Discussion: The Death Penalty

[Sawyer]

What the hell is up with that? Man is Texas ever a joke. Hard to believe it's in the same country as NY.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

I don't have children or a spouse. However, if my parents or another member of my family, or a friend gets charged with a serious crime with the death penalty as a possibility, they're on their own.

If your family member is charged and put on death row, their innocence doesn't matter to you? They are on their own just for being wrongly charged? The point is that if you think OTHER people should have to face wrongful execution in order to continue the death penalty -- because it has happened, and will happen again -- then you should be willing to say you would sacrifice your own INNOCENT family members in order to continue executions overall.

If you really COULD and WOULD say "go ahead and kill my innocent family member, no system is perfect and it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make so that we continue executions to get the people who really ARE guilty," then I'd hate to be a member of your family.

Bottom line: someone who is so driven to support killing guilty people that they will support killing innocent people as an acceptable error worth tolerating, need to be willing to put their own families in line first despite innocence. It's rather unfair to expect other families to suffer such a horrible, unjust loss unless you're willing to suffer that loss yourself first. I think people who claim they'd be willing to suffer loss of innocent family members, to avoid being hypocrites who only expect OTHER people to tolerate such loss, are not really being honest. Or they really, really hate their families.

 

[Addendum]

If my family member is stupid enough to get charged with something, that's their problem.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

The ONLY "rational" argument for supporting capital punishment is if someone feels that certain accused killers are such a danger to society, and are so smart/capable that they could escape from any possible imprisonment, that the only way to protect society from this person is to terminate their life.

The answer to that is pretty easy, though - there are supermax prisons where the actual plausibility of escape are so remote as to be nonexistent. In cases where convicted killers have escaped, it was clearly due to inadequate precautions. There are now modern prisons where convicts remain inside their cells in solitary confinement for 23 hours per day. The doors have a multiple safety features in case of power-outages (triple deadbolts that trigger mechanically if magnetic power is lost, among other precautions), and the cells are contained in enclosed pod areas that are themselves a second layer of incarceration. These pods are isolated by passageways that again serve as another layer of incarceration. Then there are the prison walls.

The jailers never even have to physically interact with the inmates, either, further reducing any risk of hostages or attacks on workers. The inmates receive their single hour of exercise by automatic opening of their cell door that gives them access to the single hallway from their cell to an enclosed "yard" with only the one entrance/exit. They are cuffed and shackled any time their door is opened or they exit their cell. Their meals come through a rotating device in the center of their cell door.

They are allowed only their meals, their clothing, and one book at a time in their cell. They have a toothbrush and toothpaste. That's it. The lights are built directly into the ceilings, which are too high to reach even while standing on their bed. They are monitored 24 hours a day by cameras in the roof of their cells.

The prisons have a force of armed SWAT-like guards, with protective armor and non-lethal but debilitating weapons. If an inmate acts up while in their cell, they can be tasered inside their cell without even opening the door. Tear gas can be placed in their cell without opening the door. And they have no realistic way of resisting a dozen armored, armed guards if for any outlandish reason it is necessary to enter their cell and take them by force.

The prison itself is situated far from any towns or cities, and the fields around it have only low grass that can't be used to hide. The inmates have no realistic chance of even getting outside of their cells, or their pods, or the secure entries to the pods, or the prison walls. But if by some miracle -- through supernatural intervention -- the managed to get beyond the prison walls, the vehicles and armed SWAT guards and dogs would catch them in the flat, barren miles of land surrounding the prison. Escape is not an option -- this is the real world, and supervillains don't exist. Even elaborate prison escapes are easy to understand as possible due to limitations of the prison itself, and it is precisely because dangerous inmates are not properly housed that escapes by such people are ever possible.

The existence of perhaps three of the modern max prisons described above would be more than enough to house the types of criminals whose very existence poses a risk to society. Their construction allows for minimal upkeep and labor costs. It allows keeping these people alive to study and evaluate them, to learn from them so that we can better intercept and identify other people like them -- and to potentially find a way to treat and cure whatever potential mental illness or psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies drive them.

