Stay on Execution of K. Cooper Upheld by Supreme Court

[jaaska 0]

Quote

So, if we use as a given premise that the system itself will not function in a corrupt way, I believe that the death penalty is good and proper. I also acknowledge that NO system made by man can be 100% accurate and flawless, so yes, even in the fairest application of the death penalty (even with no malfeasance involved), we will have some percentage of wrongful convictions. And I guess I feel that I would rather see that one good faith wrongful conviction (again, stipulating no malfeasance in sending an innocent man to death just to have a prosecutor's numbers look good) than to see 100 actually guilty men go free. Why? Because those 100 men will do far more harm in their future crimes than the harm of that one in one thousand wrongly being sentenced to death. I think of the people who have been harmed by parolees who really should have been in prison, and I think, "Hey, we're talking about MURDERERS being set free in error (hypothetically)! That's even WORSE!"

I'm speechless...

The new TV game is...

"We have 99 "guilty as hell" guys over here and one unlucky son of a b***, who we just randomly picked out from the street. How fast can you kill them?"

[Erroll 49]

I am completely in favor of the death penalty. I do not see it as a deterrent (certainly not in SA), neither do I see it as exacting vengeance.
To me it is punishment, plain and simple. As someone pointed out earlier, it costs a fortune to house these people, and in this country the prisoners are far better off than the millions of people living on the outside in abject poverty. I see no reason why my tax money should be used to keep rapists and murderers in relative luxury. They have forfeited their right to life by taking someone elses.

Clearly no one (except perhaps our peaceful friend) would condone an innocent person getting executed. There is no clever answer to this. One could consider a 'weighted' guilt - in other words way more than 'beyond a reasonable doubt', it should be 'beyond all doubt'. A confession together with DNA evidence, for example? I am not a lawyer so shooting me down on this will mean nothing. I am not debating the pro's and cons of capital punishment. I am stating my position - murderers and rapist should be put to death.



Alas, we have the death penalty no more, and our crime stats and overcrowded prisons bear witness to that. We have right to life embedded in our constitution and we have right to choose abortion legislation on our law books. As you Americans like to say: Go figure.

[78RATS 0]

Quote

if the evidence shows that the hair belonged to an unknown party, we may have prevented the execution of an innocent man.

There is always a possibility that more than one person participated in the offense.

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[Nightingale 0]

of course that's an option, but because evidence indicating there was either a second or different participant was not permitted in the trial, it casts the guilt of the convicted party into doubt and indicates that he did not receive a fair trial.

[wmw999 2,146]

Quote

family of a person who's been murdered hanging, waiting for justice, for that length of time, too.

A woman where I work was murdered about 15 years ago. She had worked here quite awhile, and was very well-liked. Body never found, the whole works. The guilty party was caught (no doubt, apparently), and eventually executed about 10 years later.

Owing to the nature of my job, we have a lot of people who have been here the whole time. None of the ones I spoke to felt the least big vindicated or relieved by his execution.

It's the only data point I have, but it's a real data point.

A friend of mine used to be a death penalty appeal lawyer in California. She said that the vast majority of her clients should never see the light of day, they were way too sick or depraved. But the vast majority were sick, and horribly abused as children. Doesn't make them innocent, doesn't make them safe to let out.

But is it right to kill miscreants for what is really the sins of their parents? Especially if the cost of housing someone in live without parole is generally less than the cost of even an averagely aggressively appealed death penalty verdict?

I don't think that killing people in and of itself ennobles us. All you have to do is watch the Supermax prisons exposition to know that those aren't good answers either.

Me, I vote for sending them all to Australia . It worked 200 years ago

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I believe that there are some people in society who have NO PLACE in society, because of their nature and their willingness to commit crimes against the rest of the population. They are sociopaths and I don't believe that we can come NEAR to making them "fit for society" through counseling or whatever. Furthermore, I believe that after some particular crimes, one has FORFEITED his right to live,

And many people that have been killed deserve the right to live. If you can't give them their lives back, you should be careful about doing the opposite.

[billvon 2,427]

>As someone pointed out earlier, it costs a fortune to house these people . . .

It costs more to put them to death, once you add the costs of the mandatory appeals. NY estimated that a death penalty would cost them an additional $118 million a year.

