Ditto. I watched TWO good friends -ON TWO SEPERATE INCIDENTS 2 YEARS APART- go down in flames, get kicked out of ROTC, and kicked out of the school altogether... humiliated in the local newspaper... before the girl finally admitted that she had made both cases up. In Rape, and domestic Violence... the man is assumed Guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
No way. What we do may not have a damn thing to do with the "right thing". We do what we do as tools of policy, period. The people we may kill might be angels...that has nothing to do with it. We kill them because otherwise, they might kill us. We are told to be in "that place" because the government has decided we have an interest in being there. Killing bad people has nothing to do with it.
Some of you guys have a lot to learn ... about killing ... and what it means ... and what it does to you .... and fortunately, most of you will go to your graves without ever having to do anything about it, save "intellectualizing" about right/wrong, innocence/guilt, "social contracts" and moralizing about the subject of executing criminals ... please note I said executing, not killing -- as there IS a difference. But some of you will intellectualize it to death. To take some of your thoughts (not picking on scoober, his is just the most recent) .... it's "O.K." to pull the trigger on this -- as we're tools of national policy -- and while they might be angels -- that has nothing to do with it ...... And this is the tragic result, which happens all too often: The above picture repulses you, as it should. But then ... at the same time, while perhaps "repulsed" .... some of you lack the moral, ethical, or " sense of justice" required to pull the trigger on miscreants such as these (below) .... You have to see the forest for the trees. And you have to be consistent. Consistency people ... consistency. That's what counts. And you have to be willing to do what is right, no matter how distasteful ... in a less than perfect world. Sometimes a lousy world ....
I think in fairness, that you misunderstood me. What I am saying is that the "goodness" or "badness" of the person who I hope is never on the end of a weapon in my charge, is not the reason I am dropping it. Neither am I dropping it because I was ordered to...or at least blindly so. There are orders I would refuse, and I'd like to think that I can tell the difference. I am dropping it because I don't want their weapon to kill me or my fellow aviators. Would I kill someone, Mr. Manson there, to prevent him from killing somone? I think so...and I'd like to think so. That said, I recognize the inconsitency between that postion and my questioning (notice not disapproval of) capital punishment. I'm working through these the only way I can... Lastly, I know I don't know shit from shit about what killing is/does/....but I think it is better to try to wrap one's arms around it now...and at least attempt to come to some moral convictions about this business we are in before we "learn". To not think about it, to me, makes Mai Lai more likely.
WRT deterrence, the death penalty is applied so spuriously that it is handicapped from its role of deterrence (according to the posted article the death penalty has been used 1,090 times in the last 30 years, a very small fraction of eligible cases). If the death penalty were more immediate, and used uniformly, it would be an effective deterrent.
I don't know if you can necessarily make that assumption. Jail sentences are generally applied in a non-spurious manner, yet there seems to be no shortage of criminals to place in jail. While this can be debated, I believe that the portion of our society we consider to be career, hardened criminals, aren't going to be deterred by anything. They think so little of themselves that they're just biding their time and playing the odds until they get caught. Anyhow, given my previous diatribe, I seriously doubt that more capital punishment is an answer to much of anything. In it's current state, it's probably appropriate for the most heinous murders, but not much else. Brett
I just found the study where I read about the disparity in correlation... http://www.nber.org/papers/w11982
But there's a huge difference when the person has to deal with "just" another 10 years, etc, in jail vice taking his last breath...forever. Granted, I will definitely agree that some hardened criminals just don't care, but as a whole when most people are threatened with loss of life, most change their tune. That said, death sentences aren't a deterrent in today's society because the criminal knows that they could possibly drag it out for 20 years and then still have a chance of getting off. Personally, I think someone should be allowed one and only appeal. If still found guilty, I'd be the first one in line to pull the trigger/flip the switch/push the button. Is it possible that an innocent man could die? Sure, but it's also possible that a guilty man could walk, and where are all the people up in arms over that???
Another viewpoint from an industrialized country -- 2005 Washington Post article: WHY JAPAN STILL HAS THE DEATH PENALTY
I daresay punishment isn't much of a deterrent because most criminals commit crimes under the assumption that they won't be caught. I wonder if your feelings wouldn't change on the subject if you were the innocent man in the chair.
You know, I'd wonder the same thing too. I'm satisfied with the results of our courts right now. I just wish it was more streamlined and not so drawn out. I still have to ask the general question, why don't people get so upset about the murderer that walks instead of being punished appropriately? That pisses me off just as much as the potential for an innocent man getting sent away.
Man, I can't believe I'm saying this - but I mostly agree with Cate on this one... I think a Chief Justice once said "I'd rather let 1,000 guilty men go free than let one innocent man hang." Suspending reality, and assume I bear a striking resemblence to MasterBates, consider this: USCG sends me to Corpus Christi My wife and I, deciding to save money realize that MB had the right idea and buy a Puma. My current car (Subaru B9 Tribeca) can't tow it, so I drive my wife's Dodge P/U. Move into trailer, and start enjoying my new career... MB decides that the Manatee must die. MB kills Manatee, and throws the gun into the Gulf of Mexico. Eyewitnesses describe vehicle to police, as well as the individual. As they start to do the investigation, MB lines up his alibis - and gets a rock solid one (pays some people off)... Cops round me and MB up (because we both drive similar trucks and look alike), and determine that it couldn't be MB because of his alibi. Additionally, eyewitnesses pick me, not MB out of a lineup. I have no alibi because I was sitting in the trailer, watching TV. Jury of my peers convicts me, determining that through eyewitness testimony, and lack of an alibi (as well as a criminal record - I was arrested for a DUI once) - no physical evidence. It's scary, and I know it's a stretch - but when you think about it, it is possible. I agree with the death penalty, not because of deterrence, but it will prevent that individual from committing another crime like that again. However, I think that you should be absolutely, without a doubt positive it's that individual (physical evidence is a must) to use the death penalty.
