Leniency kills

[Turtle]

Not sure what you are trying to prove here Turtle? The only thing I had a opinion about what you said is what is quoted below.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Swift, public executions used to be a deterrent. Now they are neither swift or public, and thus deter no one.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm merely point something out. Well, maybe I am trying to prove something, by pointing something out. You'll see. Keep reading.

I merely didn't agree with your assesment that public executions deter crimes such as the ones stated in this thread.

That's an assessment you came up with all on your own, as I never drew such a conclusion at all. The FBI and other law enforcement authorities, and who knows how many authors and those in academia, all reached the same conclusions as each other, and the facts that support their conclusions, that "Swift, public executions used to be a deterrent. Now they are neither swift or public, and thus deter no one." I never said one way or the other that this particular guy in this particular thread would have been deterred or not. He may have been, he may not have been. Statistics show trends and can rarely predict the thoughts and actions of an individual with any certainty. The only thing I noted specifically about this guy was a reference to the final line in one of the stories, which was a psychologist's opinion of how much good putting him in jail would do.

So for you to think I was calling you a coward is quite perplexing. What did you say for me to call you a coward. Strange.

I didn't say anything to justify you calling me a coward, and yet you called me one, anyway. That's my point. Oh, keep reading, it's get better.

You're all talk, that is why you spend all your time in a forum, bunch of cowards!

Since "You're all" is a contraction for "You are all" I can rightly assume that you were talking to me as well as all the other participants in this thread. Rather than discuss the issues themselves, you took it upon yourself in fine ad hominem fashion to attack the reasons for what was said, and those who said it, rather than sticking to what was said.

The other part of my post was about those that were advocating vigilante justice, as I specifically pointed out in my post. I do not see any remarks from you agreeing or disagreeing with what others were saying. I think you can figure out to whom I was calling cowards.

Yes, it's very easy to figure it out who you were calling a coward. "You're all talk, that is why you spend all your time in a forum, bunch of cowards!" All, bunch, yep, pretty straight forward and easy to figure it out. Backpeddle like a misquoted politician who mispoke because they misremembered all you want, you are what you type.

If you're going to attack someone specific, then don't use collective language.

Also, if you're going to attack someone specific, then don't attack someone specific.

Hey, here's a idea, how about responding to what they said rather than who or why they said it? Just a thought.

If you thought my entire original post was directed at you and only you, then I will make sure I am more clear in the future.

When I responded to your unfounded attack, I responded for all of us collective cowards collectively, not just me.

 

[witness23]

Okay Turtle here you go, this way there is no misunderstanding. I guess I should've been more clear.

Originally Posted by Turtle
Swift, public executions used to be a deterrent. Now they are neither swift or public, and thus deter no one.

If a criminal wants to commit a crime serious enough to risk himself being on display, "hanging from a gallow" on public square, I am afraid seeing such acts, swift or not, would not deter someone that deranged. If they have it in them to commit such crimes as stated in earlier posts, a head on a stake on public square isn't going to stop him/her from submitting to the urges they have. These type of people do not look at the consequences of their action(s) but look to satisfy a need deep inside that I will never understand.

 

[witness23]

When i read stuff like this, maybe some fine neighbors should have a meeting and handle this in a discrete manner with no fan fair and the bad guys who do get away with these awful crimes might fall down some stairs if u know what I mean. There might be some other folks in America who would like to be a part of these fine neighbors who save others from being a victim of such criminals. HMMMMMMMM but of course that is illegal for fine neighbors to handle things of this manner and its always best to let our police and wonderful lawyers to handle the criminals. mercy .....................

We need to have a meeting to find better ways to help our local law enforcement folks to apprehend the bad dudes, don't u think???

seeing these scumbags swinging from a gallows on the courthouse lawn might make some aspiring perps think twice before their next carjacking.

To me, when you hear people say "hang 'em", "put a bullet in his head", "castrate him", "lynch 'em", "let's get the neighbors together and have a "meeting"....etc, etc it is then not justice they are looking for but revenge. Especially when you are listening to a bunch of bloggers write about what they would do, even if the act wasn't perpetrated upon them or their family. If revenge is what you are looking for, then do it, quit talking over a computer on what you "would" do, do it, quit talkin' and do it! Pull the lever to the gallow, pull the trigger to send that bullet into that persons head, swing the butcher knife to castrate a man, throw the rope over that tree branch and place noose around a man's neck. These horrendous acts were not done to you or to your family, so for you to sit here and fantasize about taking another human beings life by hanging, shooting, castration or whatever else, you seem a little sick yourself.

