Nobel Peace Prize for commuting all death sentences

[up2date]

George Ryan is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. They don't officially announce the candidates, but it is widely known that he is in the running. Ryan was the ex-Illinois Governor who commuted every death sentence in his state as he left office. U.S. citizens generally favor the death penalty, so I am wondering if this sits well with many of us. Do you think he should be rewarded for his actions?

[EntImp]

Nobel Peace Prize... who knows. But give the guy a reward for sure. The death penalty is an abhorent practice only suitable for communities living in the middle ages.

The death penalty does not deter anything and you only have to get the wrong person once to make it even more sickening. Many innocent people have been killed...

He has my thumbs up.

[up2date]

You have my agreement on this. I personally believe many years from now people will look back on our society and find the death penalty barbaric. I am embarrassed by it. In New York, Mario Cuomo lost the race for governor 8 or 12 years ago based largely on his opposition to the death penalty. I was very embarrassed for my state.

[JD3]

He recognized a problem. People who weren't guilty had been convicted. He saw that the system wasn't being aplied fairly. He acted. This was and is the right thing to do no matter how you feel about the death penlty. If it isn't fair for any one of us, it isn't fair for any of us.

One thing that always gets forgot in these discussions is the assumption of guilt. Whether we are talking about the rights of the accused before trial or the possiblity of a wrong conviction, certainty is seldom a requirement. This means we could have it wrong. Certainly if we have evidence that we have had it wrong in the past, this gives room for pause. Or at least it should.

[shikaki]

It seems to me most people only speak about what is somewhat obvious. This doesn't work or that doesn't work. The question is, "What does work?" What can be used to definitively deter crime? I don't know if the death penalty is the answer, but I suppose that if it was consistent and immediate that it would add some value. As much as I abhor the idea of killing another human being, there are circumstances, where people demonstrate that they are not capable of living with everyone else. They have committed unquestionable acts against humanity and there seems to be NO evidence of remorse. These people certainly don’t deserve to be part of this world any longer. Ted Bundy, Hitler, Ed Gein to name a few. Comments……

[shikaki]

Certainly there are innocent people that have been accused, but aren’t the consequences to an action and the process used to determine the action 2 different events? Agreed as long as there are half witted, less than intelligent, money grubbing attorneys involved (interesting that judges were previous attorneys, a little to much nepotism in the legal system) that there will always be injustice. Let’s face it the courtroom is not about truth or the pursuit of truth as much as it is about how much money all the attorneys are making. I have some thoughts on fixing that issue as well, but hopefully as far as this thread is concerned, the assumption should be that everyone who is possibly getting the death penalty has been convicted, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[JD3]

The criterion isn't a shadow of a doubt, it is reasonable doubt. A lessor standard.

Former texas Govenor Ann Richards, who I think made the best case for the death penelty I've heard, said this: "There is evidence (and there isn't) that the death penelty deters murders, but I guarentee that 100% of those executed won't kill again."

That said, to me, if there is nay posibillity that we kill the wrong person, I can't in good conscience support the effort. That is the issue to me.

[shikaki]

Again I think the issue that you are concerned with is legal process and its accuracy. That process needs to be adjusted, no question about it. But does that mean presuming it is adjusted we still shouldn’t entertain the death penalty. Refer to my references of Ted Bundy, etc…

[shikaki]

Again I think the issue that you are concerned with is legal process and its accuracy. That process needs to be adjusted, no question about it. But does that mean presuming it is adjusted we still shouldn’t entertain the death penalty. Refer to my references of Ted Bundy, etc…

[NetxMan]

I don't see how you someone can say the death penalty is barbaric.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

[up2date]

The death penalty's effectiveness as a deterrent has often been questioned, and IMO it does not work.

So lets consider the first argument that all we would be doing was killing a bunch of murderers. I agree many of them do not deserve to live. But I also understand that I do not have the right to commit the same crime they did only now it is in the name of the state.

[JD3]

If the guilt is certain, I struggle with two sides.

If one of mine were killed, I'd want to use my bare hands to rectify the situtation.

That wouldn't be allowed and it shouldn't be. The law shoould not be about revenge but about justice. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to or not do that if I had the opportunity.

The other side of me agrees with up2date. Should the state be allowed to kill if it sees reason enough? It seems like a repeat of the same offense. And sometimes nothing is accomplished. Consider Timothy McVay. It bothers me that he died not understanding just how wrong and horrorable his crime was. To me it is important that he live long enough to know. Punishment doesn't have to be the same. There maybe other more effective ways to punish a criminal properly.

[NetxMan]

Would he ever have known? I doubt it.

[up2date]

Also, I think it can be important to study killers like Timothy McVay. Something gave rise to such a horrible monster, and the more we find out about what created him, the better our chances of identifying or stopping future McVays.

[NetxMan]

I don't think there is much to study.

I am sure if someone did a study it wouldn't be his fault, which is what you are implying. I am tired of the handing off of responsibility in this country. No one wants to take personal responsibitiy for anything, it always has to be someone else's fault.

[up2date]

I am not at all implying it wasn't his fault. It was. The man was a monster, and frankly death was not enough punishment for him. People need to take ownership for their own actions. That said, wouldn't it be useful for law enforcement to have as thorough a profile on him as possible? And as far as punishment goes, do you recall McVay being eager to accept his punishment?

Also, as JD3 alluded to, there's a fine line between revenge and justice.