The death penalty
 

Within the last couple of days, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the execution of juvenile killers is unconstitutional.

It got me to thinking that I had never seen this topic come up in this group. I am curious as to how you feel about the death penalty, both in regards to minors and adults. I know it can be an inflammattory topic but I have hope that it will remain civil here.

I'll start. I'm against the death penalty, no matter the age. The main reason I feel this way is because there have been too many cases where an innocent man has been sentenced to death only to be found innocent later. I don't have numbers on how many times this has occurred but, for me, once is too many times anyway. Years ago, I saw a film called "The Thin Blue Line" about a man in Texas who was very close to being executed, when the man who actually committed the crime (murdering a police officer) confessed. The innocent man, Randall Addams I believe, was just walking down a street one night and matched a description. Simple as that.

There have been other similar cases. The idea of being wrong as to whether someone is guilty or not, is bad enough. With the death penalty though, the error is not correctable. As long as the system isn't foolproof, I don't believe in taking the chance of being wrong.

So at the risk of opening a can of worms, what are your thoughts?

Actually, I remember having a conversation about the death penalty back on Fab, perhaps the first incarnation of that board.

I'm out of time in the computer lab, but perhaps tonight I'll log back in and post my thoughts about the dear ol' death penalty.

I was undecided on this in the past. I've done some soul searching on this topic. Now, I'm against it.

I'm against it for the reason you gave, MBC. On top of that, because of the nature of it, a lengthy appeals process is a requirement. You simply cannot sentence someone to death until you give ample opportunity to be as sure as possible that it's the right decission. As such, it fails to be an effective deterrent. The punishment is too far removed from the crime.

I am one big wussy fence-sitter on this issue. On one hand, I work in a jail among many violent convicts - and I've seen "restorative justice" close-up. The prevailing feeling among the directors of programs here (both offender programs and victim programs) is very anti-death penalty. I admit that I'm a born skeptic, but a good skeptic looks at both sides of the issue, and I do see their point.

On the other hand, when I hear some of the descriptions of heinous crimes (none of which I'll repeat here) and it's absolutely clear who committed them, my instant reaction is that the offender should not be allowed to live. I know it's a very animalistic reaction on my part, but I can't deny it's there.

I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make these decisions, though my ambivalence would probably keep me on a jury (such irony).

It somewhat depends on what theory of punishment holds more sway for me at the time. As far as deterrents go, it doesn't seem to be much of one. But if one's most inclined toward isolating evildoers, it is the ultimate isolation. But I think ultimately I come down against because of the irrevocability (is that a word?) of it. You can never give someone back years of their life spent behind bars, but at least you can restore their future. There's not much restoration after the death penalty is enforced.

Plus some do-gooder part of me wants to hold out the hope of reformation until the very end.

I will never ever ever be able to grasp the mindset that frets about an innocent man being executed on death row, yet wholeheartedly supports a so-called woman's right to choose which means the death of a totally innocent life. (yes- let's quibble about "life"- not)

So much for respecting life....

and yes, I support the death penalty, and now I am going to try to stay out of this. (and hope no one gives me personal grief for it- this post is by no means meant to be personal)

Having known several people who were murdered, I tend to come down on the pro-death penalty side. I am also pro-choice, not that that was the subject here.

I'm against the death penalty for many of the reasons listed above, plus, I'm very uncomfortable with any government having life-or-death power over its citizens.

I've always acknowledged that the survivors of murder victims have a legitimate claim to some sort of revenge (however distasteful that seems in the abstract). But I've felt that the death penalty is not the right route because it isn't direct. If family members of victims were pulling the switch or doing the injection, then the death penalty would be far more defensible, but I bet few family members COULD do that...which begs the question: would you be pro-death penalty if you had to "pull the trigger" yourself? Or is it only O.K. if someone else does the dirty work...I've thought of the death penalty before as "murder by proxy" on the part of survivors.