I guarantee you, none of you, none of you in here would be able to go threw with the things you say should happen to a person that has no connection with you or your family. You're all talk, that is why you spend all your time in a forum, bunch of cowards!

Better?

 

[witness23]

I didn't say anything to justify you calling me a coward, and yet you called me one, anyway. That's my point. Oh, keep reading, it's get better.

It is not all about you Turtle. For you to think the coward comment was aimed at everyone in this post(including you) I cannot help that. I do think I have made it quite clear to whom I was aiming my comments at.

Since "You're all" is a contraction for "You are all" I can rightly assume that you were talking to me as well as all the other participants in this thread. Rather than discuss the issues themselves, you took it upon yourself in fine ad hominem fashion to attack the reasons for what was said, and those who said it, rather than sticking to what was said.

You are correct but I thought in my second paragragh of the original post where I quoted some of the things that were being said made it clear. I guess it wasn't, so hopefully from my numerous posts since, I have made it clear to whom I was speaking of. As for your use of the word "ad hominem" what is the argument?

Yes, it's very easy to figure it out who you were calling a coward. "You're all talk, that is why you spend all your time in a forum, bunch of cowards!" All, bunch, yep, pretty straight forward and easy to figure it out. Backpeddle like a misquoted politician who mispoke because they misremembered all you want, you are what you type. .

Okay Turtle, If you truly believe in justice being carried out in the way the one's I have quoted in this thread, then yes, my comment was directed at you. That is for you to decide.

When I responded to your unfounded attack, I responded for all of us collective cowards collectively, not just me.

It is fuuny, the one person my posts was not directed at, is the one most offended?

 

[Turtle]

It is not all about you Turtle. For you to think the coward comment was aimed at everyone in this post(including you) I cannot help that. I do think I have made it quite clear to whom I was aiming my comments at.

I never said it was all about me. You asked a question, and I answered it, and I answered it in the context of your question. There is no way any intelligent person can read the question, then my response, and think that I think it's all about me. Good grief.

You are correct but I thought in my second paragragh of the original post where I quoted some of the things that were being said made it clear. I guess it wasn't, so hopefully from my numerous posts since, I have made it clear to whom I was speaking of. As for your use of the word "ad hominem" what is the argument?

Duh, the argument was stated in the same sentence in which I used the "as hominem" term. Instead of attacking what was said, you attacked who said it, and why they said it (or at least why you think they said it). The second paragraph of which you speak started off fine, a non-specific generalization that was more of less on topic, but the last sentence brought it back more pointed, directly at the people here in this thread. And if there was any doubt, the last paragraph, especially where you clarified it with, "I guarantee you, none of you, none of you in here..." makes is perfectly clear who you were talking to. The last sentence o the second paragraph puts the entire paragraph into that context, and the final paragraph wraps it all up rather nicely, where you are passing judgment on those who said it, rather than commenting on what was said. That's the ad hominem attack, dismissing the argument itself and going after who said it, or why you think they said it.

It is fuuny, the one person my posts was not directed at, is the one most offended?

Yes, quite probably. I get offended (not really, but we'll go with that word, anyway) when people respond to who posted something, rather than to what was posted. You're post shouldn't have been directed at anybody specific, and we're back to the second paragraph, where if you'd have just let off the last sentence, it would have been an awesome paragraph, not directed towards anyone and containing no judgments at all.

 

[Turtle]

Okay Turtle here you go, this way there is no misunderstanding. I guess I should've been more clear.



If a criminal wants to commit a crime serious enough to risk himself being on display, "hanging from a gallow" on public square, I am afraid seeing such acts, swift or not, would not deter someone that deranged. If they have it in them to commit such crimes as stated in earlier posts, a head on a stake on public square isn't going to stop him/her from submitting to the urges they have. These type of people do not look at the consequences of their action(s) but look to satisfy a need deep inside that I will never understand.

