How to stop violent crime.

[my2¢]

I'll stick with my notion that we ought to use Iraq as our penal colony.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem with our death penalty is that it takes so long to carry out, it doesn't work as a deterrent.

Many of our death row inmates sit in jail for 10, 12, 15, and even 18 years before the execution gets carried out. Now you tell me, are you worried about what's going to happen to you in 18 years from now? Most people are not, and that's why the death penalty is not a deterrent.

If we wanted to have the death penalty work as a deterrent, the first thing we have to do is get rid of all the liberals. Next we have the penalty carried out with all appeals exhausted in three months. The execution should be televised.

If we did it that way, our murder rate would drop in half.

So, if you transform into a country without any political opposition and swift public executions you estimate that the murder rate would drop 50%?

No, it's just that it's liberals that always get in the way of pragmatic solutions in our country. But yes, if we executed people the way I outlined, it would drastically reduce our murder rate.

I’m not convinced, facing certain death can make people able to carry out the most amazing things. That could in reality lead to more killings to protect their own lives in the 100% hostile environment.

What about putting their kin into the equation too? If people knew that it’s more on stake than their own life it would have an even more deterrent effect?

We don't execute innocent people here. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and plain wrong.

Oh, I totally agree, but you are talking about reforming the juridical process to cause effect on a social pattern, just curios about how far you think it’s worth taking it.
And they wouldn’t have to die, perhaps some sort of public humiliation?

You would see cases where a heated discussion ends with manslaughter, possible life in prison today or less if there are
extenuating circumstances to consider. This person, ready to face justice today would then have to flee for his life, death is certain. There would be a new breed of fleeing people with nothing to lose.

(I’m pretty sure innocents have been executed)

I'm sure of that too, but not deliberately.

What you are talking about is desperate people who will do desperate things. I disagree with that. What I think is that if a person has to consider he will be put to death in a few short months if he kills another, just might make him think twice.

After all, who murders innocent people? People that have a hard time controlling their anger. Give them a strong enough reason to control their anger, they more than likely will do just that.

Here we have had people who murdered over a five dollar bill, a pair of shoes, losing a bet or a dispute with their neighbor. Many of our murders are senseless killings.

A few years ago the gas station around the corner from me got robbed. The guy jumped over the counter to take money out of the cash register. The clerk gave no resistance, yet the robber killed him anyway. The cash register only had 50 bucks in it. A few years before that, we lost our mailman. He was robbed and killed for 15 dollars which is all he had in his pocket.

There is just no deterrent to crimes like this, and innocent people lose their lives over it. That's why more and more states started to adopt a Concealed Carry program where civilians can legally carry and use a gun. I have one and carry my gun with me whenever I feel the need to potentially protect myself from lowlifes. Until a few years ago when the Ferguson Effect kicked in, our violent and gun crimes went on a decline since the early 90's. Again, a proper deterrent is what I believe is responsible. After all, if all you get for attacking and robbing a person is three or four years in prison, it's a much less of penalty than getting gunned down and losing your life.

 

[ErikViking]

You certainly have some points.

I still believe it would cause more desperate killings.

So, what about the crime itself? For instance, you might think you act in self defense - shoot someone in the leg or even get him killed. The court finds you guilty of criminal neglect or something. A miss judgement of your part.

According to the OP that would mean automatic death sentence. Just as a man slaughter the intent wasn’t there but the punishment is the same.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You certainly have some points.

I still believe it would cause more desperate killings.

So, what about the crime itself? For instance, you might think you act in self defense - shoot someone in the leg or even get him killed. The court finds you guilty of criminal neglect or something. A miss judgement of your part.

According to the OP that would mean automatic death sentence. Just as a man slaughter the intent wasn’t there but the punishment is the same.

Yes, that could happen, but manslaughter is different than murder. Manslaughter is an accidental killing whereas murder is deliberate.

