[MERGED] The Death Penalty

[Duo_Maxwell]

Who believes in the current method of US executions, from arrest to trial to death?

[Blueangel]

I don't believe in any form of capital punishment anywhere in the world.
One would hope that we've evolved beyond that point...but alas...:(

[DRMIZER]

Think about sitting on death row and being the wrong person. You can't say anything because no one will listen.

The death penalty is NOT a deterrant! The speed limit is supposed to be a deterrant to speeding. Getting a parking ticket should stop illegal parking. Well, none of these work very well. You know why? Because we will NEVER get caught, we think!

The only reason some legal Eagles want the death penalty is 2 fold. . . .1) money and 2) REVENGE! We all know it costs much more to execute than to incarcerate. If society continues to lower itself to the level of revenge as it has throughout history, we have not grown much.

And yes, if it was my wife or family or friend, I too would want to kill the animal that took one of their lives. And if I got to them, I would kill them. But, that is pure revenge!

[DRMIZER]

[up2date]

Well said, Dr. The death penalty is about revenge, not justice. I am constantly embarrassed by the fact that a majority of Americans support the death penalty.

And yes, if it was one of my loved ones, I, too, would want their killer dead. But, as the good Dr. said, that would be pure revenge.

[Duo_Maxwell]

well...there goes any chance for debate. I got a paper I wrote about it. It's pretty anti-death. 8 pages.

[NetxMan]

The death penalty is about showing people what you get when
commit murder.

Why would it be revenge for the courts to order the death penalty?

The cost is less and has been proved so.

The cost?

Its cheaper to go with the DP.

LWO(over 50 years, with an increase in annual costs) = ~3.01 Million

DP (over 6 years, with an increase in annual costs) = ~1.91 Million

’It is not without purpose that the ruler carries the sword. He is God’s servant, to inflict his avenging wrath upon the wrongdoer Romans 13:4.’ "

Interesting Statistics:

During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank.

The most striking protection of innocent life has been seen in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 -- a 72 percent decrease.

[up2date]

So we are now making decisions on people's lives based on cost? No, cost should be left out. Morality, justice and retribution are what need to be considered.

As for your stats, I'd like a closer look at them. It's premature to declare the death penalty is the reason for that without looking into other factors.

[NetxMan]

up2date, I am not saying cost is a factor, someone else brought that up, I was just pointing to the facts.

Second, this happened over and over again, in states that put a ban on the DP and then lifted it, it is no coincidence.

Also, in the 1920s and 30s, Death penalty advocates were known to refer to England as a means of proving capital punishment's deterrent effect. Back then, at least 120 murderers were executed every year in the US and sometimes the number reached 200. Even then, England used the death penalty far more consistently than we did and their overall murder rate was smaller than any one of our major cities at the time. Now, since England abolished capital punishment about thirty years ago, the murder rate has subsequently doubled there and 75 English citizens have been murdered by released killers!

[NetxMan]

It's simple, what do they do in Saudi Arabia if you steal something?

Cut your hand off.

Why do they do this? Deterrant and Justice

Does it help? You bet your fanny it does.

[KWJams]

The death penalty in some cases is the humane way to go.

If there is beyond any reasonable chance of being not guilty such as by admission of guilt then it would be inhumane to incarcerate a murderer for life when it is clear they will never breathe free air again.
Besides, the air they are breathing would be better off being consumed by other living things. :eek:

Yes, I am pro-death penalty after all avenues have been exhausted and guilt is undeniable not as a way of exacting revenge, but for justice.

[Duo_Maxwell]

where did u get the data for dp being cheaper? Are you completely removing the trial costs?

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by NetxMan
It's simple, what do they do in Saudi Arabia if you steal something?

Cut your hand off.

Why do they do this? Deterrant and Justice

Does it help? You bet your fanny it does. And you dare to quote the justice system of a nation that still beheads it's citizens? :mad:
A nation where a man has a legal right to beat his wife and children?

You hold this up as a viable example of a just society?

That's plain laughable!

[NetxMan]

Originally posted by Blueangel
And you dare to quote the justice system of a nation that still beheads it's citizens? :mad:
A nation where a man has a legal right to beat his wife and children?

You hold this up as a viable example of a just society?

That's plain laughable!

And this is what liberals usually do totally spin something....

Did I say anything about their society as a whole? I don't think I did. I quoted something they did to use it as an example. And to show you that it works as "deterrent." Any why does it work? I think you can answer that for yourself.

If there is no justice for a crime, then what prevents another from committing the crime?

"It has always been the practice, when any particular species of robbery becomes prevalent and common, to endeavour its suppression by capital denunciations. Thus, one generation of malefactors is commonly cut off, and their successors are frighted into new expedients; the art of thievery is augmented with greater variety of fraud, and subtilized to higher degrees of dexterity and more occult methods of conveyance. The law then renews the pursuit in the heat of anger, and overtakes the offender again with death. By this practice, capital inflictions are multiplied, and crimes, very different in their degrees of enormity, are equally subjected to the severest punishment that man has the power of exercising upon man."
Samuel Johnson: Rambler #114 (April 20, 1751)

[shikaki]

It seems to be that we want to pretend that we are so enlightened. Everyone in this thread so far has said that if one of their own had been killed then they would want revenge. WHAT”S WRONG WITH REVENGE? Why should this be a bad thing? There are some very disturbed people running around in society that should not be part of society. Plain and simple. The human race is NOT evolved. We are barbaric and primitive, but that is ok. We are the only species on the earth that kills without reason. What recently was allowed to happen in Iraq proves my point. That was purely instantiated because of revenge. Given our current half witted, financially driven judicial system, I would like to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone was guilty, but if that has indeed been proven, then rid the planet of the broken human. And I too agree, that if someone would harm my family, I would kill without hesitation and that should be OK. I do believe an eye for an eye. It is the human condition.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by NetxMan
And this is what liberals usually do totally spin something....

Did I say anything about their society as a whole? I don't think I did. I quoted something they did to use it as an example. And to show you that it works as "deterrent." Any why does it work? I think you can answer that for yourself. Where's the spin in an honest gut reaction?

Believe me sir, I don't subscribe to any political dogma and have yet to find a political party that I agreed with enough to become a member. Liberalism/Socialism is merely the closest I have encountered to my way of thinking.

It astounds me that modern society still sees acts of brutality as the answer to it's problems.

[JD3]

In most cases, unless the killer confesses, and come to think it not even then (in Texas an innocent man confessed to protect a girlfriend. he was executed eventhought prosecutors argued that he couldn't have done it.), we really don't have 100% certainty the the person is guilty. Only beyond a reasonable doubt. If that is the criteria, shouldn't caution and restraint be use with the punishment? Life, real life in prison seems better. And for the guilty, probably a more fitting punishment. And a chance for the innocent.

JMHO

[shikaki]

You consider a life in prison a chance for the innocent?

[NetxMan]

Where's the spin in an honest gut reaction?

What do you mean?

What is your honest gut reaction if you watched you family slaughtered by a murder? Is it barbaric and wrong to beat the every living crap out of this person? Is it justice or revenge? Or is it both?

[JD3]

Well, if they are dead and we find out we were wrong, there is no chance then. Since we are capable of being wrong, I would be too anxious to kill anyone.

And I would argue that emotion shouldn't be an overriding part of justice. That's why we don't let victims or family members try or convict or sentence the accused. Since I don't think we can get 100% certainty often, and that we must rely on beyond a reasonable doubt, I must continue to be reluctant to kill. If we kill the innocent in a desire to kill the guilty, we are only marginally better, and maybe even worse, than the killer his or her self. Because we did it as a society and we knew we might be wrong. That is less than justice.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by NetxMan
What do you mean?

What is your honest gut reaction if you watched you family slaughtered by a murder? Is it barbaric and wrong to beat the every living crap out of this person? Is it justice or revenge? Or is it both? I fail to see the relevence of this response with relation to the issue, which was, the Saudi methods of punishment for stealing.

[NetxMan]

We are talking about the death penalty and justice. Also, showing how the death penalty can be a deterrant.

The Saudi method of punishment and justice is a deterrant. The death penalty is not only just but a proved detterrant. What you fail to see is many people who live the lives of murders and rapist actually live a better life in prison, where they can learn, eat, and sleep in a decent bed. If there only price is this, then what is the detterant and what is the justice?

[JD3]

I am not sure the death penelty is either. Ann Richards, former governor of Texas claimed that there was no evidence of the death penelty being a deterent, "but she guarenteed that 100% of those executed wouldn't kill again."

I conceded her point, but that also supposes that we have the guilty and that the law is applied fairly.

1. I know of no evidence proving the death penelty is effective. Logic tells me that if I am intent on killing it matters little if I am put to death or jailed for life. I might actually prefer the death penelty.

2. To be justice, shouldn't it be aplied fairly? Seems to me if you have enough money you are not as likely to be convicted. And the poorer you are the more willing the jury might be to accept the notion that this is a bad person and therefore worthy of such treatment.

