Score one against barbarism

[Aabe]

Answer the previous question, Aabe.

There is a real risk you or I can be sentenced for life imprisonment, perhaps death sentence. Even if we did nothing wrong.

A risk, just like the risk I take when I drive knowing society has not taken measures to "Absolutely" ensure I won't be killed by a drunk driver. The odds are far higher for an innocent to be killed by a drunk driver than they will ever be wrongly convicted of a death sentencable crime, orders of magnitude higher. No way to change your mind and not kill someone you just wrapped around a tree.

Yet we tolarate it to a degree that thousands maybe tens of thoughsands (not for sure on the number) die every year, a large percentage of those are innocent. So, please get off the perfection thing. Perfection will never happen. Sure we should continue to improve the system as we see opportunities to do so.

You want to actually save a significant number of lives, push for something that puts a huge dent in drunk driving fatalities. Trying to make your case on "we must have a perfect system" as your primary arguement against the death penalty does not wash when you look at the risks we currently allow that are killing many many times the amount dying wrongly to injections.

I am not arguing for the death penalty here, I am only pointing out perfection as a criterion applied selectively is not a very good arguement.

[maltheos]

But the problem is that "life without parole" is not life without parole, it is subjective based on the laws of the state. Life without parole can me 20 years in prison granted, however it means that someone who should never have been allowed back into society is potentially out after those 20 years to create more victims.

[\quote]

Then extend it to 40 years or whatever. Its very rare that a senir citizen will get out of prison and go an a killing spree.

The death penatly can be argued that it is self defense, you are simply defending yourself and society agaist these creatures that that have proven that they can not be in society without taking innocent lives, and most likely given the oppertunity will only create more victims, create more loses to society, to families, to parents, and to children. This does not make killing the guilty any more morally acceptable than if one were kill an innocent, that is where the necessary (that still do esnt look spelled right) evil comes in, it is evil to kill, but sometimes one must put up with an evil to stop a greater evil. The "which creates more victims, having the death penalty or not" statement meant that if kept alive with our laws as they currently are, would the creature on death row create more victims if released? Can they be rehabilitated? Or even if the laws are changed so that life without parole truely means life without parole will any victims be created in the jail system itself while these monsters are kept alive in cages? Does the current and the future potential victim count out weigh the death of these monsters, or does thier death out weigh the death of any victims they have and will create? When a bear or wolf enter into society and kill, is it not hunted down and shot? What when one of our own turns into a greater predator than they? Are they not themselves becomming animals, losing thier human status? Of course this is all simply philosophical debate.

My stance is and always will be that though the deathpenalty is evil, it is still needed not just as a deturant but as a way to prevent future victims from an already dangerous creature. The age of the creature is a moot point, it is still dangerous, deadly, and needs to be removed in order to prevent other human beings from losing thier lives....

I see. YOu do not believe in the ability to reform, and hold to a belief that the wrong man is never convicted of a crime. If those were truth, I could accept the death penalty. However, neither of those assertions are truth, and I cannot support the death penalty.

[Aabe]

I recognize the inherent flaws in the death penalty.

Unfortunately, there are inherent flaws in the current system that I find even more objectionable - the idea that a Manson, a Malvo, a Speck can be set free.

Please, answer the question. What ability does the state have to correct an injustice after the state has killed the person?

Well, you wanna play that game, if I am convicted and sever 20 years before someone figures out I am innocent and sets me free. They can NEVER correct the injustice, I just lost 20yrs of my life. Gone forever. Maybe even forced to be someones butt buddy, again they can never correct it. There is no way they can correct an injustice then can only stop doing any further injustice to me.

They can give you your reputation back, they certainly don't pay you for it, you can't sue them. You just lost 20 irretriveable years of your life and who knows what else.

The number of people you are talking about here is miniscue compared to the stuff we allow. We start cracking down on all the innocent people killing things we allow and I consider your arguement having merit. But untill then I do not.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Aabe...

If you or your wife, mother, father, child.. whatever, was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, you would be ok with that? You're willing to allow the death of a loved one all in the name of an imperfect system?

