Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm against the death penalty (except for certain exceptions)* for several reasons.

1. The conviction process is not foolproof, and could result in an innocent being unjustly killed. Better let a murderer go free than kill an innocent person.

2. I'm against state-sponsored murder, even under the pretense of "justice". Commiting a crime (stripping a citizen of his right to live) in response to another crime, helps nobody. Killing someone will not bring the dead back to life.

3. Retribution or harsh punishment is never the answer to a crime - rehabilitation is. In this man's case, a long term in a special mental hospital would suffice. If he could be proven mentally rebabilitated, he should be released on a limited term of parole.

*Gross treason, genocide, crimes against humanity mostly. Possible corporate executives that knowingly sign off on things that kill large quantities of people (see: Ford Pinto, opiate epidemic)

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Wrongful convictions can be overturned, falsly imprisoned individuals can be freed and approproately compensated.

Disagree. You can overturn a conviction and pay them money, but you could never appropriately compensate someone for being imprisoned for a great length of time.

Wrongly imprisoning someone for decades is, IMO, as bad as wrongfully executing someone. You took something you can never give back. So really, its equivalent on the front of "we did a bad thing we can't take back".

So all that is left is to improve the justice system to make wrongful convictions as rare as possible. The answer isn't to throw your hands in the air and say "screw it, we should just give up".

Imprisoning and then compensating someone is no where near the equal of killing them. Or are you saying that kidnapping should carry the same penalty as murder?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Wrongful convictions can be overturned, falsly imprisoned individuals can be freed and approproately compensated.

Disagree. You can overturn a conviction and pay them money, but you could never appropriately compensate someone for being imprisoned for a great length of time.

Wrongly imprisoning someone for decades is, IMO, as bad as wrongfully executing someone. You took something you can never give back. So really, its equivalent on the front of "we did a bad thing we can't take back".

So all that is left is to improve the justice system to make wrongful convictions as rare as possible. The answer isn't to throw your hands in the air and say "screw it, we should just give up".

I just don't know how to respond to this ...

Being wrongly imprisoned for decades is as bad as being killed.

No! No it isn't! Really, no!

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Wrongful convictions can be overturned, falsly imprisoned individuals can be freed and approproately compensated.

Disagree. You can overturn a conviction and pay them money, but you could never appropriately compensate someone for being imprisoned for a great length of time.

Sure, but the attempt can at least be made, and many years or decades of quality life enjoyed thereafter, unlike with the death penalty.

Wrongly imprisoning someone for decades is, IMO, as bad as wrongfully executing someone. You took something you can never give back. So really, its equivalent on the front of "we did a bad thing we can't take back".

wrongly imprisoning someone for decades is awful, and not something that can be taken back, but if you erroneously charge someone at 19, convict them at 20, release them at 45, they still have 30 or 40+ years ahead of them to make the most of. Thats not an unheard of event by any means.

So all that is left is to improve the justice system to make wrongful convictions as rare as possible. The answer isn't to throw your hands in the air and say "screw it, we should just give up".

Except what is the death penalty buying us in this case to make it worth the effort and consequences if things *do* go wrong?

By all means improve the system, I will always advocate for and approve of that, but any system can and will fail, and when it comes to the state being in a position to take someone's life, I see no compelling reason to leave the door open to such failures.

All the death penalty accomplishes is making more people into killers.

Incorrect, it also makes some people feel a lot better about themselves.

If his crimes were so brutal - why was he given a sentence that had the possibility of being reduced?

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
I approach all questions of justice with two principals;

1) Nobody, and I do mean nobody, deserves to die. Not everyone can be rehabilitated, but everyone should be given that opportunity.

2) The jury that heard all of the evidence is better suited to judge guilt, the judge who could take all factors into account is better suited to pass sentence and the parole board who can actually interview the prisoner and others involved is far better qualified to decide if someone is still a danger to the public, than I or any other random on the internet can ever hope to be.

Often a jury only assesses if the criminal is guilty, not the punishment phase. Alternatively juries are only allowed to sit on issues the judge allows them to review, based only on the evidence the judge permits to be seen.

 jhe90 wrote:

Marxist artist wrote:
Is rehabilitation of an individual not possible? This guy is vile but does everyone not deserve another chance?

The law is the law and must be respected otherwise society is no better than the criminal, frankly I hope his parole is denied but people can change.

Someone can. Some cannot. That's up to the individual.

