Capital Punishment

[Immortal Lobster]

If I had any control I woulda made sure the bread was at least 4 days past due

[Bold Deceiver]

The article I linked above was written in response to the brutal murder of someone in my family.

Your loss is a tragic one, and I'm saddened and horrified by it.

I think reasonable people can disagree on this point. I just happen to believe, quite strongly, that Bet holds the better arguments here. Even though I once held an opposite view.

No one would would ever wish to voluntarily grapple with the kind of intimate, forced philosophical reasonings you encountered in your own life after the loss of your loved one. And you wouldn't wish that kind of misery on anyone, I'm sure, because you're a good man.

So I hope you will understand when I make a couple of points here, that seem painfully obvious to me and that do not involve the complexities of religious doctrine. If as a society we imposed the death penalty for murders occurring on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I believe that murders would decrease on those days.

I think that this, is common sense, plain and simple. And if you accept the premise, I think it's quite difficult to then argue that the death penalty is immoral. I do NOT believe this is the only rationsle for the death penalty. But I think it's a damned good one and I invite your comment.

BD

[Will Robinson]

If as a society we imposed the death penalty for murders occurring on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I believe that murders would decrease on those days.

I think the number of murders that dropped off on those days would only be those that were premeditated. the crimes of passion and the robbery gone from bad to worse and numerous other spontaneous murders like drunken fights over girls or soccer teams etc. etc. None of those would drop in frequency.
Now going back to those that do drop off, the premeditated ones, Scott Peterson or O.J. Simpson, or the guy who wants his wife dead so he can cash in on the life insurance ect. etc. All of those guys can simply include choosing Tuesday or Thursday as the day they do the deed!
So I don't think your rationale is as strong as you do

Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the question I asked you regarding the hypothetical scenario, that if you knew for sure that the number of innocent suspects falsly convicted of murder that were subsequently executed would consistantly outnumber the victims of murderers who escaped prison and then killed again....
Would you have the same view? Would you consider the pro-death penalty people to be the ones with blood on their hands instead of the other way around as you inferred Lothar would for his anti death penalty lock-em-up-forever position.

[Shoku]

No... Old Testament Law allowed for it.

You are wrong here.

The commands given to Noah predate the Law of Moses, and are understood to be applicable to ALL men at any time; these "laws" still apply today - they were not nullified by Christ's sacrifice.

God told Noah: "Anyone shedding man's blood, by man his own blood will be shed, for in God's image he made man." -Genesis 9:6

This same resolve against those who murder was reiterated by Christ at Matthew 5:21,22, and was upheld by the apostles at Acts:15:29, where they sent instructions to the brothers in Syria and Cilicia to "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood." This statement about abstaining from blood carries the same sense God related to Noah: do not eat it, and do not shed it, except when killing animals for food.

It has always been wrong to murder. The penalty, handed down by God since the flood, is death.

Christ said that the greatest commandments are to "Love the Lord your God with a whole heart," and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." -Matthew 22:37-40. Love does not murder. Capital punishment is not murder - it is a judicial judgment - a penalty delivered to a criminal. Paul said: "Do not you people be owing anybody a single thing, except to love one another; for he that loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. For the law code, 'You must not commit adultery, You must not murder, You must not steal, You must not covet, and whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this word, 'You must love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does not work evil to one's neighbor; therefore love is the law's fulfillment." Romans 13:8-10

And yet Paul also said: "Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, . . .the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God. . . . For those ruling are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. . . .keep doing good, and you will have praise from those ruling. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear; for it is not without purpose that those ruling bear the sword; for they are God's minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad." -Romans 13:1-4

The ultimate capital punishment will come from God himself, as stated by Peter and Paul:

"But the present heavens and earth are by the same word reserved for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when godless men will be destroyed." -2Peter 3:7

"When the Lord Jesus bursts from heaven on to the stage of history with his mighty angels . . . to execute divine justice on those who refuse to recognize God and those who refuse to obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. Men like that will pay the penalty of eternal destruction." -2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

The ultimate penalty from God is the loss of life - eternal destruction. Death is the opposite of life. When you take another man's life you no longer deserve to have life yourself.

Now, to shift gears from this religious stuff:

If you travel to the Virgin Islands you will discover two things: Rampant crime in the American islands, and very little crime in the British islands. Why?
One reason is the swift execution of judgment against criminals in the British islands. Murder on the British islands is far below the murder rate on the American islands - they still practice public hanging on the British islands, and the execution of this punishment does not take 15 years or more to happen - it actually happens quite rapidly in comparison, and has proven to be a very good deterrent to murder, (which reminds me of what Paul said in his letter to the Romans).

[Bold Deceiver]

If as a society we imposed the death penalty for murders occurring on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I believe that murders would decrease on those days.

I think the number of murders that dropped off on those days would only be those that were premeditated. the crimes of passion and the robbery gone from bad to worse and numerous other spontaneous murders like drunken fights over girls or soccer teams etc. etc. None of those would drop in frequency.

I'm no expert in this area, but I know of no state that imposes capital punishment for voluntary manslaughter (the classic crime of passion ... husband comes home to find his wife having sex with another man, so husband grabs shotgun and blows them both away). A few may impose the penalty for second degree murder (homicide done with "black heart" or mayhem, but generally not pre-meditated), but I doubt it unless there are special circumstances. So I'm not moved by the argument that non-capital offenses might not drop under the above-referenced Mon.Wed.Fri. scenario.

