Capital Punishment: Is it right?

[C1ay]

Doesnt matter what I believe, they have been tried, convicted and sentenced by a jury of their peers (or a judge if they chose that option).

Yes it does. Either you believe that it's OK that some mistakes have been made and it's OK to go ahead and kill those inmates or you believe we should iron the mistakes out before executing more of them. Basically you accept that mistakes are OK or they are not. I stated early on that I feel there are criminals that don't deserve to live and that I historically supported the death penalty. I'm just not willing to accept any executions in error and you give the impression that they're OK, i.e. if some jury or judge made a mistake then "oh, well". We'll have to agree to disagree, I choose to err on the side of not executing anyone that might be innocent.

[Zythryn]

We'll have to agree to disagree, I choose to err on the side of not executing anyone that might be innocent.

 

 

C1ay, since you didn't answer my previous post so I am trying to read between the lines.

 

So you are saying you are unwilling to accept any deaths via the dp that are not deserved.

 

You are also saying you are willing to accept deaths of innocents that die as a result of murderers being released?

 

As I see it, it basically comes down to that, accepting deaths of innocents in society or accepting deaths of convicts that are incorrectly assigned the dp.

 

For your convenience I have copied the text here:

 

************************************************

Quote:

Originally Posted by C1ay

No but that's irrelevant. Are you suggesting that it's OK for the system to kill innocent people in order to protect innocent people from others that might kill them? Shouldn't we first give priority to not killing innocent people ourselves?

 

 

Excellent!! We are getting somewhere

 

So we agree that it is wrong for us to kill people we find guilty of a capital crime.

 

We also agree it is wrong that people are killed by people that have commited capital crimes in the past and have been released/escaped.

 

Next step, what do we do next?

 

Solutions I see:

 

We stop releasing murderers ever and provide additional security to cut down on esapes. Once this is done we elimate the dp.

 

Or

 

We eliminate the possibility of incorrectly putting to death any innocent (I don't know how this would be done so this is only a partial solution)

 

Or

 

We think 'outside' the box (as suggested by another post earlier) and find a solution that guarentees murderers can't murder again.

 

The solution that would be quickest to impliment in my opinion would be the first.

One thought I would add to the first two, would be any murderer that did escape and killed again would be subject to the dp. This would not eliminate the dp (unless we eliminated escapes) but it would reduce them drastically.

[C1ay]

C1ay, since you didn't answer my previous post so I am trying to read between the lines.

 

So you are saying you are unwilling to accept any deaths via the dp that are not deserved.

 

You are also saying you are willing to accept deaths of innocents that die as a result of murderers being released?

 

As I see it, it basically comes down to that, accepting deaths of innocents in society or accepting deaths of convicts that are incorrectly assigned the dp.

 

Sorry for not getting back to this.

 

I am not opposed to death sentences in general based on moral grounds. If shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty of a capital crime then I am not opposed to capital punishment for capital crimes.

 

I am increasingly reluctant to spend more money on capital cases where the appeals process can cost more than simply feeding someone for the rest of their life. If guilt cannot be shown beyond any shadow of a doubt then I begin to favor life imprisonment. If guilt can be shown beyond any shadow of a doubt then I favor a truncated appeals process. Someone caught on film shooting the clerk at the convenience store they are robbing does not deserve a million dollars worth of appeals over the next 10 to 15 years. Review the tape and get it over with.

 

I do not favor the release of murderers. We owe it to the people, ourselves, that the system will make no errors though. We should not except any mistakes that allow a system of the state to execute anyone that is innocent. If our system makes mistakes that result in murderers escaping, or being erroneously released, and it costs innocent lives then we need to fix the system and hold it accountable, not simply allow the execution of innocents to protect innocents because that's the best we can do.

 

An innocent person that gives their own life to save the lives of many is a hero and a patriot but a state that takes the life of that innocent to save the lives of many is barbaric.

[Zythryn]

Sorry for not getting back to this.

No problem, it has been a busy thread:)

 

 

I am not opposed to death sentences in general based on moral grounds. If shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty of a capital crime then I am not opposed to capital punishment for capital crimes.

 

Seems we agree on that.

 

I am increasingly reluctant to spend more money on capital cases where the appeals process can cost more than simply feeding someone for the rest of their life.

 

I can empathize with that. However, in our system this is one of the tools we use to insure we don't put an innocent to death.

Perhaps we should limit the death penalty to cases where there is physical evidence such as a video or dna. This may actually be done now (not sure myself). It obviously was not prior to dna tests and videos being common.

 

An innocent person that gives their own life to save the lives of many is a hero and a patriot but a state that takes the life of that innocent to save the lives of many is barbaric.