And some remain too dangerous to ever release and should be locked up until they die. UK done that a few times. Some people where given indefinite sentences basically or sent to secure hospitals and locked away for public safety for many decades.

That is called a 'life tariff' in UK law, requires Home Secretary signed approval and stipulation/recommendation by the original trial judge. It is no something that can be arbitrarily added when parole dates aproach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
I understand that this is following due process, and the law is important. But simply saying 'this is what the law decided and so that's that because we need the law' is talking past the discussion. It is possible to look at legal decisions and penalties and wonder if sentences should be softened in some cases and hardened in others. Obviously this can't be done after the event, but where sentences appear too harsh or too lenient then it is reasonable to review and change sentencing laws.

In general I'm okay with more lenient sentences with longer parole periods that have extensive parole and monitoring elements. But in some cases I really do struggle to see the benefit to release, and this case certainly fits the bill. The man took part in repeated planned, sadistic killings, I just don't see the need to release. I don't agree with the death penalty, and I don't have any need to see the man miserable forever, so give him his tv and visitations, but have life mean life.

What you are missing here sebster is that the lawyers who sat through the case in 1981 had a better idea of what was going on with regards to the evidence provided for the case than the internet does now. The convicted was given 70 years with parole after 35 by a lawful judge after a lawful trial.

Your argument could only have merit if there is evidence that was committed from the original trial, or if said trial was otherwise flawed.

Sure a lot has changed in three and a half decades, but that is the point, the trial took place in the 80's, and the convicted has waited since then, maybe in 2017 the same crimes would result in a 400 year sentence, maybe not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
I approach all questions of justice with two principals;

1) Nobody, and I do mean nobody, deserves to die. Not everyone can be rehabilitated, but everyone should be given that opportunity.

2) The jury that heard all of the evidence is better suited to judge guilt, the judge who could take all factors into account is better suited to pass sentence and the parole board who can actually interview the prisoner and others involved is far better qualified to decide if someone is still a danger to the public, than I or any other random on the internet can ever hope to be.

Often a jury only assesses if the criminal is guilty, not the punishment phase. Alternatively juries are only allowed to sit on issues the judge allows them to review, based only on the evidence the judge permits to be seen.

Some sentencing options require a unanimous verdict, death penalty or instance, lesser sentencing options occur with a split verdict (if not a retrial). So juries indirectly have some influence on sentencing.

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

Marxist artist wrote:
Is rehabilitation of an individual not possible? This guy is vile but does everyone not deserve another chance?

The law is the law and must be respected otherwise society is no better than the criminal, frankly I hope his parole is denied but people can change.

Someone can. Some cannot. That's up to the individual.

And some remain too dangerous to ever release and should be locked up until they die. UK done that a few times. Some people where given indefinite sentences basically or sent to secure hospitals and locked away for public safety for many decades.

That is called a 'life tariff' in UK law, requires Home Secretary signed approval and stipulation/recommendation by the original trial judge. It is no something that can be arbitrarily added when parole dates aproach.

Given as in the sentence passed at the end it the trial and the one the judge locked them up under. Not asigned just because.

When there judged too dangerous. Insane. Or comited crimes judged too henius and disgusting to consider letting them ever out. It can be passed that they will never endanger the public again.

No parole. No hiding, no escaping your concrete box.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I have no idea how you can claim wrongful convictions is acceptable at any level. Especially if a persons life is on the line at the end of it. That's essentially condoning official murder. But "oops sorry, we got it wrong", but it's within acceptable levels, so it's all ok.

On the other hand, there are several instances of convicted killers committing more murders while in prison, or murdering again after gaining parole or escaping prison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I have no idea how you can claim wrongful convictions is acceptable at any level. Especially if a persons life is on the line at the end of it. That's essentially condoning official murder. But "oops sorry, we got it wrong", but it's within acceptable levels, so it's all ok.

Given that the alleged number of these wrongful convictions are so minuscule, and there are way worse problems to deal with, you're overreacting a little bit.

I am just going to go ahead and stop you right there. If they are minuscule, that means they exist. Which means we kill innocent people. Which means the state commits murder. Which means that the state is doing the one thing they are trying to prevent the population from doing in this case.

How is that not an issue?

Again, several instances of convicted killers going on to commit more murders.

Grey Templar wrote:As for acting as a deterrent, no sentence really acts as a deterrent. The biggest deterrent is the chance of getting caught. Which again is increased by pushing the envelop on forensics and good detective work.