I think plenty of people are pissed off about it. They just don't all agree that an innocent person's life is an acceptable sacrifice for a guarantee that we'll get all of the guilty ones. Haha! It was bound to happen eventually.
I don't know which is worse, but I can tell you A LOT of people would rather be "safe than sorry" on this one. I think the WHY's on this can be pretty unproductive; it's kind of like asking someone to justify their faith. It's just how they feel. And so I (me, me, me ) ask again. What do we lose when we DON'T execute a guilty man? I have a pretty good feeling that it is related to the reasons we continue to "punish" at all despite limited deterrent value.
I think that's exactly right. Assuming the guy never sees the light of day and has an opportunity to re-offend, the only value in killing him is to satiate society's need for vengefulness. While not completely without value, emotional satisfaction probably isn't the best basis upon which policy or law should be written. Brett
http://www.innocenceproject.org/ While I have always supported the Death Penalty, I haven't always supported the way that it is applied. We need to find some way to remove politics from our criminal justice system. When you have District Attorneys and Prosecutors who are more interested in their own political ambitions than in doing their jobs you end up with situations like the Duke rape case. Go to the link I posted and read some of the stories of the people that this group got released and how they were put on Death Row in the first place. Then read about how the people who put them there tried to keep them there after their innocence had been determined. I remember reading about an accused rapist in Dallas, Texas who was found innocent after a DNA test. Instead of the Dallas DA admitting that there was a mistake made, he tried to have evidence in other cases destroyed. His excuse was that it was a cost savings measure.
There is a good bit of emotional response to situations involving the death penalty. I do think punishment should be proportional to the crime though. So, something like murder would warrant a proportional response of the death penalty. Corresponding punishments for other crimes. I'm also a big believer in corporal punishment, although the US doesn't use that anymore that I'm aware of. Actually, there is more value than that. I personally don't want to pay taxes to support some asshole criminal for the rest of his life. Harsh? Yeah, but I could give a fvck. I've read it can cost anywhere from 20k-50k per year to house an inmate, and if he stays there for 60 years...yeah, lots of dough. So, getting away from any emotional value and any moral arguments, black and white it also makes sense. I have no problems sleeping at night knowing that.
Everything I've read on the subject says that (on average) it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep them in jail for life. Brett
Interesting. Here's a good summary on the average costs for execution throughout the US. For comparions, here's a current look at Florida's cost per year to house a single inmate. Off the cuff, it looks to me like a life term sentence (say, 40-50 years) would be significantly more than the average execution.
And so what?? Who cares what it costs?? How much does your bottled water cost? A cup of "coffee" costs $3 today .... One of the reasons for the "high cost" of a legal, prescribed execution is that we've built death chambers that are the penal equivalent of a research lab to put down some vicious menace to society. The question in my mind is: does the punishment fit the crime??? The answer is either yes or no ....
I think that figure includes the costs of the automatic appeals that most States require when some on is put on Death Row.
And I wholeheartedly think that the answer is yes. I just like the $$$ argument because some people I've spoken with use that as a reason not to have the death penalty.
I think that the $$$ argument is generally brought up once someone in favor of capital punishment uses the, "I don't want my money being used on these evil criminals." Granted, most that say that are not the least dissuaded by the possibility that it might be more expensive to execute them, but that is how that gets brought up. In fact, most seem to view offing criminals as something worth paying for and would be willing to pay to personally flip the switch, pull the trigger, etc. Fair enough. You don't care about the $$$ argument any more or less than the other side does. And to address one other thing, its not that those of us who don't like the death penalty are advocating for the criminals. From what I can tell most of us who are opposed on this forum generally think that the criminals deserve to die. We are advocating for the very few innocents that get condemned. I don't think it is an argument that executions are wrong, but rather an execution of an innocent is such a grievous wrong that it isn't worth having our capital punishment system, especially given our society's track record on condemning innocents (see the link posted in the previous post). And yes, this is based on how I feel. Justly killing a bunch of criminals doesn't feel nearly as right as killing one innocent feels wrong. And damnit, I agree with Cate; so this is what liberalism feels like....
Actually the death penalty is not a proportional response, it is a equal response. Proportionality would work something like...steal 1000$ get one year in prison, steal 10k$...get 10. A better question is, does life imprisonment equate to a proportional response? Additionally, since the convesation has turned to money, why is it that nobody seriously talks about making the criminal justice system at least partially self supporting? Consider for a minute the labor potential bottled up in the prison system. It is a staggering number of man hours. There is absolutely no reason why that manpower couldn't be used on a prison farm to grow their own food, make their own clothing, create a product useful to society (light manufactures etc...) Additionally, this solves the "cable TV and basketball" problem, because we don't have to entertain prisoners who are working. Concerned with escapes? Identify and isolate escape risks. The State Hospital (sanitorium) in my home town used to have a program like this. The patients (who were able) raised their own food, worked on the farm and in shops supporting it. When that program was suspended in the late 70's by Democratic politicos concerned with patients' "welfare", violence incidents (patient on patient and patient on staff) increased by a factor of 50x...no joke. This would be a big step in the right direction and might make a life sentence more palatable to those with some of the arguments above.
