What's new
By:

My argument for the death penalty...

Hopper said:
As for the second point, what "better safeguards" do you have in mind? You mentioned a "higher standard of proof," is that it? What standard would you propose?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I like the catch-phrase "beyond a shadow of a doubt", but I don't know what that would translate to legally.
 
Hopper said:
Even murderers givin life can (and have) commited murder after bein sentenced--of prison officials, other prisoners, or civilians after escape. Wouldn't happen if ya smoked they sorry ***, because they would have been "specifically deterred," 100% guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Your argument about using the death penalty as leverage to avoid trials should also be weighed into the argument.

Hopper said:
So, ya see, that why the murder rate just keeps climbin, they way I figure it.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, the murder closely followed the percetage of the population that were young males, coupled with a couple of other factors. I seem to recall arguments that public executions tend to make people value the life of others less, so I'm not sure that they form a valuable deterrent.
 
Hopper said:
And there's another "deterrent" effect of the death penalty, which I brought up earlier in this thread (which was, of course, totally sidestepped by Kicky and Biley). If I recall correctly, even in Kansas the cost of prosecuting a capital crime where the death penalty is NOT sought is said to be $700,000 per trial.

I don't know about capital crimes in particular, but, for crime in general, probably 80-90% of all "convictions" are obtained by way of a guilty plea, which means there is no trial, and hence no "cost" of trial. Even a murderer who is "undeterred" at the time of committing murder can be "deterred" once his sorry *** has been caught. Many, if not most, of them don't want to risk the death penalty (when it can be legitimately threatened) and will exchange a guilty plea for a guarantee of "only" life without parole.

If it doesn't deter the crime itself, the death penalty can deter an expensive trial. Of course this threat is only credible if you (1) have a death penalty option, to begin with, and (2) fry a guy now and then to ensure they'll believe you're willing to enforce it, even if it does cost more. The ultimate savings in legal expenses in the long run probably far exceeds the cost of the (few) death penalty cases actually tried.

If the worst that could happen to a murderer was for him to receive a life sentence, he would never agree to plead guilty AND accept that penalty. He would have absolutely nuthin to gain, and everything to lose, if he by-passed his chance for a trial.

This really addresses the "more costly" argument more than a deterence argument, but they're related.
Click to expand...

I've never seen anyone try so hard to be smarter than the world and come out dumber by miles. EVERY single one of your arguments is addressed and rebutted in the California study that Peterzz pointed out. That study is one of 10 or so on the page YOU linked but apparently can't be bothered to read. The people doing these studies aren't spending five minutes like you dreaming up common sense answers to stuff (and based on your opinion about the return of medieval execution policies, I wouldn't say common sense is strength of yours.) They've actually factored in the few questions your intellect can muster.

You might want to refer to p. 144 of the California Study. You won't learn anything, and you'll quibble with their use of a semicolon, but these studies have factored in what the difference would be if all trials were LWOP as just one example, or for the 'special circumstance' Death Penalty options, etc. But by all means, keep burying your head in the sand to facts and build your sand castles of rhetoric in the air.
 
Last edited:
Hopper said:
Of course, any deterrent effect is reduced the more you reduce the horror of it. Back in the old days of hangins, guillotine beheadins, breakin guys on the wheel, and such, executions were public, and generally drew big crowds. People would bring they little chillinz to watch. Part of it was just the spectacle and festival of it all, I spect, but there was another, educational, aspect to it.

Very few 5 and 6 year old kids who see a guy's head fallin into a basket and then watch his neck just keep gushin out blood fail to be strongly impressed. Sumthin they remember years later, even at times when they seriously wanna off some guy, ya know? Talkin for my own damn self, they's probably 3-4 homeys I woulda stuck a pitchfork in by the time I was age 12, except for I didn't wanna git strung up like them guys I had seen down at the town square.

Even back in the 30's and 40's before movies they would show newsreels (either before or after the cartoon, I forget now), showin some sorry soul bein fried in the electric chair, the top of his head smokin, his face expandin like a balloon, and alla that. Kids loved it, but it terrified them, too, of course.

Not now, though. No one is allowed to broadcast executions, not even if it's just stickin a needle in some guy's arm and watchin him quietly lay there, instead of dancin on the end of a rope for a good long spell. Young-uns can't be deterred by sumthin they can't even see, generally speakin. So, ya see, that why the murder rate just keeps climbin, they way I figure it.
Click to expand...

Quoted for posterity. Let's bring back televised executions. And make them grizzlier. We'll have the most peaceful society on Earth. Except, you know, when we're boiling a convict in oil on national television. And when the inevitable mistake gets made, we can just point to the drastically reduced murder rates around the country and shrug, 'accidents happen.'
 
We can make a sport out of coming up with new and creative ways to kill people for the sake of public entertainment, eh, I mean deterrence. Then, as the public executions become more popular, and profitable, we'll have to include more crimes in the capital punishment worthy category so that the viewing audience doesn't have to go a day without watching some scumbag get offed in the name of public good, justice and safety.

"Come on kids, it's time to see why you need to listen to mom and dad. This scumbag j-walker is about to fight for his life against this other scumbag who didn't pay his parking tickets."
 
One Brow said:
If you had two examples from the last ten years, I'll revoke what I am saying.
Click to expand...

Every state has it's own laws and there are federal criminal laws, providing for punishment by death, when appropriate, which can be applied to prosecutors, judges, or anyone else who deprives someone of their constitutional rights (such the right to a fair trial) under "color of law" (i.e., in some kinda official capacity). These kinds of cases can be hard to prove, especially against prosecutors, but they can be, and have been, enforced.

