Capital Punishment

[BigLutz]

Ever hear of the 6th Amendment? You guys want to keep the 2nd, you have to agree to keep the entire thing.

The right to a speedy trial in the 6th Amendment does not give the right to automatic retrial.

Like I said before, the retrials in most cases would be eliminated if the prosecutor would agree to take the death penalty off the table.

That is absurd, even if you take away the death penalty, retrials or appeals would still happen in nearly any case for the person to try and escape jail. Not to mention any punishment beyond say 20 years for most people would be just as bad as a death penalty as that would take away their most productive years of life

 

[Maedar]

That is absurd, even if you take away the death penalty, retrials or appeals would still happen in nearly any case for the person to try and escape jail. Not to mention any punishment beyond say 20 years for most people would be just as bad as a death penalty as that would take away their most productive years of life

See previous post where I referenced Jodi Arias.

They're going to have to do the whole circus all over again because the prosecutor insists on keeping the death penalty an option.

 

[BigLutz]

See previous post where I referenced Jodi Arias.

They're going to have to do the whole circus all over again because the prosecutor insists on keeping the death penalty an option.

That isn't a problem with the death penalty that is a problem with the jury, and is not representative of even a majority of death penalty cases.

 

[Maedar]

That isn't a problem with the death penalty that is a problem with the jury, and is not representative of even a majority of death penalty cases.

True. Most folks on death row don't get so much attention because they're lower class minorities who can't afford a good lawyer.

Before you respond to that, be honest, just how many rich white folks are given the death penalty these days? Answer me that.

Not to change the subject, maybe you'd prefer an old west style of justice where a man was convicted and hanged in a week, like that old Clint Eastwood "spaghetti western" Hang Em High...

Oh, wait... I forgot... Been a long time since I saw that... Clint's character in that movie was the "only sane man", and thought that the "hanging judge" who was treating the five-man hanging as a carnival was a sicko. Despite the fact that he had survived being lynched at the beginning.

Unbelievable.

 

[BigLutz]

True. Most folks on death row don't get so much attention because they're lower class minorities who can't afford a good lawyer.

Before you respond to that, be honest, just how many rich white folks are given the death penalty these days? Answer me that.

I would suspect not many as not many engage in death penalty type crimes and are more white collar crimes. Furthermore even if they cannot afford a good lawyer they still are allowed retrial after retrial even if the evidence of their guilt is iron tight.

 

[LDSman]

Less tax payer dollars than it would cost to execute the person.

http://akorra.com/2010/03/04/top-10-arguments-for-the-death-penalty/

See number 8.

A common, even credible argument amidst anti-death penalty proponents regards the financial implications of executing a prisoner, which is far more expensive than simply imprisoning them for life. Statistically, this is true. Deathpenaltyinfo.org reports that in the state of Maryland, it can cost up to $37 million to execute a death row inmate rather than keeping them alive and imprisoned annually at around $1 million per year. However, while the execution figures factor in costs of an inmate’s numerous appeals, the figures representing the cost to keep a prisoner alive per year do not. “Lifers” are equally likely to pursue the same avenues as death row inmates to overturn their fate, which can be equally expensive. Given that those sentenced to life without parole have an indefinite period of time to appeal, unlike a death row inmate, in the long run the financial cost of housing a lifer will easily surpass the cost of housing a death row inmate.

Standard distortion of the numbers.

edit re Race:

http://prodeathpenalty.com/racism.htm

The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reports that black murderers represent 35% of those executed, white murderers 56%. As the argument goes, this must be evidence of systemic racism, as blacks represent 12% of the population, whites 74%.

Fortunately, the United States does not execute people based on their population counts but on the murders they commit. As blacks represent 47% of murderers and whites 37%, we see that whites are twice as likely to be executed for committing murder as are their black counterparts. Furthermore, the Bureau of Justice Statistics says that whites sentenced to death are executed 17 months more quickly than blacks.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Yes, I know, Pikachu. That's why I don't like people who take the Bible at face value, or worse, only apply some parts and disrergard the others. The Good Book is actually very inconsistant when you look at it as a whole.

