The death sentence.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Here is a CNN news article. There are a number of articles on the web about Illinois. I remember it occuring. I think there were better ways of handling it, such as retrials or take them on individual cases.

Here is the numbers you were looking for...

Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976

This is supposed to indicate that race is a motivating factor in the death sentence...

JD... thanks, those were great breakdowns. Is there also one that gives percentage of blacks commiting capital crimes who receive the death penalty, compared with whites commmiting capital crimes who receive the death penalty? This is my understanding of where the real desparity is - and the part that would be so troubling if there truly is a desparity.

Maybe that desparity isn't so great... from the numbers you show, the race of victims is very much in keeping with the general population - so that makes sense... a criminal mostly picking out a random target. It's also interesting to see the rackial makeup of those executed and on death row...

Meanwhile, I'm gonna have to learn how to start finding that information. Does it usually take awhile? Like multiple searches, and checking numerous search results? Does it take 30, 40 or 60 minutes to turn up info like that or can you do it in 2 or 5 (I'm guessing with you and many other 'mooters, the latter - with me, the former. )

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Yes. However, if you accept that it's inevitable that a mistake will be made at some point in the future, this translates as "it's better to definitely execute an innocent person than maybe have some guilty persons commit murder at some point in the future."

Is it right to punish a person for a crime they haven't yet committed??

EDIT: You can't say from statistics like this that there is definitely a race bias in sentencing, but it would be hard to prove that anyway. However, these stats would be consistent with the proposition that there is such as bias, since the US population is 11% black.

Given the evidence we've seen over here about bias in the justice system, it would be surprising if there wasn't similar bias elsewhere.

The stats would be consistent with that view, but would not necessarily be evidence for it- they could just be reflection of the fact that African-Americans compose a greater proportion of criminals than some other segments of the population.

I hasten to add that I do think that there is a racial bias in both charging and sentencing in Britain, Canada and the UK at least, and probably most other countries as well ( the race being discriminated against varies), but that it is also true that minorities tend to have a higher crime rate, due, I would guess, mostly to poverty.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Good point, Rian. Not the position I would expect from you, though, since I know your stance on biblical things... and there is a commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

I'm very surprised that I surprised you! I guess you don't quite know my "stance on biblical things" as much as you thought Isn't the "stereotypical Christian" (that unreal amalgamation of often inaccurate ideas) usually thought to be FOR the death penalty? I thought that was the stereotype, but maybe I was wrong.

Anyway, Val answered the point about the commandment very well, IMO, when he said:

by Valandil
The best translation (as I understand it) of the original text to 'Thou shalt not kill' is 'You shall not commit murder'. So it's generally not taken as a prohibition against either killing in war or execution of criminals (because God also commanded those very same Israelites to do both of the latter).

The idea/meaning behind the word "murder" is, IIRC, the picture of an individual, acting on his/her own for selfish/individual motives/gain, killing by "lying in wait" for the victim - IOW, deliberately planning.

And I'm not 100% sure the death penalty is right, either, but I think that it is the better of 2 difficult choices. I remember a few years ago, when we had to make an extremely complicated/important medical decision for our son with the handicaps, that the doctor told us basically that there was no "right" choice here - we just had to look at each choice and weigh the ramifications, and make the choice that we thought was best. I think it's a similar thing with the death penalty.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
if they are making a statement they are saying its ok to kill people. is that the statement you want to make? personally I think we shouldnt be using deaths to make any points. if you are going to have capital punishment it should be for other reasons. we can argue about the deterent factor and to eliminate them from society but to make a statement??

Oh, come on, I don't mean "make a statement" like I'm making a "fashion statement" or something!

What I mean is that EVERY law that a society passes "makes a statement" about what a society thinks is valuable/important. If there is a law against stealing, then it's obvious that the society thinks stealing is wrong. And if the penalty for stealing is less than the penalty for murder, then it's obvious that the society thinks murder is a worse thing than stealing. That's what I meant.

A murderer can choose to not murder, BTW. They are not forced to their death. There can be a law and a penalty for breaking the law on the books, and if everyone chose to not murder, then the penalty would never be carried out. It's about choice, and consequences of choice. And yes, again, there can be some mistakes, but the INTENT of the society is to be careful and fair, and I think the percentage of innocent people that get the death penalty is very small. It's not "fair" to BE murdered by a murderer, either I think there is a big difference between a government death penalty execution with the intent of being careful and fair, and the coldblooded choice of a murderer to kill someone for personal gain.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Oh, come on, I don't mean "make a statement" like I'm making a "fashion statement" or something!

