New Mexico may Drop Death Penalty

[Mabus]

If Gov. Richardson signs it, New Mexico will become the 15th state to outlaw the barbaric practice of state-sponsored murder (aka "The death penalty").

New Mexico Legislature Votes to Repeal the Death Penalty - The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/13/death-penalty-new-mexico-ban)

[Mabus]

I'm actually quite (pleasantly) surprised you're against the death penalty, assuming you're not being a smart-ass.
I have worked towards elimination of the death penalty for decades.

I am still a "smart-ass", but it is a core belief of mine that the state should not be able to deprive a citizen of life.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Good, I hope it becomes official.

[Jorddyn]

I fully believe there are people who deserve to die.

I fully believe that I do not want to be the one to pull the switch/lever/trigger/needle.

I fully believe that we, as a country, have put people to death who were innocent, and let people go who were guilty. I feel much worse about the former.

And finally - I fully believe that life and death decisions shouldn't be made by the typical jury. Chances are that half of them are stupider than the average American, and, well... the average American isn't exactly someone I'd want making life and death decisions about me and mine.

In short: Rock on, Governor Richardson.

[ElanthianSiren]

I fully believe there are people who deserve to die.

I fully believe that I do not want to be the one to pull the switch/lever/trigger/needle.

I fully believe that we, as a country, have put people to death who were innocent, and let people go who were guilty. I feel much worse about the former.

And finally - I fully believe that life and death decisions shouldn't be made by the typical jury. Chances are that half of them are stupider than the average American, and, well... the average American isn't exactly someone I'd want making life and death decisions about me and mine.

In short: Rock on, Governor Richardson.

Those are cases where I put my faith in DNA evidence and only DNA evidence. I believe in the death penalty for people unquestionably guilty.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Those are cases where I put my faith in DNA evidence and only DNA evidence. I believe in the death penalty for people unquestionably guilty.

Death penalty for people unquestionably guilty via DNA.. I totally agree.

But if one innocent person dies, that's one innocent person too many. I'll never believe in the idea that one needless death is worth it for the over all good, which is the risk that is ran every time we don't have DNA evidence.

[Clove]

And finally - I fully believe that life and death decisions shouldn't be made by the typical jury.I don't want my fate determined by 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

[Gan]

I don't want my fate determined by 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

FTMFW


:lol:

[Gan]

Considering the conditions under which someone spends their life in prison (state level), I consider the death penalty less cruel and unusual punishment.

That being said, I only support the death penalty in cases where there is unrefutable evidence (DNA or video).

[LMingrone]

Like these two guys. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2132349.ece

I think they should die. But that's actually too nice for people like them. There's no easy answer. The whole "eye for an eye" argument always puts my brain into catch 22 mode.

[Ravenstorm]

There are definitely instances where a death penalty is warranted but, as has been said, it should only be done in cases where the proof is irrefutable. With the advances in DNA technology and forensics, that level of proof is becoming possible. And personally, I don't see the death penalty as a punishment. It's no different than putting down a rabid dog; it's for the safety of society as a whole and also to the benefit of the dog. Quality of life over quantity.

[Clove]

I disagree with capital punishment in general; except in cases involving crimes against capital.

Enron? Worldcom? Arthur Anderson? Madoff? Those motherfuckers should all be executed. People think I'm joking when I say this. I'm not. The other day I heard a coworker repeat my sentiment. It's the first time I've ever heard another suggest it. It's catching.

There is always a paper trail in white collar crime, you can always follow the money. There is rarely, if ever, any doubt about who's to blame. While a murderer may kill several people, fraud of this level ruins the lives of hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands so I think the crime qualifies as "unacceptable to society". Finally while there may be many reasons a person would be desperate enough to kill (even at the risk of forfeiting his own life) I see very little reason a wealthy person would risk his life to become more wealthy, so it would actually be a deterrant; and if they're that crazy greedy, I don't care: Kill them anyway.

[Daniel]

Welcome to China

[radamanthys]

I suggest we adopt the chinese method of killing corrupt, ineffectual and negligent bureaucrats. I'd like to see the director of FEMA try and siphon money with the everpresent .44 pointing at his head.

[Clove]

Welcome to Chinainorite because we don't share any legislation similarities with China because if we did that would make us China!11!!1!!!

[Daniel]

inorite because we don't share any legislation similarities with China because if we did that would make us China!11!!1!!!

Legislative similarities = Shooting people?

[Clove]

Legislative similarities = Shooting people?No, which is why your comment sounded stupid.

[Daniel]

Wow..


Okay.

[ViridianAsp]

Those are cases where I put my faith in DNA evidence and only DNA evidence. I believe in the death penalty for people unquestionably guilty.

Agreed, if there is no doubt that a person is guilty they are totally and completely nailed to the wall with evidence and even the kid who rides the short bus can figure it out, I say they should be put to death.

It's only fair, an Eye for an Eye.

[Gan]

I suggest we adopt the chinese method of killing corrupt, ineffectual and negligent bureaucrats. I'd like to see the director of FEMA try and siphon money with the everpresent .44 pointing at his head.

Imagine the results we'd see if we started that in Congress...

[Mabus]

It's only fair, an Eye for an Eye.
There is no fair trade for a human life when imminent danger is not present.

Murder of its own citizens by the state is barbaric, and could well be one of the causes of high murder rates by its citizens.

As to DNA evidence, it can be incorrect. Laboratories can also do shoddy work, and workers are human and fallible.

[radamanthys]

Imagine the results we'd see if we started that in Congress...

It'd be wonderful.

