Capital Punishment

[Zuruck]

Not to bring it up again but Bettina...this is for you. It happens again:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19679375/

I guess, at the very least, this man can have a life still.

[Bet51987]

Not to bring it up again but Bettina...this is for you. It happens again:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19679375/

I guess, at the very least, this man can have a life still.

I hope so too and I'm happy for him but remember... the same DNA test that freed this man is the same DNA test that will convict another.

I haven't changed my mind about child killers.

Edit: Or her either
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19677949/

Bee

[Kilarin]

a compromise that might be worth settling for would be to have a REAL life in prison without parole sentence. And I mean a sentence where we don't kick them out after 15 years to make room for someone who was caught with a few ounces of marijuana in their pockets.

I find the death penalty MUCH more satisfying personally, but it's just not being administered fairly in this country. And, even with really good testing, we DO make mistakes.

So, give us a better option, and a judicial system where the sentences actually mean what is announced in court.

[Munk]

punishment is not for personal satisfaction.

[CUDA]

and we all know how reliable DNA evidence can be in convicting someone, isn't that right OJ?

[woodchip]

And then we have prosecutors like the one that handled the Duke LaCross case. Justice or get re-elected no matter what?

[Kilarin]

punishment is not for personal satisfaction.

I agree, that's why I'm willing to consider the compromise. Personally, I want to know some of these bad guys fried. BUT, I recognize that emotions alone aren't the best way to make this kind of decision.

"Keep them off the streets, FOREVER", is NOT an emotional decision, it's a very logical one. And if the government would actually DO that, really lock people up and KEEP them locked up so that I don't have to worry about them hurting anyone else ever again, then we might have something worth compromising on.

[Bet51987]

punishment is not for personal satisfaction.

It is to me. I don't want any form of compromise for a child killer when all doubt is erased. (DNA + confession + samples + telling where he buried her)= I want him dead.

Bee

[Zuruck]

Bee...do you not understand that when you have this blind hatred towards the \"suspect\" that your judgement is clouded. You would have wanted this man to fry, no matter what happened, and he did not commit this crime. The problem with our justice system is that it has turned into blind retribution. As long as someone fries for the crime, people are ok with that. And that is just sickening...

This Couey guy (I'm assuming that is who you speak of) is indefensible. But like I said, your hate clouds your judgement. Remember, it's fun to think justice is being served...but sending an innocent person to death or jail just so you feel better is not justice...and you're not better than the criminal if you take someone else's life away from them.

[Foil]

To clarify what Zuruck is trying to say: many cases are not so clear-cut as \"DNA + confession + samples + telling where he buried her\". In those not-so-clear cases, we must leave emotion and revenge out of the decision!

Those emotions are okay to feel; I feel them myself. But we absolutely cannot let them override common sense or logic, especially in not-so-clear cases.

[Bet51987]

Go back and look at all my posts on capital punishment, then tell me where I would put an innocent man to death.

I don't want to go over the John Couey or Joe Smith thing again, but in \"cases like these\" where guilt has been proven without doubt that they killed young girls for personal pleasure, then what is the point in letting them live.

I'm lucky. I don't have religion to cloud my judgement like it does to some others. When it comes to this, I want to send a clear and consistent message. You kill like that.. you die. Period. No TV, no books, no free medical, nothing.

Logic is the reasoning of robots. I'm not a robot.

Bettina.

[Kilarin]

I'm lucky. I don't have religion to cloud my judgement like it does to some others.

Actually, a large percentage of conservative religious people are in favor of capitol punishment so I'm not entirely certain what you mean here.

in "cases like these" where guilt has been proven without doubt that they killed young girls for personal pleasure, then what is the point in letting them live.

The points from the other side focus mainly on two areas:
Letting them live, but keeping them locked up:
1: Gives you a chance to correct mistakes, and mistakes DO happen. Even in cases where there are confessions, believe it or not.
2: Allows for the possibility that they may eventually understand the horror of what they have done and repent.

#2 is not just a religious point of view, for those who believe in values but not in God, there still may be a point in getting someone to see the error of their ways. Also note that repentance should NOT lead to any change in the sentence if the compromise is to have any teeth. Life must mean Life.