But to take the other side of that argument: is it fair to ask people who'd never normally be inclined to murder to be the killers of a killer?

Maybe we should be asking that question of family members...because it really highlights the act in question.

Finally, if someone (God/dess forbid) murdered my child, I would not leave it up to the government. If I had compelling evidence as to the identity of the killer, I'd actually buy a gun and hunt that sucker down. Which opens up a whole can of worms about vigilante justice, and why we have due process, appeals, etc.

Well, this is a complex issue...and I just wanted to convey some of my (obviously) confused thoughts on it.

Neph, there's your answer in a nutshell, at least for me. Abortion is a matter of personal choice, death penalty is a matter of government weilding its power to kill. The government shouldn't have a right to determine a woman's personal choice about abortion, but I have a right to determine the government's actions towards possibly innocent people.

I'm against it. And I'll murder anybody who feels differently.

Let's be clear and relatively unrealistic here.

Someone burtally murders one of my loved one - and I do mean brutally - they deserve justice held by the court system and then, if so decided upon by a jury if their peers (like that's going to happen) they deserve to die some awful death. Buh bye. Now, if this person gets off or doesn't get caught, I will possible go Wild West on them and do the justice myself. But, I have genes that go waaaaaay back to former justice systems and, that's beyond my control.

Blind and toothless, anyone?

Is that me?
I am blind. But, I di have all of my teeth. And they're in pretty good condition!

Oooooh. Details please on going Wild West on them... :D

O.K. I'm sick.

And I really don't want the world to be blind and toothless. :( Good reminder, ISM.

Every life is sacred until he does something wrong and then we get to kill him. (He might have been the right guy...)

I don't understand this logic. Especially when it comes from pious supporters of Bush whom god chose.

Confused? Don't be. Just agree.

Isn't that "every sperm is sacred...?" :)

GD-as I recall, given that abortion is a LEGAL Issue- and people get into such a twit about Roe V. Wade and the loss of LEGAL protections to abortion- then I would say the gov't giving us LEGAL permission to KILL the unborn is pretty much the same thing....and IMO a murderer frankly gave up their "right to life" the moment they chose to take someone else's life away.

.....and no one said a damn thing about a sperm being sacred....I made my comment non-personal and by no means snide....but I guess people who think the "right" to kill a baby they don't want is so valuable has nothing better to do than be snide to someone who feels otherwise.

We've been through the death penalty thing before- if used effectively it should be a deterrent, now all it has become is a life sentence to being a drain on the public financially, painful to the family who lost someone they loved, and a cash cow for the lawyers.

There should be a limit to the number of appeals- there should be a time limit to how long you can battle it- and it should be used quickly and efficiently.

All this lovely touchy feely stuff making yourself feel like you are more compassionate because you don't think it's right to put a killer to death (on the offhand chance that they may be innocent-which of course shows so much faith in the justice system) makes zero sense to me in the face of some of the other "values" held so dearly in this crowd.

I'm sorry- I really am..I should never never never have stepped in this thread. My apologies- please, continue feeling good about not wanting to get rid of murderers by giving them the same end they doled out so graciously to others.

I'm genuinely sorry- now I really am done. I think I'll go write a poem for CP.

Great, thank you very much, lizziebith. Now the song is stuck in my head with the singing and many children and the Cleese-ing and Idle-ing...
:D

I'm not sure it's accurate to equate the death penalty with abortion. There are contextual issues. If you're going to argue that killing is killing, then I don't see how you can make exceptions for war. War is killing in context. The death penalty is killing in context. Abortion is killing in context. I'm sure there are more examples I haven't thought of just now. And you will find people on both sides of each of these issues, and I'd wager that most people are on one side for some and one side for others.

Abortion seems to be the biggest hot button, so let's use war and the death penalty as hypotheticals.

Hypothetically, I might frame war as killing in the context of political conflict (let's hear it for understatements!) And I might hypothetically say war X is "good" and that we have the right, nay obligation, to kill if necessary to achieve a specific political end.