[Stanley Burrell]

States should not have the final right to say whether or not they are to end the life of a human being.

I'm pro-death penalty when an execution warrant reaches (i.e.) the Supreme Court, and (i.e.) this representative body; (i.e.) that has more moral supremacy than 50 random land masses on the Earth's surface, determines whether or not to end the life of a human being.

Plus, I think we should dissect psychopaths and see what makes them tick to have a better psychological understanding of how to hopefully prevent further crimes from being perpetrated if we can preemptively think like the Beast and know his next move.

[ElanthianSiren]

As to DNA evidence, it can be incorrect. Laboratories can also do shoddy work, and workers are human and fallible.

This is becoming much less of a concern with automated sequencing techniques and PCR amplification.

If you want to argue that you don't believe it's right to take a human life as punishment, that's fine by me, but science is, for the most part, beyond your technological argument presently.

[Mabus]

This is becoming much less of a concern with automated sequencing techniques and PCR amplification.

If you want to argue that you don't believe it's right to take a human life as punishment, that's fine by me, but science is, for the most part, beyond your technological argument presently.
Then you have not heard of any fraud, shoddy work or just plain incompetence in DNA testing...?

If you want to argue that human beings are perfect, and no matter the science will never make a mistake or lie, that is fine by me, but facts show differently presently.

Yes, I am opposed to the death penalty. The fact that I am does not remove the fallible human elements from testing, prosecution, false testimony, racial injustice nor economic disparities in defense.

[ElanthianSiren]

Then you have not heard of any fraud, shoddy work or just plain incompetence in DNA testing...?

If you want to argue that human beings are perfect, and no matter the science will never make a mistake or lie, that is fine by me, but facts show differently presently.

It's pretty hard to fool capillary electrophoresis, but if you say so. When do we roll out the "but if identical twins commit the crime..." argument?

[Jorddyn]

As someone admitedly uneducated on DNA, I still have questions about regarding DNA evidence as the end-all be-all.

While DNA can place someone at the scene of a crime, how exactly does it prove they commited the crime?

What about planted DNA?

[Celephais]

Chain of evidence is more of a concern for me than the accuracy of the actual DNA tests.

White collar crimes... well I don't think death penalty is really the way to go, but I think that the slap on the wrists used as deterents is just stupid. PMITA prisons for all of them.

[Mabus]

It's pretty hard to fool capillary electrophoresis, but if you say so. When do we roll out the "but if identical twins commit the crime..." argument?
Again, I ask...
..are you completely unaware of any fraud in DNA testing?

Not just that, but testing and testimony have human issues as well.

Here is a short list of things that can go wrong:
Faulty Collection/Packaging of Biological Evidence
Faulty Chain of Custody
Evidence Examination Priority Decisions on Items
Separation of Known Standards from Evidence
Presumptive vs. Confirmatory Results-Testimony
Timing of Biological Material Deposits-Testimony
DNA Extraction/Purification-Controls
PCR: Positive and Negative Controls
Interpretation of CE Alleles/Electropherograms
Actual source of DNA Profiles Found-Testimony
Interpretation of DNA Mixtures
Analyst Case Notes and Dissemination
Case Report Wording and Conclusions
Inaccurate Population Statistics
Contamination
Instances of Case Item Tampering

Let's also not forget that "scientists" have lied. Has everyone forgotten Joyce Gilchrist?

Even when the science is up to it the inclusion of fallible people give a possibility of false conviction.

What % of innocent people murdered is acceptable to each of you? For me it is 0%.

[ElanthianSiren]

I actually already answered most of your points if you bothered to do some research, which I'm not going to do for you.

While Jorddyn has a point about planting evidence, the whole "Somebody might read something wrong!" "Somebody might amplify the wrong DNA" isn't much of a concern. PCR is a pretty forgiving process, which is why it's so valuable in these kinds of scenerios.

Is anything 100%? No. Would I feel badly if someone was found guilty who was innocent? Yep. Would I advocate elimination of the death penalty? No because there are definitely some people who live up to Rad's rabid animal analogy.

[Warriorbird]

Given my new awareness of the sheer tremendous degree of the American appeals process I have nothing against the death penalty. I think there's some racial disparity in its application but I think that can be addressed with better representation for the accused.

[TheRunt]

What % of innocent people murdered is acceptable to each of you? For me it is 0%.

What % of innocent people murdered because a proven criminal escapes or gets out on parole is acceptable to you? For me its 0%

[Mabus]

What % of innocent people murdered because a proven criminal escapes or gets out on parole is acceptable to you? For me its 0%
So it is fine for you for the state to murder an innocent person, because 1 guilty person might not be put to death?

Really?

[Mabus]

I actually already answered most of your points if you bothered to do some research, which I'm not going to do for you.
I went back through and read the posts. Of the possible problems with DNA evidence I did not see much I could say you "answered". Can you point out which "points" you answered?

If you bothered to research, that is.


While Jorddyn has a point about planting evidence,
And that should be enough, even disregarding all the other possibilities of mistakes, to show that we have a fallible system that can put the innocent to death.

I already mentioned Joyce Gilchrist:

Joyce Gilchrist is a former Oklahoma City forensic chemist who has been accused of falsifying evidence in the past 15 years. Her evidence led in part to 23 people being sentenced to death, 11 of whom have been executed.
It is doubtful she is the only person ever guilty of doing such things.

In an adversarial system where the prosecution is in charge of the budgets and hiring it is not beyond imagining that "evidence" provided by hired people/firms will be slanted toward conviction.

