is accidentally convicted. That's a completely different process. The litigation process is a different aspect. I agree that juries bear a heavy burden when it comes to sentencing a person to death and should be absolutely certain that it is the appropriate sentence for the crime. Thought I said that in earlier post(s).
I think I can sleep more easily at night with my system of justice thanks. We had some pretty grave miscarriages of justice during the anti-terrorist campaigns, and no doubt a number of innocent people would have been executed if it wasn't for the fact we didn't have a death penalty.
I sleep pretty soundly myself knowing that some murderers will never do it again because they were executed.
Do you snore?
"The true ignorance reflected in some of these posts, yours included, is the belief that crime can be deterred. It cannot. The simple truth is that there will always be a portion of our society who will commit crimes. And out of that portion, there's a percentage of those who will not hesitate to brutalize their fellow human beings. Count your blessings that you've never met one of these people; it would shatter your Pollyanna image of the world."
The only ignorance spouted around here is the unjustified bloodlust of those who can't justify their stance on capital punishment and in doing so have innocent blood on their hands. Crime most definitely can be deterred. I stop at a round octagon sign when nobody is around just for a $100 penalty. Look at the implications of recent laws in the corporate world. The mere possibility that a CEO might be held accountable by prison time has entirely changed the financial dealings of public companies in this country...quite quickly I might add. We adjust penalties for various crimes all of the time as a means of deterrence.
You go quite wrong in your reasoning. People who are committing an act that will lead to a lifetime in jail really don't think they will be caught. They're already facing an extreme penalty. True, there will always be people who want to commit crimes, but they generally don't due to the possibility of being caught. It's not so much the fear of being caught that they fear, but it's the punishment that goes along with it. Some people, where in a pre-meditated fashion, choose to go ahead anyways. Then again, there are others who don't do anything, are convicted anyways and get put on death row at the blood lust of those who whine about people's perceptions of a Pollyanna world.
In terms of being thankful, why would I have any more or less thanks were I in a position where someone wanted to kill me? The brutal punishment that people with blood lust like yourself put forward will do nothing to stop that person.
I think that's twice that you're used pollyanna on here. While I'm happy that your vocabulary seems to include one fancy word, you might want to back away from the idea that people who are against the death penalty want to sit down and hug murderers and sing kumbaya. That's far from the case. I'd be all for the death penalty if it made sense. It doesn't.
Wow, really are full of yourself, eh Oh Great One.
That's a joke, by the way, in the event you're humor-impaired. ;)
Bloodlust? No, just a rational conclusion that some people are prone to brutal violence and simply cannot be rehabilitated. Execution is a logical solution. Idealists believe that human behavior can be changed if given the right tools, right conditions, right inspiration, whatever. I believe that human behavior changes only when the individual wants to change his or her behavior. If the words Pollyanna and Kumbaya offend you, that's your problem, sport. However, those words express what I think of people who believe that individuals can be tricked, conned, coerced, seduced or otherwise made to change their ways. They gotta wanna do it first, pal. If they don't, then listening to their hard luck stories, crying with them, holding hands and singing uplifting songs ain't gonna change a damned thing.
By the way, I truly missed your point how stopping at a stop sign compares to murder. Otherwise, I'm not talking about people who are law abiding for whatever reason. I'm talking about that minority of the population that is determined to hurt others regardless of the penalty of law. Whether it's life imprisonment or the death penalty, they simply don't care nor are intimidated by it. They will commit crime, and in this specific instance, sir, commit murder without hesitation, without regret and without equivocation.
You haven't really shared any true solution for these types of murderers other than that the death penalty doesn't seem to work. The recidivism rate for executed murderers is 0%.
"Last time I heard it cost around $30k/year to house a prisoner. Multiply that over a 20 year period and it's $600,000. Show me some numbers on what bullets or rope costs. Even the drugs for lethal injection aren't very expensive."
States death row injections get OK after high court ruling - USATODAY.com::
to get executions back on track following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the use of a three-drug lethal lethal-injection procedure
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-16-2134568367_x.htmHOME |
It's pretty sad that you seem to think you know enough to justify taking a person's life yet you don't even understand that a cash flow needs to be depreciated when looking at economic decisions.
