Death Penalty - News, Thoughts, Info

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I do not believe in capital punishment.
I do not believe in an "eye for an eye".
I do not believe in killing killers, raping rapists or abusing abusers.

I do not believe capital punishment is an effective deterrent to violent crime and more importantly I do not believe it brings healing or peace or closure to victims of those crimes.

I do not believe capital punishment is a more cost effective or time efficient method of justice.

And crucially, I do not believe our legal system is robust and/or fair enough to be given this kind of power. Our legal system is deeply flawed and deeply corrupt, it is inherently racist and classist.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I have lived in countries that have abolished the death penalty. Those were not places overrun with violent criminals. In fact statistics show they have less, far less violent crime than we do.

An interesting & brief piece on a recent forum on the death penalty, members were from law enforcement agencies in the US and Europe.

On October 13, 2010, officials from the U.S. and Europe held what may have been the first international forum of law enforcement officers on the merits of the death penalty in reducing violent crime. The officers discussed whether capital punishment actually helps to keep citizens safe, assists healing for victims, and uses crime-fighting resources efficiently.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/inte...-death-penalty

There is certainly no doubt our governmental system is corrupt and doesnt work. IMO. So I wouldn't be surprised if it worked elsewhere or that it would here IF we didnt have criminals running our country.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Sachita

There is certainly no doubt our governmental system is corrupt and doesnt work. IMO. So I wouldn't be surprised if it worked elsewhere or that it would here IF we didnt have criminals running our country.

I have often maintained that I don't have a problem with a *civilized* country exercising the death penalty option. But a civilized country doesn't have citizens throwing tailgate parties outside prisons where an execution is taking place. The United States does.

If a nation behaves as it if understands what it means to exercise the death penalty and treats it as a somber, solemn affair and not something to celebrate, then sure that nation can be trusted with this ultimate power over the life and death of the citizenry. Since my undergrad days, when I hit on my idiosyncratic reading of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, I have maintained the following: the government should not be trusted with the power of life or death over the citizenry any more than is *absolutely* necessary to maintain a legitimate state. This informs my thoughts on two hot button issues--the death penalty and abortion being legal.

In both instances, I do not think that the State has any vested interest in either killing any given criminal or in forcing any given woman to have any given child. I have not yet seen a compelling argument describing how executing any given criminal helps the state preserve itself. We already concede to the State a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. We empower police to carry deadly weapons and we empower the military to have weapons of unfathomable destructive power. I think that is quite a bit of power already.

My concern with the death penalty orbits around the problem of mistakes in conviction, the disparity between what a man of color can expect in a courtroom and what a white man can expect in a courtroom, the disparity between what a poor person can expect in a courtroom and what a rich person can expect, and lastly, the temptation to use the death penalty, ultimately, as a *political* tool. It would be insanely suicidal to presume that because we're talking about the United States that it could never come to pass that a future administration might use the death penalty for political ends.

I'm unconvinced that the death penalty has any deterrent value. Sure, the death penalty is going to deter law-abiding citizens like all of us here, but then so is the prospect of a prison sentence. Someone who is going to commit some heinous crime isn't going to be deterred by the prospect of execution any more than a prison sentence will. So it serves to make the law-abiding afraid but not the criminal. It seems to me more about revenge than justice. I don't think I want the State to be in the business of revenge.

Lastly, on this issue of how prisoners are treated. Do we want prisons to be 15th century snake pits? Another insight the West finally got around to was that loss of liberty is quite a punishment. I don't believe prisons are or should be resorts. However, there are plenty of examples that we can look to if we want to make our prisons more horrible than they already are--the thing is, every one of those examples is not in a country that could be called democratic in any meaningful sense. I'm sure that Chinese, Russian and North Korean prisons are all little slices of hell--do we really want to be China, Russia or North Korea?

Cheers
Aj

[DapperButch]

I voted other because I am so in the middle on this topic. Always have been.