Now going back to those that do drop off, the premeditated ones, Scott Peterson or O.J. Simpson, or the guy who wants his wife dead so he can cash in on the life insurance ect. etc. All of those guys can simply include choosing Tuesday or Thursday as the day they do the deed! So I don't think your rationale is as strong as you do

Hmmm. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my post. Your hypothetical makes my point that capital punishment is a deterrent. Obviously I'm not proposing that we provide opportunistic criminals with an avenue to avoid punishment by giving capital punishment a day off. That would be ridiculous.

Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the question I asked you regarding the hypothetical scenario, that if you knew for sure that the number of innocent suspects falsly convicted of murder that were subsequently executed would consistantly outnumber the victims of murderers who escaped prison and then killed again....Would you have the same view?

Interesting question. Let's add a few other numbers to the column. To the admittedly small number victims of murder convicts who escape and kill again, let's add a few:

(1) The number of victims who would never have been killed be if their murderers were deterred by the fact they would certainly die themselves for the crime; and

(2) The number prison guards who were injured, maimed, and sometimes killed by your prisoners-for-life.

It's my belief that it's not even close. That is because my life experience has taught me that accountability ... here, the fear of getting caught and punished ... is the operative factor here.

Would you consider the pro-death penalty people to be the ones with blood on their hands instead of the other way around as you inferred Lothar would for his anti death penalty lock-em-up-forever position.

I didn't infer it (I don't mean to be picky, but the reader would infer it, the writer would imply it)... I expressly said it, because I believe it to be true. The point you're making is that mistakes are occasionally made where innocents are convicted of crimes they did not commit. Of this fractional percentage, another sub-percentage are set to die on death row. Of this fraction of a fraction of a percentage, some are actually executed. For those persons, I suppose you could argue that death penalty proponents have blood on their hands.

The difference is one of acceptable risk. If you find that risk unacceptable, then we should try to find a common point of acceptable risk.

Let's say we live in a society with the death penalty. Assume that, say, 1500 innocent victims would be saved from vicious homicide annually, and spared the horror that Lothar faced. Suppose further that 1 innocent person would be wrongly convicted and ultimately executed following the expiration of appeals period (probably 25 years). I think this example grossly overstates the ratio in favor of your argument, but let's assume it anyway.

Acceptable risk? Or unacceptable?

[Foil]

[Religious-discussion, cont'd.]

The relationship between Old Testmaent Hebrew law and Christ's teachings in the New Testament is a very complex one, and is a huge source of misunderstanding among Christians, including myself when I was younger.

Shoku, you said that the entire Hebrew law directly applies to us today:

The commands given to Noah predate the Law of Moses, and are understood to be applicable to ALL men at any time; these "laws" still apply today - they were not nullified by Christ's sacrifice.

Following this line of reasoning, am I to understand that you also believe we are to pursue capital punishment for adultery and theft, as the Levitical law allows?

Please understand, I'm not condoning adultery here; I'm attempting to point out that such a by-the-letter/legalistic view of Hebrew law is a poor way to view it. As Duper alluded to earlier, and Paul pointed out many many times, the value of the law is not in the rules themselves, but the principles behind them.

I believe this is part of what Christ was addressing, when He said over and over during the Sermon on the Mount, "You have heard it said, [by-the-letter reading of the law], but I tell you, [principle of the matter]." He did this for numerous subjects, from murder (pointing out the deeper issue of hatred/anger) to adultery (pointing out the deeper issue of lust) to revenge (pointing out the deeper issue of human kindness/generosity).

After all, looking at the law from a by-the-letter perspective (as the religious leadership during his time often did), Christ himself was a huge law-breaker!

Again, my point is that the principles involved are the important thing here, not the letter-of-the-law.

So... I think we can all agree on the following principles:
- Murder is wrong
- Revenge is wrong
- Society should be protected from murders
- Once convicted, there should be a penalty for murder
What we don't agree on is the nature of that penalty, as I don't see Old Testament law in a strict-rule sense. (If I did, my life would be much different!)

[/Religious-discussion]

Back on topic, out of the four general categories of reasons for capital punishment (deterrence, societal protection, revenge, financial cost), only the first two make ethical sense to me. Emotionally, I feel the pull of the last two, but as a Christian I can't let those things drive my moral compass. As for the first two:

Deterrence: I'm still not convinced CP is an effective deterrent, simply because murders are either un-pre-meditated (in which case there's no forethought about consequences) or pre-meditated (in which case the murderer must think they're not going to be caught).

Protection: I know the U.S. justice system needs a lot of work, especially in keeping convicted felons imprisoned. However, I still feel that in principle, locking a psycho away is protecting society just as well as CP.

[Shoku]

Shoku, you said that the entire Hebrew law directly applies to us today:

No I did not. You are not paying attention. I said this:

"The commands given to Noah predate the Law of Moses, and are understood to be applicable to ALL men at any time; these "laws" still apply today - they were not nullified by Christ's sacrifice."

Christ's sacrifice ended the Law of Moses, not the laws God gave Noah. The commands God gave to Noah where for all of mankind, not just the Hebrews, Jews, or converted gentiles. These Noachin laws, while contained in the Mosasic Law, will always be applicable, and serve as a guide to human action.

Jesus did not deny that the punishment for murder was death, he warned his disciples that murder starts with a thought. From God's perspective the punishment for all willful sin is death. Murder, theft, adultery, lying, etc, all have the same penalty - death.

"They deliberately refused to recognize God. God allowed them to go their own way, until they reached a stage when they were mentally and morally impure, and did the things which no man ought to do. They are filled with every kind of wickedness and evil, with the desire for that which no man has any right to desire, with viciousness. Their lives are filled with envy, murder, quarrelling, underhand plotting, malice. They became whispering scandel-mongers, slanderers, God-forsaken and God-defying, arrogant, braggarts, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents. They are without conscience, false to agreements, without family affection, without mercy. Although they are well aware of the righteous decree of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them, but they applaud others who practice them." -Romans 1:28-32

While there are sins that can be foregiven, there are also sins that will not be forgiven.