The latter point alone is important, and applies to perpetrators of sex crimes as well -- I hate rapists and pedophiles worse than I hate killers, actually. But I realize that society will be served if we can "treat" them because it allows us insight into the causes, the warning signs, the methods, etc of whatever sickness has taken over their minds. The ability to treat them, and maybe some day cure them, is VERY important to society -- there was a point in time when they had this mental sickness and these urges prior to their first acting on those urges. If a treatment or cure exists, identifying such people early and removing the threat as much as possible, and being able to treat and potentially cure them so they don't act on the urges or don't act AGAIN on those urges, will save more people.

We may prefer to mistreat the convicted sex offenders and not care to treat them -- but we either actually want to do what's best for society and what protects the most children and other victims, or we're just blowing smoke. You don't have to like or even honestly care much about the sex offenders themselves -- just care about the possibility of reducing or eliminating the threat to society overall, not just in those people caught but in the larger number who AREN'T caught, and the people in the future who would otherwise commit the same types of crimes but who can be stopped before they destroy lives.

We can talk all day about executing sex offenders, but we know it isn't going to happen. And while I believe that anyone convicted of rape or child molestation or similar crimes should be sentenced to life in prison without parole, I also know that it's not very likely to happen, either. These people get short sentences and are released back into society -- that's the fact of life, period. At best, they may some day be locked up for much longer, that's it. So the question is what can we do that is most beneficial to society, within the existing reality of the situation? The best thing is to use those inmates to learn all we can, and to try to find treatments and some day maybe a cure. So creating a prison that isolates them, removes the danger of escape, and then seeks to gain as much information as we can from them is the best option.

I think these are very obvious things, and it doesn't even require the added consideration of innocent people being wrongly convicted or other moral questions about proper treatment of convicts. Just purely from the perspective of societal preservation and protection, I think the evidence against executions and in favor of incarceration to learn and develop treatments and databases etc is overwhelming.

As for convicts supposedly losing their right/expectation of not being abused and tortured etc -- we have a Constitution. And in it, there is a specific and explicit protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It only applies to people under arrest or incarcerated, that's exactly WHO it was written to cover. It doesn't make any distinctions between severity of crimes or amount of evidence etc -- it exists solely to protect suspected and convicted criminals from punishment that is cruel or unusual, period.

To claim these people have "lost their rights" is glaringly contrary to the actual law and the actual principles on which our nation was founded. To get to a point of the accused "losing their rights" to an extent that allows intentional abuse and torture etc, would require amending the founding document of our nation and altering the perception of the application of justice. Killing, beating, torturing, etc of inmates has to fall under the definition of "cruel and unusual", or NOTHING does and the protection becomes meaningless.

Those who so willingly declare we should cast aside one of the protections of the Bill of Rights need to ask if they would so easily denounce and ignore and call for violation of other protections as well. What about speech? What about gun rights? Pick your favorite protection in the Bill of Rights from our Constitution, and consider how strenuously you'd argue why it cannot be violated and why it's important. Then ask why you would think that the protections you care about personally are more important than the other protections guaranteed by the same document, under the same democratic principles of a fair and just society that seeks to limit government intrusion and exertion of power over its citizens.

 

[Addendum]

I don't consider the death penalty to be against the bill of rights, nor when inmates beat up other inmates.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

If my family member is stupid enough to get charged with something, even if they didn't do it, oh well.

Oh, good grief. What part of "INNOCENT" are you not understanding? You think that innocent people only get charged because they are "stupid enough" to be WRONGLY ACCUSED? That's such an empty notion, I don't even take it seriously.

But hey, if you happen to be stupid enough to wear a blue jacket in public on the same night that another guy in a blue jacket murders someone, and a witness wrongly identifies you, then I guess your family ought to think "oh well, he must've been stupid to go out in public where someone might wrongly accuse him of something he had nothing to do with."