Contrariwise, I might frame the death penalty in the context of legal punishment, and hypothetically hold that I don't think death is appropriate when applied as a punishment.

Sometimes I think the only hope for humans as a species is to discuss issues in context and strive to understand why someone has reached a conclusion opposite ours -- especially conclusions that appear to us so clearly wrong as to indicate the other party has taken leave of their senses. The further you trace back your reasoning, the more likely you are to discover the initial kernal of dissention. And you won't resolve anything until you've uncovered and dealt with that. And thus simple solutions never are. Perhaps more emphasis on uncovering essential differences of value and less emphasis on surfance manifestations alleged to be "values" would be more constructive and lead to solutions not yet imagined.

But then again, as was once said about a girl in a rabbit hole: "She generally gave herself very good advice, (though she very seldom followed it)"

Great post, great points, Prudence. It's nice to see a reasoned, articulate response to a complex question. Thank you!

Thank you Prudence, that was a much better response. That's what I was trying to get at, that the two issues aren't even comparable. It's not as black and white as, "This is killing, that's killing, therefore I have one opinion on both and to not is hypocritical." My opposition to the death penalty is entirely unrelated to my support of abortion rights. It's not relevant to the argument.

Uhh...Neph... that was a cultural reference to the song "Every Sperm is Sacred." Not a snide remark.

Deep breath, dude.

You call it "giving legal permission" I call it staying the heck out of it.

As a woman who has had a miscarraige, an abortion, and a wonderful birth (of my 11-year-old son) I just wonder WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO JUDGE. My boy would not be here if it were not for the hard decisions I made earlier in my life. I will never equate abortion with murder because I HAVE BEEN THERE. Have you?

sounds good, im for it!

First of all, thanks to everyone for your contributions to this thread. I have to be honest and admit to being disappointed that the discussion moved from the death penalty to abortion though. I really wanted to focus on the story in the OP a bit more.

I'm just as guilty as anyone though of injecting my own beliefs into threads that may, at times, be off-topic, just because I am passionate about them. It can be hard not to. All I suppose I can ask is that, if we continue this discussion, we try to get back to the original topic and refrain from flaming each other. It's an interesting topic and so many of you have made elequent contributions. I'd love to hear more opinions, even conflicting ones, as long as we try to keep focused.

Once again, the old red herring gets thrown in the ring before any serious discussion can begin. This thread is about the Death Penalty, not abortion, and if one feels like starting an abortion thread, by all means, go ahead. Don't hijack another's thread to do it- not cool at all.

I think my opinion has obviously been influenced by personal events, but I can project myself out of those and look at it fairly dispassionately. I believe in the concept of the Social Contract - you live in a society, you live by their rules. You commit an atrocity like murder- and I don't mean heat of the moment or vehicular homicide- I mean a calculated, cold blooded murder, well then you know what dues you may have to pay. The man that murdered that little five year old a few years ago in California? Death penalty. Charles Manson? Death. The BTK killer? Death, even though he gets to skate because the penalty wasn't in effect during his rampage. There is no rehabilitating these monsters. They are outside of society, and chose to be that way. Even so , I think the evidence must be incontrovertable- DNA, confession, whatever. Texas is playing it too fast and loose, and I fear that innocent people may be falling victim.

Here are a few quotes from Amnesty International. I'll understand if they are taken with a grain of salt. ;)

I'm just not comfortable with those numbers. I understand the human desire for vengeance and I won't deny that there are some people who a part of me says "Fry 'em!" And like NA, if someone brutally murdered a loved one, there would be a strong desire to want to send them to hell myself. I just don't think it is my decision to make, as to who lives and dies. And god forbid, if I was wrong. Like I said earlier this isn't a mistake that can be corrected. If we are going to have to death penalty, it has to be onyl in cases where guilt is absolute. I don't know that our system can guarantee that.