"For if we go on deliberately sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any possible sacrifice for sin left. . . If anyone treats the law of Moses as if it did not exist, the penalty is death without pity on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much more severe, do you think, must be the punishment deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, who has regarded as a common thing the covenant blood through which he was made fit to enter God's presence, and who has wantonly insulted the Spirit through whom God's grace has come?" -Hebrews 10:26-29

[Will Robinson]

Let's say we live in a society with the death penalty. Assume that, say, 1500 innocent victims would be saved from vicious homicide annually, and spared the horror that Lothar faced. Suppose further that 1 innocent person would be wrongly convicted and ultimately executed following the expiration of appeals period (probably 25 years). I think this example grossly overstates the ratio in favor of your argument, but let's assume it anyway.

Acceptable risk? Or unacceptable?

I don't think you have come close to describing the reality of the current situation but if that were the ratio of innocent lives saved versus innocent lives lost then I would have to say we need the death penalty. One problem is, the number of actual executions of those who are convicted is so low that if there is a deterrent factor at best it's like 'If I get caught then there is a chance I might be executed'.
So I think if there was a federal moratorium on capital punishment I wouldn't expect to see a corresponding rise in murders.
I don't have the numbers in front of me to back it up but I'd be curious to see what happened in Illinois where the governor put a stop to it for that reason...was there a rise in murders? If your theory is correct there should have been.
How about other States, haven't other states stopped executions in their recent history? Maybe if I have the time I'll look into it and see if my perception of the situation is backed up by the numbers.

But ultimately, yes, I could go back to being a death penalty proponent if the risks were as you suggest.
I think right now the actual numbers are much closer than you intimate, or imply, or indicate, or whatever i word works

For me it seems we lost almost all of the deterrence factor when we stopped public executions and replaced it with 'Appeal Row' where convicts get all sorts of expensive extra attention.

[Foil]

[Religious-discussion, cont'd.]

From God's perspective the punishment for all willful sin is death. Murder, theft, adultery, lying, etc, all have the same penalty - death.

Yes, which is why forgiveness/grace through Christ's sacrifice is so important. Theologically speaking, without Christ, we are all guilty and deserve God's judgement.

However... talking about guilt and God's judgement is quite different than the issue at hand, which involves the question of whether or not we/government should put someone to death.

I honestly don't know where you're getting the distinction between the Noahic commands and Mosaic law, where one applies and the other doesn't. Christ made no such distinction, and neither does Paul, who spoke at length about the relationship of law and grace.

I'm also curious about your answer to my earlier question:

Following this line of reasoning, am I to understand that you also believe we are to pursue capital punishment for adultery and theft...?

I'd like to know what your thinking is on this, specifically about what our government should do.

[/Religious-discussion]

[Bold Deceiver]

Let's say we live in a society with the death penalty. Assume that, say, 1500 innocent victims would be saved from vicious homicide annually, and spared the horror that Lothar faced. Suppose further that 1 innocent person would be wrongly convicted and ultimately executed following the expiration of appeals period (probably 25 years). I think this example grossly overstates the ratio in favor of your argument, but let's assume it anyway.

Acceptable risk? Or unacceptable?

I don't think you have come close to describing the reality of the current situation but if that were the ratio of innocent lives saved versus innocent lives lost then I would have to say we need the death penalty.

Maybe it's overstated ... I'm not an expert. Then again, maybe not:

The most significant study conducted to evaluate the evidence of the "innocent executed" is the Bedau-Radelet Study ("Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases," 40, 1 Stanford Law Review, [November, 1987]). The study concluded that 23 innocent persons had been executed since 1900. However, the study's methodology was so flawed that at least 12 of those cases had no evidence of innocence and substantial evidence of guilt. Bedau & Radelet, both opponents, "consistently presented incomplete and misleading accounts of the evidence." (Markman, Stephen J. & Cassell, Paul G., "Protecting the Innocent: A Response to the Bedau-Radelet Study" 41, 1 Stanford Law Review, [11/88]). The remaining 11 cases represent 0.14% of the 7,800 executions which have taken place since 1900. And, there is, in fact, no proof that those 11 executed were innocent. In addition, the "innocents executed" group was extracted from a Bedau & Radelet imagined pool of 350 persons who were, supposedly, wrongly convicted of capital or "potentially" capital crimes. Not only were they at least 50% in error with their 23 "innocents executed" claim, but 211 of those 350 cases, or 60%, were not sentenced to death. Bedau and Radelet already knew that plea bargains, the juries, the evidence, the prosecutors, judicial review and/or the legal statutes had put these crimes in the "no capital punishment" category. Indeed, their claims of innocence, regarding the remaining 139 of those 350 cases, should be suspect, given this study’s poor level of accuracy. Calling their work misleading hardly does this "academic" study justice. Had a high school student presented such a report, where 50-60% of the material was either false or misleading, a grade of F would be a likely result.