[Warriorbird]

So it is fine for you for the state to murder an innocent person, because 1 guilty person might not be put to death?

Really?

Same way it is fine to me that we have civilian casualties in war.

[ElanthianSiren]

If you bothered to research, that is.


And that should be enough, even disregarding all the other possibilities of mistakes, to show that we have a fallible system that can put the innocent to death.

I already mentioned Joyce Gilchrist:

It is doubtful she is the only person ever guilty of doing such things.

In an adversarial system where the prosecution is in charge of the budgets and hiring it is not beyond imagining that "evidence" provided by hired people/firms will be slanted toward conviction.

I'm not going to look up articles to tell you what capillary and PCR are. There's plenty of info out there, however.

Why should that be enough for me? You've mentioned one person in an entire country. Should we also suspend law enforcement because there are crooked cops? Hey, doctors make mistakes all the time and some of them also knowingly have admitted to harming and killing their patients. No more operations ever!

I never denied it's a flawed system. What do you propose in its place?

Here's what I'd do:
Incarcerated inmates have the opportunity to ask for repeated DNA testing in a timely fashion.
Right now; cap electrophoresis techniques are relatively cheap and concise, even within a matrix. It's easily read, (comp printout) and lab quality has improved significantly since the 1990s. Ie we're not matching restriction enzyme blobs anymore.
http://inp.bsu.by/nas/kapel103/kapelsamp.jpg

All victim samples must be processed prior to testing on suspects and lab samples must be processed independently by at least two labs.

Two sequences of very similar DNA, could easily be distinguished via RFLPs (unless the subjects are identical twins).

As I mentioned, DNA could be amplified by PCR. Thermal cycling issues or digestion issues with PCR often either result in destruction of the sample or failure. Not a big deal IMO, except in cases where there isn't much DNA at all. It's not going to result in Joe X being confused with Joe Y.

I would keep the current system of appeals because technology may develop with time to release said person.

Wrongly incarcerated individuals have the right to compensation from the arresting body, testing lab, government etc. This is one thing that's bothered me for years; people exhonorated by DNA are essentially sent packing with a "whoops, sorry" after spending 20 years in prison. Personally, I'd be out for blood, so I feel empathy.

You're correct IMO that the ESPN esque sports center mentality of the justice system needs to stop. This goes back to a lack of punishment for the over-zealous and less than reputable prosecutors and defenders, however, and is not a reason, IMO to not employ the death penalty.

As far as corruption from the lab or police, I'm not going to address it because: I already mentioned it could be an issue but removing a tool just because a select few using it might be corrupt isn't an option in my eyes. Additionally, I just don't believe that the police are routinely bored enough to start framing people left, right, and center before a crime is committed.

[Gan]

HPD crime lab has gone through some major overhauls for obstruction and 'tailoring' DNA evidence.

This is one of the many reports implicating the mismanagement of the crime lab.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3858054.html

[ElanthianSiren]

Blood typing has been in use since the beginning of this century, so the bit about the serology department is pretty troubling. I've never been a huge believer in the large scale serum studies, however, because they're too broad.

The DNA, however, is what gets me. I wonder what technology they were using to run their gels/samples. The lab's been closed since 2002 and sounded underfunded, so I doubt they had the best. However, those issues are why I advocated for independent labs and would advocate for them following the protocols maintained by the FBI for evidence handling and testing.

edit: I also believe the labs should be working blind panel, which the article seems to imply they weren't. That's really friggin troubling to me.

[Clove]

Fuck DNA testing. Execute white-collar criminals.

[Kembal]

What % of innocent people murdered because a proven criminal escapes or gets out on parole is acceptable to you? For me its 0%

And what happens if an innocent person gets wrongly convicted and executed, and the guilty person gets away with the crime and is able to do more?

The finality imposed by the death penalty worries me the most...it's less likely that someone will go and look back through the case of a wrongly executed convict to show someone else actually did the crime in a timeframe that will actually achieve any amount of justice.

I'm with Mabus. The state should not have the power to deprive a citizen of his or her life.

[Mabus]

New Mexico Becomes Second State in Two Years to Repeal the Death Penalty! (http://www.ncadp.org/)

The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty welcomes the news that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has signed legislation making New Mexico the second state in two years and the first Western state to repeal the death penalty since executions resumed in the U.S. in 1977. New Jersey abolished its death penalty in December 2007. Three years ago, New York legislators declined to revive that state’s death penalty statute concluding that with more than a decade of new information about how it worked in practice, its high costs, and the inherent risk of executing innocent people, maintaining it could not be justified.

We applaud the Governor, policymakers and the people of New Mexico for their leadership.
Thank you New Mexico legislature and Governor Richardson.

35 states to go.

[ViridianAsp]

There is no fair trade for a human life when imminent danger is not present.

Murder of its own citizens by the state is barbaric, and could well be one of the causes of high murder rates by its citizens.

As to DNA evidence, it can be incorrect. Laboratories can also do shoddy work, and workers are human and fallible.



I don't care what you point out. If it's obvious, with facts, dates, times and DNA. I still believe in an Eye for an Eye, if I'm on a jury and I have to make that kind of decision where all evidence points to guilty, you better believe I'm going to do my best to see that person's sentence is just. If they killed, they know it's wrong and they should meet their maker.

An Eye for an Eye.

[Mabus]

I don't care what you point out.
That is the key right there.

For some people no amount of injustice, no racial disparities, no economic correlations, no amount of terrible lawyers, no clear evidence of tampering, no studies showing there is not a deterrent effect, nothing at all can change their mind.

