No right to sentence someone to death

[beerslurpy]

It wont matter if the death penalty is never carried out as long as people are committed to armed self defense.

Knowing that there are people waiting in darkened houses with loaded guns is a much more effective deterrent than any death penalty. You wont spend 20 years on death row if you break in here. And you wont get off easy because youre a retard or a disadvantaged youth. You will taste the boomstick, one and all.

Florida has a de facto death penalty for hot burglaries which is why we have a lot less of them than England. Same goes for carjackings. When we instituted unlicensed in-car carry, carjackings dropped off the chart almost overnight. Same goes for rape, armed robbery, pretty much everything we think of as bad. Fear of swift death at the hands of your victim goes a long way towards reducing crime.

This isnt about "government killing citizens"- this is society removing evil men from its midst. If individuals are allowed to defend themselves with lethal force against such men, surely all individuals grouped together can impose the same penalty. If we tolerate such transgressions we encourage them.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This thread is about a current news article?

What I find so incomprehensible that it goes WAAAAY beyond "disturbing" is that the murders were committed 25 years ago, the guy was convicted and sentenced to death 24 years ago ... and we are just now at the FIRST round of the appeal process? (According to a statement attributed to his attorney.)

That's just plain wrong. I certainly support the need in any judicial system to have an appeal process, as a way to ensure that nobody gets railroaded, or convicted because of a judicial (or prosecutorial) error. But the appeal process should not stretch out for 25 years!

 

[Taurus 66]

Taurus 66, have you ever seen the inside of a prison? A maximum security prison? I have done both, and I assure you, there is no "geeking out." (I wasn't a prisoner, thank you.)

Vang, Yes, I have been inside Elmira, Attica, and Wendys CF. From what a former friend of mine (who's serving 25-life) and a nephew who's been in-and-out for lesser convictions, both have told me is they get plenty of time online. They also get radios, CD players, etc. Nobody in gen-pop is suppose to be there to apply sun tan oil, eat meals better than I sometimes cook for myself, get a college education, and be all buff upon departure.

I would like my prisons to be effective in preventing future crime. If that means a few "luxuries (job training)," so be it.

It was never intended to prevent future crime. It's meant to serve "only" as a current means of harsh punishment. The prison system begins to fail when nitwits think they can totally reform the "murderer", the "rapist", the "molestor".

I Mean, Enough of Captial Punishment ..... and Enough of Babying Hard Core Prisoners!!! Is there nothing in-between??

 

[Iain]

Hmmm. Not to veer into religion too much, but just to note that I was taught a whole different set of scriptures when it comes to this issue. Starting with 'new covenant' stuff, especially that one about sin and stones.

Interesting that people make what they want of their scriptures. Not come across that before.

 

[cracked butt]

cracked butt, can you not see that the government saying "if you do these things, you have no rights" invalidates the entire concept of rights? A right does not come at the expense of a responsibility, otherwise that right is a priviledge. An allowance at the expense of a chore, so to speak.

Incarcerating a person for committing a crime would be violating their 'rights' then. If you don't believe me, go rob a liquor store then complain to the police and the judge on how your rights to be a free man, to vote, to own a gun, to have privacy etc are being violated by the government.

 

[Vang]

It was never intended to prevent future crime. It's meant to serve "only" as a current means of harsh punishment. The prison system begins to fail when nitwits think they can totally reform the "murderer", the "rapist", the "molestor".

I Mean, Enough of Captial Punishment ..... and Enough of Babying Hard Core Prisoners!!! Is there nothing in-between??

I'm not sure you can justify the existence of prison, then. Prison is a very harsh punishment for a state to have. If it is to be used, it must first have a strong, reasonable and just justice system that works to try to prevent innocent men from being convicted and that protects the rights of defendants. We have that. Second, it must serve some societal good. If you want to coerce people, you should be able to point to a clear benefit to society in terms of, in this example, crime rates.

The more we could improve this benefit, the more justified prison becomes. Suppose, though, that we knew prison prevented only one crime per year. Ridiculous, of course, but suppose is was true. If that was so, should we really be locking people up to prevent one crime? I would argue that the harm to society would be greater by imprisoning people than allowing the commission of one crime. Once you agree with that logic, it simply becomes a question of fact, rather than of moral principles. Whatever actions that have a reasonable cost/benefit that can be taken to reduce future crime should be taken.

As I have said in other posts, I believe in some harsher penalties in specific instances. For instance, I would support life imprisonment for the rape of a child (under 13). This is because letting such a person out presents a very specific danger to society, and also because it is very difficult for such people to reform.