The OP was how to stop violent crime, and self-defense (even if unjustified) is not a violent crime. It could be a misjudgment, an accident, or a situation not justifying deadly force, but it's not a deliberate act.

That's why in our Concealed Carry class (CCW) the laws are the entire focus. For instance if I accidentally cut somebody off in my car, and the person I cutoff chased me down and attacked me in my vehicle, I have the right to use deadly force under our law. However if I got in a screaming match with the guy; agreed to a physical fight; didn't take any opportunity to remove myself from a confrontation, I surrendered my rights to use deadly force. As an armed citizen, I have to not do anything to escalate a hostile situation. I have to use every opportunity to remove myself from a confrontation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You certainly have some points.

I still believe it would cause more desperate killings.

So, what about the crime itself? For instance, you might think you act in self defense - shoot someone in the leg or even get him killed. The court finds you guilty of criminal neglect or something. A miss judgement of your part.

According to the OP that would mean automatic death sentence. Just as a man slaughter the intent wasn’t there but the punishment is the same.

Yes, that could happen, but manslaughter is different than murder. Manslaughter is an accidental killing whereas murder is deliberate.

The OP was how to stop violent crime, and self-defense (even if unjustified) is not a violent crime. It could be a misjudgment, an accident, or a situation not justifying deadly force, but it's not a deliberate act.

That's why in our Concealed Carry class (CCW) the laws are the entire focus. For instance if I accidentally cut somebody off in my car, and the person I cutoff chased me down and attacked me in my vehicle, I have the right to use deadly force under our law. However if I got in a screaming match with the guy; agreed to a physical fight; didn't take any opportunity to remove myself from a confrontation, I surrendered my rights to use deadly force. As an armed citizen, I have to not do anything to escalate a hostile situation. I have to use every opportunity to remove myself from a confrontation.

What about a duty to retreat in Ohio? Stand your ground? Castle doctrine? I am not familiar with Ohio laws.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, it is common sense that if the 750 individuals on California's Death Row were all executed within one month, you would see a BIG drop in murders.

Those thugs who go around killing people would be shaking in their boots.

BUT this is the United States of America.

For better or worse, capital punishment -- for all intents and purposes -- is dead. (Except for a few isolated cases in the South.)

So murders will continue.

More murderers will be given life sentences -- or not.

Crime will continue to become even worse as the country's population profile continues to change rapidly.

The situation is hopeless.

Anyone who chooses to live here simply has to hope that s/he can live in a good neighborhood and try to find a good city in which to live if possible.

(Sadly, good neighborhoods and good cities are fast disappearing.)

Ummm, I hate to point out the obvious, but the 750 people on CA's Death Row aren't killing anyone anymore.

No they aren't, but they are costing the taxpayers about 35K each per year. A bullet is less than one dollar.

Oh ok, so its not actually about keeping the public safe? It is about killing someone to save our tax dollars?

And if we killed all 750 people on the CA Death Row, how much would it save each person? $3? $10?

If you want to only consider those executed. But then consider all the future criminals that wouldn't want to be in that position in the first place. The savings could be billions.

No it wouldn't. Capital cases are still more expensive to try. There are still mistakes and corruption that end up putting innocent people on death row.

I get wanting dangerous criminals off the streets. But murder as a budget cutting tool? No.

 

[ErikViking]

You certainly have some points.

I still believe it would cause more desperate killings.

So, what about the crime itself? For instance, you might think you act in self defense - shoot someone in the leg or even get him killed. The court finds you guilty of criminal neglect or something. A miss judgement of your part.

According to the OP that would mean automatic death sentence. Just as a man slaughter the intent wasn’t there but the punishment is the same.

Yes, that could happen, but manslaughter is different than murder. Manslaughter is an accidental killing whereas murder is deliberate.

The OP was how to stop violent crime, and self-defense (even if unjustified) is not a violent crime. It could be a misjudgment, an accident, or a situation not justifying deadly force, but it's not a deliberate act.

