Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We have moved to http://tspforums.xyz/. Please join us at the new site.
This forum is archived and posting has been disabled. You do not need to register to access previously hidden areas. If you see any personally identifiable information, please alert the current Admin Team so that it can be moved to a private setting.
Welcome to The South Pacific Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Death Penalty; Spilt From Van Gogh Topic...
Topic Started: Dec 21 2004, 04:03 AM (274 Views)
parrrrtay
Member Avatar
Do not follow me, for I am lost...

How about a Governor that EMPTIED death row? With so many exonerated thanks to DNA testing, you wonder how many really did commit their crimes? I believe most are guilty, but just ONE that isn't, is ONE too many.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Baribeau
The Lazarene

Reading about that governor just made my day.

I especially loved:
Quote:
 
"I have also had to watch in frustration as members of the Illinois General Assembly failed to pass even one substantive death penalty reform. Not one. They couldn't even agree on one.''


It's great when political leaders are frustrated with their own legislatures. I couldn't imagine the outrage if Paul Martin said that the House of Commons isn't passing marijuana-decriminalization laws fast enough, and gave pardons to every person guilty of possesion.

That would put a smile on my face.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
tsrill
Unregistered

Quote:
 
It's great when political leaders are frustrated with their own legislatures.

That's one of the disadvantages of democracy...
Goto Top
 
Shanties


tsrill
Dec 22 2004, 04:43 AM
In most, maybe all, cases, the truth is and cannot be 100 % known. There is always doubt, so when you sentence someone to death, there is always the chance the wrong person has been picked and someone innocent is killed. My opinion is that killing people is not something to take chances with; I would rather have a murderer alive than someone innocent killed.
Contrary to popular belief, it is just as hard to have unincarcerated someone as it is to unkill them. Hurricane Carter is out of jail now, but he can never be given back his lost years. He doesn't have to serve the rest of his sentence, but he is stuck with what he already served. Further, due to the extensive appeals process, the death penalty is probably falsely convicted less than other crimes. People can be better off with a death penalty conviction for that reason, it is more likely to be overturned.

I know of a friend of a friend who was in jail for 15 years for rape. However, the doctor's exam of the alleged victim indicated that she had not had intercourse of *any* type (e.g. forcible or consensual) in the prior 24 hours. This evidence was improperly quashed at trial (there were some seedy corruption issues with the local sheriff/trial judge/appeals judge/prosecutor/defense attorney). Every time he appealed, it went to the same appeals judge, who always refused to reopen the case. It wasn't until that judge retired that his appeal started to go forward. Unfortunately, that was more than 14 years into his sentence and the evidence was no longer available. In the end, he served the full 15 years (he might have gotten out earlier if he had confessed and offered contrition, but he refused to lie).

Anyway, the point is that if he had been on death row, his appeal would automatically have been given to a higher judge to be checked. That one appeals judge would not have been able to block it. In other words, he probably would have been able to successfully appeal if he had been on death row. Whereas, if he had had a life sentence, he would probably still be serving it. His one hope would have been that the new judge would release him due to the missing evidence. Many judges would not have done so.

In other words, while logically elegant, I feel that your worry of improper execution is actually the least bothersome part of the death penalty. Bigger problems are that the death penalty is actually more expensive to apply than incarceration (in part because of the weaker appeals system for the incarcerated) and that it is well known that heavier punishments do not deter more than lighter punishments, except relatively. In other words, saying that if someone does X and gets 10 years and if they do Y they get 15 years, people will try to keep within X if possible. However, changing the punishment for X from 10 years to 15 years does not increase the deterrent value. Oddly enough, there is actually some statistical evidence suggesting that executions *increase* the number of murders in the general populace. However, I have never seen what I would consider a good explanation for the mechanism of this increase. It may simply be a statistical oddity.

I have often thought that we execute the wrong people. For the single murder, I believe a life sentence would be better, as it is actually a worse punishment in many ways. Murder is often committed by someone desperate to the edge of suicide. To that kind of person, a death sentence sounds less ominous than a life sentence. In some ways, I think that OJ Simpson's punishment is actually worse than the death penalty or jail. Shunned by society, how much quality of life does he have? He is in a jail without walls, with little to do but reflect on his crime. People like him are the wrong ones to execute. It serves no purpose.

Instead, we should execute recidivists. I.e. the people who commit "smaller" crimes again and again. Obviously, for those people, jail neither rehabilitates nor deters. It is only an interruption in their criminal career. Execution would end it. In those cases, the appeals process is simpler. It is obviously more difficult to convict multiple times than one time. Further, if there is any doubt, there is no reason not to commute the sentence. If someone is really a career criminal, there will be another crime. If not, then commuting the sentence is the correct thing to do.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kein Aber


Quote:
 
Murder is often committed by someone desperate to the edge of suicide. To that kind of person, a death sentence sounds less ominous than a life sentence.- Shanties Posted on Dec 30 2004, 07:57 AM


Very true in a number of cases, other Murders are committed by individuals who are frustrated by Society, over all, sometimes they are severely wronged by society, and the redress of their wrongs are either ineffectual or unenforceable such as it the case of close relationships. A violent attack of the wrongdoer is their only perceived recourse. Other are drug related, a portion of society where home-rule is the law.