Yeah, I read it the first time. Understood it, too. Sure, there are exceptions to everything, and there are some who will not be deterred by anything under any circumstances. But my original statement nonetheless still stands in that swift, public executions used to be a deterrent. To deter something is not to absolutely prevent it from happening, to eliminate the possibility and all occurrences of it, but to discourage or restrain it from happening.

Me pointing a loaded gun at your face is a deterrent against you throwing that rock at me. It's no guarantee, tho.

Swift , public (and by public I mean public, or highly publicized) executions are a deterrent to violent crime. It's no guarantee, tho.

 

[witness23]

Duh, the argument was stated in the same sentence in which I used the "as hominem" term. Instead of attacking what was said, you attacked who said it, and why they said it (or at least why you think they said it). The second paragraph of which you speak started off fine, a non-specific generalization that was more of less on topic, but the last sentence brought it back more pointed, directly at the people here in this thread. And if there was any doubt, the last paragraph, especially where you clarified it with, "I guarantee you, none of you, none of you in here..." makes is perfectly clear who you were talking to. The last sentence o the second paragraph puts the entire paragraph into that context, and the final paragraph wraps it all up rather nicely, where you are passing judgment on those who said it, rather than commenting on what was said. That's the ad hominem attack, dismissing the argument itself and going after who said it, or why you think they said it..

Wow! If my post was as confusing as the above, then I apologize....phew.

Yes, quite probably. I get offended (not really, but we'll go with that word, anyway)

Okay, so I am confused, were you probably offended, possibly offended, not really offended or offended? Or would you like to use another word?

when people respond to who posted something, rather than to what was posted. You're post shouldn't have been directed at anybody specific, and we're back to the second paragraph, where if you'd have just let off the last sentence, it would have been an awesome paragraph, not directed towards anyone and containing no judgments at all.

You mean this paragraph?

Originally posted by Witness23

I guarantee you, none of you, none of you in here would be able to go threw with the things you say should happen to a person that has no connection with you or your family. You're all talk, that is why you spend all your time in a forum, bunch of cowards!

I stand behind that post. It's easy to sound all tough and Charles Bronson like on a forum. I didn't mean for that paragraph to be all encompasing, but I will bet that 99.9% of the people in EO would not go through with the things that were said earlier in the thread(that hopefully I sufficiently pointed out earlier). To type out the things that were said, in my opinion, is cowardice.

 

[greg334]

It's kind of funny you two are going back and forth over this issue but most likely you will never face the situation. If you have you won't be talking about it and if you are, then I don't want you near me.

Coward is a strong word for many of us, others don't get it.

You don't know what someone would do or in a better frame of the conversation, capable of doing. Witness assumes that some of us would sit idly by and do nothing but it may be surprising how many would wait, plan and execute the plan, while others who will just go off and lose their minds by doing something rash and spur of the moment. You don't know what people have done in the past or what their conscience will allow them, most will prefer "law enforcement" to do the work for them while others will just sit and wait for the right time.

Leo said watch out if his daughters are hurt, I say their husbands better be the one protecting them at all costs if they were my daughters and if not I would deal with them first and not the person who hurt them.

 

[LDB]

My statement presumes a situation where their husband wasn't with them to protect them in which case they have to wait their turn until I'm finished before dealing with it. If there's anything left when I'm finished they can do as they please with it. And yes, nobody is exempt.

 

[witness23]

I think this put together an honest and accurate view of the Death Penalty and its deterence, with references. I do recommend clicking on the link I provided below, I am not sure how my post will read. Enjoy.

Link: Capital punishment - the death penalty

Topics covered in this essay are:

Does the death penalty deter homicides?

Support for capital punishment in North America

Political attempts to abolish the death penalty

State moratoriums and overhaul of legislation

Does the death penalty deter homicides?

People murder for a variety of reasons and under many different situations e.g.:

* during domestic disputes, when passions are inflamed.

* under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, when the perpetrator is not in rational control.

* hit-men doing contract killings; they typically never expect to be arrested.

* psychopaths and other mentally ill individuals who have little regard for human life and who are unable to accept responsibility for their actions

* self-destructive individuals who believe that they deserve to die and want to be arrested and executed.

* brain-damaged individuals, who experience periods of rage, and occasionally kill.

