Well Dun Guv!!!

[darkeyes]

15 down.. 36 2 go.. congrats New Mexico...

http://www.france24.com/en/20090319-new-mexico-abolish-death-penalty-usa-capital-punishment

[PaulWaul]

Awesome, I think the death penalty is too merciful.

[FalconAngel]

But repealing the death penalty gives those murderers a better chance to plan and execute an escape, thus giving them the opportunity to get back in the population to, once again, commit some of the oldest sins in the newest ways.

And if they are kept in confinement, then it just costs the taxpayers more and more money to keep them.

When you have a rabid dog, you don't cage him; you put him down, for your safety and the safety of others.

That's just common sense.

[darkeyes]

But repealing the death penalty gives those murderers a better chance to plan and execute an escape, thus giving them the opportunity to get back in the population to, once again, commit some of the oldest sins in the newest ways.

And if they are kept in confinement, then it just costs the taxpayers more and more money to keep them.

When you have a rabid dog, you don't cage him; you put him down, for your safety and the safety of others.

That's just common sense.
An wenya gerrit rong Falcie??? We talkin bout human beins not bloody dogs...

[canuckotter]

Up here in Canada, we've had a stream of very graphic demonstrations lately of why we got rid of the death penalty... A forensic expert used in a number of baby-killing cases turned out to have lied about a whole pile of things... Turns out he didn't have a clue what he was doing. So now there's a steady stream of people he helped convict who are getting out their convictions overturned and getting their names cleared... As soon as other experts look at the evidence, they say, "Woah, no, not only is there no sign of foul play, all the evidence points to natural causes." Whoops. If we were the US, a bunch of those people would have been executed by now. After all, they were thought to be baby-killers...

[FalconAngel]

An wenya gerrit rong Falcie??? We talkin bout human beins not bloody dogs...

Sorry, Darkeyes. But I have seen what it's like for people like this.

We are not talking about a war torn community or an area where there are no opportunities. We are talking about people who have demonstrated no real remorse over killing another human being; sometimes for as little as 20 dollars.

Their only remorse is for getting caught.

They gave up their humanity when they killed for their own personal greed.

Walk through a gang-infested neighborhood or a prison some time and see if you don't change your mind.

Do a ride-along with the police, in a bad neighborhood, and see if you still think the same.

A murderer is a murderer for a reason, and it is almost never a socially acceptable reason. Usually, it is because they want drugs or drug money, or they work for a loan shark or other type of unsavory type. Maybe they just want to have money for living a lifestyle that they are undeserving for.

When it is socially acceptable it is normally called "self defense" or protecting an innocent life.

We could always go to the old system of having them work, as slaves, for the families of their victims, but that would require even more cost to the state.

The fact of the matter is that as much as it would be nice to live in a world without murderers and without the problems that require armies to go to war, it is an unrealistic dream.

Our own nature as a predatory species will not allow it.

[PaulWaul]

Thats the other thing, if someone is innocent and you execute them, even if evidence of their innocence is found, won't do a damn thing.

[FalconAngel]

Thats the other thing, if someone is innocent and you execute them, even if evidence of their innocence is found, won't do a damn thing.

And that is why they take such pains to take things to appeals court so often before they pull the switch or inject the convict.

The accused gets a lot of chances to prove his/her innocence, but let's be real; With the science available to forensic investigators, it is rare when an innocent man goes to jail for murder these days.

Hell, even OJ got off.

[MetaSexual2]

But repealing the death penalty gives those murderers a better chance to plan and execute an escape, thus giving them the opportunity to get back in the population to, once again, commit some of the oldest sins in the newest ways.

And if they are kept in confinement, then it just costs the taxpayers more and more money to keep them.

When you have a rabid dog, you don't cage him; you put him down, for your safety and the safety of others.

That's just common sense.

...it is rare when an innocent man goes to jail for murder these days.


Falcon, this is anything but common sense, you are stating some of the most common misconceptions concerning the death penalty. I urge you to go get the facts and think a little bit more deeply about the impacts the death penalty has on the culture in the US.

There is a case to be made for the death penalty for people who simply can not be contained (the rabid dog argument) and who are direct threat to prison guards or are an escape danger, but these are the extreme cases for which SuperMax prisons are designed. These are not the vast majority of people on death row.

It actually costs more than ten times as much to take a prisoner through the death penalty system as it does to keep them in jail for life. You can all the latest details in the California study published last July. http://www.ccfaj.org/rr-dp-official.html

Approximately 130 people given the death penalty in the US since the mid 1970's have later been exonerated. Given that only a little over 1000 people
have been executed in that time and there are about 3000 on death row now, I'd say that is a pretty high percentage to be getting wrong. Especially considering you are taking their life unjustly.

