Death penalty

[Bfgrn]

Wow. If you want to point out flaws in my thinking I welcome that. I don't see the need to be insulting.

Being idealistic and lacking pragmatism (of which I am subject) does not equal emotional, nor does it equal lacking logic. Quite the contrary. I am quite unemotional in my views. What you have done is to refuse to address any premise I presented in my last post, while also resorting to petty insults. That is sad.

I feel sorry for you.

Take it however you wish. It is the only conclusion one can draw from your position on capital punishment...pure emotion. It costs 10 times more than life without parole, it is bankrupting states, counties and local governments, it clogs up the justice system, it takes away valuable resources that could be used to investigate new crime, it forces government agencies to lay off law enforcement, it prevents money being used for crime prevention, is not a deterrent; law enforcement says it is the least important tool for fighting crime and states with capital punishment have the highest murder rates. And it is very reasonable to assume that innocent human beings have been put to death.

You say to have little interest in what politicians use capital punishment for toward their political aims, so any comments you have on the matter don't affect me in the slightest.

But the ONLY ones who stand with you on this topic ARE politicians.

No, that is the only conclusion YOU will draw from my position. It is an emotional person that will resort to attempting to defame somebody who is only trying to have a discussion with them. Despite what you may think of me, I am trying to learn from this experience, not be derided and insulted.

The premises you use deserve to be examined. I think I am being fairly reasonable about this. I am also looking back on my posts and trying to find any emotional outbursts on my part and I can't really find any.

You say law enforcement says some things. I will be happy to look at your sources. If a preponderance of law enforcement officials say that it is ineffective, I would be foolish not to at least pay attention. Please point me to them.

The deterrent effectiveness of capital punishment is not something I can find anything on that is overwhelmingly conclusive. California and Texas are two examples of death penalty states that have fairly high homicide rates. There are non-death penalty state that have lower homicide rates. However, those states tend not to have densely populated urban centers where those types of crime are more likely to occur like Texas has. Non-death penalty states like Connecticut or Iowa fell between 1% and 4% homicide rates according to Uniform Crime Report in 2010, while others like New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, with large urban centers, figured along the lines of Texas and California, two death penalty states, between 4% and 6%, Illinois being the highest. I'm not exactly seeing a significant disparity here. If you're really going to compare apples to apples, it would seem that high homicide rates correspond much more closely with urban centers than whether or not the state has the death penalty.

As for cost, I don't argue that capital punishment carries a high financial burden. I simply don't care. It makes sense that capital punishment SHOULD be more expensive, as the ultimate taking of a life by the state should never be taken lightly. I get it.

Like I said, we can argue numbers back and forth ad nauseum, and then ideology must take over from there. For whatever problems you have with me basing my beliefs primarily upon ideology, I can't see much value in basing them primarily on pragmatic bases. You cannot escape that capital punishment is an issue that carries far heavier moral considerations than most. I can understand and appreciate the moral grounds upon which those opposed to capital punishment stand, but I respectfully disagree with them. You seem to think there are overwhelming pragmatic considerations against capital punishment, but I have difficulty finding any legitimate sources that not heavily biased. The only two conclusions I have been able to come to based on pragmatic considerations of numbers are that a) capital punishment costs more money, and b) there are no significant differences in homicides between the two scenarios. So, after that, I must go to moral considerations, and when considering them I am okay with the increase in cost.

So there. I know you won't agree with me. That's fine. If after providing a little more detail you still view me as emotional and illogical, so be it. One can only try so hard.

You say the cornerstone of your beliefs are based on moral considerations. We can both agree that murder is the most egregious disregard of morality.

So, I will reiterate:

And, there are numerous cases of human beings that have been executed with credible doubt of their guilt. It is not an exaggeration to conclude that at least one human being was executed by the state who was innocent.

How does your 'moral considerations' reconcile that? If the murderer of an innocent human being should be punished by death, then who should be put to death when the state murders an innocent human being? The Governor? The District Attorney?

 

[Bfgrn]

On the Front Line: Law Enforcement Views on the Death Penalty

INTRODUCTION

A new national survey of police chiefs from around the country discredits the repeated assertion that the death penalty is an important law enforcement tool. While politicians have extolled the importance of capital punishment in fighting crime, they have failed to assess the actual priorities of those in law enforcement and have saddled the taxpayers with an enormously costly death penalty at the expense of more effective crime fighting strategies.