With the exception of professional hit-men, very few people are in a rational frame of mind when they kill others. It may be hopeless to expect any form of punishment to act as a deterrent.

There are some indicators that the death penalty has no effect:

From 1976 to 1996, the number of executions per year in the United States has increased from 0 to just under 60. The homicide rate per 100,000 population has remained constant at just under 10. 3

Criminologists who belong to the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association were polled. Over 80% believe that our current knowledge does not indicate a deterrent effect. 75% felt that increasing the numbers of executions or decreasing time spent on death row would not result in a deterrence. 4

67% of U.S. police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the numbers of murders. 5

In 1967, a study by Thorsten Sellin 6 compared the homicide rates between neighboring states in which some had the death penalty, and others did not. Sellin also compared murder rates before and after states either abolished or reinstated the death penalty. He found no statistically valid difference in rates in both cases. These results were summarized in a book by J.Q. Wilson. 7 The study might have been affected by the numbers of executions at the time; they had dropped to near zero in the U.S., so that even those states with death penalty laws on the books were not exercising them fully.

A 1998 research study conducted for the United Nations concluded: "This research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis." 8

There are some indicators that it acts as a deterrent:


Police chiefs ranked the death penalty as least effective among 7 methods of reducing the homicide rate. 31% viewed reducing the usage of drugs as the most effective; 17% with a better economy and more jobs, 16% by simplifying court rules; 15% with longer prison sentences.....1% by expanding the use of the death penalty.

One writer 9 disagrees with the belief of most sociologists that the death penalty does not deter murderers. Differing cultures in various states may produce differing homicide rates. And those states with the higher murder rates might also be those which retain the death penalty. He refers to:

A study by Isaac Ehrlich which found that the murder rate responded to changes in the likelihood of execution. He concluded that 7 or 8 murders were prevented by each execution from 1933 to 1967. 10,11

A study by Kenneth Wolpin which showed that each execution, on average, reduced the number of murders in England by 4. 12

Other articles and books are: 13,14,15

There are some indicators that it acts as an anti-deterrent i.e. the death penalty actually increases the homicide rate:


In 1996, those states which had the death penalty had an average murder rate of 7.1 per 100,000 population; those states which do not execute people had a homicide rate of 3.6. 3

Comparing adjacent states where one state has the death penalty and the other does not, frequently shows that the states with capital punishment have a much higher homicide rate. 3

A report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that during 1996, Southern states, where about 81% of the executions are performed, have an average murder rate of 9 per 100,000 population. States in the Northeast are responsible for 1% of the executions and have a murder rate of 5.4 3

A 1980 study of homicides in New York found that the average numbers of murders increased in the month following an execution 16

A 1995 study of the annual percentage increases in homicide rates in California showed that murders increased 10% a year during 1952 to 1967 when the state was executing people. When the state performed no executions (1968-1991) the average rate of increase was less (4.8%)

Canada's homicide rate has dropped 27% since the death penalty was abolished in that country (for ordinary crimes) in 1976. For many years prior to 1976, the federal government had converted each death sentence to life imprisonment.

The FBI Uniform Crime Reports Division publication Crime in the US for 1995 reports that there were 4.9 murders per 100,000 people in states that have abolished the death penalty, compared with 9.2 murders in those states which still have the death penalty. "In no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty." 2

Public support for the death penalty, and alternatives

The American Civil Liberties Union noted that in the 1960's and 1970's only a bare majority of Americans favored capital punishment. They believe that "mounting fear of crime, and the cynical manipulation of the death penalty issue by many politicians for their own political gain, led to a shift upwards." The death penalty now has broad public support in both the United States and Canada. 16
Surveys in the US and Canada regularly show that a sizable majority of adults are in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers. Depending upon the exact question asked, 65 to 80% of adults are in favor of the death penalty. In 1984, individuals who give greatest support to capital punishment were found to be older, white, male, rich, urban dwellers, politically independent, and religious believers. 17 The numbers appear to increase when people perceive the crime rate as increasing.
Support varies with race and faith group: 18,19


Faith Group
White Fundalmentalist: High level support for Death Penalty
African-American Fundalmentalist: Oppose Death Penalty

White Evangelicals: Various positions
African-American Evangelicals: Oppose Death Penalty