But that's another story.

Actually, the issue here isn't so much taking the Bible at face value. The issue is taking the version/edition/copy in my hand as though it were the only one worth considering. And not being careful with any given biblical author's text. You could say I take the Bible at face value, though I recognize distinct difficulties in understanding certain texts (especially when compared with other passages written by different biblical authors). I have to be critical in order to avoid getting "what I think it says" ahead of what God and the original authors said.

The thing is, those who fear LWOP more than the DP would still be put in a 'nothing-to-lose-by-committing-more-crimes' scenario, regardless of whether or not the DP is used. Either way, as far as these people are concerned, they're utterly screwed if caught. However, for those who fear the DP more than LWOP, having the DP in makes the situation worse, and is therefore more likely to result in nothing-to-lose crime sprees. Therefore, the DP makes this situation worse, as those who fear LWOP more than the DP are pretty much unlikely to behave differently whether or not the DP is involved, while those who fear the DP more are less likely to go on killing sprees if the DP is not in place.

I do not see evidence that "those who fear LWOP more than the DP are pretty much unlikely to behave differently whether or not the DP is involved. Like I said, the criminals who commit suicides after their crimes are not restricted to states with the DP. And if there's no way to avoid putting some people into a "nothing to lose" situation, then that argument loses a lot of weight.

See previous post where I referenced Jodi Arias.

They're going to have to do the whole circus all over again because the prosecutor insists on keeping the death penalty an option.

Okay:

But that's just me. Putting that aside, I'll give one recent real-life example: Jodi Arias.

See, this horrific crime was made worse by the fact that the trial became a media circus. We made poor Travis' family go through Hell for so many months, and the media didn't even care, using the whole thing to get bigger ratings. And IMOHO, it was just what Arias wanted. She's like an internet troll. She wanted attention, tried to get it in the worst possible way, and we did the worst thing of all - we gave it to her.

Now that there was a hung jury in the penalty phase, the prosecutor could have ended the whole thing quickly by simply taking the death penalty off the table. It would have eliminated the need for any more legal proceedings. But he won't do that. And as a result, we're just going to keep giving this woman what she wants, and the victim's family is going to keep having to listen to her in court. Trying to gain justice in this case is gaining anything but.

Would this have happened in a state like New York where capital punishment has been abolished? I doubt it.

Same situation happened in the Casey Antony case, btw. The prosector might have gotten a conviction with a voluntary manslaughter charge, but people were screaming for blood, so he insisted on murder one, a charge he was simply unable to prove, and look where it got him.

I really don't think the issue of a just punishment (whether DP or none) should hinge on whether the trial will give an attention-hog more attention. Due process is what matters here. Going around it, whether to shorten or lengthen a trail, is wrong DP or no, attention or no. I really don't believe that the Jodi Arias trial is relevant to that point.

True. Most folks on death row don't get so much attention because they're lower class minorities who can't afford a good lawyer.

I think the attention in this case has nothing to do with race--isn't Arias Latina? It probably has to do more with what one source said about a rapt TV and internet audience listening as she shared intimate, even X-rated, details of the case.

That and some cases get a bunch of attention for alleged racism against minorities. Even when we're dealing with lower class people. And even when the racism is nothing more than an allegation.




EDIT: Both statistics you brought up are very interesting, ldsman! They're an excellent reminder that multiple levels of statistical analysis are relevant in many cases.

 

[LDSman]

The Arias case had x-rated details, battered woman defense, lies, intrique and a suspect who couldn't keep her mouth shut. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson LOVE to gin up publicity for what they consider racism. They make money that way.