That's why in our Concealed Carry class (CCW) the laws are the entire focus. For instance if I accidentally cut somebody off in my car, and the person I cutoff chased me down and attacked me in my vehicle, I have the right to use deadly force under our law. However if I got in a screaming match with the guy; agreed to a physical fight; didn't take any opportunity to remove myself from a confrontation, I surrendered my rights to use deadly force. As an armed citizen, I have to not do anything to escalate a hostile situation. I have to use every opportunity to remove myself from a confrontation.

I interpreted this “If anyone commits a crime with a deadly weapon, they receive an automatic death penalty.” from the OP as any crime, intended or not would carry a death sentence.

That would mean a robber not firing the gun but using it as a threat would qualify. Or man slaughter or any other criminal act how ever unintentional it is.

I think I can see where you’re going though - not sure about the solution though.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is a gem!

But seriously, since the US already executes most of it’s population of all western nations, shouldn’t the effect you desire already be quite apparent? Being in top five of both execution and homicide indicates the opposite, don’t you think?

The problem with our death penalty is that it takes so long to carry out, it doesn't work as a deterrent.

Many of our death row inmates sit in jail for 10, 12, 15, and even 18 years before the execution gets carried out. Now you tell me, are you worried about what's going to happen to you in 18 years from now? Most people are not, and that's why the death penalty is not a deterrent.

If we wanted to have the death penalty work as a deterrent, the first thing we have to do is get rid of all the liberals. Next we have the penalty carried out with all appeals exhausted in three months. The execution should be televised.

If we did it that way, our murder rate would drop in half.

So, if you transform into a country without any political opposition and swift public executions you estimate that the murder rate would drop 50%?

No, it's just that it's liberals that always get in the way of pragmatic solutions in our country. But yes, if we executed people the way I outlined, it would drastically reduce our murder rate.

I’m not convinced, facing certain death can make people able to carry out the most amazing things. That could in reality lead to more killings to protect their own lives in the 100% hostile environment.

What about putting their kin into the equation too? If people knew that it’s more on stake than their own life it would have an even more deterrent effect?

We don't execute innocent people here. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and plain wrong.

Surely you are not that naive.

from: Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center

"David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997
Spence was charged with murdering three teenagers in 1982. He was allegedly hired by a convenience store owner to kill another girl, and killed these victims by mistake. The convenience store owner, Muneer Deeb, was originally convicted and sentenced to death, but then was acquitted at a re-trial. The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime. The case against Spence was pursued by a zealous narcotics cop who relied on testimony of prison inmates who were granted favors in return for testimony."

David Spence was executed. There is no way to take that back. Look at the quote I posted. " The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime."

And yet he was executed in 1997.

The link lists 14 other men who were likely not guilty, but were executed anyway.

 

[Syriusly]

What do you think of this idea. It's pretty harsh, and some might even say it's unconstitutional. But it would work.

It's pretty simple. If anyone commits a crime with a deadly weapon, they receive an automatic death penalty. This would require two reliable witnesses, DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, ballistics, or other irrefutable evidence.. If found guilty, you get two appeals. That's it. Sentence to be carried out immediately after the third appeal. If we had a law like this, the people who commit such crimes would all be dead.

Ah I remember how well that worked in 18th century England- pretty much anyone who committed any violent crime could count on being hanged.

Stopped all violent crime.

Oh wait.......no it didn't.......

Simple solutions for simple folk.

What about when the western USA was settled? There were lots of public hangings then as well and they didn't seem to stop the outlaws very much.

Back then, most people could defend themselves because they had guns. And crime wasn't nearly as bad as it is now.

Wrong- and wrong.

Man the Right wing is getting more and more ignorant.

Most people didn't have guns- guns were expensive. Frankly it is a myth that most people had guns in the West.

As far as crime not being nearly as bad as it is now? Violent crime is lower than at any time in recorded history.

 

[Syriusly]

This is a gem!