Views:
More likely shaped by:
White: Concern over criminal behaviour
African-American: Perceptions of the law &criminal justice system

A serious deficiency of almost all public opinion polls is that they generally ask too simple a question: whether the subject is in favor of the death penalty or not. They rarely offer alternatives to execution in their polling questionnaires. One exception was an ABC News/Washington Poll released on 2001-MAY-2. It shows a public ambivalence towards the continuation of the death penalty. When asked whether or not they supported the death penalty, the public responded 63% in favor. This is a major reduction in support from the 80% level, seven years ago. Of even greater potential importance is that if life without parole is offered as an option, response is a statistical dead heat: 46% favor the death penalty; 45% favor life without any chance at parole. The ABC News/Washington Post poll also determined that most American adults believe that:


The death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

The death penalty is applied unfairly across jurisdictions.

Innocent people are sometimes executed.

51% of the public would support a nationwide moratorium while a commission studies whether the death penalty is being administered fairly. When they were told that just such a moratorium and study was Capital punishment - the death penalty: Developments during 1997 to 1999 their support rose to 57%. 22

Political attempts to abolish the death penalty:


1988 & 1994: Federal laws: New federal laws were passed that expanded the number of offenses punishable by the death penalty. Although there have been no federal executions for the past 36 years, 21 federal prisoners are on death row; one is expected to be electrocuted in early 2001.

1999-NOV: Stop federal executions: Senator Feingold introduced bill S 1917, "Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act" in 1999-NOV. It would prevent any future federal executions and would prohibit the death penalty for violations of federal law.

2000-JAN-31: IL temporary abolition: Governor G.H. Ryan of Illinois announced that he will create a moratorium on executions in that state until after an administration review of the death penalty. More details.


2000-APR: Letter to the President: A number of religious groups wrote a letter to President Clinton calling on him to declare a moratorium on the federal death penalty.

2000-APR: Bill introduced: According to the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations Washington Office for Faith in Action, Senators Feingold (WI) and Levin (MI) "introduced S 2463, a bill which would immediately suspend executions in the United States while a national commission reviews the administration of the death penalty. The moratorium would bar execution of individuals sentenced under either state or federal statutes. Currently 38 states have death penalty statutes on the books." The bill did not proceed. 20

2005-NOV-07: Catholic bishops heavily promoting end to death penalty: According to ReligionLink: "U.S. Catholic bishops say they want to 'seize a new moment and new momentum' in their 25-year campaign against capital punishment. They're set to approve a new statement urging an end to the death penalty at their Nov. 14-17 meeting at a time when advocates on both sides of the issue say that opinions are more in flux than they have been in years." 23

State moratoriums:

On 2000-JAN-31, Governor G.H. Ryan of Illinois announced a moratorium on executions in that state until after an administration review of the death penalty is completed Capital punishment - the death penalty: Developments during 1997 to 1999

IN 2000-SEP, The Texas Civil Rights Project issued a report which called for a moratorium on executions in that state until changes can be made to the system. They recommended:


Changes to the selection process for defense attorneys. The American Bar Association has established standards in this area which require lawyers to have at least five years experience, and training in defense of capital cases.

Defense attorneys should be paid at close to the market rates.

Financial compensation should be guaranteed to anyone who has been wrongfully convicted.

Prosecuting attorneys should be subject to lawsuits if they concealed evidence from the defense, knowingly used perjured testimony or knowingly used tainted evidence. They are currently immune from prosecution.

Creation of a life-without-parole sentence option for capital cases.

Allow jurors who have doubts about the fairness of the system to serve in capital cases.

Not allowing crimes, that a defendant has been accused of but not convicted of, to be mentioned during sentencing hearings.

Consideration of the use of two juries in capital cases: one to try the individual and the other to assign the sentence.

Restoration of the right of habeas corpus.

Reinstating the previous appeals legislation.

Guarantee that the inmate receive a new lawyer for appeals in death cases.

Guarantee DNA testing for any convict that requests it.

Overhaul the Board of Pardons and Paroles' procedures.

Alter legislation to ban the execution of persons who were minors at the time of the crime.

Alter legislation to ban the execution of developmentally disabled persons.