[The_Lady_Snow]

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

[Mitmo01]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

IM in total agreement because I know what i am capable of it anything ever happened to one of my loved ones.....i would demand retribution and vengence regardless of the outcome and you know what...I guess i would be prepared to pay the price for it....im still wondering how in the hell that joseph duncan is actually still alive, i thought for sure he wouldve been shanked in prison by now...

[Julie]

Absolutely AGAINST the Death Penalty.
My reasons...
POC as a rule are given unfair trials.
POC as a rule are not given the same legal help as White People.
I believe because of this, the risk of innocent people being put to death is far too great.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/exec...sibly-innocent

"Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995
A year-long investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has uncovered evidence that Larry Griffin may have been innocent of the crime for which he was executed by the state of Missouri on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence until his death, and investigators say his case is the strongest demonstration yet of an execution of an innocent man. The report notes that a man injured in the same drive-by shooting that claimed the life of Quintin Moss says Griffin was not involved in the crime, and the first police officer on the scene has given a new account that undermines the trial testimony of the only witness who identified Griffin as the murderer. Based on its findings, the NAACP has supplied the prosecution with the names of three men it suspects committed the crime, and all three of the suspects are currently in jail for other murders. Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce said she has reopened the investigation and will conduct a comprehensive review of the case over the next few months. "There is no real doubt that we have an innocent person. If we could go to trial on this case, if there was a forum where we could take this to trial, we would win hands down," stated University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross, who supervised the investigation into Griffin's case. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 11, 2005). "

We will spend billions on weapons and war - We can spend some of that money on education and reform in the prison system, so the rate of recidivism drops.

I am a die hard liberal - even when it comes to those who have perpetuated crimes against me.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

Okay, so you would not, in principle, have a problem with returning to system of ad hoc vendetta such that if someone kills your brother you can kill one of their relatives? I mean at the point where we are talking about state-sanctioned revenge, why involve the state at all? Why not just go for the direct, personal route? Because now we're not talking about justice, now we're talking about vengeance.

And I'm not saying that if someone harmed my wife, son, granddaughter, sister et. al. that I wouldn't want revenge--but that's why I live in a (nominally) civilized nation because I need to check my *own* impulses as well as others.

Cheers
Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Okay, so you would not, in principle, have a problem with returning to system of ad hoc vendetta such that if someone kills your brother you can kill one of their relatives? I mean at the point where we are talking about state-sanctioned revenge, why involve the state at all? Why not just go for the direct, personal route? Because now we're not talking about justice, now we're talking about vengeance.

And I'm not saying that if someone harmed my wife, son, granddaughter, sister et. al. that I wouldn't want revenge--but that's why I live in a (nominally) civilized nation because I need to check my *own* impulses as well as others.

Cheers
Aj

I am going to answer this honestly. If harm came to mine, I would do it myself or I'd want front row seats so they could look me in the eyes before they died. That way I can see my own in theirs, and they see what I feel in mine.

I know it's not clear thinking it's more emotional. So my answer is ugly

[betenoire]

Taken from Amnesty dot ca

Twenty Years of Abolition: the Canadian Experience
Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.

[Julie]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

I am going to answer this honestly. If harm came to mine, I would do it myself or I'd want front row seats so they could look me in the eyes before they died. That way I can see my own in theirs, and they see what I feel in mine.

I know it's not clear thinking it's more emotional. So my answer is ugly

When it comes down to crimes against "Family," I completely understand this from an emotional stand point. I get it. If someone were to hurt one of my children and that could include anyone - a friend, an ex or family member - I will hurt them. I will find a way to hurt them. If not myself, then I will find someone to do it for me.

But what if... I am wrong? What if the person I am seeking vengeance on is not in fact the person who committed the crime? Many times, we never see our attackers. Many times there is no DNA. Yet, many times these people are sent to their death without proof, because of who they might be.

