My issue with the death penalty(rant)

[coffeecrazy1]

(rant)
I support the death penalty as a tool of the criminal justice system. I do not believe it necessarily has a deterrent effect on crime. I support it because I think that, in the vast majority of cases, the punishment fits or falls short of the crime. I believe it should be reserved for only the worst offenders in our system.

However, I do not support the current method or administration of the death penalty. The appeals process allows inmates like Tookie Williams to rot for 20+ years in some cases before the sentence is completed. Similarly, our methods of execution are questionable as well. Even lethal injection, regarded as the most humane of our recent methods, yields a rather painful end to life, especially in light of the fact that more effective and painless chemicals are available(such as barbiturates).

NOW...what bothers me about the above is the hypocrisy of the entire system. I would have very little problem if someone came right out and said, "Sure...it's a harsh and painful process, both leading up to the execution and the actual execution...but that's part of the punishment." If the officials were upfront about it being the most unpleasant experience possible(or one of them), then I might find it extreme, but at least I could respect it(see also Singapore, who never hides its harshness). But, the politcalspeak about "supporting the law" and "respecting the jury" rings so hollow to me.

So...in conclusion...either find a truly painless way to kill, and kill them soon after the conviction, or fry'em, but be honest that you're frying them.(/rant)

I agree it's not optimal to wait 20 years to execute someone. The alternatives are either to eliminate the death penalty, or to deny people their legal appeals. Given the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated by DNA evidence, it seems like denying appeals is pretty reckless.

[ QUOTE ]
The alternatives are either to eliminate the death penalty, or to deny people their legal appeals.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red">WARNING: FALSE DICHOTOMY!</font>

My solution is as follows.

STEP 1: Remove the discretion to seek capital punishment from local prosecutors. Vest this discretion with the state AG.

Benefit: greater consistency in death penalty cases; reservation of capital charges for only the most "heinous" crimes; elimination of local biases inflamed by local media considerations.

STEP 2: Create a federal law requiring states proceeding with capital crime charges to adhere to a "minimum competence" standard. This would include things like defense counsel experienced in defending capital crimes, reasonable public financing for experts, investigators, DNA testing, etc.

Benefit: Reduced error rate at trial. Combined with the more standardized prosecutions that would occur from step #1, it is likely that only the strongest capital cases would be brought. The public would have increased confidence that the innocent are not being wrongfully convicted.

STEP 3: Expedited appeal. Following a trial, an expedited appeal process occurs. Intermediate state appellate courts review jury factual findings with deference, and principally focus on whether an adequate defense was afforded. Federal habeas process, which can raise certain news issues, is also limited. From conviction to execution should take no more than 2 years.

STEP 4: Public executions. Rather than executions done in the middle of the night, executions should be conducted on weekends in the middle of the day. They should be open to a limited amount of media and public, but they should not be a spectacle. As far as method of execution goes, it should not be deliberately cruel, but I have no problem if the condemed man feels discomfort, even pain. My general preference would be for firing squad--multiple head shots from a .308 rifle is as close to instantaneous as I can imagine. The only thing I dont like about firing squad is that it is a pain to clean up afterwards (ditto for the chair and gas chamber, when the condemned man often loses bowel control or he gets cooked). Lethal injection seems popular these days, and Im fine with that. Since we do this to our dogs and horses, I reckon its just fine for scumbag criminals.

[Exsubmariner]

The victims of Tookie:


Warning: Graphic (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/tookiewilliamsvictims.html)

[slickpoppa]

I dont understand why they just dont use a method like Kevorkian's. It seems pretty simple.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
The victims of Tookie:


Warning: Graphic (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/tookiewilliamsvictims.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there absolutely any reason to post that other than to try and stir up some kind of emotional bloodlust?

Or are you just trying to make some kind of ad hominem argument against death penalty opponents, trying to paint them as unsympathetic to the victims?

[ QUOTE ]
The victims of Tookie:


Warning: Graphic (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/tookiewilliamsvictims.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I didn't realize murder was a bad thing until now. Fry 'em all.

[Exsubmariner]

I am making no argument. I cannot control the emotional reactions of anyone who looks at those pictures. The link contains a warning and no one is forced to look. I am simply presenting factual information in the form of photographic evidence that is relevent to the discussion. If the OP had not referenced Tookie, I would not have posted it.

