My argument for the death penalty...

[Jazzfannut83]

"

I just don't git it. Why would anyone EVER cut their own appeal rights off, and choose to die rather than remain on death row as long as possible?

Ain't, probably because life on death row wasn't really...life. After awhile he just wanted to be put out of his misery i'd imagine.

 

[Jazzfannut83]

Well, I went back and read a lot of this thread and it caught my attention a bit. I generally don't like to get involved in debates about this type of subject but i'm gonna throw my 2 cents in even though i'm sure some will tell me i'm way out in left field. I'm not at all opposed to the death penalty, first of all, I do believe the "punishment should fit the crime" as they say. I understand that the legal system isn't fool proof but I'd like to see some official stats as to how many people actually have been executed who were later found, without any reasonable doubt, to be INNOCENT. Remember, when a trial takes place, all it takes from a defense attorney is reasonable doubt to get even 1 juror to doubt the defendants guilt, which usually leads to a hung jury and a mistrial or the foreman keeps the jury together till they come to an amicable conclusion (i.e half think the person is guilty of 1st degree murder, a few think it wasn't pre-meditated, and some think it's merely manslaughter, so compromise on 2nd degree murder and it's a done deal). If not enough reasonable doubt can be presented during a trial to sway even ONE juror, how do you expect there to be enough 20 years later?

As far as what's humane and what isn't? Again, the punishment should fit the crime. You read these stories about people who not just kill but torture their victims (remember the BTK killer for example?), and worse yet, those who rape, torture, and then kill innocent children? Execute that monster the same way he/she tortured his/her victims.

 

[billyshelby]

Well, I went back and read a lot of this thread and it caught my attention a bit. I generally don't like to get involved in debates about this type of subject but i'm gonna throw my 2 cents in even though i'm sure some will tell me i'm way out in left field. I'm not at all opposed to the death penalty, first of all, I do believe the "punishment should fit the crime" as they say. I understand that the legal system isn't fool proof but I'd like to see some official stats as to how many people actually have been executed who were later found, without any reasonable doubt, to be INNOCENT. Remember, when a trial takes place, all it takes from a defense attorney is reasonable doubt to get even 1 juror to doubt the defendants guilt, which usually leads to a hung jury and a mistrial or the foreman keeps the jury together till they come to an amicable conclusion (i.e half think the person is guilty of 1st degree murder, a few think it wasn't pre-meditated, and some think it's merely manslaughter, so compromise on 2nd degree murder and it's a done deal). If not enough reasonable doubt can be presented during a trial to sway even ONE juror, how do you expect there to be enough 20 years later?

As far as what's humane and what isn't? Again, the punishment should fit the crime. You read these stories about people who not just kill but torture their victims (remember the BTK killer for example?), and worse yet, those who rape, torture, and then kill innocent children? Execute that monster the same way he/she tortured his/her victims.

12 man juries were fully convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that 138 people since 1973 were guilty of crimes for which they were sentenced to death, and later found innocent. As for the 'eye for an eye' stuff, I will never understand why life in prison is viewed as some rosy alternative, or what the actual gain is from putting anyone to death. Is justice somehow not served taking a person's freedom away forever? And even to the extent it isn't quite as 'just' as actually taking the guilty party's life away, there is no way to ensure that innocent people won't be killed. So the first priority is ensuring that. And it just so happens catastrophe is averted when you eliminate the death penalty. Then you try and make the criminal justice system work as well as it can to make sure innocent people aren't wrongly incarcerated.

Put yourself in the place of those 138 people, and the argument gets real clear, real fast. You'd get killed, and lots of people with your viewpoint would be deliriously happy because you got what you deserved. We lose nothing by abolishing the death penalty, and we have everything to gain.

 

[Scat]

"Gardner's appellate attorneys have argued unsuccessfully over the years that if his jurors had known about the mitigating facts surrounding his troubled childhood -- poverty, drugs, violence and sex abuse -- they would have sentenced him to life in prison."

I don't give a crap what sort of tortured childhood the asshat had. He commited a heinous crime that he knew was absolutely and completely wrong. Having a crappy childhood does not excuse crappy adult behaviour.

Is it OK for me to violate traffic laws because my mom used to beat me with a section of Hot-Wheels track??

