Do You Support the Death Penalty?

[Diuretic]

No, because . . . DUH, there's no point in trying to rebut something ridiculous and utterly unrelated to the topic. The only "rebuttal" necessary is to point out what a complete waste of time it was, and I did so.

Now I'm doing so with THIS post. I shan't be doing the same with your next one, so make sure it contains something deserving of a response.

I'll be sure to include something you understand

 

[sky dancer]

I'll be sure to include something you understand

Good luck with that, mate.

 

[Diuretic]

The death penalty is wrong because there is no certainty of guilt in any criminal trial. The fallibility of the criminal trial process itself militates against the fact that the death penalty, once administered, can't be reversed where it has been found, after the trial, that the person was not guilty of the offence for which he or she was convicted.

Life imprisonment is a fair compromise.

 

[Care4all]

What specifically did you want proven? That people have tried to find evidence of an innocent man being executed, or that they haven't found one? That they haven't found one is self-evident in the fact that . . . HELLO! there aren't any. That they've tried is self-evident in the fact that there are tons of stories about people like Ruben Cantu, trumpeting the whole, "See, he was innocent!" thing, but never actually being able to prove it. Where do you think those stories come from, if not from people trying to prove that innocent people have been executed?

What an utterly ridiculous "Prove that water is really wet" question. Sheesh.

sigh....you said that the Innocence Project had tried to prove that an innocent prisoner was killed. I asked you to PROVE such an accusation....stop trying to twist and dance your way out of it....baffling one with bullcrud, doesn't really work for me cilie.

And the purpose of this was what, exactly? To make me say, "Ohmigod, Political Chic has his approval! He admires and likes Political Chic's posts, therefore I must try to sound more like Political Chic so that I will have his approval too!"? "She at least was honest" is just another way of saying, "She agreed with me more, and therefore I automatically assume it was true."

sigh again.... the point of this was to show that YOU are just being obstinant and ignoring ALL of the articles that have been shown, that supports the fact that BEFORE the innocence project and before the people they found were wrongly accused and wrongly convicted and got them free, many have been killed and there is more than enough proof with the numbers they have found to be innocent, along with other cases of death row inmates found to be innocent, like with the article skydancer has posted showing over 100 death row inmates found to be innocent so far, that as stated, innocent people on death row HAVE MOST CERTAINLY BEEN KILLED by the State....this is not something knew is what logic tells us...at least those of us that really don't have an ax to grind of some sort....and love numbers and analysis of such...

Posting an article where the media claimed that someone was innocent does NOT prove that he was innocent. It proves that the media is biased against capital punishment, or for that matter, any criminal punishment. You ever read the utter SLEW of articles that came out a while back, claiming that the men convicted of raping the Central Park jogger weren't really guilty, based simply on the fact that a man who was already in prison decided to claim that he'd done it all by himself? Same thing.

-----------------------------------
too much nonsense....so little logice being applied imho...but, whatever!


Is there a point here, or are you just trying to obfuscate and wander down tangents until everyone gets bored and you manage to kill the thread?

Jesus abolished an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life....He said so Himself....that's all....i'm saying.... if you are a Christian and wish to debate such then fine, and if ya don't, then fine....it's not meant to confuse you or others on the thread.

I am not trying to pick a fight or anything cilie, I just do not believe that you are giving full thought to your own conclusion of NO ONE INNOCENT has ever been KILLED.....and maybe this is because it is just too hard to cope with supporting the death penalty if we killed innocent people as well....? I'm not really certain what it is....i have seen posters supporting it that feel this is okay, killing a few innocent people as long as we get it right and kill murderers most of the time....is A-OK with them....

This IS THE ISSUE....can you accept that YOU KILLED an innocent person? Because the State IS DOING IT, executing them, on YOUR behalf....?

It's one thing executing the Ted Bundy's of the world or the Dahmers, or the timothy mcveigh's who are the worst of the worst murderers...cold blooded mass murderers, where there is absolutely no doubt that they are the mass murderer...i suppose i would be able to accept killing them...though not 100% certain....?

care

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Juan Roberto Melendez spent nearly 18 years on death row for a crime he didn’t commit. This year, he joined the nearly 100 death row prisoners nationwide who have been found innocent and released. When he was finally exonerated -- thanks to the chance discovery of a crucial piece of evidence by a lawyer who was cleaning his office -- he became the 22nd death row prisoner released in Florida, the state that leads the country in exonerations.