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
1. "Federal death penalty," Friends Committee on National Legislation, at: Death Penalty - FCNL
2. Alice Wolf, letter to constituents concerning her vote as a state representative for Mass. opposing the death penalty. See: http://alicewolf.org/death-penalty.htm
3. "Facts about deterrence and the death penalty," at: http://www.essential.org/dpic/deter.html
4. M. Radelet and R. Akers, "Deterrence and the Death Penalty? The Views of the Experts," (1995)
5. Hart Research Associates poll of police chiefs, (1995). Quoted in 3 above.
6. T. Sellin, "Capital Punishment," (1967)
7. J. Q. Wilson, Thinking About Crime, 1983, pp. 181-183.
8. R. Hood, "The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective," Clarendon Press, (1996), Page 238.
9. Brad Watson, "The Dangers of Crime: Tools of Death and Destruction Save Lives," The Alligator, University of Florida. 1997-FEB-26, was at: The Independent Florida Alligator: We Inform. You Decide. (report no longer available)
10. Isaac Ehrlich, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment A Matter of Life and Death" American Economic Review, June 1975
11. Isaac Ehrlich, "Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Further Thoughts," Journal of Political Economy, 1977.
12. Kenneth Wolpin, "Capital Punishment and Homicide in England: A Summary of Results," American Economic Review, 1978-MAY.
13. Stephen Layson, "Homicide and Deterrence: Another View of the Canadian Time-Series Evidence," Canadian Journal of Economics, February 1983.
14. Stephen Layson, "Homicide and Deterrence: A Reexamination of the United States Time-Series Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, July 1985.
15. L. Phillips and S. Ray, "Evidence on the Identification and Causality Dispute about the Death Penalty," Applied Time-Series Data, (1982).
16. "Death Penalty," American Civil Liberties Union, at: http://www.aclu.org/issues/death/isdp.html
17. J.E. Dison, "Changing Attitudes Toward Capital Punishment, 1972- 1982," presented to the American Society of Criminology, 1984. Cited in GSS at: Page Not Found
18. R.L. Young, "Religious Orientation, Race and Support for the Death Penalty," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31 (1992-MAR), Pages 76-87. Cited in the General Social Survey Data and Information Retrieval System (GSS) at: Page Not Found
19. R.L. Young, "Religious Orientation, Race and Support for the Death Penalty," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31 (1992-MAR), Pages 76-87. Cited in the General Social Survey Data and Information Retrieval System (GSS) at: Page Not Found
20. CyberNewsletter of the Unitarian Universalist Association Washington Office, 2000-APR-28.
21. "The Death Penalty in Texas," the Texas Civil Rights Project, issued 2000-SEP
22. "ABC News/Washington Post poll: The death penalty revised," 2001-MAY-02.
23. "DEATH PENALTY: Catholic bishops leading new push for change," ReligionLink, 2005-NOV-07, at: ReligionLink

Copyright © 1995 to 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally published: 1995-JUN-8
Last updated 2005-NOV-08
Author: Bruce A Robinson

 

[greg334]

A good society does what is required to protect the people of the society. The death penalty is one tool that should be used regularly and quickly - and publicly with consistent means of ending life quickly. The electric chair, the gas chamber and hanging are all approiate means, lethal injection is too humane and too long of a process with too many unwarranted safeguards.

Our society has not evolved but devolved when we forget that a person who has gone through due process and convicted of a crime lost their rights and protections. The idea of cruel and unusual punishment was not meant to be used after they were convicted but while they were. Execution by any means is neither cruel or unusual but stoning or drawing and quartering would be.

Until we get into everyones mind, then the question of it being a deterrent can't be determined.

It is odd that people would say the death penalty in itself is not a deterrent when they wear seat-belts and use child seats in cars are an odd bunch not because they are worried that they will get hurt but because they have been conditioned through a campaign and a law.

 

[layoutshooter]

Question: This is based on a very real life situation I am aware of and know the facts to be true. How would anyone in here handle this:

There is a family member getting divorced. It is ugly as many are. No one side is ever "perfect" in this matters to be sure. The "female" (could be the male but not in this case) is a perv. Lives with, along with a 7 year old daughter, an admitted sex offender when he is not in prison. Intends to marry the "pig" when he gets out of jail. (a week from now)

The family court judge stated that the offender can have no contact with the girl. (he molests girls of that age) The trail judge states, overrulling the family court, that he can if he gets treatment.