3. We have gotten it wrong. And killing an innocent is never justice.

[NetxMan]

1. I know of no evidence proving the death penelty is effective. Logic tells me that if I am intent on killing it matters little if I am put to death or jailed for life. I might actually prefer the death penelty.

2. To be justice, shouldn't it be aplied fairly? Seems to me if you have enough money you are not as likely to be convicted. And the poorer you are the more willing the jury might be to accept the notion that this is a bad person and therefore worthy of such treatment.

3. We have gotten it wrong. And killing an innocent is never justice


Seems to me most the points you made, means we need reform the Judicial system, not the Death Penalty.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by NetxMan
Seems to me most the points you made, means we need reform the Judicial system, not the Death Penalty.

No, I said what I meant. It is barberic for the state to KILL. (period)

[NetxMan]

I was referring to JD3's last post.

[JD3]

Originally posted by NetxMan
Seems to me most the points you made, means we need reform the Judicial system, not the Death Penalty.

Well, the death penalty is part of the judical sytem. And I don't know if you can really discuss the death penalty without looking at the justice system, but if it is morality we want to talk about, I see nothing moral about taking a life for any reason, especially if I can't be 100% sure it is a guilty life. No, this seems wrong.

[NetxMan]

And were do you get your morals from?

[JD3]

I might prefer the word ethics. That means measuring behavior by a standard that is agreed upon by a certain group. As a Catholic, I put value in the words: "Thou shalt not kill."

I also consider the new testement to be translated as the new agreement. This part of the bible focuses on compassion over punishment. The law is still the law, but Jesus specifically emphasises compassion.

Now no one has to be a christian to weight in here. And I do believe in separation of church and state. But what you asked was where mine come from. I believe that Ghandi was on to something when he noted that an eye for an eye means soon everyone will be blind. Justice must require that standards are upheld and met. I must know that the person is not just guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that there is 100% certainty beyond all possible doubt before I can even consider the question. Otherwise we have state sanctioned murder, and who will punish the state? Or you and me for letting it happen?

Call me a liberal or a bleeding heart if you like, but life and death is serious. And taking a life is wrong. I would have trouble doing it if I knew I was right. And even if I had to and did so, I'd question my actions until my dying day. So when I know we can't be certain, I can see any way to support the premise.

[NetxMan]

Exactly, because I knew what your answer would be and it is documented several times in the Bible, as I posted in an earlier post.

You have a problem taking a life, yet you don't mind murdering innocent children?

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
No, I said what I meant. It is barberic for the state to KILL. (period) Seconded!

I live in a country that does not have the death penalty and our murder rate per capita is a mere fraction of the U.S.

More to the point, the U.K. is not a lone example of this.
Many European countries don't have the death penalty.
We have all the same crime problems as the U.S., yet we don't have the same rates of murder.

[up2date]

Originally posted by NetxMan
You have a problem taking a life, yet you don't mind murdering innocent children? I was gone for most of the day, so maybe I missed something that would have been apparent had I been following along in real time, but can you explain this to me? Where did anyone say or imply they don't mind murdering innocent children? Or if it was a deduction you made based on statements here, can you please explain that logic?

[Duo_Maxwell]

What makes you think that people
1) Drunk,
2) Enraged,
3) Emotionally imbalanced,
or 4) all of the previous, will stop and think about the consequences of killing someone?

There is no irrefutable evidence that the practice works. It's been around since the beginning of recorded history, but there is still no proof that it works. THere are still thieves in Saudia Arabia and Iran, people still do things that will get them killed. Murder still happens. There may be a few statistics noting the reduction when the penalty is enforced, but a large amount of crimes STILL happen.

[NetxMan]

Originally posted by up2date
I was gone for most of the day, so maybe I missed something that would have been apparent had I been following along in real time, but can you explain this to me? Where did anyone say or imply they don't mind murdering innocent children? Or if it was a deduction you made based on statements here, can you please explain that logic?


Advocates abortion but doesn't advocate the death penalty.

[NetxMan]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
What makes you think that people
1) Drunk,
2) Enraged,
3) Emotionally imbalanced,
or 4) all of the previous, will stop and think about the consequences of killing someone?

There is no irrefutable evidence that the practice works. It's been around since the beginning of recorded history, but there is still no proof that it works. THere are still thieves in Saudia Arabia and Iran, people still do things that will get them killed. Murder still happens. There may be a few statistics noting the reduction when the penalty is enforced, but a large amount of crimes STILL happen.

I think I posted numbers earlier in this thread that suggest otherwise. Let me guess they were all just a coincidence?

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by NetxMan
Advocates abortion but doesn't advocate the death penalty. Technically and legally, a foetus of less than 16 weeks development, does not constitute a child.

The cold blooded shooting of the medical staff that carry out abortions does constitute murder.

Take your pick?

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by NetxMan
I think I posted numbers earlier in this thread that suggest otherwise. Let me guess they were all just a coincidence? I have a moral dilemma here.
I'm not one to tar people all with the same brush, but when it comes to the issue of the death penalty, morals and reasoning tends to be polarised.

My view from this side of the pond is that the same people who lobby to protect their right to bare arms (or arm bears...Thank you Bill Hicks), are the same people who promote the death penalty.

They insist on the right to protect their lives and property by the use of firearms, yet also refuse to have their taxes spent on incarcerating offenders.
Personally, I find that obscene.

The same people select at will, various quotes from The Bible as a means of endorsing their views.
Yet, the only part of The Bible that is clearly claimed to have been written by God and not a disciple, absolutely states 'Thou shalt not kill'.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Blueangel
More to the point, the U.K. is not a lone example of this.
Many European countries don't have the death penalty.
We have all the same crime problems as the U.S., yet we don't have the same rates of murder.

Absolutely correct. But then, you don't permit handguns either. Oops, I should never have said that! Oh horrors!:whack: ;)

[JD3]

Originally posted by NetxMan
You have a problem taking a life, yet you don't mind murdering innocent children?

I am glad I wasn't the only one confused. You need to explain before I can respond. I think I am consistent in my beliefs.

[NetxMan]

Originally posted by Blueangel
I have a moral dilemma here.
I'm not one to tar people all with the same brush, but when it comes to the issue of the death penalty, morals and reasoning tends to be polarised.

My view from this side of the pond is that the same people who lobby to protect their right to bare arms (or arm bears...Thank you Bill Hicks), are the same people who promote the death penalty.

They insist on the right to protect their lives and property by the use of firearms, yet also refuse to have their taxes spent on incarcerating offenders.
Personally, I find that obscene.

The same people select at will, various quotes from The Bible as a means of endorsing their views.
Yet, the only part of The Bible that is clearly claimed to have been written by God and not a disciple, absolutely states 'Thou shalt not kill'.

I am confused what does gun control and the Death Penalty have in common? What you said made absolutely no sense.

And the "Thou shalt not kill", yes is stated in the bible, but if you actually read the Bible you will find many instances where God permits such just acts. Keyword being just.

[JD3]

Still confused. I don't see anything about babies in any of my posts. Gun control has what to do with the death penalty?

But the keyword is just. I believe I pointed out we couldn't be certain it was just. Since we can't, I can't even discuss the possibilty. Even if I had to and did, I said, I'd still struggle and 2nd guess myself, but that is me.

I still don't get your references. I think you are talking to me, but you posted Blueangel. Perhaps I am just slow. Explain further if will.

[EntImp]

Originally posted by shikaki
It seems to be that we want to pretend that we are so enlightened. Everyone in this thread so far has said that if one of their own had been killed then they would want revenge. WHAT”S WRONG WITH REVENGE? Why should this be a bad thing? There are some very disturbed people running around in society that should not be part of society. Plain and simple. The human race is NOT evolved.

People who are pro DP should make their minds up?

Do you want (a) a deterrent to a crime or (b) a system of revenge?

It quite simply isn't a deterrent. No matter what stats you come up with you cant say it deters as it doesn't. If the DP worked 100% and stopped murder for example then I would be for it... or would I as no murders would occur at all and then wouldn't have to have an opinion on it.

Don't know about your mindset on legal systems but revenge is not part of a modern legal system.

Anyway. There is one real argument that destroys the case for the DP in my mind:

The fact that a person, a living breathing humane person with family, children and whole life in front of them can be found guilty and then killed by his supposed peers of society whilst all along he/she was INNOCENT!

There is no way in any legal system today to demonstrate that a conviction is 100% safe. At all! Never! Put yourself in the mindset of a person on deathrow who is in all actuality 100% innocent.

The death penalty is still for backward countries living in the middle ages!

Just as well the UK is a member of the EU. As a member of the EU one is not allowed to have a system of capital punishment.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by EntImp
The fact that a person, a living breathing humane person with family, children and whole life in front of them can be found guilty and then killed by his supposed peers of society whilst all along he/she was INNOCENT! I would add to this, in the U.K. alone, there have been 18 posthumous pardons that I know of.
Who is brought to justice for this?

