Death penalty
 

Yes or no. Where do you stand ?

Yes. Absolutely, on CERTAIN things...

Yes in principle, but we still have no definitive method of determining guilt.

Determining guilt or innocence is just to inexact science in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Subject to the following plus anomaly.
 

I don't think there can be a simple yes or no answer; too many variables but if you mean do I have an absolute moral block on taking anyone's life, I would say no, but subject to all of the following.

I). Enough forensic evidence to of itself secure a conviction for a lesser crime.
2). Enough circumstantial evidence as above.
3). Full confession made in the presence of his/her lawyer. Any confession made without the
lawyer present to be unacceptable in Court.
4). Death penalty to be automatically commuted to life (meaning full life)
imprisonment. At any time, the 'criminal' can opt for voluntary euthanasia.

I think 4) is important. If innocent, would the accused take their own life or go for appeal after appeal after appeal, knowing that if/when it's successful, damages awarded would be considerable?

I know that like Liza's bucket the above has more than its fair share of holes, but it's the best I can do.

Anomaly? The state already does this, sometimes on a grand scale. When the U.S.A. and the U.K. bombed Baghdad, we were exacting capital punishment not just on its military, but on any innocent men, women or children who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. By and large, the people we were not punishing were the politicians. Whatever they were, they weren't stupid; most were long gone.

Point well taken, Noon.

I never talked to a con who was guilty of what he was in jail for. Except for the kid who stole a pig. He was just too stupid to lie.

From my experiences, there's not too many innocents on death row. It ain't like watching "The Green Mile".

Bottom line is, I won't miss them.

Chas

There's just no way to do it "right". We far too often execute people who are later proven innocent. (Chas, check out The Innocence Project.) Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, a Republican, placed a moratorium on executions in his state.

Even if we were somehow able to get it right every time, I have concerns about what it does to society as a whole to have officially sanctioned killing of other human beings. Frankly, I think it "models" a behavior that makes it more rather than less likely that others will commit murder.

John

Illinois was never a big "death penalty" state to begin with, so not exactly a good example.

Only for 100% proven child molesters.

Size doesn't matter. ;)

The thing that got Ryan going was the realization that during the time he was governor 12 people had been executed, while 13 people on death row had been exonerated. That's enough to get anyone's attention - or anyone outside a couple of Texas governors.

John

I'd be for "life without" for those people but, once they're dead, "Oops! Sorry!" just doesn't cut it.

John

I did say 100% proven, we just had an eleven year old killed by a registered child molester north of here.

I'm not sure how you can guarantee that a guilty verdict is 100% certain. That's why we speak of "reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence". Anyway, besides a desire for "eye for an eye" type vengeance, what does execution do that "life without" doesn't do? As far as I'm concerned, there are no societal benefits to the death penalty and some significant negatives.

John

Its not really a matter of an eye for an eye but when they finish a sentence and go out and do it again.

I never like Ryan or any Illinois politicians, including all the Daley clan.

That is indeed a problem.

Who said anything about finishing a sentence? I'm talking about life without the possibility of parole.

Do you think he was wrong to place the moratorium on executions, given how many mistakes they were making?

John

One thing that the death penalty does is to bring "closure" to the families of the victims. And one benefit of the death penalty is to save the taxpayer from having to support these animals.

Now I don't wish to paint everyone who has done time as an "animal", but perhaps my perception on this matter is different than yours. You weren't active on this forum when I explained how I used to work at the Missouri State Penitentiary in the early 80's, while it was the only maximum security institution in the state. Perhaps I'm prejudiced, but I can guarantee you, it wasn't filled with "good old boys" who made a mistake.

They were a hard lot, doing "life and 50" was more the norm as the exception, and I would imagine that having pretty much any of them as a neighbor would cause even the Brady bunch to reevaluate their position on the subject "to keep and bear arms".

That said, I'm not as big of a proponent of the death penalty as I once was. But some of the crimes that some of these people commit are so brutal and obscene that stoning them to death doesn't appear unreasonable.

Sometimes, they just need to go. And this isn't a thought which brings a smile to my face.

Chas

In Canada they had to put child molesters in solitary because if they were put in the regular prison population they met with fatal accidents.

I think it's the same here. Chas? Prison slang for child molesters is "Short Eyes". They're none too popular with the general population, that's for sure.

Some families think they benefit from that kind of closure but others don't. Some feel that killing a killer is as wrong as what the killer did. They recognize that nothing will bring their loved one back and putting another person's family through the same sort of pain they're feeling helps nobody.