Indeed, Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Markman finds that " . . . the Bedau-Radelet study is remarkable not (as retired Supreme Court Judge Harry Blackmun seems to believe) for demonstrating that mistakes involving the death penalty are common, but rather for demonstrating how uncommon they are . . . This study - the most thorough and painstaking analysis ever on the subject - fails to prove that a single such mistake has occurred in the United States during the twentieth century." Presumably, Bedau and Radelet would have selected the most compelling 23 cases of the innocent executed to prove their proposition. "Yet, in each of these cases, where there is a record to review, there are eyewitnesses, confessions, physical evidence and circumstantial evidence in support of the defendant’s guilt. Bedau has written elsewhere that it is ‘false sentimentality to argue that the death penalty ought to be abolished because of the abstract possibility that an innocent person might be executed when the record fails to disclose that such cases exist.’ . . . (T)he Bedau and Radelet study . . . speaks eloquently about the extraordinary rarity of error in capital punishment." ("Innocents on Death Row?", National Review, September 12, 1994).

Another significant oversight by that study was not differentiating between the risk of executing innocent persons before and after Furman v Georgia (1972). There is, in fact, no proof that an innocent has been executed since 1900. And the probability of such a tragedy occurring has been lowered significantly more since Furman. In the context that hundreds of thousands of innocents have been murdered or seriously injured, since 1900, by criminals improperly released by the U.S. criminal justice system (or not incarcerated at all!), the relevant question is: Is the risk of executing the innocent, however slight, worth the justifications for the death penalty - those being retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, required punishment, deterrence, escalating punishments, religious mandates, cost savings, the moral imperative, just punishment and the saving of innocent lives?

I get your point about actually enforcing the punishment, though. And there are apparently some good arguments that an elevated perception of being caught may have a stronger impact on the criminal mind.

[Will Robinson]

Illinois suspends death penalty

Governor calls for review of 'flawed' system

January 31, 2000
Web posted at: 10:33 p.m. EST (0333 GMT)

CHICAGO (CNN) -- Illinois Gov. George Ryan on Monday imposed a moratorium on the state's death penalty. All lethal injections will be postponed indefinitely pending an investigation into why more executions have been overturned than carried out since 1977, when Illinois reinstated capital punishment.

\"We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death,\" Ryan told CNN. \"There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied.\"

<snip>

...One of the 13 exonerated Illinois inmates, Anthony Porter, spent 15 years on death row and was within two days of being executed before a group of student journalists at Northwestern University uncovered evidence that was used to prove his innocence.

from here

This is the story that convinced me I was right to doubt the value of our current system.
I find it hard, really hard, to believe that study you posted is acurate if the guy in the story above was two days away from being executed and some college students happened to come up with the evidence that proved he was innocent!
The science behind DNA testing has developed quite a bit lately and often it is the only evidence we have that clears a suspect. Before the science developed there would have been no evidence to clear many of these prisoners therefore there would be no evidence that they were executed unjustly either!
I think that study was done some 20 years too soon....

Of course this does nothing to show your risk ratio assessment is backwards, it may still be that overall, net result is you are right, but it makes me think the ratio isn't as far apart as you think and I'd sure like to know just how many innocents would die in exchange for what I consider a relatively ineffective deterrent.
Start stringing them up in town square again and I'll sign back on though!

[Bold Deceiver]

Of course this does nothing to show your risk ratio assessment is backwards, it may still be that overall, net result is you are right, but it makes me think the ratio isn't as far apart as you think . . . .

I'm not sure about the ratio Will. On the other hand, I think common sense suggests that opponents of the death penalty would make any innocent victim of state-sponsored execution - a household name and a martyr. I haven't seen anyone of that ilk, ever, in my lifetime.

Edit:

VI. The Innocent Executed

It is not at all uncommon for death penalty opponents to make false claims about innocents executed. As of 1/1/03, The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP) claims that "Twenty three (23) innocent people have been mistakenly executed (in the US) this (the 20th) century." (32) This is a common false claim, even though the authors of that 1987 study, in response to a deconstruction of their work, stated, in 1988, that "We agree with our critics that we have not proved these (23) executed defendants to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." (33). The NCADP is well aware of this, yet it doesn't stop their deception.

Barry Scheck, cofounder of the Innocence Project and featured speaker at the National Conference on Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty (11/13-15/98 ), stated that he had no proof of an innocent executed (in the US since 1976) (34).

Not even the nation's leading, biased source for anti death penalty information, the DPIC, says there is proof of an innocent executed. They list 5 "doubt" cases (35): Gary Graham, Joseph O'Dell, Roger Keith Coleman, Leo Jones and David Spence. A review shows how deceptive the DPIC case descriptions are (36) and how lacking any proof of innocence is.

The Texas case of Lionel Herrera, like others, nationally, has been labeled, by many death penalty opponents, as an innocent executed. I believe that Herrera, once upon a time, was also included in a previous incarnation of the DPIC list. A comment from Supreme Court Justice O'Connor. "[T]he proper disposition of this case is neither difficult nor troubling . . . The record overwhelmingly demonstrates that petitioner [Herrera] deliberately shot and killed Officers Rucker and Carrisalez the night of September 29, 1981; petitioner's new evidence is bereft of credibility. Indeed, despite its stinging criticism of the Court's decision, not even the dissent expresses a belief that petitioner might possibly be actually innocent." Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390, 421(1993) (O'Connor, J., concurring)

Of all the world's social and governmental institutions, that do put innocents at risk, I am aware of only one, the US death penalty, that has no proof of an innocent killed since 1900. Can you name another?

And I do recall that Illinois governor was acting erratically -- he took those actions just before leaving office and being indicted for racketeering conspiracy; i.e., your starting point is a criminal whacko. It's also possible that the governor was calling people "innocent" because they had been released for reasons wholly unrelated to whether or not they committed the crime. Happens all the time (the old "technicality" line you see on TV).

BD

[Will Robinson]

When they said they had no \"proof\" was that in response to a question that forced them to answer specifically to a literal interpretation of the law?
For example I don't have proof O.J. Simpson killed his wife because under the law he is innocent...but I know he did it! however if you constrain my answer to the legal definition of \"innocence\" I'd have to admit that I have no 'proof' and that he is in fact innocent!