But seriously, since the US already executes most of it’s population of all western nations, shouldn’t the effect you desire already be quite apparent? Being in top five of both execution and homicide indicates the opposite, don’t you think?

The problem with our death penalty is that it takes so long to carry out, it doesn't work as a deterrent.

Many of our death row inmates sit in jail for 10, 12, 15, and even 18 years before the execution gets carried out. Now you tell me, are you worried about what's going to happen to you in 18 years from now? Most people are not, and that's why the death penalty is not a deterrent.

If we wanted to have the death penalty work as a deterrent, the first thing we have to do is get rid of all the liberals. Next we have the penalty carried out with all appeals exhausted in three months. The execution should be televised.

If we did it that way, our murder rate would drop in half.

So, if you transform into a country without any political opposition and swift public executions you estimate that the murder rate would drop 50%?

No, it's just that it's liberals that always get in the way of pragmatic solutions in our country. But yes, if we executed people the way I outlined, it would drastically reduce our murder rate.

I’m not convinced, facing certain death can make people able to carry out the most amazing things. That could in reality lead to more killings to protect their own lives in the 100% hostile environment.

What about putting their kin into the equation too? If people knew that it’s more on stake than their own life it would have an even more deterrent effect?

We don't execute innocent people here. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and plain wrong.

Well we do- we just aren't supposed to.

Sometimes the system makes mistakes.

More often than we would like.

An innocent person wrongly imprisoned can be freed- not so an innocent person who is executed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The problem with our death penalty is that it takes so long to carry out, it doesn't work as a deterrent.

Many of our death row inmates sit in jail for 10, 12, 15, and even 18 years before the execution gets carried out. Now you tell me, are you worried about what's going to happen to you in 18 years from now? Most people are not, and that's why the death penalty is not a deterrent.

If we wanted to have the death penalty work as a deterrent, the first thing we have to do is get rid of all the liberals. Next we have the penalty carried out with all appeals exhausted in three months. The execution should be televised.

If we did it that way, our murder rate would drop in half.

So, if you transform into a country without any political opposition and swift public executions you estimate that the murder rate would drop 50%?

No, it's just that it's liberals that always get in the way of pragmatic solutions in our country. But yes, if we executed people the way I outlined, it would drastically reduce our murder rate.

I’m not convinced, facing certain death can make people able to carry out the most amazing things. That could in reality lead to more killings to protect their own lives in the 100% hostile environment.

What about putting their kin into the equation too? If people knew that it’s more on stake than their own life it would have an even more deterrent effect?

We don't execute innocent people here. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and plain wrong.

Surely you are not that naive.

from: Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center

"David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997
Spence was charged with murdering three teenagers in 1982. He was allegedly hired by a convenience store owner to kill another girl, and killed these victims by mistake. The convenience store owner, Muneer Deeb, was originally convicted and sentenced to death, but then was acquitted at a re-trial. The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime. The case against Spence was pursued by a zealous narcotics cop who relied on testimony of prison inmates who were granted favors in return for testimony."

David Spence was executed. There is no way to take that back. Look at the quote I posted. " The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime."

And yet he was executed in 1997.

The link lists 14 other men who were likely not guilty, but were executed anyway.

And as I posted earlier, there needs to be irrefutable empirical evidence before any execution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No it wouldn't. Capital cases are still more expensive to try.

All cases are expensive no matter what you do. Now it's you bringing up the money.

I would like the DP to have three purposes: one is to deter others from committing the act of murder, two is to save the taxpayer money, and three is to rid this earth of garbage we don't need. I mean.......if something awful happened to a member of my family, the only thing that would give me some peace is to see the suspect executed. I'm sure it's like that for many families. If litigation is what's driving up the cost, find a way to drive it down. But it's also a fact that it takes over a decade before we execute somebody, and that's part of the expense.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You certainly have some points.

I still believe it would cause more desperate killings.