I'm going to have to research this but I think I remember reading that because of hearing all the appeals and all the administrative BS that occurs, plus the long periods of time inmates spend on Death Row it's actually more expensive on average to execute someone than it is to lock them up for the rest of their lives.

Look at Mumia Abu-Jamal. He's been in custody since December of 1981. That's 28 years and counting. Mumia is more famous than any other Death Row inmate but he's not that atypical in other respects.

John

Never heard that term, but you're correct, child molesters aren't very popular with the general population. I don't think that there were many of them at MSP, mainly because they were considered to be non violent. I'm sure that the few we had were check ins or Ad Seg (Administrative Segregation).

Besides, it would have taken one damn tough child molester to have walked out on the yard at MSP (amongst the cold blooded killers, armed robbers, gang members, etc), and not come crawling back to the control center, bloodied from appetite to....well, and not want to be a check in. Don't know that even being a punk was much of an option for them.

I'll ask my wife about "short eyes", as she deals with them on a regular basis (nut house). According to her (and backed up by my old buddy, deceased deputy who busted several), you can't deal with them because they don't think they've done anything wrong.

At least the guy who sticks up the A&P knows why he's doing time.

It's sad really. The people who do these things really can't help themselves.

Chas

I can see where that type of closure may not suit some.

I'll tell a little story. Close to 20 yrs ago, one of the locals snapped like a glass rod.

Now I knew Jim, and he seem like a pretty nice guy to me. At that time, I would pull a cork with most of the major players (still do with the one's who are still alive), so I know of what I speak. They all knew him, and they all thought he was a pretty nice guy.

Anyway, it was a continuing domestic that finally went bad. And it's not like he was abusing his new wife and her daughter. They were running up credit card/phone bills on him and calling family services and the cops when he started raising hell. Takes two to tango.

To the best of my knowledge, he never laid a hand to either of them.

To make a long story short. His family called the Sheriffs Dept. on him and they dispatched a deputy. Probably not the most diplomatic deputy they had. At least that was the consensus of the one's who lived.

Bottom line is, Jim shot and killed the deputy on his front porch. After which, he drove to the Sheriff's house, and shot and killed the Sheriff's wife through a window while she was hosting a Christmas Party. Then he abandoned his car at my buddy's house (deceased deputy...and there WAS a Glenn Beck type asshole involved in this, causing trouble) as no one was at home.

He proceeded to one of his best friends home (another deputy), shot him four or five times through a window, ran to the jail, shot and killed a Sheriff from an ajoining county as he came out of the back door, then shot and killed a female deputy from a different ajoining county as she drove past.

I could go on...but you get the picture.

Now this is Bugtussell, and an "eye for an eye" is the rule of thumb. And most of the victims families turned up to see the execution. The best that I can tell, it was a morbid event, and everyone lefty feeling worse. But it did bring the "closure" that they needed.

As far as expense, the state is responsible for their general welfare, if that means a 250K quad conorany bipass (I saw this in the 80's, in 80's dollars), that's the law.

What's the answer? Got me, but I still assert that "some people just need to go".

No correct answer, really,

Chas

Chas, a terrible story and one that gets repeated more or less all too often. For me your last sentence says it all. There's no way to bring anybody back or to make the bereaved whole again but I don't see how taking an additional life and increasing the number of the bereaved helps anyone.

John

John, believe it or not, some people need it.

And it ain't like we're talkin' about killin' the local minister.

The older I get, the less I'm inclined to pass judgment. Or exact judgment.

Truth of to matter is, there is no right and wrong. Unless you're a homo sapien. We're the only ones who are so cock sure of ourselves to pass judgment.

My dog doesn't draw a moral lesson from what it does. Ever see a clip of a bunch of wolves eating the guts out of a deer while it's still alive?

And when it gets right down to it, nothing is more dangerous than a homo sapien. We're smarter, better armed, and we can shed our facade of "moral superiority" quicker than my little dog can shed it's winter coat.

Not right, or wrong...'tis the nature of the beast. And far be it for me to dictate to my fellow man as to the path he shall follow.

I'll stick with a GP100 and a Chief's Special in my nightstand for the time being. If that don't cut it, I'll bring in the H&K 91.

After that, I reckon they'll be eating my guts while I'm still alive.

Chas

Not right, or wrong. Simply the was things are, and always have been.

Kill them all and let God sort them out.

Dave

Ryan was in idiot politician looking after his own ass. I lived in Illinois under his reign.

They had 12 executions in 30 years so we aint exactly talking about lines out the door to the gas chamber.

Mistakes happen and they should NOT, but thats our system like it or not.