And the media bias doesn't help either.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/media-bias-over-the-death-penalty/

The major media have been openly displaying their bias against the death penalty. It has had some effect, with support for capital punishment declining somewhat over the last several months. One claim being advanced by the media is that convicted killers have bad lawyers. They have carefully ignored telling the American taxpayers that we have been spending tens of millions of dollars a year on so-called death penalty resource centers, which keep murderers alive in prison at taxpayer expense. The cost of keeping a killer alive in prison is over $20,000 a year. Typically, they get color TV, access to a law library, and subscriptions to dirty magazines.

These federally-funded centers, which operate in 20 states, are a key reason why it took Texas almost 20 years to execute convicted killer Gary Graham. But this, in turn, has led to another reason for the anti-death penalty lobby to oppose capital punishment. Killers in Nebraska and Florida tried to appeal their death sentences on the ground that keeping them on death row for a long time amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
A much-publicized report claiming the capital punishment system suffers from high reversal or error rates was ripped apart by Paul G. Cassell in the Wall Street Journal. Cassell noted that the media failed to emphasize that the report found no case of an innocent person being put to death. In some of these cases of so-called errors, the death penalty was actually carried out and the conviction reaffirmed. Some other “errors” were the result of anti-death penalty rulings by liberal judges.

 

[Steampunk]

What is difficult to figure out, is how much the death penalty. There are factors that can both increase and decrease the murder rate.

Decreasing the murder rate:
- Deterrent to people who fear death more than anything. Bear in mind that the OVERALL deterrent effect of ultimately reducing the murder rate (in the long run), has NOT been proven.

Increasing the murder rate:
- Promotion of hatred and considering revenge in the form of life for a life as 'justice'. Brutalisation that would result in an increase in hatred/evil amongst the populace, and hence an increase in murder rates. Repaying evil with evil does not reduce evil, it INCREASES it. In the long run, I wouldn't be surprised if this ultimately increased the murder rate.
- Commit a DP crime? Why not go on a killing spree, why not torture/rape people etc? You have NOTHING to lose if you are caught, NOTHING, especially if your victims are witnesses/cops.
- Continuing from the above, why kill 1 person you hate, when you can go on a murder rampage? At least that way, you can kill everyone you hate, and then use the DP to your advantage as an 'easy way out' to escape having to suffer in prison. The DP in this case though would be self-inflicted (as you don't even want to waste time on Death Row).
- Think you can get away with murder? Have 2 people you hate? Kill one, frame the other, enjoy watching the other person suffer in Death Row, followed by an execution. Bonus points if you do something like this in a country where they would be PUBLICLY executed. I hope people realise the 'bonus points' is massive sarcasm.
- The necessary increase in spending for DP compared to imprisonment, to make sure innocents don't die, means less money for other things that the government can do to save lives.

If the guy thinks he's gonna die anyways, he'll probably commit suicide anyways. So really, if the guy think death is the answer, what the peanalty for commiting the crime is wont matter to him.

Yes, I know, Pikachu. That's why I don't like people who take the Bible at face value, or worse, only apply some parts and disrergard the others. The Good Book is actually very inconsistant when you look at it as a whole.

But that's another story.

*cough*

Actually, the issue here isn't so much taking the Bible at face value. The issue is taking the version/edition/copy in my hand as though it were the only one worth considering. And not being careful with any given biblical author's text. You could say I take the Bible at face value, though I recognize distinct difficulties in understanding certain texts (especially when compared with other passages written by different biblical authors). I have to be critical in order to avoid getting "what I think it says" ahead of what God and the original authors said.

Assuming i understand this correctly, i agree. Granted most biblical passages are very similar, the wording in some versions can be different enough for it to be an issue. I know that i personally use a version, that has the original text and the literal translation of each word above it, then on the side it was the passage with grammar translated to english.(adding words like "and" and "the" etc.)

 

[Celestial Moth]

I live in Australia and from what i no of we currently do not have a death sentence..
But people take things for granted, especially freedom, im not sure if anyone here
has been incarcerated before, but its nothing to be joked about even in the slightest.

