Capital punishment at crossroads in US

[AllieBaba]

And building a few long-term treatment facilities for habitual offenders with drug problems instead of new prisons, once we've saved a little money....

 

[mattskramer]

I hope so too. But, as I said, it's a risk I'm willing to shoulder.

I'll make a trade. I'm willing to watch the death penalty die...if I get a guarantee that every illegal alien in our prison system goes home, and our laws are adjusted to drastically reduce the amount coming in.

Then we'll have the room for the death row guys to hang out, get married, be miserable, or whatever for a good long time.

Have you ever seen those documentaries of people living several decades on death row for a crime that they didn’t commit only to be freed years later? They miss so much throughout those years. One married man spent over 20 years in jail. The wife believed in him and never divorced him. When he was released, he was still married to the same woman. Now that is amazing commitment.

No. I oppose capital punishment. I’d submit convicts to harsh life with no special benefits but I just would not risk executing an innocent person.

 

[mattskramer]

And building a few long-term treatment facilities for habitual offenders with drug problems instead of new prisons, once we've saved a little money....

Yes - for those who want treatment. It is a choice that I think that people should be allowed to make. On a cost/benefit analysis, I think that more resources would be saved if we legalized some consensual crimes. Think of the time that cops would save. Think of the free prison space. Look at the less time spent on paperwork and red-tape.

 

[AllieBaba]

And I think most people would choose residential treatment over prison. I know many of our clients came straight from jail, because they were given a choice...finish out your time here, or spend the last 6 months in treatment.

They almost always will choose treatment, if given the chance.

 

[mattskramer]

And I think most people would choose residential treatment over prison. I know many of our clients came straight from jail, because they were given a choice...finish out your time here, or spend the last 6 months in treatment.

They almost always will choose treatment, if given the chance.

I think that you are missing my point. I think that someone may choose to take marijuana carefully and not become and addict. He can buy it, use it, and choose to not seek treatment. Marijuana use would be legal too, so it would not go to jail. He would simply be a free citizen who smokes marijuana.

 

[Diuretic]

I would hope with scientific verification techniques available to us in these times along with meticulous attention to fine points of law and admissable evidence, the likelihood of executing an innocent man/woman is miniscule. I would hope that the evidence would be irrefutable before a death penalty would be ordered by the judge.

There is something to be said for the argument that it be better for 100 guilty go free than one innocent person be imprisoned or put to death. That is all well and good considering the fallibility of human reason and ability; yet there is also the consideration of the countless potential victims put at risk when we refuse to convict the guilty out of some fuzzy socialistic notions of rehabilitation and/or concepts of judgmentalism.

If there is no consequence for breaking the law there is no logical reason to have laws intended to protect and preserve life, peace, prosperity, promotion of the common welfare, etc.

The idea of rehabilitation has its roots in Christianity. It was Christian penal reformers - I think in both the UK and the US - who argued for the idea of redemption and who were quite insistent that the redemption be properly based on real contrition from the offender.

I'm not arguing for no consequence for lawbreaking, that would be silly, I'm just arguing that the risk of executing an innocent person is too great to allow execution to be one of those consequences.

 

[Diuretic]

I hope so too. But, as I said, it's a risk I'm willing to shoulder.

I'll make a trade. I'm willing to watch the death penalty die...if I get a guarantee that every illegal alien in our prison system goes home, and our laws are adjusted to drastically reduce the amount coming in.

Then we'll have the room for the death row guys to hang out, get married, be miserable, or whatever for a good long time.

Why not really shoulder the risk? Would you like to volunteer to be the innocent person executed for something you didn't do?

 

[Foxfyre]

The idea of rehabilitation has its roots in Christianity. It was Christian penal reformers - I think in both the UK and the US - who argued for the idea of redemption and who were quite insistent that the redemption be properly based on real contrition from the offender.

I'm not arguing for no consequence for lawbreaking, that would be silly, I'm just arguing that the risk of executing an innocent person is too great to allow execution to be one of those consequences.

It is, however, not the business of government to promote Christian values, but rather the business of government to promote the common welfare, among other things. (Promoting values shared by most Christians could very well be appropriate in promoting the common welfare of course, even while it would be illegal for the government to promote Christianity.)