I find it incredible that we have never executed an innocent person. The death row inmate in Illinois, regardless of the pol's motives, was 2 days from being executed and I don't think it wasn't the justice system that discovered his innocence. If he had been executed, if the students hadn't discovered his innocence, then he would have been executed and no one would be able to say they have proof he was innocent!

Do you really believe we have never executed an innocent person?
If you do believe we have then I hope you, like me, would ask yourself just how many innocents is it OK to execute to be able to reap the benefits of the capital punishment system? for me it would have to be an outrageous ration along the lines that you have suggested. I'm not buying that we're at that ratio yet because so far the advocates say we haven't executed anyone who is innocent...no..wait...let me rephrase that. They say no one has proof that we have ever executed an innocent person.

Call me a skeptic but I'd like to have a little more faith in the system before I buy into it or else a firm belief that the deterrence factor is so overwhelmingly effective that it would justify the occasional innocent victim being executed.

[Bold Deceiver]

Call me a skeptic . . . .

Yer a skeptic.

Ok seriously -- I don't think there's a legal definition of innocence, in criminal law. One is eitther guilty of the crime or one is not guilty. In civil law there is comparative fault liability in most states now -- an apportionment of damages based on the level of an actor's fault (based in percentages). Not true in criminal law.

That is not to say that everyone who is found "not guilty" - like O.J. -- didn't do the crime. And no one is suggesting that the reverse isn't true as well; people are occasionally convicted of crimes they did not commmit.

The system is heavily, heavily tipped with a thumb on the scale of the defendant to prevent mistaken convictions. So it is error to compare innocence-by-jury-nullification (a la O.J. Simpson) with actual innocence. Those convicted of capital crimes have been convicted on proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" - which is the highest standard of proof in law (above the "preponderance" and "clear and convincing" standards). And most if not all of the jury (depending on the jurisdiction) have to agree on one way or the other -- else you have a hung jury and the prosecution has to decide whether to try again. It's a tough, tough standard. Have you ever tried to get 12 people in a room to agree on anything, much less beyond a reasonable doubt?

Obviously, I can't "prove" a negative (that no innocent person has ever been executed since 1900); the burden is on those who claim that the opposite is true. And I suppose since you've raised the issue, we would have to agree on what constitutes "proof". DNA evidence might fit the bill, but I would accept evidence short of that, obviously, if it were compelling enough.

But someone will have to show it to me, first.

BD

[Will Robinson]

Have you ever tried to get 12 people in a room to agree on anything, much less beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yea, I was on a jury that put a 15 year old kid in jail for murder, it was easy, real easy in fact. And in spite of the fact that I wanted him locked up and voted 'yea' to convict I'm also convinced that one of the other two that were with him was at least as guilty if not the actual trigger man. The other two went free, I used the money the court paid me for jury duty to pay for my concealed weapons permit test....

I'm all for dealing out justice, I just want to be sure the ones we kill are guilty.

[woodchip]

And I suppose since you've raised the issue, we would have to agree on what constitutes "proof". DNA evidence might fit the bill, but I would accept evidence short of that, obviously, if it were compelling enough.

But someone will have to show it to me, first.

BD

Before we all jump on the DNA evidence is the end all proof:

"Authorities acknowledged Wednesday that a clerical error at the Las Vegas police forensics lab led to a man being jailed for a year for sex crimes he did not commit."

http://tinyurl.com/322p5v

[Spooky]

░

[Will Robinson]

Well at least if you don't execute them you can let the go once you find out...

[woodchip]

Well at least if you don't execute them you can let the go once you find out...

Or conversely while the innocent one is deemed guilty, no one is looking for the real perp who is still free to commit more crimes.

[Zuruck]

Will, the story that you read about was one of many that led Gov. Ryan to commute the sentences. I used to be all for death row, thought it was good way, but way too many innocents. I don't care about the ratio...what if you were that one innocent life BD? Would you care then? Probably...

Look up Cameron Willigham in Texas or Winston (Wilton) Dedge in Florida to hear some other good stories about being in prison for a long time and then being let go.

How do you get 12 people to vote for it? Make them hate the person sitting there. Think about it, there was no real evidence on Scott Peterson, the jury convicted him and sent him to death because he cheated on his wife, she ended up dead, and someone had to burn. As long as someone burns for the crime, people don't ask questions. Sometimes the courts get it right sure...but I'm sorry...one million guilty people can rot but the life of one innocent is too much to risk...so until it's absolutely fool proof we should quit being the last of the civilized nations to ban it.

[Bet51987]

...so until it's absolutely fool proof we should quit being the last of the civilized nations to ban it.

I hope not. (and Zuruck, this is not aimed at you)

In the case of John Couey, the evidence was clear that he did it. The horrific details only the killer would have known coupled with his DNA, his fluid inside her, his fingerprints on her and the garbage bags he buried her in, his saliva in her mouth, and his confession of burying her while she was still alive, is consistent with what they found on her 9 year old body.

The point of my OP was not to invoke yet more interpretations of religious text or cast down the death penalty to anyone where even the faintest doubt of innocence exists. My point was capital punishment should be placed on those found guilty of killing little girls and boys. I can't believe the number of Couey protectors willing to reward him for killing a little girl.

Couey had a choice. He could have let her go but instead chose to kill her and because of that I'm glad my moral code is not tied to any religious fantasies and allows me to draw a line where vengeance puts him to death as quickly as possible. Like I said in my previous posts, justice should do what she was unable to do and I would have no problems helping her father pull the switch. I would no doubt feel sick about it later, but in his case the sickness would pass very quickly.