Imagine the sheer terror of being innocent and still being executed?
It's only in the last 50 years that certain U.S. states have stopped executing minors.
The whole idea of that terrifies me.
I can recall one case where a teenage boy was executed for kissing a girl of a different race. He didn't murder anyone. He was under 16 yet he was still executed.

That case is an abomination against mankind and should haunt the minds of all that were involved.

[JD3]

Our ability to determine quilt matters. I can't separate it from the qustion. If we are wrong we are morally if not legally what we condem.

It just isn't nercessary. And by the way, we also forget that people are people and sometimes, good people do bad things. I knew a sargent once who always be a buck sargent. He shot a tropper on one really bad day. He was charged and convicted. But he was really a good man at heart. He knew what he had done and grew from the experience. If he had killed the young man, that wouldn't have mattered to the young man's parents, nor should it. But, it doesn't change the value of the shooter either.

My point, he needed to be punished. I will agree. But circumstance matter. And a life can be of value to us even behind bars. It just isn't as simple as we like it to be.

[KWJams]

Consequences --- that is the only deterrent.

If a person is late for work the consequences may be that they get fired from their job.

But if a person has no discipline, it would not matter at all what the consequences may be.

But the key is that maybe 90% of people "do care about the consequences" and they will stop and think about the consequences first---so yes it is an effective deterrent.

[up2date]

Originally posted by KWJams
Consequences --- that is the only deterrent.

If a person is late for work the consequences may be that they get fired from their job.

But if a person has no discipline, it would not matter at all what the consequences may be.

But the key is that maybe 90% of people "do care about the consequences" and they will stop and think about the consequences first---so yes it is an effective deterrent. Many murders are not well plotted affairs. They happen in the moment out of anger, passion, etc. In these situations, one is not always likely to think of the consequences. And the people who commit pre-planned murders are likely dumb enough to think they will get away with it and as such are not worried about the consequences either.

[JD3]

Am I to believe that most people don't kill because of the consequences imposed by law?

I can't say I have ever sat down and thought about what would happen to me if I killed. I don't kill for the most part because I believe it is wrong. But there was a moment, I was 10 at the time, I tried to kill. I tried to do it with my bare hands. I jumped on his back and with all my heart and sould I wanted and tried to rip his head right off his shoulders. I lacked the ability to do so. But I tell you, if events had remamined unchanged, I would have killed him. And I say that about the only man I have ever loved. And the death penalty would have been meaningless to me.

I think it works that way with most people. I don't think many give it serious consideration.

[Dissent]

I’ve been browsing through here and admit all have valid and interesting points. Although, putting statistics, religion, revenge etc aside, I think there is a deeper issue here.
Instead of saying murder and the death penalty is wrong or right, shouldn’t we be asking why the serious crime in the first place? Someone once said to me that behaviour was the consequence of a deeper hurt, it was the process of acting out.

I want to know why are people are killing in the first place? Is it because they’ve had a history of domestic violence, drug abuse or society’s pressures and attitudes? Is it capitalism and living in a materialistic and individualistic society? Is it governments? Is the feeling that the need for success and happiness through money and conformity just too much?
I’m not trying to make excuses for people and I don’t know what I’d do if a loved one of mine was murdered. I’m just trying to look at it from another angle.
I just don’t believe in killing as the end result, it’s almost as if society is trying to cleanse the end negativity instead of stopping it in the first place. It’s like the idea that people actually think you can bring peace and stability in the world through war and killing.
What do you think??

“If there was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth every time something happened, then this would be an eyeless and toothless society.” (or something like that - I’ve read that quote or heard it somewhere, not sure)

[DRMIZER]

Well, Cain killed Abel in the first book of the Bible. Did he have a deeper social issue or "deeper hurt" that needed to be addressed? Point is not religious. . . . . .but people have been killing people since the beginning of recorded time. And I guess they will until the end of time. Agreed, a sad commentary. :(

[Dissent]

That’s true.
That deeper social issue could have been there since the beginning of time. Since boundaries have been developed, evolving along with us. I don’t think there is anything saying it hasn’t. Besides, just because the killing of each other has happened since the beginning, does this mean we still have to further it in our society?

Do you really think that something can just ‘be’ without reason?
:thinking:

[JD3]

Maybe something can be done without reason, but I suspect it is more likely that we can't articulate the reason.

Don't interpret any of what I have said to mean that society doesn't punish or make people accountable for their actions. I mearly mean that it is seldom, if ever, as clear and clean or simple as we'd like to think it is.

[EntImp]

I think we have established that the kiiling of most people is not premeditated and that is usually an act of despair or passion. Stats show that most murders are of this nature.

Thus we can rule out that the DP is a deterent.
Revenge isn't the goal of the legal system.

So where does that leave the Pro DP camp?

[Blueangel]

I honestly think that, even when a murder is premeditated, the main thought will be 'Can I get away with this?'
I don't believe that it would even cross a killer's mind whether he would get life imprisonment of execution.

The Ted Bundy case was a classic example of someone committing a crime and slipping over the state border to evade detection, etc.

[DRMIZER]

No!

[KWJams]

The consequences are ingrained into our psyche from day one -- everyone knows the difference between right and wrong unless they have a mental problem.
The fear of these consequences keep us from crossing the line between right and wrong whether it is murder or petty theft shop lifting.
If folks had no fear of the consequences from shoplifting why would we even need a check out register?
The fear of consequences are effective.

[JD3]

I am not sure I accept that. It sounds reasonable on the face of things, but some people do it becasue they believe it is right. That motivation seems more correct to me. Fear will only get you so far in any situation.

Take a dog for example, simple minded as they are, you can control them through fear and intimidation, but it isn't too effective. They often just hide when they do whatever it is you don't want them to do. So do criminals. They still do what they do, they just get sneakier about it.

If we don't fundementally believe that it is right, I don't suspect laws will stop us from doing it when we get the chance. At least not overwhelmingly.

[Dissent]

Isn’t the notion of right and wrong subjective anyway?

For example, someone who just murdered their partner because their partner beat and terrorised them for years, feels totally justified in doing so. Some individuals of a certain cultures believe that using voodoo to kill another evil doer is the right thing. Some think that organised religion is right, some believe otherwise. The list is endless.

I don’t think it’s simple to assume that all know what’s right and wrong.

Also means, that punishing people by death isn’t necessarily the ‘right’ answer either. Sometimes we should be looking deeper.
As I was saying before.
;)

[NetxMan]

That is why we have established laws. To define right or wrong.

[up2date]

Originally posted by NetxMan
That is why we have established laws. To define right or wrong. Actually, it's the opposite. Right and wrong are why we have established laws. We created a law that says it's illegal to kill because our morality teaches us that it's wrong. If our laws aren't in sync with our morality and ethics, we campaign to change the laws, not the other way around.

[Dissent]

But laws change from place to place.
This happens because people’s ideas of what's right and wrong differ.

Of course you're right, we make laws, but we make laws based on our judgments of what's right and wrong.

Again the notion of right and wrong are subjective.

The dominant place their ideologies and value system upon the rest of society.
This doesn't make laws right. The death penatly came about because of a majority assuming that it is right.

[KWJams]

These percentages are not accurate but lets say that 20% of the population would not care if their parents were executed for their crimes-- a complete indifference.
But say 80% of the population is concerned about it enough to stop and think about what they are doing.

So if you look at it that way the death penalty works to keep 80% of the population from going around killing each other while the 20% don't care one way or the other.

[up2date]

Originally posted by KWJams
These percentages are not accurate but lets say that 20% of the population would not care if their parents were executed for their crimes-- a complete indifference.
But say 80% of the population is concerned about it enough to stop and think about what they are doing.

So if you look at it that way the death penalty works to keep 80% of the population from going around killing each other while the 20% don't care one way or the other. I see the point you are trying to make, but...

I know theoretically, we are all capable of murder, but you have to consider that well more than 80% of the population would never kill anyone regardless of the consequences. So you have to focus on the 20% of the population who are capable of murder. Would the death penalty be a deterrent for this group.

[KWJams]

Probably not :( for those people that have a complete indifference to life, the death penalty means nothing to them until they are strapped down to a gurney that is.

But we have to assume that that portion of society is a lost cause and we just need to weed them out as soon as possible --maybe in their next life :rolleyes: they will be victims.

[EntImp]

The death penalty is, in my opinion, a damning statement on any society that still to this day uses it. I would also argue, without hard facts, that the amount of countries that use the DP are in fact the minority.

No EU country is allowed the DP... many countries are trying to get into the EU and thus have no DP. I also know of no current participating or non-participating member of the Commonwealth with DP with the (possible) exception of India.

The UN will no longer use the DP in as a punishment as it did so after WW2 with with war criminals. In fact the UN is looking to make it international law to abolish the DP and many think this will be the case within 20 yeaers.

I pity states the see the DP is a valid, humane and intelligent cure to their societies ills.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by EntImp
I also know of no current participating or non-participating member of the Commonwealth with DP with the (possible) exception of India. The last Commonwealth nation that I was aware had the death penalty was Fiji, but they abolished it last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1817709.stm

http://www.santegidio.org/pdm/news2002/09_04_02_c.htm

I'm unsure as to whether they were members at the time, as they were thrown out after the 1987 military coup and only re-instated in the last couple of years.

