Just Another Political Post.

[kandrathe]

...
Personally, I am more interested in the question of live in prison vs. the death penalty - how much more of a deterrant is one vs. the other?  How cruel or humane is one vs. the other?  Should public taxes be used to keep dangerous offendors alive for 50+ years?
[right][snapback]89850[/snapback][/right]

I think if the crime is an abomination and there is overwhelming evidence then death is a reasonable solution. If there is any doubt then the State should not seek or advocate the death penalty. I'd be in favor of a prisoner labor system (chain gang) if a way could be found to keep it from being abused. There is also the added deterrent between serving hard time of the past, and the serving time now days. Unfortunately, in many juristictions drifters and vagrants were rounded up and pinned with lengthy jail terms to inflate the free work force, which in turn lined the pockets of the prison officials, law enforcement, local businesses, and everyone else involved.

Some revivals of this concept in Ohio, Cincinnati Enquirer - Chain gang begins its work And, the controversial and extremes of Joe Arpaio. But, again, I'm not totally convinced that criminals really consider getting caught, and if they do not think about that then death or tough prisons are not a deterrant.

[--Pete]

Hi,

My chances of being the victim of some criminal exists whether we execute murderers or not.  My chances of being wrongly executed by the state exist only if the state executes people.
[right][snapback]89850[/snapback][/right]

You are missing a fundamental point. Most true criminals (i.e., robber, muggers, etc.) have almost a 100% recidivism rate. However, the probability of being the victim of one of these criminals after he is executed drops, amazingly, to zero. Indeed, the probability of being a victim of crime is directly proportional to the number of criminals in the areas you frequent. Now, there are two ways to reduce the number of criminals. The first is to have fewer people become criminals. This is accomplished by a combination of giving people more opportunity to make a crime free life for themselves and making crime too 'expensive' to pursue as a career. The second is to remove more people who have embraced crime from society. This is done by either incarcerating them or executing them. Given what I've said above about recidivism, the only two rational punishments for *real* criminals (and just who are and aren't in that category is a separate discussion) is life without parole and death. That is independent of what their crimes actually were. The principle here is not retribution, not punishment, but simply protecting society.

Does everyone consider the current system good enough, as Occhi does?

I do not consider the present system 'good enough'. In 2003 there were 1,381,259 violent crimes and 59 executions! That, to me, is not 'good enough' by a factor of 23,400 to 1.

Personally, I am more interested in the question of live in prison vs. the death penalty - how much more of a deterrent is one vs. the other?  How cruel or humane is one vs. the other?  Should public taxes be used to keep dangerous offendors alive for 50+ years?

Well, lets see. With a population of 291 million people and a traffic mortality rate of 40,000, the odds of getting killed in a traffic accident are are about three times higher per year than are your odds of getting executed for committing a violent crime. Do traffic fatalities deter driving? Then what makes you think that a one third as great a capital punishment probability will deter crime?

The effect of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime can only be determined if there is near a 100% of suffering that penalty if you commit a crime, and if that probability becomes common knowledge among that lower segment of society most likely to commit the crime.

So, asking if the death penalty is a deterrent can only be answered, "No, not in the manner it is (not) being implemented at present." And the cost of the death penalty argument is again bull#$%&. That cost is driven up by the arbitrary requirements that are imposed on the death penalty as opposed to, say, life without parole. Indeed, for an innocent man, the former is preferable to the latter, since the likelihood of his innocence being uncovered is greater if he is due to be executed than if he is doomed to rot in jail forever.

--Pete

[jahcs]

Personally, I am more interested in the question of live in prison vs. the death penalty - how much more of a deterrant is one vs. the other?  How cruel or humane is one vs. the other?  Should public taxes be used to keep dangerous offendors alive for 50+ years?

gekko
[right][snapback]89850[/snapback][/right]

I am partial to the Military sentence of "To be confined at hard labor for the length of your natural life" not "life without the possibility of parole, unless we need the room and decide to let you out."

Ironically enough, the military has death penalties for many more crimes than civilian courts too.

[Minionman]

3.  Deterrence isn't the issue with me, I can't deter a murder that already happened.  Justice and punishment is the issue.  I don't feel like feeding a murderer for the next 40 years of his or her life, I want to feed him or her to the worms. 
[right][snapback]89834[/snapback][/right]

"Dteerrence" is whether having the death penalty around convinces other people not to kill. That seems pretty obvious.

[Minionman]

Wrong again.  It is revenge, it is pest extermination, but it is most defnitely not entertainment.

