Death Penalty Newz

LordOpie · Feb 28, 2004

for the most part, I agree with you, but you can't translate the numbers from one state to another. Maybe Texas does a better job of not convicting innocent people. Hey, it's possible.

The thing about being exonerated is, if they were on death row, then they were convicted. Even if they're innocent, they would've been in jail for a 25-life sentence, which is wrong, of course, but it's not like the only options were death row or freedom.

jdcamb · Feb 28, 2004

Originally posted by LordOpie
for the most part, I agree with you, but you can't translate the numbers from one state to another. Maybe Texas does a better job of not convicting innocent people. Hey, it's possible.

The thing about being exonerated is, if they were on death row, then they were convicted. Even if they're innocent, they would've been in jail for a 25-life sentence, which is wrong, of course, but it's not like the only options were death row or freedom.

Everyone assumes that all States court systems are inefficient and the same. Especially folks not from the States. Almost every State in the Union has different court procedures and laws pertaining to everything. Not all States have crushing caseloads and inefficiencies that Illinois has. Some are actually pretty effiecient in how they handle Capital Murder cases even considering how busy some of them are. With the introduction of DNA evidence procedures and advances in Forensic Science they can to a certain extent prove a Murderer guilty without a resonable doubt now. So States that provide the monetary and staffing resources to prosecute a Death Penalty case shouldn't do so?? Why not? They should have some Federal observation, standards, and maybe some level of oversight to keep things in check. But eye for a eye I say.....jdcamb

edit: Hey maybe the Justice Dept could worry about Justice instead of some of the things they are involved in now....

Silver · Feb 29, 2004

Texas is a state where you can be arrested for trafficking dildos. Excuse my lack of faith in their commitment to justice when it comes to executing prisoners...

Skookum · Feb 29, 2004

Originally posted by fluff
This is why I'm agin' it...

Illinois

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Illinois reinstated the death penalty in 1977, twelve death row inmates have been executed and seventeen have been exonerated and released, giving Illinois the highest rate of overturned capital convictions of all 38 states with the death penalty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that 17 that have been exonerated and released comprises more than 10% of convictions in those years (source Daily Telegraph). Apparently in Texas the rate of execution is around 90% of death row inmates (ibid). Therefore had Illinoise been Texas innocent people would have been killed.

Still, wtf, eh? So long as we get some killers amongst 'em.

I'm for the death penalty. I like your last interjection of ignorance to help sell your point. You're pretty good at this political crap....

Your argument spotlights the problem of states abusing it. Bringing up misuse of the death penalty does not in my view sell me on precipitately bagging the death penalty altogether.

I'm for states having the right to put someone to death but i'm against them handing it out in the reckless fashion that is common in too many states. So in this way we agree.

Departing slightly from your point, i would like to throw out some thoughts on a recent event. This point can oddly be thrown out as a justification for and against the death penalty.

Gary Ridgeway aka The Green River Killer
The threat of the death penalty motivated him to confess and reveal body dump sites of many many women. He was initially linked to around 8 murders from dna testing and eventually confessed to over 50. The death penalty was used foremost as a tool to force a confession, giving families of victims an opportunity of closure.
Meanwhile we have hundreds of poor people ($#1)being knocked off in states like Texas. And here in Washington where not too many people get "offed" we have an individual who in every way deserves to die. Saved by the amount of killing, and the cost (#2) it would take to convict him.

Fluffy one of these days i'd love to hear you babble about bikeys. Throw the world off your shoulders chummy chum chum.

What is that? Oh i'm getting a psychic message from MikeD... Yes, yes, ok, back to the lounge i go must serve the kool-aid.....

DRB · Mar 1, 2004

Fluff didn't ask the right question.

Is it okay for one innocent man to be put to death for every 10 legitmate ones? 50 legitmate ones? 100 legitmate ones?

Or using Skookum's Green River Killer example of death penalty for leverage.

How many of would you exchange for one innocent man being put to death?

Skookum · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by DRB
How many of would you exchange for one innocent man being put to death?

Wow i've never seen such a "loaded" question so difficult to read..... Sorry but Fluff's was easier to read and more entertaining.

So, ok i'll play, YES INNOCENT BLOOD MUST SPILL so that the masses will be appeased! :rolleyes:

give me a break, if we look at it from such a second guessing, concrete view lets just do away with any form of modern sentencing then, and just put everybody on house arrest, just to make sure....

i'll interject one last multi-faceted thought on the subject.

let's dabble into a philosophical view... whats the difference between doing time in prison for 20 years to life and the death penalty. One is so much less of a person after such time of losing thier freedom, death may even be looked on as a gift. So which is actually more cruel, losing your life or losing all the intangibles of which make you truly alive by living out your days in prison. Possibly an argument that could sway a sympathetic soul for the mercy of death, or persuade a hardened believer of justice away from it.

