My argument for the death penalty...

[Hopper]

The whole tale had a happy endin, though. The punk knocked the guy out cold the second time, and was commencin to start kickin his face in when the crowd, I mean the whole damn crowd, not just 2-3 guys, grabbed him and stopped him. They hauled him way out back, by the swamp. He aint gunna be back.

 

[billyshelby]

No.

I don't think the death penalty should be loosely used. However, when there is no doubt as to whether or not the convicted guy is guilty or not, then by all means fire away. I cannot believe that someone would defend what those monsters did to that little boy. I really get a kick out of the fact that generally, those who oppose the death penalty are the same ones who support abortion (but that should probably be its own thread).

Here's the problem: There's no way to legislate "only killing the guilty ones." It's already happened that 138 guilty people who were on track to die were found innocent. Advocates of the death penalty effectively have two choices: A) They can believe that human beings will never fail to administer the death penalty incorrectly ever again or B) That human beings will fail to administer the death penalty correctly at some point and an innocent person die as a result.

People who pick choice A are naive in my book, but people believe lots of crazy things. Most sensible advocates of the death penalty don't even fully realize how fallible the system has been. I've got no issue with someone that supports the death penalty as long as they acknowledge that an innocent person is likely to die and feel strongly that the benefits of the death penalty outweigh the value of that one life. I disagree just as strongly with that, but that's the essence of the debate.

 

[Gameface]

Ya plannin on movin to France, or some other candyass European country, right soon here, eh, Game? Or are ya already there?

Huh?

No, sir! I'd like to see if we couldn't make the U.S. a little better while we're here, though.

I'm not sure if you've ever read any of my other political views, but candyass France doesn't match up very well with 90% of my opinions.

 

[Hopper]

I'd like to see if we couldn't make the U.S. a little better while we're here, though.

Well, OK, Game. I guess your phrasing just struck me as odd, and perhaps overly dramatic. It's one thing to say you would like to see a something improved, and another to say you don't want to live here if your desired improvements are not achieved. But we can all more or less choose where we live, so if that's the way one feels, I guess he would head out.

You say you don't want to live in a place where "on occasion" innocent people are put to death. Others have asked you if you have any evidence that this has ever happened. I've not seen your response to that. If not, I guess there is no known need to make it "better" in that respect.

 

[Stifle Tower]

If I recall correctly, California claims to spend about $125,000 per year, per inmate, to keep prisoners on death row. They then compute the total costs of confinement by assuming that every death row inmate will live his entire natural life in prison--it adds up fast, I tellya what! That's a lotta money, sho nuff! Most honest, hard-workin citizens with families don't even begin to make $125,000/year, but we're spending all that to make sure death row inmates are safe and comfortable!?

The DP abolitionists claim that the best solution is to quit handing out the death penalty and just forego the extra supervision given to especially dangerous killers.

Others claim the best practical solution is to quit giving killers 20-30 years worth of appeal rights, and cut the subsidizin of killers short.

There could be other ways to address the problem, I spoze, but they would probably be, like, complicated, or sumthin, ya know?

And the treatment of DP inmates is far superior to that of general inmates. Just recently in CA, we had a murderer REQUEST he be given the death penalty.
A. He knows in CA that sentence will never be carried out.
B. He getsa BIGGER cell and doesn't have to share it with another inmate.

And the list goes on: better access to his attorneys, fewer inmates to share the TV with, etc., etc.

In this case, I support just doing away with the death penalty - if it's never going to be enforced. Just lock these guys up with the other inmates who have NOT received the death penalty. CA is spending far too much on prison costs. Part is the astromical salaries and pensions for guards and prison officals. Part of it is the exorbitant cost of health care mandated by the CA Supreme Court. This state is going to hell fast. Between pension costs and illegal immigrant education and health care, I predict the State will be bankrupt within 10 years. Well, technically it already is, but our governator has managed to throw a lot of costs forward and hide the real state of the State. That can only be done for so long.

 

[sirkickyass]

CA won't be fixed until Prop. 13 is repealed.

That's the real problem with the state.

 

[Gameface]

Well, OK, Game. I guess your phrasing just struck me as odd, and perhaps overly dramatic. It's one thing to say you would like to see a something improved, and another to say you don't want to live here if your desired improvements are not achieved. But we can all more or less choose where we live, so if that's the way one feels, I guess he would head out.