Bettina

[Foil]

My point was capital punishment should be placed on those found guilty of killing little girls and boys. I can't believe the number of Couey protectors willing to reward him for killing a little girl.

I can understand some of the reasons for feeling that way.

However, I'm not sure life imprisonment is a reward. In fact, having visited prisons before, I think some convicts consider the death penalty as a better fate than than the lowly existence in those places.

...my moral code... allows me to draw a line where vengeance puts him to death as quickly as possible.

I'm curious, if revenge as a reason for capital punishment is on the "okay" side of the line, what's on the other side? (i.e. What do you consider a non-okay reason for capital punishment?)

Like I said in my previous posts, justice should do what she was unable to do...

I'm still not sure I understand how your rationale works here. If you say "Justice should protect her, as she was unable to protect herself", then I agree. But when you bring up the issue of capital punishment as something she was 'unable to do', how does that work?

The best way I can try to make sense of that statement is to assume you mean something like, "she was unable to avenge her death, so justice should be able to exact that vengeance". However, as I sincerely hope you understand, capital punishment is not, and should not be, a form of vengeance. Although it's a VERY strong feeling, revenge implies a subjective emotional judgement. I understand the feeling; emotionally, I want these people to feel the same pain they inflicted! However, I can't ethically let that subjective feeling become the basis for such a huge moral decision.

[Bet51987]

I'm curious, if revenge as a reason for capital punishment is on the "okay" side of the line, what's on the other side? (i.e. What do you consider a non-okay reason for capital punishment?)

The line I am referring to is the line between adult vs child, or pure innocence vs anything else. An adult who kills a child out of lust deserves death. The rest is arguable.

Like I said in my previous posts, justice should do what she was unable to do...

I'm still not sure I understand how your rationale works here. If you say "Justice should protect her, as she was unable to protect herself", then I agree. But when you bring up the issue of capital punishment as something she was 'unable to do', how does that work?

The best way I can try to make sense of that statement is to assume you mean something like, "she was unable to avenge her death, so justice should be able to exact that vengeance". However, as I sincerely hope you understand, capital punishment is not, and should not be, a form of vengeance. Although it's a VERY strong feeling, revenge implies a subjective emotional judgement. I understand the feeling; emotionally, I want these people to feel the same pain they inflicted! However, I can't ethically let that subjective feeling become the basis for such a huge moral decision.

I never implied justice to protect and clarified it in an earlier post. If Jessica was older and stronger and could have gotten hold of a weapon, say a gun, she would have defended herself and used it to kill him.

Do you really think a girl would shoot with the intention of wounding her attacker? Or do you think she would have shot to kill.... When you answer that, you will know why I said "Justice should carry out what she was unable to do".

Bettina

[Dakatsu]

Do you really think a girl would shoot with the intention of wounding her attacker? Or do you think she would have shot to kill.... When you answer that, you will know why I said "Justice should carry out what she was unable to do".

But if she would of attempted to wound her attacker, does that mean we cut a leg off? Lol, Criminals with Disabilities act!

Okay... that was unserious, I'll shut up now...

[Bold Deceiver]

In fact, having visited prisons before, I think some convicts consider the death penalty as a better fate than than the lowly existence in those places.

How many of them put in a request, to your knowledge?

I'm curious, if revenge as a reason for capital punishment is on the "okay" side of the line, what's on the other side? (i.e. What do you consider a non-okay reason for capital punishment?)

I encourage Bettina to respond to this question --- but not until you post what you consider "an okay reason for capital punishment".

By the way, I'll just jump in here and offer that in my opinion -- and I really, really mean this -- it's not ok to inflict capital punishment on persons who post their views in opposition to capital punishment.

Like I said in my previous posts, justice should do what she was unable to do...

I'm still not sure I understand how your rationale works here. . . . [A]s I sincerely hope you understand, capital punishment is not, and should not be, a form of vengeance.

And I for one, sincerely hope you understand how completely patronizing and rather subject to dispute your attemped tautology actually is. In fact, so far, the Supreme Court has decided against your version of reality on this exact point. (See, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 U.S. 153.) I'm thinking maybe you were astonished that Bush won two successive elections as President, because no one that you knew actually voted for him? Correct?

Although it's a VERY strong feeling, revenge implies a subjective emotional judgement. I understand the feeling; emotionally, I want these people to feel the same pain they inflicted! However, I can't ethically let that subjective feeling become the basis for such a huge moral decision.

Avert your eyes.

BD

[Bold Deceiver]

I don't care about the ratio...what if you were that one innocent life BD? Would you care then? Probably....

Mmmm... such a challenge!

Let's see ... would I care if I were in fact the one arrested, tried, wrongly convicted and sentenced to death....

Let's see.... OH gosh I'm paralyzed with indecision ... I'm going to say YES ... I mean NO ... I mean ... ok this is my final answer ...

YES, I would care.


And your point would be .... (lost on me... oh please enlighten me please!)

Fascinating,

BD

[Foil]

In fact, having visited prisons before, I think some convicts consider the death penalty as a better fate than than the lowly existence in those places.

How many of them put in a request, to your knowledge?

I didn't profess to know any numbers. It just occurs to me that such a life might be seen as worse than death. I was simply hoping to make the point that life imprisonment is not a "reward", as was stated earlier.

... post what you consider "an okay reason for capital punishment".

As far as I'm concerned, the only possible morally-valid reason for capital punishment would be a situation where the choice was between execution and a less-than-lifelong sentence, where the prisoner would be freed to murder/rape/etc. again.

