400 Executions....

So, in protest of the State of Texas's impeding 400th execution since 1976, the EU issued a protest statement...here is the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070821/us_nm/eu_usa_executions_dc

A couple things jump to mind. First, I find it kind of interesting that the EU noticed that Texas was hard at work expediting the death penalty. It is an interesting piece of pretty activist foreign policy for the EU to take notice of so blatently domestic a policy.

Second, what do we think of the death penalty? I honestly can see it both ways. If someone raped and killed my wife, would I want to see him dead? You bet...but I'd want to do it. On the other hand, killing him doesn't bring her back. Then there are tougher questions like the killing of "innocents". Even if the Texas CJ system is right 99.5% of the time (yeah right, its Texas) then Texas has killed two completely innocent people.

As Dieter would say..."Discuss"!


USMCecho brought this article to my attention. A bit slanted, but it shows an interesting aspect of the "law" in Texas and is worth the read.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/149434.html

I wish Gov. Perry would use the powers vested in his office to change the method to hanging.... I mean we haven't had a good hanging in Texas for some time.

In all reality though I think the death penalty should be used more in murder and especially rape cases. I am concerned about a false conviction, that being said with DNA evidence being used more and more frequently, I feel the risk is lowering.

Until we can be 100% sure we are executing the person who is guilty of committing the crime I don't feel that the death penalty should be used. Does that mean I am against the death penalty? No. There are people out there who deserve far worse than death, and they shouldn't enjoy life on my tax dollars eating decent food and having a warm place to sleep at night while many Americans go without such luxuries. (Fvcking cable TV in prison!!!!)

We just need to improve the system so that no innocent people are executed. To me those two innocent people's lives are worth more than the ability to kill a few hundred scumbags over the last 30 years. Some author/poet/playwright somewhere wrote that they would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to prison. I can agree with that.

I agree. But there are circumstances in which there is no doubt who committed the crime.

I agree. But, I have seen the way our society treats a (false)rape charge. It happened to one of my best friends in college. His life was made hell for a year because of a crazy psycho ex-girlfriend. That is what concerns me.

MasterBates, Calling MasterBates...

I think thats an excellent point. The Duke LaCross team is another example. I still think however that if there is no question as to who the perpetrator of a rape or murder is, the death penalty should be used.

I say if there is DIRECT irrefutable evidence (video, confession in court, etc) then HANG EM HIGH.



In cases of child rapists (Im talking adults with 14 and younger, not a 18 year old with a 17 yo GF and a statutory charge), have them cut off with no anesthesia, preferably by their dad with a pair of dull garden shears, and then drop the gallows when they are begging for mercy.. 2 minute minimum though.

Hell, I'll pay for his lawyer in that case.

I think that is the point. When the hell is that?

Seriously though, it seems tough to say that the criminal justice system will ever be 100% correct all the time, even in death penalty cases. Consequently, you will eventually kill an innocent. If however, you can "prove" that the death penalty is a true deterrent, and actually prevents deaths in society, you have firm intellectual ground to stand on to support it. Otherwise, it seems like a house of cards to me.

Do you REALLY think these guys -- the .5% -- were "completely innocent people" ... i.e., no criminal history, i.e., without a rap sheet as long as your arm ????

Somehow, I doubt it --- and I'm all for cleaning up the cell block for the 'greater good' in this particular case ...

Concur on the way people are treated on a false rape charge. Buddy of mine got cuffed by police right in the middle of class (large lecture hall) and spent a few nights in jail because some slut was threatened to be kicked out of her sorority due to stories...so the logical thing for her to do was to claim rape. The charges were later dropped (and she later failed out of school), but it was embarassing for my friend no less. :icon_rage

Maybe not often, but it happens. I am more frustrated by the cases in which there is no doubt, but the death penalty is not enacted.

There is no evidence to suggest that prison time deters all criminals either. It doesn't deter first time offenders, and it certainly doesn't deter repeat offenders. By that logic we shouldn't punish criminals.

I don't see the Criminal Justice System as a preventive measure for crime, as much as I see it as being a reactive measure for crime. We can't preemptively put someone away for a crime he was going to commit, (though that does get a little gray with certain sting operations). We generally incarcerate them after they commit the crime, as a consequence. The consequence for taking unjustly life should be to have your life ended.

Completely valid point. Innocent is not an objective term, but scumbag doesn't equate to guilty of a capital crime neccesarily. Hard labor, sure...death?

I have trouble seeing how the death penalty acts as a deterrent. Most of the time I don't know an execution even takes place. If I do, it's because I am watching the news, but even then I really don't pay attention to it. I am willing to wager I watch the news far more than the typical perpetrators of capital crimes. If it is supposed to deter them, don't they have to see it to work? I will grant that there is probably some level of deterrence in knowing that I could get sentenced to death for doing crime x, but given the relatively closed doors way in which an execution is done I think it is too abstract to really be effective.

That said, I really don't feel the need to return to the wild west, hang 'em high way of dolling out justice. I don't want to see public executions. I also don't place a whole lot of faith in the system to not screw the pooch enough times to have us offing innocent people. I am not a bleeding heart by any means, but the cost of litigation in this country makes it hard for people of modest means to defend themselves in a criminal case. Getting a public defender is often like getting the JV team, and while there are pro-bono attorneys that do a lot of solid work, they usually aren't involved in the original trial, but come in during the appeals process to try to "save" the guys life.

I would much rather have life in prison be a thoroughly spartan and maddening experience. No personal belongings, bland food, white walls, uncomfortable bed, perpetual solitary confinement, etc. I don't think you have to kill someone to properly punish them. However, I can't say that I shed any tears when an execution does take place either. I am not comfortable with it because of the 0.01% of the time we shouldn't have done it, which leaves me 99.99% sure that the guy got what he deserved.