Logic is the reasoning of robots. I'm not a robot.

Emotions are a good thing. But if we are ruled by them, we are in serious danger of slipping over the line into behavior and decisions that are wrong.

We need emotions, but our emotions must be ruled by reason or the emotions will rule us.

You kill like that.. you die. Period.

I am NOT opposed to the death penalty. But I DO think there are serious problems with the way it is implemented in the US. And if we had a REAL Life sentence, I think it's a compromise I could live with. I wouldn't always be happy with it, but it would probably accomplish more good than evil. And happy isn't as important as getting the criminals off the street.

Juries are sometimes hesitant to convict when the death penalty is on the line. The "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense starts sounding better. After all, then the people will get treatment, right? And after what they did, it's OBVIOUS they are insane. The problem is, after a few months or years in the psychiatrist couch, we have the monster back on the street again, and probably just as dangerous as they were before.

So if the judge told the jury that a guilty sentence would lock these monsters in a deep dark hole where they will never walk the streets again, I think we might get more MEANINGFUL convictions. And I could live with that.

[Zuruck]

Juries are sometimes hesitant to convict when the death penalty is on the line.

They damn well better be hesitant Kilarin! As evidence continues to show us, juries have been getting this wrong for a long, long time. Why, because people are bringing their emotions into the case and convicting on that.

Think of this. Scott Petersen was sentenced to death for the killing of his wife right? There was no physical evidence that he did anything wrong, no past history, no nothing. The only thing they had on him was that he cheated on his wife and covered that up. That makes him a cheater, not a murderer. But, they made the jury hate him so much because they showed the pictures of her being cheery, with child, and everyone felt sick. The sick feeling turns to hate very, very fast in this day and age.

Bee, you're idea that if they kill, they die is fine but the problem with that is they aren't killing the right people. More and more of these exonerations are going to keep happening...and yet people will still press and say that the ultimate punishment is just in a flawed system. It's simply not...it should not be put to use UNTIL IT CAN BE PROVEN TO BE 100% CORRECT.

Foil gets where I'm coming from...I'm not saying that murderers and rapists should walk the street...it's just irresponsible to have the mentality of people like Bold Deceiver or quite frankly, you Bettina.

[Bet51987]

I'm lucky. I don't have religion to cloud my judgement like it does to some others.

Actually, a large percentage of conservative religious people are in favor of capitol punishment so I'm not entirely certain what you mean here.

It means I'm a realist.

in "cases like these" where guilt has been proven without doubt that they killed young girls for personal pleasure, then what is the point in letting them live.

The points from the other side focus mainly on two areas:
Letting them live, but keeping them locked up:
1: Gives you a chance to correct mistakes, and mistakes DO happen. Even in cases where there are confessions, believe it or not.
2: Allows for the possibility that they may eventually understand the horror of what they have done and repent.

#2 is not just a religious point of view, for those who believe in values but not in God, there still may be a point in getting someone to see the error of their ways. Also note that repentance should NOT lead to any change in the sentence if the compromise is to have any teeth. Life must mean Life.

1. What mistakes. In the two people I mentioned there are no mistakes. Coueys stains were in her, and Smith bragged about what he did.

2. Repent? Your fooling yourself. Its your religious conviction that some God will have contempt for you so again... what is the point?

You kill like that.. you die. Period.

I am NOT opposed to the death penalty. But I DO think there are serious problems with the way it is implemented in the US. And if we had a REAL Life sentence, I think it's a compromise I could live with. I wouldn't always be happy with it, but it would probably accomplish more good than evil. And happy isn't as important as getting the criminals off the street.

Your use of the word "compromise" here, as in the abortion thread where you would force your daughter to have a child against her will, is hollow without any meaning.

Zuruck....

Do you oppose the death penalty for Joe Smith who admitted killing 13 year old Carlie Brucia?

Do you oppose the death penalty for John Couey who admitted torturing and killing 9 year old Jessica Lunsford?

A simple yes or no, because in cases like these, I would like to know where you stand.

Bettina

[Foil]

The dialogue in here is getting mixed.