What I mean is that EVERY law that a society passes "makes a statement" about what a society thinks is valuable/important. If there is a law against stealing, then it's obvious that the society thinks stealing is wrong. And if the penalty for stealing is less than the penalty for murder, then it's obvious that the society thinks murder is a worse thing than stealing. That's what I meant.

A murderer can choose to not murder, BTW. They are not forced to their death. There can be a law and a penalty for breaking the law on the books, and if everyone chose to not murder, then the penalty would never be carried out. It's about choice, and consequences of choice. And yes, again, there can be some mistakes, but the INTENT of the society is to be careful and fair, and I think the percentage of innocent people that get the death penalty is very small. It's not "fair" to BE murdered by a murderer, either I think there is a big difference between a government death penalty execution with the intent of being careful and fair, and the coldblooded choice of a murderer to kill someone for personal gain.

Rian, why in the world arent you the president of the united states? ...

[Rían]

Originally posted by sun-star
[B]If we all agree that taking a human life is wrong (which of course we do), and this is something society will utterly condemn, isn't it hypocritical, in a way, of that society to respond to illegal killing with legal killing? The crime being condemned is murder - but the punishment is itself a kind of murder. A kind which, as you say, is neither malicious or selfish, but which is none the less carried out deliberately and in cold blood. For me, that seems almost to condone the very thing you're trying to condemn. If human life is valuable beyond measure, this must apply to every human life - I don't see that you can ever forfeit the value of your life by committing a crime, however terrible. Life in prison is also a way of the state requiring someone's life (when a life sentence does actually mean life), but it doesn't try to give the state, and the fallible people of which a state is made up, the right to choose who should live and who should die. That's the punishment I prefer for murder.

I see what you're saying, and please read my post a few posts up about "no right choice". Also the one above this - to me, there is still a huge difference between a state-ordered execution carried out humanely (none of JD's brain-sucking-thru-straws, altho I can certainly understand someone wanting to do it) with the penalty for the offense known ahead of time, and what an individual murderer chooses to do. This is a tough issue, but I think the death penalty is the better of two difficult choices. There's also - I don't quite know how to word this - a sense of "you need to deal with what you did, because your life will be taken from you by this date" - IOW, almost a forcing of the offender to consider the crime more, when there is a death penalty. With life in prison, you have free room and board the rest of your life, altho it is an awful life. I prob. didn't word that well, but it was just a thought on another aspect of the death penalty.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Valandil

Meanwhile, I'm gonna have to learn how to start finding that information. Does it usually take awhile? Like multiple searches, and checking numerous search results? Does it take 30, 40 or 60 minutes to turn up info like that or can you do it in 2 or 5 (I'm guessing with you and many other 'mooters, the latter - with me, the former. )

thats what god created google for. Its not hard at all.

[Rían]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Rian, why in the world arent you the president of the united states? ...

I'm terrible at history and geography, and I hate politics! But thanks anyway

I remember reading somewhere that the people that wanted to be leaders should be disqualified, and only those that didn't want to be a leader should be elected. Kind of a funny idea, but there's definitely a good point in there - so many leaders are in it for the power and attention, and so few for the good of others (at least it seems that way )

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
thats what god created google for.

Was that on the eighth day?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Whether I agree with them or disagree is a mute point.

"Moot" point! The expression is "moot point"!
(rather apropos for this discussion board, innit?)
[/language police mode]

[Rían]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
Rian, why in the world arent you the president of the united states? ...

Besides, I'm a woman, and I'd end up declaring war once a month .... *runs and hides from feminists*

[Falagar]

You know RÃ*an, of the last 9 posts you've posted 7.

Just to state my opinion, I'm mostly against the death-penalty for the reasons already mentioned.

[Radagast The Brown]

In Israel (where I live, if you didn't know) there was, I believe, 1 death sentence from its indepedence, in 1948. It was for Eichman, a nazi, who was responsible of dreadful actions.
There is a law in Israel that permits it, but only when someone does a horrible thing.
Even when a terrorist that murdered many is captured, or when the murderer of our Prime Minister was captured, they weren't sentenced to death.
I don't think you should actually murder a murderer, unless he killed many, many people, delibarately. So I generally agree with my goverment.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Yes. However, if you accept that it's inevitable that a mistake will be made at some point in the future, this translates as "it's better to definitely execute an innocent person than maybe have some guilty persons commit murder at some point in the future."