I fear that speeding up the process would increase the error rate. I'm not comfortable with that.


Here's a question for those of you that are pro-death penalty. How about in regards to minors? Some of them have commited some pretty brutal crimes. At what age do we determine that all hope is lost and they should be written off as a lost cause. 18? 15? 12? Where would you draw the line?

I lean against the death penalty, but I think the Supreme Court did the right thing in setting 18 as the age of eligibility. It's the standard we're accustomed to accepting for adulthood even if there is some grey zone before and after that age.

(WB- I didn't hijack anything. I find the two to be very closely linked-and is part of MY view. TYVM)

Lizziebith-I'm not even going to have the discussion with you. I didn't judge a damn thing about you or anyone else, I just made my comments, you don't like them? Really that's just too bad. I don't like ALOT of things people here say and believe, I have to deal and just add what I have to say.... and I had no freaking clue it was a stupid song- TYVM to you too.

I find this notion that somehow at the magical age of 18 we are all of a sudden accountable or able to deal with the notion of being put to death for committing a brutal crime, to be completely ridiculous. The day before we turn 18, are we really any less aware and accountable? Of course not- I think it's an artificial line and an empty feel good notion that accounts to something illogical and useless. These minors were not found incompetent, they were found guilty, and sentenced according to their crime and the law. To now pretend that due to their age it's just not right is, IMO, a disingenuous notion. Now we get to support these savages for the rest of their lives- hell, by the time we get to the actual death penalty phase- how many of them are even still minors????

and since I don't give a damn that people don't like my relation between the two (I thought we were here to post our feelings and opinions on the subject- no one gets to tell me what a valid opinion is for me)- I find it especially ludicrous to whine about putting savage killers to death just because they were minors- yet we fight for the right to kill the unborn. Don't tell me the two have nothing to do with each other- this court decision....they say so many people say it's wrong to put a minor to death for commiting murder-if we are going to start making laws and decisions based on what is called a popular opinion- any of you choicers want to put that on the public polling block and see how it comes out? It simply makes no sense to me at all-

Why the hell do I even get into these stupid things- apparently I like tilting at windmills.

Bottom line MBC- there is no uber-magical date or age that makes us a lost cause, but being 17 should not make you exempt from being punished to the extent of the law when you have deliberately committed a crime that has a death penalty sentence as a possibility.

And I'm sorry you are disappointed- to me the two are very closely connected and so I used that in my posts- it was not an attempt to change the subject. It is MY opinion, and everyone who chooses to say they are not connected in their minds is free to do so- I can't- and I fail to see why I should then simply shut up and say nothing just because I have that view......I thought we wanted all sorts of views here, including my minority view and I am just as disappointed that people think it is ok to stifle MY view because they do not hold with it- :(

My #1 problem with the death penalty is that our justice system is another form of class warfare. Rich murderers go golfing and poor murderers get to fry. I *know* innocent poor men have been executed, but has there ever been an innocent rich man put to death in this country?

I don't think anyone has told anyone else to shut up, at least in this forum. However, I personally don't find ad hominem attacks useful for anything but starting fights. And frankly I don't have time for a fight right now.

Fair enough. Let me ask you though, if a 12 year old is guilty of murdering someone, are you in favor of killing them? We, as a society, have determined that someone who is under 18 isn't capable of making a decision to vote, sign a binding legal contract, or have a cigarette.

Nephy, if I didn't want opposing viewpoints, I wouldn't have started the thread. I wanted those viewpoints to focus on the topic at hand though. The sections of your posts that focused on the death penalty were welcome contributions, even if I don't agree with them. You aren't the only one in this thread that is pro-death penalty. Others have stated the same view and received no backlash whatsoever. So this isn't a case of your views being stifled. It's simply a matter of wanting to stay on topic.