Zuruck is trying to make a point about cases where the guilt is not clear.

Bettina is trying to make a point about cases where the guilt is clear.

I would venture to guess that both of you agree on the following:
1. You support the death penalty if the guilt is 100% clear.
2. If the guilt is not 100% clear, you would be at least be very cautious about the sentence.
... Correct?

[Kilarin]

it's just irresponsible to have the mentality of people like Bold Deceiver or quite frankly, you Bettina.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. There are very valid arguments in favor of the death penalty. Concentrate on the valid arguments against it and you have a better chance of convincing us.

They damn well better be hesitant Kilarin! As evidence continues to show us, juries have been getting this wrong for a long, long time. Why, because people are bringing their emotions into the case and convicting on that.

Yes, I agree. Not only do juries make mistakes, but also the death penalty is not being implemented in a fair or even fashion in the US.

The Manhatten Institute reported that the average prison term of murderers released in 1992 was only 5.9 years. So MOST murderers are walking free in 6 years. I find that... simply unbelievable. Certainly unacceptable.

And Then we have the story of Cory Maye. <wiki> <reason article>
Mr. Maye was the victim of a no-knock warrant. He was sentenced to the death penalty for shooting an unknown intruder in his house who turned out to be a cop. Luckily he's getting a new trial now, but that is primarily due to the outcry from a few bloggers. Otherwise he would still be on death row.

The Death Penalty is hardly a fair punishment when it's implementation seems arbitrary or random.

Repent? Your fooling yourself. Its your religious conviction that some God will have contempt for you so again... what is the point?

I'm sorry, I'm really missing what you are trying to tell me here.
Some people who have committed HORRIBLE crimes, have later had enough of a change of heart to recognize what terrible things they have done.
I'm not convinced that a painless death is the worst penalty anyone can ever suffer. Especially someone who never admits they actually did anything wrong. So yes, I think there is the *possibility* that someone who has committed a terrible murder might one day realize their mistake. In which case, life in prison is a much worse penalty for these people than a quick and painless death.

What mistakes. In the two people I mentioned there are no mistakes. Coueys stains were in her, and Smith bragged about what he did.

I agree, I think they are both clearly guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. And if they get fried by the justice system tomorrow, I won't be crying any tears.
BUT, there have been cases where people were just as convinced they were right, and that their evidence was solid, and they ended up convicting innocent people.

You support the death penalty if the guilt is 100% clear.

The problem is, that even when we think we have 100% clear evidence, we are not always right.

For example, check out <this report> about some of the unbelievable miscarriages of justice around the so called "satanic ritualistic abuse" cases.

These are EXACTLY the kinds of places were emotion makes us do terrible, horrible things. When you hear the first story, children raped, killed, abused, etc, by adults who did it for pleasure or religion, *I* start foaming at the mouth and wanting to see the perpetrators dead, dead, dead. So did everyone else, and so the justice system pushed hard and got convictions, based on confessions and eye witnesses.

Further research, done with cooler heads, revealed that the techniques being used to get "eye witness accounts" and to obtain confessions were questionable to say the least. The supposed criminals were apparently the victims of "false memory syndrome" and coercive interrogation techniques. It now appears that in most of these cases, no abuse happened at all until the police psychiatrist got involved. THAT was abusive.

That's why I'm scared to let emotion rule in my life. Emotion says "String em up!", but reason says, "Careful, THINK about it before you act".

I don't think there is ANY way to define "100% certain" in law that won't end up translating to "convicted".

Your use of the word "compromise" here, as in the abortion thread where you would force your daughter to have a child against her will, is hollow without any meaning.

You mean the same thread where you admitted you would force your daughter to have a child against her will, just at a different point in the pregnancy? (60 days, wasn't it?)
But let's not go there again. I understand you are angry with me because we disagree, and I am genuinely sorry about that. I feel that I can still learn things from people I disagree with, so I'm hoping we can still have reasoned discussions, despite our differences of opinion on several issues.

[Zuruck]

Bet...I oppose the death penalty in both cases. It's not that I believe these men to be innocent but the punishment is flawed and until it can be proven to be error-proof..it should be stopped. Let's find an alternative...stick them on an island with 500 foot fences..I don't know...but too many innocent people have been put to death for me to personally sanction that form of brute justice.