DRB · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by Skookum
Wow i've never seen such a "loaded" question so difficult to read..... Sorry but Fluff's was easier to read and more entertaining.

So, ok i'll play, YES INNOCENT BLOOD MUST SPILL so that the masses will be appeased!

give me a break, if we look at it from such a second guessing, concrete view lets just do away with any form of modern sentencing then, and just put everybody on house arrest, just to make sure....

i'll interject one last multi-faceted thought on the subject.

let's dabble into a philosophical view... whats the difference between doing time in prison for 20 years to life and the death penalty. One is so much less of a person after such time of losing thier freedom, death may even be looked on as a gift. So which is actually more cruel, losing your life or losing all the intangibles of which make you truly alive by living out your days in prison. Possibly an argument that could sway a sympathetic soul for the mercy of death, or persuade a hardened believer of justice away from it.

There is a huge difference between losing 20 years of your life and death. There have been at least 2 cased in NC in the last year where folks had been in prison for more than 10 years and were released after being exonerated. I am definately not saying that they can ever get that time back or that they will ever be whole again BUT there is an opportunity for them and the state to TRY and make it right. The death penalty takes away all opportunity for that rectification.

It wasn't a loaded question at all, its an uncomfortable question. But an uncomfortable question that deserves an answer from a society that has determined the death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment and those that support it. But since it troubles you, I'll ask it a little less "loaded"

Are the benefits of the death penalty worth the chance that an innocent man pays for them?

Skookum · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by DRB

Are the benefits of the death penalty worth the chance that an innocent man pays for them?

You bring fair points, but your question remains unfair. The scales you use to weigh the decision are indeed difficult. Nobody wants to be responsible for the death of an innocent person. Even under the make believe pretense, your question seems to connatate, that innocent peoplewill be executed.

So is there precedence for innocent death penalty convictions?

If anything the point of the two people exonerated could be used to indicate that at least in one state, the system is working quite effectively to avoid just that.

So why expect anyone to answer a question based on something that you cannot say has happened, and with advanced dna testing may never happen. Why throw away the death penalty based on the fear of a possibility is what i retort.

So now i've effectively disregarded your question, since you must have more morality than a cold hearted death penalty proponent such as me, perhaps you would be more gracious and answer mine.

Would you be willing to live with the fact that if Gary Ridgeway had not had the threat of death over him, the victims of his killings would be held in a limbo not ever knowing the concrete fate of their loved ones. Are you willing to burden the victims families to this fate? Are you willing to increase the suffering of these people? And is this not equally such a cruel decision.

Skookum · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by fluff
Also ask yourself this; you have been convicted of a murder you did not commit, would you rather be killed or be imprisoned for life?

Depends on the prison.

DRB · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by Skookum
You bring fair points, but your question remains unfair. The scales you use to weigh the decision are indeed difficult. Nobody wants to be responsible for the death of an innocent person. Even under the make believe pretense, your question seems to connatate, that innocent peoplewill be executed.

So is there precedence for innocent death penalty convictions?

If anything the point of the two people exonerated could be used to indicate that at least in one state, the system is working quite effectively to avoid just that.

So why expect anyone to answer a question based on something that you cannot say has happened, and with advanced dna testing may never happen. Why throw away the death penalty based on the fear of a possibility is what i retort.

So now i've effectively disregarded your question, since you must have more morality than a cold hearted death penalty proponent such as me, perhaps you would be more gracious and answer mine.

Effectively? :rolleyes:

Its only unfair in that it makes you squirm.... so again its an uncomfortable, not unfair nor loaded nor anything else, question and one you seem completely unwilling to answer. You want to make excuses for not answering the question all of which are pathetic dodges.

But to squash your pathetic dodges.

Since 1973, 112 folks have been exonerated and released from death row compared to a almost 900 executed. Those 112 were exonerated after an average of 12.1 years. The average time on death row prior to execution for the 900 10.6 years. Two inmates were on death row less than one year prior to their execution. These are nationwide averages. Take the state with the highest executions and the lowest exoneration rate (you can probably guess which one) that average time to execution drops to almost 8 years.

Compound that with new legislation that limits the number of appeals, hearings and also restricts the timing of those appeals that can be granted to death row inmates in states like Florida. Are we making it more or less likely?