Also, the OJ trial is an excellent example of the possible injustice of the system. He was so clearly guilty on the forensic evidence, but got off. How often do you think jury bias has run the opposite direction when presented with weak evidence? Also consider that 95% of death row inmates couldn't afford an attorney and so had a public defender.

[FalconAngel]

Falcon, this is anything but common sense, you are stating some of the most common misconceptions concerning the death penalty. I urge you to go get the facts and think a little bit more deeply about the impacts the death penalty has on the culture in the US.

There is a case to be made for the death penalty for people who simply can not be contained (the rabid dog argument) and who are direct threat to prison guards or are an escape danger, but these are the extreme cases for which SuperMax prisons are designed. These are not the vast majority of people on death row.

It actually costs more than ten times as much to take a prisoner through the death penalty system as it does to keep them in jail for life. You can all the latest details in the California study published last July. http://www.ccfaj.org/rr-dp-official.html

Approximately 130 people given the death penalty in the US since the mid 1970's have later been exonerated. Given that only a little over 1000 people
have been executed in that time and there are about 3000 on death row now, I'd say that is a pretty high percentage to be getting wrong. Especially considering you are taking their life unjustly.

Also, the OJ trial is an excellent example of the possible injustice of the system. He was so clearly guilty on the forensic evidence, but got off. How often do you think jury bias has run the opposite direction when presented with weak evidence? Also consider that 95% of death row inmates couldn't afford an attorney and so had a public defender.


Even having a public defender does not guarantee a conviction of a felon. Many do plea deals and get out earlier than they should.

What is the cost, to the public of recidivism.

On the escape-proof jails; there is no such thing. These (mostly) career felons make a game of escaping. They want to be out badly enough, then they will find a way. Building a better mousetrap only encourages the mice to become sneakier.

Haven't you noticed that everything that law enforcement has done to make our streets safer has only caused the criminals to be bolder and more creative in how they protect themselves from getting caught and even escaping when they do get caught.

And let's look at the 3-strikes laws. In Florida, if you use a gun to commit a crime, it's supposed to be 10 years, mandatory for a 1st offense, unless you fire it, then it's 20 years, and if you kill someone, it's life (20 years, usually).

This has emboldened criminals to kill in a robbery and work at not getting caught. And when they do, they get out in 7 for a 1st offense and 12-15 for a 20 year sentence. With very few exceptions does a life sentence actually mean the natural life of the felon. That is just a reality of the law.

A murderer took a life. They didn't take it for 10 to 20 years. They took it forever. When they do that for/in the commission of a crime, they have surrendered their right to stay alive.

[jonric]

When you take the death penalty out of the equation, you lessen the plea bargain incentive. Many killers don't go to trial because they can accept life without parole instead. Now they can plea for less than life or just take their chances with the trial.

[MetaSexual2]

Falcon, not to be rude, but where are you getting this stuff from? I'm really curious if you have a data source I'm not aware of.

The stats on prison escape show almost no successful escapes among death row inmates. The general stats on prison escape show a sharply declining trend on escapes from prisoners in high security facilities. Escapes from supermax prisons are non existent.

The length of sentence is a completely separate issue and is only relevant when talking about people who don't get the death penalty. Life without parole means exactly that, the death penalty shouldn't be conflated with wider sentencing issues in the justice system. Recidivism also is not an issue if you have a true LWOP system.

Both Falcon and jonric - deterrence would be a rational point for debate but it gets into a very tricky ethical calculus... weighing the high percentage (5-10% by some accounts) chance of killing of innocents versus the likelihood you will deter a future murderer. I'm not convinced from the broader statistics on murder in the US that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.... as an example, murder rates are lower in states (and nations) without the death penalty. What information are you using to make your judgement on this?

Violent sociopaths should absolutely be removed from society, but for me the issue is how to do this so that it reduces the overall level of violence in the culture. I don't think insisting on eye-for-an-eye justice gets you there.

[darkeyes]

Put yasel on death row inya mind Falcie..knowin yas innocent an yas takin that nice long walk...

We r all descended.. every 1 of us from murderers rapists an crims of all types.. an almos certainly descended from kids conceived afta the deed wos dun an often afta they had been punished by means otha than execution.. if every killer had been executed ther wud b nun of us left.. ther no financial price on human life.. even that of a bastard..

[FalconAngel]

Falcon, not to be rude, but where are you getting this stuff from? I'm really curious if you have a data source I'm not aware of.