Incarcerating a person for committing a crime would be violating their 'rights' then. If you don't believe me, go rob a liquor store then complain to the police and the judge on how your rights to be a free man, to vote, to own a gun, to have privacy etc are being violated by the government.

I never said that that is how it works at current. I simply made an argument for how it should be. Just because the current government considers me its child does not make it so.

I'm sure how can guess from the above how I justify prison, but the answer is that I believe it is justifiable when it prevents a reasonable amount of crime compared to its cost.

 

[jefnvk]

I do not know the numbers of those executed, who were innocent of the charge(s) against them, yet were found guilty by a jury of twelve, but I'm sure the number is higher than any of us could guess.

That is why I said you better be sure that they did it. Things like sentencing Scott Peterson to death, after changing out members of the jury at the last second, doesn't sit well with me. But if you got video of them doing it, or if they confessed (which the guy apparently did), or some other definite proof, throw the switch.

 

[Vang]

Confession is not definite proof. What's needed, in my view, to execute someone is some kind of convincing physical evidence along with a substantial (say more than 2 people) number of people who witnessed some suspicious action that ties the defendant to the crime, or the crime itself.

 

[Taurus 66]

An execution allows the condemned to escape punishment.

 

[p35]

Something like 85-90% of prisoners are eventually released. If you can help them turn around the behaviors that got them there in the first place, you're saving future crimes and imprisonment costs. Not being liberal about it, just practical.

Example: Around here, the penalty for meth possession starts at around 20-30 days jail on a first offense and goes up from there. Anyone who's dealt with meth heads knows that no one's going to kick the habit in a month in jail. When they get out, they go right back to using, stealing to support the habit, and probably helping others cook the stuff. I'd rather see the money for jail time spent on rehab, to get them back to being productive citizens. Some, of course, aren't motivated to quit, and those can't be helped. If you can turn them around, though, it's money well spent.

As far as the death penalty, look at Summerlin v. Stewart, 341 F.3d 1082 (2003). In that case, among other things, the judge who sentenced the guy to death was stoned out of his gourd on marijuana and had him mixed up with someone else, and his first defense attorney had gotten drunk at a Christmas party and had a "personal involvement . . . of a romantic nature" with the prosecutor in the middle of trying to settle the case.

Or look at Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040 (2002)- in that case the prosecutors convinced a jury that the defendant had committed two murders to cover up an arson for insurance scheme, while hiding from both the defense and the jury a fire marshal's report that stated conclusively that the fire at issue was an accident caused by a defective electric heater. Benn is now a free man- the prosecution decided they couldn't prove the case when it came back for retrial.

Few of us would trust the government to do anything right, so why would we trust it to decide who lives or dies?

Finally, while I respect opinions based on the Bible, that's not how we make laws in this country and never has been.

 

[Nightfall]

Your logic is the logic of statists.

Rights are inherent to our existence. No person can be stripped of his rights. If he can, his rights exist only on the whim of government.

Vang, if rights don't exist on a quid pro quo basis, then we have no recourse when our own rights are violated. When the murderer is in your home actively trying to end your life, you can't fight back because you would be violating his right to live. When the rapist violates several young women, nobody can punish him because it would violate his right to a free life. Your contention that no person can lose their rights regardless of actions against the rights of others, is absurd in that it provides recognition only for the rights of the predator, and not his victims.

 

[Cosmoline]

The older I get, the less happy I am with executions. Frankly I have serious qualms about giving the state power over life and death. I realize that the Constitution provides for deprivation of life so long as due process is followed, but frankly I can see no moral basis for giving government the power to end life. I have also come to believe that no amount of judicial procedure can ever be sufficient to safeguard against error in capital cases.

To me, if anyone the surviving family members of the victim should have the authority to decide if the perp lives or dies. But it's not government's business. The state simply has no right to kill its own citizens.

 

[Vang]

I do not believe there is a right to live a "free life." That would be a positive right. My concept of rights is that they are negative: I have a right not to be attacked, a right not to be denied access to firearms, a right to not be censored by the government, a right not to be searched unreasonably. I do not have a right to break someone's rights.

We also have no right to life. We have a right not be executed without proper judicial procedure. That has nothing to do with my right to kill someone who is trying to kill me. We have a right not to be denied the ability to defend ourselves with any necessary force. A blanket right to life denies others' right not to be prevented from defending themselves.