Nice one man. Way to tkae one for the team.

[SicTimMitchell]

the idea that a Manson, a Malvo, a Speck can be set free.

Can't speak for Malvo yet, but Speck died in prison (his death sentence was overturned when the SC overturned all of 'em), and I really doubt Manson (same deal) is going to get paroled.

On an interesting side note, I don't think George W. Bush expects Henry Lee Lucas to get out. Otherwise he wouldn't have personally commuted his sentence from death to life without parole.

Fuckin' hippie.

[Aabe]

Aabe...

If you or your wife, mother, father, child.. whatever, was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, you would be ok with that? You're willing to allow the death of a loved one all in the name of an imperfect system?

Nice one man. Way to tkae one for the team.

Oh, you mean like if me, my wife, mother, father, child or whaterve was wrongly killed by a drunk driver?? Would I be happy no. Would I be mad. Yeah. Guess what, life happens and people get hurt.

But if you are going to selectively use prefection as your criterion, only on something that has an incredibly low number of people getting hurt. You are using the wrong arguement.

I hate it any time someone dies wrongly. But I don't try to make an arguement by "selectively" using perfection criterion on one item and giving a pass, relatively speaking to everything else.

[Embar Angylwrath]

But if you are going to selectively use prefection as your criterion, only on something that has an incredibly low number of people getting hurt. You are using the wrong arguement.

Ok Aabe, there's a statement that has some wiggle in it. Are you saying the system doesn't really need to be overhauled because of the low number of innocent people who die? Or are you saying that the percentage of people wrongly convicted is low, and therefore we should keep the death penalty? Two different things, and I'd like you to clarify.

Also, are you truly saying it's a moral act to continue a flawed practice, when that practice ends innocent life, in light of the fact that alternatives exist?

[Aabe]

But if you are going to selectively use prefection as your criterion, only on something that has an incredibly low number of people getting hurt. You are using the wrong arguement.

Ok Aabe, there's a statement that has some wiggle in it. Are you saying the system doesn't really need to be overhauled because of the low number of innocent people who die? Or are you saying that the percentage of people wrongly convicted is low, and therefore we should keep the death penalty? Two different things, and I'd like you to clarify.

Also, are you truly saying it's a moral act to continue a flawed practice, when that practice ends innocent life, in light of the fact that alternatives exist?

I think the system should be improved at every opportunity.

If the death penalty is truely a deterent ( I personally dont know if it is or isnt ) I don't think it should be done away with purely on the arguement of "it has to be perfect".
IF the death penalty IS a deterent, then it is saving lives every year. So IF the death penalty works and you stop it only because it is not perfect. You would in fact be costing our society lives and security.

If you want to argue that there are better alternatives to the death penalty that have been proven to better protect society and are better at detering those things the death penalty now supposedly addresses, knock yourself out and I am all ears.

Life time incarceration is not without its risks. You have dead prison guards and dead fellow inmates to show for that. Probably a few released or escaped murders have killed again. I would guess convicted murders would hold a higher percentage of responsibility for jail murders than someone in there for skimming from the till.

Life is full of risks.

Like most risks this is not a random risk.
If I choose to do IV illeagle drugs I know I am at greater risk by being associated with criminals to be a victim of some crime.
If I choose to drive in a party town at bar closing time, I increase my chances of getting whacked by a drunk driver.
If I choose to do things that get me in jail a few times and convicted of assualt charges, my chances of being stuck with a wrongful conviction of any kind just took a huge leap. If I only have traffic citations on my record, my risk is minimal that this will ever happen to me. (still possible though)

There are many things in life we can choose to increase or decrease our risks. But to pick one out of the hat, especailly one that effects only a relatively few number of people in your society and proclaim that this one must be perfect. While the rest stay as thye are, even though the bigger killers are killing massive amounts of people each year and our safeguard systems there are obviously badly flawed.

"It must be perfect" In itself/standing alone is not a good arguement.

I am not happy about wrongful convictions, but give me an arguement for something that is provent to work better, not throw it out and do something different that may have less deterent, because it aint perfect.