If you feel it is too over the top for your message board, you are the moderator, and you are free to take it down. I will not be offended if you do.

But, I honestly feel the pictures speak for themselves.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

But, I honestly feel the pictures speak for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well maybe you should expand. I see that a gross crime was committed. I don't see how that could either support or opposed the death penalty.

Unless of course you don't have any argument other than trying to stir up emotions.

[Exsubmariner]

I already said that I was only presenting facts.

It is up to the viewer to decide whether or not those facts make an arguement for or against the issue at hand. That's what I meant when I said they speak for themselves. A jury of 12 men and women saw those same pictures 25 years ago and decided they did.

I would welcome any discourse based on the evidence I present here that the jury was wrong.

[[censored]]

I'd like to see decapitation brought back into the mix myself.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
I already said that I was only presenting facts.

It is up to the viewer to decide whether or not those facts make an arguement for or against the issue at hand. That's what I meant when I said they speak for themselves. A jury of 12 men and women saw those same pictures 25 years ago and decided they did.

I would welcome any discourse based on the evidence I present here that the jury was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your 'evidence' certainly in no way proves that they were right. Nor does it in anyway prove that Tookie deserved to be killed, nor does it prove in anyway that the death penalty is a just punishment. I'm really asking what exactly you are tryin to 'prove' with your 'evidence.'

The evidence he posted basically buttresses the arguments made by the OP and a responder to the OP, therein making the same point as them.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe it should be reserved for only the worst offenders in our system.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
reservation of capital charges for only the most "heinous" crimes

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see decapitation brought back into the mix myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

As for me, drawing and quartering in a public square. It would deter me from ever murdering anyone.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see decapitation brought back into the mix myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

As for me, drawing and quartering in a public square. It would deter me from ever murdering anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that it won't deter anyone who might actual murder someone from doing it.

It will certainly deter the murderer from ever murdering again.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
It will certainly deter the murderer from ever murdering again.

[/ QUOTE ]

As would a life sentence without parole.

That deters him from murdering a guard or some inmate who is in for only 2 or 3 years?

Also, are you aware that many gang leaders still coordinate crimes/murders from the inside?

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

That deters him from murdering a guard or some inmate who is in for only 2 or 3 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's deemed a continued risk to guards or other prisoners he can be kept isolated from the general prison population and heightened security to protect guards. This is done already in many places.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, are you aware that many gang leaders still coordinate crimes/murders from the inside?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm also aware that many of them aren't in jail for murder, so unless you're interested in execution for all crimes, I'm not sure how it matters. I also see that as a failure of prison security, not lenient sentencing.

[Exsubmariner]

"Your 'evidence' certainly in no way proves that they were right"

I think they would disagree. I submit to you that every level of the justice system that reviewed the case also disagreed, because Tookie is in fact dead.

"Nor does it in anyway prove that Tookie deserved to be killed"

That's what a jury of Tookies peers thought.

"nor does it prove in anyway that the death penalty is a just punishment."

That's what a jury of Tookies peers thought.

I've got an idea. Let's throw away the whole justice system because PoBoy321 doesn't think it's "right." Let's allow PoBoy to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong" for everyone.

Tell me PoBoy, is it "right" that an unarmed man was shot in the back and that two unarmed women were mercilessly killed by shotgun blast, one shot in the head, the other in the stomach, so long as you get to prove your point that it was "wrong" to execute Tookie?

"I'm really asking what exactly you are tryin to 'prove' with your 'evidence.' "

What can you prove with the 'evidence?' I'm proving that the justice system, in this case, worked the way it was intended to.

[PoBoy321]

First of all:

[ QUOTE ]
SHIFTING THE ONUS OF PROOF: This is when your opponent makes a claim, provides no evidence for it, and then expects you to find evidence of it. Your opponent is making the claim, so he should logically have to provide evidence. Shifting the onus (or burden) of proof to you is a fallacy and a very low tactic to engage in. Often, a Creationist will make phantom claims and, then, act like they are common knowledge and he shouldn't have to back them up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Second of all, you have still refused to answer my question. What purpose, if any, does that picture have in this discussion?

As far as I can tell, all you've proven is that a heinous crime happened to innocent people, no one's debating that fact. What you have done, however, has been to show us evidence of what we already know, expect us to draw YOUR conclusion, then defend our position when you disagree with it.