They will always believe that an unfair, corruptible and imperfect system should allow the state to murder its citizens.

It is slowly changing. The less ignorant, and more civilized, this society becomes the more we will turn away from the the barbaric practice of the "death penalty".

[Sean of the Thread]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JZUHFuklo8

[Clove]

I don't care what you point out. If it's obvious, with facts, dates, times and DNA. I still believe in an Eye for an Eye, if I'm on a jury and I have to make that kind of decision where all evidence points to guilty, you better believe I'm going to do my best to see that person's sentence is just. If they killed, they know it's wrong and they should meet their maker.

An Eye for an Eye.Capital punishment isn't justice; only the survived are punished. When you look at the average death row inmate in Texas there are some disturbing correlations. The majority are Black or Mexican "American" male, under 30 with a High School sophomore level education. I have a difficult time believing that murderers are such an homogenous class.

[Daniel]

Good for New Mexico. Anyone who thinks our justice system is infallible is either really ignorant or just retarded.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't believe in rehabilitation for murderers (murder 1), rapists or child abusers. I'm perfectly fine with just shooting them in the head in court after they are found guilty.

Yes, I recognize some innocent people will get killed, but it'll be quick, and we'll get rid of the dregs of society pretty damn fast.

Regards your note above Clove, I believe those particulars are in jail because frankly they cannot afford to buy their way out like their white male counterparts. Doesn't make them any less of a murderer.

[Warriorbird]

Capital punishment isn't justice; only the survived are punished. When you look at the average death row inmate in Texas there are some disturbing correlations. The majority are Black or Mexican "American" male, under 30 with a High School sophomore level education. I have a difficult time believing that murderers are such an homogenous class.

I don't think the representational issues track to the death penalty itself being a bad idea... just representation not always being as good as it should be.

[Clove]

Regards your note above Clove, I believe those particulars are in jail because frankly they cannot afford to buy their way out like their white male counterparts. Doesn't make them any less of a murderer.Yes but it doesn't address the issue that we'll kill you if you can't buy your way out. I don't see why a better off, better educated individual ought to get a pass.

Rehabilitation is a separate issue. I don't have a problem with tossing them in a hole somewhere to make license plates the rest of their lives, but executing them merely punishes their survivors. It doesn't make anyone whole.

Additionally, capital punishment certainly hasn't deterred criminals from murdering. The simple fact is, there are plenty of situations where someone may be desperate or crazy enough to murder- regardless of the penalty. Some would argue that in some certain circumstances such laws can even incite murder. You rob a liquor store and shoot a bystander who tries to stop you- since you're likely facing the death penalty if the bystander dies your best option is to kill everyone in the store; they can only kill you once no matter how many you murder and your best odds of getting away occur if you don't leave witnesses.

Capital punishment for White Collar Criminals.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Cap punishment doesn't deter HERE. There's a reason for that, because the bleeding hearts HERE don't let it be a deterent. Also, being able to buy your way out of prison doesn't mean you weren't found guilty.

I don't disagree white collar criminals are every bit as bad as someone who outright murders people, it's just semantics in my book.

[Clove]

Cap punishment doesn't deter HERE. There's a reason for that, because the bleeding hearts HERE don't let it be a deterent.So you're saying we have a special kind of death HERE that bleeding hearts have made more palatable to common criminal?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

That's exactly what I'm saying. You don't think cap punishment deters criminals in say, Saudi?

[Mabus]

That's exactly what I'm saying. You don't think cap punishment deters criminals in say, Saudi?
The whole "deterrence" issue is a myth.

States with the death penalty have higher murder rates then states that do not.

I believe that this comes from the population believing (perhaps on a subconscious level) that since the state feels that murder is justified in some circumstances that they themselves can murder in some circumstances. Just my opinion, but the numbers do show a striking correlation.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The whole "deterrence" issue is a myth.

States with the death penalty have higher murder rates then states that do not.

I believe that this comes from the population believing (perhaps on a subconscious level) that since the state feels that murder is justified in some circumstances that they themselves can murder in some circumstances. Just my opinion, but the numbers do show a striking correlation.

What's your source?

[Clove]

That's exactly what I'm saying. You don't think cap punishment deters criminals in say, Saudi?It did a bang-up job of deterring Saudi-based terrorism.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It did a bang-up job of deterring Saudi-based terrorism.

Not the same thing.

[Mabus]

What's your source?
Years of reading studies dealing with it. Google for it.

In case you are unable/unwilling, here is a start:
ABSENCE OF EXECUTIONS: A special report.; States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates -By RAYMOND BONNER and FORD FESSENDEN, NY Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403EEDF1E3BF931A1575AC0A9669C8B 63)

Deterrence, The Death Penalty Has No Beneficial Effect on Murder Rates, NCADP (http://www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=25)

Debunking the Death Penalty Deterrence Myth - by John Holdridge and Cassandra Stubbs, Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/08/6250)

That should get you going.

If you need more, search, read, educate yourself.

The death penalty is about retribution and revenge, not about justice and deterrence.

[ElanthianSiren]

Because correlation equals causation...

:yeahthat:


The death penalty is about retribution and revenge, not about justice and deterrence.
People who complain that the death penalty is all about retribution and revenge make me chuckle about as much as people who crow that it's all about justice and deterrance. Are we going to take all retribution and revenge from law? How about pain and suffering settlements? I don't know where you stand on these things, but it seems like it can't go both ways, and there's likely a reason those elements are blended in many law systems.

