Capital punishment: How should it be applied?

[DunRanull]

Q: Capital Punishment: How should it be applied?
A: IMO- Very very sparingly- (perhaps?) in cases of serious espionage or high treason shown to have serious negative affect upon the people or lawful government of the United States.
A lot of people "waste our air" and probably by common American standards (even by my personal standard) need killing... yet my personal "gut" has always told me that government-sanctioned executions are as murderous as anything a "real murderer" does. It comes down to a matter of conscience and social morality. Religious belief on my part? Not so much.
Every day, in thousands of ways we teach the young that killing is OK, while we wonder at the mayhem on our streets and even in our homes... I think we need to end the fable that it's OK to allow government to slaughter it's own citizens in chase of some chimerical concept of justice.

 

[teflon6string]

 

[2506]

Sorry, I missed it where someone advocated the execution of "those who don't deserve it".


A jury made up of folks too dumb to get out of jury duty, amirite?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the jury make that decision?

<broken link removed>




Ray

 

[Slobray]

I was asking you to contribute something substantial and, preferably, interesting to the conversation, rather than reiterating what's already been said. Your sarcasm betrays that I hurt your feelings, so I apologize for that.

You couldn't be any farther from the truth; The sarcasm was due to you acting like a condescending know-it-all jerk, exactly like you did above. I actually believe that you're the one who got butthurt by my origional reply to you and that's why your response was so contentious.

Yes, the jury decides whether to impose it. However, the government decides whether the jury has that option at all, what legal and evidential criteria must be met for it to be an option in a given case, what appeal process is available to a convict, how the execution will be carried out, and the government is who actually carries it out.

See, this right here is how you start a conversation, not your first paragraph and previous reply.

True, I forgot about the role of the Sentencing Commission. The problem is that without it, there would be so many different standards.

The fact that even one innocent person has been wrongfully executed (and there's been a *lot* more than one) should outrage all of us, especially because the 2A and the right to continue living is the root of our presence on this forum. Do you see how those two relate?

I have to somewhat disagree with this, because I don't believe that the 2A is about self defense... @The Heretic and a few others said it way better than I could, so please see this thread The Second Amendment is not about guns


Ray

 

[PaulB47]

I don't like the idea of government killing the governed

That's where I am.

I used to be for the death penalty but have gradually changed to opposition. More than anything, due to the number of men on death row freed when DNA evidence is looked at. The criminal "Justice System" is extremely faulty in my opinion; just a way to railroad people.

I don't think a death penalty, or lack of one, has any appreciable effect on crime; and there is no way to make it have an effect without getting into unacceptable tyranny.

The issue in general, though, is really a distraction. It just does not affect enough people one way or the other, to be worth wasting time on. There is a lot of other crap going on that is much more important, such as rotten schools or business regulation.

 

[Kruel J]

For those that either admit guilt in a court of law, or there is indisputable DNA evidence that proves they did it. the answer should be obvious. Swift, clean and quick. Mental instabilities, although somewhat easy to argue, don't justify the crime IMHO.

 

[Brutus57]

Here's my take on capital punishment in addition to my funny above. It needs to be brought back...Let's start with Charlie Manson.... Who likes to hear on the news every few years about Manson's appeal for parole? You are going to tell me he shouldn't have been ended 40 decades ago? Let's talk terrorists...Yeah, too many still alive that have shot or blown up Americans. Ted Bundy, GONE! Green River Killer, Gone. The amount of money wasted on keep murderers alive in the penal system would be better spent on veterans, education or even helping to solve the homeless problem.

You take a another person's life and society finds it as murder....you get ended. The biggest problem with folks today who act up? Where are the consequences for actions? Look at these mass shooters that will be in prison for life. You tell me the theatre shooter or the Skagit Mall shooter need to live off society? No, that where the lawlessness that is increasing in society is coming from. Lack of consequences for breaking the law.... Illegal aliens, 4,5,7 time offenders like the loser that killed Kate Steinle..... he kept coming back every time he was deported. Now he has ruined a number of lives and the state of California will be paying for feeding and housing him for decades. Coddling killers doesn't help society.

Brutus Out

 

[Osarion]

I think people should be allowed one appeal, within a year, and then if you have the same guilty outcome. You go straight to the guillotine.

No more waiting on death row for an eternity.

Allow me to add a different perspective on this. Would you still hold the same sentiment?

I think people should be allowed one appeal (of their misuse of a firearm), within a year, and then if you have the same guilty outcome you are barred from ever owning a firearm for life.

I'm honestly surprised to see on a forum so full of constitutional rights advocates the near blood lust (I admit that may be too strong a description but you get the idea) of people wanting their government to be able to so swiftly deprive them of their life.