On the EU note, yeah, they can go ahead and butt out of this. I think our record on stopping unjust executions in Europe last century is better than theirs.

Deterrent?? The evil will ALWAYs do evil. You will never stop that as long as mankind exists. That's the nature of the beast.

But with capital punishment -- the guilty will never have another opportunity to re-offend. That's a good thing ...

The taxpayer will be spared the interminable burden of supporting these societal parasites in a lifestyle most would never achieve prior to their incarceration, not in their wildest, drug-free dreams. And that's a good thing, too ...

Bottom line: ask 99.9999% of the murder victim's families what THEY think about capital punishment -- 'cause until YOU are sitting in that seat, it really doesn't make a whole big pile of shit what you think ...

Just sayin' ....

The death penalty has not been a deterrent since they fired the chairs back up. But I'm fine with that. I support the death penalty because once someone has gone so far to break the social contract, there is nothing more to be done with them. We need to be sure that that the wrong person is not executed, but with the advances in forensic sciences, particularly DNA, and the sheer number of appeal attempts that everyone on death row gets, the system will only improve.

Well then this whole thread is pointless because it asked what we thought.... I didn't note the requirement to have lost a relative to respond to the thread. On that note, I don't want societal policies ruled by the emotions of the grieving (think Cindy Sheehan). Given the appeals process, it isn't much cheaper, if at all, to execute them. Granted if we just shot them after trial it would be a lot cheaper, but that just doesn't feel all that American.

All I was getting at is that deterrence isn't effective, and therefore really isn't a justification. Them getting what they deserved, retribution, social contract, not killing again, etc. are better arguments. Personally though, I would rather see the wretched, evil, punks live on in solitary than execute innocents.

Just saying, sir. And yes, I know what I think doesn't amount to a pile of shit, my onwing reminds me of that on a nearly daily basis.

I THINK from a purely pragmatic point they might be better at making widgets than rotting in the earth. Plus if soceity messed up... somewhat reversable.

I would also accept forcing them to dance for youtube

The problem with that is that our justice system is nothing more than a societal contract, and it only works if both parties to the contract honor it (at least nominally). I commit a crime, you prove that I committed the crime and you punish me for it - contract. When we start futzing around with the contract for personal/political means (i.e. leaning harder on a defendant because he's poor and black, or because he's rich and white) or revenge fantasies ("Well, he must have done something bad") we can no longer count on it to protect those of us who are willing to hold up our ends.

My own personal feelings about the death penalty aside, I'm willing to hear arguments for it in terms of "we're 100 percent certain he committed the crime and deserves to be punished for it." "We're pretty sure he's committed some crime at some point that makes him worthy of the death penalty," not so much.

Well, you threw the baby out with the bathwater to a degree -- and perhaps my "insensitive" statement you chose to quote was a little "out of context" ... ... to make your "point (?) .... but then, again, that's my middle name -- insensitive -- not my middle finger .... ... and as you disagree like a young gentleman, I put that at a premium for those of your peer group .... so no harm, no foul.

But Cindy Sheehan?? Com'on .... she's an aberration on the American scene -- and that's as out of context as you can get -- in this argument.

Mebbe ... but I don't want to pay for them to live on and on and on and on and on and ..... they don't "deserve" it. I don't want to pay for "suitable" quarter, 3-squares/day, a/c, drugs, color t/v, conjugal visits, ..... you name it ... pick a number.

Why do you suppose criminals keep on keepin' on year after year after decade with "appeals" to ---- stay alive ??? I think that answers a lot of the questions re: the efficacy of capital punishment.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm ...... ?????

P.S. .... I am channeling with your OnWing .... watch out!!!

For context, I basically agree with Brett on this one.

I too have always been ok with killing bad people, but I often find myself forgetting what exactly my rationale for killing them was.

The opinions of the victims and families don't matter: this is about the law and is between society and the rule-breaker.

So the question for me is not so much, "Do we have the moral authority to dispatch of truly wayward citizens?" because I think we do (and even now as I think about it, I lose focus as to why, ugh). The question (for me ) is, "Should we? What do we, as society, gain from offing this dude (even in the confines of a better or even perfect justice system)?"

Part of me wants to bastardize the Jefferson quote about fresh blood from tyrants for our favorite tree, and say that the social contract, when ripped so violently by the unwarranted taking of another's life, MUST be renewed with the offender's blood lest the whole thing unravel. Of course, that's all a bit romantic, esoteric, and philisophical.

Part of me doesn't give a shit; put them in a pit and ignore them, remove them wholly from the system.

And so I post, hoping that if anyone bothers to respond / rebuke, I'll better be able to understand my own half-thoughts...

Well then I am thoroughly screwed.

I share your feelings on Cindy Sheehan, and fine, I will retract as she is an anti-American nut. The comment was in response to the implication that no one who hasn't had a family member murdered can have an opinion, well at least one that amounts to a hill of shit. The point of the comment was that grieving family members' emotional responses should not be substituted for public policy. It is important to empathize with other's heartache, whether it's about a son lost in war or a family member murdered. However, their feelings should not allow their opinion on a public policy to be beyond debate, nor should having a similar experience be required to enter that debate. Mea culpa for not fully quoting you, I hope I have explained it to your satisfaction even if you disagree.

With regard to not wanting to pay a dime for their upkeep, I understand. But I don't think that that helps our society beyond making us feel better. Keep them locked up, limit the appeals process a bit, and let them rot. If we are wrong, then as MrSaturn pointed out, at least it's reversible. If all we get out of executing people is making sure they get what they deserve, and I agree that they probably deserve it, then I just don't think it is worth the risk of executing an innocent man. Innocent women you ask? Never met one...