A Christian value of course is 'thou shalt not murder' which is what the intentional killing of an innocent person is. Another Christian value is 'blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy.' Biblical law mandated that capital punishment is to be done with proper attention to due course and shall be administered impartially and without hypocrisy, but nowhere in the Old or New Testaments can be found any ban on capital punishment.

With modern technology, conviction of an innocent person for murder is far less likely these days and my contention is that there must be no doubt or room for error when the death penalty is ordered. But justice requires that mercy extended to the clearly guilty must not be allowed to override concern for protection of the unalienable rights of the clearly innocent.

There are some crimes so savage, so brutal, so unconscionably cruel, that the death penalty is the only appropriate consequence.

 

[Diuretic]

Foxfyre I'm in agreement with government not pushing religion. My point was that the origins of the modern idea of rehabilitation has its roots in the work of Christian penal reformers, it was a radical and powerful idea at the time, that a criminal could be reformed provided they felt real contrition and could find redemption. Anyway I'm getting off track.

As for your other points. It doesn't matter how effective we think our criminal justice system is, it will and it does, get things wrong. We can release and compensate a person mistakenly sentenced to imprisonment for a crime they didn't commit, we can't do the same for a person who has been executed.

As an example of how science can assist our criminal justice system the magic phrase DNA is put forward. DNA is just a sophisticated form of identification evidence, like fingerprints. At a crime scene fingerprints can be lifted. They can also be put in place. And at a crime scene DNA can be located and it can also be put in place. DNA evidence isn't a magic bullet, it must be tested rigorously just like any other physical evidence.

You made mention of mercy and the clearly guilty. I didn't make that link. I'm arguing simply that we never know if anyone is "clearly guilty", we only assume, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are.

There are some truly savage crimes. This series of savage and terrible crimes happened in my jurisdiction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowtown_murders

The murderers are in prison. Our society hasn't broken down because they weren't executed. But if in the future they're proven to be innocent (highly unlikely) they can be released and compensated.

 

[Foxfyre]

The murderers are in prison. Our society hasn't broken down because they weren't executed. But if in the future they're proven to be innocent (highly unlikely) they can be released and compensated.

Believe me, I appreciate your take on this and am not unsympathetic to it. I have wrestled with the morality and ethics of this particular issue more than any other single issue. But what do you do with the guy who commits horrendous crimes again? His sentence is commuted by a deranged governor--that happened here in New Mexico resulting in an escape and three more savage murders. He is paroled by a miguided parole board and murders again. That is particularly a problem with sex offenders/murderers. He murders somebody in prison or kills a guard? That happens all too often and, because it is behind closed doors, it rarely makes the papers or the nightly newscast.

What do you say to the family and friends of the victims? Sorry about that but the killer's rights outweighed yours?

There are certainly pros and cons on both sides of the argument.

 

[Diuretic]

It's an extremely difficult argument -if it's examined above the level of reflex (on both sides of the debate) and to some extent it's also grounded in local conditions. If I lived in South Africa, with its rampant crime rate, where just driving down the street is an act of supreme courage, I may well be thinking that the very low chances of executing an innocent person is just a price to pay for executing convicted murderers and perhaps deterring other would-be murderers. Well I might if I thought the death penalty was a deterrent. I don't think it is. But of course I can't prove that one way or the other.

 

[MassageGirl]

Yes lets lock up murderers that know they can never be put to death for any reason. I nominate YOU as the cell block guard.

If I was the cell block guard, I could do all sorts of mean and twisted things to murderers and rapists, and love every minute of it. They would also try to kill me, because with a life sentence without parole, they dont have much reason to rehabilitate. BOOM they try to kill me, I shoot them. That just saved taxpayers 3 million dollars, and it saved us all from the whole "Death penalty" debate.

Problem solved.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why not really shoulder the risk? Would you like to volunteer to be the innocent person executed for something you didn't do?

I shoulder the risk every time I vote for the death sentence.

 

[Diuretic]

I shoulder the risk every time I vote for the death sentence.

But it's a risk shared amongst the electorate so your burden isn't great.