So, what about the crime itself? For instance, you might think you act in self defense - shoot someone in the leg or even get him killed. The court finds you guilty of criminal neglect or something. A miss judgement of your part.

According to the OP that would mean automatic death sentence. Just as a man slaughter the intent wasn’t there but the punishment is the same.

Yes, that could happen, but manslaughter is different than murder. Manslaughter is an accidental killing whereas murder is deliberate.

The OP was how to stop violent crime, and self-defense (even if unjustified) is not a violent crime. It could be a misjudgment, an accident, or a situation not justifying deadly force, but it's not a deliberate act.

That's why in our Concealed Carry class (CCW) the laws are the entire focus. For instance if I accidentally cut somebody off in my car, and the person I cutoff chased me down and attacked me in my vehicle, I have the right to use deadly force under our law. However if I got in a screaming match with the guy; agreed to a physical fight; didn't take any opportunity to remove myself from a confrontation, I surrendered my rights to use deadly force. As an armed citizen, I have to not do anything to escalate a hostile situation. I have to use every opportunity to remove myself from a confrontation.

What about a duty to retreat in Ohio? Stand your ground? Castle doctrine? I am not familiar with Ohio laws.

You have a duty to retreat outside your home.

If it's a home invasion, you no longer have to retreat. You can kill the intruder without even getting a ticket thanks to our Castle Doctrine. Also you can no longer be sued by the suspect (if he lives) or the family if you kill the suspect.

If a CCW person is attacked in their car, the Castle Doctrine extends to that persons vehicle. Breaking into an occupied car is treated just like somebody breaking into an occupied home although it would be wise to drive away if possible.

Not sure what happened to the Castle Doctrine; I'll have to look that up. They did bring it up for a vote last summer I believe, but I have no idea what happened to it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I would take it a step further for rapists and pedos...public hazing and torture...the Breaking Wheel. That might be too harsh for the sexual deviants that make up a hefty chunk of the Democrat base though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What do you think of this idea. It's pretty harsh, and some might even say it's unconstitutional. But it would work.

It's pretty simple. If anyone commits a crime with a deadly weapon, they receive an automatic death penalty. This would require two reliable witnesses, DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, ballistics, or other irrefutable evidence.. If found guilty, you get two appeals. That's it. Sentence to be carried out immediately after the third appeal. If we had a law like this, the people who commit such crimes would all be dead.

So glad you brought up the topic.....'cause my doctor told me to start killing people.

Well, not in those exact words.

He told me I had to reduce the stress in my life, which is pretty much the same thing.




But...upon reading your post....I'm forewarned.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, if you transform into a country without any political opposition and swift public executions you estimate that the murder rate would drop 50%?

No, it's just that it's liberals that always get in the way of pragmatic solutions in our country. But yes, if we executed people the way I outlined, it would drastically reduce our murder rate.

I’m not convinced, facing certain death can make people able to carry out the most amazing things. That could in reality lead to more killings to protect their own lives in the 100% hostile environment.

What about putting their kin into the equation too? If people knew that it’s more on stake than their own life it would have an even more deterrent effect?

We don't execute innocent people here. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and plain wrong.

Oh, I totally agree, but you are talking about reforming the juridical process to cause effect on a social pattern, just curios about how far you think it’s worth taking it.
And they wouldn’t have to die, perhaps some sort of public humiliation?

You would see cases where a heated discussion ends with manslaughter, possible life in prison today or less if there are
extenuating circumstances to consider. This person, ready to face justice today would then have to flee for his life, death is certain. There would be a new breed of fleeing people with nothing to lose.

(I’m pretty sure innocents have been executed)

I'm sure of that too, but not deliberately.

What you are talking about is desperate people who will do desperate things. I disagree with that. What I think is that if a person has to consider he will be put to death in a few short months if he kills another, just might make him think twice.

After all, who murders innocent people? People that have a hard time controlling their anger. Give them a strong enough reason to control their anger, they more than likely will do just that.