Blurb from Wikipedia about the death penalty and FBI:

In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an FBI forensic squad overstated forensic hair matches for two decades before the year 2000.[30][31] Of the 28 forensic examiners testifying to hair matches in a total of 268 trials reviewed, 26 overstated the evidence of forensic hair matches and 95% of the overstatements favored the prosecution. Defendants were sentenced to death in 32 of those 268 cases.

Be careful what you wish for folks...

 

[Captain O]

Here's my take on capital punishment in addition to my funny above. It needs to be brought back...Let's start with Charlie Manson.... Who likes to hear on the news every few years about Manson's appeal for parole? You are going to tell me he shouldn't have been ended 40 decades ago? Let's talk terrorists...Yeah, too many still alive that have shot or blown up Americans. Ted Bundy, GONE! Green River Killer, Gone. The amount of money wasted on keep murderers alive in the penal system would be better spent on veterans, education or even helping to solve the homeless problem.

You take a another person's life and society finds it as murder....you get ended. The biggest problem with folks today who act up? Where are the consequences for actions? Look at these mass shooters that will be in prison for life. You tell me the theatre shooter or the Skagit Mall shooter need to live off society? No, that where the lawlessness that is increasing in society is coming from. Lack of consequences for breaking the law.... Illegal aliens, 4,5,7 time offenders like the loser that killed Kate Steinle..... he kept coming back every time he was deported. Now he has ruined a number of lives and the state of California will be paying for feeding and housing him for decades. Coddling killers doesn't help society.

Brutus Out

I must concur with this. The expense of maintaining these "oxygen thieves" is both grossly prohibitive and unfair to society.

I am so sick of the media calling these social leeches "illegal immigrants". It subconsciously codifies them as citizens. They are aliens without Constitutional protection. If I were to "jump the fence" to the Republic of Mexico and began committing crimes, I would be sentenced to 10 years because I was an illegal alien, then I would be prosecuted for the crime I had committed in their country. (Trust me, it wouldn't be pretty).

These are illegal aliens... nothing more.

 

[Vorpalis]

I have to somewhat disagree with this, because I don't believe that the 2A is about self defense...

I actually have read that thread, and being the know-it-all jerk that I am, I've also read some of Jefferson's and Adams' writing on the subject. The 2A being about balancing power is, in a sense, "defense". What happens to a people under tyranny? Wouldn't they want to protect themselves from those things, as in defend themselves?

So, what's your take on innocent people being wrongly convicted by a jury and then executed by our government?

 

[DB is Here]

I'm thinking "Throw Mama from the Train" but replace lead character with Rosanne Barr.

 

[Connor Murphy]

I find it interesting that a great many of the members of this forum who constantly bemoan the total fallibility, incompetence, and fraud of the government have no problem with that same government killing people with little or no oversight and with the suggestion that it occur even faster. The mere fact that death-row inmates are exonerated every year should put a moratorium on state-sponsored death.

Having worked in the court system in days gone by and seeing first hand the affect of prosecutorial agenda, overwork, and sheer incompetence I have real reservations about giving the government this last, most absolute power over the governed. The unequal application of capital punishment alone is enough to make me question its use. The finality of it all when maybe, just maybe, the government is wrong would seem to lend weight to an exhaustive appeals process.

I realize that this is an unpopular opinion, especially with the line em up and shoot em crowd, but what would have happened to someone like Brendan Dassey had Wisconsin been a death penalty state ?

 

[Camelfilter]

I'm a bit on the fence on the death penalty, simply because it's the government, and the possibility of an innocent person being put to death.

On that note, imprisonment should be extremely harsh. I don't see a need for entertainment nor education nor healthcare for someone sentenced to life without parole.

To me, that means well, imprisonment for life, without ever having the chance to rejoin society. Ever.

A small cement room 23 hours a day, with a solo 20' walkabout looking at cement, and 2 meals of protein mush would be more than that person deserves. No weight room, no cable, no visitors, no books, no magazines.

Nothing, just a small cement room 23 hours a day.

Now, for someone who may perhaps rejoin society, then yes certain social & psychological integration programs should be in place. But, nothing that allows for "becoming a better criminal".

 

[PaulB47]

There's also the topic about why people who don't trust the government, nevertheless trust the government to justly make that decision.

I keep telling people I could never be a conservative, because conservatives love government far too much for my taste.

Sorry, I missed it where someone advocated the execution of "those who don't deserve it".

About half the posts in this thread. The only other possible interpretation for them is that they believe the government can determine guilt completely without error. Now there's trust...

indisputable DNA evidence that proves they did it

Seriously, now. Remember we are talking about human beings here. There are plenty of examples of DNA evidence being wrong or faked. There was a scandal about the FBI lab not so long ago.