Most wrongful convictions require only two things: a misidentification by a witness, and not having a solid alibi that can be documented and proven in court. Time after time, people are arrested and convicted based solely on witness identification and lack of any provable alibi -- and the people wrongly accused did not do something "stupid" to get wrongly identified, they are typically just in the area of a crime. Do you have some power allowing you to psychically know when a crime has happened within a mile of where you are, and to know IN ADVANCE so you can avoid ever being anywhere near where a crime has happened? If not, you better never leave your home again, and keep a video camera with a time-stamp running 24 hours a day to always prove you were at home and never left ever. Otherwise, you might be "stupid enough" to get wrongly accused.

I can't believe there are people who even make that kind of statement. Sheesh.

 

[RdeemingRainbow]

I don't consider the death penalty to be against the bill of rights, nor when inmates beat up other inmates.

Why? Is it because you never read the Bill of Rights, for example? Other inmates beating up other inmates has never been part of the debate, as far as I know. We're talking about the people here who stated they think convicts should be beaten and tortured by guards. Big difference.

To claim that executing a person doesn't violate "cruel and unusual punishment" means the term "cruel and unusual" doesn't mean anything. We could say that a law against publishing newspapers, or against stating your political beliefs in public, doesn't violate the Bill of Rights either -- but that doesn't make it a rational claim.

 

[Addendum]

The death penalty existed long before the bill of rights. I don't consider executing a prisoner that was convicted of a crime which warrants the death penalty to be "cruel" or "unusual"

 

[SuBe]

Why? Is it because you never read the Bill of Rights, for example? Other inmates beating up other inmates has never been part of the debate, as far as I know. We're talking about the people here who stated they think convicts should be beaten and tortured by guards. Big difference.

To claim that executing a person doesn't violate "cruel and unusual punishment" means the term "cruel and unusual" doesn't mean anything. We could say that a law against publishing newspapers, or against stating your political beliefs in public, doesn't violate the Bill of Rights either -- but that doesn't make it a rational claim.

How is it against Natural Law to take the Life of a Convicted Criminal that took the Natural Rights away from another Individual? What is the proper punishment for an individual that took the life of another?

 

[Franklin Richards]

You make him Leader.

 

[Bathead]

How is it against Natural Law to take the Life of a Convicted Criminal that took the Natural Rights away from another Individual? What is the proper punishment for an individual that took the life of another?

What about the state that takes the life on a innocent person? What is the proper punishment for that?

 

[hippie_hunter]

What the hell is up with that? Man is Texas ever a joke. Hard to believe it's in the same country as NY.

I must say that as a resident of New York, it has it's fair share of cultural problems as well.

 

[Heretic]

For the record, I dont weep for the suffering of child molesters. It's pretty much accepted that treatment doesnt work, and I really dont care to spend my tax dollars teaching this guy why its wrong to rape kids. They can be put down and save me some money, or they can be locked away forever. In my mind, the current method putting them in jail for a month and having them pinky swear that they wont do it again is not good enough.

 

[omid17]

For the record, I dont weep for the suffering of child molesters. It's pretty much accepted that treatment doesnt work, and I really dont care to spend my tax dollars teaching this guy why its wrong to rape kids. They can be put down and save me some money, or they can be locked away forever. In my mind, the current method putting them in jail for a month and having them pinky swear that they wont do it again is not good enough.

 

[dnno1]

How is it against Natural Law to take the Life of a Convicted Criminal that took the Natural Rights away from another Individual? What is the proper punishment for an individual that took the life of another?

If we want to consider some natural law now (whatever that is) then abortion should be legal since it would fall under that category as well. You've got to follow one way or the other. Either all life is precious (criminal or not) or you just don't care about it. It seems that those who care more about their money don't care about life at all.

