by Deputy Dog 17 Replies latest social current
I would like to think that prison is a good enough disincentive to murder.....but it isn't.
It might be helpful if it was used where there was no doubt of guilt at all and in cases committed against children and policemen and police women at work.
In the UK life in prison does not mean life anymore and so it is no use and no longer a deterrent.
But who would want to be the 'hangman'?
Gill
But who would want to be the 'hangman'?
Let me! Let me! Let me! Let me!
I'm all for the death penalty when there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the person is guilty of murder or pedophilia.
Yes, Juni. And in this age of DNA evidence, video cameras everywhere, etc. there are more and more cases in which there is 'absolutely no doubt'. Which brings up another problem. When is inarguable evidence going to put an end to defense lawyers who turn these cases into long, drawn out trials that often end with a confused jury finding a killer innocent? (OJ for example)
Gregor
When is inarguable evidence going to put an end to defense lawyers who turn these cases into long, drawn out trials that often end with a confused jury finding a killer innocent? (OJ for example)
One can only hope!
Yes, Juni. And in this age of DNA evidence, video cameras everywhere, etc. there are more and more cases in which there is 'absolutely no doubt'. Which brings up another problem. When is inarguable evidence going to put an end to defense lawyers who turn these cases into long, drawn out trials that often end with a confused jury finding a killer innocent? (OJ for example)
How true Gregor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least in the US, if you have the $ you can hire an attorney who will muddy up the waters real good to sway the jury to have reasonable doubt.
But???? Didn't Johnny Cochran die? KARMA...
That sounds mean perhaps, but WTF? This sort of attorney needs ... well never mind.
Juni
I'm confused about the death penalty that the USA still has in some states. Why give someone the death penalty if they aren't put to death? There are people who sit in prison for 30 years - on death row. If beyond any doubt (DNA etc) the crime has been committed, and a person is sentenced to death - then why can appeals continue on for so many years. If its the law - then why does it take so long to enact the sentencing of the law? Why have the law if it can't be followed in a reasonable amount of time? Makes no sense. Use it or lose it. Whether or not it deters crime I can't say - but if a person is convicted/sentenced to death but still alive 30 years after - well, it kind of takes away the impact of the sentencing. sammieswife.
Any survey concerning a group of 16,692 where you only sample 60 of that group will yield results that will vary from the next sample of 60 by +/-12.63%.
You wouldn't trust a survey that inaccurate to accurately say which President candidate would win - normally a 5% margin of error is considered way too much.
And you want to use this to justify killing people?
This discussion involves different paradigms.
My paradigm is 'if killing people is wrong, then killing people is wrong'.
It means there is nothing you can say to convince me 'judicial' killing is just.
At the same time I would cheerfully kill anyone who harmed or tried to harm me or mine. Self defence is fine, and I wouldn't try and pretend vengeance was justice.
Now just as I come from a paradigm resistant to persuasion, I know many pro-'judicial' killing people come from equally resistant paradigms.
Only in discussions where the facts do not matter, but the principles do, will you see such poor 'evidence' entered to justify one opinion.
Some people might genuinely make cold clinical assessment of the situation. More think they do.
But at the end of the day many think not killing a terrible murderer is just wrong, and many others will think killing a murderer is terribly wrong.
Oh... when West Germany stopped executions after WWII, the politicians went against the opinion of the public. Now Germany has one of the lowest percentages of people supporting the deah penalty.
Maybe you feel not killing murderers is just wrong, because you grew up in a society where the State killed people. It was normal.
Just like those Germans did.
Are there any stats on innocents being put to death? I'm not aware of a single case, in modern US history that has been proven.
No, there are no stats on innocents being put to death. I know of no case where it has been proven after the fact that the one executed was innocent in the U.S.. There is a famous case out of Britain where an innocent man was executed and it was discovered after the fact that he was innocent. his name was Timothy Evans and he was hanged in 1950 for the murder of his daughter. However, after his execution more bodies were found in the house he'd lived in and it was determined that his landlord, John Christie, had committed the murders (he'd also provided the testimony which sent Evans to the gallows). That execution helped provide the impetus to abolish capital punishment some 15 years later. Ironically, the murder rate went up in good old England after the death penalty was abolished.
When I conducted a quick check online, I found that the argument that innocents are being executed is still based on the numbers of people exonerated by new evidence before they are executed. Nationwide there have been 124 death row inmates exonerated as of May 7, 2007. Many of these folks were exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence when testing became available after their convictions. The number who were exonerated, though I don't know exact numbers, made it shockingly clear that something was wrong with our trial system. You are probably aware that the governor of one state placed a moratorium on executions because so many people on death row in his state were exonerated by the new testing. Sadly, that has caused state's attorneys all over the nation to stridently oppose such testing in older cases. Obviously innocents have been executed.
I don't buy the Kantian argument that it really doesn't matter because the execution of even an innocent serves a genuine state interest. The testing I mentioned earlier came out after the paper I wrote or I would've included it among my reasons to oppose capital punishment.
Sounds cruel!
Maybe, but, one who is put away for life does have more of a chance to prove their innocence than one who is executed.
But at the end of the day many think not killing a terrible murderer is just wrong, and many others will think killing a murderer is terribly wrong.
Ahhh! You've hit on the crux of the matter Abaddon. Most folks on both sides of the issue are approaching the issue emotionally, hence the bitter divide over the issue here in the United States. And until folks step back from that emotion and those simplistic reasonings, there will be no resolution to the issue here in the U.S..
Forscher