The expense of maintaining these "oxygen thieves" is both grossly prohibitive and unfair to society.

This is a separate issue. If "our" government were serious about reducing expense, they would not fill the jails with people for violating mala prohibita laws like drug and gun "crimes". America leads the world in imprisonment. Clearly, they are not serious about expense.

I understand why there is anger, and why that anger comes out in the form of wanting to kill people who MIGHT be murderers. But the remedy to that problem is not government; government is usually the generator of problems. The remedy is to arm people, so when someone tries to kill a chosen victim, the victim kills him instead. Then there is no need for trials, jails, shortened sentences, evidence, or even the death penalty itself.

If potential victims (in the absence of gun control) continue to remain disarmed; then it's on them if they end up dead.

Ending gun control is the solution. Not state murder.

 

[Lilhigbee]

Aside from my attempt at levity earlier in the thread, I have given this a lot of thought. While I am pretty much for it, it is not without some reservations.

A numbers game;
Suppose 500 death row inmates, 1% there wrongly. That's 5 innocent people killed. However, if the possibility of the death penalty deters 10 would-be killers, that is 10 innocent people saved, a net gain of 5 innocents. Yes the numbers are purely arbitrary and can be adjusted to prove just the opposite. I am not proving the death penalty is a good idea, just trying to promote thought on the subject.

An anecdote;
An acquaintance of mine got drunk and murdered his girlfriend a few years ago. Got three consecutive sentences such that he is eligible for parole when he is 108 years old. The nature of the crime was such that he could have gotten the death penalty, or Life w/ no parole, but plea-bargained to this. Exactly to what end is he kept alive?? Guilty beyond any possibility of doubt, living in a cell in Umatilla. Not offering a deterrent because there aren't fifty people who know or care that he is there. Punishment?? Generally the purpose of punishment is to correct behavior so that one doesn't commit the same act again. Not much chance of that in there. Revenge?? A mighty poor way to run a railroad. Not saying he needs to be snuffed, just trying to figure out a purpose to his continued living.

I would like to recommend that everyone reading this thread read John Grisham's The Innocent Man. The true story of a man railroaded by the prosecution. While it doesn't involve the death penalty, it certainly could. He spent most of the rest of his life in prison and was ruined physically when he was released. A definite case of "prosecutorial agenda" as @Connor Murphy mentioned above. Perhaps if the prosecutors in such cases were given similar sentences, such "mistakes" could be largely avoided.

I must say I like the idea @AirResq mentioned above of leaving some method of suicide available to these inmates. Personally not having any philosophical objections to suicide, this seems like a win/win. I do not view the death penalty as retribution, revenge or punishment, but merely a way to remove someone from the population who has proven they cannot and will not live among others peacefully and will be nothing but a drain on society ever after. Therefore, however it comes about is okay with me, just get it over with. A few years ago in Texas, an execution was delayed because the prisoner was sick. How stupid is that??

While there are definite cases where the death penalty would be acceptable to most who would ever consider it, i.e. Ted Bundy, Manson, Green River Killer, Dahmer, etc., and there are likewise cases where it most definitely would have been wrong, i.e. Dassey,
Those aren't the ones to be concerned about. It is the ones in the gray areas that are troublesome to deal with.

Not trying to convince anyone, as I am not convinced myself. Just trying to further the discussion.

 

[Captain O]

Aside from my attempt at levity earlier in the thread, I have given this a lot of thought. While I am pretty much for it, it is not without some reservations.

A numbers game;
Suppose 500 death row inmates, 1% there wrongly. That's 5 innocent people killed. However, if the possibility of the death penalty deters 10 would-be killers, that is 10 innocent people saved, a net gain of 5 innocents. Yes the numbers are purely arbitrary and can be adjusted to prove just the opposite. I am not proving the death penalty is a good idea, just trying to promote thought on the subject.

An anecdote;
An acquaintance of mine got drunk and murdered his girlfriend a few years ago. Got three consecutive sentences such that he is eligible for parole when he is 108 years old. The nature of the crime was such that he could have gotten the death penalty, or Life w/ no parole, but plea-bargained to this. Exactly to what end is he kept alive?? Guilty beyond any possibility of doubt, living in a cell in Umatilla. Not offering a deterrent because there aren't fifty people who know or care that he is there. Punishment?? Generally the purpose of punishment is to correct behavior so that one doesn't commit the same act again. Not much chance of that in there. Revenge?? A mighty poor way to run a railroad. Not saying he needs to be snuffed, just trying to figure out a purpose to his continued living.