 

This statement confuses me. When looking at your first paragraph about not opposing the dp it doesn't seem to match up with your last paragraph.

 

I think everone agrees that the system we now have needs improvement.

[C1ay]

This statement confuses me. When looking at your first paragraph about not opposing the dp it doesn't seem to match up with your last paragraph.

Why? That I support the death penalty where there is certainty in the guilt of the accused is not support for the state to ever take an innocent life. There is no excuse for the state to take an innocent life, none zip, nada; not even for the protection of others. If the state cannot guarantee with 100% accuracy that someone is guilty of a capital crime then that someone should not be eligible for capital punishment. If society must take the risk that an occasional murderer will escape, or be released in error, then society owes it to the innocent to take that risk. It should not simply take the life of an occasional innocent to simply protect society from that risk. If society is uncomfortable with that then it needs to do better at proving guilt and securing it's prisoners instead of resorting to taking innocent lives itself.

[Zythryn]

Bleeck, my apologies, I missed the critical "of that innocent" part of your quote.

 

Thanks for clearing that up, I think I need some sleep to rest my eyes =)

[Cedars]

Yes it does. Either you believe that it's OK that some mistakes have been made and it's OK to go ahead and kill those inmates or you believe we should iron the mistakes out before executing more of them. Basically you accept that mistakes are OK or they are not. I stated early on that I feel there are criminals that don't deserve to live and that I historically supported the death penalty. I'm just not willing to accept any executions in error and you give the impression that they're OK, i.e. if some jury or judge made a mistake then "oh, well". We'll have to agree to disagree, I choose to err on the side of not executing anyone that might be innocent.

 

 

I dont think offering suggestions of charging prosecutors/police with felonies and suggesting that if this kind of behavior results in an innocent being executed that they should be charged with premeditated murder signals I am ok with mistakes being made. I dont think saying that I am ok with changing rules of evidence even if it results in fewer convictions/executions is an indication that I am ok with executing innocents. But knowing its an imperfect world and you cannot get absolutes from much of it, is reflective of a realist point of view.

 

I am surprised when persons say things such as "apples and oranges" when comparing two innocents and whether the system should be changed when the only difference is one is sentenced to death and the other life or some other extreme number of years. It makes me suspious of the motivations of those who claim they want 100% absolute for one kind of crime and dismiss the lives which are altered due to any incorrect decision. Are you saying its ok to convict an innocent for murder as long as they do not face the death penalty? See, I dont think its ok to convict an innocent, but I know that in an imperfect world this will happen. And when the system becomes aware of such grievances it needs to be addressed for the murderer, the rapist, the drug user, the speeder...

 

So while you may not like that I say things such as "not enough info to conclude anything" over these cases you present as innocents, I think my assessment is at a minimum, honest. I did take the time to look for confirming evidence. And each of these cases has gone thru the appeals process and others have looked at and decided their endings. So its not like the cases were decided by one court, rather several courts have looked into them.

 

I know someone who had to sit thru a murder trial as a jurist, in a non-DP state and the struggles that person had afterwards over "did we come to the right conclusion". Most jurys take their responsiblity very seriously yet mistakes are made. Your not suggesting that we get rid of jury trials because of this, yet you are aware juries make mistakes. And I know the guilty will lie right up to their death. Such is the nature of people.

[C1ay]

I am surprised when persons say things such as "apples and oranges" when comparing two innocents and whether the system should be changed when the only difference is one is sentenced to death and the other life or some other extreme number of years. It makes me suspious of the motivations of those who claim they want 100% absolute for one kind of crime and dismiss the lives which are altered due to any incorrect decision. Are you saying its ok to convict an innocent for murder as long as they do not face the death penalty? See, I dont think its ok to convict an innocent, but I know that in an imperfect world this will happen. And when the system becomes aware of such grievances it needs to be addressed for the murderer, the rapist, the drug user, the speeder...

No, I'm not saying it's OK to convict an innocent. I'm only saying that you can at least try to right the wrong by setting free the innocent on death row if you find that he/she is in fact innocent. You cannot set free an executed innocent. The question remains, how do you take back a mistaken execution? How do you give back a life that you have taken?

 

So while you may not like that I say things such as "not enough info to conclude anything" over these cases you present as innocents, I think my assessment is at a minimum, honest. I did take the time to look for confirming evidence. And each of these cases has gone thru the appeals process and others have looked at and decided their endings. So its not like the cases were decided by one court, rather several courts have looked into them.

