Death penalty

[Gadawg73]

In an economic reality of shrinking state and local revenues, it makes no sense to continue to spend 10 times as much on one case. The money spent will never bring the murder victim back to life, and those resources could be put to better use preventing new murders and crimes.

Economic policy should never influence The Constitution and the rights granted by it be it to the state or the accused.
But I see your point and unfortunately in rural counties that is what is the motivation behind not indicting death penalty.

The Constitution doesn't mention the death penalty. Try again...

When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.
Edmund Burke

The Constitution mentions THE LAW and the death penalty is part OF THE LAW in many states.
You are the one that needs to "try again". How many challenges of the death penalty have been based on the Constitution?
Study up on that and get back to us.
Edmund Burke is not THE LAW.
Under your theory WalMart would be the Judicial branch of government.

 

[Unkotare]

[

The Constitution doesn't mention the death penalty.

Yes it does.

 

[Bfgrn]

Economic policy should never influence The Constitution and the rights granted by it be it to the state or the accused.
But I see your point and unfortunately in rural counties that is what is the motivation behind not indicting death penalty.

The Constitution doesn't mention the death penalty. Try again...

When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.
Edmund Burke

The Constitution mentions THE LAW and the death penalty is part OF THE LAW in many states.
You are the one that needs to "try again". How many challenges of the death penalty have been based on the Constitution?
Study up on that and get back to us.
Edmund Burke is not THE LAW.
Under your theory WalMart would be the Judicial branch of government.

You are the one who brought up the Constitution. Maybe you mean the Bill of Rights?

 

[Gadawg73]

The Constitution doesn't mention the death penalty. Try again...

When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.
Edmund Burke

The Constitution mentions THE LAW and the death penalty is part OF THE LAW in many states.
You are the one that needs to "try again". How many challenges of the death penalty have been based on the Constitution?
Study up on that and get back to us.
Edmund Burke is not THE LAW.
Under your theory WalMart would be the Judicial branch of government.

You are the one who brought up the Constitution. Maybe you mean the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights ARE in The United States Constitution.
FIRST 10 Amendments.
For the 2nd time, study up on that and get back to us.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Constitution mentions THE LAW and the death penalty is part OF THE LAW in many states.
You are the one that needs to "try again". How many challenges of the death penalty have been based on the Constitution?
Study up on that and get back to us.
Edmund Burke is not THE LAW.
Under your theory WalMart would be the Judicial branch of government.

You are the one who brought up the Constitution. Maybe you mean the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights ARE in The United States Constitution.
FIRST 10 Amendments.
For the 2nd time, study up on that and get back to us.

No, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. They are not essential to the document and the first 10 were ratified 2 years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were the first constitution of the United States of America.

The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance

The original Constitution, as proposed in 1787 in Philadelphia and as ratified by the states, contained very few individual rights guarantees, as the framers were primarily focused on establishing the machinery for an effective federal government. A proposal by delegate Charles Pinckney to include several rights guarantees (including "liberty of the press" and a ban on quartering soldiers in private homes) was submitted to the Committee on Detail on August 20, 1787, but the Committee did not adopt any of Pinckney's recommendations. The matter came up before the Convention on September 12, 1787 and, following a brief debate, proposals to include a Bill or Rights in the Constitution were rejected.

 

[Gadawg73]

You are the one who brought up the Constitution. Maybe you mean the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights ARE in The United States Constitution.
FIRST 10 Amendments.
For the 2nd time, study up on that and get back to us.

No, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. They are not essential to the document and the first 10 were ratified 2 years after the Constitution was ratified.

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were the first constitution of the United States of America.

The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance

The original Constitution, as proposed in 1787 in Philadelphia and as ratified by the states, contained very few individual rights guarantees, as the framers were primarily focused on establishing the machinery for an effective federal government. A proposal by delegate Charles Pinckney to include several rights guarantees (including "liberty of the press" and a ban on quartering soldiers in private homes) was submitted to the Committee on Detail on August 20, 1787, but the Committee did not adopt any of Pinckney's recommendations. The matter came up before the Convention on September 12, 1787 and, following a brief debate, proposals to include a Bill or Rights in the Constitution were rejected.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are THE LAW which is applied or used as a guideline for systems, BOTH in all criminal arguments and proceedings.

 

[JoeB131]

Death penalty deters ONLY the person put to death from future crimes.
And in most cases that is a good thing.
MOST does not and should not apply in the criminal code.
Innocent folk have been put to death and the different criteria even within states on who are indicted for it and why make it uneven.

If people are wrongly being sent to Death Row, then they are wrongly being sent to jail for life.

It strikes me that you want to fix the symptom rather than the underlying problem, which is inept police and overzealous prosecutors.

 

[Unkotare]

No, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. They are not essential to the document .