With NO court protection, no protection from law inforcement (no crime YET) just how far would people in here be willing to go to INSURE that little girls life is NOT ruined?

Do you wait for that child to be molested to allow the court to FINALLY do what is right? Allow the child's life to be ruined? OR, do you take whatever actions needed to protect HER?

This is a REAL ongoing situation. NOT theory.

I await answers. The "PIG" gets out next Monday. The wedding follows soon.

 

[witness23]

A good society does what is required to protect the people of the society. The death penalty is one tool that should be used regularly and quickly - and publicly with consistent means of ending life quickly.

And one can argue, a good society does not take the life of another even if they have been through due process. Does it matter at all to you that some may have been executed that were not guilty?

The electric chair, the gas chamber and hanging are all approiate means.

Then you say this​

Execution by any means is neither cruel or unusual but stoning or drawing and quartering would be..

Why is stoning and quartering cruel and unusual but the electric chair, gas chamber or hanging not?

It is odd that people would say the death penalty in itself is not a deterrent when they wear seat-belts and use child seats in cars are an odd bunch not because they are worried that they will get hurt but because they have been conditioned through a campaign and a law.

Seat belts, child car seats, conditioned, wow...that is a stretch, to bring that into the conversation of the death penalty being a deterent just doesn't seem comparible. When speaking of people using seat belts and child seats we are speaking of people in their right minds, not criminals.

 

[Turtle]

And one can argue, a good society does not take the life of another even if they have been through due process. Does it matter at all to you that some may have been executed that were not guilty?

Yes. However, I would love to read a single case where someone was found not guilty and was promptly sentenced to death, and then executed, anyway.

You are presumed innocent until found guilty.

It is better than 5, 10, 20, or 100 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be put to death. This principle is embodied in the presumption of innocence. In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision in the case Coffin v. United States, traced the presumption of innocence, past England, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, and even to Deuteronomy.

The Coffin case stands for the proposition that a court must not only instruct on the prosecution's burden of proof (that a defendant cannot be convicted unless the government has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt), but also must instruct on the presumption of innocence, by informing the jury that a defendant is presumed innocent.

The Court stated, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law."

But even with the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, mistakes, unintentional and intentional, happen, where people are wrongfully found guilty. It is the burden of society to ensure that happens as infrequently as possible.

The Innocence Project has now had some 100 death sentences overturned based upon post-conviction evidence.
According to their study of the first 70 cases reversed:

Over 30 of them involved prosecutorial misconduct.

Over 30 of them involved police misconduct which led to wrongful convictions.

Approximately 15 of them involved false witness testimony.

34% of the police misconduct cases involved suppression of exculpatory evidence.

11% involved outright evidence fabrication.

37% of the prosecutorial misconduct cases involved concealing exculpatory evidence.

25% involved knowing use of false testimony.

These statistics involve Death Penalty cases wherein the State sought to literally kill the innocent person who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some people see this and say no more death penalty, because it is better than 5, 10, 20, or 10,000 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be put to death. And in the abstract, that's true. Absolutely. But in the realities of society, at least ours, it's not viable and sustainable.

Many of us are instinctively patriotic, some are adamantly vociferous about the protections afforded us by the Bill of Rights: the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure of our person or effects; the right to remain silent if accused of wrongdoing; the right to be represented by counsel; the right to a trial by jury.

We take off our hats and hold our hands over our hearts when we hear the national anthem at a sporting event. We get misty eyed at images of our enlisted men and women returning from active duty. We hang our flags on Memorial Day, Veteran's Day the Fourth of July and Presidents Day.

How many of us, however, grumble disparagingly under our breath during the evening news when a photograph of a suspect is displayed during a report of a criminal investigation, based on nothing more than the suspect's race, ethnicity or socio-economic status? Or the fact that they have beady little eyes and just look guilty? How many of us could truly be fair and impartial jurors in a criminal case after we have seen or read wholly unsubstantiated news accounts of the alleged incident? How many of us refrain from commenting about sensational and salacious tidbits spread about a criminal case we have seen or heard about on the news? How many of us would honestly and sincerely honor the Defendant's Constitutional Presumption of Innocence?