Those people Bee sicken me, they hold no value to this earth and I would have no problem seeing them off this planet. But the system we have used to do that is completely broken, it does not work as a deterrent and innocent people have been losing their lives because of our indifference. Anyone care to take a stab at how many innocent have died? More than one is too many...and it's far more than that.

I understand your passion with this subject, it's wholly understandable but just not in the right place.

[Bet51987]

Your use of the word "compromise" here, as in the abortion thread where you would force your daughter to have a child against her will, is hollow without any meaning.

You mean the same thread where you admitted you would force your daughter to have a child against her will, just at a different point in the pregnancy? (60 days, wasn't it?)
But let's not go there again. I understand you are angry with me because we disagree, and I am genuinely sorry about that. I feel that I can still learn things from people I disagree with, so I'm hoping we can still have reasoned discussions, despite our differences of opinion on several issues.

Just to clarify....As evident in my very first post in that thread I said "with limits". That was a "compromise" that would have given the morning after pill to abort a "cell" in my 13 year old rape victim but yet save a baby if it entered the fetus stage. YOU, like some others, gave ZERO time and would force the girl against her will, so your use of the word "compromise" is flawed.

One thing I've learned here is that extremism does not allow for reasonable dialog so I doubt two people can ever reach a "compromise" in any discussion. IMO, anyone who physically forces their own personall ideology on an innocent victim is no different than a rapist which is why I now believe in pro-choice witout limits.

Zuruck... It may sicken you, but not like it does me. I'm surprised that you would save his life even though, broken system or not, he is guilty and has no value. I never expected that from you. He tortured her.

Bettina

[Herculosis]

IMO, anyone who physically forces their own personall ideology on an innocent victim is no different than a rapist which is why I now believe in pro-choice witout limits.
Bettina

The way I see things, pro-choice "without limits" is the SAME as saying abortion without limits is OK, which IS physically forcing their own personal ideology on an innocent victim, the BABY/FETUS/YOURNAMEFORHIM_HER_IT!

In you own line of logic, that would make "pro-choice without limits" be "no different than a rapist".

I'm confused

[Zuruck]

I don't know if we'll ever be on the same page with this one Bee.

The feelings that you have towards that man, and I agree with you, it is absoutely revolting and there is no cure or anything that this man is good enough for, but putting innocent people to death in a flawed system outweights that. He can spend the rest of his days in a dark, lonely cell for all I care...never let him see the light of day, whatever, but the system is broke.

Can you justify torturing countless people for 20-30 years because of what one absoutely terrible, despicable, horrifying man did? Can you imagine being in prison for that long and knowing you didn't do it? Ugh...I don't even want to think about that.

[Testiculese]

Bet, do you know what happens to people who go to jail for raping a child? They don't fare very well. Many people in prison for brutal gang slayings and multiple in-jail murders would flip their wig if they heard about a child rapist, and there isn't much to stop them from getting at that person.

Not killing them is not the same as saving their life. (If we had true life sentences). Their lives would still be over, they would just have to have that agonizingly long wait until they do die. Peppered with beatings, rapes, harassment and intimidation for alllll those years. Emotionally, it sounds a lot better than lethal injection, eh? Realistically, it offers people who have be coerced or beaten into confessions (many many have) a way out. For those that are truly guilty, they suffer the way they should for the rest of their lives. The longer, the better!

[Kilarin]

One thing I've learned here is that extremism does not allow for reasonable dialog so I doubt two people can ever reach a "compromise" in any discussion

I used to be 100% pro capital punishment. I'm not exactly AGAINST it now, but I see the advantages of moving to a REAL life imprisonment.
So people CAN change their minds.

[Bet51987]

Right now Couey and Smith are being protected from the prison population so no one can get to them. Some day when the \"advocates for more humane prisons\" get their way and give child killers more freedom, some inmates may be able to get closer and kill them.

Thats all I can hope for with all the bleeding hearts on the outside trying to save them.

See you in the mines....

Bee

Edit: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/17/co ... index.html

One more month of waiting....