292 replies to this topic

[Ser Robin Hill]

Shryke, on 20 June 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

You do realise the system is as slow as it is to stop the state from killing innocent people, right?

You want to make that more likely?

No, it is as slow as it is to ensure that as may death row inmates as possible, die of natural causes.  There is nothing to show that making the process efficient would lead to the execution of the allegedly wrongfully convicted.

Holafernando Torres, on 20 June 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Can you please point out how much more of a danger Charles Manson is to society than Ted Bundy?




I have been asking this for two days... At this point, I don't think that DW is going to give a response.

As long as he gets that never-ending parade of parole hearings, there is a remote chance he will be let out of prison.  It is not a risk worth taking.  Try calculating the cost of keeping him incarcerated, the cost of those parole hearings, and medical or dental  care he has received.  Then think of ways that money could have been used for education, highway construction or other things where the public would have benefited.

[Pebbles]

A Senhora Baitac, on 20 June 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Gillio: you have always impressed me for being a wonderful woman. You are on my list as persons I would most like to meet. Your words touched me and I hope that such things never ever happen to you a
or your family. I respect you tremendously.

   I'm not Gillio.  But I am a woman.

[Greywolf2375]

Holafernando Torres, on 20 June 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Since executions do absolutely nothing for society as a whole but satisfy vengeance, do you think this is enough of a reason to kill even more innocents than we do already?

You know what we received as a society from the death of Ted Bundy and Danny Rollins? Absolutely nothing. None of their victims magically popped up from the ground, none of their deeds became undone. What we lost is the ability to study these men to find psychological and maybe even physiological reasons behind their acts that may in the future help us as a whole to prevent other crimes of this nature.

All of this, and the death of the innocents splattered through just so people can satisfy their need for vengeance. Society has no place dealing with this.

Actually it does do more than satisfy vengeance - which is why I hate that these conversations always turn binary.  No one has said that execution of someone is going to restore the victims to their former life, so making that statement is asine.

I think that there are people who through their own actions have shown that they do not want a place in society and that society is in no way improved with them in it.  They do not show remorse or any form of rehabilitation.  For those people, yes, execution should be available as their sentence if the process that leads to that as a decision is capable of operating properly..

I do find it slightly ironic that you are against removing the person from society, but are ok with using them as guinea pigs for study.

[Shryke]

Deathwalker, on 20 June 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

No, it is as slow as it is to ensure that as may death row inmates as possible, die of natural causes.  There is nothing to show that making the process efficient would lead to the execution of the allegedly wrongfully convicted.

I think you are confusing which of our positions has no evidentiary support. (fyi - it's yours)

The process is lengthy because of all the appeals. Why all the appeals? Because you really don't want to get it wrong.

But it can't be done. Fuck, the group (made up of lawyers/judges/etc) in the US who made it their purpose for the past like 40+ years to provide philosophical and legal support for capital punishment gave up a few years ago on the grounds they couldn't find any way to make the process work.

The American Law Institute gave up on the whole thing "in light of the current intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment.".

[Shryke]

Šedý vlk2375, on 20 June 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Actually it does do more than satisfy vengeance - which is why I hate that these conversations always turn binary.  No one has said that execution of someone is going to restore the victims to their former life, so making that statement is asine.

I think that there are people who through their own actions have shown that they do not want a place in society and that society is in no way improved with them in it.  They do not show remorse or any form of rehabilitation.  For those people, yes, execution should be available as their sentence if the process that leads to that as a decision is capable of operating properly..

I do find it slightly ironic that you are against removing the person from society, but are ok with using them as guinea pigs for study.

What's wrong with life in prison? What does execution accomplish that life in prison doesn't?

[Baitac]

Каек который прячет, on 20 June 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

I'm not Gillio.  But I am a woman.

Crap!! I knew you were Pebble. Everything I said was meant for you. I do feel that way about Gillio too, though. Embarrassed!!

[Castel]

Quote

As long as he gets that never-ending parade of parole hearings, there is a remote chance he will be let out of prison. It is not a risk worth taking.  Try calculating the cost of keeping him incarcerated, the cost of those parole hearings, and medical or dental  care he has received.  Then think of ways that money could have been used for education, highway construction or other things where the public would have benefited.

Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure the system the US law is based on agrees that it is the cost of doing business. Better to let ten guilty men go free and all that. And it's odd how you are willing to trust the government with such a final decision yet don't trust them to reject parole for a man that like that.


And if we're talking about America there is such a thing like life without parole.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Shryke, on 20 June 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I think you are confusing which of our positions has no evidentiary support. (fyi - it's yours)

The process is lengthy because of all the appeals. Why all the appeals? Because you really don't want to get it wrong.

But it can't be done. Fuck, the group (made up of lawyers/judges/etc) in the US who made it their purpose for the past like 40+ years to provide philosophical and legal support for capital punishment gave up a few years ago on the grounds they couldn't find any way to make the process work.

The American Law Institute gave up on the whole thing "in light of the current intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment.".

The system would work if people didn't keep trying to hamstring it.  Too bad there are no statistics on the percent of appeals filed by lawyers who know damned well their client is guilty, but oppose the death penalty.

Shryke, on 20 June 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

What's wrong with life in prison? What does execution accomplish that life in prison doesn't?

Not rewarding convicted murderers with free room and board, medical and dental care and other benefits that many people who have never committed a crime, are given.

Castel, on 20 June 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Funnily enough, I'm pretty sure the system the US law is based on agrees that it is the cost of doing business. Better to let ten guilty men go free and all that. And it's odd how you are willing to trust the government with such a final decision yet don't trust them to reject parole for a man that like that.


And if we're talking about America there is such a thing like life without parole.

Cost of doing business?  Maybe we should look at reducing some of those costs.  Let 10 guilty murderers go free?  Are you seriously suggesting that the potential for anyone of them committing murder again, is nil?  If only one of them kills only one other person, your so-called benefit of not having an innocent person die is non-existent.  If more are killed, the harm to society is greater.

[Howdyphillip]

Šedý vlk2375, on 20 June 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

I think that there are people who through their own actions have shown that they do not want a place in society and that society is in no way improved with them in it.  They do not show remorse or any form of rehabilitation.  For those people, yes, execution should be available as their sentence if the process that leads to that as a decision is capable of operating properly..

If it is statistically proven not to deter crime, and provides no additional safety for the public then life imprisonment, what is left of the purpose of capital punishment other to assure vengeance? Yes, there are people that society betters from by having them removed from it, but there is absolutely no difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty to achieve this. Well, there is one difference, it costs the state more to execute someone because we have decided that it is fairly important that we don't execute innocent people.

Šedý vlk2375, on 20 June 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

I do find it slightly ironic that you are against removing the person from society, but are ok with using them as guinea pigs for study.

I am not against removing people from society. I am against killing them. I find it unbelievable that you would think that poking and prodding a person, sending them through CAT scans and MRI machines, and having them speak with psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists is the same level of intrusiveness as making that person dead.





DW,

Yet again you bang the same gong without thought of what it is that you are actually saying. You want more people executed at a faster time rate because you are now worried about how much money it costs? You don't care if innocents die because of this? You are also taking this position with the knowledge that the death penalty accomplishes nothing that life imprisonment wouldn't solve. I find this to be brutally hard headed...

Edited by Holafernando Torres, 20 June 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[Castel]

Quote

Cost of doing business?  Maybe we should look at reducing some of those costs.  Let 10 guilty murderers go free?  Are you seriously suggesting that the potential for anyone of them committing murder again, is nil?  If only one of them kills only one other person, your so-called benefit of not having an innocent person die is non-existent.  If more are killed, the harm to society is greater.

I don't see it as a purely mathematical equation, I would rather the system depend on someone being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt than it locking people up whose guilt it can't confirm completely. But we all know this doesn't happen.

Also, what about my last point? Explain to me how any of this prevents a jury from taking the decision out of the parole board's hands and locking someone up for life without parole? There's already a method of keeping these men in jail.