A month later, the U.S. Supreme Court halted the execution of a Florida man who came within three hours of death while it considers a legal issue "that could ultimately lead to the state’s death penalty law being declared unconstitutional," reported the Orlando Tribune. The justices will rule on whether judges, rather than juries, can sentence people to death -- a practice that exists in nine states. Following the Supreme Court announcement, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush canceled a second scheduled execution, reinforcing the point that there is a de facto moratorium in the state.

Meanwhile, the scheduled execution of Maryland death row inmate Steven Oken was also halted while the U.S. Supreme Court decides on his appeal. It is unlikely that any other death warrants will be signed in Maryland before the justices make their ruling.

This is good news to the growing number of activists who have been fighting these executions. Their influence can be seen in the comment of a judge who dissented in the ruling that stopped Oken’s execution -- he said the death penalty should be abolished because "it simply is not worth the aggravation."

We find it "aggravating" that innocent people are sent to death row. We find it "aggravating" that 40 percent of all death row prisoners are African American. And we find it "aggravating" -- and also disgusting and morally indefensible -- that, while the death penalty does nothing to deter crime, we continue to hear from politicians that it makes society safer."



The Death Penalty Is Dead Wrong

What?! You mean there are blogs out there claiming that innocent people are executed?! Well, then, it MUST be true!! I feel so silly for not having gone out and trolled the opinion pages on the Internet for lots and lots of agenda-driven tripe before forming my opinions! Boy, is my face red!

 

[Cecilie1200]

What specifically did you want proven? That people have tried to find evidence of an innocent man being executed, or that they haven't found one? That they haven't found one is self-evident in the fact that . . . HELLO! there aren't any. That they've tried is self-evident in the fact that there are tons of stories about people like Ruben Cantu, trumpeting the whole, "See, he was innocent!" thing, but never actually being able to prove it. Where do you think those stories come from, if not from people trying to prove that innocent people have been executed?

What an utterly ridiculous "Prove that water is really wet" question. Sheesh.

sigh....you said that the Innocence Project had tried to prove that an innocent prisoner was killed. I asked you to PROVE such an accusation....stop trying to twist and dance your way out of it....baffling one with bullcrud, doesn't really work for me cilie.

And the purpose of this was what, exactly? To make me say, "Ohmigod, Political Chic has his approval! He admires and likes Political Chic's posts, therefore I must try to sound more like Political Chic so that I will have his approval too!"? "She at least was honest" is just another way of saying, "She agreed with me more, and therefore I automatically assume it was true."

sigh again.... the point of this was to show that YOU are just being obstinant and ignoring ALL of the articles that have been shown, that supports the fact that BEFORE the innocence project and before the people they found were wrongly accused and wrongly convicted and got them free, many have been killed and there is more than enough proof with the numbers they have found to be innocent, along with other cases of death row inmates found to be innocent, like with the article skydancer has posted showing over 100 death row inmates found to be innocent so far, that as stated, innocent people on death row HAVE MOST CERTAINLY BEEN KILLED by the State....this is not something knew is what logic tells us...at least those of us that really don't have an ax to grind of some sort....and love numbers and analysis of such...

Posting an article where the media claimed that someone was innocent does NOT prove that he was innocent. It proves that the media is biased against capital punishment, or for that matter, any criminal punishment. You ever read the utter SLEW of articles that came out a while back, claiming that the men convicted of raping the Central Park jogger weren't really guilty, based simply on the fact that a man who was already in prison decided to claim that he'd done it all by himself? Same thing.

-----------------------------------
too much nonsense....so little logice being applied imho...but, whatever!


Is there a point here, or are you just trying to obfuscate and wander down tangents until everyone gets bored and you manage to kill the thread?

Jesus abolished an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life....He said so Himself....that's all....i'm saying.... if you are a Christian and wish to debate such then fine, and if ya don't, then fine....it's not meant to confuse you or others on the thread.

I am not trying to pick a fight or anything cilie, I just do not believe that you are giving full thought to your own conclusion of NO ONE INNOCENT has ever been KILLED.....and maybe this is because it is just too hard to cope with supporting the death penalty if we killed innocent people as well....? I'm not really certain what it is....i have seen posters supporting it that feel this is okay, killing a few innocent people as long as we get it right and kill murderers most of the time....is A-OK with them....