In other words, the way I see it, if life-imprisonment (without parole or any possibility of release) is possible, then capital punishment can't be an ethical option.

... capital punishment is not, and should not be, a form of vengeance.

And I for one, sincerely hope you understand how completely patronizing and rather subject to dispute your attemped tautology actually is. In fact, so far, the Supreme Court has decided against your version of reality on this exact point. (See, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 U.S. 153.)

So... the Supreme Court said that capital punishment "is/should be vengeance"? That's not what I see from that decision. I see the Supreme Court making an objective decision about the rationality and reviewability of capital punishment sentences, not making a statement about the validity of vengeance as a rationale for execution.

I'm thinking maybe you were astonished that Bush won two successive elections as President, because no one that you knew actually voted for him? Correct?

No, as a matter of fact you're completely incorrect.

You shouldn't presume you know something about my political background or views simply because of my stated feelings on a single subject. Do you really buy into those political-party stereotypes?

... emotionally, I want these people to feel the same pain they inflicted! However, I can't ethically let that subjective feeling become the basis for such a huge moral decision.

Avert your eyes.

Please tell me you're not serious. Faced with something that you see as morally wrong, your advice is to ignore it? So, next time I see someone being abused, I should avert my eyes rather than speak out? Wow, no wonder...

[Foil]

... If Jessica was older and stronger and could have gotten hold of a weapon, say a gun, she would have defended herself and used it to kill him.

Do you really think a girl would shoot with the intention of wounding her attacker? Or do you think she would have shot to kill.... When you answer that, you will know why I said "Justice should carry out what she was unable to do".

Bettina

I think the girl would have done whatever was necessary to protect herself, whether that meant killing him or not. Admittedly, in the moment, she probably wouldn't feel safe until he was dead. If she had to kill him, or even just thought she had to kill him to survive, I don't see anything morally wrong with her protecting herself that way.

However, I see a BIG difference between the terror of that moment and the rational decision of a judge or jury. The emphasis here should still be on protection, not revenge.

[CDN_Merlin]

If you are being attacked, you are not thinking about wounding your attacker to gewt away, you are not thinking at all and will do ANYTHING to get away. If you have a gun, you will shoot ANYWHERE on their body. If you have a knife, you will try to stab ANYHERE to get away.

PS: 3 nights ago in town, 2 men got into a fight at a bar, one was left with severe injuries. He died last n ight in hospital. The other (25 yr old) is in custody now.

[Foil]

Yes, in the moment, people will do whatever they need to do to protect themselves (\"self-defense\").

However, as I said, I see a BIG difference between the terror of that type of situation, and a courtroom judgement, where there is time to look at all the options, and weigh them on an ethical basis.

[TIGERassault]

Gee, I missed a bit in the few days I was gone....

I'd say capital punishment is wrong in most cases;
except for when there's practically no chance whatsoever of the criminal being able to change back to a civillised person! (take Osama, for example)


Huh. I also found myself to be enraged at death sentences on mentally disabled people. I should change that...

[Bet51987]

Yes, in the moment, people will do whatever they need to do to protect themselves ("self-defense").

However, as I said, I see a BIG difference between the terror of that type of situation, and a courtroom judgement, where there is time to look at all the options, and weigh them on an ethical basis.

Foil, you always have my utmost respect. I just wanted to say that before you read on.

Can you sit back in your chair, close your eyes, and play out every moment of her life with Couey? Can you come close to seeing the unmentionable terror in her face, her crys, her pleading with him? Can you hear the dirt falling on the garbage bags while being buried alive? I can and have many times so forgive me for not agreeing with your points on ethics. They don't work for me when it comes to him because I really hate him and can't wait untill he's dead.

There is no God thats going to judge him or cast vengeance on him in the end, and no God thats going to bring her to heaven to play with all the other kids that have been killed. Life is precious to me and I hate him for destroying one so young and innocent. Its over for her and I want nothing less than vengeance. I've been haunted by her for so long that I need closure too and I want it to act as the gun that she would have killed him with if she could have.

I feel the death sentence should be automatic for monsters like Couey, then maybe one person might think about that and let his victim go. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday... I bet if that was law, Couey would have waited an extra day... One more thing. When a bear kills a human in the woods, rangers hunt it down and kill it. They don't use a tranquilizer gun and put it in a zoo.

Bettina

[Bold Deceiver]

[C]apital punishment can't be an ethical option.

More disturbing "truisms" from the left. Tell you what, I'll address this below. Read on, friend!

So... the Supreme Court said that capital punishment "is/should be vengeance"? That's not what I see from (WIKIPEDIA)

Then perhaps you would profit by reading the actual opinion, I suppose, instead of the Cliff notes (really, should I just stop linking these things?)--

The death penalty is said to serve two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders. [Footnote omitted.]

In part, capital punishment is an expression of society's moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct. [Footnote omitted.] This function may be unappealing to many [LIKE "WIKIPEDIA FOIL"], but it is essential in an ordered society that asks its citizens to rely on legal processes, rather than self-help, to vindicate their wrongs.

(Emphases in bold and editorial comment in caps, added.) Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 U.S. 153, 183.)

Naturally, if you feel Wikipedia is a better guide to your own perception of reality, then by all means....

I'm thinking maybe you were astonished that Bush won two successive elections as President, because no one that you knew actually voted for him? Correct?

No, as a matter of fact you're completely incorrect.

I'm delighted! And did you vote in the last presidential election, and if so, for whom? Inquiring minds, and all that.

... emotionally, I want these people to feel the same pain they inflicted! However, I can't ethically let that subjective feeling become the basis for such a huge moral decision.

Avert your eyes.