The death sentence may be a helpful alternative instead of serving 40 years in prison.....
I'v been in jail for a month and im currently looking at a 1-3 maybe even 7 year stretch, but
loosing your freedom is pure hell.
I no that if i were convicted and sentenced to live the rest of my life in prison, id actually preffer it
if i was sentenced to death.

People take freedom for granted and being locked up and confined knowing that you CAN NOT LEAVE
is a torture all in itself. Their are people who are currently in prison whom i bet have nuthing to live for
and wish they where dead, because they no their never getting out of prison.
If these prisoners, would given an option where they could swap their prison sentence for a death sentence,
i'd bet a hell of alot of them would take that swap, purely because of the mental torture that knowing you can
NEVER leave, puts on your mind.

Many of you would probly not agree with the death penalty because you have wonderful lifes and you cant
comprehend how the death penalty could be beneficial. Especially in the states where you guys have some
ridiculous laws, but i assure you you lock someone away for 20-40+ years, and that person wont have a life
they themselves would wish that they were dead in many circumstances.And i bet few people come out of a 10+
year sentence with their sanity.....

It's hard to comprehend and people get locked up these days for ridiculous things, but even in the most extreme
circumstances, where a murder might be put to death because of his/her crimes, IF they have been PROOVEN that they did
it, i support the death sentence because i see it as a better alternative than spending the rest of you life in a bloody cage...
I no in astralia a life sentance constitutes about 10-20 years in prison,
i think this is reasonable to a degree, because 10-20 years in PRISON is a
..... LOng time , i no alot of people would think blah blah blah blah, but even on the second year of incarceration, i garentee they would be re-thinking their entire lifes

 

[Maedar]

Assuming what you say is true, Moth, then compared to the guys on death row, you're on a vacation.

And they often spend up to ten years there (or even more) before they're finally executed, due to all the red tape involved. They rarely get much sympathy, but still...

 

[Celestial Moth]

Assuming what you say is true, Moth, then compared to the guys on death row, you're on a vacation.

And they often spend up to ten years there (or even more) before they're finally executed, due to all the red tape involved. They rarely get much sympathy, but still...

Yes a soon to be taken vacation that i might not volenterally go on, depending the result, im on bail.

Yeah in cases like that it would be even worse bro, imagine for 5+ years your uncertain if your gonna live or die,
but you no that regardless you are never going to be able to enjoy the things that you ones did, thats an even worse
situation than the ones i summed up bro. Because in those situations, the mind is put through even more uncertainty
in an environment in which often makes people worse because of the conditions.

Obliviously i cant speak for people in those positions because the amount of mental torment, in which they themselves inflict on theirselfs
for what... 5 years, few could compare to...
You cant simply lock someone up for 20+ years, if they make it out, release them, and exspect that they are gonna be happy, SAIN, law abiding people.
The effects is the extream opposite, locking someone up for 20+ years while in the environment that encourages malevolent behavior, creates a person with
very little cares and very little worries about another persons life... It makes people worse and in turn creates more problems.

When you hear on the news , oh some persons just been locked away from 20 years, and you think nuthing of it, thats someones entire life and dreams that
are not meaningless, now obviously theirs cases where if this isn't done their the person in question could kill/ create much more pain. And this is needed to keep order
and prevent anarchy from being achieved, but you can not simply lock someone up for 20+ years and exspect them to come out a changed man/women for the better.
Often, theyl come out with a criminal mind that would baffle psychologists because of the environment in which they have been forced to accept.
Most people that are in those situations have to much pride to kill theirselfs because of the way they would look to others in prison, and so they internalise
that pain and project it onto others, in the form of bashing,rape and other things.

But in my eyes giving a prisoner, whos facing a 20+ year stretch to replace their sentance with a death sentance, seem more moral and ethical than making someone.
a PRISONER and a SLAVE for 20 YEARS!