[Partha]

I recognize the inherent flaws in the death penalty.

Unfortunately, there are inherent flaws in the current system that I find even more objectionable - the idea that a Manson, a Malvo, a Speck can be set free.

Please, answer the question. What ability does the state have to correct an injustice after the state has killed the person?

None, of course. Nor does the state have the ability to correct the injustice of the term served, as has been noted.

However, in the case of the death penalty, correctly applied, the recidivism rate of the murderer is zero. In the case of life without parole, the recidivism rate is higher, as there are recorded instances of lifers paroled to the streets to kill again - this is nothing new, however, as those who are convicted of non-life-sentence murder also show a large recidivism rate. Depending on who you talk to, that rate is 30% to 50%.

You wish to err on the side of mercy. Laudable. I wish to err on the side of public safety. Neither approach is the best one; the best one would be to make life without parole mean just that in all 50 states, and finding ways to prevent the release of capital murderers. If you can do that, I'll gladly give up the death penalty.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You wish to err on the side of mercy. Laudable. I wish to err on the side of public safety. Neither approach is the best one; the best one would be to make life without parole mean just that in all 50 states, and finding ways to prevent the release of capital murderers. If you can do that, I'll gladly give up the death penalty.

I concur with you 100% on this statement. Life without parole should mean just that (unless of course its later determined that person was innocent). I believe that apolicy such as that would satisfy society's requirements to protect itself while allowing a chance to slavage some porion of a person's life, should a grievous mistake be made.

[vaulos]

There is obstensibly no real difference (as far as deterence value) between life in prison and the death penalty. So, if your big reason for wanting it is to "save people" through deterence, you are probably barking up the wrong tree. The moral question (i.e., justice) is the greatest argument in favor of the death penalty, imho. And I honestly believe it is a morally preferable stance to take towards people who commit murder.

Unfortunately, it is just too costly to implement properly. In order to have a death penalty, any responsible country must take great pains to see that innocent people are not put to death. But, doing so requires a massive amount of manpower, time, and most importantly money. That money is much more affectively spent on other areas which can have a greater deterence effect- and general benefit to society. The death penalty just isn't worth the money.

Though, I still say that the USSC is the wrong group to be making that decision.

[Narith]

But the problem is that "life without parole" is not life without parole, it is subjective based on the laws of the state. Life without parole can me 20 years in prison granted, however it means that someone who should never have been allowed back into society is potentially out after those 20 years to create more victims.

[\quote]

Then extend it to 40 years or whatever. Its very rare that a senir citizen will get out of prison and go an a killing spree.

Hence me saying above that unless the laws are changed to meaning life without parole is just that, that life without parole only presents the oppertunity for more victims. Even then, in the prison itself there is still the oppertunity for more victims to be created if they are kept in thier cages. It is better to rid society of these beasts than to let them live even in captivity.

I see. YOu do not believe in the ability to reform, and hold to a belief that the wrong man is never convicted of a crime. If those were truth, I could accept the death penalty. However, neither of those assertions are truth, and I cannot support the death penalty.

Never said that either, I accept that the system is flawed and that a tiny percentage will not truey deserve the death penalty, however it is the lesser of two evils. The greater of the two evils being the cost of more innocent lives by keeping these creatures alive on this planet.

As for the comment on the ability to reform... Crimes such as cold blooded murder, torture and murder, or whatever has landed these monsters on death row to begin with are what proves they have no chance for rehabilitation. I do not have the statistics, but I do know that the more violent the offence the less likely the chance of rehabilitation. There is a reason we hunt and destroy sharks after they have killed, or bears, or mountain lions, it is the same reason that these creatures should be destroyed... once they have killed this violently, they do not stop. A serial killer does not stop, even if kept locked up for 2 or 3 decades they will resume once released. Someone who tortured thier victims before killing sadisticly will not stop at one victim, they will not stop until caught and if ever released will resume... Rehabilitation can be done for petty crimes, for theft, for and what not, but when it comes to crimes so violent so heinous that they are placed on death row there is no chance of rehabilitation if released.

