NEWS-girl killed by mechanic in FL.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
No thats an old pro argument for killing people but its been disproven. The amount of money poured into captial punishment cases and the special housing and all that is still a lot more then putting someone in jail for life.

Yup, yup. Which is why I asked SGH if she liked paying MORE for the appeals (as opposed to feeding/clothing etc for a life sentence).

[Ruinel]

For those of you who said I was 'sick' for saying this guy should be hanged from the highest tree... go stuff yourselves. Do you really think I would hang this guy? No, I wouldn't take someone's life like that. Is the death penalty a deterent? No, it's proven that it's not. Is it more expensive to put this bastard in prison for the rest of his life? No, probably not.

The death penalty really only serves to ...
a) remove one truely repulsive being off the face of the earth, and
b) give the public a sense of security that this person will never find another 11 year old girl and do the things to the next girl that he did to this one.

[The Gaffer]

So, those of you who agree with the death penalty, how do you feel about putting innocent people to death?

[Millane]

Originally posted by Ruinel
For those of you who said I was 'sick' for saying this guy should be hanged from the highest tree... go stuff yourselves. Do you really think I would hang this guy? No, I wouldn't take someone's life like that. Is the death penalty a deterent? No, it's proven that it's not. Is it more expensive to put this bastard in prison for the rest of his life? No, probably not.

i was actually more thinking of the "tear out his fingernails" comment, and yes thats sick, im not going to use any legal reasons to support my views because they are based on emotions, i think that this person obviously doesnt value life and thinks he has the right to take it away well he can die by his beliefs...

I am opposed to the death penalty. For me, you either think murder and torture are wrong, or you don't. To say it's totally wrong to kill an innocent person and perfectly right to kill a guilty one is a triumph of emotion over reason, and the beginning of a dangerous train of thought, IMO.

nice logic but i think it would be implausable to try and take out all emotion when trying to judge someone for their actions, after all most of our laws are based upon emotion than reason, i would be disgusted that my daughter had died and the person who took her life was allowed to live. i dont think a life in prison (a life more than the little girl had ) is suitable punishment, it is a life nonetheless...
as for the cost of things i think it would become disgusting when we resorted to the death penalty just to save a few dollars, i think that evaluating human life in terms of money is wrong.

[sun-star]

SGH:
In this situation, what would you suggest should happen, or in any situation of cold blooded murder?

Murderers should go to prison, where their punishment can last another few decades instead of a few minutes. I have no problem with paying for murderers to be in prison, because I think it's a fitting punishment for them. But for me it's not about money, it's about society making a moral distinction between "good" killing (of offenders) and "bad" killing (of innocent people). It's shaky ethical ground to be on. There is also, of course, the possibility that someone has been wrongly convicted, or even (D.V.) that they may reform.

JD:
the death penalty in the US has nothing to do with emotion - it has to do with the severity of the crime. People outside US have no understanding what so ever of our justice system or our death penalty. Some of the comments from non-Americnas has made this perfectly clear…If they didn't tell Americans about OUR justice system - I wouldn't have to tell them they have no idea what they are talking about.

If I made it clear I was talking about the Japanese system, would that make you happier? The death penalty is the death penalty wherever it happens, and I oppose it. And by the way, saying "it's OUR system so you can't question it" is about as emotive as you can get.

IIRC, the majority of Britons approve of the death penalty too. Makes no difference to me - I still think it's just plain wrong.

Millane:
nice logic but i think it would be implausable to try and take out all emotion when trying to judge someone for their actions, after all most of our laws are based upon emotion than reason.

Actually the opposite is true. Our justice system (by which I mean that in the West, before anyone gets all nationalistic) is designed as far as is humanly possible to remove emotion from the process - hence trial by jury, double jeopardy, the right of appeal etc. Of course that doesn't always work, and of course some politicians will always try to whip up public feeling to make a law*. But we should and we do try to keep emotion out of the treatment of offenders.


*and since we need to clarify these things ad inifinitum now, I mean this happens everywhere in the world

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
So, those of you who agree with the death penalty, how do you feel about putting innocent people to death?