 

[Kurosawa]

If we want to consider some natural law now (whatever that is) then abortion should be legal since it would fall under that category as well. You've got to follow one way or the other. Either all life is precious (criminal or not) or you just don't care about it. It seems that those who care more about their money don't care about life at all.

Yeah, for many people money trumps all. I lump abortion by choice (cases not including rape, incest, health of the mother, and possibly severe birth defects)and the death penalty together because I am not very comfortable with either being legal but I understand why they are. My only real issue with the death penalty, aside from personal religious issues, is as I've stated before-mistakes can happen, and sometimes to people who are not in any way criminals. I just feel if you execute one innocent person, then it is not worth it. But realistically it's not going away, at least not anytime soon. And the idea of someone like McVeigh or Hasan getting the death penalty does not bother me for an instant.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

For the record, I dont weep for the suffering of child molesters. It's pretty much accepted that treatment doesnt work, and I really dont care to spend my tax dollars teaching this guy why its wrong to rape kids. They can be put down and save me some money, or they can be locked away forever. In my mind, the current method putting them in jail for a month and having them pinky swear that they wont do it again is not good enough.

Executions cost MORE than life without parole.

 

[omid17]

Inmate to Get 1-Drug, Slower Execution

http://news.aol.com/article/ohio-inmate-kenneth-biros-to-get-1-drug/705937

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Dec. 7) -- Condemned killer Kenneth Biros could become the first person in the country put to death with a single dose of an intravenous anesthetic instead of the usual — and faster-acting — three-drug process if his execution proceeds Tuesday.

 

[Nivek]

The death penalty existed long before the bill of rights. I don't consider executing a prisoner that was convicted of a crime which warrants the death penalty to be "cruel" or "unusual"

And neither did the authors of the Constitution. They just didn't want to see people tortured to death for the sake of justice. Like boiled in oil, crushed with stones, drown in a chair, drawn & quartered, etc. Back then, the guillotine was considered humane.

 

[enterthemadness]

Inmate to Get 1-Drug, Slower Execution

http://news.aol.com/article/ohio-inmate-kenneth-biros-to-get-1-drug/705937

Hmmmm....wonder what his last meal would be...

Anyway...if you kill a person (directly..none of the blah blah BS..you were there BS BLAH)...then yes, you deserve the death penatly.

 

[Nivek]

I personally believe the Death penalty should be reserved for Murderers who show premeditation, lack of remorse, and those who could kill again. Also, you kill more than two people or a child, the Death Penalty should automatically be on the table. I also think the appeals process needs to be restructured. Why is a P.O.S. like Richard Ramirez still drawing breath? He was convicted and put on Death Row in the 80's, why is that piece of garbage living 25 years later?

Where I'm very liberal/ progressive on many things, the Death Penalty and Prison Reform bring out my conservative side.

 

[StorminNorman]

Child Molesters are the ones most deserving of the death penalty as they are the ones least likely to be rehabilitated.

 

[Schlosser85]

Inmate to Get 1-Drug, Slower Execution

Considering I've heard in detail what Kenneth Biros did to Tami Engstrom, the most I can say is "aww, poor baby".

 

[Nivek]

Child Molesters are the ones most deserving of the death penalty as they are the ones least likely to be rehabilitated.

Well, that's a slippery slope IMO, same with executing serial rapists. IMO the Death Penalty should be reserved solely for those who are physically dangerous to society and have a penchant for Murder. Rapists (including Pedophiles) are just as bad as and more often than not eventually become killers (like the Scumbag rapist parolee here in Central Florida who killed a 19 year old about a month ago), but you have to make sure you have the right guy before a Death Warrant is signed. However I do agree if they cannot be released, and they are guilty without reasonable doubt and have a penchant for violent physical assault against children and women, but them in line for ol' sparky.

 

[Nivek]

Considering I've heard in detail what Kenneth Biros did to Tami Engstrom, the most I can say is "aww, poor baby".

No kidding, this guy get's no sympathy from me at all. Personally, I think he should be cut up into pieces and scattered as well...