I'm absolutely amazed at the lack of informed and educated opinions here. I guess I assumed that FF's given their usual jobs would be better educated than posters on most forums. Reading this makes me think I was mistaken.
"The cost is in all the appeals these thugs get. I wish we could nip some of those too--al la Tookie Williams."
Wow, that's almost openly racist. Those appeals are stop gaps put in place to make sure that due process has been followed in order to institute the ultimate penalty. They are meant to help avoid us killing innocent people. Not that it works all of the time. We have a constitution to follow. Perhaps, you might want to take your bloodlust and focus it on why we have so much crime in this country in the first place.
"While I completely agree, my position is that the death penalty should only be applied where there is not a shred of doubt that the accused person committed the crime."
Essentially, this never would be part of our criminal system as our burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and not beyond all doubt. What you're saying would really never happen, so you might as well say that you're against the death penalty as we don't look to find people absolutely guilty...just guilty.
In terms of the issue itself, the death penalty has never been shown to be a deterrent to violent crime. It adds more violence into our communities and in many cases the victims families are often against this. The people who are convicted of the death penalty disproportionately have poor legal representation. That is, those that end up on death row haven't committed the most heinous acts or those who have the most evidence against them, they are often those with the least ability to mount a solid defense.
This all of course ignores that we have, and likely will in the future, kill innocent people. The Innocence Project has pulled plenty of people out of custody who were in line to be killed. In fact, we have such blood lust in this country that it took the supreme court to step in and rule that you can't execute children in this country. In fact, the US commonly sits in the top 5 in executions with such awesome, free countries as Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and Pakistan. Of course, this nation was built largely by rich folk who were all too willing to hang the working class from a tree. In many cases, the same prejudices are the motive for the bloodlust in this country, but people would prefer to let their prejudices run their course more quietly these days.
In short, the death penalty doesn't work, only barbaric countries do it, it costs more than life in prison, isn't practiced by our first world brethren, the people who get it aren't the most guilty and we end up killing innocent citizens.
Apropos of this decision, I heard the following statistic on the radio this afternoon: California has 669 prisoners on Death Row as of right now. Given that this is California, not Texas, I'd be willing to bet that at least 500 of those will die in prison before they ever reach the execution chamber.
I'm not offering that up as an argument for or against, as I am still somewhat ambivalent about the death penalty, myself. I am not convinced that our system is infallible enough that we can claim we've never executed an innocent person. OTOH, there are plenty of criminals for whom I've felt no sympathy whatsoever at their demise, and I think we did the right thing in putting to death--Timothy McVeigh, for example.
As for method of execution, I don't know that lethal injection is any more humane or less painful than the old Soviet way of taking a walk in the woods and getting a bullet in the back of the head.
You would prefer volunteers?? Since in the US employment is voluntary these people have effectively volunteered. And they get paid by the taxpayers. Would you want one for your spouse? Your neighbor? Your son-in-law if you had a daughter?
I'll be happy to forgive when you learn to only have opinions that you can actually justify. I'm not God, but am an arbiter sometimes...generally of those who are neither informed nor educated.
Yes...everyone who disagrees with you is a poor, sorry, ignorant ba$tard. You are the arbiter of who is informed or educated because...you say so.
Did you even bother to read my whole post? I didn't express unbridled support for the death penalty.
The King James Version is at odds with your unique interpretation:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=citation&book=Exodus&chapno=20&startverse=13&endverse=13
But the King James Version is not written in the original language of the 10 commandments. Many languages distinguish between killing & murder. Greek and Latin did, and I believe Hebrew did as well.,
I won't disagree with you that some people will kill and kill again.
Where I profoundly disagree with you is where you say killing is a necessary tool of criminal justice. If killing is a necessary tool of criminal justice, then why don't more countries use it? Because there is another option - LWOP. LWOP protects the public from these people without society having to say 'killing is bad, but it's actually ok if we do it'. Either killing is bad or it isn't. Doesn't really matter if it's state sanctioned or not. Either it is wrong to kill or it isn't.
Killing is not bad. Murder is.
Unlike you, I truly don't give a damn how they do it in other countries. Doesn't really bother me that the Europeans are wimps about how to deal with brutal murderers.