It's been shown time and again that the families of murder victims do not feel the closure from the death penalty that they expect. So, it fails as a deterent because of the necessity of a long process. It fails as a method of retribution as people are not satisfied by it. And it carries a very real risk of wrongly killing an innocent person. Those three bullet points are more than enough for me to call it completely useless and irresponsible.

And I'll never understand the mindset of someone who is so pro-life being able to support the death penalty when the person involved may be a totally innocent life. Death is death.

I'm on the fence about the death penalty. There's still too great of a chance that an innocent person will die. But I think if the person comes out and admits it and has zero remorse s/he should. Going to prison is supposed to be a punishment, a place to sit and think about what you did. Someone with no remorse is just wasting tax payers money.

I'm glad the Court set the age of 18 as the youngest age one can "qualify" for it. While I don't think there is a *magic age* it is the legal age to vote and join the military. I also thinks this stops the slipperly slope of how young is too young to receive it.

#1- I think they have to be tried as adults before the death penalty can be used. Right? If a 12 year old murders people and is tried as an adult under our code of law and they sentence them to death- would I fight it? No. Does it make me comfortable? No. But I don't feel comfortable setting a precedent that just because you are YOUNG means you can kill without threat of the maximum extent of the law.

To ME it is part of the topic at hand! To prattle on about caring about this court decision based on some sort of concern for the age of the people receiving the death penalty plays into a larger picture for me that I have talked about. I am not making this an abortion debate- I am discussing the topic in the CONTEXT that I view it through. I don't care if I was the only pro-death penalty person here- but I still fail to see why people want to tell me what context I can discuss this in. It's frustrating and I am trying to not let it get to me- see- if you decide it is valid to the topic, it is welcome, but if you decide it is not part of the topic I am unwelcome- it doesn't matter if it IS part o the topic to me! I always bring it back to the death penalty- and I am not derailing or trying to make this about something other than it is- but I am trying to discuss it in the context I view it through-

bah- forget it.

There is a distinct difference to me between "maybe" (especially when they are found guilty through the course of the law) and "most certainly innocent" in regards to the abortion issue.

But in order to not digress-

Does someone have any accurate (as non-biased as possible) stats on how many people have been executed who were later exonerated? I still don't buy this notion that we are going along willy nilly killing innocent people with the death penalty.

Why bother with a trial and penalty phase if we are then just going to freak out at the notion that "maybe" someone was not guilty-

How many do you need? How many of your loved ones would need to be wrongly executed for you to be outraged?



One is one too many.

...emotional guilt trips are not the point here- I guarantee you the families of murder victims are sick of the killers languishing in prison as well. Why is the outrage of a convicted murderers family more valid than the outrage of the victims family???


The question still stands.

Quite untrue. Most victims' families find themselves angrier when waiting for the murderer to die. Most victims' families who isntead of wallowing in their anger, go to the prison to meet the murderer feel better afterwards. The idea of "closure through death penalty" is a load of crap. It just encourages the continuing of the anger rather than letting the families actually work through it in constructive ways.

I think the outrage of a conviction and execution of a non-murderer is the point here. There is no less outrage when Joe Citizen commits a murder. But society has little control over that particular act. But it's well within society's control to prevent the state-sanctioned killing of innocent men.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ure/index.html

Excellent article at salon.com regarding victims' families. Unfortunately, you'll have to click on the "one day pass" thing and sit through a short commercial (and then probably click the link again), but it's a good read.

you're making a pretty strong generaliztion here- some families only gain that closure when the penalty is enforced.

Ugh on this whole thread. No offense to anyone but this thread's a drag.
It's an important subject to discuss, but we've been there and back again with the same cast of Middle Earth dwellers.
I'm movin' on to other LoT attractions.
:)

meh- I can't disagree with that.

More and more evidence is showing that that's a myth, that those that do find "closure" are the rare exception, not the rule.

so you would rather support killers for life than take them out of the system by using the death penalty?