Is it right to punish a person for a crime they haven't yet committed??

EDIT: You can't say from statistics like this that there is definitely a race bias in sentencing, but it would be hard to prove that anyway. However, these stats would be consistent with the proposition that there is such as bias, since the US population is 11% black.

Given the evidence we've seen over here about bias in the justice system, it would be surprising if there wasn't similar bias elsewhere.

A judge and jury shouldn't look at the 'race' makeup on death row right now, compare that to the census statistics and use that to determine how this person is sentenced. The crime should be the only thing that sends him/her to that punishment.

You'd need to find statistics on types of crime and what 'race' commits them. I don't even know were you'd find that information, but I'm sure it's out there someplace.

To just say that a prison population should represent a smaller population of the country doesn't make sense, since people don't commit crimes according to whether they're of a certain 'race' or not.

criminal #1: "oh, damn! I wanted to rob a house today, but according to these statistics I'll have to wait until the population for my 'race' in prisons goes down before I can do that. "

criminal #2: "Yippee! I can go rob that house because the percentage of my 'race' in prisons has gone down! Aren't I lucky!"

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Besides, I'm a woman, and I'd end up declaring war once a month .... *runs and hides from feminists*

*gives Rian a good smack*



Oh, sorry Rian, it's that time of the month for me.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Also the one above this - to me, there is still a huge difference between a state-ordered execution carried out humanely ...

Rian, I agree that there's a difference between murder and the death penalty.

In law, ignorance is no defence, so we can't assume that people know the penalties ahead of time. Also, I think it was established a few pages back that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent.

As for considering your crime, you could easily argue that spending the rest of your natural life in a cage leaves more opportunity for that and, in spiritual terms, for redemption.

To me, the moral case lies with OUR actions, not with murderers'. We have responsibility for what WE do first and foremost, long before we have any kind of responsibility for what other people do. When we carry out the death penalty, what is the nature of our actions?

On top of this are the consequences of our actions: the inevitability that we will get it wrong, the bias in the system which may mean that we're systematically executing one group of people more than others, and the fact that we're, in part, punishing people for crimes they haven't yet committed.

Nice to see you back in top form, by the way

Originally posted by Ruinel
To just say that a prison population should represent a smaller population of the country doesn't make sense, since people don't commit crimes according to whether they're of a certain 'race' or not.

[Artanis]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
To me, the moral case lies with OUR actions, not with murderers'. We have responsibility for what WE do first and foremost, long before we have any kind of responsibility for what other people do.

I agree perfectly. To me the death penalty is like a well-planned murder carried out with cold blood, and I find nothing careful or humanly about it.

Why should anyone of us have the right to put ourselves in a position to decide whether another person has the right to live or not? Yes, I know that all murderers have placed themselves in that position, but we believe that to be wrong, is it not then also wrong for us? The death penalty is hypocritical, imo.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
so you are saying its ok to kill these people because our system is too imperfect to keep criminals from getting out of jails? I just have a problem with ANY statement that starts with ITS OK TO KILL INNOCENTS BECAUSE.... Maybe its just me though.

yes... i try to always put pragmatism over idealism

as i said... in our real world it is much more likely that a criminal will get out and perform a violent crime again than that an innocent person will be put to death

it is a lesser of two evils in my eyes... imperfect, for sure, but preferable

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
think about this though...
what if we didnt put some guilty guy to the death penalty, and he gets loose; and kills innocent people.
and this: we could put this guy to death; and risk the chance of him bieng innocent; to prevent innocent people from bieng killed if this guy escaped.
I think thats whats bjenkins was talking about; that its better to risk it bieng an innocent guy, than to risk havig other innocents die.

that's why i'm voting for hector... he understands my twisted logic

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Yes. However, if you accept that it's inevitable that a mistake will be made at some point in the future, this translates as "it's better to definitely execute an innocent person than maybe have some guilty persons commit murder at some point in the future."

Is it right to punish a person for a crime they haven't yet committed??

in my mind, both ways will lead to the death of innocents... the question is, which way is likely to lead to more deaths of innocents

and as i said... if true "life sentences" were available... the death penalty would be uneccessary