[EntImp]

Ok so 54 commonwealth countries and about 20 EU (incuding those wanting to join at some point) have no DP.

That says 74 countries with no DP. I am going to find out which ones do have a DP, as a revealing statement on those who do. What club are you in and who's in clubhouse drinking with you kinda psychology.

[EntImp]

A list of countries that have the DP for all crimes.
What wonderful and forward thinking countires do you share your faith in the DP with!

AFGHANISTAN (possibly not now)
ALGERIA
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
ARMENIA
BAHAMAS
BAHRAIN
BANGLADESH
BARBADOS
BELARUS
BELIZE
BENIN
BOTSWANA
BURUNDI
CAMEROON
CHAD
CHINA
COMOROS
CONGO (Democratic Republic)
CUBA
DOMINICA
EGYPT
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
ERITREA
ETHIOPIA
GABON
GHANA
GUATEMALA
GUINEA
GUYANA
INDIA
INDONESIA
IRAN
IRAQ (possibly not now)
JAMAICA
JAPAN
JORDAN
KAZAKSTAN
KENYA
KUWAIT
KYRGYZSTAN
LAOS
LEBANON LESOTHO LIBERIA
LIBYA
MALAWI
MALAYSIA
MAURITANIA
MONGOLIA
MOROCCO
MYANMAR
NIGERIA
NORTH KOREA
OMAN
PAKISTAN
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
PHILIPPINES
QATAR
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
RWANDA
SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS
SAINT LUCIA
SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES
SAUDI ARABIA
SIERRA LEONE
SINGAPORE
SOMALIA
SOUTH KOREA
SUDAN
SWAZILAND
SYRIA
TAIWAN
TAJIKISTAN
TANZANIA
THAILAND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
TUNISIA
UGANDA
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UZBEKISTAN
VIETNAM
YEMEN
ZAMBIA
ZIMBABWE

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by EntImp
I am going to find out which ones do have a DP, as a revealing statement on those who do. What club are you in and who's in clubhouse drinking with you kinda psychology. Nice idea and it should make interesting reading.

Off the top of my head, they mostly seem to be Middle Eastern, African and Asian nations...plus the U.S. Haven't got a clue about South American nations though.
On that basis, it looks like I'll only ever live in Europe or Oceanna.

[Blueangel]

No Brazil, Argentina or Chile!!!
I'm very surprised, but I'm genuinely shocked not to see Colombia and Paraguay in there!

Must admit...I've never heard of Myanmar so I'll have to get the atlas out.

[up2date]

It should be noted that the U.S. as a whole does not have the death penalty. It is left to the individual states to decide. Unfortunately my state became a "death penalty state" several years ago. :(

Actually, you can be sentenced to death for committing a federal crime, but I believe that's pretty rare. Virtual all death penalty sentences are given by individual states.

[EntImp]

Some facts from the amesty USA site. http://www.amnestyusa.org/

Every year 3 more countries add the name to list of countries that abolished the DP.

Since 1976 the US has killed 800 people under the guise of the DP. How many of these were to secure election votes I wonder.

The US, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia account for over 80% of all executions. What wonderful bed-fellows! Kinda puts it into perspective doesn't it... we point out fingers at a few nations for human abuse rights and yet... well you go figure it out.

Since 2000 only the US, Pakistan, Iran and the Democratic Republic of Congo are known to still execute minors/juveniles.
Pakistan have since stopped all DP's for minors and the DRoC have stopped all DP's.

[Missouri Mule]

IMHO, this is a no-brainer. The death penalty for premeditated cold blooded murder is absolutely moral and just. It DOES NOT matter if it isn't a deterrant. It is justice, pure and simple. And to repeat an argument that has been used many other times, the one being executed is certainly deterred from further crimes.

If you believe this is frivolous, then I suggest each of you read up on the life and times of Ted Bundy. Even he, sitting on death row said the only way to stop the likes of him was to kill him and to our credit we fried the evil monster. And I'm quite pleased that we did. This is something that as a society we should celebrate rather than join in with much of the rest of western countries who have abolished it for the utterly illogical argument that it is immoral. What can possibly be immoral with putting someone to death who is utterly without redeeming qualities and poses a danger to others should he continue to live? I see none.

As I said, to me this is a no-brainer and a slam dunk.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by EntImp
Since 1976 the US has killed 800 people under the guise of the DP. How many of these were to secure election votes I wonder. Well I can think of one former Governor of Texas who cleaned up his backlist just before becoming the current President.
He seems to have a taste for killing...doesn't he?

[up2date]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
IMHO, this is a no-brainer. The death penalty for premeditated cold blooded murder is absolutely moral and just. It DOES NOT matter if it isn't a deterrant. It is justice, pure and simple. And to repeat an argument that has been used many other times, the one being executed is certainly deterred from further crimes.

If you believe this is frivolous, then I suggest each of you read up on the life and times of Ted Bundy. Even he, sitting on death row said the only way to stop the likes of him was to kill him and to our credit we fried the evil monster. And I'm quite pleased that we did. This is something that as a society we should celebrate rather than join in with much of the rest of western countries who have abolished it for the utterly illogical argument that it is immoral. What can possibly be immoral with putting someone to death who is utterly without redeeming qualities and poses a danger to others should he continue to live? I see none.

As I said, to me this is a no-brainer and a slam dunk. If we accept your logic, then we need to address the DP in this country. It is not applied evenly. For example, you are probably aware of this story (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/146441_deathpenalty01.html) where a man has confessed to killing 49 people! His state has the death penalty, but there's a good chance he will plea bargain so that he will work with the state to identify all his victims. I don't have stats in front of me, but there's also allegedly a bias in DP applied to minorities. So even if we decide the DP is acceptable, it certainly isn't administered consistently, and that would need to be addressed.

[EntImp]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
If you believe this is frivolous, then I suggest each of you read up on the life and times of Ted Bundy.

So you base your argument on the life of one man? One man may have deserved to die but did the uncountable presumed guilty but actually innocent have to die?

Did I also mention it is a racist form of justice that has strong evidence to back this up. In that 80% of those who get the DP are convicted of killing a white person... whilst half of all murder victims are black.

You also have 95% more chance of getting a custodial sentance if you can afford legal representation. So it also bigoted against the poor.

Jeee I wish my legal system were so advanced.

I live in country that is forward looking, has a lower crime/murder rate and yet has no DP... who is talking of no-brainers I wonder?

[Blueangel]

I've been looking for the following story for ages and I've finally found it.

http://www.policestudies.eku.edu/kpotter/speech3.htm

The case of George Stinney has appaulled me since I first heard of it 20 years ago in a college debate on this very issue.

This excert is quite scary...
'No other Western nation, no other industrial nation, no other democracy in the world allows the execution of juveniles. Not even China whose human rights tradition has been greatly lacking at best. In fact, the United States joins only Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen as nations that have executed children in this decade. Since its last juvenile execution, even Yemen has banned this practice'

Add to this the fact that, since 1973, 160 U.S. juveniles have been given the death sentence.
Of them, 8 were girls (7 African American and 1 Native American).

[Missouri Mule]

Both he and Bundy are white.
==============
Nov 2, 9:28 PM EST

Wash. Man Expected to Admit to Killings

By GENE JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer

SEATTLE (AP) -- This week, a slight man with thick glasses, a man who has been married three times and is the father of one child, is expected to plead guilty to at least 48 separate charges of murder, sources involved with the case have told The Associated Press.

When it's over Wednesday, Gary Leon Ridgway will have more murders on his record than any other serial killer in the nation's history. And a mystery that confounded detectives for two decades will come to a close.

Ridgway, 54, a longtime painter at Kenworth Truck Co., is expected to admit being the Green River Killer, named for the river south of Seattle where the first victims were found.

The plea would spare him the death penalty in King County, instead assuring him life in prison without parole, the sources said. However, two of the bodies on the official list of Green River victims were found in Oregon, which has capital punishment, and it is still unclear whether Ridgway will plead to those.

The remains of scores of women, mainly runaways and prostitutes, turned up near ravines, rivers, airports and freeways in the 1980s. Of them, investigators officially listed 49 women as probable victims of the Green River Killer.


Ridgway had been a suspect ever since 1984, when Marie Malvar's boyfriend reported that he last saw her getting into a pickup truck identified as Ridgway's.

But Ridgway told police he didn't know Malvar, and a police investigator in Des Moines, midway between Seattle and Tacoma, who knew him cleared him as a suspect. Later that year, Ridgway contacted the King County Sheriff's Green River task force - ostensibly to offer information about the case - and passed a polygraph test.

Detectives continued to suspect him, however, and in 1987 they searched his house and took a saliva sample. It was 13 years before DNA technology caught up to their suspicions and they could link that sample to DNA taken from the bodies of three of the earliest victims.