>I see no reason why my tax money should be used to keep rapists
> and murderers in relative luxury.

As long as you don't mind spending even more to put them to death, that's fine.

> I do not see it as a deterrent (certainly not in SA), neither do I see
> it as exacting vengeance.
>To me it is punishment, plain and simple.

I think you're mixing terms here. Punishment is an act; deterrence is a result. Both imprisonment and execution are punishments. If you want to prevent them from ever committing such a crime again, life without parole or capital punishment are essentially equivalent. If you want to save money, life without parole is cheaper. If you want to deter crime, capital punishment is _probably_ better.

>One could consider a 'weighted' guilt - in other words way more
>than 'beyond a reasonable doubt', it should be 'beyond all doubt'.

This is essentially the case. Capital trials have heightened due process standards and different appeals processes.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

If you want to deter crime, capital punishment is _probably_ better.
.

Is there any evidence of this? I believe one of the arguments used in favor of abolition in Europe is that NO evidence existed that capital punishment was a deterrent to crime, and some evidence existed to the contrary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,427]

>Is there any evidence of this?

I have seen arguments both for and against; I tend to side on the deterrence side of things. One reference:

-----------------------------------------

American Law and Economics Review, 2003, vol. 5, issue 2, pages 344-376

Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin ([email protected]) and Joanna M. Shepherd

Abstract: Evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is important for many states that are currently reconsidering their position on the issue. We examine the deterrent hypothesis by using county-level, postmoratorium panel data and a system of simultaneous equations. The procedure we employ overcomes common aggregation problems, eliminates the bias arising from unobserved heterogeneity, and provides evidence relevant for current conditions. Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders--with a margin of error of plus or minus ten.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

t's edit..

You're not very peaceful at all, are you?

t

Don't know why I'm gonna dignify that with a response, since I consider it an ad hominem attack, but anyway...

I don't agree that what I've said means I'm not "peaceful." And there are varying degrees of peaceful. AND, "peacefuljeffrey" is no more a binding monicker than any other username. Some people use things like "Flailer." Does that mean they're not allowed to do a smooth, controlled skydive?

I strive to be peaceful. And I'm not perfect, I'm human. So I'm not 100% peaceful 100% of the time.

I go about my day armed to the teeth, in most people's view (if they only knew it). Does that mean I'm not peaceful? After all, I'm not using the weapons I carry to harm anyone, and I never have. I do keep them at hand in case I have to use them defensively. So, does being prepared to do violence if necessary mean that one is not peaceful? I don't believe so.

Anyway, who are you to question other people in such a condescending way? Are you one of those anti-death-penalty liberals who likes freedom of speech and freedom of thought as long as everyone speaks and thinks like you do? I already sense a disapproval of my views on the death penalty... What else about me don't you like? My interest in knives and guns? More?
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Some have jumped on my answer to the question about letting 100 guilty men go free or killing one innocent man...

Let's be realistic, people... That's a hypothetical question and it's not as though we could really ever make that "trade." There's no way to go to some casino clerk and cash-in 100 guilty men and buy yourself the life of an innocent man, so the question amounts to just so much mental masturbation.

I'm just saying that if it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, I think that if you let 100 guilty murderers out free, they're probably gonna kill at least a handful of innocent people. Isn't that worse than the one guy that you had the state execute mistakenly -- especially if the state wasn't doing so with malfeasance or corruption as the reason? (You know, like when a prosecutor knows there's excupatory evidence and suppresses it.)

I don't think that the death penalty is supposed to be vengeance, and it's not supposed to be a deterrent, either. It's punishment. And it's a way for society to know that this particular murderer will never kill again. (*That is, unless his evil soul inhabits computers and electrical devices and kills people from beyond the grave that way, like in "Ghost in the Machine"!*)

I also have a problem with certain crime victims fighting AGAINST punishing those who attacked them. I've seen stories in the news where victims argued for mercy for their attackers. I say NO; the courts and the prisons have to keep this criminal away from the REST of us. Jsut because YOU forgave the guy who attacked you does not mean that you have the right to put him back out on the street to endanger any of US, when his proper place is in prison. This misguided policy of asking the victim how severe or lenient a sentence should be is pretty stupid. Besides, it's "the People" who bring a criminal case against a suspect, not "the Victim." WE are supposed to be represented (and PROTECTED) by the prosecution. Anything else is a perversion.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[benny 0]

Quote

Quote

If you want to deter crime, capital punishment is _probably_ better.
.