The stats on prison escape show almost no successful escapes among death row inmates. The general stats on prison escape show a sharply declining trend on escapes from prisoners in high security facilities. Escapes from supermax prisons are non existent.

The length of sentence is a completely separate issue and is only relevant when talking about people who don't get the death penalty. Life without parole means exactly that, the death penalty shouldn't be conflated with wider sentencing issues in the justice system. Recidivism also is not an issue if you have a true LWOP system.

Both Falcon and jonric - deterrence would be a rational point for debate but it gets into a very tricky ethical calculus... weighing the high percentage (5-10% by some accounts) chance of killing of innocents versus the likelihood you will deter a future murderer. I'm not convinced from the broader statistics on murder in the US that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.... as an example, murder rates are lower in states (and nations) without the death penalty. What information are you using to make your judgement on this?

Violent sociopaths should absolutely be removed from society, but for me the issue is how to do this so that it reduces the overall level of violence in the culture. I don't think insisting on eye-for-an-eye justice gets you there.

You are right. Death row inmates do not tend to escape. But many others do.

However, you miss one very important point. Without the death penalty, there is no death row.

Remove the death penalty and you remove death row.

Remove the death row and you remove the most secure prison component for the most dangerous felons.

Unless a penalty for murder maintains that the convicted murderer is in solitary for the rest of his natural life, with no possibility of parole, probation or any kind of release at all, then there is no real deterrent to committing murder without a death penalty. Either we must keep the death penalty or we must make a life sentence truly be the entire life of the murderer.

Removal of the death penalty, on it's own, without a commensurate law in place that permanently removes a felon from society just releases them back in the common population again.

Would you chase down a man-eating lion and capture it, just to release it back into the wild? Of course not. You destroy it.

Convicted murderers are the same effective thing. They must be permanently removed from society and, to date, no removal of the death penalty, in any state, has ever addressed that issue. Not in this country.

[darkeyes]

You are right. Death row inmates do not tend to escape. But many others do.

However, you miss one very important point. Without the death penalty, there is no death row.

Remove the death penalty and you remove death row.

Remove the death row and you remove the most secure prison component for the most dangerous felons.

Unless a penalty for murder maintains that the convicted murderer is in solitary for the rest of his natural life, with no possibility of parole, probation or any kind of release at all, then there is no real deterrent to committing murder without a death penalty. Either we must keep the death penalty or we must make a life sentence truly be the entire life of the murderer.

Removal of the death penalty, on it's own, without a commensurate law in place that permanently removes a felon from society just releases them back in the common population again.

Would you chase down a man-eating lion and capture it, just to release it back into the wild? Of course not. You destroy it.

Convicted murderers are the same effective thing. They must be permanently removed from society and, to date, no removal of the death penalty, in any state, has ever addressed that issue. Not in this country.Uhu.. can c that havin the death penalty as a deterrent is an effective deterrent wich works wiv the numbas of peeps who get murdered each an evry year..

[FalconAngel]

Uhu.. can c that havin the death penalty as a deterrent is an effective deterrent wich works wiv the numbas of peeps who get murdered each an evry year..

You can't use nationwide numbers for that comparison. Try it in states that do not have the death penalty vs states that do. See where the numbers take you, then.

Just like the violent crime rate climbs in every city that enacts more and more handgun restrictions.

When they took out "ol Sparky" here in Florida, violent crime began to rise.

When they made the "10-20-Life" law, violent crime, overall didn't rise, but murder and death during the commission of a crime did.

I don't see the sense in passing legislation that has consistently helped the bad guys.

The problem is that we are too lax on our criminals. We punish people severely for misdemeanors and let off the felons.

Show of hands on who believes that a felon should walk before someone who is only in jail for a misdemeanor?

But it happens more often than not.

[tatooedpunk]

I was against the death penalty in the it makes us no better than them mindset.but day after day i read about people who murder rape and rob with impunity because there is no detterant.In Scotland if you get jailed for ten years you actally serve five and you get bed and board at the family of your victims expense oh and you can sue the government (taxpayer) because you dont have access to tomb raider 13. Sorry but i strongly feel something has to change. In England a 21 year old man stabbed his 17 year old girlfriend to death in front of her friends there is no doubt of his guilt. A family lost their daughter/sister/neice and her friends will never forget that day. Sorry but i should not have to pay to keep scum like that in jail.

[tg Shannon]

I think the death penelty is to much of a nice way to allow someone an easy way out, personally, I would love to cover them in gravy and lock them in a room with a wolverine thats high on angel dust, thats jmho

[MetaSexual2]

You are right. Death row inmates do not tend to escape. But many others do.

However, you miss one very important point. Without the death penalty, there is no death row.

Remove the death penalty and you remove death row.