This IS THE ISSUE....can you accept that YOU KILLED an innocent person? Because the State IS DOING IT, executing them, on YOUR behalf....?

It's one thing executing the Ted Bundy's of the world or the Dahmers, or the timothy mcveigh's who are the worst of the worst murderers...cold blooded mass murderers, where there is absolutely no doubt that they are the mass murderer...i suppose i would be able to accept killing them...though not 100% certain....?

care

Wow, what a lot of words to say absolutely bupkis.

"No one is really trying to prove that innocent people have been executed, and CERTAINLY not the Innocence Project, and you can't prove it, and by the way, look at all these articles you're ignoring on executed people who might have been innocent!"

When did I ever say I wanted to debate Christianity? Asking you if you have any sort of related point is not "debating Christianity". It's pointing out that you're babbling and asking you to say something real.

I never said no one innocent has ever been executed. I said no amount of attempting to prove it has happened has ever done so. And it hasn't.

THIS is the issue: are YOU prepared to say that YOU allowed demonstrably innocent people - aka victims - to die just so you can feel all warm and fuzzy and caring because murderers aren't executed? Because don't think I haven't noticed that you and all your self-righteous "the death penalty is so MEAN!" compatriots have managed to totally avoid ever responding to the fact that executions deter murders and save lives.

As far as I'm concerned, my conscience on the subject of killing the innocent is a hell of a lot cleaner than yours.

 

[sky dancer]

Wow, what a lot of words to say absolutely bupkis.

"No one is really trying to prove that innocent people have been executed, and CERTAINLY not the Innocence Project, and you can't prove it, and by the way, look at all these articles you're ignoring on executed people who might have been innocent!"

When did I ever say I wanted to debate Christianity? Asking you if you have any sort of related point is not "debating Christianity". It's pointing out that you're babbling and asking you to say something real.

I never said no one innocent has ever been executed. I said no amount of attempting to prove it has happened has ever done so. And it hasn't.

THIS is the issue: are YOU prepared to say that YOU allowed demonstrably innocent people - aka victims - to die just so you can feel all warm and fuzzy and caring because murderers aren't executed? Because don't think I haven't noticed that you and all your self-righteous "the death penalty is so MEAN!" compatriots have managed to totally avoid ever responding to the fact that executions deter murders and save lives.

As far as I'm concerned, my conscience on the subject of killing the innocent is a hell of a lot cleaner than yours.

People who oppose the death penalty do not cause crime. The death penalty does not deter the crime of capital murder or save lives.

"Much of the current recent research suggests that the death penalty does not have a significant deterrent effect. One study by Sorenson and Wrinkle (1999) in Texas speculated that, if a deterrent effect did exist, it would be found in Texas because of the extreme numbers of death sentences and executions within the state. They not only found that there was no deterrent effect but that number of executions was unrelated to murder rates and felony rates as well. Another study by William Bailey (1998) in Oklahoma also found no deterrent effect; however, he did find that there was a significant increase in stranger killings and non-felony killings after Oklahoma resumed executions.

Moreover, Bailey conducted studies of several states, including Ohio, Oregon, North Carolina, and California and found no deterrent effect (Bailey, 1978, 1979, 1979, 1979). A study by Decker and Kohfeld (1990) used a 50-year time series from 1930-1980 to assess the effect of executions on murder rates in North Carolina, California, Texas, New York, and Georgia. Essentially, they found no deterrent effect in their analysis.

Most recently, according to a survey by the New York Times, states without the death penalty have lower homicides rates than states with the death penalty. Comparisons show that the average murder rate per 10,000 population in 1999 was 5.5 among death penalty states versus 3.6 among non-death penalty states (DPIC, 2001).

In California, instead of finding support evidence of a deterrent effect, Robert Harris found support for the brutalization effect (Harris, 1999). The brutalization effect suggests that executions increase crime rather than act as a deterrent. Harris found slight increases in homicides during the eight months following the execution. Another study, entitled The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, examined differences in homicides and violent crime in 293 pairs of counties. They found no deterrent effect and higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties (Harries & Cheatwood, 1997).

A study by Radelet and Akers (1996) surveyed America's criminologists and discovered that most (87.5%) believe that the death penalty does, and can do, very little to reduce rates of criminal violence. In addition, they cited a survey by Peter D. Hart Associates, which found little support (26%) for the deterrence argument out of a random sample of police chiefs and county sheriffs throughout the Unites States.