In January, 1995, Peter D. Hart Research Associates conducted a national opinion poll of randomly selected police chiefs in the United States. In that poll, the chiefs had the opportunity to express what they believe really works in fighting crime. They were asked where the death penalty fit in their priorities as leaders in the law enforcement field. What the police chiefs had to say may be surprising to many lawmakers, and to much of the public as well. The Hart Poll found that:

• Police chiefs rank the death penalty last as a way of reducing violent crime, placing it behind curbing drug abuse, more police officers on the streets, lowering the technical barriers to prosecution, longer sentences, and a better economy with more jobs.

• The death penalty was rated as the least cost-effective method for controlling crime.

• Insufficient use of the death penalty is not considered a major problem by the majority of police chiefs.

• Strengthening families and neighborhoods, punishing criminals swiftly and surely, controlling illegal drugs, and gun control are considered much more important than the death penalty.

• Although a majority of the police chiefs support the death penalty in the abstract, when given a choice between the sentence of life without parole plus restitution versus the death penalty, barely half of the chiefs support capital punishment.

• Police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides.

• Police chiefs do not believe that murderers think about the range of possible punishments.

• Debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime.

In sum, while many police chiefs support the death penalty philosophically, a strong majority do not believe that it is an effective law enforcement tool in practice. In the report below, the various findings of this poll will be explored in depth, along with a broader analysis of what really works in reducing crime. The results of this opinion poll are confirmed by the statements of individual leaders in the law enforcement community, by research in the field of criminology, and by the recommendations of many of the nation's leading law enforcement agencies.

 

[Unkotare]

Thank you for admitting that you may have an issue with it.

I wouldn't do it - not because I don't value human life but because I am opposed to the death penalty.

Because you are a rank hypocrite.

In your opinion.

Based on your own words.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once a person is sentence to prison whether with regard to the death penalty or for some other reason, police chiefs have no further interest in that inmate. He or she is under a different jurisdiction. What they think is immaterial.

Life without parole and restitution can't seriously belong in the same sentence. For one thing, the death penalty is given for the crime of one or more murders for which restitution is not ordered. For another, prisoners make from 11 cents an hour to 23 cents an hour making restitution orders laughable.

More people die on death row from natural causes than execution making a sentence of death equal to life without the possibility of parole in practice. It certainly hasn't done anything toward reducing crime OR costs. The extremely violent who should have gotten the death penalty but for some reason did not cannot be housed with general population. They require special guards, special cells, sometimes a special prison like Pelican Bay. If we were interested in cutting costs, we would have executed everyone in Pelican Bay by now.

 

[2RightsMakeLeft]

More people die on death row from natural causes than execution making a sentence of death equal to life without the possibility of parole in practice. It certainly hasn't done anything toward reducing crime OR costs.

Well said. I am an opponent of capital punishment but when, in practice, it does little to deter, I don't see how it can be supported. I respect different viewpoints, but, for me, I will never understand supporting capital punishment.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have worked on many death penalty cases over the years, the most recent where a 22 year old was high on meth and slit the throat of a 6 year old.
And the defendant wanted to be put to death. He got his wish as he requested a bench trial and the Judge sentenced him to death.
So what does that prove? That we can kill someone that has killed someone.
Most death penalty cases are brought to trial and convicted on primarily eye witness testimony.
Eye witness testimony is unreliable many times as indicated by the age old law school day where one day about 2 minutes before criminal law lecture hall class starts a guy comes in and fakes a robbery of someone in the class and immediately leaves. Next the class is asked to not speak with anyone and write down what they saw. 80 different and varying accounts with different clothes, heighth, weight, hair and sometimes they will have a woman dressed like a man!
Death penalty, hell yes some deserve it and some deserve WORSE. Some deserve to be buried in the ground with their head above it and a fire ant mound near. Dump a gallon of honey on their head and let the ants have at it. But that is not a just and fair way to run a judicial system.
Death penalty is not a one size fits all penalty as we make mistakes and death is final.

 

[Katzndogz]

More people die on death row from natural causes than execution making a sentence of death equal to life without the possibility of parole in practice. It certainly hasn't done anything toward reducing crime OR costs.

Well said. I am an opponent of capital punishment but when, in practice, it does little to deter, I don't see how it can be supported. I respect different viewpoints, but, for me, I will never understand supporting capital punishment.

I support capital punishment, but then again, I have met quite a few inmates on death row. If nothing else, it deprives these killers of the continued enjoyment of reliving their crimes and fantasizing about future crimes.