Ridgway was arrested as he left work Nov. 30, 2001, and later pleaded innocent to seven killings. But facing DNA evidence and the prospect of the death penalty, he began cooperating and trading information for his life.

He confessed to 42 of the 49 listed killings, as well as six not on the list, the sources have said. He directed authorities to four sets of previously undiscovered remains.

It turned out that the killings continued long after detectives thought the Green River Killer had stopped, the sources said. The last victim on the official list disappeared in 1984, but one of the cases Ridgway is expected to plead to involves a woman killed in 1990, and another involves a woman killed in 1998.

That has stunned some criminologists.

"Once they're identified as a suspect, they usually stop," said Jack Levin, director of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University in Boston. "Ridgway is really a rare specimen, even among his peers, in being able to avoid apprehension for such a long time."

Ridgway's pleas to 48 counts would give him more convictions - though not necessarily more slayings - than any other serial killer in the nation's history, Levin said.

It's difficult to know who the most prolific serial killers are because many don't confess. Prosecutors often charge suspects only with the cases they're certain they can prove. And some of those who do confess may take credit for crimes they didn't commit, in hopes of appearing more deadly than they actually were.

John Wayne Gacy, who preyed on men and boys in Chicago in the 1970s, was convicted of killing 33. Ted Bundy, whose killing started in Washington state, confessed to killing more than 30 women and girls, but was convicted only of killing three before he was executed.

Relatives of the Green River Killer's victims have had mixed responses to the idea of a plea deal. Some accused King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng of reneging on a promise he made when Ridgway was first charged that he would not bargain with the death penalty.

Maleng and other King County officials have declined to comment on the plea deal.

Maria Marrero, whose sister Becky disappeared in 1982, told KOMO-TV no plea deal would please her. She wants Ridgway put to death.

"That's the most devastating thing - that I will probably never have that privilege, to bury my sister," she said.

But other victims' relatives have said that learning what happened to their loved ones is worth giving up the death penalty.

"Life as he knows it is pretty much done and over with," said Tim Meehan, whose pregnant, 18-year-old sister was found dead in 1983. "The other families at least now have the opportunity to have answers. If you can exchange that information for life in prison, well, to me it's well worth the information."

(See below for link.)

[Missouri Mule]

Wouldn't fit.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GREEN_RIVER_KILLINGS?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Missouri Mule]

"James Byrd, Jr. was walking home alongside the highway just outside of Jasper, Texas on June 10, 1998. Because he was a black man, and three racists were coming down the road, his fate was sealed. As a consequence he was accosted, chained to the rear of a pick-up truck and dragged to his death for no more crime than being a black man at the wrong place at the wrong time;"

(snip) See link for remainder.

http://themidnightdj.tripod.com/jasper.htm

[Blueangel]

Whilst I don't agree with your standpoint, I must thank you for your post and link.
I've been following the Green River killings for years, but gave up a while ago when common opinion was that the killer was dead.
I'd no idea someone had been arrested at last.

My brother studied Law at Leeds when the Yorkshire Ripper was at large. We used to draw comparisons from other prominent serial killer cases and the Green River Killer was one. I must admit to being fascinated by such creatures based on the level of intelligence needed to evade detection for years.

[Missouri Mule]

There is an excellent book out in paperback on the Green River murders. They came within an eyelash of catching him right after the first murders but dropped the ball. Then it was one disaster afer another including the accidental drowning of the police chief.

A few years ago I became fasinated with trying to understand the criminal mind and I had a used book store next to where I worked and I would go there on my noon hour and purchase 2 or 3 books and take them to read during my breaks and at home. It became obvious to me that one of the problems we have in putting cases to bed is because the standard of proof is so high.

A couple of nights ago there was a two hour program on NBC having to do with three brutal murders in Springfield, Missouri where I lived. The almost certain murderer was acquitted. To a man and a woman of the jury each said they thought he was guilty as sin but that wasn't certain proof that he had murdered his family. Therefore they had to render a verdict of "not guilty" although he was by no means "innocent." One of those murdered was his 1 and 1/2 year old daughter who was SLOWLY strangled to death over a period of eight minutes. Today he walks the street of Springfield, Misouri a free man. Under our constitution even if he came out and proclaimed his guilt it would not matter because of our "double jeapardy" provisions.

IMHO we go well beyond what is necessary to render a fair and impartial judgment. And who pays? It is the innocent, law-abiding citizens who are stalked by such predators who are complete psychopaths without a shred of a conscience.

[Missouri Mule]

Blueangel: Are you familiar with that case in the UK where every male in a small town was tested for blood links to the murder of this little girl? That was among the books I read during my study of crime and criminals. The perp went so far as to send in a "ringer" but was eventually found out and prosecuted.

[Blueangel]

Yes, I'm familiar with that case.

My friend's brother was savagely beaten and murdered in Feb 2000. Even with eye witness testimonies, his murderer and accomplicies walked free on a technicality. Apparently, the local police had not been entirely correct in their manner of questioning the accused.
My friend's family had three years of taunts from the accused and his family and friends.
That's soul destroying.

Thankfully, this may now come to an end as the accused died two months ago.

I know of another murderer who is walking free because the case against her wasn't water-tight. I know she is guilty as hell because the key eye witness is a former colleague of mine.

The law in the U.K. is constantly evolving, as I think it is in the U.S. and elsewhere.
To quote the late, great Lord Denning, "The law is an ***."
Unfortunately, it is only with miscarriages of justice that legal loopholes become apparent and can be acted upon.

[Duo_Maxwell]

The cases aganist them MUST be air-tight. Mistake cannot happen. Too many innocent have been murdered by the state. Some may deserve it, but many others probably do not. Must innocent people die via the state so the state can execute a few guilty?

The penalty HAS killed innocent people, no doubt about it. Remeber, this is a punishment that cannot be reservesed. Screw up and you're now just as bad as the real violator.

[Missouri Mule]

With the burden of proof required today it is extremely unlikely that many actually are executed if at all. I can't see why in the world anyone would want to keep a Ted Bundy alive.

Would you like to make that case?

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Would you like to make that case? The F.B.I.'s criminal profiling is an invaluable tool to the police all over the world.
It's a bit difficult to study someone if they're dead.

[DRMIZER]

Check Illinois who recently, within the last year or two, stopped the death penalty because of too many innocent being put to death learned after the fact. Bummer!

[Missouri Mule]

Blueangel: I believe that Ted Bundy was probably studied "to death" before he was executed. I was asking whether or not a moral case could be made that a monster like him ought to be spared the death penalty. If you didn't already knew, he was captured in Colorado, escaped to Florida where he murdered six additional young women. Ultimately he was convicted on the strenght of his teeth marks in the buttocks of one of the women. He was the most perverted of serial killers although to see and talk to him you would not know it. Ann Rule, a former policewoman, actually worked alongside him at a crisis center. He was giving out advice to callers and never gave any hint of his sinister side. She wrote a book about him entitled "The Stranger beside Me." Worth a read.

[JLwH211]

Not too long ago there was a case here where a man who has been sitting on death row for a rape/murder was released due to DNA testing. At the time of his arrest and trial this testing wasn't available. When released the man was given a public apology and a payment of $150,000.00 by the state to help reestablish the man in society.

Two weeks after his release he raped 4 teenage girls. He was caught and arrested, gave an admission of guilt for the 4 rapes recently committed, then another confession for the rape/murder for which he was released. Now, if the state had never released him those 4 girls would never have had to go through what they did.

Sounds like a mistake to me.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by JLwH211
Not too long ago there was a case here where a man who has been sitting on death row for a rape/murder was released due to DNA testing. At the time of his arrest and trial this testing wasn't available. When released the man was given a public apology and a payment of $150,000.00 by the state to help reestablish the man in society.

Two weeks after his release he raped 4 teenage girls. He was caught and arrested, gave an admission of guilt for the 4 rapes recently committed, then another confession for the rape/murder for which he was released. Now, if the state had never released him those 4 girls would never have had to go through what they did.

Sounds like a mistake to me.

Seems the two are unrelated. He was on death row for a murder he didn't commit. DNA proved that. However, that doesn't mean he was not capable of committing other crimes for which punishment is due.

[JD3]

Originally posted by JLwH211
Not too long ago there was a case here where a man who has been sitting on death row for a rape/murder was released due to DNA testing. At the time of his arrest and trial this testing wasn't available. When released the man was given a public apology and a payment of $150,000.00 by the state to help reestablish the man in society.

Two weeks after his release he raped 4 teenage girls. He was caught and arrested, gave an admission of guilt for the 4 rapes recently committed, then another confession for the rape/murder for which he was released. Now, if the state had never released him those 4 girls would never have had to go through what they did.

Sounds like a mistake to me.

Ok, just checking. He was innocent of the crime he was imprisoned for. But because he might do something, and since this one did, we should hold and/or execute those who are innocent for the crime they are charged with?

What ethical standard would ever support this?:( :(

[JLwH211]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
Seems the two are unrelated. He was on death row for a murder he didn't commit. DNA proved that. However, that doesn't mean he was not capable of committing other crimes for which punishment is due.