I've actually considered this thread a bit in the last few days, and I might be okay with sentences for murder being replaced with complete solitary. No conjugal visits, no weddings, no writing, no computers, no recreation. You are erased from human existence. This is, of course, pursuant with DNA requirements, which I meant to mention before were better for finding someone innocent than guilty, in response to Jorddyn.

[Mabus]

Because correlation equals causation...

:yeahthat:
If you noticed, I stated it was my opinion. It is an opinion based on facts, but still just an opinion.

[Paradii]

Yes, I recognize some innocent people will get killed, but it'll be quick, and we'll get rid of the dregs of society pretty damn fast.



Where do you get this notion? Has this worked in the past? Every society that has such a nonchalant notion of the death penalty has still had crime.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'll see your years of reading studies and counter with 2 seconds of Google just like you said.

http://tinyurl.com/cwgvcj

For every article you cite I can find one saying the opposite. Welcome to the the web. I'm personally very comfortable with retribution and revenge, and I don't need "years of study" to arrive there.

I'll even quote some blog in the second link of my quick search.


"The fact is, there is to this day no study that we can reliably count on for evidence of deterrence. There are simply too many variables involved to make an accurate statistical connection between the death penalty and crime rates, not to mention that statistical correlation does not entail causation.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Odd, the rest of my comments didn't take. Basically I said if the bold is true, the opposite is also true. You can't prove it either way according to them.

I vote, you should too. It all boils down to who we elect, and I support cap punishment.

[CrystalTears]

Mabus subscribes to the knowledge of life studies.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Where do you get this notion? Has this worked in the past? Every society that has such a nonchalant notion of the death penalty has still had crime.

Where do YOU get this notion. One quickly googled link says for every inmate put to death 74 lives are saved! 74! Has it not worked? Says who? I say it does.

At no point did I say crime wouldn't exist, that sounds way too much like Utopia and for the life of me I don't recall making any referrence to it.

I'm for it, you are against it, and when you boil it down it's opinion.

[Mabus]

I'll see your years of reading studies and counter with 2 seconds of Google just like you said.

One flawed and debunked study, where the "statistical analysis" includes wording from Adler and Summers (the authors) dealing with Occam's razor and their lack of variables.

Now that is some scientific study...

Let's not only look at the multitude of studies that show no deterrent affect (and many showing even the opposite).

Murders committed while committing another felony are less then 25% of the total. Most murders are "crimes of passion". In a crime of passion it would not matter if we had "Torture then Death" as the penalty. There would be close to zero deterrence.

For deterrence to be effective you would have to believe that in the majority of murders:
a) The person was rational, logical and of sound mind.
b) The person had time to think of the consequences.
c) The person was not of "outlaw mind", where no consequences are considered.

A sane, rational, non-criminal person would rarely murder, and they are the only ones from which we could expect any deterrent affect.

[Warriorbird]

I'd like to see a utilitarian analysis of the difference between locking people up for life versus just killing them that addresses the 'prison industrial complex.'

[Mabus]

I'd like to see a utilitarian analysis of the difference between locking people up for life versus just killing them that addresses the 'prison industrial complex.'
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

[Warriorbird]

One flawed and debunked study, where the "statistical analysis" includes wording from Adler and Summers (the authors) dealing with Occam's razor and their lack of variables.

Now that is some scientific study...

Let's not only look at the multitude of studies that show no deterrent affect (and many showing even the opposite).

Murders committed while committing another felony are less then 25% of the total. Most murders are "crimes of passion". In a crime of passion it would not matter if we had "Torture then Death" as the penalty. There would be close to zero deterrence.

For deterrence to be effective you would have to believe that in the majority of murders:
a) The person was rational, logical and of sound mind.
b) The person had time to think of the consequences.
c) The person was not of "outlaw mind", where no consequences are considered.

A sane, rational, non-criminal person would rarely murder, and they are the only ones from which we could expect any deterrent affect.

What's the benefit of putting them in prison instead?

[Warriorbird]

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Not just the 'costs'... but the effects of putting more and more people in jail for life. Who benefits?

'Rehabilitation' for criminals can be made to look nearly as questionable as the death penalty by throwing around numbers.

After all, these aren't 'rational people.'

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

A sane, rational, non-criminal person would rarely murder, and they are the only ones from which we could expect any deterrent affect.

I showed one googled article and referenced another. I guess they are all scientifically not accurate unless you agree with it.

Anyway, from what I see your argument is "sane, rational, non-criminal persons" who commit murder shouldn't be executed. I personally think just the opposite. I don't want some sane, rational, criminal murder being excused because they aren't crazy.

You've stuck on me saying deterrent like it's glue. That's not the only reason I agree with it. I'm a sane, rational, non-criminal person, should my punishment for murder be less than someone insane?

[kookiegod]

Honestly...

I am for the death penalty for murderers, rapists, child molesters, just as much as I am for corporal punishment in schools. Yes, I am mixing the two, but i think the lack of the latter now contributes a great deal to the crime in this country.

As a country, America is THE greatest place on Earth, but with our sense of entitlements, we've lost our direction.

Less than 50 years ago, you got your ass beat at school, you got it twice as bad at home, and you generally didn't do that again. Now, the school and teachers are more to blame than the students, and we need locker inspections, drug sniffing dogs, and metal directors. The parents have absolved themselves of any discipline at all, and its so bad to spank your child, but when they grow up and cap your child, you're going to wish that loving discipline was applied (and yes, I am aware some parents aren't capable of it correctly, but making it nearly against the law is a worse crime.)

In the US, we used to have reform schools and judicial discipline that was designed to punish and hopefully scare you to the right track. The British Navy used the cat for a reason. It worked. The whipping post was common in Colonial America. People who went there once likely did everything they could to avoid a repeat.