 

[Jazzfannut83]

12 man juries were fully convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that 138 people since 1973 were guilty of crimes for which they were sentenced to death, and later found innocent. As for the 'eye for an eye' stuff, I will never understand why life in prison is viewed as some rosy alternative, or what the actual gain is from putting anyone to death. Is justice somehow not served taking a person's freedom away forever? And even to the extent it isn't quite as 'just' as actually taking the guilty party's life away, there is no way to ensure that innocent people won't be killed. So the first priority is ensuring that. And it just so happens catastrophe is averted when you eliminate the death penalty. Then you try and make the criminal justice system work as well as it can to make sure innocent people aren't wrongly incarcerated.

Put yourself in the place of those 138 people, and the argument gets real clear, real fast. You'd get killed, and lots of people with your viewpoint would be deliriously happy because you got what you deserved. We lose nothing by abolishing the death penalty, and we have everything to gain.

Billy, thanks for the statistic, because I honestly was not aware it was that high. At the same time, those people still are wrongly incarcarated, in lieu of being wrongly put to death (still unjust). Do you have a link to the story (stories), about those who were put to death and then later found innocent? Did they ever find who the actual killer(s), offenders were?

 

[Hopper]

Spoze you were out walking in your field one day, and ya seen a guy who looked exactly like Osama Bin Laden. So, right quick, ya slap some buckshot in your sawed-off and go up to the guy. Ya ax him: You Osama? He sez: Yes, I am the great Osama, I am lost and there are some infidels who are looking for me. Can you help me?

You can tell he aint armed, and ya got him, dead to rights, looking down the barrel of your sawed-off from 2 feet away. Ya got your cell phone on ya, and one simple phone call will get a ton of cops out there in no time flat. So, whaddaya do?

I mean, ya can squeeze off both barrels, or ya can make a phone call.

Is there really any question? The choice is obvious, aint it?

 

[One Brow]

How could you not have understood the whole illogical fallacy of aint's argument about accidents?

Actually, as I said, I think I did understand it, and expalined my response to it. My understanding of it may have differed from yours, but I am not convinced yours was superior.

 

[billyshelby]

Billy, thanks for the statistic, because I honestly was not aware it was that high. At the same time, those people still are wrongly incarcarated, in lieu of being wrongly put to death (still unjust). Do you have a link to the story (stories), about those who were put to death and then later found innocent? Did they ever find who the actual killer(s), offenders were?

aint was kind enough to give us this link: deathpenaltyinfo.org It covers the entire subject of the death penalty fairly well. You can also check out innocenceproject.org which has a heavier emphasis on DNA exoneration of wrongly convicted prisoners, but is still thorough in its own right.

Wrongful incarceration is a terrible thing, but unfortunately it's the only acceptable alternative to either killing people or making it impossible to convict. The criminal justice system can inherently never be perfect. It just doesn't have to be so imperfect as to include the death penalty.

 

[billyshelby]

Spoze you were out walking in your field one day, and ya seen a guy who looked exactly like Osama Bin Laden. So, right quick, ya slap some buckshot in your sawed-off and go up to the guy. Ya ax him: You Osama? He sez: Yes, I am the great Osama, I am lost and there are some infidels who are looking for me. Can you help me?

You can tell he aint armed, and ya got him, dead to rights, looking down the barrel of your sawed-off from 2 feet away. Ya got your cell phone on ya, and one simple phone call will get a ton of cops out there in no time flat. So, whaddaya do?

I mean, ya can squeeze off both barrels, or ya can make a phone call.

Is there really any question? The choice is obvious, aint it?

Yet another diversionary and pointless anecdote that is apropos of nothing in this thread. I mean, except to the geniuses trying to feed us chickens little scraps of feed so we might fly a foot off the ground.

 

[One Brow]

Billy, thanks for the statistic, because I honestly was not aware it was that high. At the same time, those people still are wrongly incarcarated, in lieu of being wrongly put to death (still unjust). Do you have a link to the story (stories), about those who were put to death and then later found innocent? Did they ever find who the actual killer(s), offenders were?

ONce the execution is performed, the appeals stop. The requests for new tests are denied as being moot. It would be almost impossible for a defense attorney to show a person is innocent after the execution.

 

[billyshelby]

Actually, as I said, I think I did understand it, and expalined my response to it. My understanding of it may have differed from yours, but I am not convinced yours was superior.

Then by all means continue discussing the minutia of prosecutorial misconduct and the varied meanings of the word 'can.'

 

[One Brow]

Then by all means continue discussing the minutia of prosecutorial misconduct and the varied meanings of the word 'can.'

If I so desire, I will. I was at least able to engage in a rational conversation with Hopper, to the point where for a post or two he didn't use his typical writing style. All I see from your posts is a lot of whining and mising the point.