I'm glad that in this country I have a right to defend myself. I have absolutely no qualms, no moral dilemmas, no hesitation about placing well-aimed ammunition rounds into a person who is a threat to me or my family. I am not bothered by the idea of a good kill. With that comes a great responsibility, and I accept that as well.
And I'm glad that we have laws that will end the life of anyone who gets his jollies out of killing other people. Not everyone who commits murder should be executed. But, not every murderer should be coddled in comfort at state expense. Some of them need to be executed; they are contributing to global warming whenever they exhale.
Does our criminal justice system need improvement? You bet it does. I'm all in favor of erring on the side of caution whenever there is a reasonable doubt about a person's guilt.
I'm very sorry, exactly where did I make out the Europeans were saints? I merely used them as an example to rebutt your rather patronising 'if you aren't for the death penalty then you just don't understand' argument. Either European society does not understand en masse (which does seem rather unlikely), or your argument is a US-centric poor argument, which does not take account of the fact that a large number of the world do not feel it is necessary to judicially murder innocent (or indeed even guilty) people.
There are violent people in the world. Some of the most brutal among them will kill again if afforded the opportunity. The Europeans choose to keep them in prisons until they die or until they have completed their sentence. Guess what? The ones who are released will only kill again. That's a harsh, ugly fact of life. I've seen violence in just about every corner of the world and am comfortable with the fact that it is sometimes necessary for the state to execute some of these people.
I don't see this as a hand-wringing emotionally-based moral dilemma. I accept it as a necessary aspect of human behavior. I'm not saying every murderer needs to be executed nor am I saying that the criminal justice is perfect. I am saying that the death penalty is a necessary tool of criminal justice.
How's the view from up there?
And not a moment too soon. Millions of tax dollars wasted on housing criminals.
You know that it's cheaper to house for life then the costs of an execution, right?
(Unless, once the sentence is pronounced, you think we should just spend the cost of a bullet and execute them right in the courtroom.)
Doesn't really bother me that the Europeans are wimps about how to deal with brutal murderers.
:rolleyes:
I won't disagree with you that some people will kill and kill again.
Where I profoundly disagree with you is where you say killing is a necessary tool of criminal justice. If killing is a necessary tool of criminal justice, then why don't more countries use it? Because there is another option - LWOP. LWOP protects the public from these people without society having to say 'killing is bad, but it's actually ok if we do it'. Either killing is bad or it isn't. Doesn't really matter if it's state sanctioned or not. Either it is wrong to kill or it isn't.
I am all for the death penalty, but do not dispute that it costs more to execute someone than lock them up for life. This needs to change.
As I have proposed before, prisoners should be put to work rebuilding our crumbling infrasturcture while they are in jail--make them earn their food and shelter.
How can we force them to work? Read the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "
Last time I heard it cost around $30k/year to house a prisoner. Multiply that over a 20 year period and it's $600,000. Show me some numbers on what bullets or rope costs. Even the drugs for lethal injection aren't very expensive.
Perhaps you would feel more at home in Iran.
Oh, please. :rolleyes:
When I have time this evening, I will fully rebut your response.
... we should just spend the cost of a bullet and execute them right in the courtroom.)
Hanging. The rope can be used again.
:confused::confused:
Want one what??
DaveI plainly referred the people we were talking about, those employed as executioners. Would you want one for your neighbor? Spouse? In-law?
I'd have less trouble with the death penalty if we stopped trying to perpetuate the fiction that we as a society have never executed an innocent person, accepted the likelihood that we have, and just said, "them's the breaks"--it would be more honest of us.
What, exactly, would be the benefit of such an approach that would cause you less "trouble"??
It appears to me that this is likely right, BTW, but I don't see how it's implementation matters one way or the other.
Best, Dave
Callous? Damn right! But not near so callous as the records and actions of those who await execution.My position is that capital punishment degrades the innocent. Look how callous it has made you. Does someone being dead make the crime go away?
And do we really want to employ people to exterminate prisoners? It's bad enough our intelligence agencies employ torturers and kidnappers.
Even the Innocence Project couldn't find an individual who had been excuted in error in Texas (at least in modern times).
Not yet, anyway... (https://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2589)
"I am sorry we don't meet your lofty expectations, oh great one.
I didn't know that you were God and the arbiter of who is informed and educated.