Here we have had people who murdered over a five dollar bill, a pair of shoes, losing a bet or a dispute with their neighbor. Many of our murders are senseless killings.

A few years ago the gas station around the corner from me got robbed. The guy jumped over the counter to take money out of the cash register. The clerk gave no resistance, yet the robber killed him anyway. The cash register only had 50 bucks in it. A few years before that, we lost our mailman. He was robbed and killed for 15 dollars which is all he had in his pocket.

There is just no deterrent to crimes like this, and innocent people lose their lives over it. That's why more and more states started to adopt a Concealed Carry program where civilians can legally carry and use a gun. I have one and carry my gun with me whenever I feel the need to potentially protect myself from lowlifes. Until a few years ago when the Ferguson Effect kicked in, our violent and gun crimes went on a decline since the early 90's. Again, a proper deterrent is what I believe is responsible. After all, if all you get for attacking and robbing a person is three or four years in prison, it's a much less of penalty than getting gunned down and losing your life.

For clarity......if another woman got the last pair of shoes that I had my eye on.....would that allow me to claim to be 'desperate'????

Would I have an alibi?????

 

[jc456]

Agreed. Let’s be more like China.

well they want us to be like every other third world nation. what difference does it make exactly. Choose a battle and let's go win. This OP sounds very good, and I've used it before. you all want to make the guns go away, but you don't want the nutjob to go away. you all have no sense.

 

[jc456]

What do you think of this idea. It's pretty harsh, and some might even say it's unconstitutional. But it would work.

It's pretty simple. If anyone commits a crime with a deadly weapon, they receive an automatic death penalty. This would require two reliable witnesses, DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, ballistics, or other irrefutable evidence.. If found guilty, you get two appeals. That's it. Sentence to be carried out immediately after the third appeal. If we had a law like this, the people who commit such crimes would all be dead.

Dear RWNJ
Death penalty prosecution takes too long and costs millions more per case.
If people BELIEVE in paying for that, let taxpayers CHOOSE to fund it.
If people don't, then by religious freedom, let those taxpayers pay for life in prison with programs in rehab and restitution where they work to pay back victims
and society. See letter copied below on this issue involving religious beliefs.

Better to set up citizenship agreements
where people agree to 2 years in military service or law enforcement
or 4 years in health care or education; and agree to comply with all laws
and authority to live in a district with this policy or pay all costs incurred to taxpayers
and victims if they are convicted of a crime (which requires full compliance and disclosure)
or agree to DEPORTATION and trade places with sweatshop workers in Mexican prisons.

If we make it an even exchange where anyone applying for citizenship
has to take over the work owed by a criminal getting deported, then
we can pay taxpayers back for crimes and costs, reward citizenship
to people who work and obey laws, and deport anyone who refused to comply.

Death penalty alternative
Regarding "Jury sentences Bellaire cop killer to death" (Page B1, Wednesday), I believe the law should
include other alternatives besides either the death penalty or life in prison without parole,
which adds to the burden on taxpayers and security risks to prison personnel.

I applaud the prosecuting attorneys for meting out the most severe punishment to those such as Harlem Lewis III,
found guilty of deliberately killing a law officer; but I believe the government should offer the option of
revoking citizenship in place of imposing the death penalty. Not everyone agrees the state has authority to
terminate life, but since government grants citizenship, it should equally exercise full power to revoke it
and to deport individuals who refuse to comply with law enforcement, regardless of birthright.

Perhaps it's time the U.S. government started a prison exchange program with Mexico and other countries,
where convicts who commit premeditated crimes could face deportation.

Considering Lewis' young age at 23, he could still work for the rest of his life to pay restitution to society,
such as through a Mexican prison, losing his rights to live freely in the U.S. as a consequence for abusing
those freedoms and as a stronger deterrent against capital offenses.