An earlier study by Issac Ehrlich (1975) has played an important role in the public debate on the death penalty. Before this, most of the work on death penalty and deterrence was conducted by Thomas Sellin. In one particular study, Sellin examined groups of contiguous states, each group containing one state with capital punsishment ("retentionist") and one state without ("abolitionist"). His conclusion was that executions have no discernible effect on homicide death rates (McGahey, 1996). However, using an econometric technique to examine murder and execution rates in the U.S. from 1933-1969, Ehrlich found that capital punishment did in fact have a deterrent effect. He concluded that for each execution there was a deterrence of 7 to 8 murders (McGahey, 1996). This study received immediately criticisms from other criminologists. Passell and Taylor replicated the study and found when the period from 1963-1969 was excluded, the deterrent effect was statistically insignificant (McGahey, 1996). Bowers and Pierce found similar results and also questioned Erhlich's use of FBI rather than Vital Statistics data (McGahey, 1996). In 1985, Layson repeated Erhlich's study, making several improvements, including the use of Vital Statistics data, and confirmed findings of a deterrent effect (Layson, 1985). Finally, work by Brian Forst (1983) suggests that on balance the death penalty does not have a perceptible influence on the homicide rate.

http://www.msccsp.org/publications/death.html

 

[Care4all]

People who oppose the death penalty do not cause crime. The death penalty does not deter the crime of capital murder or save lives.

Damn! This is the 2nd time i have found worthy a post of yours to rep and it still says have to spread some around....but kudos!

Yes, i have read in many different analysis on the subject that the death penalty DOES NOT deter murder....or reduce the rate of murder.

 

[sky dancer]

In June 2002 the Supreme Court determined in the case of Atkins v. Virginia that executing a person with mental retardation amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment". The court reasoned that a mentally handicapped defendant had diminished personal culpability in the crime. Medical and legal scholars argue that the same reasoning should apply to mentally ill defendants. The National Alliance on Mental Illness believes that "persons who have committed offenses due to states of mind or behavior caused by a brain disorder require treatment, not punishment." Justice Rucker of the Indiana Supreme Court, in a dissent against the death sentence of Robert Bryan wrote, "the underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency."

As the sister of Thomas Provenzano said on the day of his execution, "I have to wonder: Where is the justice in killing a sick human being?" The answer is that there is none.
The Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders

 

[sky dancer]

In 2007 the world continued to move closer to the universal abolition of the capital punishment. Historical landmark towards the worldwide abolition of death penalty is the resolution on moratorium on executions endorsed by the United Nations 62nd General Assembly on 18 December 2007. 104 UN member states voted in favour of the ground-breaking resolution. 54 countries voted against, while 29 abstained. The resolution was supported by 87 governments from all regions of the world, as well as by NGOs including the World Coalition against the Death Penalty, the Community of Sant'Egidio, Hands Off Cain and Amnesty International.

More than two thirds of the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice. By the end of the 2007, 91 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes.
Death Penalty Statistics

 

[Ravi]

I don't support the death penalty. No jury or judge can ever be completely sure of guilt.

And DNA evidence can only prove innocence but it cannot prove guilt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

People who oppose the death penalty do not cause crime. The death penalty does not deter the crime of capital murder or save lives.

There is evidence to the contrary. Although this is an opinion piece it is based on statistical data.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

OPINION NOVEMBER 2, 2007
Capital Punishment Works
By ROY D. ADLER and MICHAEL SUMMERS

Recent high-profile events have reopened the debate about the value of capital punishment in a just society. This is an important discussion, because the taking of a human life is always a serious matter.

Most commentators who oppose capital punishment assert that an execution has no deterrent effect on future crimes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely, our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

For any society concerned about human life, that type of evidence is something that should be taken very seriously.

The study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources. The chart nearby shows the number of executions and murders by year. There seems to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders increase.

Please click below for full article.
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com

 

[matty]

I'll be sure to include something you understand

Oh, good, you do get 'em when they should be gotten.

And I asked you to my buddy list earlier, before I even knew that.

 

[matty]

The death penalty is wrong because there is no certainty of guilt in any criminal trial. The fallibility of the criminal trial process itself militates against the fact that the death penalty, once administered, can't be reversed where it has been found, after the trial, that the person was not guilty of the offence for which he or she was convicted.