Please forgive my ignorance... "
I'll be happy to forgive when you learn to only have opinions that you can actually justify. I'm not God, but am an arbiter sometimes...generally of those who are neither informed nor educated.
"
"Incidentally, the last execution in Texas, 9/24/07, IIRC, involved a young gent who had raped and murdered the mother of seven (7) youngsters. You might ask those kids for reactions to his having been "put down" as they used to say of bad dogs. The next is likely to be a nice fellow who raped his seven year old stepdaughter - in every available orifice according to reports of the crime - then murdered her so the child wouldn't tell her mother, his wife. I suppose we could give him a pass and a bus ticket...."Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" might fit with my interpretation of your screen name.""
Nice job in bringing up examples that bring about strong emotion. Legislation by emotion and knee jerk reactions leads to bad laws. While these people might very well deserve this fate, our ability to ensure that ONLY people who deserve this fate get it is quite in question. They don't get proven absolutely guilty, yet you're applying an absolute punishment...one that does nothing to deter any crime. These types of emotional examples might be useful for swaying an uninformed populace, but they are not useful in debating. The people who get the death penalty are not generally the ones who have committed the worst crimes or the ones who are the most guilty. The ones who get the death penalty are most often those who can least afford legal council. We can all think of a not so long ago case where a public figure killed the mother of his child and her boyfriend and was caught driving down the freeway. Do you seriously think that he wouldn't be facing a needle were it not for his wealth?
"The true ignorance reflected in some of these posts, yours included, is the belief that crime can be deterred. It cannot. The simple truth is that there will always be a portion of our society who will commit crimes. And out of that portion, there's a percentage of those who will not hesitate to brutalize their fellow human beings. Count your blessings that you've never met one of these people; it would shatter your Pollyanna image of the world."
The only ignorance spouted around here is the unjustified bloodlust of those who can't justify their stance on capital punishment and in doing so have innocent blood on their hands. Crime most definitely can be deterred. I stop at a round octagon sign when nobody is around just for a $100 penalty. Look at the implications of recent laws in the corporate world. The mere possibility that a CEO might be held accountable by prison time has entirely changed the financial dealings of public companies in this country...quite quickly I might add. We adjust penalties for various crimes all of the time as a means of deterrence.
You go quite wrong in your reasoning. People who are committing an act that will lead to a lifetime in jail really don't think they will be caught. They're already facing an extreme penalty. True, there will always be people who want to commit crimes, but they generally don't due to the possibility of being caught. It's not so much the fear of being caught that they fear, but it's the punishment that goes along with it. Some people, where in a pre-meditated fashion, choose to go ahead anyways. Then again, there are others who don't do anything, are convicted anyways and get put on death row at the blood lust of those who whine about people's perceptions of a Pollyanna world.
In terms of being thankful, why would I have any more or less thanks were I in a position where someone wanted to kill me? The brutal punishment that people with blood lust like yourself put forward will do nothing to stop that person.
I think that's twice that you're used pollyanna on here. While I'm happy that your vocabulary seems to include one fancy word, you might want to back away from the idea that people who are against the death penalty want to sit down and hug murderers and sing kumbaya. That's far from the case. I'd be all for the death penalty if it made sense. It doesn't.
"I still don't think I'll ever understand the lust some people have for the death penalty. Call it justice/punishment/right thing if you makes you happy."
The United States has always had a violent culture. The desire for death that you see from people who support this is in many cases the same desire for destruction shown by those who actually perpetrated the crimes...assuming that they are even the people accused of them.
Oh, please. :rolleyes:
When I have time this evening, I will fully rebut your response.
Feel free - it is Friday night, and I will have better things on my mind.
Killing is not bad. Murder is.
...according to your morals, which may or may not be a reflection of general society (be it US, Europe, or worldwide).
Strange... pretty much most of European society survives just fine without the death penalty, and according to you being in denial about societal behaviour.
Wonder why that is? :confused:
I was referring more to human nature.
The Europeans are not the saints you portray them to be.
Violence is a part of being human. It is as natural as eating, sleeping and walking.