As for the "holy grail" of evidence DNA, its not all that and a bag of chips when it comes to the exonerations. Only 13 of the 112 were based on DNA evidence. There are approximately 500 inmates on death row today that were put there without any physical evidence related to DNA. That excludes the number where confessions were involved.

It is highly doubtful that an innoncent person has not been put to death at least once (probably more times) since the 1973 reinstatement based on this info.

Originally posted by Skookum
Would you be willing to live with the fact that if Gary Ridgeway had not had the threat of death over him, the victims of his killings would be held in a limbo not ever knowing the concrete fate of their loved ones. Are you willing to burden the victims families to this fate? Are you willing to increase the suffering of these people? And is this not equally such a cruel decision.

I don't have any problems at all answering that. Yes I can live with that beyond a shadow of doubt. As for it being just as cruel, what can be more cruel than ending an innocent persons' life?

Since I quickly answered your question, are you going to continue to dodge answering mine? Just in case, here it is one more time.

Are the benefits of the death penalty worth the chance that an innocent man pays for them?

Skookum · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by DRB

I don't have any problems at all answering that. Yes I can live with that beyond a shadow of doubt. As for it being just as cruel, what can be more cruel than ending an innocent persons' life?

Funny i would have thought it may have been been a tougher decision, considering you are discounting the victim's and families rights and subsequently giving alot of power back to offenders who don't deserve it. All from the contigency of an innocent person being convicted, which you have provided no proof of regardless of how you crunch your numbers.

Originally posted by DRB

Since I quickly answered your question, are you going to continue to dodge answering mine? Just in case, here it is one more time.

Hypothetically yes it is worth it since i take the stand i do. I've never been the victim of such a severe crime. But if i were, i take such a stance for insurance. For ultimately if the legal system had lost it's effectiveness of dealing such justice, i wouldn't want to contribute to the tortured powerlessness of people who live in the real world being the multitudes of victims, families and loved ones.

I've never understood the adage "It it ain't broke don't fix it". Usually means it's on a crash course of destruction. But the other side of that would be "Scrap it". Well in our "hopefully" freindly debate i have to agree that reform and safeguards have to be protected to prevent an innocent man from dying. But you have fallen well short of convincing me the machine is beyond repair.

- Yours Truly
Squirmy McSquirmson

RhinofromWA · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by fluff
This is why I'm agin' it...

Illinois

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Illinois reinstated the death penalty in 1977, twelve death row inmates have been executed and seventeen have been exonerated and released, giving Illinois the highest rate of overturned capital convictions of all 38 states with the death penalty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that 17 that have been exonerated and released comprises more than 10% of convictions in those years (source Daily Telegraph). Apparently in Texas the rate of execution is around 90% of death row inmates (ibid). Therefore had Illinoise been Texas innocent people would have been killed.

Still, wtf, eh? So long as we get some killers amongst 'em.

So the appeal process works and "innocent" people went free. Sounds like an issue for the court system and not the death penalty.

Again. The death penalty isn't the problem. The system is that puts "innocents" there is the problem so why don't people opposed to the death penalty go after the system? They don't, they are just looking for anything to get the death penalty taken away. Screw fixing what is broken.

To me this is like the land closures to motorcycles, MTB's, and Horse riders....in the name of preserving the forests. They don't even consider management and care of land for multi use. they just want it shut down....to everyone but themselves (hikers, etc)

The idea of protecting forests is great but kicking everyone out doesn't accomplish that....much to the dismay of many taken buy wild fires left in areas where management was stopped in order to protect the forest. Dense under brush left un checked is a big fire ball waiting to happen.

Wow how is that for changing direction?

(pulling up on the riens and bringing it backhome)

So if the death penalty isn't the problem, the system is what should be fixed? That is right class, the system. Who doesn't care if the system changes? That is right class, the anti death penalty people. They have their own agenda (just as they should) but they are fighting the wrong fight. Many seem to be OK with the death penalty if it is a "sure thing"...well the system is what deturmines that....fix it.

Silver · Mar 2, 2004

Fixing the system?

A good start would be to get rid of a non-revocable punishment. You can always pardon a sentence, you can't play Jesus and bring Lazarus back from the dead though.

DRB · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by Skookum
Funny i would have thought it may have been been a tougher decision, considering you are discounting the victim's and families rights and subsequently giving alot of power back to offenders who don't deserve it. All from the contigency of an innocent person being convicted, which you have provided no proof of regardless of how you crunch your numbers.

I have not given anything back to the offenders. Did I ever say that if you can't give the death penalty let 'em go? Folks that don't get the death penalty are in 94% of cases imprisoned for life without chance of parole. As you pointed out in your previous posts that ain't a cake walk.

