Death Penalty

[Nine]

Hah, thanks. I was more or less referring to my impeccable timing when it comes to responding to things. Everyone else is watching Season 3 DVDs and I'm still discussing an episode in Season 2. Though darn it all, season 2 was a great season.

 

/offtopic metaphor.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Nine

[Sir Barton]

Its been consistently shown that the death penalty cost more than life without parole. I'm being pragmatic here. What's the likelihood that the appellate review and pre-trial/trial costs will be reduced?

 

It's annoying when people support politicians that want it because what you'll get is more of the same.

 

Recidivism of murderers committing another murder is roughly 1%. Though, relative to life without parole, it has no incremental effect on recidivism. Additionally, high courts commonly overturn capital cases. Prosecutors rarely go for it, so these cases make up a fraction of homicides.

 

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/resea...lished/jels.pdf

 

Death Sentences Being Overturned in 2 of 3 Appeals

 

http://people.umass.edu/leg485/cost2.htm

 

"When a Utah police chief was shot to death in July after responding to a call about a domestic dispute, tiny Uintah County's decision to seek the death penalty was easy. "It was a law-enforcement officer in the line of duty," says county attorney JoAnn Stringham.

 

Now comes the hard part: paying for the trial. So far, the county hopes to avoid raising taxes on its 25,959 citizens by spreading the as-yet undetermined costs over three fiscal years.

 

Other counties haven't been as lucky. Jasper County, Texas, ran up a huge bill seeking a capital-murder conviction of three men accused of killing James Byrd Jr., who was dragged to death in a 1998 case that attracted national attention. (Two were sentenced to death; the third got life in prison.) The cost -- $1.02 million to date, with other expenses expected -- has strained the county's $10 million annual budget, forcing a 6.7% increase in property taxes over two years to pay for the trial. County auditor Jonetta Nash says only a massive flood that wiped out roads and bridges in the late 1970s came close to the fiscal impact of the trial."

 

 

 

 

 

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/shipj.cfm

 

At standardized rate, the general population rate of homicide is 9-10 times more. But if we went back... "executions" at no costs. 

I have read the stats many times before but as they reflect the current system I still stand by fast tracking as a way to reduce cost. Yep, it would take many many years to bring about a radical change like this but it would make death cost less. For the time being, even at higher cost, I would rather have violent criminals put to death so they are no longer a threat to anyone.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Sir Barton

[Kestra15]

My ultimate authority is God, and He has made clear concessions for legitimate killing, both in self defense and protection of innocents, AND for the state to execute criminals for capital crimes. That's my stance.

Source?

[Sir Barton]

Source?

His source would be the Bible. He posted many quotes back on page three but here are some of them:

 

Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

 

 

Exodus 21:12 "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."

 

 

Revelation 13:10 "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints."

 

 

Romans 13:1-4: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

Edited December 6, 2011 by Sir Barton

[philpot123]

Source?

I already posted my source. I don't expect you to agree with it. That part of the post was clearly stated as MY personal ultimate authority, with the previous statements applying to people who choose something else as their ultimate standard. In case that was an actual question about where in the Bible I get that from...

 

 

Before God's covenant with Jacob (Israel) there were only three commands given. The third? "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed..." Gen. 9:6

 

"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:12

 

 

"He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:15

 

"He who kidnaps a man... shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:16

 

"He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:17

 

"Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death.... You shall have the same law for the [foreigner] and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God." Lev. 24:17-22

 

'Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death... So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.' Num. 35:31-33

 

New Testament time! "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying... `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Mat. 15:3-4

 

"For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men..." [Jesus] said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother; and 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Mark 7:8-11

 

How bout Paul? "For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar." Acts 25:11

 

Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, "You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" Acts 25:12

 

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities... For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Rom. 13:1, 3

 

For [the governing authority] is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Rom. 13:4

 

Hebrews... Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies (present tense) without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot... Heb. 10:28-29

 

 

If you want to reject that part of the Bible, say so. But what does Jesus have to say about that? "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great..." Mat. 5:17-19 Yup.

 

etc etc. As far as self defense,

 

Exodus 22:2-3 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Edited December 6, 2011 by philpot123

[elderberrysyrup]

Killing is not good, its necessary in our eyes. The difference is between a murderer and a killer... I dont really understand how can you not comprehend that the two terms are not the one and the same ??

Well, to put it simply, I've cut myself away from most of society to the point where the way things are treated on society is largely incomprehensible for me. I have a disconnect between myself and relatively simple concepts, Of course, it's no excuse, but when one spends almost all their lives in complete isolation, such people... are different.

 

I have read the stats many times before but as they reflect the current system I still stand by fast tracking as a way to reduce cost. Yep, it would take many many years to bring about a radical change like this but it would make death cost less. For the time being, even at higher cost, I would rather have violent criminals put to death so they are no longer a threat to anyone.