Vonda Pelto, the state psychologist assigned to death row has written a book about the psychology of those convicted of capital crimes. It's called Without Remorse. You might find it interesting reading. Vonda is a friend of mine and I was a consultant on her book. There was one criminal, eventually executed, who had beheaded his victims. After his death by execution, his notebook was found in his cell detailing fantasies of beheading Dr. Pelto. It no doubt brought him many hours of enjoyment.

The one aspect of murderers that people forget is that killers, no matter how bad the crimes, have fans. Lots of fans. Death Row gets more fan mail than any other cell block in prison. Some of these fans develop relationships with death row inmates. Some of these relationships develop into copycat killers. The men and women on death row have no reason for a continued existence. They contribute little and what they do contribute is more evil like the evil that got them convicted in the first place. The death penalty is a matter of tidy housecleaning. Once you find roaches in your kitchen you don't altruistically conclude they have a right to life. You get a can of spray, call an exterminator, set a roach motel. Capital punishment serves much the same purpose.

 

[Meathead]

I have worked on many death penalty cases over the years, the most recent where a 22 year old was high on meth and slit the throat of a 6 year old.
And the defendant wanted to be put to death. He got his wish as he requested a bench trial and the Judge sentenced him to death.
So what does that prove? That we can kill someone that has killed someone.

I have no idea that the death penalty was designed to prove anything. It's like saying that a prison sentence only proves that we can imprison someone. They are both designed for justice, a word that derives from the word "just" meaning equal to/ no more than.

A weak and disingenuous argument. I expect you're a lawyer among who so many believe they can pull the wool over people's with sleazy argument.

 

[2RightsMakeLeft]

More people die on death row from natural causes than execution making a sentence of death equal to life without the possibility of parole in practice. It certainly hasn't done anything toward reducing crime OR costs.

Well said. I am an opponent of capital punishment but when, in practice, it does little to deter, I don't see how it can be supported. I respect different viewpoints, but, for me, I will never understand supporting capital punishment.

I support capital punishment, but then again, I have met quite a few inmates on death row. If nothing else, it deprives these killers of the continued enjoyment of reliving their crimes and fantasizing about future crimes.

Vonda Pelto, the state psychologist assigned to death row has written a book about the psychology of those convicted of capital crimes. It's called Without Remorse. You might find it interesting reading. Vonda is a friend of mine and I was a consultant on her book. There was one criminal, eventually executed, who had beheaded his victims. After his death by execution, his notebook was found in his cell detailing fantasies of beheading Dr. Pelto. It no doubt brought him many hours of enjoyment.

The one aspect of murderers that people forget is that killers, no matter how bad the crimes, have fans. Lots of fans. Death Row gets more fan mail than any other cell block in prison. Some of these fans develop relationships with death row inmates. Some of these relationships develop into copycat killers. The men and women on death row have no reason for a continued existence. They contribute little and what they do contribute is more evil like the evil that got them convicted in the first place. The death penalty is a matter of tidy housecleaning. Once you find roaches in your kitchen you don't altruistically conclude they have a right to life. You get a can of spray, call an exterminator, set a roach motel. Capital punishment serves much the same purpose.

I've actually read that book and, you're correct, it's a very interesting read. I, too, have spent time on death row and in Florida's death chamber. Death row is not like the other cell blocks; it's quiet. Aside from the 140 that have been exonerated over the last few decades, there is no hope of release so maybe that's why it's so quiet; they've come to terms with their unfortunate fate.

But, I disagree with your extermination comment. While I understand that analogy, I don't think it's fair to compare humans to a roach, even the worst humans. Who am I to say that this person does not deserve to live? Societal norms? Okay, but, we also once thought it was acceptable to have slavery. Society doesn't believe that anymore.

I respect your opinion and those like it; I really do. But, I disagree and believe that capital punishment serves no purpose in a civilized society.

One of my favorite quotes is by Lord Chancellor Gardiner: "When we abolished the punishment for treason that you should be hanged, and then cut down while still alive, and then disemboweled while still alive, and then quartered, we did not abolish that punishment because we sympathized with traitors, but because we took the view that it was a punishment no longer consistent with our own self-respect."

 

[Katzndogz]

Comparing humans to roaches do roaches a disservice and insults them. Roaches do what they do because they are guided by an instinct for survival. Humans kill because they enjoy it. Perhaps our self-respect does demand that execution no longer be by torture. We recognize that someone who tortures the roach to death and pulls wing off butterflies is sick. That's why execution should be carried out coldly, without feeling, with the same sense of usefulness as picking up after your dog as it craps on someone else's lawn.