Evil though it may be, it is more evil to allow more innocent victims to be created.

[Relbeek Einre]

The greater of the two evils being the cost of more innocent lives by keeping these creatures alive on this planet.

If you're thrown into a prison until you die, what innocent lives are you going to take?

Vanishingly few lifers have ever escaped from prison to kill again.

[Partha]

But yet, you excoriate those who favor the death penalty because a small number of innocent people are put to death.

[Relbeek Einre]

I don't excoriate those who favor the death penalty.

And I have more reasons for opposing it than that.

[Aabe]

The greater of the two evils being the cost of more innocent lives by keeping these creatures alive on this planet.

If you're thrown into a prison until you die, what innocent lives are you going to take?

Vanishingly few lifers have ever escaped from prison to kill again.

Even if no one escapes I would like to see the number of guard and fellow inmate deaths attributed to incarcerated murderers. SP?

[Relbeek Einre]

You'd have to separate death row inmates vs. lifers.

[Aabe]

There is obstensibly no real difference (as far as deterence value) between life in prison and the death penalty. So, if your big reason for wanting it is to "save people" through deterence, you are probably barking up the wrong tree. The moral question (i.e., justice) is the greatest argument in favor of the death penalty, imho. And I honestly believe it is a morally preferable stance to take towards people who commit murder.

Unfortunately, it is just too costly to implement properly. In order to have a death penalty, any responsible country must take great pains to see that innocent people are not put to death. But, doing so requires a massive amount of manpower, time, and most importantly money. That money is much more affectively spent on other areas which can have a greater deterence effect- and general benefit to society. The death penalty just isn't worth the money.

Though, I still say that the USSC is the wrong group to be making that decision.

Are you saying that life in prison without the possibility of parole has the same deterent effect on people not to commit a murder? That unfortunatly has been the unknown for me. Does the fear of death row stop more people from killing that the threat of prison? Unfortunatly many of the studies conflict and are biasly motivated.

If you could show a good unbiased source that deterence (fear to possibly commit murderers) is as good (death or prison) and that few people (fellow inmates or guards) are killed convict murders and the threat of escape is low enough to be negligable, I would be much more inclinded to agree on a change of imposed death penalty. With one important change.

I would like to see the first degree people be offered a choice of life in prison or a fast track death by injection. If death is choosen speical safeguards and a screening board would ensure competency and motivation. (He wasn't just having a bad year when he decided.) Some short waiting period be required. Then a quick relatively low cost death sentence would ensue.

There are people with moral and or religious reasons, do not feel life is worth living or that they can best pay their dept but by death. Some realize they have knowingly done wrong and do not wish to add to the burden they have already imposed on society, by making society pay to house them in prison for the rest of their days. The last guy dying by fireing squad in Utah as an example. He turned down all stays of execution and any legal attempts to slow or stop his execution, he donated his young (didnt die from old age in prison) body to science and went out with about as much class as you can, if you are a murderer. He made no excuses and just wanted it over.

Think of it as an early euthinasia SP?. One that allows people a choice in justice and would meet societies needs either way.

For someone that chooses death they have no reason to hold back details or reveal other crimes or murders they have committed. It would help society in that way as well.

One who chooses life in prison, probably isn't going to tell of any other crimes, hoping a mistake in a lab or a "kinder" generation will change the law and let him out early, if all they have on him is the bad thing they convited him of.

So show me the deterence on potential murders, low murder rate in prisons and low release/escape rates. And all I ask is a choice for the convicted, that those that want, can do one last honorable thing and maybe their donated organs and relatively inexpencive sentence's execution can in someway provide them some form of personal redemption.

[Aabe]

You'd have to separate death row inmates vs. lifers.

Just need to know the number of deaths in prison associated with convited murderers. I understand they have less to lose if they already have a life sentence than someone that hopes to get out in 10 yrs with good behavior. I mean if I'm in for life no parole, why not kill a few more if they are particualarly annoying?

[Aabe]

Heh heh, so I'm in for life no parale. I manage to whack a guard, what are they going to do, give another convition of life no parole! How scary is that?