Obviously people don't often absorb this perception of death sentences, but put yourself in the situation of others regardless of actions, and think,would you,
be able to LIVE 20 years in a place you hated and couldnt stand, without any of your conforts your use to and ect.. IT would be hell and if your not scared
of dieing you'd prefer a death sentence 10+ years into your life sentence...

 

[Maedar]

Moth, you don't seem to have much of a sense of scale.

A crime that gives you the possibility of release in 20 years (or even 40), will likely not have the death penalty as an option at the trial. Capital punishment in this country is something usually reserved for the most serious of things, where the minimum is usually life without parole. (And the judge will usually deny bail before the trial starts.)

I hesitate to ask just what the charge is against you, but... If prison is so terrible - and it is - people should really think about that before doing whatever it is that gets them sent there.

People these days have a distorted view of prisons (how inmates "get three free squares a day, free TV, free heat and air conditioning", all of which is a crock) and it doesn't help much. But seriously... The Three Strikes Law has caused enough problems and has been controversial enough (it was one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess), so I doubt people are going to start pusing for being more flexible with what the death penalty can be used for.

 

[JDavidC]

I do not see evidence that "those who fear LWOP more than the DP are pretty much unlikely to behave differently whether or not the DP is involved. Like I said, the criminals who commit suicides after their crimes are not restricted to states with the DP. And if there's no way to avoid putting some people into a "nothing to lose" situation, then that argument loses a lot of weight.

Let me rephrase the first part you quoted off me. Those who fear LWOP more than the DP are going to feel they have nothing to lose, DP or no DP, if they commit a serious enough crime, hence they will not behave differently. However, those who fear the DP more than LWOP WILL behave differently, in that they will be put into a 'nothing to lose' situation in places with the DP ONLY. To summarise: DP will add a "nothing to lose" effect to people who fear the DP more than LWOP. My argument has some weight because there are people who will fall into the latter category (fearing the DP more than LWOP).

As for LWOP being 'cruel and unusual' punishment, that is something that would need to be addressed by the government (adequate guarding of prisoners from each other, with guards allowed to use lethal force, ensuring prisoners do not get depressed). HOWEVER, LWOP *IS* supposed to be Hell on Earth, just not literally unbearable. Even really nice people will want some form of harsh punishment for criminals, and this is it. Criminals DESERVE to suffer harshly for their crimes, and prison MUST be harsh to act as a heavy-duty deterrent to crime, otherwise prison becomes somewhat pointless. I have little sympathy for people who commit major crimes, they deserve to suffer severely, and it is NOT cruel to punish criminals severely, as long as depression is staved off, and major deterrents to crime within prison (e.g. armed guards that can use lethal force to protect themselves and prisoners from violent crime, as well as citizens against breakout attempts). Death is the easy way out for many criminals as well. Finally, for criminals who believe the DP is more lenient, suicide during LWOP is always an option. If you can't do it yourself, then just commit suicide by armed guards/prison gangs and you'll be getting killed in no time. LWOP is SUPPOSED to be feared.

 

[Maedar]

Uh, David, the true reason correction officers are not armed is to protect THEM. If they had guns, there would be an incredibly potent risk of inmates stealing them, and that would cause a disaster.

If you think an inmate can hurt someone with a makeshift knife (which happens more often than you think) you can imagine what he could do with a firearm.

 

[LDSman]

People these days have a distorted view of prisons (how inmates "get three free squares a day, free TV, free heat and air conditioning", all of which is a crock) and it doesn't help much. But seriously... The Three Strikes Law has caused enough problems and has been controversial enough (it was one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess), so I doubt people are going to start pusing for being more flexible with what the death penalty can be used for.

So inmates don't get three meals a day, free tv and heat and air? They have little choice in the meals, what's on TV or the temp but they do get them.

 

[Maedar]

If you think canned meat and powdered milk is so desirable, try living on it for while.

A Senator in Connecticut lived on food stamps for a month to prove it wasn't as easy as most people thought. He lived mostly on Cup Ramen. Prisons have an even more frugal budget.