 

[Meathead]

One of my favorite quotes is by Lord Chancellor Gardiner: "When we abolished the punishment for treason that you should be hanged, and then cut down while still alive, and then disemboweled while still alive, and then quartered, we did not abolish that punishment because we sympathized with traitors, but because we took the view that it was a punishment no longer consistent with our own self-respect."

And then there's this:

The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down. - poet Hyman Barshay

 

[Katzndogz]

I have never known the death penalty to deter any crime. Laws against shoplifting have no effect on shoplifting. Certainly laws against armed robbery have not had an effect on armed robbery.

Criminals never expect to get caught no matter what the crime is. The penalty doesn't even enter into the thought process. The ONLY effect that the death penalty has is after capture when criminals make a deal to testify against someone else in order to take the DP off the table.

 

[Meathead]

I have never known the death penalty to deter any crime. Laws against shoplifting have no effect on shoplifting. Certainly laws against armed robbery have not had an effect on armed robbery.

Criminals never expect to get caught no matter what the crime is. The penalty doesn't even enter into the thought process. The ONLY effect that the death penalty has is after capture when criminals make a deal to testify against someone else in order to take the DP off the table.

Dunno, I would have done a lot more shoplifting as a kid if I weren't worried about getting pinched. I expect there would be a revolving door in evey retail outlet in the country of prospective shoplifters. Utter crap!

 

[Gadawg73]

I have worked on many death penalty cases over the years, the most recent where a 22 year old was high on meth and slit the throat of a 6 year old.
And the defendant wanted to be put to death. He got his wish as he requested a bench trial and the Judge sentenced him to death.
So what does that prove? That we can kill someone that has killed someone.

I have no idea that the death penalty was designed to prove anything. It's like saying that a prison sentence only proves that we can imprison someone. They are both designed for justice, a word that derives from the word "just" meaning equal to/ no more than.

A weak and disingenuous argument. I expect you're a lawyer among who so many believe they can pull the wool over people's with sleazy argument.

Licensed private detective 30+ years.
Facts sure are a bitch my man.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have never known the death penalty to deter any crime. Laws against shoplifting have no effect on shoplifting. Certainly laws against armed robbery have not had an effect on armed robbery.

Criminals never expect to get caught no matter what the crime is. The penalty doesn't even enter into the thought process. The ONLY effect that the death penalty has is after capture when criminals make a deal to testify against someone else in order to take the DP off the table.

Dunno, I would have done a lot more shoplifting as a kid if I weren't worried about getting pinched. I expect there would be a revolving door in evey retail outlet in the country of prospective shoplifters. Utter crap!

Have you ever asked a shoplifter if they were worried about getting caught? All you said was the law abiding people worry about the penalties the law provides. Which is true. The law breaking never think the law will apply to them.

 

[Meathead]

I have never known the death penalty to deter any crime. Laws against shoplifting have no effect on shoplifting. Certainly laws against armed robbery have not had an effect on armed robbery.

Criminals never expect to get caught no matter what the crime is. The penalty doesn't even enter into the thought process. The ONLY effect that the death penalty has is after capture when criminals make a deal to testify against someone else in order to take the DP off the table.

Dunno, I would have done a lot more shoplifting as a kid if I weren't worried about getting pinched. I expect there would be a revolving door in evey retail outlet in the country of prospective shoplifters. Utter crap!

Have you ever asked a shoplifter if they were worried about getting caught? All you said was the law abiding people worry about the penalties the law provides. Which is true. The law breaking never think the law will apply to them.

Law-abiding people would not be breaking the law if there were no law against shoplifting. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp. The larger point is that you certainly cannot know if the death penalty is a deterrent to murder regardless of what you say or choose to believe. Like the example of the lighthouse, it is impossible to know the ships the lighthouse has saved.

 

[Katzndogz]

Dunno, I would have done a lot more shoplifting as a kid if I weren't worried about getting pinched. I expect there would be a revolving door in evey retail outlet in the country of prospective shoplifters. Utter crap!

Have you ever asked a shoplifter if they were worried about getting caught? All you said was the law abiding people worry about the penalties the law provides. Which is true. The law breaking never think the law will apply to them.

Law-abiding people would not be breaking the law if there were no law against shoplifting. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp. The larger point is that you certainly cannot know if the death penalty is a deterrent to murder regardless of what you say or choose to believe. Like the example of the lighthouse, it is impossible to know the ships the lighthouse has saved.