I count "revenge" as entertainment because it's all about people's feelings. As in "someone's been killed in a really violent way, so we'll all at least enjoy thinking about that person screaming", or something along those lines. Again, picking any punishments that get the person out of society, somehow death penalty gets picked, seemingly because hearing about someone getting "torched" makes people feel better than hearing someone is "gone".

[Minionman]

So, asking if the death penalty is a deterrent can only be answered, "No, not in the manner it is (not) being implemented at present."  And the cost of the death penalty argument is again bull#$%&.  That cost is driven up by the arbitrary requirements that are imposed on the death penalty as opposed to, say, life without parole.  Indeed, for an innocent man, the former is preferable to the latter, since the likelihood of his innocence being uncovered is greater if he is due to be executed than if he is doomed to rot in jail forever.
[right][snapback]89858[/snapback][/right]

I partially support getting rid of death penalty because there are so few, so the cost per person goes up slightly per year, vs. someone's life or death hanging in the balance. If it seemed that death penalty reduces the chance of people getting killed, I'd be for it. Problem seems to be the people who get so caught up in the energy and anger of punishment that they don't think clearly about whether its actually worth it or can be improved.

Most important thing in the cases anyway seems to be getting most accurate whether someone committed the crime or not.

[Minionman]

Drunk drivers should be publicly executed if they kill somebody. First offense. Don't give them a chance to notch their bumper with a few more innocent people.

And if they paralyse somebody, they should have their own spine crushed. With a heavy blunt object.

Drinking and driving is a 100% preventable crime. It should never happen.

Stupid #$%&ing morons...
[right][snapback]89841[/snapback][/right]

Other people to do something nasty to are people who speed down residential streets just to get somewhere faster. Yes, the streets are empty, but a chance of me getting wqhacked by a car while crossing the street don't make upi for your getting somewhere fast by a long, long way. I don't want them killed, just roughed up enough to get the message. I've only been in one car accident, and no one was hurt, but that and being in frontof stopping cars is scary enough.;

[jahcs]

"Dteerrence" is whether having the death penalty around convinces other people not to kill.  That seems pretty obvious.
[right][snapback]89871[/snapback][/right]

Right. I believe Occhi's point, which I tend to agree with is justice - let the punishment fit the crime. It's not as much to deter others from commiting the crime but deterring that criminal from commiting the same crime on another while providing a sense of justice for the other parties involved.

If a person is wrongly executed it is not the Death Penalty that is at fault - it is the court system, the jury, the judge, our built in prejudices, what have you, that are at fault. Remember "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" should be the way it works. It's very sad and all to common for that not to be the case.

The conviction is where the "without a shadow of a doubt" comes in, not at the sentencing hearing. If a guilty verdict is rendered by the jury they can recommend the death penalty in their statement, the prosecution can recommend the death penalty also. It is the judge that sets the punishment, based on the evidence presented in the case, the defendent's demeanor, etc.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Right.  I believe Occhi's point, which I tend to agree with is justice - let the punishment fit the crime.
[right][snapback]89877[/snapback][/right]

That is barbaric, based on revenge, etc. If we're going to go that way, then logically we should revert to crucifixion, stoning, and burning at the stake. We are more enlightened in how we treat other dangers than in how we treat people. A dog that is a threat isn't beaten to death, it is put down 'humanely'. But you want a human that is a threat put down inhumanely?

If a person is wrongly executed it is not the Death Penalty that is at fault - it is the court system, the jury, the judge, our built in prejudices, what have you, that are at fault.  Remember "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" should be the way it works.  It's very sad and all to common for that not to be the case.

What is actually so sad is that Justice has fled our system, leaving hollow Legality behind to do a job beyond her power.

The conviction is where the "without a shadow of a doubt" comes in

No! That is a common misquote and leads to a lot of grief and ignorant argument. It is not 'beyond a shadow of a doubt" but "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your way of stating it goes back to demanding a zero error system. We might as well close shop on the courts right now, for perfection is not within our grasp. Only by accepting a 'reasonable' doubt can we do anything, for only a reasonable approach to perfection is within human ability.

If a guilty verdict is rendered by the jury they can recommend the death penalty in their statement, the prosecution can recommend the death penalty also.  It is the judge that sets the punishment, based on the evidence presented in the case, the defendent's demeanor, etc.

Not that simple. First, the death penalty is only possible for a limited number of crimes, even violent crimes. Second, for some crimes, it is mandated (which is why prosecuting attorneys don't like to prosecute for those crimes. One 'anti-death' juror is all it takes to hang the jury.) And, third, it is not always and everywhere that a jury is involved in any way in the sentencing process.