A prisoner retains his rights both in our legal system, as they should from commonsense. You are aware that there are many lawsuits launched by prisoners for violations of their rights, yes? Most of them are ludicrious and are denied immediately, but some do indeed succeed.

Clearly, political activism by the government in prisons would be unacceptable. For instance, the state should not be able to say that the only people eligible for parole will be those that are Christian and pledge their support to the president. The state can only implement opinion neutral proposals. For example, it could prevent any discussion of politics in prison, but it could not prevent anarchists from speaking their mind while allowing Democrats to do so. So, prisoners do indeed retain theirs rights, and for good reason.

 

[Taurus 66]

We have a right not to be denied the ability to defend ourselves with any necessary force.

Correct.

A blanket right to life denies others' right not to be prevented from defending themselves.

What? Are you saying a blanket right to life denies the rights of others to defend themselves? I just need a rewording on this one Vang. Thanks.

You are aware that there are many lawsuits launched by prisoners for violations of their rights, yes?

I have heard of a few. The '71 Attica uprising was again in the news.

Most of them are ludicrious and are denied immediately, but some do indeed succeed.

Well you wouldn't suggest executing any of the condemned before they had a chance to run their appeals and file legitimate lawsuits now, would you?

 

[Marshall]

Help me, doesn't it really depend on Jurors?

 

[Vang]

Taurus, I'm saying that a blanket right to life does not exist because, if it did, it infringes on my right not to be denied the ability to defend myself. In other words, protection of self defense and blanket protection of life are incompatible, and thus a blanket protection of life is not consistent under my system of morality/political philosophy.

 

[Taurus 66]

I'm not sure how to react to blankets or the rights of protection binkys, or whathaveyou < not worth pursuing.

With that aside, you are a supporter of capital punishment, right? You wouldn't suggest executing any of the condemned before they had a chance to run their appeals and file legitimate lawsuits now, would you? Remember ... not all who have been convicted and sentenced to death are guilty of murder. Do you want the innocent to die along with the guilty on Death Row? So long as it's more cost effective that way for the state ... right? It probably comes down to whatever benefits tax payers in the long run, am I correct?

The Law's an Ass! Does any sane and sober citizen with strong morals trust in the morals and actions of their state's government?

 

[CAnnoneer]

The death penalty does represent a big ethical problem for many people.

On the other hand, I am not certain what is more cruel: executing somebody painlessly or sticking them in prison for life. I'd rather be dead.

Also, any LEO would tell you the current system is revolving doors for criminals due to lenient sentences, early release programs, crowded prisons, and soft parole violator penalties. The three strikes law fixed some of that, but now we are stuck with another problem - people being imprisoned for decades at 40,000 dollars a pop a year. Damn expensive if you ask me. That fills up the prisons and influences early release for lighter offenders.

What I would do is some system like the British - ship the perps out to colonize some island far away, never to come back. You pay nothing and the problem is gone forever. It is good for the homeland, it is very inexpensive in legal fees, and a hundred years later, you may even have a decent island society somewhere. Also, the perps get a second chance at life.

The only ones to be kept in local jails are the small-time offenders deemed recoverable. After three strikes, adieu and good luck to you overseas.

Other food for thought - take away the citizenship of the heavy offenders. Why should murderers and rapists enjoy a privilege millions out there can only dream about?

 

[Vang]

Taurus, I do not support it any situation of any kind. I believe that government should be allowed to consider using it in cases of treason and terrorism, but I would argue against such uses.

 

[Taurus 66]

On the other hand, I am not certain what is more cruel: executing somebody painlessly or sticking them in prison for life. I'd rather be dead.

By this statement alone, you already know which is worse bacause you attached "I'd rather be dead" at the end.

What I would do is some system like the British - ship the perps out to colonize some island far away, never to come back. You pay nothing and the problem is gone forever. It is good for the homeland, it is very inexpensive in legal fees, and a hundred years later, you may even have a decent island society somewhere. Also, the perps get a second chance at life.

I like the idea, but have you considered northern Alaska? It's a land vast in vacancy, forrestry, and cold temperatures. Prison escapes would net a very low success rate. What's going on inside the big house would be more of a concern than what's outside. If I could set it all up, there would be no such thing as televisions, radios, computers, CD players, ipods, newspapers. These things would be absent from the prisoner cells. Weight lifting/gym equipment - not on my watch!

WHAT?! Someone suddenly wants to be artistic? He want paints and canvas to express his style Rembrant? OK buddy, I'm getting right on it ... lol.

And if you ever want to know what a daily work schedule would be like, give me a holler.