The death penalty is no deterred to anything! I've met more people on death row than you have and not a single one of them ever expected to get caught. Ask an average prisoner if they thought they would be caught for any of the crimes they committed. The law is not a deterrent to criminals, but only those inclined to obey the law.

That's why your lighthouse analogy falls apart. You aren't including ships who deliberately ran upon the rocks thinking the light from the lighthouse didn't apply to them.

 

[Meathead]

Have you ever asked a shoplifter if they were worried about getting caught? All you said was the law abiding people worry about the penalties the law provides. Which is true. The law breaking never think the law will apply to them.

Law-abiding people would not be breaking the law if there were no law against shoplifting. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp. The larger point is that you certainly cannot know if the death penalty is a deterrent to murder regardless of what you say or choose to believe. Like the example of the lighthouse, it is impossible to know the ships the lighthouse has saved.

The death penalty is no deterred to anything! I've met more people on death row than you have and not a single one of them ever expected to get caught. Ask an average prisoner if they thought they would be caught for any of the crimes they committed. The law is not a deterrent to criminals, but only those inclined to obey the law.

That's why your lighthouse analogy falls apart. You aren't including ships who deliberately ran upon the rocks thinking the light from the lighthouse didn't apply to them.

Look Katz, it's your analogy about shoplifting laws that has fallen apart. As with that, it seems you have but a fleeting notion of what the hell you're talking about.

You simply could know which and what ships are saved by lighthouses, anymore than you could know if murders are deterred by the death penalty. Yours is simply a moral judgement

 

[Katzndogz]

Law-abiding people would not be breaking the law if there were no law against shoplifting. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp. The larger point is that you certainly cannot know if the death penalty is a deterrent to murder regardless of what you say or choose to believe. Like the example of the lighthouse, it is impossible to know the ships the lighthouse has saved.

The death penalty is no deterred to anything! I've met more people on death row than you have and not a single one of them ever expected to get caught. Ask an average prisoner if they thought they would be caught for any of the crimes they committed. The law is not a deterrent to criminals, but only those inclined to obey the law.

That's why your lighthouse analogy falls apart. You aren't including ships who deliberately ran upon the rocks thinking the light from the lighthouse didn't apply to them.

Look Katz, it's your analogy about shoplifting laws that has fallen apart. As with that, it seems you have but a fleeting notion of what the hell you're talking about.

You simply could know which and what ships are saved by lighthouses, anymore than you could know if murders are deterred by the death penalty. Yours is simply a moral judgement

That's because you have it all backwards. You are looking at otherwise law abiding people saying that the death penalty may have prevented those law abiding people from killing someone else. That's not what the issue is. It's that those who have murdered someone, or stolen, or did whatever crime they did, weren't deterred by a law because they never thought they would get caught. Someone who is deterred thinks they will probably get caught and have to face punishment. Criminals don't usually admit to that kind of stupidity. They are all too smart to get caught. The prisons are filled with those who were too smart to get caught.

Now if you want to argue that laws are based on morals and moral judgment is wrong, that's a different argument altogether.

 

[Meathead]

The death penalty is no deterred to anything! I've met more people on death row than you have and not a single one of them ever expected to get caught. Ask an average prisoner if they thought they would be caught for any of the crimes they committed. The law is not a deterrent to criminals, but only those inclined to obey the law.

That's why your lighthouse analogy falls apart. You aren't including ships who deliberately ran upon the rocks thinking the light from the lighthouse didn't apply to them.

Look Katz, it's your analogy about shoplifting laws that has fallen apart. As with that, it seems you have but a fleeting notion of what the hell you're talking about.

You simply could know which and what ships are saved by lighthouses, anymore than you could know if murders are deterred by the death penalty. Yours is simply a moral judgement

That's because you have it all backwards. You are looking at otherwise law abiding people saying that the death penalty may have prevented those law abiding people from killing someone else. That's not what the issue is. It's that those who have murdered someone, or stolen, or did whatever crime they did, weren't deterred by a law because they never thought they would get caught. Someone who is deterred thinks they will probably get caught and have to face punishment. Criminals don't usually admit to that kind of stupidity. They are all too smart to get caught. The prisons are filled with those who were too smart to get caught.

Now if you want to argue that laws are based on morals and moral judgment is wrong, that's a different argument altogether.

Look, someone who says that shoplifting laws have no effect on shoplifting is in no position to tell anyone they've got it bassackwards. You are cowering your emotional argument behind one that you are trying to present as rational. In the parlance of teenybopper posters - fail!