[whiskeytown]

except then we end up executing innocent people.

I have a friend who got a guy off death row, in part because he was able to take some time to get his story written. (He was an investigative journalist)

Your idea would have killed an innocent man before he got a new trial. I find that obscene and your ideas repungant.

The death penalty is ancient history - it belongs with child labor and slavery as the product of an age when sleeping with one's own sister was legal and a black man could be lynched for looking at a white woman. It lumps us in with Islamic States and 3rd world countries instead of putting us in with the rest of civilized society.

Stanley Willams did some bad [censored]....he's paid for his crime for 20 years. Now he can't keep repaying society, which is too bad - cause he really was repaying society back by taking his anti-gang message to the inmates in prison and members on the outside

RB

[Exsubmariner]

I haven't disagreed with myself at all. I really don't understand where you came up with that one. But, it's pretty funny.

I get the impression, though, that you have a vested interest in proving here that these pictures have no relevance, when they plainly do. Another tactic you learn in debate class is to discredit presented evidence as irrelevant, especially if it undermines your position, and I believe that is what you are trying desparately to do here.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
except then we end up executing innocent people.

I have a friend who got a guy off death row, in part because he was able to take some time to get his story written. (He was an investigative journalist)

Your idea would have killed an innocent man before he got a new trial.

[/ QUOTE ]
1)I defy you to tell me where I prescribed executing innocent people.
2)I also never said I thought the appeals process should be less thorough...I was saying I thought it should either be more efficient, or keep it the same way, but have the politicians be upfront and honest about the fact that long years of thinking about your impending death is part of the punishment.

[ QUOTE ]
I find that obscene and your ideas repungant.

[/ QUOTE ] That's fine. You and I tend to disagree about most things.

[ QUOTE ]
The death penalty is ancient history - it belongs with child labor and slavery as the product of an age when sleeping with one's own sister was legal and a black man could be lynched for looking at a white woman.

[/ QUOTE ] Again, I disagree that the death penalty is in that same category.

[ QUOTE ]
It lumps us in with Islamic States and 3rd world countries instead of putting us in with the rest of civilized society.

[/ QUOTE ] By and large, yes...but haven't we already showed that we're not exactly the ONLY civilized place with the death penalty? Isn't Japan civilized, for one? Regardless...you're essentially making the "everyone's doing it, so why can't we?" argument...which is probably not the best strategy for public policy.

[ QUOTE ]
Stanley Willams did some bad [censored]....he's paid for his crime for 20 years. Now he can't keep repaying society, which is too bad - cause he really was repaying society back by taking his anti-gang message to the inmates in prison and members on the outside

[/ QUOTE ] Yes...but the time Stanley Williams did was not the punishment. As horrible as it is, the time he spent on death row was ancillary and irrelevant to the nature of his actual punishment. A jury decided that he was guilty of the most heinous type of murder(special circumstance), and that his punishment was the forfeiture of his life. If he was innocent, or the jury committed some error of law, that's one thing. But not even Tookie's supporters have provided any hard evidence that he did not deserve what he got(the death part, anyway).

And...let's be upfront about something else. We don't send people to jail because they need to "repay society." We send them to jail because they violated a law, and must be punished for that violation. Stanley Williams' actions on death row, while noble, are irrelevant to the completion of his sentence.

Stanley Williams brutally murdered four people. From the way it sounds, you think that each of them deserved five years of his time. Surely you don't mean that...

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't disagreed with myself at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said you did.

[ QUOTE ]

I get the impression, though, that you have a vested interest in proving here that these pictures have no relevance, when they plainly do. Another tactic you learn in debate class is to discredit presented evidence as irrelevant, especially if it undermines your position, and I believe that is what you are trying desparately to do here.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, for the umpteenth time because you're clearly too dense to understand this question, what, exactly, are those pictures meant to be evidence of? I know that a horrible crime was commited. Everyone knows that. How are those pictures proof of the justness of the death penalty?