You say you don't want to live in a place where "on occasion" innocent people are put to death. Others have asked you if you have any evidence that this has ever happened. I've not seen your response to that. If not, I guess there is no known need to make it "better" in that respect.

I never saw a post where someone asked me that. I don't know of a specific case. I do know that the process we use is not foolproof enough for the fools running it, in my opinion.

Yeah, my comment was a little dramatic. I like a little dramatic flair now and then.

The U.S. is my home. I am an extremist in regard to individual freedom and liberty, and I don't know of another place founded so firmly upon those concepts, so I have a high tolerance for ther times when the U.S. gets it a little wrong.

A place like France gets it wrong pretty much all the time. There full grown men and women are like the children of the state. I know a lot of people like the idea of being taken care of and cradled by their government. I don't.

So why don't we put an end to this love it or leave it crap, okay?

 

[Hopper]

I don't know of a specific case.

I don't either. Without question, many have been convicted of murder, and sentenced to death, who were in fact innocent, but not near as many as some suggest, and none were in fact executed, that I know of.

The U.S. is my home. I am an extremist in regard to individual freedom and liberty, and I don't know of another place founded so firmly upon those concepts, so I have a high tolerance for ther times when the U.S. gets it a little wrong.

Well, OK, then! Witcha there, homey.

 

[Hopper]

If I had to guess, I would bet there are at least 100 people who were in fact guilty of murder but who were either acquitted or never charged, due to the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for every 1 person who was convicted of murder despite the lack of sufficient evidence.

A lot of the cases cited as proof that an "innocent" man was convicted are simply instances where, years after the crime was committed, at a time when witnesses and other potential evidence was no longer available, a guy's conviction was overturned on technical grounds, and he was never re-tried.

 

[moevillini]

CA won't be fixed until Prop. 13 is repealed.

That's the real problem with the state.

isn't that the proposition that limits the increase in property taxes? why would that cause the costs to house death row inmates to be so high and how would repealing it change those costs? I don't get it. Or was there some special provision in the law dealing with prisons?

Here's the problem: There's no way to legislate "only killing the guilty ones." It's already happened that 138 guilty people who were on track to die were found innocent. Advocates of the death penalty effectively have two choices: A) They can believe that human beings will never fail to administer the death penalty incorrectly ever again or B) That human beings will fail to administer the death penalty correctly at some point and an innocent person die as%

 

[Surely]

I don't think anyone is defending the act of murder. The point is whether the state should be in the business of killing as punishment. There's a pretty big difference between saying someone shouldn't die and saying what they did was ok.



I really get a kick out of the fact that generally, those who support the death penalty are the same ones who style themselves pro-life (but that should probably be its own thread).

See what I did there?

So in your book the life of a convicted killer (take Ethan Stacy's killers for example) > the life of a baby in the womb? But I guess we can't prove 100% that they killed Ethan and therefore should not be punished, right?

 

[VINYLONE]

CA won't be fixed until Prop. 13 is repealed.

That's the real problem with the state.

Please explain.

 

[sirkickyass]

So in your book the life of a convicted killer (take Ethan Stacy's killers for example) > the life of a baby in the womb? But I guess we can't prove 100% that they killed Ethan and therefore should not be punished, right?

I don't think I took a position on abortion in this thread. I'm pointing out the absurdity of your comparison by reversing the formula.

In any event, I don't presume to have the power to discern the value of individual lives. Anyone who does has an inflated sense of self-importance.

Moe: The Prop 13 comment was in response to GlassEater's larger discussion of CA's fiscal problems. Not the death penalty specifically.

 

[sirkickyass]

Please explain.

Prop 13 is a revenue killer and the single biggest problem with California's revenue system. It's the reason income taxes are so high, property values are outrageous, sales taxes are high, the school system is funded through an exceedingly complex mechanism, and a significant contributing factor to why the budget is nearly impossible to balance. That it's also functionally a regressive tax is horrible as well.

No CA politician is willing to challenge it because it was extremely popular decades ago. This says everything you need to know about their testicular fortitude.

 

[Hopper]

When ya got extremely high sales and income taxes, mebbe the reason you're broke is because ya spend money foolishly, eh?

As I understand it, if its the one Mo mentioned, Prop 13 limits the amount by which the taxes on property which has not been sold can be steadily increased due to increasing assessments. Anyone who buys a property starts gittin taxed based on the amount he paid, not what the former owner paid.