I would like to recommend that everyone reading this thread read John Grisham's The Innocent Man. The true story of a man railroaded by the prosecution. While it doesn't involve the death penalty, it certainly could. He spent most of the rest of his life in prison and was ruined physically when he was released. A definite case of "prosecutorial agenda" as @Connor Murphy mentioned above. Perhaps if the prosecutors in such cases were given similar sentences, such "mistakes" could be largely avoided.

I must say I like the idea @AirResq mentioned above of leaving some method of suicide available to these inmates. Personally not having any philosophical objections to suicide, this seems like a win/win. I do not view the death penalty as retribution, revenge or punishment, but merely a way to remove someone from the population who has proven they cannot and will not live among others peacefully and will be nothing but a drain on society ever after. Therefore, however it comes about is okay with me, just get it over with. A few years ago in Texas, an execution was delayed because the prisoner was sick. How stupid is that??

While there are definite cases where the death penalty would be acceptable to most who would ever consider it, i.e. Ted Bundy, Manson, Green River Killer, Dahmer, etc., and there are likewise cases where it most definitely would have been wrong, i.e. Dassey,
Those aren't the ones to be concerned about. It is the ones in the gray areas that are troublesome to deal with.

Not trying to convince anyone, as I am not convinced myself. Just trying to further the discussion.

We live life as it unfolds. Do we have any guarantees? There is a certain percentage of wrongful deaths in the world. An example of this is traffic accidents. Are they fair? No. Are they predictable? To an extent, they are. We play the odds and do our best.

The death penalty. Are some people wrongfully executed? Undoubtedly. These are, as we called it in the service, "collateral damage". Can we limit it? To a degree, yes. Is it perfect? No. Can it ever be perfected? I sincerely doubt it, because mistakes will always be made. This is because society will never reach perfection. We, as humans, can never reach perfection. Some people simply require removal, due to their perpetual threat to society. This is the reason for the death penalty. The ultimate sanction against a perpetual and permanent violent threat to society. This is a functional manner in which we can address them.

Welcome to the real world and the threats therein.

End of story

 

[Slobray]

I actually have read that thread, and being the know-it-all jerk that I am, I've also read some of Jefferson's and Adams' writing on the subject. The 2A being about balancing power is, in a sense, "defense". What happens to a people under tyranny? Wouldn't they want to protect themselves from those things, as in defend themselves?

So, what's your take on innocent people being wrongly convicted by a jury and then executed by our government?

You know, I find myself on both sides of this issue: I am angry that our judicial system has catastrophically failed some people, yet I believe that we need to purge all violent offenders.

Honestly, until we can find a way to fix the system, (or it happens to me/my family/friends) I'm kind of OK with it the way it is (except I mentioned earlier). I don't see it ever getting better, because it is a system administered by humans.



Ray

 

[coastal steelheader]

The execution should take place at the following morning after the verdict.

 

[PaulB47]

I don't have a problem with that numbers game, as far as that example went. What I have a problem with is trust in government as a solution to problems, when it is clear that anything they do is going to be corrupt and is also going to be a jobs program for government employees. The prison-industrial complex is going to grow and grow, and we will be forced to support it with our taxes. Most people now in jail shouldn't be there at all. And the ones that should be there, would have been better dealt with by armed victims in the first place.

Why the Ruling Class Likes Crime | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

 

[Brutus57]

So let's flip this whole sentimant against capital punishment thing. If you fear for your life and somebody is intent on causing harm to you and your own, I think most of us have no problem ending that threat which is why many folks have CCWs.

So why should we as taxpayers waste money on keeping alive a person who has already shown themselves to be a murderer and a menace to society? Do remember virtual all of these people on death row were tried by the state and convicted by a jury of their peers, typically had numerous appeals shot down in the courts. Now yes, have there been mistakes in DNA, other evidence yes. But I see no good reason not to increase capital punishment.

Particularly going forward as security cams and better evidence gathering protocols and technology exist. You kill somebody, we kill you back as Ron White says. Don't tell me the world wouldn't be a bit safer with these murderers gone, terminally. Not to mention the waste of limited resources in keeping these POS alive. They have already proven themselves a threat to society just like that mugger that pulled a knife on you at the ATM, or 7-11, etc. And yes, I am all for stronger penalties for drunk and altered state driving. Drunk driving laws have diminished drunk driving in ratio to an ever increasing population. You break the law you lose certain privileges. You wrongly kill somebody you deserve the maximum penalty.

It's not about the vengeance of sending them a convicted murderer to prison for life and they will have time to think about it or radical terrorist, that is the worst possible punishment line of thinking...... It's bout taking care of a problem with that individual's inability to be peaceful in society...permanently.

Brutus Out