On another note; if the US or any country decides that criminals are indeed rehabilitated, they get let go. That's the cost of doing business, of course, let's no talk about how unlikely it is for someone to let serial killers be up for parole at all, let alone grant it to people with possibly incurable psychological disorders.

Edited by Castel, 20 June 2012 - 12:43 PM.

[sologdin]

locking someone up for life without parole

in the great state of louisiana, for instance, life imprisonment always means life without benefit of parole, probabtion, or suspension of sentence, and the statute for dimunition of sentence does not apply.  the only ways out therefore:

a ) state post-conviction relief, in which prisoner bears burden of proving innocence or trial defect;
b ) federal habeas relief; and
c ) executive clemency.

[Shryke]

Deathwalker, on 20 June 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

The system would work if people didn't keep trying to hamstring it. Too bad there are no statistics on the percent of appeals filed by lawyers who know damned well their client is guilty, but oppose the death penalty.

Um, no. No system can be foolproof. No justice system can really even come close.

The ALI's whole point there is that they, as a group that was a huge advocate for capital punishment, can find no way to make the system even minimally adequate.

Quote

Not rewarding convicted murderers with free room and board, medical and dental care and other benefits that many people who have never committed a crime, are given.

So, basically, you are just petty. This isn't about justice, it's about the fact that these people might be watching TV!!!!

[Ser Robin Hill]

sologdin, on 20 June 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

locking someone up for life without parole

in the great state of louisiana, for instance, life imprisonment always means life without benefit of parole, probabtion, or suspension of sentence, and the statute for dimunition of sentence does not apply.  the only ways out therefore:

a ) state post-conviction relief, in which prisoner bears burden of proving innocence or trial defect;
b ) federal habeas relief; and
c ) executive clemency.

Like Haley Barbour did in Mississippi?  That gives me such a feeling of comfort and security.

Holafernando Torres, on 20 June 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

DW,

Yet again you bang the same gong without thought of what it is that you are actually saying. You want more people executed at a faster time rate because you are now worried about how much money it costs? You don't care if innocents die because of this? You are also taking this position with the knowledge that the death penalty accomplishes nothing that life imprisonment wouldn't solve. I find this to be brutally hard headed...

The death penalty makes certain that the murderer will never murder someone else...even a fellow inmate.  I'm not opposed to murderers killing other murderers, but if that other inmate was in for embezzlement, my objection would be the same if the murderer got out of jail and killed someone outside.

I realize we'll never agree, but I need to compliment  you on the degree of civility you've shown despite so fervently believing in what you are saying.

[Greywolf2375]

Holafernando Torres, on 20 June 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

If it is statistically proven not to deter crime, and provides no additional safety for the public then life imprisonment, what is left of the purpose of capital punishment other to assure vengeance? Yes, there are people that society betters from by having them removed from it, but there is absolutely no difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty to achieve this. Well, there is one difference, it costs the state more to execute someone because we have decided that it is fairly important that we don't execute innocent people.

Yes, it is statistically proven...with a flawed root cause.  It's pointless to say statistically proven unless there is a valid root cause associated to it - the application of the death sentence over its history is abitrary, which is the problem in making that statement.  If someone is told they are going to be punished a certain way if they do something, yet it never happens when they do that thing, of course it is not going to be a deterrent.  

Quote

I am not against removing people from society. I am against killing them. I find it unbelievable that you would think that poking and prodding a person, sending them through CAT scans and MRI machines, and having them speak with psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists is the same level of intrusiveness as making that person dead.

I didn't say they were the same level of intrusiveness.  Also, you aren't removing someone from society.  Even if they are in prison, they are still part of society, still part of whatever nation they live in.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Shryke, on 20 June 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

So, basically, you are just petty. This isn't about justice, it's about the fact that these people might be watching TV!!!!

I'm sorry, but I just can't resist this.  Do you think, the poor, the homeless and the starving might get the idea that killing someone is their salvation.  Free food, a place to sleep, medical and dental care, and, in some cases...free TV, what an entitlement program.

Sorry, it is flippant and nasty, I know, but I had such a laugh while thinking about it, I couldn't resist.