Prop 13 was passed, at least in part, to help prevent retired people, even those who had entirely paid off their mortgage years ago, from having their homes taken away from them by the State because they couldn't pay their real estate taxes. But, if that causes Kicky to pay more income tax, based on his actual earnings and means, it's "regressive" and unfair, I spoze.

 

[One Brow]

If I had to guess, I would bet there are at least 100 people who were in fact guilty of murder but who were either acquitted or never charged, due to the need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for every 1 person who was convicted of murder despite the lack of sufficient evidence.

A lot of the cases cited as proof that an "innocent" man was convicted are simply instances where, years after the crime was committed, at a time when witnesses and other potential evidence was no longer available, a guy's conviction was overturned on technical grounds, and he was never re-tried.

My understanding, strictly as an amatuer, is that guilty verdicts can be reversed based upon genuine trial errors, which may have improperly created an appearance of guilt, or by proof beyond reasonable doubt of inonocence. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "technical errors".

 

[Hopper]

My understanding, strictly as an amatuer, is that guilty verdicts can be reversed based upon genuine trial errors, which may have improperly created an appearance of guilt, or by proof beyond reasonable doubt of inonocence. So, I'm not sure what you mean by "technical errors".

Well, yeah, Eric, that's all I really mean. If a judge miswords an instruction, that is a technical error, and it may have influenced the verdict. If a prosecutor fails to disclose, just for example, that a person failed to identify the perp in a line-up, that would probably justify reversal, I dunno. My main point is just that such occurences hardly prove that the perp is "innocent." It certainly doesn't prove he's guilty, either. The fact that you were deprived of a fair trial is a wrong that should be righted--it just doesn't prove you're innocent.

I am contrasting that to cases where there has been good reason (DNA evidence, for example) to conclude the guy was actually innocent, irrespective of errors at trial.

Edit: There's a difference between sayin: "Since 1975 100 men have been found to have been convicted without a fair trial" (which is what appeals are designed to determine) and sayin "Since 1975 100 INNOCENT men have been convicted."

 

[Hopper]

To elaborate on the distinction a little: If the police beat a confession out of a guy, I certainly would not call that a mere "technical" violation. I have little doubt that, in such an event, the case would be thrown out of court, if only because such misconduct cannot be rewarded by granting a conviction. But again, that in itself would not prove the accused was in fact "innocent." Same deal if he freely confesses, but was not first given his Miranda warnings (which I would call a "technical" violation, I spoze).

 

[moevillini]

Moe: The Prop 13 comment was in response to GlassEater's larger discussion of CA's fiscal problems. Not the death penalty specifically.

Thanks. I realized that eventually.

Anyhow, my original post got cut-off when I edited it to add some links, here's what is was supposed to say:

Here's the problem: There's no way to legislate "only killing the guilty ones." It's already happened that 138 guilty people who were on track to die were found innocent. Advocates of the death penalty effectively have two choices: A) They can believe that human beings will never fail to administer the death penalty incorrectly ever again or B) That human beings will fail to administer the death penalty correctly at some point and an innocent person die as a result.

... I've got no issue with someone that supports the death penalty as long as they acknowledge that an innocent person is likely to die and feel strongly that the benefits of the death penalty outweigh the value of that one life. I disagree just as strongly with that, but that's the essence of the debate.

this would be me. Not that I'm proud to say I feel this way, but I just do. I don't have any problem with the fact that Timothy McVeigh was put to death for the OKC bombing, for instance.

Personally, I was rather well acquainted (after his release, through a friend who was a social worker in the prison system) with a former Illinois Death Row inmate (Dennis Williams) who was exonerated after about 20 years in prison after having been sentenced to death for a murder. He received a fairly significant settlement from the state, and he donated a large portion to assist a youth foundation working in the impoverished neighborhood he grew up in. He passed away from natural causes a few years ago.

so yes, I do have conflicting feelings about it.

(if anyone want to read up on any of this, google David Protess, Dennis Wiliams, Ford Heights Four and you'll get lots of reading material)

https://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/294.php

 

[Hopper]

I don't have any problem with the fact that Timothy McVeigh was put to death for the OKC bombing, for instance.

Mo, ya montrous barbarian, ya! Some peoples, I tellya!