Today, prison is a joke. Its a country club for white collar folks. For most others, other than Arizona or Fort Leavenworth, life at hard labor no longer exists. Watch some TV, do some chores, study law to spend taxpayers money on more appeals, make a shank from a toothbrush, plot how to kill the guards. Rehabilitation for the worst of criminals is a joke. Murderers, child molesters, rapists shouldn't be allowed to exist once proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

For those stupid crimes, DWI (and yes Laccon, adding you here), petty theft, hooking, vandalism, etc., its far better to do something that hurts them one way (1000 hours of community service, loss of license, loss of freedom (home confinement except for work)) or another aka real pain aka the singapore cane.

If you look back just 50 to 100 years, we didn't nearly have these issues in our great nation, because public shame and pennace was part and parcel of our lives. Those who broke the code were dealt with, summarily in many cases by the firing squad in military matters, or a hanging. Now, you know you got 20-30 years to figure a way out of your time, even if guilty.

Heck, look at one person whos celebrating his 40th year in prison this week. Charles Manson. Why is he still taking taxpayer dollars to keep him alive?

~Paul

[ZeP]

Heck, look at one person whos celebrating his 40th year in prison this week. Charles Manson. Why is he still taking taxpayer dollars to keep him alive?

I'm pretty sure its for entertainment purposes. Ever check out some of the youtube videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=968U_ed2WhA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CmvZE4i75o

[Mabus]

Not just the 'costs'... but the effects of putting more and more people in jail for life. Who benefits?
I am not going to attempt to defend the "prison industrial complex", the prison guards' unions nor the current state of the institutions. Those could all be argued in their own threads to equal disagreement.

It costs less (in most cases) to imprison a criminal in a solitary cell for life (with no chance at parole) then to seek the death penalty. That was my point.


'Rehabilitation' for criminals can be made to look nearly as questionable as the death penalty by throwing around numbers.
Life without parole (if enacted correctly by a legislature) means exactly that; the convicted will never be released from prison. Rehabilitation is not an issue in those cases.

[Mabus]

I showed one googled article and referenced another. I guess they are all scientifically not accurate unless you agree with it.
The study was flawed and the methodology refuted by experts.
USES AND ABUSES OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IN THE DEATH PENALTY DEBATE - John J. Donohue and Justin Wolfers (in pdf format) (http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf)

As with attempting to understand any complex system, establishing deterrent/non-deterrent effects of the death penalty can be a lesson in flawed science.

The "pro-death" lobby attempts to state deterrence as a reason for the state to continue murdering its citizens. No accepted studies show this evidence.

[Mabus]

That's not the only reason I agree with it. I'm a sane, rational, non-criminal person, should my punishment for murder be less than someone insane?
I wanted to address this separately.

U.S. Supreme Court -FORD v. WAINWRIGHT, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=477&invol=399)

JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, concluding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the State from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner who is insane. The reasons at common law for not condoning the execution of the insane - that such an execution has questionable retributive value, presents no example to others and thus has no deterrence value, and [477 U.S. 399, 400] simply offends humanity - have no less logical, moral, and practical force at present. Whether the aim is to protect the condemned from fear and pain without comfort of understanding, or to protect the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance, the restriction finds enforcement in the Eighth Amendment.

There are also international conventions and laws that specifically forbid execution of the mentally ill.

One method of continuing to execute people that have mental illnesses has been "execution after medication", in which the states provide medical care to make the convicted sane enough so that they can execute them within the letter of the law.

Peachy, eh?

[Warriorbird]

Seems like you want it two ways.

Is it bad because it 'costs too much' or is it bad because 'killing people is evil?'

[Mabus]

Seems like you want it two ways.

Is it bad because it 'costs too much' or is it bad because 'killing people is evil?'
I only want it "one way", abolished.

[Warriorbird]

There... all attempts to appeal to authority and evidence give away in the face of your emotional investment in it. I wonder what you'd feel if you were on the other side of that coin... if you had an emotional attachment to it continuing. Probably the opposite.

[Rocktar]

I am pro death penalty for an entirely different reason; deterrence isn't a major deal except in law abiding citizens in the first place. If you are unlikely to commit a crime, then deterrence makes you more unlikely, if you don't care, then you don't care. Unless there is form of martial law and the UCMJ is applied in the street for all to see, deterrence from the death penalty simply isn't that big of a deal. I want to see the death penalty simply for the vengeance side of things, I am not Christian and I believe that what you do should come back to you, in full measure and now. The law of Talion (likely misspelled) is a damn good idea. Draconian justice works, period. Flog a drunk driver on the public square at noon for driving drunk and see how many think about doing it again. Or maybe for petty theft, selling drugs, all kinds of things, put people in stocks, flog them, let the rest of the public see the terrible hand of justice correcting the maladjusted miscreants and I bet you would see a lot of people learning self control. Drug dealers would not be heroes; they would be reviled and shunned. Spouse abusers would get a taste of what it means to be on the other end and all in all, their frail little psyches would have to grow the hell up and learn there are consequences to being a douche.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

If you look back just 50 to 100 years, we didn't nearly have these issues in our great nation, because public shame and pennace was part and parcel of our lives. Those who broke the code were dealt with, summarily in many cases by the firing squad in military matters, or a hanging. Now, you know you got 20-30 years to figure a way out of your time, even if guilty.

~Paul

I totally disagree.