Isn't the concept of making sure innocent people aren't put to death the reason why we make the process so bloated? I really don't understand the concept that it's ok to kill innocent people so long as you also kill bad guys. Wouldn't that be like throwing out the whole batch for a few bad apples?

[tanglepelt3]

I think the death penalty is unfair because if a murderer kills people, then giving the death penaltyis like murderering the murderer.

[Sir Barton]

Isn't the concept of making sure innocent people aren't put to death the reason why we make the process so bloated? I really don't understand the concept that it's ok to kill innocent people so long as you also kill bad guys. Wouldn't that be like throwing out the whole batch for a few bad apples?

Not particularly. It's more on line of tossing out a few good apples amongst the batch of rotten ones. It is regrettable but to me, in the long run, it is for the greater good.

[JaziandCo]

Recidivism of murderers committing another murder is roughly 1%. Though, relative to life without parole, it has no incremental effect on recidivism. Additionally, high courts commonly overturn capital cases. Prosecutors rarely go for it, so these cases make up a fraction of homicides.

How many pedophiles attack again?

 

And that's exactly my point. It's not deterring people because it's an empty threat. The worst most people get is life without parole. You won't be afraid to commit a crime if nothing happens to you when you do it.

[Kestra15]

I already posted my source. I don't expect you to agree with it. That part of the post was clearly stated as MY personal ultimate authority, with the previous statements applying to people who choose something else as their ultimate standard. In case that was an actual question about where in the Bible I get that from...

Actually, I was genuinely wondering where it was in the Bible that said death penalty was acceptable.

[solaflar3]

Actually, I was genuinely wondering where it was in the Bible that said death penalty was acceptable.

I think it's in the part which mentions stoning your rebellious children...

 

/low blow

 

Really, I think the death penalty should be abolished everywhere. I find it hard to accept that here we are in 2011 and we still have countries where the state sanctions the killing of people.

[philpot123]

Actually, I was genuinely wondering where it was in the Bible that said death penalty was acceptable.

Oh okay I apologize. I've gotten to where I can't tell when people are genuinely asking or are trying to berate me for basing my opinions on nothing but the Bible... but yeah. That wall of text is pretty much where I got it.

 

I think it's in the part which mentions stoning your rebellious children... /low blow Really, I think the death penalty should be abolished everywhere. I find it hard to accept that here we are in 2011 and we still have countries where the state sanctions the killing of people.

 

The thing to remember with that passage is the fact that the parents were the ones having to bring their child before the temple to have them stoned. If your kid talks back to you, it's not like you're going to say "OH NO YOU DON'T JIMMY! TO DEATH WITH YOU!" it was a deterrent and a warning against rebellion and repeated, uncorrectable sin, not a common occurrence.

Edited December 7, 2011 by philpot123

[Princess Artemis]

Keeping in mind, of course, that adults are still the children of their parents. My mother is in her early sixties and still has a mother to rebel against. I imagine in that context, it's not back talk and typical teenaged antics, it could be quite a number of things adults might do.

 

(Not that I've looked at that part for a while, just throwing it out there that hey, it maybe it applies to anyone with a living parent.)

[Fuzzbucket]

Keeping in mind, of course, that adults are still the children of their parents. My mother is in her early sixties and still has a mother to rebel against. I imagine in that context, it's not back talk and typical teenaged antics, it could be quite a number of things adults might do.

 

(Not that I've looked at that part for a while, just throwing it out there that hey, it maybe it applies to anyone with a living parent.)

I am in my LATE 60s and have a living parent. IF I approved of the death penalty, which I don't, and since she claims to WANT to die, I would consider....

 

I don't rebel against her though. Ignoring is easier on the psyche

[Nerendier]

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be spilled."

 

That's the basis for the death penalty.

 

Problem with the death penalty is that it's not cost-effective. And it's a permanent solution, if new evidence turns up that this person was innocent, at least if he's in jail he can be released. Kill him and there's no release.

 

Also,

"Death should be a release not a punishment."

[Fuzzbucket]

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be spilled."

 

That's the basis for the death penalty.

Does that not logically apply equally to the executioner ?

[Nerendier]

Does that not logically apply equally to the executioner ?

That's a quote from genesis. Not really a place you want to look if you want logic. no offense.

[Sir Barton]

Problem with the death penalty is that it's not cost-effective. And it's a permanent solution, if new evidence turns up that this person was innocent, at least if he's in jail he can be released. Kill him and there's no release.

That is where a person has to decide how they view collateral damage. It's a risk I'm willing to take because a permanent solution will keep my family safe from at least one hazard. If a murderer is allowed to live you can never be sure that you are safe from that individual.