After he raped the 4 girls, he confessed to the rape/murder in which he was originally arrested and imprisoned. The DNA testing had been done on the wrong evidence, and he was released falsely.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by JLwH211
After he raped the 4 girls, he confessed to the rape/murder in which he was originally arrested and imprisoned. The DNA testing had been done on the wrong evidence, and he was released falsely.

Sorry, I misread. Then the lab who completed the DNA should be executed. Weren't they an accessory to the fact?

[JLwH211]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
Sorry, I misread. Then the lab who completed the DNA should be executed. Weren't they an accessory to the fact?

In my opinion, yes. But not to the state.

[Simon666]

My opinion is that I am in favor of death penalty but then in the cases we are absolutely 100% sure, like in Belgium for the likes of Dutroux. I do not accept innocents to be executed. There have been several people released already from death row in the US and there have also been executed innocent people. Beyond reasonable doubt is not good enough, beyond any doubt is.

Death penalty is in the US and other countries unfair towards minorities, immigrants and/or people who don't speak the language. In the US for example they wrongly convicted and executed two Italian immigrants who didn't speak the language properly (http://www.ustrek.org/odyssey/semester2/020701/020701daphsacco.html). In my own country, in Wallonia (French speaking part, at the time the economicly dominant part and Dutch was considered the language for the commmon Flemish people) they once convicted two Flemish men to death because they looked down on the Flemish, the perpetrators spoke Flemish and their interpreter did a bad job and essentially because one letter in one word was translated poorly they got the guillotine. They were executed one after the other, must be quite horrifying for the second guy to see his friends head cut off, perhaps it was even in the basket below him. Some time after it they arrested some other guys for another murder and they admitted committing the crimes the Flemish people were executed for, and testified that they had memorized and used a few Dutch words when they committed their crimes so their victims would get the impression they were Flemish.

[Missouri Mule]

In the old days they often executed the alleged criminal and then asked questions. Nowadays it is the opposite. I personally know of three men who are walking free today although it is common knowledge that they are guilty as sin. They all brutally murdered their wifes and/or their families. One of those of course would be O.J. Simpson. Two more are free in Springfield, Missouri. Everyone knows it but the murderers can shout their guiltt from the rooftops because of our "double jeopardy" laws.

As far as the miniorities are concerned, that might have something to do with the sociatal dysfunctional families where in the large urban areas up to 90% or more of the children are born out of wedlock. No fathers, no discipline, lousy schools, street crime, gangs, youthful indiscrections lead to this imbalance in the prison population. And vast numbers are incredibly incompetent criminals. And some even prefer prison life because they get three squares and free medical care. A surprising number get to be "trustees" and work outside the prison walls. A lot of them are halfway decent people who got into trouble and even a lot of convicted murderers aren't all that evil as people. Most of those occurred not as some premedicated evil scheme but in the heat of passion, bar fights, etc. The problem is getting them reintegrated back into civil society.

[Simon666]

Criminals walking free on technicalities or lack of evidence is another discussion and no argument in favor of the death penalty.

And I also forgot one other point: it is not a deterrent. Even in Saudi Arabia, people still get murdered. And people have used the example of England, while ignoring all other influences in society in England that occurred since abolition of the death penalty such as population growth, change in economic conditions, change in social fabric (divorces, single parents,...), immigration and other trends.

[Missouri Mule]

"And I also forgot one other point: it is not a deterrent."

I beg to differ with you. Ted Bundy hasn't murdered a single person since his execution in 1989.

[JD3]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
"And I also forgot one other point: it is not a deterrent."

I beg to differ with you. Ted Bundy hasn't murdered a single person since his execution in 1989.

That would be Ann Richards comment. She said: "There is no evidence that the dealth penelty deters murder, but I'll guarentee you that 100% of those executed will not commit aanother murder."

But I am not sure that fits the definition of deterent of someone else commiting a murder. ;)

[Missouri Mule]

I live in Texas where there are a lot of executions. In reading over the accounts of the condemned they were all as guilty as sin. The facts were overwhelming. But I'll keep my eyes peeled for one that appears not to be justified and let you know.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
I beg to differ with you. Ted Bundy hasn't murdered a single person since his execution in 1989.
Now if I had to take one example of faulty logic on this forum, I would use this one. It is a pearl of unwisdom. Life sentence would also ensure he wouldn't kill anyone anymore.

[up2date]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
I live in Texas where there are a lot of executions. In reading over the accounts of the condemned they were all as guilty as sin. The facts were overwhelming. But I'll keep my eyes peeled for one that appears not to be justified and let you know. Speaking of Texas, wasn't a mentally ill woman put to death down there right about the time Bush was sworn in as president? And I seem to remember some politics involves as well. I'll have to look that up.

[Missouri Mule]

"Speaking of Texas, wasn't a mentally ill woman put to death down there right about the time Bush was sworn in as president? And I seem to remember some politics involves as well. I'll have to look that up."

I'm not aware of that. I didn't live in Texas at the time. I just follow the recent ones in the local newspapers that recount the circumstances. A good percentage ask for forgiveness at the time of the executions.

[Missouri Mule]

"Life sentence would also ensure he wouldn't kill anyone anymore."

I wish it were so. Many escape to kill again. Bundy was locked up in Colorado escaped to Florida where he brutally murdered six more young women. If you want to know what you are dealing with you might pick up Ann Rule's book, "The Stranger beside me."

Let me quote from one of her books about the sociopath.
========================
"The antisocial personality has no conscience. This is a concept as foreign to most of us -- and as difficult to understand -- as truly visualizing infinity. Our minds shutdown. We cannot imagine what it must be like to distance ourselves totally from another creature's pain.

Those without the baggage of conscience can step into new rooms in their lives and close the door of the past tightly behind them so that no wisp of odor or sound penetrates. No guilt. No bad dreams. No looking back at all. For them. yesterday never really happened. For most of us, the future is the only unknown; we remember the past, and it often haunts us. The sociopath lets the past die behind a series of locked mental doors."
=======================
Ted Bundy said the only way to prevent sociopaths like himself was to kill them. He was speaking for himself as well. We complied with his wishes.

[Simon666]

Bundy wasn't convicted to life nor to death yet when he escaped, and many convicts have to wait years before they are executed. How many convicts escape in the US in percent? It is still a bad argument.

[Missouri Mule]

Would you care to explain that line of reasoning to the relatives of those who are murdered?

Why is there so much worry over the rights of known murderers and so little about the rights of the victims? When did our constitution become a suicide pact? I must have missed that in my civics class during school.

[Missouri Mule]

Even if you dismiss my arguments out of hand, I would still want the death penalty because it is just. And yes, revenge plays a part in it. If someone murders a member of my family in cold blood I very much want to see the look of terror on their face as the needle is put into their arm. Absolutely.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Would you care to explain that line of reasoning to the relatives of those who are murdered
Play the emotional trick: "Tell that to the victims." It is a diversion tactic, to hide the argument wasn't good. You claimed that death sentence prevents them from murdering again, I say life sentence does too. You say they can escape them, I say the percentage is so small it can be neglected, and people sentenced to death have to wait years too so they have plenty of time to escape too, not that it happens much.

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Why is there so much worry over the rights of known murderers and so little about the rights of the victims? When did our constitution become a suicide pact? I must have missed that in my civics class during school.

Even if you dismiss my arguments out of hand, I would still want the death penalty because it is just. And yes, revenge plays a part in it. If someone murders a member of my family in cold blood I very much want to see the look of terror on their face as the needle is put into their arm. Absolutely.
First, I have made my position clear that I am in favor of the death penalty in case it is absolutely sure beyond any doubt. So I did not talk about the right of known murderers as I think they should die. Second, if you convict an innocent person to death, he is by definition a victim of state murder, so I reverse the question: what about the rights of the victims of state murder?

[Missouri Mule]

"Second, if you convict an innocent person to death, he is by definition a victim of state murder, so I reverse the question: what about the rights of the victims of state murder?"

If you can provide an example of such a person I'll respond. Try to find one within the past few years if you can. I don't want to defend what might have occurred 70 years ago.

[Simon666]

How about your very own political prisoner Leonard Peltier, who is on death row?

[Missouri Mule]

He's not on death row.

[Simon666]

Sorry my mistake, anyway, Leonard's case indicates to me that in giving life and death sentences, errors are still made. How about Mumia Abu Jamal (http://www.iacenter.org/majfact.htm) then?

[Missouri Mule]

I realize that he is a "cause celebra" , but so far as I know he is as guilty as sin. I doubt if he will ever be executed because of all of the politics, including racial politics.

[Simon666]

Why is that, you gave no explanation? I guess this was your purpose all along : As far as I know ____ is as guilty as sin. I sense a racist edge, "people fight for him because he is black, it must be that he is guilty anyway and those pinko super-politically-correct liberal lefties are trying to free a murderer". Could I be right?