Quote:
 
Instead, we should execute recidivists. I.e. the people who commit "smaller" crimes again and again. Obviously, for those people, jail neither rehabilitates nor deters. It is only an interruption in their criminal career.- Shanties Posted on Dec 30 2004, 07:57 AM


Execute recidivists, your kidding right.

A former neighbor of mine, and over all good person. In his earlier life was put in Prison for drug use, he was serious about becoming a good member of society. He had skills and a trade and variety of productive talents. He was unable to find work; each and every job he applied for asked the Question: "Have you ever been arrested?" An honest reply on his part brought a quick refusal, if he lied he worked. That is unless they checked background at a later date, then he was immediately dismissed.

He eventually began to see the writing on the wall, after all he had to feed his family. So slowly, he slipped back into crime, I asked him "Why?" He replied, "At least in jail I was accepted and respected."

The story continues which will bring it back on topic.

During my friend’s attempts to become a good citizen, he adopted his wife's son. The son was a "Top leader" of a violent gang in Denver. This young man wanted out, of the gang in the worst way. Found God or something. He and his step-Father (my friend), started a number of legal businesses, Business Cleaning Services and Trash Hauling (the Area was rural mountain residential) and these services were needed. Business was bad for them. So the son turned to Drug dealing, through connections in Denver, up to this point the gang background was severed.

A customer of the Son took delivery of product but did not or refused to pay on time. So I night he and my friend, paid a visit to this customer.

Two people were shot and killed. They were tired, the son on murder charges, and my friend on a much lesser charge. The son got life and my friend got 30 years.

So is it the person or society, which commits the greater crime? Who really deserves the penalty?

KA
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
tsrill
Unregistered

I have to admit, I read your posts quickly, but as far as I could see neither case give good arguments for death penalty. They show there is something wrong with the system, but death penalty won't get politics and corruption out of a legal system.

Yes, of course you cannot get the years back that you have spent in jail. But as long as you live, there is at least a possibility that you can do something with the remainder of your live.
With death penalty, that possibility is taken away from you by the state.
Goto Top
 
HIMARS


tsrill
Dec 30 2004, 05:19 AM
Quote:
 
It's great when political leaders are frustrated with their own legislatures.

That's one of the disadvantages of democracy...

Actually, its one of the advantages of democracy. It helps keep balance between the branches of government and it helps prevent knee jerk reactions to public opinion polls.

governments should run on sound politics, not on the popularity of an issue.

LBJ proved you can't run a government based on opinion polls.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Liarg
Member Avatar
East of Gilead

tsrill
Dec 30 2004, 10:24 AM
But as long as you live, there is at least a possibility that you can do something with the remainder of your live.

On the same note, as long as you live, there is always the chance that you can manage to kill again.....For example Pee Wee Gaskins in SC. He was incarcerated for killing numerous innocent citizens, but finally got the death penalty for blowing up another inmate in his cell block.

Poetic justice, No????
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kein Aber


Quote:
 
neither case give good arguments for death penalty.- tsrill Posted on Dec 30 2004, 09:24 AM


I was for the most part responding to the following quote. Providing a real life situation in opposition of executing recidivists.

Quote:
 
Instead, we should execute recidivists..- Shanties Posted on Dec 30 2004, 07:57 AM


I am not for the death penalty, I stand against it. It is only through the presentation of information challenging anothers point of view can a resolution or a decison be reached.

In my story both parties were struggling to do the right thing. Neither were deserving of a death penalty. However the issued was raised in each trial. After review of the supporting facts and intentions the death penality was not sought in either case.

Two "innocent" people were murdured, the son did the killing, the father drove the vehicle and covered up the fact of a murder. Both could have been sentenced to death, neither was. The point to be made was that there are always circumstances involved that warrented not taking additional lives.

The Death penalty is not a Black and White issue it is shaded in grey.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
parrrrtay
Member Avatar
Do not follow me, for I am lost...

Kein Aber
Dec 30 2004, 02:47 PM
The Death penalty is not a Black and White issue it is shaded in grey.

I agree completely.
In turn the Judicial system is not a Black and White issue either, it is cloudy with grey also!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
TOOL a HOO
Member Avatar


tsrill
Dec 30 2004, 10:24 AM
I have to admit, I read your posts quickly, but as far as I could see neither case give good arguments for death penalty. They show there is something wrong with the system, but death penalty won't get politics and corruption out of a legal system.

I agree Trill,

and to follow a comment on the death penalty being grey... maybe so, but it has to be treated as black/white. Either your dead or you not. Deosn't get much more black/whote than that.

Unless... you want to adopt a "grey" system. ei, chopping of hands, forced sterilization. Seems a bit barbaric right, but its certainly grey punishment.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · Old News and Topics · Next Topic »
Locked Topic