Is there any evidence of this? I believe one of the arguments used in favor of abolition in Europe is that NO evidence existed that capital punishment was a deterrent to crime, and some evidence existed to the contrary.

We discussed a similar concept to this in one of my economics classes. Basically, the theory goes, if you impose the ultimate penalty for one crime, and said criminal knows this, he will then have no reason not to escalate (killing more, killing cops, etc.).

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Just a question for all my death penalty advocates out there. Which do you consider the lesser evil, a system which may let a few (hell even a few hundred) guilty people go, or one in which one innocent person is put to death?

.


I agree 100%. Check this link out too.

http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/25casesdraft.html

[billvon 2,427]

>Basically, the theory goes, if you impose the ultimate penalty for one
> crime, and said criminal knows this, he will then have no reason not
> to escalate (killing more, killing cops, etc.).

That only works if there is always one worse punishment, like the death penalty. Otherwise, if he kills a cop and knows he will get life in prison, and that's the worst that can happen, why not kill another while he's at it?

[billvon 2,427]

>Which do you consider the lesser evil, a system which may let a few
> (hell even a few hundred) guilty people go, or one in which one
> innocent person is put to death?

Depends. If 1 in 10 innocent people is put to death? Unacceptable. 1 in 100? Maybe. 1 in 1000? Probably acceptable.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

if you impose the ultimate penalty for one crime, and said criminal knows this, he will then have no reason not to escalate (killing more, killing cops, etc.).

We have this already. It's called "attempt." Nobody gets put to death for attempted murder. Why not? Perhaps the only thing preventing it is the stupidity of the perp?

The reason is that we dont' want them finishing someone off. If the punishment is the same, why wouldn't the perp go back later to finish what he started?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

>Which do you consider the lesser evil, a system which may let a few
> (hell even a few hundred) guilty people go, or one in which one
> innocent person is put to death?

Depends. If 1 in 10 innocent people is put to death? Unacceptable. 1 in 100? Maybe. 1 in 1000? Probably acceptable.

What if one of those is you or someone you love?

[billvon 2,427]

>What if one of those is you or someone you love?

That would be bad. What if a cop thought I was pointing a gun at him and shot me? That would also be bad. As long as the odds of that happening are _very_ low I'm OK with it.

[benny 0]

We also have mandatory minimums and possible death sentences for drug related offences. If a drug dealer faces a death penalty or even life w/o parole, why wouldn't he shoot the cop who comes to get him?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[PhillyKev 0]

So, 1 in a 1000 innocent people are put to death is acceptable? That's about 300,000 people. Is that your yearly acceptable rate?

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

>What if one of those is you or someone you love?

That would be bad. What if a cop thought I was pointing a gun at him and shot me? That would also be bad. As long as the odds of that happening are _very_ low I'm OK with it.

Huge difference between a cop shooting you because he/she thinks you have a gun and having a legal system through LEGAL procedure convict and execute an innocent person. Read some of those cases in the link I provided.

[billvon 2,427]

>So, 1 in a 1000 innocent people are put to death is acceptable?
>That's about 300,000 people. Is that your yearly acceptable rate?

No, 1 in 1000 errors in _capital_ cases is probably a minimum. How many capital cases a year are there?

[billvon 2,427]

>Huge difference between a cop shooting you because he/she thinks
> you have a gun and having a legal system through LEGAL procedure
> convict and execute an innocent person.

To use your angle from above - will you really feel better if your (wife, girlfriend, daughter) is killed by a cop? Or by a paroled murderer? I think all three are tragedies, and we should do everything possible to reduce the possibility of such tragedies. Having a capital punishment system is one way to help keep you and your family alive.

[PhillyKev 0]

Glad you clarified...not what you originally said.

That's a little more reasonable....still don't agree with it.

[lawrocket 3]

300,000? I don't think there are 300,000 people serving death sentences. In fact, there are about 2 million in prison altogether in the US. I cannot imagine death sentences, or even life sentences, are greater than 10 percent of this total.

My wife is hotter than your wife.