I think the biggest difference now is that we have the technology/means to hear about it/find out about the crimes when they do happen.. it seems like it happens more when we're actually simply hearing about it more. Back then the immediately accessible world that you got your news and information directly from was a LOT smaller, especially compared to the fact that currently in developed countries like the US, for pretty much everyone the "immediately accessible world" is the WHOLE world (via internet).

[Rocktar]

I would tend to agree, bad things did happen and well, we didn't hear about it much. In the old days, Walter Cronkite would get on the news and say something like "In world news today, a plane crashed in Peru, 137 are confirmed dead, there were no survivors." And you heard him say something about it once, and then at the end of the week, once again in the weekly recap, maybe. Today, you get live video feed, all kinds of interviews and you hear about it all day, every day for weeks.

[Clove]

Crime trend statistics would tend to disagree with this theory.

[CrystalTears]

Hearing about it more doesn't necessarily mean it's happening more.

[Clove]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Crime trend statistics would tend to disagree with this theory.

Which theory?

[Clove]

Which theory?I'm not telling, until you tell me the root of your objections to selfish motivations in regards to spiritual growth :P

[Jorddyn]

I am pro death penalty for an entirely different reason; deterrence isn't a major deal except in law abiding citizens in the first place. If you are unlikely to commit a crime, then deterrence makes you more unlikely, if you don't care, then you don't care. Unless there is form of martial law and the UCMJ is applied in the street for all to see, deterrence from the death penalty simply isn't that big of a deal. I want to see the death penalty simply for the vengeance side of things, I am not Christian and I believe that what you do should come back to you, in full measure and now. The law of Talion (likely misspelled) is a damn good idea. Draconian justice works, period. Flog a drunk driver on the public square at noon for driving drunk and see how many think about doing it again. Or maybe for petty theft, selling drugs, all kinds of things, put people in stocks, flog them, let the rest of the public see the terrible hand of justice correcting the maladjusted miscreants and I bet you would see a lot of people learning self control. Drug dealers would not be heroes; they would be reviled and shunned. Spouse abusers would get a taste of what it means to be on the other end and all in all, their frail little psyches would have to grow the hell up and learn there are consequences to being a douche.

I hear Iran and Saudi Arabia are lovely this time of year.

[Rocktar]

I prefer the Sudan, let's take a trip so I can sell you legally and get something good out of this fucked up thread.

[Tisket]

Given my new awareness of the sheer tremendous degree of the American appeals process I have nothing against the death penalty.

I'm no Player's Corner lawyer but I'm fairly certain that the automatic appeals process in death penalty cases is a procedural review only? You know: Did the judge fairly weigh an objection? Was the jury empaneled correctly and did they execute their duty fairly and faithfully? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it specifically does NOT reexamine evidence and witness statements. If you're convicted of a crime and there was evidence presented at trial that might have exonerated you (or if there was evidence and it was withheld by the prosecution), you can appeal yourself on those grounds if you know about it and/or if your court appointed attorney is competent enough to take the time to do so on your behalf. But it does not happen automatically.

Anyway, I change my mind on the death penalty as often as some people change their underwear. I'm usually against it because of three reasons: it doesn't deter crime, it costs more, and there is a risk of making an unfixable error. Then I read or hear about some horrendous crime in the news and I'm once again waving my torch and chanting for blood. But mostly I just believe that any possiblity of an innocent person being put to death is unacceptable. Because that risk does exist I believe the death penalty is immoral.

[Warriorbird]

No. There can be "factual" review given compelling evidence.

We kill innocent people in war. We sometimes kill innocent people in police actions.

Why do the guilty deserve excellent care for life?

[Tisket]

Under what circumstances and by whom would that be set in motion?

[Tisket]

And what constitutes "compelling" evidence. Evidence not presented at trial?

[Tisket]

Why do the guilty deserve excellent care for life?

Yeah, people are just banging on prison doors begging to be let in...

[Warriorbird]

In simplistic terms... to start with you appeal based on errors in the trial. This is pretty much automatic, as you say.

You can appeal to higher courts after that. They're not obligated to give you the chance... and it is a question of how compelling the issues raised are.

Finally you can go for actions that typically find the trial lawyer at error or some Constitutional issue.

If something was looked at improperly in trial... you can alter how evidence was seen from the first time you appeal.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, people are just banging on prison doors begging to be let in...

The phenomenon of homeless people seeking busts during the winter to get food is not unheard of.

[Tisket]

I think it's fair to say that an overnight stay in a local jail cell might be welcome on a cold winter night. The prospect of a prison cell is something altogether different. And I'm sure anyone in those circumstances would recognize the difference.

[Warriorbird]

Of course. You're tailoring your views as to what applies to the innocent, however, when the vast majority of people who are in prison for life are guilty.

[Tisket]

And stop citing Boston Legal episodes!

[Tisket]

Of course. You're tailoring your views as to what applies to the innocent, however, when the vast majority of people who are in prison for life are guilty.

Yeah probably. And I'd rather see every person who IS guilty let go before I'd agree that letting one single innocent person be executed is acceptable.

[Warriorbird]

<3 Denny Crane... but no, I was actually thinking about some of my cousin's stories about being a cop.

[Tisket]

<3 Denny Crane

Something we agree on.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah probably. And I'd rather see every person who IS guilty let go before I'd agree that letting one single innocent person be executed is acceptable.

It's just like 'security moms.' Things get drawn into a lot sharper focus when you have issues where these things might be applied in your own family.

If we cared THAT much about making sure all the innocent got free we'd have 'any doubt' instead of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and there'd be a lot more criminals on the streets.