Life imprisonment is a fair compromise.

I pretty much lean with you on that.

Lotta tragic mistakes've been found already with new tech.

 

[matty]

The death penalty is wrong because there is no certainty of guilt in any criminal trial. The fallibility of the criminal trial process itself militates against the fact that the death penalty, once administered, can't be reversed where it has been found, after the trial, that the person was not guilty of the offence for which he or she was convicted.

Life imprisonment is a fair compromise.

I don't know militates but I know MEH.

 

[sky dancer]

There is evidence to the contrary. Although this is an opinion piece it is based on statistical data.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

OPINION NOVEMBER 2, 2007
Capital Punishment Works
By ROY D. ADLER and MICHAEL SUMMERS



Please click below for full article.
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com

I'll go with my research data that contradicts yours.

 

[Ravi]

There is evidence to the contrary. Although this is an opinion piece it is based on statistical data.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

OPINION NOVEMBER 2, 2007
Capital Punishment Works
By ROY D. ADLER and MICHAEL SUMMERS



Please click below for full article.
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com

The 1990s was for the most part good economic times. From 2001 onward, not so much. THAT could be the missing variable. Your article depends on a wish and a dream. There are probably many factors that predict murder rates, and nothing in your link convinces me that it is execution rate.

Regardless, one innocent death is not worth hundreds of vindictive executions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The 1990s was for the most part good economic times. From 2001 onward, not so much. THAT could be the missing variable. Your article depends on a wish and a dream. There are probably many factors that predict murder rates, and nothing in your link convinces me that it is execution rate.

Regardless, one innocent death is not worth hundreds of vindictive executions.

"A second difficulty with strong correlative data is that of timing. Causes should come before effects, so we correlated each year's executions to the following year's murders and found the results to be even more dramatic. The association was significant at the .00003 level, which meant the odds against the random happening are longer than 34,000 to one. Each execution was associated with 74 fewer murders the following year."

If you understood statistics, you would understand that .00003 means that your argument would be blown out of the water.

The justice system is in no way perfect. These murderers mete out their own form of justice upon innocent people. You seem to discount the importance of saving 74 lives.

It's evident that you started with the conclusion that the death penalty is wrong and that you look at this study with jaundiced eye. Let's get to the point: IF you found the study to be conclusive, and that each execution, after all the checks and balances in our system, would result in saving the lives of 74 innocent men, women, and children, would you agree with the death penalty?

If the answer is no, then I believe you are evil.

 

[Ravi]

"A second difficulty with strong correlative data is that of timing. Causes should come before effects, so we correlated each year's executions to the following year's murders and found the results to be even more dramatic. The association was significant at the .00003 level, which meant the odds against the random happening are longer than 34,000 to one. Each execution was associated with 74 fewer murders the following year."

If you understood statistics, you would understand that .00003 means that your argument would be blown out of the water.

The justice system is in no way perfect. These murderers mete out their own form of justice upon innocent people. You seem to discount the importance of saving 74 lives.

It's evident that you started with the conclusion that the death penalty is wrong and that you look at this study with jaundiced eye. Let's get to the point: IF you found the study to be conclusive, and that each execution, after all the checks and balances in our system, would result in saving the lives of 74 innocent men, women, and children, would you agree with the death penalty?

If the answer is no, then I believe you are evil.

Oh, I understand statistics. I'm sure I could find you some that "proved" that the prevalence of white cars on the road decreased murder rates. It is you, and perhaps the authors of the oped, that don't understand statistics. Or maybe THEY do, and they know how easily things are "proven" to their readers.

I guess I'm evil, because even if you proved to me that the death penalty reduced murders I'd still say it was wrong if only one innocent person was executed. But your question is stupid and I really shouldn't bother answering such disingenuous bullshit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, I understand statistics. I'm sure I could find you some that "proved" that the prevalence of white cars on the road decreased murder rates. It is you, and perhaps the authors of the oped, that don't understand statistics. Or maybe THEY do, and they know how easily things are "proven" to their readers.

I guess I'm evil, because even if you proved to me that the death penalty reduced murders I'd still say it was wrong if only one innocent person was executed. But your question is stupid and I really shouldn't bother answering such disingenuous bullshit.

I detect a lot of hostility here especially since you've been reduced to the language quoted above. You can't hide behind "one innocent person" executed, since I offered you the chance to save 74 innocent persons.