 

I was robbed at knife point years ago. My assailant is a career criminal so the DA went for a life conviction. After pleading guilty and spending several years in jail the case ended up going to trial anyway using insanity as a reason to commute his sentence. Insanity is a hard sell and he lost his case but to this day when I see someone who bares a resemblance to this my assailant I find myself wondering if he has been released and end up calling the DA's office to find out just for my peace of mind. Now, this is not someone who I believe in the least should be facing the death penalty but if this rather minor crime has that sort of effect on me how much worse would the effect be if the criminal was a murderer? What sort of psychological scaring must the victim's family have to deal with day to day? A permanent solution removes the threat permanently and allows healing to begin.

[Fuzzbucket]

That's a quote from genesis. Not really a place you want to look if you want logic. no offense.

None taken - on the contrary, that is WELL funny

[philpot123]

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be spilled."

 

That's the basis for the death penalty.

 

Problem with the death penalty is that it's not cost-effective. And it's a permanent solution, if new evidence turns up that this person was innocent, at least if he's in jail he can be released. Kill him and there's no release.

 

Also,

"Death should be a release not a punishment."

It's not cost effective because of the inordinate amount of time spent on death row...

 

 

 

 

Does that not logically apply equally to the executioner ?

 

Not when the civil government is given the power of the sword.

 

 

 

That's a quote from genesis. Not really a place you want to look if you want logic. no offense.

 

 

Some taken.

[Nine]

Really, I think the death penalty should be abolished everywhere.  I find it hard to accept that here we are in 2011 and we still have countries where the state sanctions the killing of people.

I'm always curious as to why the current year is brought up in arguments that discuss killing, wars, etc. Are we now so sure of our perfection as a species that we can look down upon acts that we deem 'inhumane' and safely say that our beliefs should stretch worldwide? That somehow our opinions are more knowledgeable, correct, and important than those who disagree, because well... they advocate killing! How barbaric and 20th century?

 

Not saying this is what you meant from your post, just adding from what I've heard countless times before and this 'unspoken' rule that killing is bad.

 

Maybe I believe that some middle eastern settlements should not cut off a hand of a thief when they are caught, and that it is unnecessarily cruel (not saying I believe this). However, I have no right to march up to their populations and tell them how inhumane and wrong it is, because they have lived and grown in an environment so different than mine, it's a hummingbird telling a vulture how barbaric eating flesh is.

[Quasismiles]

I am completely against it. For whatever reason a person was put in jail, murder never justifies anything.

 

If someone murdered another and was put on death row, how would that be any better than just killing another person? I believe that there should be no possible way of ever getting any parole for that person and that life sentence MEANS life sentence.

[Sir Barton]

I am completely against it. For whatever reason a person was put in jail, murder never justifies anything.

 

If someone murdered another and was put on death row, how would that be any better than just killing another person? I believe that there should be no possible way of ever getting any parole for that person and that life sentence MEANS life sentence.

Executing a criminal is not murder.

 

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). As the loss of a human being inflicts enormous grief upon the individuals close to the victim, as well as the fact that the commission of a murder is highly detrimental to the good order within society, most societies both present and in antiquity have considered it a most serious crime worthy of the harshest of punishment.

 

Murder is indeed never justifiable, but execution of a murderer to prevent them from ever murdering again ....... Capital punishment is the clearest example I can think of letting the punishment fit the crime.

 

A murderer being put to death is very different then "just killing another person". The murderer is guilty of taking the life of an innocent while that other person doesn't have blood on his or her hands. Big Big difference.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Sir Barton

[Kestra15]

Executing a criminal is not murder.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

It's only not-murder because the man doing the killing has been sanctioned by the current governing body.

[elderberrysyrup]

Actually, I'd like to point out to those who worry about people on death row being repeat offenders, there was a fascinating article I read that these worries may be in fact inaccurate and that many people on death row are given the label 'a continued threat to society' disregarding scientific evidence that such predictions may not actually have legitimacy.

 

Despite significant advances in the fields of risk assessment, clinical assertions that a defendant is likely to commit future violent acts appear to be highly inaccurate and ethically questionable at best. Moreover, available research offers little support for the claim that the accuracy of these predictions will be appreciably improved by relying on more structured risk assessment measures that have some demonstrated predictive validity in other contexts.

 

...spark as much controversy as the use of expert mental health testimony to support the claim that a capital defendant represents a "continuing threat to society". Although widely denounced by professional organizations (ed. American Psychiatric Associat, 1983; American Psychological Association Task Force, 1978), such testimony continues to be provided on a routine basis during the sentencing phase of capital murder trials (Cunningham & Reidy, 2002; Edens, 2001; Edens, Petrila, & Buffington-Volum, 2001; Reid, 2001). Aside from risk statements derived from clinical opinion, more recently it appears that various risk assessment instruments have started working their way into the armamentarium of prosecution witnesses, ostensibly to bolster scientific credibility of their claims that the defendant is likely to engage in violent behavior in the future if not put to death.

 

Source

 

Opinions?

Edited December 8, 2011 by soullesshuman