I think that happens less often than not. I think at least in the US, that the appeals process is so lengthy, that usually a guilty person isn't put to death and eventually dies in prison, at least in most states, with the exception of Florida and Texas, who lead the states in executions. If an innocent person were to be executed that would be tragic. But it is more complicated than that. If a person is tried and convicted and sentenced to death, that indicates that the proof of guilt was there. If a person is tried and convicted and executed and then found to be innocent years later, that would, as I said be tragic, but I think it's unlikely or rare. And with today's science, forenzics and DNA testing, it is virtually impossible to get the wrong perpetrator.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Murderers should go to prison, where their punishment can last another few decades instead of a few minutes.

That would be fine, if prison were such an awful place for these people. But considering the murder of a child especially, prison isn't the awful place it should be for them. They have a bed, three meals a day, tvs, and exercise equipment, all at the expense of the tax payer. why should they have these comforts after what they have done?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
I think that happens less often than not. I think at least in the US, that the appeals process is so lengthy, that usually a guilty person isn't put to death and eventually dies in prison, at least in most states, with the exception of Florida and Texas, who lead the states in executions. If an innocent person were to be executed that would be tragic. But it is more complicated than that. If a person is tried and convicted and sentenced to death, that indicates that the proof of guilt was there. If a person is tried and convicted and executed and then found to be innocent years later, that would, as I said be tragic, but I think it's unlikely or rare. And with today's science, forenzics and DNA testing, it is virtually impossible to get the wrong perpetrator.

It's hard to say though. One thing that has turned me more against the death penalty is this. Illinois does not have a LOT of people on Death Row - and a few years ago, ELEVEN of them were exonerated within a short time span of 'their' crimes by newer, more sophisticated DNA testing. That's scary!

Also - any way you look at the demographics, the Death Penalty is applied unfairly. Look at convictions for the same crime, and a black person is far more likely to receive the death penalty than a white person.

Further, our criminal justice system has other flaws. Not just attorneys, but even lab technicians are valued by the conviction rates they achieve. We had a recent case where a lab technician had not disclosed all information gathered on numbers of cases over the years - to increase conviction rates on their cases.

Then there's the way police interrogation is done at times - not always, but in some cases, confessions are still beaten out of young - often minority - men.

Lawyers who with-hold evidence that could clear a person they're trying to convict - no penalty. Defendants cheated in this way - sometimes may lose their lives.

We are imperfect people and are not capable of making perfect judgements or creating a perfect criminal justice system. Therefore, I think we need to with-hold ultimate punishment.

OTOH, I could see it for some of the worst offenders where there's really no doubt about guilt. I'm so glad Tim McVeigh was no longer among the living on September 11, 2001. Our more irresponsible media would have converged on him like buzzards - and his commentary would have been the LAST thing our country needed at that time.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Valandil
It's hard to say though. One thing that has turned me more against the death penalty is this. Illinois does not have a LOT of people on Death Row - and a few years ago, ELEVEN of them were exonerated within a short time span of 'their' crimes by newer, more sophisticated DNA testing. That's scary!

Ok, so it worked for them. Isn't that what you would want?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Ok, so it worked for them. Isn't that what you would want?

But what if that evidence is not there to clear someone? What if that technology had not yet been developed? What about all those who passed through Death Row before the current technology was developed?

What about all the other points I made?

Those of us who are white, we mostly don't have to think much about this. For many who are black, ( a much higher percentage of those around them are affected by our criminal justice system, including the death penalty) - with family members, friends, etc.

(EDIT: to attempt to clarify the portion of my statement now in parenthises - yes, 'stun' - we do often need to clarify ad infinitum around here, don't we? Guess that's why the Ents got so long-winded! )

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Valandil
It's hard to say though. One thing that has turned me more against the death penalty is this. Illinois does not have a LOT of people on Death Row - and a few years ago, ELEVEN of them were exonerated within a short time span of 'their' crimes by newer, more sophisticated DNA testing. That's scary!

And that's great if they were innocent, but don't you think it was more scary 20 years ago when this technology didn't exist? That's the great part about it. It can free you or condem you.

Also - any way you look at the demographics, the Death Penalty is applied unfairly. Look at convictions for the same crime, and a black person is far more likely to receive the death penalty than a white person.

This I disagree with. If any example can be used here, it is the O.J. Simpson trial that I watched from day 1 to the end. I have never seen a bigger mockery made of the justice system, that from the start turned everything in favor of the defendant, from replacing the original jury with alternates, to useing high profile defense attorneys, to delibrately playing the race card to influence a minority jury.