[Castel]

Quote

Like Haley Barbour did in Mississippi?  That gives me such a feeling of comfort and security.

Are you angry that someone was granted clemency? Because I have to say: tough shit. You are part of a democratic society. Every time you vote you are accepting and supporting the system, one of the rules of the system is that the executive can make such decisions, and that he/she is competent and capable of doing so as defined by the people. If you don't like it, I suppose you could try to change the law...or go live in a forest and declare yourself king of Bumfuck.

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be mean but you seem to think that because there was one case you didn't agree with, all of a sudden the rules should change or something.

Quote

The death penalty makes certain that the murderer will never murder someone else...even a fellow inmate

Have you seen how some of the more isolated prisoners live? If you are considered dangerous, then the odds of you murdering anyone drop the minute you're put on watch or in solitary.

[Nukelavee]

Castel - the democracy argument works against you, too - if 51 percent of people want execution...I guess you have to deal with it, right?

You miss teh point, that an executed killer is never going to be threat again, which is good for society.

And, again, you use error to support your stance, meaning you are ok with injustice, as long as you don't feel like you've crossed your own line.


Plus, executing is expensive not because it is designed to take forever to save the innocent, it's expensive because lawyers are expensive, and appeals drag out because lawyers make money dragging them out.

You cite a known flaw in teh system as though its a design feature - well, y'know, we meant for our system to suck ass, because then we won't feel bad when we suck ass.

And, no, I don't regard every life as equal or sacred.

You all realize I'm going to trot out quotes of you using teh chance of making a mistake in an accusation in every topic where the debate is over something that relies on judgement and has a chance of mistakes, right?  The idea that stepping back from something because you can't be certain is part of so many topics here that I may never need to use a single other arguement again.

[Castel]

Quote

Castel - the democracy argument works against you, too - if 51 percent of people want execution...I guess you have to deal with it, right?

Democracy isn't always just about majority vote. If a 51% of people want to round up and kill all gay people, do they get to do so? But there is a method for expressing discontent with the system in these issues and it's being used right now.Funnily enough, no one has used it on the clemency issue so is that a sign that it's wanted? His argument seems to boil down to:Fuck democracy. X executive was elected and declared competent by the people of the country but I personally don't like their decisions ergo, something is wrong with the system.

Quote

You miss teh point, that an executed killer is never going to be threat again, which is good for society.

I haven't missed the point. You have yet to show me what can be achieved by execution that cannot be achieved by life without parole and a solitary confinement approach, or at least doing what they do in some prisons with 1 hour of yard time in a restricted area.

Quote

You cite a known flaw in teh system as though its a design feature - well, y'know, we meant for our system to suck ass, because then we won't feel bad when we suck ass.

What are you talking about here, error? Because that is an inherent part of the system.

The long appeals? I don't consider it a flaw. It is indeed a design feature. It is not something that the system forces on people, but is indeed a possibility, so it has been accounted for by the system.

Edited by Castel, 20 June 2012 - 02:26 PM.

[Ser Robin Hill]

What is the point of having laws, courts, judges and juries if someone elected by people of average intelligence can be bamboozled by criminals smarter than he is?

I don't vote any longer, so I'm not part of the problem.

While murders inside prisons has dropped since the 1980, it is currently around 4 per 100,000.  Low, to be sure, but substantially greater than the percent of "wrongfully" convicted murderers.

I don't consider anything you've said to be mean.

BTW, this is good for a chuckle.  Several years ago, I did my stint of jury duty.  The Los Angeles  court system had a policy of assigning those who did not work, were self-employed or retired, to the jury pools for cases that were likely to take a long time.  During the jury selection process in one case, I objected to the judge that the policy was discriminatory of the basis age, employment status and violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  The judge disagreed.  I spent 3 weeks watching how inept lawyers can be and how stupid my fellow jurors were, as a result.  When I moved, I didn't re-register to vote, so they couldn't call me for jury duty again.

[sologdin]

Free food, a place to sleep, medical and dental care, and, in some cases...free TV, what an entitlement program

i wouldn't use this language to describe any place of incarceration in the united states.