That was an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

 

[Bfgrn]

No, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. They are not essential to the document .

That was an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

James Madison: The Question of a Bill of Rights

Letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788

My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided that it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I suppose it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice.

I have not viewed it in an important light

 

[Bfgrn]

No, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. They are not essential to the document .

That was an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

One of the main grievances of the anti-Federalists was the omission of a bill of rights from the Constitution. The framers had briefly discussed such an addition but rejected the idea for a number of reasons. First, each state had its own declaration of rights that it considered sufficient protection for the people. A second, and even more pertinent, objection was the belief that every man has certain natural inalienable rights that need not be enumerated. In contrast to the Federalist viewpoint, those who supported a list of fundamental rights believed that such an enumeration would provide a needed restraint on the powers of the government. In addition, the courts would have a basis for decisions when a person's rights were infringed upon. Though Thomas Jefferson was not an anti-Federalist, as he himself insisted, and though he highly praised the Constitution, he agreed with those who advocated a bill of rights. The following letter of December 20, 1787, to James Madison, helped to convince the latter that the Constitution needed such an addition. ref

Letter to James Madison

Thomas Jefferson
December 20, 1787
Paris
(excerpts)


... I will now add what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly & without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal & unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land & not by the law of nations. To say, as Mr. Wilson does that a bill of rights was not necessary because all is reserved in the case of the general government which is not given, while in the particular ones all is given which is not reserved, might do for the audience to whom it was addressed, but is surely a gratis dictum, opposed by strong inferences from the body of the instrument, as well as from the omission of the clause of our present confederation which had declared that in express terms. It was a hard conclusion to say because there has been no uniformity among the states as to the cases triable by jury, because some have been so incautious as to abandon this mode of trial, therefore the more prudent states shall be reduced to the same level of calamity. It would have been much more just & wise to have concluded the other way that as most of the states had judiciously preserved this palladium, those who had wandered should be brought back to it, and to have established general right instead of general wrong. Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, & what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. ...

 

[Bfgrn]

No, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. They are not essential to the document .

That was an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

Letter to James Madison

Thomas Jefferson
March 15, 1789


James Madison had written Jefferson suggesting that perhaps a Bill of Rights might not be wise, since it would not have the breadth that the two of them might want. Jefferson responded forcefully that a Bill of Rights was essential.

Your thoughts on the subject of the Declaration of rights in the letter of Oct. 17. I have weighed with great satisfaction. Some of them had not occurred to me before, but were acknoleged just in the moment they were presented to my mind. In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, you omit one which has great weight with me, the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary. This is a body, which if rendered independent, and kept strictly to their own department merits great confidence for their learning and integrity. In fact what degree of confidence would be too much for a body composed of such men as Wythe, Blair, and Pendleton? On characters like these the "civium ardor prava jubentium" would make no impression. I am happy to find that on the whole you are a friend to this amendment.

 

[Noomi]

A man was released from death row after DNA tests showed he was innocent of the crime he was accused of:

After 15 years on death row, freedom - CNN

This could have been one innocent person killed. If he was killed and was later found to be innocent, would this be enough for people to stop supporting the death penalty?

 

[Unkotare]

When an amendment is made to the Constitution it necessarily becomes part of the Constitution. I can see this is a very challenging concept for you, so you might want to ask a 5 year-old to explain it in terms you can understand.

 

[Noomi]

When an amendment is made to the Constitution it necessarily becomes part of the Constitution. I can see this is a very challenging concept for you, so you might want to ask a 5 year-old to explain it in terms you can understand.

I don't see an answer to the question. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Bfgrn]

When an amendment is made to the Constitution it necessarily becomes part of the Constitution. I can see this is a very challenging concept for you, so you might want to ask a 5 year-old to explain it in terms you can understand.

It took you 5 years to reply, and it took our founding fathers 2 years to ADD amendments, called the Bill of Rights TO the Constitution. Thus, the Bill of Rights are not necessary or essential to the document.

 

[JoeB131]

A man was released from death row after DNA tests showed he was innocent of the crime he was accused of:

After 15 years on death row, freedom - CNN

This could have been one innocent person killed. If he was killed and was later found to be innocent, would this be enough for people to stop supporting the death penalty?

To be absolutely fair, they have not found a case where an innocent person has been put to death, yet.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. As I stated above, people getting sent to death row falsely means that people are being convicted of crimes falsely in general.

In the case of DP cases, they are strictly reviewed, as opposed to a "life without parole" case, where they just forget about it. Especially if their overworked Public Defender got them to cop a plea to avoid the needle.

My solutions to that would be to fund public defenders at the same level of State/District Attorney's offices.

I guess my problem is, I don't want the state to make such a horrible mistake in my name (one that can't be corrected), but there are some cases where just throwing them in prison for life doesn't get it.

