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.

 whembly wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

I understand opposition to the death penalty on moral grounds, but do not understand opposition to "giving the State such power". What do you think the "State" is? In the US it is elected officials bound by state and national law, including voter elections and recalls. And how does opposing giving the State authority to execute on a state by state or national basis not contradict with it having the power to make war.

I oppose state sanctioned death penalty.

I think we put too much faith in the process to ensure that the system is perfect.

I'm perfectly fine with life w/o parole.

Agreed. The system is capable of making mistakes, and there are legit questions about its fairness.

I AM willing to execute a prisoner sentenced to death, however, before I would do it though I would review the file and photos tied to said case. Most of these guys that are on death row are there because 12 people ( like you or I ) decided that humanity would be better if they were removed from the genepool. I have seen the end result of death squads in the middle east, and those people were unfairly executed. The criminals were speak about now are truly deserving of their fate, a conclusion brought about by their own actions.

For those saying that they are alright with life without parole, that is nice, why not kick in more money for taxes to keep them alive? Would your stance change if the state would make that an option, or make it mandatory to answer that question when you payed taxes? How much more would you be willing to kick in? It takes anywhere from $31,000 to over $60,000 a year to keep an inmate. Some crimes deserve a prison sentence, some crimes deserve death.

And guess how much it costs for appeals and the entire process of capital punishment?

Because it is vastly more expensive to go through with the death penalty. That argument does not work. It is only about revenge and retribution.

 curran12 wrote:
And guess how much it costs for appeals and the entire process of capital punishment?

Because it is vastly more expensive to go through with the death penalty. That argument does not work. It is only about revenge and retribution.

This a side effect of our broken system and not a problem with the Death Penalty.

Focus on reforming the system, not ditching the Death Penalty. Its focusing on a non-issue because its easier than addressing the real problems, which would make all the issues people complain about the death penalty for go away.

And what are the 'real problems'? Also, to clear things up for me, can you explain that last part more? The 'which would make all the issues people complain about the death penalty for go away. ' part.

The system isn't broken. All criminal defendants have a right to full appeals in the state of conviction, followed by a writ of habeus corpus, which allows a more limited appeal to the federal courts. That takes time because 1) it's worth being sure and 2) nobody is too much of a hurry.

 curran12 wrote:
And what are the 'real problems'? Also, to clear things up for me, can you explain that last part more? The 'which would make all the issues people complain about the death penalty for go away. ' part.

Aside from being who are opposed to killing, the other main argument is that people are so stinking afraid of incorrectly sentencing someone who is innocent.

If you reform the system to have less wrongful convictions you obviously reduce the people who are wrongfully executed(and wrongfully sentenced for other crimes too).

Given the current hurdles, I don't think our false conviction rate is worrisome but it is a concern for some people.

I suppose it won't fix the issue for people who just oppose the death penalty for no reason other than "we shouldn't be killing people", but I don't think that's a valid reason to oppose it.

I happen to be one of those people. Why is it not valid, exactly?

 curran12 wrote:
I happen to be one of those people. Why is it not valid, exactly?

Because there are some crimes so abhorrent that the only acceptable punishment is death.

Someone murdering/raping/doing any other equally vile thing to people who then gets caught and gets to spend the rest of their life with every basic need taken care of isn't justice.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I happen to be one of those people. Why is it not valid, exactly?

Because there are some crimes so abhorrent that the only acceptable punishment is death.

Someone murdering/raping/doing any other equally vile thing to people who then gets caught and gets to spend the rest of their life with every basic need taken care of isn't justice.

But a state-sponsored murder is? Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Executions serve to fuel a feeling of righteousness that comes from revenge. We, as a society, should strive to be better than murder. Once we decide that 'well in this REALLY bad case, murder is okay', it is a backwards step.

 curran12 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
I happen to be one of those people. Why is it not valid, exactly?

Because there are some crimes so abhorrent that the only acceptable punishment is death.

Someone murdering/raping/doing any other equally vile thing to people who then gets caught and gets to spend the rest of their life with every basic need taken care of isn't justice.

But a state-sponsored murder is? Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Executions serve to fuel a feeling of righteousness that comes from revenge. We, as a society, should strive to be better than murder. Once we decide that 'well in this REALLY bad case, murder is okay', it is a backwards step.

Its not murder. Its removing a person who is a threat to society in a permeant fashion. That does involve ending their life. However, if someone has committed such heinous acts I do not believe they deserve the sympathy you seem to be giving them.

Its definitely not to be done lightly, but its not stooping to their level like you seem to be thinking. Governments have to protect their societies, both from internal and external threats. Both can/will involve killing out of necessity. Or do you also think that having a military is wrong? That's the government having to kill people too you know.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Its not murder. Its removing a person who is a threat to society in a permeant fashion. That does involve ending their life. However, if someone has committed such heinous acts I do not believe they deserve the sympathy you seem to be giving them, and which they no longer deserve.