Not yet, anyway... (https://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2589)
Oh a real choir boy he was:
Claude Jones (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/jonesch.jpg)
Looks like he was in a hurry to get tothe other side anyway
.....Let's Go.... (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/jonesclaudelast.htm)
As I have proposed before, prisoners should be put to work rebuilding our crumbling infrasturcture while they are in jail--make them earn their food and shelter.
How would you compel them? If you're going to kill someone anyway then I can't really see what you can offer to get them to work.
I plainly referred the people we were talking about, those employed as executioners. Would you want one for your neighbor? Spouse? In-law?
Now I see why I didn't get it - it's just a silly question.
OK, sure I'm fine with that. Whatever.
If lethal injection is a cruel and unusual punishment, it is difficult to see how any method of capital punishment can comport with the Constitution. Of course, the notion that capital punishment is at odds with the Constitution is expressly refuted by nothing other than the Constitution itself. From the Fifth Amendment (emphasis mine):
While I completely agree, my position is that the death penalty should only be applied where there is not a shred of doubt that the accused person committed the crime.
ratsah = murder
ratsah is what appears in the original text
The KJV is not the only translation of the Bible--try the NIV or NASB. Hint: those translations are more literal.
--
God certainley ordains killing--just read about the accounts of Israel in the OT. I don't have time now to pull up specific passages at the moment, but I can if you want.
In short, the death penalty doesn't work, only barbaric countries do it, it costs more than life in prison, isn't practiced by our first world brethren, the people who get it aren't the most guilty and we end up killing innocent citizens.
I never saw it as a deterrent. I only see the death penalty as one of the consequences for committing a horrible crime. Murder is pretty horrific. Some folks kill out of passion or other uncontrollable emotion and immediately regret their action. They tend to be tougher on themselves than anyone else could ever be. Even so, others are totally immune to the horror of their crime and will most likely kill again. Then there are those who get some sort of perverse thrill.
The death penalty shouldn't be ruled out as an option for people in the latter category.
All this Kumbaya nonsense about civilized and barbaric societies is a naive denial about the true nature of human and/or societal behavior.
You know that it's cheaper to house for life then the costs of an execution, right?
(Unless, once the sentence is pronounced, you think we should just spend the cost of a bullet and execute them right in the courtroom.)
Even though I oppose the death penalty on principal (insofar as it is not an effective deterrent in the macro sense), I would say that the cost argument is one of the weakest ones because so much of that cost is caused by death-penalty opponents' numerous appeals in every death penalty case.
In other words, while the large print is Oppose the Death Penalty Because it is More Expensive than Life Imprisonment, the small print is: because death penalty opponents work quite hard to make it so expensive.
...according to your morals, which may or may not be a reflection of general society (be it US, Europe, or worldwide).
I never said I was speaking on anyone else's behalf. Just curious what makes you so special that you can?
Actually, He did.
"There are several strong arguments for the case that the sixth commandment should be translated as "Thou shalt not murder." First, the verb used in the Torah commandment is "ratsah," which generally is translated as murder and refers only to criminal acts of killing a human being. The word "kill" generally refers to the taking of life for all classes of victims and for all reasons. This generalization is expressed through a different Hebrew verb "harag."..."
The King James Version is at odds with your unique interpretation:
Thou shalt not kill.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=citation&book=Exodus&chapno=20&startverse=13&endverse=13
I remember that too, except it was funny when he said it. It falls flat here, given your apparent ignorance to the unfair application of the death penalty and its general failure as a deterrent to violent/brutal crimes. @:-)
I never said the death penalty is a deterrent. I said it's a penalty. It's the price a criminal pays for committing certain brutal acts.
The true ignorance reflected in some of these posts, yours included, is the belief that crime can be deterred. It cannot. The simple truth is that there will always be a portion of our society who will commit crimes. And out of that portion, there's a percentage of those who will not hesitate to brutalize their fellow human beings. Count your blessings that you've never met one of these people; it would shatter your Pollyanna image of the world.
Oh a real choir boy he was:
What's your point?
If they want to eat or sleep--they will work, just like any other American.
I would disagree. Starve them to death if you must but you would deny them sleep how? And you would want people like that building critical infrastructure? Not a good idea.
Well aware. I said to "consider amending", which I thought implied that what you'd posted was in fact the 13th amendment. If that was confusing, mea culpa.