Yes. And I'm not even going into the discussion about which costs more. Finances have nothing to do with my stance.

from where I stand the stance I see is some sort of worry about the vague possibility of getting the wrong guy- what about when it is certainly not the wrong guy?

*sigh*

Read my post. 1) Ineffective deterrent 2) Ineffective form of retribution 3) far more than vague possiblity of wrongful death (see MBC's stats). Pointless and imprecise.

I did read your post- I asked a different question, however I withdraw it. Pointless to proceed with it at this point.

It would not be ineffective deterrent if used quickly upon completion of the full course of the law.

Look- I am not all gung ho throwing parties when someone is executed. It's an unpleasant business- but I think if you start removing it completely you have a problem.

I have a headache after reading all that. I'd kill for some Advil right now.

That post is my answer. I'm against it period, partly because you can't draw a line between "positive" and "maybe", so it's not worth the risk. As for quick completeion, that's just not an option. Sure, if there was some magic way that we could be 100% sure, and whisk someone off to the gas chamber, then that's one thing. But it's not possible, and too many times, the lengthy appeals process exhonerates wrongly convicted people who would have been killed had the process been quicker. It's an impossible thing to solve. Speed it up, and the likelihood of making a mistake increases. Slow it down and the point becomes moot. So now you're just killing for the gratification of the victims' families which brings me to my third point, that it doesn't even satisfy that need.

I don't care if you catch the guy in the act and thus can be sure that he murdered someone. Murdering him in return is not right. Taking a human life is God's province alone. No war, no self-defense, no retailiation makes it right. It may be necessary to do so (in the instance of self-defense, for example), but necessity doesn't make it right.

So, my personal stance is not based on innocent people being executed (though they are), or whether the death penalty is a deterrent (it's not), or whether victims' families feel no closure (they generally don't), or whether it's more expensive to execute someone than to support them for life in prison (it is), or whether the death penalty is unfairly applied to poor people and people of color (it is). It's based on the fact that, according to my personal moral values, it's absolutely, positively morally wrong.

You and I are in total agreement, iSm.

So, do I win anything for "worst idea for a thread topic" ? ;)

No, it's ok. Just because GC doesn't want to read this or Neph is getting a little hot under the collar, does not mean you shouldn't post provocative threads.

When starting the LoT, we considered not having a "political" forum at all, as the conversations tend to veer from cool swankness. In the end, however, we decided that we would certainly not make it a highlight of these boards, but to deny any discussion of the real world would also be less than fully swanky.

I don't understand why people feel that beliefs have to be consistent - why can't I believe on thing in one situation and it's opposite in another? I hold many inconsistent beliefs - so?

::shrug::

I have oft vacillated on the issue at hand. I used a big word, but now I'm not sure if I spelled it right, so I could look stupid right now. Oh, well.

I have never consider the act of killing to be equivalent to the act of murder. Murder involves lawlessness and typically malice. Killing in and of itself does not. As ISM pointed out, killing in self defense is often a necessity. There are many such examples, none of which are pleasant to think about, but many, many are necessary and justifyable.

That being said, I see the death penalty not as being lawless, though many disagree with the law. I disagree with a lot of laws. I do not think the death penalty in the current form is acceptable. I do not think, however, that we want to get into games of comparing what we do here in America to other countries, as there are things throughout the world that are not in line what what we do here. For example, I believe that the US is one of only 5 countries that permits abortion with basically no restrictions. Does this mean we should change this law because our views are out of line with most of the rest of the world? I would suspect most here would say no. What the rest of the world has to say about it sways me not.

Sadly, the justice system in America has gone the way of the Sophists in Greece, particularly in high profile cases. You couldn't pay me enough to follow (though not a death penalty case) the Michael Jackson trial. Didn't care to follow Scott Peterson or OJ, either.

I suppose that's a big, big way of saying that I am still not sure what I think about it. It would seem to me in particularly eggregious cases, such as will be the case with the recently apprehended BTK killer, it would be warranted and even desirable.

There's a deterrent.