Grey Templar wrote:Given that the alleged number of these wrongful convictions are so minuscule, and there are way worse problems to deal with, you're overreacting a little bit.

Simultaneously arguing the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent while also saying it's OK if we kill a few innocent people because there are bigger problems, right?

Grey Templar, everyone!

I would rather a killer escapes and kills again than an innocent person is wrongly killed by the government.

I would also guess that the number of falsely convicted people that were executed is greater than the number of escaped cons that killed someone.

 skyth wrote:
I would rather a killer escapes and kills again than an innocent person is wrongly killed by the government.

I would also guess that the number of falsely convicted people that were executed is greater than the number of escaped cons that killed someone.

I'm not just talking about escaped cons, though, but also those who murder again while in prison or after parole:

https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Killers-Who-Kill-Again

http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

The murder in prison sounds like an issue with control in the prison not the lack of a death penalty.

I still believe more innocent people have been executed than killers killed again.

And I still don't want someone with the power of the government to be able to execute people who might not be guilty.

I've gotta disagree with the whole "better to let a murderer go free than execute an innocent person by accident" thing. Letting a murderer go free can very likely result in more innocent people dying. This is no solution; it's just making it worse. At least if the wrong guy is executed only one more innocent person dies instead of a bunch. Now, I do feel that it's a horrible tragedy if an innocent person ends up being put to death or spends a long time in prison for a crime they didn't commit, and I think there should be some kind of liability for that kind of thing for the judge, jury, crime investigators/detectives, or someone in the process if that happens, but we can't just bury our heads in the sand and let bad guys go because we *might* have the wrong guy.

And the death penalty is in some ways better for the state than life in prison. You don't have to pay to feed and house and clothe a dead person. Save that tax money for improving the lives of law-abiding citizens (things like better schools, roads, etc.). I realize that it sounds callous, like reducing a person's life to money, but the practical fact of the matter is that the government spends a lot of money on keeping prisons operating. This is why convicted criminals should not get to spend so much time sitting on death row before their sentence is carried out. Definitely need a hard cap on time spent on death row.

Finally, the death penalty is not and never was about petty revenge against anyone. Death is considered the ultimate punishment and has been for as long as humans have existed. Yes, the death penalty can be misused by evil people (like various tin-pot dictators over the years), but it's not a problem in America and most civilized countries because it's not done for political reasons, but rather as due punishment for particularly evil crimes. And let's face it, methods of execution have become much more humane in modern times. It's not anywhere near as barbaric as it used to be. For that matter, neither is prison. If revenge was the motivation for the death penalty, I suspect that the methods would be much more...crude and painful.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I've gotta disagree with the whole "better to let a murderer go free than execute an innocent person by accident" thing. Letting a murderer go free can very likely result in more innocent people dying. This is no solution; it's just making it worse. At least if the wrong guy is executed only one more innocent person dies instead of a bunch.

Setting aside the horror this exact line of thinking has countless millenia of devastating practice to prove its faults, this assumes most murderers are going to kill multiple people, this is not the case. Most murderers would really only ever kill the one time, there's usually a reason and circumstance behind the murder not just psychopathic mindless violence.

Now, I do feel that it's a horrible tragedy if an innocent person ends up being put to death or spends a long time in prison for a crime they didn't commit, and I think there should be some kind of liability for that kind of thing for the judge, jury, crime investigators/detectives, or someone in the process if that happens, but we can't just bury our heads in the sand and let bad guys go because we *might* have the wrong guy.

That's not the argument being made.

The argument was that, knowing that justice systems are imperfect, it is better not to impose a death penalty, and instead impose other severe penalties that can, if necessary, be lifted and partially compensated for. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't have severe penalties for severe crimes, only ones that can be unimposed if necessary.

And the death penalty is in some ways better for the state than life in prison. You don't have to pay to feed and house and clothe a dead person. Save that tax money for improving the lives of law-abiding citizens (things like better schools, roads, etc.).

Well, the whole issue here is that you might be killing an innocent citizen...

I realize that it sounds callous, like reducing a person's life to money, but the practical fact of the matter is that the government spends a lot of money on keeping prisons operating. This is why convicted criminals should not get to spend so much time sitting on death row before their sentence is carried out. Definitely need a hard cap on time spent on death row.