It seems to me there is not sufficient evidence even if you believe he is guilty so I don't see why you have a hard time imagining you would execute the wrong people. Especially as a number of people on death row have been released, and some not because of lack of evidence or procedural mistakes but simply because it was proven they were not guilty.

[Missouri Mule]

No, it wasn't racially motivated but it is a fact of life. I can't imagine a white O.J. Simpson walking, can you? I'm still waiting for him to produce the "real killer."

What I have read and heard about the case in question was that he was the killer of two policemen and the facts are rather clear. In any event a jury made that determination. I didn't see the evidence and I'll assume you didn't either.

[Simon666]

The O.J. Simpson process to my knowledge was decided because Cochrane could convince the jury DNA didn't mean anything and DNA analysis was still relatively unknown to the public, but I don't live in the US. I don't know to what extent racial motives played inside the court (what matters), but outside it I do know that opinion polls among the public showed clear differences on opinion whether OJ was guilty or not depending on the race of the people questioned.

What you would have read in the links I provided, is that it is not all that clear.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Simon666
The O.J. Simpson process to my knowledge was decided because Cochrane could convince the jury DNA didn't mean anything and DNA analysis was still relatively unknown to the public, but I don't live in the US. I don't know to what extent racial motives played inside the court (what matters), but outside it I do know that opinion polls among the public showed clear differences on opinion whether OJ was guilty or not depending on the race of the people questioned.

What you would have read in the links I provided, is that it is not all that clear.
WOAH SIMON!
He said, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must equit"! Do you remember who was on the jury? 'Nough said!

[Simon666]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
WOAH SIMON!
He said, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must equit"! Do you remember who was on the jury? 'Nough said!
I looked it up and I must say I understand your and Mule's point now:

Armanda Cooley - #230 (seat 1) - Forewoman and Original Juror, Black female, 51, divorced, two years of college, employed as a vendor, lives in South Central L.A. Co-author of 'Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?' with jurors Bess and Rubin-Jackson.

Yolanda Crawford - #1492 - (seat 2) - Placed on jury June 6 (replacing Farron Chavarria), Black female, 25, single, one year of college, hospital employee, lives in Gardena. Informed Ito about a note written by Chavarria on a newspaper and allegedly read by Florio-Bunten, causing their dismissal.

Anise Aschenbach - #1290 (seat 3) - Placed on jury March 17 (replacing Tracy Kennedy), White female, 61, divorced, one year of college, retired gasoline company clerk, lives in Norwalk. One of two jurors who voted guilty in first vote.

David Aldana - #19 (seat 4) - Original Juror, Hispanic male, 33, single, high school graduate, drives a Pepsi delivery truck, lives in East L.A.

Marsha Rubin-Jackson - #984 (seat 5) - Original Juror, Black female, 38, married, high school graduate, mail carrier for USPS, lives in Bellflower. Co-author of 'Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?'.

Lionel Cryer - #247 (seat 6) - Placed on jury Jan. 18, Black male, 44, high school graduate, works as a phone company marketing representative. Florio-Bunten told Ito she thought that he may be writing a book. Gave Simpson "power salute" after the verdict.

Brenda Moran - #795 (seat 7) - Placed on jury April 5 (replacing Jeanette Harris), Black female, 45, single, high school graduate, computer technician. Reported to be working on a book with Gina Rosborough, titled 'Inside the Simpson Jury: The Parallel Universe'.

Sheila Woods - #1233 (seat 8) - Original Juror, Black female, 39, single, college graduate, employed as an environmental health specialist, lives in Inglewood. Told Ito she thought that Aschenbach, Florio-Bunten and Chavarria disliked her, because they suspected her of being behind the dismissal of Kathryn Murdoch.

Carrie Bess - #98 (seat 9) - Black female, 53, divorced, high school graduate, postal clerk, lives in South Central. Co-author of 'Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?'.

Gina Rosborough - #2179 (seat 10) - Placed on jury June 6 (replacing Willie Craven), Black female, 29, married, high school graduate, postal employee. Reported to be working on a book with Brenda Moran, titled 'Inside the Simpson Jury: The Parallel Universe'.

Annie Backman - #63 (seat 11) - Original Juror, White female, 23, single, college graduate, insurance claims adjuster, lives in Burbank. Believed to be the other juror who initially voted 'guilty' (source: Aschenbach's interview on 'Larry King Live').

Beatrice Wilson - #2457 (seat 12) - Placed on jury May 26 (replacing Francine Florio-Bunten, who replaced Michael Knox), Black female, 72, married, completed 10th grade, retired cleaner, lives in L.A.'s West Adams.

[Missouri Mule]

Simon: With all due respect, O.J. was as guilty as sin. The prosecution junked up their presentation with that "mountain of evidence" and it was more confusing than helpful. A good prosecutor would have had a slam dunk. The jury was very carefully selected (an outrage by itself) and there was no way he was going to be convicted. I'm sure if there had been a video recording of O.J. slitting his wife's throat the defense would have called up some "experts" who would have "proven" the tape was a fake.

Now it is true that people have been convicted on flimsy evidence. As often as not it is because they have lousy defense counsels. Lawyers as a group are not the best and the brightest. I avoid them like the plague.

[Simon666]

I don't know if he was guilty as sin, I remember having read something plausible about his son having violent behaviour. I think he was guilty though.

[Missouri Mule]

That may have been another case. O.J.'s children were quite young at the time of the trial in 1994 (?). So far as I know they had no problems.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
That may have been another case. O.J.'s children were quite young at the time of the trial in 1994 (?). So far as I know they had no problems.
His children from his marriage with Nicole, yes.

New clues in OJ Simpson murder mystery (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/954700.stm)

By Malcolm Brinkworth, producer of a BBC programme which sheds new light on the case of former American football star OJ Simpson.
Despite his repeated protestations of innocence, in the eyes of many OJ Simpson was and remains a guilty man. OJ - The Untold Story reveals that clues that some believe pointed away from Simpson as the killer were dismissed or ignored and highlights two other leads which could shed new light on the case.



Dr Lee: Crime scene was "contaminated"

Our film shows that the court only heard part of the real picture - that crucial evidence was tampered with and destroyed, the police so contaminated the crime scene that the evidence was unsafe and that six months before her murder, someone was offered money to kill Nicole.

Dr Henry Lee, one of the world's most respected forensic scientists, states in his interview for the programme that the crime scene was "out of control", was contaminated and that the police had destroyed so much at the murder scene that it was impossible to reconstruct what happened that night.

Dr Lee also reveals that the police failed to take crucial blood samples from Nicole's back which might have helped solve the case.



Who did kill Nicole Simpson?

We also commissioned two independent British scenes of crime experts to review and analyse the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) procedures at the crime scenes. Their testimony reveals a host of errors which caused them to have no faith in the integrity of the crime scenes.

It is their view that the evidence was seriously compromised and would have been rejected by the UK's Crown Prosecution Service.

Potential new suspect

The film also explores new areas, which have not been fully investigated by the authorities. It features private investigator Bill Dear and follows his enquiries into Jason, Simpson's son from his first marriage, whom he regards as a potential suspect that the police overlooked in their investigation.



Jason: History of violence

He reveals that Jason had a history of violent outbursts, including attacking people with a knife and had a criminal record.

The programme examines the evidence that shows that six months before her murder, Nicole was put under surveillance.

A man called Bill Wasz, who he says, had supplied cocaine to Simpson, Nicole and friends, had been hired by one of Simpson's friends to follow her and take photographs of Nicole with any man she might meet.

He recorded his surveillance in a notebook. In an interview from prison, where he is currently serving a jail term for armed robbery, Wasz explained that 10 days after handing over the photographs, he had been asked by Simpson's same friend to a meeting for a new assignment.

At that meeting, Wasz says, Simpson's friend then hired him as a hitman to kill Nicole.

Police ignored 'hitman' claims

The programme reveals that the police were made aware of Wasz's story just a few weeks after the murders and despite recommendations by senior detectives to pursue it, the prosecution decided to dismiss it.

Both the defence and the prosecution put out the story that Wasz had made the story up and that the notebook was a forgery.

However, the programme also goes on to show that four years later, the Wasz story was re-investigated again. The police and the District Attorney's office accepted that the notebook was genuine and that Wasz had been telling the truth.

However, after further investigation, the District Attorney's office dismissed the matter once more, despite promising leads that pointed to a possible plot to kill Nicole.

After a detailed investigation, OJ - The Untold Story, shows that a new investigation may be able to solve the crime.

With accusations of corruption within the Los Angeles Police forcing the reopening of hundreds of other cases, the truth about the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman could still be told.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Simon666
I don't know if he was guilty as sin, I remember having read something plausible about his son having violent behaviour. I think he was guilty though.

I watched everything from the Bronco chase to the verdict. Trust me. He was guilty "as sin".

blood evidence,
The glove,
the time factor,
the mysterious bag,
the motive,
the opportunity.

Again, I point to the defense attorney and the jury. Paybacks are hell.

[Simon666]

What do you think of the alternative theory I mentioned in the article above?