I believe, if it is a clear cut "I know it was you." -- I would seek it. But, if I am not 100% sure that this is the person - I cannot wish death on them, because what if I am wrong? Then I have placed death on an innocent person.

I am only against the death penalty because it has been proven innocent (far too many) people have been put to their death.

[Nat]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Okay, so you would not, in principle, have a problem with returning to system of ad hoc vendetta such that if someone kills your brother you can kill one of their relatives? I mean at the point where we are talking about state-sanctioned revenge, why involve the state at all? Why not just go for the direct, personal route? Because now we're not talking about justice, now we're talking about vengeance.

And I'm not saying that if someone harmed my wife, son, granddaughter, sister et. al. that I wouldn't want revenge--but that's why I live in a (nominally) civilized nation because I need to check my *own* impulses as well as others.

Cheers
Aj

This actually leads me to a question I've been asking myself lately:

Human sacrifice has been a practice in different societies in history. Did it go away or did it just transform into these types of things?

and

In a podcast of "Speaking of Faith," with Krista Tippett, she spoke with Michael McCullough, professor of psychology at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, where he directs the Laboratory for Social and Clinical Psychology and also teaches in the Department of Religious studies. He wrote a book called, "Beyond Revenge," where he analyzed extensive data from social scientific studies on humans and animals as well as biology and brain chemistry.

During that podcast, he mentioned that Japanese macaques are very status-conscious and intimidated by power. He said, "If you're a high-ranking Japanese macaque and you harm a low-ranking Japanese macaque, that low-ranking individual is not going to harm you back, right? *It's just too intimidating. It's too anxiety-provoking. But what they do instead, and this still astonishes me, is they will find a relative of that high-ranking individual and go seek that low-ranking cousin or nephew and harm him in retaliation...So it's as if they're saying, "You know, I'm not powerful enough to get you back, but what I'm going to do is I'm going to harm your nephew...Here's the kicker, is when they're harming this nephew, most of the time they're doing it while the high-ranking individual is watching. They want the high-ranking individual to know that, 'You can harm me, I know you can harm me, I know you're more powerful than I am. But rest assured, I know how to get at what you care about and what you value."

And then Krista Tippett's response intrigued me: "I had this realization a few years ago when we did a program on the death penalty. It might seem simple, but it seems so stunning to me to realize that the criminal justice system, and even, and especially, the death penalty in history, was progress because before there was any kind of criminal justice system, human societies regulated themselves by precisely that ind of revenge you're describing."

So, if she has a point, though I personally think the death penalty is extremely repugnant, maybe society demands a certain amount of blood-letting, a certain amount of human sacrifice, in order for peace to be kept and in order to keep people from taking the law back into their own hands?

I asked a few friends if they thought the death penalty was a modern form of human sacrifice. One said no way. Another said, yes - and also mentioned the religiosity around the deaths of soldiers to fill another part of that same societal yearning. So I guess I do wonder if the death penalty serves some sort of vestige blood lust. Humans are pack animals and predators and yet most of us live lives very far away from that reality.

[atomiczombie]

I am against the death penalty for this reason: killing people is wrong. And if it is wrong for a citizen to do it, then it is wrong for the state to do it. It makes no sense to kill people because they kill people. It is just state sanctioned violence and revenge. If killing people is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone and we need to be consistent, otherwise we are a bunch of hypocrites. There is no justice in revenge. We are no better than the criminals who commit these crimes if we commit the same crime against them. You can't sanitize murder with a syringe. Sorry, that's the truth people.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

I understand.

Two of the people closest to me have been the victim of violent crimes perpetrated by people they/I know.
I have had overwhelming urges to harm those perpetrators physically. To destroy them.
My desire to harm them has been so great that I have consciously gone out of my way to avoid situations where my own emotions might overcome my rational thought, my ethics (regarding taking a life or harming another person) and my sense of self-preservation.