That's a popular conception, but I think it's fatally flawed. Child abusers go for self justification in a big way. They have to; how could they live with themselves if they didn't. In effect, telling child molesters "they can't help themselves" strengthens their self justification. 'They say I can't help it so it's ok if I do it. I'm only doing what I'm expected to do'.

Horrible as it might sound, if we treat child abuse as a symptom of something else then just maybe instead of reacting after the event, we could find a way to stop it happening in the first place.

There we go with the "prevention" thing.

Don't you understand that here in "The States" it makes much more sense to let a criminal run amok, then kill him after he's committed his heinous crime as an act of revenge, rather than watch for abnormal behaviour and prevent the crime? Why, how
can we have sensational news stories without lots of bloodshed?

Geez, get with the program.

Dave

Or support a private for-profit "corrections" industry if we fool around with all that prevention nonsense?

John

Originally Posted by Boreas
Do you think he was wrong to place the moratorium on executions, given how many mistakes they were making?

John

But you didn't actually say whether you think Ryan was wrong. I'm interested in knowing whether you do.

Do you think it's interesting that no governor to succeed Ryan has lifted the ban? Quinn is on record as saying he has no plans to do it.

I'm uncomfortable with the "that's our system like it or not" argument. My feeling is that when you find out there's something wrong with the system you fix it.

John

I am sorry but the system is to too corrupt to be fixed.

Yes I feel ryan was wrong for stopping it.

Can't argue with that, the problem seems to be getting anyone to admit that the system is broken, after all this is America, the best political system in the world, so they say.:rolleyes:

Best government money can buy!

John

Well, thats what they keep telling us..

Well once the Supremes legalized bribery the outcome was pretty well a foregone conclusion.

Heck, if we are paying for for them... keep the receipt and demand a refund, or perhaps a much better product. The shrugging off of personal responsibility seems the new modus operandi in politics. As for the death penalty, it's hard to debate in a positive way when those we entrust to administer justice don't meet our expectations in so many ways.

When you have lawyers,cops,detectives,etc expected to make quick arrests and convictions of crimes like murder,its inevitable that mistakes will be made and liberties taken.Unless you have positive DNA evidence,I think there should be a moratorium on executions.
Jimmy

Missing the point
 

[QUOTE=BlueStreak;13066]There we go with the "prevention" thing.

Don't you understand that here in "The States" it makes much more sense to let a criminal run amok, then kill him after he's committed his heinous crime as an act of revenge, rather than watch for abnormal behaviour and prevent the crime? Why, how
can we have sensational news stories without lots of bloodshed?

Geez, get with the program.

Dave[/QUOTE]

Title says it all Bluestreak, I've no wish to "get with the program". By the time abnormal behavior manifests itself it's probably too late; one way or another the fuse has been lit. What I'm talking about is cause. Is it genetic, nature, nurture? If you define 'normal' as the average, blond hair, blue eyes etc child abuse is not normal, but in as much as it occurs in nature, it's 'natural'. Think of the way while in season, some male animals regardless of their targets age (or in some cases sex) try to go for anything that stands still long enough.

So what could trigger it in humans? Getting 5 year old girls done up in 'grown up' clothes, makeup etc. Making them look like miniature adults then putting them in beauty pageants?

I genuinely don't know the answer to this one, but everything I've read so far in this thread and pretty well everywhere else is about what to do after the event, not how to prevent it. If someone was sexually attracted to children and knew it was wrong, would they go to the Doctor and seek help, knowing that despite 'confidentiality' it could become part of their medical record? More and more people, including life insurance companies are trying to get access to medical records. Would you risk your neighbor (and his friends) knowing through his job more about you than your wife did?

I think if we de-stigmatised child abuse to the point where people might not be afraid to seek help, this might stop at least some potential abusers going on to be active abusers but it would be a brave (or foolish) politician who proposed this.

The people I know of who think that "they can't help themselves" hardly view their opinion as a way to justify the child molesters guilt.

They view their opinion as a way to justify " what's say we just get rid of them".

Perhaps I'm simply insensitive. But I can't understand why they do as they do, I don't even think that they can understand what they do. Other than they feel they have done nothing wrong.

I'm more concerned with their victims. But to be fair, perverse sexual activity has been around every since the earth cooled. It's as natural as the sun coming up.

It's a matter of where society draws the line.

Chas

Part of the problem may well be the screwed up attitudes toward sex in NorAm, it might have been better if Plymouth Rock had landed on the Pilgrims.

Exactly. It makes me nuts when folks sit in front of the tube listening to the news and proclaim how drastically things have changed. Human behavior has been fairly consistent for 100,000 years. We are just more aware today.