All of these considerations contribute to the ineffectiveness of capital punishment. Indeed, the one valid argument against capital punishment is that if we're not going to use it right (i.e., in a hell of a lot more cases than we do) and if we're going to make it so difficult to implement, then we are better off eliminating it. And, of course, it is precisely to set up these conditions that the bleeding hearts have lobbied for all the special treatment. First, they pass the laws making it inefficient, then they use that same inefficiency to get it eliminated.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

"Dteerrence" is whether having the death penalty around convinces other people not to kill.  That seems pretty obvious.
[right][snapback]89871[/snapback][/right]

Don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs. I know what a deterrent is, and as I said, to me the deterrence feature of the death penalty is irrelevant, and not the issue. Got it? Detterence via death penalty is not a matter I consider in my pro or con position. It has been argued with some merit that it's not a great deterrent, other than as a pure prevention to recidivism, which is not deterrent, but instead pest extermination . . . which I am for.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I count "revenge" as entertainment because it's all about people's feelings.  [right][snapback]89872[/snapback][/right]

I don't, as described above, and I find your definition of entertainment as something "about people's feelings"{ to be more of your Humpty Dumpty .

Occhi

[jahcs]

Hi,
That is barbaric, based on revenge, etc.  If we're going to go that way, then logically we should revert to crucifixion, stoning, and burning at the stake.  We are more enlightened in how we treat other dangers than in how we treat people.  A dog that is a threat isn't beaten to death, it is put down 'humanely'.  But you want a human that is a threat put down inhumanely?[right][snapback]89878[/snapback][/right]

Where did I say that? I was not debating the method of punishment. I do not advocate punishment in kind for most crimes. Certain crimes the best punishment may be in kind, but not most of them. If that's the way it sounded I misspoke.

What is actually so sad is that Justice has fled our system, leaving hollow Legality behind to do a job beyond her power.

Agreed.

No!  That is a common misquote and leads to a lot of grief and ignorant argument.  It is not 'beyond a shadow of a doubt" but "beyond a reasonable doubt".  Your way of stating it goes back to demanding a zero error system.  We might as well close shop on the courts right now, for perfection is not within our grasp.  Only by accepting a 'reasonable' doubt can we do anything, for only a reasonable approach to perfection is within human ability.

You're right, my bad. I was in a hurry and my foot landed in my mouth. I have been on a jury and reasonable is the word used. That still doesn't change my point, only the connotation it evokes in the reader. The jury or judge, for some cases, determines guilty or innocent, and then, in a separate step of the legal process, the judge determines the punishment, within the limits if the law.

Not that simple.  First, the death penalty is only possible for a limited number of crimes, even violent crimes.  Second, for some crimes, it is mandated (which is why prosecuting attorneys don't like to prosecute for those crimes.  One 'anti-death' juror is all it takes to hang the jury.)  And, third, it is not always and everywhere that a jury is involved in any way in the sentencing process.

I know many crimes do not carry the possibility of the death penalty, hence the power of the plea bargain ;) . I also stated the judge decides the sentence, not the jury. In some trials the jury recommends a punishment in their statement to the court.

As I stated earlier, I am fond of confinement for life at hard labor as the ultimate punishment. The criminal is forced to live with their crime every day, they are not in the civilian world to reoffend, and it is a punishment.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Where did I say that?  I was not debating the method of punishment.  I do not advocate punishment in kind for most crimes.  Certain crimes the best punishment may be in kind, but not most of them.  If that's the way it sounded I misspoke.
[right][snapback]89881[/snapback][/right]

That's how I interpreted your statement, "let the punishment fit the crime." So, if death is administered humanely, there can be no greater punishment. A simple murder of, say, a store owner in a robbery, and the torture death of a child would then be punished equally. But that would then be against letting the punishment fit the crime. Thus, he that has brought on the greatest pain should receive the same in return? As I said, that is barbaric. If punishment has a purpose, it is to make the punished better. To teach 'virtue' to a child, to break a pet of a bad habit, or to rehabilitate a criminal so he can re-enter society. But, then, in the case of either life without parole or death, there is o longer a rational for punishment. We don't 'punish' the rattlesnake that takes up residence under our porch, we simply kill it for our safety. We don't think we'll be able to 'rehabilitate' the snake, so we --without rancor, without hate -- simply eliminate the threat in the most humane way possible.

Let the punishment fit the purpose is rational. Let it fit the crime is barbaric.