[Tisket]

I think it SHOULD be "beyond any doubt" when it's a death penalty case.

[Gan]

Honestly...

I am for the death penalty for murderers, rapists, child molesters, just as much as I am for corporal punishment in schools. Yes, I am mixing the two, but i think the lack of the latter now contributes a great deal to the crime in this country.

As a country, America is THE greatest place on Earth, but with our sense of entitlements, we've lost our direction.

Less than 50 years ago, you got your ass beat at school, you got it twice as bad at home, and you generally didn't do that again. Now, the school and teachers are more to blame than the students, and we need locker inspections, drug sniffing dogs, and metal directors. The parents have absolved themselves of any discipline at all, and its so bad to spank your child, but when they grow up and cap your child, you're going to wish that loving discipline was applied (and yes, I am aware some parents aren't capable of it correctly, but making it nearly against the law is a worse crime.)

In the US, we used to have reform schools and judicial discipline that was designed to punish and hopefully scare you to the right track. The British Navy used the cat for a reason. It worked. The whipping post was common in Colonial America. People who went there once likely did everything they could to avoid a repeat.

Today, prison is a joke. Its a country club for white collar folks. For most others, other than Arizona or Fort Leavenworth, life at hard labor no longer exists. Watch some TV, do some chores, study law to spend taxpayers money on more appeals, make a shank from a toothbrush, plot how to kill the guards. Rehabilitation for the worst of criminals is a joke. Murderers, child molesters, rapists shouldn't be allowed to exist once proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

For those stupid crimes, DWI (and yes Laccon, adding you here), petty theft, hooking, vandalism, etc., its far better to do something that hurts them one way (1000 hours of community service, loss of license, loss of freedom (home confinement except for work)) or another aka real pain aka the singapore cane.

If you look back just 50 to 100 years, we didn't nearly have these issues in our great nation, because public shame and pennace was part and parcel of our lives. Those who broke the code were dealt with, summarily in many cases by the firing squad in military matters, or a hanging. Now, you know you got 20-30 years to figure a way out of your time, even if guilty.

Heck, look at one person whos celebrating his 40th year in prison this week. Charles Manson. Why is he still taking taxpayer dollars to keep him alive?

~Paul
/Agreed. Great post.


Yeah, people are just banging on prison doors begging to be let in...
Actually, I know of several inmates who used to work in my department who were released and came right back after stating they were going to do just that. Institutionalization is not something to fuck with, and in some prisons its a damn sight better for those who have nothing to go back to.

[Mabus]

Heck, look at one person whos celebrating his 40th year in prison this week. Charles Manson. Why is he still taking taxpayer dollars to keep him alive?
Somehow I missed this till I read it in Gan's quote of your post.

Charles Manson's sentence was commuted to Life in Prison when the CA Supreme Court temporarily eliminated the death penalty (California v. Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 6 Cal. 3d 628 (Cal. 1972)). Once the pending death sentences were commuted (automatically upon the court's decision) they could not be reinstated.

[Tisket]

Actually, I know of several inmates who used to work in my department who were released and came right back after stating they were going to do just that.

I doubt they chainsawed someone in half to get the death penalty in order to get back in prison so they'd be guaranteed three meals and a cot....

[Gan]

I doubt they chainsawed someone in half to get the death penalty in order to get back in prison so they'd be guaranteed three meals and a cot....

Well, you know, death row has such a feeling of finality that I wouldnt think even a somewhat rational person would commit a crime involving the death penalty as punishment just to get back inside to their 3 hots and a cot.

However, the example of institutionalization and someone committing a crime (any crime) in order to get back 'inside' has been proven to be well documented.

And yes, I've written undergrad papers on the feasability of the death penalty as a means of deterrence to 'crime', and only in cases where rationality is not in question does it work.

Its great closure for the victim's families though. :)

[diethx]

/Agreed. Great post.

I agree with this, except for the corporal punishment in school part. Although i'm not one of those people who thinks ass whoopins should be illegal. Believe me, when J and I have kids and they get so far out of line, they'll get it too.

But I honestly feel that as a parent, you are the only one who has the right to discipline your kid with spankings, etc. And if you hit my kid, I should be able to hit you.

[Gan]

I agree with this, except for the corporal punishment in school part. Although i'm not one of those people who thinks ass whoopins should be illegal. Believe me, when J and I have kids and they get so far out of line, they'll get it too.

But I honestly feel that as a parent, you are the only one who has the right to discipline your kid with spankings, etc. And if you hit my kid, I should be able to hit you.

To be honest. I was one of the kids whom one used to see out in the hall awaiting 'pops', as they were called. Some teachers really failed at delivery, and some could really light the ass up, so to speak.

There were two groups one would fit in with regards to the threat of or receipt of 'pops'. The group who were easily intimidated and those whom it had no deterrence effect on at all. I fell into the latter group.

My junior year we got a new VP who changed policy and started requiring after-school detention instead of pops. This affected two things in my life that did make a difference. The first was after-school athletic practice (namely football/baseball practice). When I earned detention, that automatically earned me lots and lots of running not to mention risked me losing my position on the team. And detention required notification of the parents (receiving pops did not) which got me into trouble again at home.

Detention was a better deterrent for me due to the risk it posed on other school activities and home life.

Detention made no significant difference in behavior for those kids who were not involved in school activities or who had parents who did not give a fuck about what their kid was doing.

So while I dont have issue with my son getting pops in school, I feel that the greater deterrent will be alternative forms (smarter forms) of punitive action for misbehavior. And since being a class clown apparently runs in the family, he's going to need it.