Please tell me you're not serious. Faced with something that you see as morally wrong, your advice is to ignore it? So, next time I see someone being abused, I should avert my eyes rather than speak out? Wow, no wonder...

Ahh... no sir. If you think someone is being abused, by all means you should move to correct it. But that's not your own procedure here.... You see, you moved to disabuse Bettina of her ethical position by vaunting your own rather arrogant perception of "ethics", as a universally held one. Which is why I assumed, of course, you run in small circles.

I think your position is weak, and wrong. Again, as I've mentioned before, reasonable minds can disagree and I encourage you to continue to defend your position. Conclusory ethical rubbish, however, is subject to attack. So write carefully.

Cheers,

BD

[Bold Deceiver]

Can you sit back in your chair, close your eyes, and play out every moment of her life with Couey? Can you come close to seeing the unmentionable terror in her face, her crys, her pleading with him? Can you hear the dirt falling on the garbage bags while being buried alive? I can and have many times so forgive me for not agreeing with your points on ethics. They don't work for me when it comes to him because I really hate him and can't wait untill he's dead.

There is no God thats going to judge him or cast vengeance on him in the end, and no God thats going to bring her to heaven to play with all the other kids that have been killed. Life is precious to me and I hate him for destroying one so young and innocent. Its over for her and I want nothing less than vengeance. I've been haunted by her for so long that I need closure too and I want it to act as the gun that she would have killed him with if she could have.

I feel the death sentence should be automatic for monsters like Couey, then maybe one person might think about that and let his victim go. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday... I bet if that was law, Couey would have waited an extra day...

What a rare and exquisite thing, true moral fortitude is today. And all this coming from the board's youngest atheist.

BD

[WillyP]

A 9-year old would have no concept of killing... that is a very mature concept. And same for vengeance. That little girl had no thought but to get away, avoidance would have been on her mind, not revenge. She may have killed him to get away if given the opportunity, but not likely. You may have a good imagination, but you presume to know the heart and mind of another?

If it makes you feel any better, though, child molesters don't fare well in prison... this man will almost certainly die a well deserved death.

[CDN_Merlin]

A 9-year old would have no concept of killing... that is a very mature concept.

Do you remmeber the 2 boys in England that kidnapped a baby from a mall, brought him to a rail yard nad beat him to death?

Some kids know what death is. Most don't. They were released a few years back and are now part of society. I'm not sure where I stand on their sentence.

At 9, all I cared about were girls.

Bet, vengence can be a bad thing. It eats you up inside until you lose control of it and then it rules you. I know how you feel because back in the mid 90's, a man and his g/f tortured, raped, sodimaized the g/f's sister and 2 other school girls below the age of 16. He got a life sentence and she got 10 years for handing him in and testifying against him.

She was let out of prison last year and became pregnant. I believe they should of been shot in the head but they weren't.

What society needs is to find the gene that triggers rage, vengence, violence etc and remove it. This is the only way we will ever remove it from our world.

[Foil]

The death penalty is said to serve two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders.

Alright. I'm man enough to admit I was wrong there.

Honestly, I'm taken aback by that opinion, as it implies the Supreme Court supports retribution/vengeance as an acceptable ethic. It concerns me, because where does the line for "acceptable vengeance" then get drawn?

And did you vote in the last presidential election, and if so, for whom? Inquiring minds, and all that.

I voted for Bush, so back off. You're only demonstrating how inaccurate your political-party stereotypes are.

Avert your eyes.

Please tell me you're not serious. ... your advice is to ignore it?

Ahh... no sir. If you think someone is being abused, by all means you should move to correct it. But that's not your own procedure here.... You see, you moved to disabuse Bettina of her ethical position by vaunting your own rather arrogant perception of "ethics", as a universally held one.

Please re-read my posts. I am stating my own opinion on the matter, I'm not foolish enough to assume that my ideas are universally-held.

[If you need me to insert the phrase, "In my opinion..." before every single thing I say in order to understand this, let me know. Otherwise, I think it's generally understood that people are voicing their own thoughts here in E&C.]

P.S. If anyone here feels like I have attacked them or their stance personally, I apologize. I know I get into "debate-mode" very easily, but I don't intend to be hostile.

[CDN_Merlin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_ ... dent_slain


peaople like this DESERVE to die a horrible death. That is just purely sick.

[Bet51987]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_ ... dent_slain


peaople like this DESERVE to die a horrible death. That is just purely sick.

Yep, but I would not give him death. The line I draw is a very narrow one.

P.S. If anyone here feels like I have attacked them or their stance personally, I apologize. I know I get into "debate-mode" very easily, but I don't intend to be hostile.

You couldn't be a bully if you tried. Its not in you.

Bee

[WillyP]

A 9-year old would have no concept of killing... that is a very mature concept.

Do you remmeber the 2 boys in England that kidnapped a baby from a mall, brought him to a rail yard nad beat him to death?

Vaguely... I don't remember how old they were but I remember thinking they would likely get off easy for being so young... (I am glad I was not the one to judge whether or not they really understood the nature of the crime!) And certainly everyone matures at a different rate, I should, perhaps, have written 'Most 9 year olds...' But my point is that she would have been unlikely to choose to kill Couey if she could have escaped without killing him.

Some kids know what death is. Most don't. They were released a few years back and are now part of society. I'm not sure where I stand on their sentence.

I am glad (hope?) they are not victims of their own crime. IF, as they got older they realized the seriousness and would be of a frame of mind that they would not repeat then all is good. If a kid is acting out something they don't always realize the extent of what they are doing. That may be of little consolation to the families, but society must take that into consideration... but, I am getting a bit off topic, here...