As I stated earlier, I am fond of confinement for life at hard labor as the ultimate punishment.  The criminal is forced to live with their crime every day, they are not in the civilian world to reoffend, and it is a punishment.

And what purpose does that serve other than vengeance? It is not a deterrent, since few will know of it, the criminal will be out of sight (and thus, according to the old saw, out of mind). The criminal *may* become a better person, but so what since he will never have the opportunity to 'use' his new and better personality. What, other than the satisfaction of knowing 'he's getting his', does this accomplish that would not be accomplished by turning him loose on some 'botany bay' where he could lead out his life as comfortably as he can manage and yet still be kept out of the contact of the society whose company he's shown himself unfit to have?

Since there is no place left to put that hypothetical botany bay, what is left but life imprisonment and death. And of the two, which is more humane and less expensive? Apply the same rational and compassionate reasoning to a human that you do to a dangerous animal, and you'll come to the same conclusion. The only real difference is in how much 'study' to give to the human, as compared to the animal, before declaring him an unmitigated danger to society.

--Pete

[Minionman]

I don't, as described above, and I find your definition of entertainment as something "about people's feelings"{ to be more of your Humpty Dumpty .

Occhi
[right][snapback]89880[/snapback][/right]

Whether or not it was "my" humpty dumpty in the first place, My description about people doing it out of nothing but anger and the energy revenge gives is exactly what I'm seeing. In your posts about revenge all i see the point that "I enjoy thinking about people getting killed more than thinking of them sitting in jail", so that is what I made the post about.

[Minionman]

Don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.  I know what a deterrent is, and as I said, to me the deterrence feature of the death penalty is irrelevant, and not the issue. 
[right][snapback]89879[/snapback][/right]

Whether deterrence is an issue is important. If someone kills another person, the choice of punishements doesn't effect you in any way. What does effect you is if someone else partially decides using the pounishment to shoot you up in some way. I don't care if you have a gun around, as you describe it can still happen, and that becomes an issue.

[Minionman]

All of these considerations contribute to the ineffectiveness of capital punishment.  Indeed, the one valid argument against capital punishment is that if we're not going to use it right (i.e., in a hell of a lot more cases than we do) and if we're going to make it so difficult to implement, then we are better off eliminating it.  And, of course, it is precisely to set up these conditions that the bleeding hearts have lobbied for all the special treatment.  First, they pass the laws making it inefficient, then they use that same inefficiency to get it eliminated.
[right][snapback]89878[/snapback][/right]

More death penalties adds to the problems of people getting hit for no reason. After a certain point, it would be useful to ask if there was another way to keep the crime down.

Personally, if people will have the death penalty, I'd rather not fool around with the extra ceremonial stuff before the execution, but it is useful to make as sure as possible that the person is one way or the other.

[Occhidiangela]

Evil Double Post!!! :(

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Minionman

There is no enjoyment involved, so you are wrong again.  I am also for putting down rabid dogs, but I take no enjoyment in seeing a dog put down.  As to your deterrent reply, more nonsense from you, you strayed from the initial point on deterrence.

You and I are done on this topic.  We disagree.

Occhi

[Doc]

We need Warlocke and his friend Flicka... The almost dead horse.

Look what I did...

Look what you all did.

[Minionman]

There is no enjoyment involved, so you are wrong again.  As to your deterrent reply, more nonsense from you, par for the course.

You and I are done on this topic.  We disagree.

Occhi
[right][snapback]89892[/snapback][/right]

My deterrent reply makes perfect sense. If you don't agre, fine. If you want to pretend not to understand the way I described it, in very clear terms, than you either a) assume I am stupid for disagreeing, or B) not interested in arguing, so looking for a fast way out. I am making my arguments, if you have a useful argument back, do so.

To repeat again, the deterrence effect may come from the effect on other people. Since you haven't made any argument with a number of other posts, from other people, on this thread, I'm assuming one of the two above conditions.

As for the enjoyment, revenge may not be as "enjoyable" as, say, not having had a crime happen in the first place, but deciding on the death penalty to get revenge, your word, vs. asking for anything to get them out of the system does in fact sound like a decision to get the most enjoyment as possible out of the situation. Someone may call it "twisted" or say, "have the less grief", or "take the anger out", but overall the deaht penalty is still for a person to feel better than usual. That's where the "enjoyment" comes from. Again, more posts on this are in the thread.

To get back on track, the death penalty only ends up woth it if it encourages more people to avoid killing than it kills by mistake. If this happens, its useful, if not, it should get dumped. I think that is the point of all my arguments before.