Its definitely not to be done lightly, but its not stooping to their level.

Don't attribute sympathy to me, please. I said nothing of the sort.

I am saying that as a society, it is our obligation to be above executions and killing each other, when the reason for said execution does not have any gain for society. It is not cheaper, it does not reduce crime rates and it does not have any tangible gain for the victims other than revenge. And yes, I do believe that revenge is not a valid reason for capital punishment.

And edit, please don't throw the military up as a strawman. Keep it on focus, please.

 curran12 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Its not murder. Its removing a person who is a threat to society in a permeant fashion. That does involve ending their life. However, if someone has committed such heinous acts I do not believe they deserve the sympathy you seem to be giving them, and which they no longer deserve.

Its definitely not to be done lightly, but its not stooping to their level.

Don't attribute sympathy to me, please. I said nothing of the sort.

I am saying that as a society, it is our obligation to be above executions and killing each other, when the reason for said execution does not have any gain for society. It is not cheaper, it does not reduce crime rates and it does not have any tangible gain for the victims other than revenge. And yes, I do believe that revenge is not a valid reason for capital punishment.

And edit, please don't throw the military up as a strawman. Keep it on focus, please.

Punishment of the guilty is the primary reason for there to be punishments in the first place.

I assert that someone getting their basic needs completely covered for the rest of their life is not a fitting punishment for any crime, let alone a crime which is severe enough to warrant death/life in prison.

If the justice system was about reparations we'd just levy fines and give the money collected to the victims and not have prisons.

As for not being cheaper, that's not because of anything inherent with the Death penalty. Its because of how the entire system is set up, which leads to a lot of wasted tax payer money.

You're shifting your words around some. At the beginning of this conversation, your concern was for justice. Now you are talking about the quality of punishment. Those are not the same thing, at least in my eyes. But whatever word is used, neither really is achieved through the death penalty, only revenge is. Justice for the victims is achieved through life imprisonment without parole, the person who wronged them will never wrong another. Punishment is also based in revenge, as it is more based around retribution, certainly not in teaching a lesson when it comes to the death penalty.

But that is getting into a very semantic line. Let's take this into a more practical route.

You say that the system is set up to be expensive. If I may assume, would that mean that, in your opinion, if the system was fixed, executions would be less costly, right? If that isn't the case, I apologize, but if it is the case, let me ask you straight up; what reforms would you do to fix the system?

 curran12 wrote:
You're shifting your words around some. At the beginning of this conversation, your concern was for justice. Now you are talking about the quality of punishment. Those are not the same thing, at least in my eyes. But whatever word is used, neither really is achieved through the death penalty, only revenge is. Justice for the victims is achieved through life imprisonment without parole, the person who wronged them will never wrong another. Punishment is also based in revenge, as it is more based around retribution, certainly not in teaching a lesson when it comes to the death penalty.

Your bolded part doesn't make sense. Life imprisonment without parole isn't justice for the victims, the criminal is safe behind bars with every physical need met for the rest of his life, its not justice. Not when we are discussing things like murder, rape, etc... Sure, he probably won't wrong anyone else, but that's also true of executions.

But that is getting into a very semantic line. Let's take this into a more practical route.

You say that the system is set up to be expensive. If I may assume, would that mean that, in your opinion, if the system was fixed, executions would be less costly, right? If that isn't the case, I apologize, but if it is the case, let me ask you straight up; what reforms would you do to fix the system?

Ok, here is how I would set it up.

The execution date would be set at the time of sentencing and would be fixed, no stay of execution date possible. The date itself would also be no more than 5 years from the date of sentencing. During that time period the accused has unlimited appeals to get the sentence overturned, but nothing could be done to stay the date of execution. This would ensure the Death Penalty isn't what it is currently(basically a Life sentence due to unlimited appeals and continual rollback of execution date). By limiting the timeframe you don't have it ending up being more expensive than life(which is caused by the infinite appeals, over what is always decades, running up legal costs)

Executions themselves would be carried out with captive bolts or high caliber fixed mount guns(.45 caliber minimum, multiple rounds, point blank range to base of skull). Prisoners being executed would be rendered unconscious using ordinary anesthetic, which would be tested ahead of time to ensure the prisoner would be effected by it. Observations of executions would not be allowed.

Burden of proof for the Death Penalty would also be raised from what it is currently(which is already exceptionally high).

Sorry, but being imprisoned IS a punishment. You aren't allowed freedom to go anywhere and do what you want.

And considering how often the courts get it wrong especially towards the poor who can't afford to have good representation...Any amount of permanent solution is too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Life imprisonment without parole isn't justice for the victims, the criminal is safe behind bars with every physical need met for the rest of his life, its not justice.?