Now I am confused. What MatthewLAX posted was, in fact, the 13th Amendment.
I am all for the death penalty, but do not dispute that it costs more to execute someone than lock them up for life. This needs to change.
As I have proposed before, prisoners should be put to work rebuilding our crumbling infrasturcture while they are in jail--make them earn their food and shelter.
How can we force them to work? Read the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "
I am all for the death penalty, but do not dispute that it costs more to execute someone than lock them up for life. This needs to change.
As I have proposed before, prisoners should be put to work rebuilding our crumbling infrasturcture while they are in jail--make them earn their food and shelter.
How can we force them to work? Read the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "
You can't. It would be an abomination to even consider amending the 13th amendment for the express purpose of getting a marginal amount of labor from America's prison population. Better to address the underlying causes of crime (lack of education, poverty, etc).
I still don't think I'll ever understand the lust some people have for the death penalty. Call it justice/punishment/right thing if you makes you happy.
And not a moment too soon. Millions of tax dollars wasted on housing criminals.
I remember an old Richard Pryor stand-up from the 70's when he said:
"Ever notice that there are a lot of brothers in prison? Well, I visited one of those prisons. All I got to say is----thank God we have prisons!" :D
I remember that too, except it was funny when he said it. It falls flat here, given your apparent ignorance to the unfair application of the death penalty and its general failure as a deterrent to violent/brutal crimes. @:-)
But the King James Version is not written in the original language of the 10 commandments. Many languages distinguish between killing & murder. Greek and Latin did, and I believe Hebrew did as well.,
Correct. The distinction is quite clear. Murder was the word used in the original text.
I am all for the death penalty, but do not dispute that it costs more to execute someone than lock them up for life. This needs to change.
As I have proposed before, prisoners should be put to work rebuilding our crumbling infrasturcture while they are in jail--make them earn their food and shelter.
How can we force them to work? Read the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "Uh, they do work, some for as little as 25 cents/hour while some rant that China employs prison labor. Very big in the state of California - you mean you didn't know?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031900-02.htm
Re infrastructure, hmmm... you are going to transport prisoners to building locations and still maintain security? In times past, convicts worked very hard building firebreaks in the back country but unfortunately that program isn't much used lately.
Executions to resume after high court OK's lethal injections
-----
Not quite splintered--it was a 7-2 decision.
Let's see what happens if McCain is elected and Ginsburg/Stevens retire... I really don't think it was that simple. This particular case was not focused on whether or not the death penalty was constitutional, nor did it ask the question of whether or not lethal injection in general was constitutional, it was actually fairly narrow in scope, focusing on the type of lethal injection used in Kentucky and 35 other states.
Frankly, I'm surprised that it wasn't 9-0 on this particular question. I think it would do the court well to accept a case that allows it to rule on the constitutionality of the death penalty. I don't have a problem with people who advocate against the death penalty (so called "abolitionists"), but I think their efforts are harmed when the fight devolves into an intellectually dishonest argument concerning injection methods.
From a political perspective, abolitionists should probably seek cases with different characteristics. This particular case involved two different convictions:
1) Baze killed two police officers in an ambush, shooting both men three times in the back. The last of his six shots was delivered to the back of the head of an officer who was crawling away; right or wrong, there is no way that case is getting overturned due to fears of causing him discomfort.
2) Thomas Clyde Bowling was convicted of killing a couple and attempting to kill their 2-year old child. The challenge with this case is that they should have argued it based on whether or not he is mentally retarded (there is some evidence that he may have an IQ in the ~74 range).
Then modern Israel is clearly out of order, having no capital punishment. In fact, does not Jewish religious law prohibit it?
Modern Israel is out of order on many issues.
And not a moment too soon. Millions of tax dollars wasted on housing criminals.
As well as the factually innocent. After all, if they are on death row, they must be guilty of SOMETHING!
You know that it's cheaper to house for life then the costs of an execution, right?
(Unless, once the sentence is pronounced, you think we should just spend the cost of a bullet and execute them right in the courtroom.)
Why bother with the expense of a trial? Since the police and prosecutors are ALWAYS right, let's just go right to summary executions. Unless the defendant has money and is white.