[Missouri Mule]

Let me put it this way. You give me a choice and my life depends on my answer. Was O.J. guilty as charged. Yes or no. My answer would be yes. A thousand times yes. And, I'm serious. I would literally put my life on the line. That would be an easy call.

I say this as someone who personally liked the man. I thought he was funny in the movies and he always had this public personae that played so well. I remember telling my wife the day the news came out that this was such a shame. I don't think anyone wanted him to be guilty of anything. But the facts were simply overwhelming. He also had a long history of violence toward Nicole that came out during the trial. I didn't know any of that business.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Simon666
Dr Lee: Crime scene was "contaminated"

Our film shows that the court only heard part of the real picture - that crucial evidence was tampered with and destroyed, the police so contaminated the crime scene that the evidence was unsafe and that six months before her murder, someone was offered money to kill Nicole.

Dr Henry Lee, one of the world's most respected forensic scientists, states in his interview for the programme that the crime scene was "out of control", was contaminated and that the police had destroyed so much at the murder scene that it was impossible to reconstruct what happened that night.

Dr Lee also reveals that the police failed to take crucial blood samples from Nicole's back which might have helped solve the case. , etc. etc.

Of course, anything is possible. However, remember that OJ's son was looked at by the LAPD quite carefully.

Contamination of the scene may have occured. Remember, this is America and the good Doctor was paid by the Simpson team. The contamination proposal was a good defense but in "real life" it was a joke.

Remember that Nicole had called the police for spousal abuse a number of times but due to the celeb status of OJ, the police would go to the call and end up getting autographs for their kids, etc.

OJ was also found guilty in the civil trial.

Remember the best defense was an offense. It was the cops fault. They screwed up.

The hinge in the trial for the jury was when the defense turned the trial into racial matter with Mark Furman a detective. Once Furman was tricked, he was cooked.

There was overwhelming evidence period. If OJ would have been from crack town or a trailor park, he would have been fried a long time ago.

[Missouri Mule]

"OJ was also found guilty in the civil trial." Actually he wasn't found "guilty." He was found to be responsible for the deaths and ordered to pay the $30+ million dollar money judgment of which he hasn't paid a dime.

[DRMIZER]

MM,
Give the poor guy a break. He only gets $25,000 a month. Do you expect miracles?

[PatriotChick]

I use to strongly believe in the death penalty, however
I've had a change of heart.

[Missouri Mule]

Why?

[PatriotChick]

I had a change of heart because I've seen far too many innocent people sentenced to death.

[Missouri Mule]

Are you aware of anyone who has actually been executed who was not guilty?

Would you keep a Ted Bundy alive?

[up2date]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Are you aware of anyone who has actually been executed who was not guilty? There's a list of death row inmates who have been set free due to DNA and other evidence proving their innocence. I am unaware of anyone who's innocence was demonstrated after being killed, but I don't doubt there have been some as the number released from death row is probably higher than you realize.

I'll look for that link.

[Missouri Mule]

I knew about those. There were some publicized cases in Illinois. But as for recent actual executions I am unaware of any. The burden of proof is getting so high to convict someone on capital murder charges that many prosecutors won't bring charges unless it is a slam dunk and then sometimes not even then.

[Simon666]

You do know the case I mentioned in Belgium of innocents executed? The government after that always failed to recognize it made a mistake and blocked any attempts for putting up a monument or memorial for decades, there never came one nor an official admission. Governments are unwilling to admit their mistakes in serious cases and thus it is not unreasonable that the research carried out on whether innocents were executed in a span of 25 years had a preset political outcome. If you look at the number released innocent from death row, statistically you have a strong indication.

The Innocent Executed (http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm)

By William Kreuter

"The criminal justice system can and does fail to distinguish the innocent from the guilty, and the implications for capital punishment are ghastly." -- from a discussion on the Internet in January, 1997.

Justice: Denied unconditionally opposes capital punishment. Although our primary focus is to free the wrongly convicted, the death penalty is an important allied focus. As we noted in our editorial in Issue 10, one leading reason for our stance is the astonishing number -- now well over eighty and rising rapidly -- of prisoners who in the past quarter century were sentenced to death but were released from prison because of the likelihood of their innocence. A frequent rebuttal to this argument is that no innocent person has actually been executed. In this article we examine the weakness of that claim.

The rebuttal is fatuous partly because of its circular logic. There is no judicial mechanism for review of guilt or pronouncement of innocence after an execution. The courts are done with it. Therefore, it should go without saying that no court has announced that an executed person was innocent, since American courts by definition do not make such findings.

Here, however, we will explore some of what we believe to be at least a few dozen instances when prisoners who most likely were innocent nevertheless were executed. (Not all the prisoners with the strongest claims of innocence are mentioned in this article.) In many of these cases, evidence of innocence was available to judges or governors who could have prevented the execution.

The reasons they didn't do so include maintaining a public image, pretense of fairness, and narrow-minded dedication to procedure even when a life is at stake. (The unavailability of governors' commutations as a safety valve for innocence is a whole subject in itself.) In some cases, notably Wayne Felker's, dissenting judges noted the gross miscarriage of justice, while Pedro Medina lost by just one vote in Florida's highest court the right to a hearing of evidence of his innocence. But the fact that the executions took place does not at all weaken the evidence of innocence in any of these cases.

Elsewhere in this issue, we discuss the recent news of the moratorium on executions in Illinois proclaimed this past January. Governor Ryan took that action because more prisoners have left that state's death row on account of innocence than by execution. One of those released, Anthony Porter, was only two days from lethal injection when his execution was stayed. What's lost in the news about the Illinois moratorium is that had Porter been executed, he simply would have been regarded as guilty by definition and there would have been no hand-wringing over executing the innocent.

An example of exactly that situation was Girvies Davis, also mentioned elsewhere in this issue. Davis was likely an innocent victim of a coerced confession who was executed in Illinois in 1995. Prior to that execution, a widespread campaign sought to publicize his innocence, yet Davis is now a forgotten prisoner never mentioned in any of the media coverage of the Illinois moratorium.

Issue 10 of J:D examined Odell Barnes, Freddie Lee Wright and Philip Workman, who are all probable victims of manufactured evidence and corrupt proceedings. Barnes was executed on March 1st in Texas, and Wright's execution was on March 3rd in Alabama. Workman is scheduled to be killed April 6 in Tennessee.

Among cases mentioned in previous issues of J:D is David Wayne Spence, executed by the state of Texas on April 3, 1997 despite the conclusion of the police lieutenant who supervised the case that "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." The homicide detective on the case added, "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." One of the inmates who testified in Spence's trial, Robert Snelson, said, "We all fabricated our accounts of Spence confessing in order to try to get a break from the state on our cases."

The reader should also bear in mind that many, perhaps most, of the 85-plus freed death-row prisoners surely would have been executed if the appeals rules and US Supreme Court makeup of the present day had been in effect when the state hoped to kill them. Randall Adams, the subject of the documentary The Thin Blue Line, is a well-known example of a freed prisoner who wouldn't have survived had his frame-up occurred twenty years later than it did in the mid-70s.

========================================

Followed by a long list of people who have been executed on the basis of dubious evidence or were most likely innocent.

[Missouri Mule]

Your argument seems to rest on the possibility of an innocent man being executed. Setting that aside for the time being, what about executing Ted Bundy? Was that wrong in your opinion?

In other words, when there is no possibility of executing an innocent man, what then?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Your argument seems to rest on the possibility of an innocent man being executed. Setting that aside for the time being, what about executing Ted Bundy? Was that wrong in your opinion? In other words, when there is no possibility of executing an innocent man, what then?
Mule, are you going to start too? :mad: You refused to consider the above, while some of those executed most likely were innocent. Perhaps because you didn't even read it because it doesn't say what you want to read. :rolleyes: And I have already expressed my viewpoint on death penalty, look it up if you don't believe me. If it is absolutely and undoubtedly sure the person is guilty, I am in favor. Exceptions are mentally handicapped and people under 16.

[Missouri Mule]

Then I think we are in basic agreement. I am not in favor of execution of innocent people. I am in favor of guilty people paying for their crimes.

[DRMIZER]

Simon,

We all know in this country that you are innocent until proven broke! That's really the measure of justice in this country.

[Missouri Mule]

Actually, there is a must worse punishment than death. That would be imprisonment in isolation without any stimulation. That punishment I would reserve for the likes of an Osama bin Laden.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
Simon, We all know in this country that you are innocent until proven broke! That's really the measure of justice in this country.
:rofl:

That's funny yet true. :(

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Actually, there is a must worse punishment than death. That would be imprisonment in isolation without any stimulation. That punishment I would reserve for the likes of an Osama bin Laden.
Damn, I hate to agree with you but in this case I have to.
:)

[Missouri Mule]

Being broke also applies to lesser punishment than the death penalty. And I don't have a good response to this problem. Defendants will be provided counsel but they will often just do a lick and a promise defense and let it go at that. This can be used on appeal but meanwhile the individual rots in jail.