Here in my state of Illinois alone, I remember at least one relatively recent case where, among others, 3 prosecutors were indicted on criminal charges for framin a guy. Here's a [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/13/us/ex-prosecutors-and-deputies-in-death-row-case-are-charged-with-framing-defendant.html?pagewanted=2"]LINK [/URL]to a NY Times article about the case.

But to me the whole issue is tangential. Prosecutorial misconduct, and outright corruption, is a serious problem in this country, and it is committed in ALL cases, not just DP cases. Should we therefore eliminate ALL laws, so prosecutors can't frame people?

I don't think so. That issue should be confronted head-on, not by backing off from crime prosecution altogether, just to insure that no innocent man is ever convicted. The public outrage and response should be against the conduct itself; public pressure to enforce the existing laws against prosecutorial abuse is the appropriate remedy. The answer is not to say that, since trials are sometimes unfair, there should be no trials.
 
Last edited:
Your example involved lying in court, which I have acknowledged is a line that, when prosecutors cross it, does result in criminal charges. Another example of that would be Mike Nifong of the Duke case.

Hopper said:
But to me the whole issue is tangential. Prosecutorial misconduct, and outright corruption, is a serious problem in this country, and it is committed in ALL cases, not just DP cases. Should we therefore eliminate ALL laws, so prosecutors can't frame people?

I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. However, when discussing the one type of punishment where prosecutor malfeasance can result in a punishment that can never be ameliorated or corrected, the potential of that malfeasance deserves special weight.

Hopper said:
The public outrage and response should be against the conduct itself, public pressure to enforce the existing laws against prosecutorial abuse is the appropriate remedy.
Click to expand...

If public outrage fails to engage, then what? I haven't heard of any massive public backlash against the three prosecutors you mentioned.
 
One Brow said:
Your example involved lying in court, which I have acknowledged is a line that, when prosecutors cross it, does result in criminal charges.
Click to expand...

Sure there was lying in that case, and many were indicted, not just the prosecutors. But the prosecutors were not bein charged with perjury--they didn't even testify.
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
If public outrage fails to engage, then what? I haven't heard of any massive public backlash against the three prosecutors you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Well, I dunno, eh, Eric? If it's a problem that really concerns you, or anyone else, then become an "activist" in the area and help whip up a frenzy of indignation, eh? If even 1/2 of the resources and energy put into attempts to abolish the death penalty were expended directly on attempting to achieve more criminal prosecution of criminal DA's, judges, and cops, I'm sure more progress would have been made by now.
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
I'm not sure. I like the catch-phrase "beyond a shadow of a doubt", but I don't know what that would translate to legally.
Click to expand...

OK, that would be fine with me. I as concerned about the punishment of innocent people as the next guy, I spect. You, and others here, seem to completely misunderstand and misconstrue my observation that "accidents" happen.

Life in prison, without parole, is a HORRIBLE fate, even worse than death, many would argue. I would NEVER want to see a guy falsely sentenced to that. But it happens. The question is what should we do about it? Like I said in the prior post, I don't think the appropriate answer is to abolish all laws or trials where it could be imposed. The problem must be attacked directly, not indirectly.
 
Hopper said:
Well, I dunno, eh, Eric? If it's a problem that really concerns you, or anyone else, then become an "activist" in the area and help whip up a frenzy of indignation, eh? If even 1/2 of the resources and energy put into attempts to abolish the death penalty were expended directly on attempting to achieve more criminal prosecution of criminal DA's, judges, and cops, I'm sure more progress would have been made by now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, lets just make the justice system perfect. That way, all the verdicts are true. And even if a mistake slips by, and an innocent person is put to death, we can call it an honest mistake, and still reap all the benefits of killing people. Of course, it wouldn't be a very honest mistake if there was an alternative that could have prevented it in the first place, like abolishing the death penalty, but since we absolutely have to have the death penalty, we'll have to live with honest mistakes. And pay a lot more money to accidentally kill people, but you can't really put a price on that.
 
Hopper said:
OK, that would be fine with me. I as concerned about the punishment of innocent people as the next guy, I spect. You, and others here, seem to completely misunderstand and misconstrue my observation that "accidents" happen.

Life in prison, without parole, is a HORRIBLE fate, even worse than death, many would argue. I would NEVER want to see a guy falsely sentenced to that. But it happens. The question is what should we do about it? Like I said in the prior post, I don't think the appropriate answer is to abolish all laws or trials where it could be imposed. The problem must be attacked directly, not indirectly.
Click to expand...

Which problem are you talking about? The problem of not killing innocent people ever? Or the problem of keeping the death penalty so it works better (whatever that actually means)? The good news is the vastly more important problem in this particular instance can be attacked directly and work perfectly.
 
Gameface said:
We can make a sport out of coming up with new and creative ways to kill people for the sake of public entertainment, eh, I mean deterrence. Then, as the public executions become more popular, and profitable, we'll have to include more crimes in the capital punishment worthy category so that the viewing audience doesn't have to go a day without watching some scumbag get offed in the name of public good, justice and safety.

"Come on kids, it's time to see why you need to listen to mom and dad. This scumbag j-walker is about to fight for his life against this other scumbag who didn't pay his parking tickets."
Click to expand...

So in your world, j-walking = killing kids with ball peen hammers or rat poison?
 
Regardless of the method of execution, it is pathetic that it has taken roughly 25 years to carry out the judge's sentence to execute. Apeals are reasonable, but not for 25 years.
 
default said:
Regardless of the method of execution, it is pathetic that it has taken roughly 25 years to carry out the judge's sentence to execute. Apeals are reasonable, but not for 25 years.
Click to expand...

Justice delayed is justice denied, as they say, eh, Dee? Ya can thank the hand-wringin, candyass, DP abolitionists for the ridiculous procedural delays, I figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top