No, but they've found at least 2 guys that *would* have been killed had they not stepped in. How many more do you think they're are? [/QUOTE]
Well, since the process worked, the the IP "found" innocence and the executions didn't happen, until you can answer the simple clear question I asked, an example of an innocent individual executed, I can no more project that it's happened than can you...Your and my "suppositions" being different.
If you think it's a necessary risk then I assume you'd offer no resistance to being killed if it came to that?
I suspect that for both you and I the many risks we daily assume without any real concern so far outweigh in danger and likelihood any possible risk of being executed while innocent that I'm going to go on assuming them. Other than the chance of being struck by a random meteorite, I can't think of a risk offering any better odds.
Meanwhile, to even lengthen the odds, don't kill any one. After all, only a very modest percentage of convicted murderers face execution (although Louisiana would like to "top" the occasional child rapist whose perversion is particularly grotesquely manifested). As the old song goes: "Leave your guns at home....", and goodness sakes, we're unlikely to rent you (or I) a room on Death Row.
Callous? Damn right! But not near so callous as the records and actions of those who await execution.
I'm absolutely amazed at the lack of informed and educated opinions here. I guess I assumed that FF's given their usual jobs would be better educated than posters on most forums.
I am sorry we don't meet your lofty expectations, oh great one.
I didn't know that you were God and the arbiter of who is informed and educated.
Please forgive my ignorance... :rolleyes:
------------
OMNI allows us to take part in great debate. Aristotle would be proud. It saddens me when posters accuse others of being "ignorant" or pull the race card when they disagree with their opinions.
RE: The topic of this thread
You can search my prior posts because I have said this before. I would be in favor of a compromise: preserving all life in America. No death penalty, no abortion.
When I have suggested this in the past, posters have replied with :rolleyes: and lectured me about how abortion and capital punishment are two very different issues.
I agree they are: the death penalty kills those who are guilty of killing others, abortion kills the innocent. Yet I am willing to compromise. Perhaps abortion is better debated in other threads, but I think when talking life or death issues, abortion must be included in the discussion.
God (thegeneral) stated that rather than spending money on the death penalty, we should spend the money to address the root of the problems that lead to crime and violence. I would hope (s)he would be willing to do the same for abortion.
People argue that society cannot deal with unplanned babies that ruin the lives of young women. I don't disagree with that. But the solution is not to kill the baby--we must, as a society, find a way to deal with these human lives in a compassionate way.
How would you compel them? If you're going to kill someone anyway then I can't really see what you can offer to get them to work.
If they want to eat or sleep--they will work, just like any other American.
That is not cruel and unusual punishment.
Even the Innocence Project couldn't find an individual who had been excuted in error in Texas (at least in modern times).
No, but they've found at least 2 guys that *would* have been killed had they not stepped in. How many more do you think they're are?
If you think it's a necessary risk then I assume you'd offer no resistance to being killed if it came to that?
This all of course ignores that we have, and likely will in the future, kill innocent people. The Innocence Project has pulled plenty of people out of custody who were in line to be killed. In fact, we have such blood lust in this country that it took the supreme court to step in and rule that you can't execute children in this country. In fact, the US commonly sits in the top 5 in executions with such awesome, free countries as Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and Pakistan. Of course, this nation was built largely by rich folk who were all too willing to hang the working class from a tree. In many cases, the same prejudices are the motive for the bloodlust in this country, but people would prefer to let their prejudices run their course more quietly these days.
I'd have less trouble with the death penalty if we stopped trying to perpetuate the fiction that we as a society have never executed an innocent person, accepted the likelihood that we have, and just said, "them's the breaks"--it would be more honest of us. But I don't think we want to portray ourselves as that kind of society.
"I never saw it as a deterrent. I only see the death penalty as one of the consequences for committing a horrible crime. Murder is pretty horrific. Some folks kill out of passion or other uncontrollable emotion and immediately regret their action. They tend to be tougher on themselves than anyone else could ever be. Even so, others are totally immune to the horror of their crime and will most likely kill again. Then there are those who get some sort of perverse thrill."
Some people like to kill others. Wow, what a novel concept. I don't think I've seen anyone say so little by saying so much in one paragraph before.
"The death penalty shouldn't be ruled out as an option for people in the latter category."