I feel for the victim's families in these cases. Having been a long time friend of a murdered police officer in Charlotte in 1993 I know that horror far too closely. I drive by his old house everytime I go to see my parents so I never get to forget. But in my mind it is not relevant to the arguement.

We are talking about a process that could far too easily (and getting easier in some states) put an innocent man to death the way things are now.

(EDIT: Don't take my experience as a statement of moral high ground on this issue. I was relating it more to indicate that you are mistaken on it not being a tough issue for me. )

Originally posted by Skookum
Hypothetically yes it is worth it since i take the stand i do. I've never been the victim of such a severe crime. But if i were, i take such a stance for insurance. For ultimately if the legal system had lost it's effectiveness of dealing such justice, i wouldn't want to contribute to the tortured powerlessness of people who live in the real world being the multitudes of victims, families and loved ones.

I've never understood the adage "It it ain't broke don't fix it". Usually means it's on a crash course of destruction. But the other side of that would be "Scrap it". Well in our "hopefully" freindly debate i have to agree that reform and safeguards have to be protected to prevent an innocent man from dying. But you have fallen well short of convincing me the machine is beyond repair.

- Yours Truly
Squirmy McSquirmson

FINALLY you answered it.

I never said it was beyond repair nor do I have any real moral stand against its use for punishment. I don't believe it has any real deterrent value but some folks go so far that they forfeit their right to life. Captial punishment is tailor made for those folks I have absolutely no problem with that in the abstract or in reality.

But if a society is going to take that step it better have its ducks in a row firmly. As I see it right now those ducks are all over the f'ing place. The problems with it leave way too many holes that innocent folk could far too easily slip thru. Especially when some states now making it easier and quicker to excute those on death row. I firmly believe that what the state of Illinois is undertaking is commendable and should be what every state that has the death penalty should be doing.

And of course this is friendly.

RhinofromWA · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by Silver
Fixing the system?

A good start would be to get rid of a non-revocable punishment. You can always pardon a sentence, you can't play Jesus and bring Lazarus back from the dead though.

You still aren't addressing the problem.... :rolleyes:

It's cool if that is your agenda....just address the problem. Taking away the death penalty doesn't fix it.

I guess I just see it differently. The death penalty on it's own isn't bad (I am not going with the guns don't kill people, people kill people theme) Why should people who have dissregarded life have their life saved? Their victims don't get that chance. They didn't get an appeal or 10 years to fight to get saved.

valve bouncer · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
You still aren't addressing the problem.... It's cool if that is your agenda....just address the problem. Taking away the death penalty doesn't fix it.

I guess I just see it differently. The death penalty on it's own isn't bad (I am not going with the guns don't kill people, people kill people theme) Why should people who have dissregarded life have their life saved? Their victims don't get that chance. They didn't get an appeal or 10 years to fight to get saved.

Your point touches on the heart of the death penalty debate I feel. You're an eye for an eye type of guy whereas myself and I'm guessing Silver (not wanting to put words in your mouth mate) find the death penalty illogical. You kill, so we kill you???? :confused:

I thought killing was bad? The moral split lies there I think.
The only way the death penalty can be morally justified in my view is if it can be shown to be a deterrent. I think it can easily be shown that it isn't a deterrent so therefore imho the death penalty is morally unjustifiable.

ohio · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by DRB

I never said it was beyond repair nor do I have any real moral stand against its use for punishment. I don't believe it has any real deterrent value but some folks go so far that they forfeit their right to life. Captial punishment is tailor made for those folks I have absolutely no problem with that in the abstract or in reality.

But if a society is going to take that step it better have its ducks in a row firmly. As I see it right now those ducks are all over the f'ing place. The problems with it leave way too many holes that innocent folk could far too easily slip thru. Especially when some states now making it easier and quicker to excute those on death row. I firmly believe that what the state of Illinois is undertaking is commendable and should be what every state that has the death penalty should be doing.

This sums up my view, exactly.

Rhino, I have no problem with the state taking the lives of truly heinous criminals. I simply believe the system needs a lot of work. While you may see that as a fence for death penalty opponents (which I am not), I similarly see such dismissals as wilfully avoiding the need for reform of the death penalty. As you brought up, we should be fixing the system, not throwing it out. So why is it that so many death penalty advocates are adamantly opposed to reforms designed to protect the innocent? Without putting words in someone's mouth, the only logic I can come up with is that they value the likelihood of punishing the guilty OVER the value of exonerating the innocent.