Your bolded part doesn't make sense.

Each victim or victim's family has a different definition of what Justice means to, and for, them.

Some may feel that imprisonment is OK.

Others may feel that a life (or lives) for a life is how justice should be balanced.

And that, to me, is what justice boils down to: a balancing...a squaring of the "debt", so to speak.

In some cases, I feel it should be death. In other cases, prison is acceptable.

Imagine this guy continually replaying in his head the botched execution attempt, knowing that he is going to have to endure a repeat performance. This, in my mind, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

I think the state had it's shot and blew it, and the man should be regulated to life in prison. What happens if the next attempt fails also? Is he going to have to look forward to a third time through?

To be open, I would have no qualms about him being executed for what he did, if it had been accomplished competently the first time. Repeatedly stabbing him with needles, though, only to shuffle him back to await another day is bogus.

He is already anticipating the execution date, and has been since sentenxing....anticipating everything that is going to happen going over and over in his mind...so really..in my mind...the fact that he is anticipating it (again) is just a continuation, not a new event.

Don't kill people (or commit other crimes worthy of death) in a state with the death penalty and you won't be put to death.

Pretty simple.

Personally....I say let him stew over it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The problem may be that they had a doctor try and start the IV.

Seriously....docs don't typically start IV's.

RN's and CRNA's do the *vast* majority of starts.

If the doc is needed to administer the med...fine...but a good and competent nurse (especially an ER nurse) will get access in 1 to 3 tries.

None of this 18 bs.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
He is already anticipating the execution date, and has been since sentenxing....anticipating everything that is going to happen going over and over in his mind...so really..in my mind...the fact that he is anticipating it (again) is just a continuation, not a new event.

Don't kill people (or commit other crimes worthy of death) in a state with the death penalty and you won't be put to death.
...

Also, don't get convicted incorrectly.

Statistics like this make me really uncomfortable about trusting governments to use the death penalty:

http://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Statistics like this make me really uncomfortable about trusting governments to use the death penalty:

http://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.

Relapse wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Statistics like this make me really uncomfortable about trusting governments to use the death penalty:

http://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.

To play devils devils advocate

How many Murderers are there that have gotten away with their act?

Relapse wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting we should ignore wrongful convictions (or the possibility of them?) to avoid the hypothetical that released murder convicts will murder again?

How many actual convicted murders vs how many murderers get away with it in court (OJ) including the ones who got away eh

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting we should ignore wrongful convictions (or the possibility of them?) to avoid the hypothetical that released murder convicts will murder again?

The last part is either let everyone go, or gas em all as soon as they walk through those gates.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Its not murder. Its removing a person who is a threat to society in a permeant fashion. That does involve ending their life. However, if someone has committed such heinous acts I do not believe they deserve the sympathy you seem to be giving them, and which they no longer deserve.

Its definitely not to be done lightly, but its not stooping to their level.

Don't attribute sympathy to me, please. I said nothing of the sort.

I am saying that as a society, it is our obligation to be above executions and killing each other, when the reason for said execution does not have any gain for society. It is not cheaper, it does not reduce crime rates and it does not have any tangible gain for the victims other than revenge. And yes, I do believe that revenge is not a valid reason for capital punishment.

And edit, please don't throw the military up as a strawman. Keep it on focus, please.

Punishment of the guilty is the primary reason for there to be punishments in the first place.

I assert that someone getting their basic needs completely covered for the rest of their life is not a fitting punishment for any crime, let alone a crime which is severe enough to warrant death/life in prison.

If the justice system was about reparations we'd just levy fines and give the money collected to the victims and not have prisons.

As for not being cheaper, that's not because of anything inherent with the Death penalty. Its because of how the entire system is set up, which leads to a lot of wasted tax payer money.

Yur trust of the US legal system is...misplaced.

Relapse wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Statistics like this make me really uncomfortable about trusting governments to use the death penalty:

http://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.

Non-issue. Some who would be executed anyway would be sentenced to life without parole.

 LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Just to play devil's advocate, how many people that have served time for murder and are released kill again? Do the number of people killed by previously convicted murderers exceed the number of wrongful executions? Add into this the number of people in prison who are murdered by someone who avoided the death penalty.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting we should ignore wrongful convictions (or the possibility of them?) to avoid the hypothetical that released murder convicts will murder again?

Not at all. The system needs to be improved and continually monitored to make it better with each case. However, currently do we lose more innocent lives than we save by creating situations where people truly guilty of murder kill someone else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Non-issue. Some who would be executed anyway would be sentenced to life without parole.

Some, but not all. There is ample documentation of convicted murderers who were either released from prison and killed again, or went on to kill other inmates or guards.

But that is meaningless. This is about the death penelty, which has absolutely no effect on that. Unless you are suggesting we just kill them all?
And prison violence is a whole different issue.