So, what you imply is that insufficient info to conclude anything is sufficient enough to go ahead and kill these people even if there's a remote chance that they really didn't deserve it. A judge that orders a DNA test 4 years after an execution obviously has some of his own doubts based on the information that was available at the time of the execution. You simply say, see what the test says. What good is that? If it says he's innocent then the system made a mistake that never should have been allowed, and it's one you can't take back. If the test shows he was in fact guilty it's still a test for certainty that should have been carried out before the execution in the hunt for certainty over haste. The fact remains that there was evidence to suggest a doubt and the convicted was killed anyway. I am not comfortable with a system that goes ahead with an execution in the face of doubt. I believe death penalties should require zero doubt.

[Cedars]

No, I'm not saying it's OK to convict an innocent. I'm only saying that you can at least to to right the wrong by setting free the innocent on death row if you find that he/she is in fact innocent. You cannot set free an executed innocent. The question remains, how do you take back a mistaken execution? How do you give back a life that you have taken?

 

So, what you imply is that insufficient info to conclude anything is sufficient enough to go ahead and kill these people even if there's a remote chance that they really didn't deserve it. A judge that orders a DNA test 4 years after an execution obviously has some of his own doubts based on the information that was available at the time of the execution. You simply say, see what the test says. What good is that? If it says he's innocent then the system made a mistake that never should have been allowed, and it's one you can't take back. If the test shows he was in fact guilty it's still a test for certainty that should have been carried out before the execution in the hunt for certainty over haste. The fact remains that there was evidence to suggest a doubt and the convicted was killed anyway. I am not comfortable with a system that goes ahead with an execution in the face of doubt. I believe death penalties should require zero doubt.

 

So change the rules of guilt. So change the appeals process. I dont know what more you want from me than what I have offered as suggestions to appease your sense of justice. I am comfortable letting the appeals process, juries, govenors, all the way to the president decide whether or not an execution should be stayed or not. Each of these parties had access to information I cannot find on the www. So yes, I am comfortable with stating there is insufficient evidence to doubt the decisions that were made by people with that access.

 

I followed your link and read it. I will take this opportunity to remind you of a recent case in the news where a person confessed to a crime they did not commit. The Ramsey case.

 

Bring me the DNA test results when they come in.

[C1ay]

So change the rules of guilt. So change the appeals process. I dont know what more you want from me than what I have offered as suggestions to appease your sense of justice.

That's all. Would today be soon enough? Are you comfortable that all of the death row inmates currently awaiting execution deserve to be there? That is really the only difference between us, the degree of comfort in the current system. I would rather err on the side of housing the guilty for life than executing anyone currently awaiting execution that might actually be innocent.

I will take this opportunity to remind you of a recent case in the news where a person confessed to a crime they did not commit. The Ramsey case.

Good example. People lie. Is it OK if someone is executed because of it?

[Cedars]

That's all. Would today be soon enough? Are you comfortable that all of the death row inmates currently awaiting execution deserve to be there? That is really the only difference between us, the degree of comfort in the current system. I would rather err on the side of housing the guilty for life than executing anyone currently awaiting execution that might actually be innocent.

 

Good example. People lie. Is it OK if someone is executed because of it?

 

I believe I have answered these questions multiple times.

[Michaelangelica]

Sister Helen Prejean video ("Dead man Walking")

Enough Rope - ABC TV

 

 

China not only kills more of its citizens than the USA but it also bills the family for the bullets.

[Peregrine]

An eye for an eye...doesn't solve anything. I don't see killing the killer as a means of closure. The killer gets life...paint a picture of the victim on the wall and let him or her live with that picture for the rest of their lives. just a thought!!!

[C1ay]

It sure is a good thing this guy didn't get the death penalty. 26 years later would likely have been to late to set him free....

[Moontanman]

Personally I would rather have the death penalty than life in prison. What bothers me is person using the power of plea bargaining to get out of a murder he committed and then a person who was just peripherally involved getting death. Yes it happens in some states. Of course then you have to see that in some countries the death penalty is given for relatively minor offenses like adultery, especially if you are a woman, homosexuality, and in some cases just because you pissed off the powers that be.

[LaurieAG]

I'm just not willing to accept any executions in error and you give the impression that they're OK, i.e. if some jury or judge made a mistake then "oh, well". We'll have to agree to disagree, I choose to err on the side of not executing anyone that might be innocent.

 

Hi C1ay,

 

While I'm against any sort of death penalty, especially for innocent people, there are some people who aren't innocent of causing the unlawful death of another human being, previously convicted murderers.

 

But then two judges and/or two juries would have to make 2 separate mistakes? That has been known to happen.

[C1ay]

Here's one that spent 27 years in prison before being exonerated. If he had gotten the death penalty he would likely have been gone long ago.