Further, our criminal justice system has other flaws. Not just attorneys, but even lab technicians are valued by the conviction rates they achieve. We had a recent case where a lab technician had not disclosed all information gathered on numbers of cases over the years - to increase conviction rates on their cases.

That is sad, but that isn't the case most of the time IMO.

Then there's the way police interrogation is done at times - not always, but in some cases, confessions are still beaten out of young - often minority - men.

Again, that is unfortunate, but not the norm. As has been said, the system is not perfect. There are corrupt cops, corrupt lawyers, corrupt judges and corrupt technicians and it isn't always a minority thing. It can happen to anyone that gets the wrong law enforcement people.

Lawyers who with-hold evidence that could clear a person they're trying to convict - no penalty. Defendants cheated in this way - sometimes may lose their lives.

Again, this is not supposed to happen. It is a thing called discovery and the attorneys are instructed to turn evidence over to one another, but not all evidence will be put before the jury. This is to be agreed upon by both sides or to be the order of the judge, IIRC.

OTOH, I could see it for some of the worst offenders where there's really no doubt about guilt. I'm so glad Tim McVeigh was no longer among the living on September 11, 2001. Our more irresponsible media would have converged on him like buzzards - and his commentary would have been the LAST thing our country needed at that time.

You sound as though you would have been sorry for him had that happened. He was a terrorist. He killed over 100+ people, including children. He hardly deserves sympathy IMO. He probably would have enjoyed 9/11 and would have loved to speak his mind on it to the media.

[The Gaffer]

* agrees with sun-star *

Isn't justice supposed to be blind, which means impassive, unemotional.

Originally posted by Valandil
We are imperfect people and are not capable of making perfect judgements or creating a perfect criminal justice system. Therefore, I think we need to with-hold ultimate punishment.

You said it better than I could. It is inevitable that mistakes will be made, and innocent persons will be killed. I think it is worse to kill one innocent person than let all the murderers in creation live out their lives in jail.

Given that biases exist within the system, and we seem to be in agreement that no system is perfect, having the death penalty makes it impossible to set things straight further down the line.

BTW, I don't see how OJ Simpson claiming racial prejudice has anything at all to do with how black men are more likely to get the death penalty than white men.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Since minority injustice in the justice system was brought up, the O.J. Simpson case I used as just one example of how that isn't always the way it happens.

Money may also buy a gulty person's freedom which I believe was probably a big factor in that case.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
And that's great if they were innocent, but don't you think it was more scary 20 years ago when this technology didn't exists? That's the great part about it. It can free you or condem you.

Exactly what I was saying... that IS scary! So how can we claim that it rarely happens that we accidentally execute the innocent? For more, see my response to Dunedain above. Remember too that the evidence to clear may not always be present... convictions can be made on less than total physical evidence.

This I disagree with. If any example can be used here, it is the O.J. Simpson trial that I watched from day 1 to the end. I have never seen a bigger mockery made of the justice system, that from the start turned everything in the favor of the defendant, from replacing the original jury with alternates, to useing high profile defense attorneys, to delibrately playing the race card to influence a minority jury.

THIS was the one that was not the norm. Most black defendants don't get the treatment OJ got (and that WAS a mockery - and a travesty). It was even speculated that some who were black saw this as 'payback'... realizing he was likely guilty, but knowing that in SO MANY OTHER cases, an innocent black man had been found guilty. Again, even apart from that speculation, this was a very singular case - with very singular treatment. It's not the general rule.

That is sad, but that isn't the case most of the time IMO.

But is this not a call for some kind of reform? And shouldn't we at least be very judicious in letting this evidence lead us to convict another? Or at least in applying the death penalty?

Again, that is unfortunate, but not the norm. As has been said, the system is not perfect. There are corrupt cops, corrupt lawyers, corrupt judges and corrupt technicians and it isn't always a minority thing, it can happen to anyone that gets the wrong law enforcement people.

And then what?

Again, this is not supposed to happen. It is a thing called discovery and the attorneys are instructed to turn evidence over to one another, but not all evidence will be put before the jury. This is to be agreed upon by both sides or to be the order of the judge, IIRC.

What happens to an attorney who doesn't follow these instructions though? A slap on the wrist at worst. IF they ever get caught. Meanwhile they enhance their careers and boost political aspirations thereby.