Emily T. Nghiem
Houston

Thursday letters: Death penalty, immigration, marijuana
Copyright 2014: Houston Chronicle | July 30, 2014 | Updated: July 30, 2014 7:26pm
Very Special Thanks to the Editors:
The Houston Chronicle, July 30, 2014

Death is a spiritual issue
Regarding Dudley Sharp's article
on defense lawyers in death penalty
cases ("Facts don't support ABA's
death penalty action," Outlook, Feb.
15), I agree with his suggestion the
American Bar Association police its
own members and disbar attorneys
providing inadequate counsel.


However, I would take such
scrutiny one step further. Since life
and death are inherently spiritual
issues, the decision to terminate life
clearly becomes a religious matter.
Thus no execution [can] be en-
dorsed or carried out by the state
without violating constitutional law.

Public resources are better spent
on mediation training and lawful
alternatives to capital punishment,
instead of being wasted fighting
unconstitutional practices.

Emily T. Nghiem, Houston
Houston Chronicle (Viewpoints), February 20, 1997

I believe the californians did something like this under a vote and dictator Brown took it to court to have it declared illegal.

I believe it was Proposition 8.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it's just that it's liberals that always get in the way of pragmatic solutions in our country. But yes, if we executed people the way I outlined, it would drastically reduce our murder rate.

I’m not convinced, facing certain death can make people able to carry out the most amazing things. That could in reality lead to more killings to protect their own lives in the 100% hostile environment.

What about putting their kin into the equation too? If people knew that it’s more on stake than their own life it would have an even more deterrent effect?

We don't execute innocent people here. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and plain wrong.

Oh, I totally agree, but you are talking about reforming the juridical process to cause effect on a social pattern, just curios about how far you think it’s worth taking it.
And they wouldn’t have to die, perhaps some sort of public humiliation?

You would see cases where a heated discussion ends with manslaughter, possible life in prison today or less if there are
extenuating circumstances to consider. This person, ready to face justice today would then have to flee for his life, death is certain. There would be a new breed of fleeing people with nothing to lose.

(I’m pretty sure innocents have been executed)

I'm sure of that too, but not deliberately.

What you are talking about is desperate people who will do desperate things. I disagree with that. What I think is that if a person has to consider he will be put to death in a few short months if he kills another, just might make him think twice.

After all, who murders innocent people? People that have a hard time controlling their anger. Give them a strong enough reason to control their anger, they more than likely will do just that.

Here we have had people who murdered over a five dollar bill, a pair of shoes, losing a bet or a dispute with their neighbor. Many of our murders are senseless killings.

A few years ago the gas station around the corner from me got robbed. The guy jumped over the counter to take money out of the cash register. The clerk gave no resistance, yet the robber killed him anyway. The cash register only had 50 bucks in it. A few years before that, we lost our mailman. He was robbed and killed for 15 dollars which is all he had in his pocket.

There is just no deterrent to crimes like this, and innocent people lose their lives over it. That's why more and more states started to adopt a Concealed Carry program where civilians can legally carry and use a gun. I have one and carry my gun with me whenever I feel the need to potentially protect myself from lowlifes. Until a few years ago when the Ferguson Effect kicked in, our violent and gun crimes went on a decline since the early 90's. Again, a proper deterrent is what I believe is responsible. After all, if all you get for attacking and robbing a person is three or four years in prison, it's a much less of penalty than getting gunned down and losing your life.

For clarity......if another woman got the last pair of shoes that I had my eye on.....would that allow me to claim to be 'desperate'????

Would I have an alibi?????

Desperation isn't the law; self-defense is.

 

[mdk]

Agreed. Let’s be more like China.

well they want us to be like every other third world nation. what difference does it make exactly. Choose a battle and let's go win. This OP sounds very good, and I've used it before. you all want to make the guns go away, but you don't want the nutjob to go away. you all have no sense.

You must have me confused with someone else. I’ve never once called for more gun restrictions. Not once. I am fine with people going to jail for a long time if they commit a crime, but I am not fine with doling out capital punishment like some authoritarian rouge state.