Until the system is "fixed" I would prefer a moratorium on executions. This would still allow for the death penalty, but it woul not be carried out until we were more certain we were doing it the right way.

Silver · Mar 2, 2004

Actually, I'm more worried about executing an innocent person than I am about the state being involved with killing.

That's why for me the real litmus test isn't Ted Bundy, or someone equally horrible, but the borderline cases, where a defendant didn't get good representation.

One innocent person is too many. It's not my agenda, but it's what I believe. Death penalty proponents like to say, "What if it was your sister that was murdered?"

My reply to that is simple: "What if your brother was executed for something he didn't do?"

Once you take into account the non deterrence that vavlebouncer was talking about, the only reasonable choice is to stop executing people.

HippieKai · Mar 2, 2004

if i ever recieve the death penalty, even if i were inocentand wrongly accused, i'd want to be walked into the next room and shot in the head.....i'm to small, cute and vonerable to be in a federal rape me in the butt prison!!!!! :dead:

Silver · Mar 2, 2004

Originally posted by Mag204
if i ever recieve the death penalty, even if i were inocentand wrongly accused, i'd want to be walked into the next room and shot in the head.....i'm to small, cute and vonerable to be in a federal rape me in the butt prison!!!!!

Keep working on that beard

The whole prison rape thing is another issue I'd like to see dealt with at some point. Make a joke at a party about raping a woman, and the whole room goes silent and wonders what kind of monster you are.

Make a joke about a man being raped in prison, and you'll get reactions ranging from laughter to slaps on the back of encouragement. Makes me wonder, sometimes.

Skookum · Mar 3, 2004

Originally posted by fluff
Are you possibly suggesting that it is more important to find the remains of dead people than it is to ensure innocent people are not executed in error?

You're pretty bright, but you need work on your comprehension. Go back, reread my posts, and take liberty to define my answer, however it suits you. Forgive me, i can only repeat myself so much before i tire.....

Originally posted by fluff

Do you seriously believe it is possible to implement a criminal justice system that is not eventually going to convict an innocent person?
(As someone who has spent time locked in a cell for a crime that I did not commit that thought makes me shudder.)

No i don't seriously believe that, i have it on good knowledge that everybody is innocent on the "inside".

Originally posted by fluff

That you use an example of a case where a man who I would agree deserved to die for his crimes was spared the death sentence to justify the death sentence also seems bizarre to me.

i'm a simple guy with limited resources(lazy), if i really cared as much as i profess about the topic, i'd have spent hours and hours researching more. Certainly i have an opinion, and having it described as bizarre from the Ridemonkey Political Debate King; well, i'll take it as a compliment.
Besides, i'm running on the assumption that the State of Oregon will gather the millions of dollars to prosecute him on some murders he committed down in Portland. Then he'll fry.

Originally posted by fluff

Given the human element in the crime investigation and prosecution process it is inevitable that innocent people will be convicted of crimes. If you believe otherwise you really are kidding youself.

No i agree, the supposition of your argument is certainly emotionally compelling but lacking enough teeth to attack the death penalty on it's own. Our little flip flop game have both of us raising window dressing issues, it certainly spins some wheels, but we haven't really addressed the issue outright of why we shouldn't have the death penalty. An ideal that i think EVERYONE in their hearts desire, but the reality is that unfortunately, there are people in this world who deserve to die.

Good discussion everybody, i really don't think i can add anymore to the argument.

Skookum · Mar 3, 2004

Originally posted by DRB
I never said it was beyond repair nor do I have any real moral stand against its use for punishment. I don't believe it has any real deterrent value but some folks go so far that they forfeit their right to life. Captial punishment is tailor made for those folks I have absolutely no problem with that in the abstract or in reality.

But if a society is going to take that step it better have its ducks in a row firmly. As I see it right now those ducks are all over the f'ing place. The problems with it leave way too many holes that innocent folk could far too easily slip thru. Especially when some states now making it easier and quicker to excute those on death row. I firmly believe that what the state of Illinois is undertaking is commendable and should be what every state that has the death penalty should be doing.

kudos we disagree to agree.

Death Penalty Newz

Monkey Turbo

MOTHER HEN

Tool Time!

find me a tampon

bikey's is cool

unemployed bum

bikey's is cool

unemployed bum

Monkey Turbo

bikey's is cool

bikey's is cool

unemployed bum

bikey's is cool

Brevity R Us

find me a tampon

unemployed bum

Brevity R Us

Master Dildoist

The Fresno Kid

find me a tampon

Pretty Boy....That's right, BOY!

find me a tampon

Monkey Turbo

Monkey Turbo

bikey's is cool

bikey's is cool