You sound as though you would have been sorry for him had that happened. He was a terrorist.He killed over 100+ people, including children. He hardly deserves sympathy IMO. He probably would have enjoyed 9/11 and would have loved to speak his mind on it to the media.

Please re-read my post. I am not really sorry for Tim McVeigh! He got what he deserved. I was stating that if he HAD been here - he would have drawn media attention - and WOULD have loved it - and that we didn't need to hear that then.

I will say though, that in a sense I do feel sorry for Tim McVeigh. He was no demon - he was a man, and he did an awful thing for which the penalty he received was less than just desserts could have possibly been. My only wish for him would be that he could have found peace for his twisted, tortured soul... but it doesn't appear that he did. Wasn't it amusing how, when he presented portions of the poem, Incanus, as a final statement, the media on the scene at first thought it was his original work and that it was so profound. *sigh* It's regretful that he didn't prepare to meet his Maker before going before Him.

[The Gaffer]

For sure. A case of one bias overcoming another, perhaps.

But surely just because one black person didn't get sent to jail (whether or not he was guilty) doesn't invalidate the proposition that black people in general are treated differently by the justice system.

It's always difficult with these issues, because you've got the facts of the particular case on the one hand, and a bunch of statistics on the other. However, stats can tell you where to look for biases. The UK has been shocked recently by some high-profile instances of racism in the justice system which pretty much confirmed what is suggested by the statistics around sentencing policies (e.g. black, and specifically afro-caribbean men, are more likely to get custodial sentences than the population in general).

EDIT - cross post with Valandil.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
That is sad, but that isn't the case most of the time

Again, that is unfortunate, but not the norm.

Again, this is not supposed to happen.

SGH you seem to be trying to rationalize killing innocent people by saying well gee that’s too bad but it doesn’t happen that often so its ok. If so is that really what you want to do? That’s the impression Im getting here. The bottom line is youll never have a perfect system in an imperfect universe so if you decide we have the right to kill guilty people then that means you WILL kill innocent people too. Its just a fact. And does it make sense to kill one innocent person in response to the killing of another innocent? Isnt one innocent death enough?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
SGH you seem to be trying to rationalize killing innocent people by saying well gee that’s too bad but it doesn’t happen that often so its ok. If so is that really what you want to do? That’s the impression Im getting here. The bottom line is youll never have a perfect system in an imperfect universe so if you decide we have the right to kill guilty people then that means you WILL kill innocent people too. Its just a fact. And does it make sense to kill one innocent person in response to the killing of another innocent? Isnt one innocent death enough?

I am saying that this may have happened much more in the past, but with DNA, and forenzic science it is unlikely that an innocent person is put to death today.

[Nurvingiel]

Unlikely, but still possible. If one innocent person is killed, this invalidates the whole system IMO.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
So, those of you who agree with the death penalty, how do you feel about putting innocent people to death?

I think this man shouldn't have put an innocent girl to death.

Living in England, do you understand the process here for someone who is sentenced to death? Do you have the figures on how many innocent people have been executed under the death penalty? And how many guilty? Just currious if you have these figures or if you're just throwing out a question to continue a conversation here.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by sun-star
If I made it clear I was talking about the Japanese system, would that make you happier? The death penalty is the death penalty wherever it happens, and I oppose it. And by the way, saying "it's OUR system so you can't question it" is about as emotive as you can get.

No- because it's pretty clear that when people post here - most of the time they are pointing the finger at the US.

Actually the opposite is true. Our justice system (by which I mean that in the West, before anyone gets all nationalistic) is designed as far as is humanly possible to remove emotion from the process - hence trial by jury, double jeopardy, the right of appeal etc. Of course that doesn't always work, and of course some politicians will always try to whip up public feeling to make a law*. But we should and we do try to keep emotion out of the treatment of offenders.

Well when people stop criticizing the US every chance they get on things - I will stop being defensive,. As for being nationistic - if your country was constantly criticized and complained about - you would act the same way. It's not nationalistic - it's defending the country from people's erroneous statements who have NO understanding of what goes on here.

We have the death penaly - it the decision of the people of America. You guys can worry about YOUR countries, instead of always trying to look over our fence and judge us. When you live here - you have a say in our way of life.