I also know, my job is to love and support those people closest to me to help them to heal and to carry on with their lives. That is the most important thing, I as an individual, can do. In my experience, vengeance doesn't heal.

As far as "the state" is concerned - I do not trust that our legal and justice systems are unbiased enough to be granted the power to take a life.

To me the natural question that should arise from this debate is -

The death penalty doesn't work - it neither reduces (nor deters) violent crime, so:

How do we prevent and reduce violent crime?

We talk about how much it costs to keep perpetrators on death row through their (rightful) due course of law, we talk about how overcrowded prisons are, how short sentences are, how rehabilitation doesn't work...

But we don't talk about tightening legislation around gun control. We don't talk about making weapons for personal use illegal all together (NRA-forfend). We don't talk about substance abuse as endemic to our nation. Or the "blind eye" law enforcement turns to domestic violence in so many cases. Or the reality that the impetus is upon a rape victim to prove s/he was raped...

And we don't discuss the NEED to dramatically alter our national fiscal priorities so that we can strengthen our social services, education and physical/mental health systems; provide more support for parents and children; and training for teachers and nurses and school counselors (those on the front line of raising healthy non-violent people).

[katsarecool]

When I was young I was very much against the death penalty. When I was 26 a close friend learned his sister was violently murdered by the mass murdered Paul John Knowles who went through a killing rampage from Washington DC to Florida killing without mercy men, women and children. Then I changed my mind.

Many years later there was the case of the African American man who was excecuted with very flimsy evidence and once again I had to search my soul about how I really feel about the death penalty. With all the dire statistics concerning the difference in how white and POC are treated by the justice system and the proven cases of once found guilty then DNA proved them innocent; I cannnot accept the death penalty.

As stated here unless there is absolute proof a life sentence is the proper punishment.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I'm reading, hearing, and listening to you all, it's a hot topic! I won't post much though cause it's ugly and it comes from an emotional place. I will be reading and learning from everyone though.

[Passionaria]

I am against the death penalty, for two reasons. I don't believe in taking the life of another, unless it is self defense. A trial isn't self defense. Two I think it is a cop out. The notion being death is the worst possible punishment. It's not. I am in favor of restorative measures for crimes. I believe the person who committed the crime should have to do something to make it right. Like work, and give the money to the family or person who was hurt, while incarcerated. Or, do something to make the world a better place like grow food for poor people, build housing for the homeless or single mothers.

On a more sadistic note. I think the real hard core criminals should be in the military, on the front line, rather than our sons. Let them do what they do best, while our children create lives and keep their bodies and souls intact. Pashi

[Mitmo01]

For someone like this--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III

a north korean or chinese prison is a gift that he doesnt deserve.....his dna should be wiped out of the gene pool permanetly and forever....these are the kinds of people that deserve the death penalty in my opinion...

[LipstickLola]

I'm very uncomfortable with the death penalty, and am against it. I believe in a judgement much higher than that of man. I also believe there are things worse than death, and that if at all possible, criminals of these heinous, horrific, unspeakable crimes should be shown a life in a 10x10 cell. And I don't mean they should be able to "better themselves", or treated to Club Fed.

My human nature wants to run over, hang, shoot, torture those who commit crimes against the elderly, children, the incapacitated, any human life, or even certain crimes against animals, and that is my reason.......I do believe "they'll get theirs", it may not be when we want, or when we can see it, but 'they' will. Prisons are overcrowded, the justice system is more imprefect than it works, or so it seems, criminals walk the street, those who are unable to hire a great defense spend more time behind bars, all of these injustices don't change my mind. Having a very very close friend murdered, testifying, having been a crime victim, I still don't believe it's the right thing to do, for if it were, are we any better than the perpetrators themselves??

This is one of those discussions that can last forever with sooooo many different points of view, I can totally relate to wanting and eye for an eye, I just don't feel competent to actually make that decision regarding human life.

Just my thoughts and feelings. thanks!