Remove the death row and you remove the most secure prison component for the most dangerous felons.

Unless a penalty for murder maintains that the convicted murderer is in solitary for the rest of his natural life, with no possibility of parole, probation or any kind of release at all, then there is no real deterrent to committing murder without a death penalty. Either we must keep the death penalty or we must make a life sentence truly be the entire life of the murderer.

Removal of the death penalty, on it's own, without a commensurate law in place that permanently removes a felon from society just releases them back in the common population again.

Would you chase down a man-eating lion and capture it, just to release it back into the wild? Of course not. You destroy it.

Convicted murderers are the same effective thing. They must be permanently removed from society and, to date, no removal of the death penalty, in any state, has ever addressed that issue. Not in this country.

Actually, all states that have eliminated the death penalty now have life without parole systems. Death row didn't go anywhere, its just that those people won't be executed now. They are the same high security facilities. They still for the most part are not allowed to mix with the regular prison population.

[MetaSexual2]

I was against the death penalty in the it makes us no better than them mindset.but day after day i read about people who murder rape and rob with impunity because there is no detterant.In Scotland if you get jailed for ten years you actally serve five and you get bed and board at the family of your victims expense oh and you can sue the government (taxpayer) because you dont have access to tomb raider 13. Sorry but i strongly feel something has to change. In England a 21 year old man stabbed his 17 year old girlfriend to death in front of her friends there is no doubt of his guilt. A family lost their daughter/sister/neice and her friends will never forget that day. Sorry but i should not have to pay to keep scum like that in jail.

Ethics aside, the problem is it costs society more in money and hassle to execute some one than it does to leave them in jail for life, and creates more long term societal problems than it is worth. I also feel there is something lacking in aggressive policing and prosecution of violent crime here, but I don't think the death penalty should be part of the solution. Sentencing here does appear to be far too lenient in many high profile cases.

[Hephaestion]

Some time ago there was a TV documentary on which showed a 'southern sherrif' and his philosphy on keeping prisoners. Hard work, minimal rations and controlled entertainment. Interesting.

In the UK we have concurrent sentences when serial might be considered. Full term sentences should be served. The costs of the trial and other bits might be included as per charging students tuition fees (stop laughing the Scots) By all means let prisoners have the latest in TV, phones, computers and software but the prsion could have unstable electrical supplies, good filtering of information, controlled programmes, and mobile phone squelchers. Temperatures can be dropped to the levels experienced by energy impoverished pensioners. Food quality can lowered to those of our school children. No work - no reward. Not every prison need adopt these measures but certainly those which house Lords of the Realm.

No criminal family should be allowed benefit of criminal activity. Any film made which capitalises on the exploits of the inmates should be taxed at 100%. Notional tax may be assessed and levied on the normal person so why not on these people?

But above all - make sure that the right fellow has been caught and jailed.

PS - Why is there a voice in my head which says "Acht, mein Fuhrer ve have ze final solution to all of our people problems und ze reainder vill all be heterosexual uncircumcised Aryan blondes"

[darkeyes]

*sigh*.. all the tardy ole arguments roll out.. state sanctioned vengeance.. thats what it is no more and no less..

I do not argue for abolition of capital punishment to be nice to those who kill.. rather because I believe the human being who, given the opportunity and proper encouragement and assisstance to reform, like any other criminal, is unable to be reformed is a very rare creature indeed. It is called faith in our kind and it is time we invested more time and effort in rehabilitation as well as punishment. I do not like the life means life principle for that in itself creates problems within the system as those who have no hope of eventual release have no incentive to reform and are more likely to cause trouble. It is a bar to rehabilitation.

Capital punishment itself is more likely to create violence and death within society as those who are suspected of killing others determindly try to protect not only their freedom but their lives and so will go to almost any lengths to avoid apprehension... it is an obstacle to the creation of a more law abiding society not an aid. Similarly the prospect of draconian punishments for all criminals for lesser crimes produce the same result. I do not wish to be soft on crime but do want a world where we have a prospect of reducing it. Nor do I wish to see a world where punishment is easy, for that should never be the case, yet it should be fair and relatively civilised, and throughout it should consist in large part of properly rehabilitating the offender. This is time consuming and expensive, and yet I am convinced in the end worthwhile. However in the main neither the prison systems of the US or the UK are geared for this, but have met some limited success where attempted.

I argue against capital punishment because I love life and love humanity warts and all. I do not believe we have the right to judicially destroy it without trying to salvage the good that lies within us all and put that to constructive use.. and of course there is the miscarriage of justice argument.. even phorensics gets it wrong.. as has been proved more than once in every nation on earth....