Hopefully you'll just answer the question because I'm not responding to anything else you have to say in this thread because you are just too much of an idiot troll to have any kind of intelligent debate.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Stanley Willams did some bad [censored]....he's paid for his crime for 20 years. Now he can't keep repaying society, which is too bad - cause he really was repaying society back by taking his anti-gang message to the inmates in prison and members on the outside

But if you are against the death penalty for moral reasons (and i have no problem with you if you are), then the above is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Tookie was doing good or if he was bragging about how much fun he had killing people. If you think it's wrong for the state to kill, then what the convicted killers do after sentencing should have zero impact on that.


I have a friend who got a guy off death row, in part because he was able to take some time to get his story written.

As an aside, how many investigative journalists currently expend herculean efforts to exonerate people who have been sentenced to life?

It lumps us in with Islamic States and 3rd world countries instead of putting us in with the rest of civilized society.

Don't forget China. However, I disagree with this despite my amivalence about capital punishment. Our process of jurisprudence is what differentiates us from all other nations. The lengthy appeal process and the other freedoms that allow citizens groups to dig up exonerating evidence to get people off Death Row clearly show we are NOT in the same league as the countries you mention.

Philosophically, I have a problem with granting the State the power to execute. Personally, I have no sympathy with the likes of Stanley Williams, and while I would not protest if the US eliminated capital punishment, Tookie got precisely what he deserved.

[etgryphon]

Well, here is your chance...

Get all the people that think like you and petition your state government to stop executing criminals and convert it to life w/out parole.

But if the citizens of the state want to have the death penalty, then they should have it.

If you believe in the increadable arrogant "evolving levels of decency" argument as it pertains to the judical system, you should be ashamed because we have a system to do that. Its called the legislature. We have the legislature as the means to "evolve" or "devolve" what society wants...

-Gryph

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Its called the legislature. We have the legislature as the means to "evolve" or "devolve" what society wants...

Not necessarily. As a libertarian, I do not believe everything should be left up to the whim of 50% + 1. 3 wolves and a sheep should not have the right to vote on what's for dinner.

[ QUOTE ]
But if the citizens of the state want to have the death penalty, then they should have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if the citizens of my state want to have a ritual stoning like in "The Lottery", they should have it?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Its called the legislature. We have the legislature as the means to "evolve" or "devolve" what society wants...

Not necessarily. As a libertarian, I do not believe everything should be left up to the whim of 50% + 1. 3 wolves and a sheep should not have the right to vote on what's for dinner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someday you'll come to the realization that there is nothing, at least nothing of importance, that should be left up to majority vote.

Democracy is a wonderful thing--if you're voting on something of no importance, like what to have for dinner or what movie to see, and compliance is voluntary. E.g. you can choose to go to a different restaurant than what the majority chooses, or go to a different film.

Democracy is a terrible thing when compliance is compulsory and you're voting on anything important. When you're voting on who gets to keep their property, or who get lynched, democracy sucks.

[Exsubmariner]

Yes you did. You said it here:

"expect us to draw YOUR conclusion, then defend our position when you disagree with it."


"How are those pictures proof of the justness of the death penalty?"

I've already answered that. As has another poster. You simply do not wish to allow them into the discussion because you feel they undermine your position. You are like a lot of opponents to the death penalty that I have talked to. You simply refuse to face the realities of the capital crimes. Those pictures are pretty vivid evidence of reality.

"you are just too much of an idiot troll to have any kind of intelligent debate. "

How does calling me an idiot troll facilitate intelligent debate? You are a moderator, how is everyone else supposed to follow the rules of decorum set forward in the sticky post by MMMMMMM if you ignore them? They specifically say no name calling. Please adhere to the policies of this forum which are your charge to enforce.

[PoBoy321]

That first statement was just improperly stated. I should have said that you expect us to draw the same conclusion as you, and then provide evidence to support our position when we disagree with you.

Also, could you please link to the post where you answer my question? For the life of me, I can't find it.

I'm also sorry for the name calling, it was unnecessary, although you are making this discussion incredibly difficult with your refusal to answer very simple questions.

[Exsubmariner]

" should have said that you expect us to draw the same conclusion as you, and then provide evidence to support our position when we disagree with you."

Once again, I have absolutely no control over any reaction anyone may have to the photographs. If those photographs compel you to draw a conclusion which supports the death penalty, than I cannot help it. That process is entirely internal to you and I have no control over it. I can only present facts.

" I can't find it."

You can't find it because you can't handle it.

Apology accepted.