 

[LDSman]

If you think canned meat and powdered milk is so desirable, try living on it for while.

A Senator in Connecticut lived on food stamps for a month to prove it wasn't as easy as most people thought. He lived mostly on Cup Ramen. Prisons have an even more frugal budget.

Prove it. I've worked in a jail. The prisoners got 3 square meals a day, plus anyone who had money on the books had access to a commisary. Prisoners eat better than a lot of people. Prisons also buy in huge bulk so its a lot cheaper, relatively, to shop for thousands of prisoners than a family of four.

http://voices.yahoo.com/prison-food-americas-inmates-eating-2994649.html?cat=51

The items are no different, however, the portions are adjusted to maintain the desired caloric and nutritional intake to satisfy state requirements.

Typical meal items include three to four ounces of meat, a half cup serving of vegetables, three-quarters of a cup of starch, three-quarters of a cup of salad with dressing, a bread item, a beverage and a dessert. A typical evening's fare may consist of a portion of baked, breaded chicken breast, rice pilaf, carrots, a salad, a dinner roll with butter, Iced tea, and pudding or gelatin. Not too shabby, right?

Holiday menus are even more impressive. For example, the Fourth of July meal consists of both hot dogs and hamburgers, corn on the cob, watermelon and apple pie! Conversely, some meals are quite drab, and when prepared even just a little bit off, are barely palatable. The quality of the prison food will always vary, based on the quality of the ingredients and the skill level of the inmates preparing the food. Occasionally, I observed unscrupulous food service managers and supervisors allow (or even instruct) inmates to proceed with sub-par ingredients or finished product. This is less a reflection on the system as a whole, and more on those individuals shirking their duties. However, from my experience, most of the food provided is more than adequate.

Ah a menu

http://www.bop.gov/foia/certified_food_menu.pdf

http://www.1union1.com/what_inmates_eat.htm

I can't find anything that says prisoners get powdered milk.

 

[Maedar]

Uh, did you read that third link you provided more closely? It seems to be about how prisons blatantly disregard health code laws, IMOHO.

Your first link... Arizona? Seriously. Obviously not Maricopa County.

And you claim you "used to work in a jail"? Pardon me for being skeptical, but for some reason, that's a claim that comes up eventually from EVERY person I disagree with on this sort of thing.

To be honest, it's very common for me to debate people who claim to have held careers that gave them first-hand experience, when it turns out that those claims are bogus. (I once even caught one very foul mouthed Obamacare detractor in a lie who claimed to work for the Mayo Clinic. When his reply to my post - calling me an idiot, like always - came at one PM on a Monday, during work hours at the Mayo Clinic when no-one there would be using the internet for personal use, I was onto him. Never heard from him again.)

 

[LDSman]

Uh, did you read that third link you provided more closely? It seems to be about how prisons blatantly disregard health code laws, IMOHO.

Did you not read the first half that discussed the food they were getting?

Your first link... Arizona? Seriously. Obviously not Maricopa County.

And your point is? One county does not equal the entire country.

And you claim you "used to work in a jail"? Pardon me for being skeptical, but for some reason, that's a claim that comes up eventually from EVERY person I disagree with on this sort of thing.

To be honest, it's very common for me to debate people who claim to have held careers that gave them first-hand experience, when it turns out that those claims are bogus. (I once even caught one very foul mouthed Obamacare detractor in a lie who claimed to work for the Mayo Clinic. When his reply to my post - calling me an idiot, like always - came at one PM on a Monday, during work hours at the Mayo Clinic when no-one there would be using the internet for personal use, I was onto him. Never heard from him again.)

I don't care what your experience with other debaters online is. I did work at a jail, I did see what kinds of food the inmates received. Can YOU prove otherwise? As for someone posting during their supposed work hours, ever consider the person was on a break or on a day off? And you seem to be ignoring proving your own claims.