Which would result in yet more innocent people dying, as we have seen not-inconsequential numbers of people being released after twenty or more years on death row with hard evidence proving their innocence, such as DNA testing. In the grand scheme of things, the amount of savings to state and federal government in the grand scheme of things would probably be utterly inconsequential at the levels they operate at. You'd be better off putting them to work and making use of their labor if you want cost savings.

Finally, the death penalty is not and never was about petty revenge against anyone. Death is considered the ultimate punishment and has been for as long as humans have existed.

Not always, and the death penalty wasn't permitted in many societies (at least among those it considered "free"), and its "ultimateness" was often dependent on its method.

Yes, the death penalty can be misused by evil people (like various tin-pot dictators over the years), but it's not a problem in America and most civilized countries because it's not done for political reasons, but rather as due punishment for particularly evil crimes.

Except it is a problem, there's a reason we have third party organizations like the Innocence Project having to clean up the justice system's failures, exonerating almost a hundred people of murder convictions and almost 20 people of death row cases (given the death row population, that's a higher failure rate right there than we'd allow out of any common mechanical device to not call it junk) on DNA evidence alone.

they've And let's face it, methods of execution have become much more humane in modern times. It's not anywhere near as barbaric as it used to be. For that matter, neither is prison. If revenge was the motivation for the death penalty, I suspect that the methods would be much more...crude and painful.

People can wish harm and death on others without desiring anything particularly gruesome as part of that.

 skyth wrote:
The murder in prison sounds like an issue with control in the prison not the lack of a death penalty.

I still believe more innocent people have been executed than killers killed again.

And I still don't want someone with the power of the government to be able to execute people who might not be guilty.

If the killer had been shuffled off to death row and executed he wouldn't have had the chance to murder someone else.
I was reading a study that said over 400 released murderers have committed more killings. I'll try to find it and post it up here.

Definitely not all killers should receive the death penalty, such as heat of the moment or crimes of passion type killers as one example.
However, people like the man in the OP should have been taken right out and executed. This individual has long ago divorced himself from humanity and is no better than a rabid animal that should be put down.

 jhe90 wrote:


Given as in the sentence passed at the end it the trial and the one the judge locked them up under. Not asigned just because.

When there judged too dangerous. Insane. Or comited crimes judged too henius and disgusting to consider letting them ever out. It can be passed that they will never endanger the public again.

No parole. No hiding, no escaping your concrete box.

Judges in the US have that power, the one presiding over this case did not. He must have had his reasons, and his trial experience and knowledge of the facts of this case likely exceed yours, So why not take his (or her) judgement as accurate to he circumstances.

Also note that the prosecution can lobby the judge for stiffer sentencing and make comment in caes of undue leniency. There is a whole process for this, and apparently that want considered necessary bythe relevant professionals a the time.

 Orlanth wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Given as in the sentence passed at the end it the trial and the one the judge locked them up under. Not asigned just because.

When there judged too dangerous. Insane. Or comited crimes judged too henius and disgusting to consider letting them ever out. It can be passed that they will never endanger the public again.

No parole. No hiding, no escaping your concrete box.

Judges in the US have that power, the one presiding over this case did not. He must have had his reasons, and his trial experience and knowledge of the facts of this case likely exceed yours, So why not take his (or her) judgement as accurate to he circumstances.

Also note that the prosecution can lobby the judge for stiffer sentencing and make comment in caes of undue leniency. There is a whole process for this, and apparently that want considered necessary bythe relevant professionals a the time.

If that is your feeling on the matter of the court system, then you should have no trouble with people being executed under that system.

 ZergSmasher wrote:


... but it's not a problem in America and most civilized countries ...

Just my opinion and anyone is welcome to disagree, but the death penalty is not a problem in civilised countries because civilised countries don't have the death penalty.

 Ouze wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:As for acting as a deterrent, no sentence really acts as a deterrent. The biggest deterrent is the chance of getting caught. Which again is increased by pushing the envelop on forensics and good detective work.

Grey Templar wrote:Given that the alleged number of these wrongful convictions are so minuscule, and there are way worse problems to deal with, you're overreacting a little bit.

Simultaneously arguing the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent while also saying it's OK if we kill a few innocent people because there are bigger problems, right?

Grey Templar, everyone!

.. how does it go again ?

You should never ever use any type of science, medical or otherwise, to make a moral decision. Letting science determine morality is not a place you want to go down.

or

But by all means, continue to justify society moving towards an awful dystopia.