The problem is, proving that the person in question is the person who killed via this perverse thrill is not foolproof. Also, killing people who get off on this perverse thrill doesn't lead to a reduction in killing by those who get off on killing. To put in more simple terms, which seems to be needed here, saying it is ok in these cases leads to not reduction of these cases, but it will end up in innocent people being killed. Just an FYI, that's what we're trying to protect against in the first place.
"All this Kumbaya nonsense about civilized and barbaric societies is a naive denial about the true nature of human and/or societal behavior."
There's no Kumbaya there. Nowhere did I make any denial about human nature. Please go back to my post and let me know where I did. It's odd how you call me naive, yet absolutely avoid my arguments. Don't put words in my mouth. Comparative politics is not Kumbaya nonsense. It's actually a course in college (university for those across the pond). It's pretty standard for those who go there and study political science. Odd you didn't realize that.
When a major policy of a criminal justice system in a first world country looks more like a totalitarian 3rd world regime rather than that of a leading industrial power there's an issue.
"I am saying that the death penalty is a necessary tool of criminal justice."
No, actually it's not a necessary tool. Were it an actual deterrent to crime and were it only ever absolutely carried out on guilty people then it would be a necessary tool. Until then, it has NO benefit and unless one of you is a mind reader, there is no way to ensure that it only gets carried out on people who are completely guilty.
"How's the view from up there?"
The view is just fine. Until someone can actually address my direct arguments (which you really can't) it will continue to be fine. I've had this debate with people before. This will keep going until the argument of those who don't agree ends up at 'I belive in the death penalty because that's what they believe.
"And I'm glad that we have laws that will end the life of anyone who gets his jollies out of killing other people. Not everyone who commits murder should be executed. But, not every murderer should be coddled in comfort at state expense. Some of them need to be executed; they are contributing to global warming whenever they exhale."
Really? Why is that? It doesn't deter them from harming anyone. It also risks putting people to death who've done nothing and it tilts the scales of justice towards the prosecutors who, sadly in this country, are elected and thus make judgements about who should get the death penalty based on the election cycle.
In terms of being coddled, it's odd how I don't see any Hampton's or Marriott's copying supermax prisons. After all, if they're being so coddled, wouldn't private industry love to follow?
"Does our criminal justice system need improvement? You bet it does. I'm all in favor of erring on the side of caution whenever there is a reasonable doubt about a person's guilt."
That's already in place. We still have killed innocent people. Given that you support this, that would make you a murdered no? By your own words you would have no problems shooting a murdered. That must make for a fun dilemma.
I doubt that you will bother to check, but here you go (http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/).
More "Blather as Usual".....
Even the Innocence Project couldn't find an individual who had been excuted in error in Texas (at least in modern times).
Asking for a cite means just that, not the sort of obfuscation that obscures reality in your perspective of the world and its evils. You've every right to oppose capital punishment, but in attempting to alter the will of the people in the states where it a punishment established in law, "Facts" would make a far better submmission than simply emotional rants.
There are some folks whose convictions have been overturned or their innocence established while on "Death Row". That speaks pretty well of the system.
Incidentally, the last execution in Texas, 9/24/07, IIRC, involved a young gent who had raped and murdered the mother of seven (7) youngsters. You might ask those kids for reactions to his having been "put down" as they used to say of bad dogs. The next is likely to be a nice fellow who raped his seven year old stepdaughter - in every available orifice according to reports of the crime - then murdered her so the child wouldn't tell her mother, his wife. I suppose we could give him a pass and a bus ticket...."Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" might fit with my interpretation of your screen name.
I was referring more to human nature.
The Europeans are not the saints you portray them to be.
Violence is a part of being human. It is as natural as eating, sleeping and walking.
I'm very sorry, exactly where did I make out the Europeans were saints? I merely used them as an example to rebutt your rather patronising 'if you aren't for the death penalty then you just don't understand' argument. Either European society does not understand en masse (which does seem rather unlikely), or your argument is a US-centric poor argument, which does not take account of the fact that a large number of the world do not feel it is necessary to judicially murder innocent (or indeed even guilty) people.
 Is Goal Planning a Waste of Time?
 Manufacturing Journalist Tr Cutler Profiled Resourcemfg in Manufacturing.net
|
Executions to resume after high court OK's lethal injections