Case in point- John Wayne Gacy, one of the few people my state did execute in the breif time we were still doing that. The guy murdered 33 people, buried most of them under his house, some still haven't been identified. He was laughing at the state for 15 years as he ran through his appeals, but he wasn't laughing when the stuck a needle in him.

I think it should be reserved for exceptional cases. One of the abuses of the DP is that it is used to intimidate people into copping a plea. Which sucks if you are the one guy who was really innocent but your lawyer was incompetant.

 

[Unkotare]

When an amendment is made to the Constitution it necessarily becomes part of the Constitution. I can see this is a very challenging concept for you, so you might want to ask a 5 year-old to explain it in terms you can understand.

I don't see an answer to the question. Why am I not surprised?

What question?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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?

My position is that, without any shadow of a doubt, death is appropriate justice for a murderer. Questions of cost and system fallibility must then be addressed on their own terms.

California and Texas both have the death penalty. California is broke and Texas is flush. That has more to do with how both states manage their affairs and finances. It has nothing to do with whether or not capital punishment is justifiable.

The effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to homicide is an interesting sub-debate. Data from Uniform Crime Reports is about as unbiased as information comes, and there is simply no significant difference in homicide rates between death penalty and non-death penalty states with similar urban concentrations. Both the pro and anti capital punishment pundits seem to use the deterrent aspect as if it were a valid argument. It is a worthless argument that doesn't affect the debate for either side.

The only argument that matters at all in this debate is the loss of innocent life, and since you want to know how I sit morally on that question I'll be happy to illuminate. ANY innocent life taken is unacceptable and one too many. That's not even a premise. If an innocent life were taken by government action during a justifiable military or law enforcement operation, it would be every bit as unacceptable, but that loss does not erase the justifiability of the operation, nor do we put officials to death over it. That is a sensational and emotional question on your part.

 

[Gadawg73]

Death penalty deters ONLY the person put to death from future crimes.
And in most cases that is a good thing.
MOST does not and should not apply in the criminal code.
Innocent folk have been put to death and the different criteria even within states on who are indicted for it and why make it uneven.

If people are wrongly being sent to Death Row, then they are wrongly being sent to jail for life.

It strikes me that you want to fix the symptom rather than the underlying problem, which is inept police and overzealous prosecutors.

How does your argument stack up 20 years after the conviction when they found new evidence of innocence?
The lifer IS STILL ALIVE and the other sad sack is dead.
Ask the 100s of released lifers how they feel about not facing the death penalty when DNA evidence showed them innocent and they were released.
Go to the Innocence Project and look at our work.
Real world criminal cases are not like Perry Mason re-runs, CSI and Law and Order.
Humans make mistakes and in most all cases it has absolutely nothing to do with "inept police" or "overzealous prosecutors".
On TV it always plays out that way.
Inept police never work cases good enough to prosecute for shoplifting much less a murder case.
Overzealous prosecutors? LOL, they, just like overzealous criminal defense attorneys, are the scales of justice. That is why we have JURIES.

 

[Gadawg73]

A man was released from death row after DNA tests showed he was innocent of the crime he was accused of:

After 15 years on death row, freedom - CNN

This could have been one innocent person killed. If he was killed and was later found to be innocent, would this be enough for people to stop supporting the death penalty?

To be absolutely fair, they have not found a case where an innocent person has been put to death, yet.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. As I stated above, people getting sent to death row falsely means that people are being convicted of crimes falsely in general.

In the case of DP cases, they are strictly reviewed, as opposed to a "life without parole" case, where they just forget about it. Especially if their overworked Public Defender got them to cop a plea to avoid the needle.

My solutions to that would be to fund public defenders at the same level of State/District Attorney's offices.

I guess my problem is, I don't want the state to make such a horrible mistake in my name (one that can't be corrected), but there are some cases where just throwing them in prison for life doesn't get it.

Case in point- John Wayne Gacy, one of the few people my state did execute in the breif time we were still doing that. The guy murdered 33 people, buried most of them under his house, some still haven't been identified. He was laughing at the state for 15 years as he ran through his appeals, but he wasn't laughing when the stuck a needle in him.

I think it should be reserved for exceptional cases. One of the abuses of the DP is that it is used to intimidate people into copping a plea. Which sucks if you are the one guy who was really innocent but your lawyer was incompetant.

BULL SHIT.
I can list dozens. How about David Spence who the police that investigated the murder stated he was innocent.
And Texas executed him.
Where the fuck do you get your bull crap? Out of your ass?
Claude Jones, Cameron Willingham,
Since 1973 ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY ONE death row inmates have been released with evidence of their innocence.
And you are stupid enough to claim that is all of them.
You claim that the police are "inept" and prosecutors are "overzealous" and out of the other side of your mouth you claim there is no evidence one person that is innocent has been put to death.