How many of those 100 innocent, wrongly accused citizens exonerated by the Innocence Project were convicted in the media before jury selection ever began in their trial? How many were wholly deprived of their Constitutional Presumption of Innocence? If we allow ourselves to make watershed decisions far "upstream" about who is and is not deserving of the protections afforded by our Constitution, our entire system of justice becomes a hollow shell with a predetermined outcome.

Our society says that if you really and truly are guilty of a capital crime then you deserve a sentence of death as punishment. We as a society are not perfect, nor is our justice system, which is why great effort must be made in the presumption of innocence, and to convict only those who are truly guilty. Do we eliminate the possibility of a death sentence because mistakes can and do happen? If we do that, then logic dictates that we also eliminate all guilty verdicts because mistakes can and do happen. Society won't do that, of course. But is the line only drawn at death?

The purpose of punishment for a crime is twofold, one to punish the guilty in the hopes that they will learn their lesson and not repeat their crime, and two, to deter others from committing the same crime. In cases of extreme punishment for heinous crimes, extended imprisonment or even death is used to simply remove a cancer from society altogether.

A death sentence is in fact a deterrent to others. But only if it is carried out swiftly and publicly. When it takes 10, 20 or 30 years before the sentence is carried out, it deters no one, as it tells them they have several years to live no matter what they do, and they already have several years to live even if they don't commit the crime, so the only difference between committing the crime and not committing the crime is whether or not you get caught and where you end up living for the rest of your life.

If we're not going to carry out capital punishment swiftly and loudly, then there's no point in handing out a death sentence in the first place. But if we execute swiftly and loudly (publicly or highly publicized), mistakes will still happen, and we must be vigilant to ensure those mistakes are minimized, and that the presumption of innocence is paramount to where misconduct like those shown above is dealt with equally as swiftly and loudly so as to deter the misconduct.

If we do that, then murders at large will be deterred, as will the wrongful convictions of the innocent.

 

[witness23]

Question: This is based on a very real life situation I am aware of and know the facts to be true. How would anyone in here handle this:

There is a family member getting divorced. It is ugly as many are. No one side is ever "perfect" in this matters to be sure. The "female" (could be the male but not in this case) is a perv. Lives with, along with a 7 year old daughter, an admitted sex offender when he is not in prison. Intends to marry the "pig" when he gets out of jail. (a week from now)

The family court judge stated that the offender can have no contact with the girl. (he molests girls of that age) The trail judge states, overrulling the family court, that he can if he gets treatment.

With NO court protection, no protection from law inforcement (no crime YET) just how far would people in here be willing to go to INSURE that little girls life is NOT ruined?

Do you wait for that child to be molested to allow the court to FINALLY do what is right? Allow the child's life to be ruined? OR, do you take whatever actions needed to protect HER?

This is a REAL ongoing situation. NOT theory.

I await answers. The "PIG" gets out next Monday. The wedding follows soon.

I'd shoot 'em.

 

[witness23]

We as a society are not perfect, nor is our justice system

And that is where the hang up for me lies morally. We are not perfect and mistakes can be made in the building of a case that carries the death penalty, where you happen to be taking a life, guilty or not. From the first responders all the way up to the crime lab to the Judge sitting behind the bench mistakes can be made, as you pointed out in the Innocence Project stats.

About that list....there were 100 cases overturned. What time period and more importantly, how many actual death sentences were carried out in that time period. What percentage of innocent persons to actual deaths, if you will.

If we're not going to carry out capital punishment swiftly and loudly, then there's no point in handing out a death sentence in the first place.

If we did, I'm sure you would see those percentages that you listed go up exponentially.

But if we execute swiftly and loudly (publicly or highly publicized), mistakes will still happen, and we must be vigilant to ensure those mistakes are minimized

Again, we go back to the whole not perfect thing.

If we do that, then murders at large will be deterred, as will the wrongful convictions of the innocent.

I disagree.

To me it is a moral issue and to you its an effective deterrent. I hope I never have to be placed on a jury or experience it first hand.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Turtle]

And that is where the hang up for me lies morally. We are not perfect and mistakes can be made in the building of a case that carries the death penalty, where you happen to be taking a life, guilty or not. From the first responders all the way up to the crime lab to the Judge sitting behind the bench mistakes can be made, as you pointed out in the Innocence Project stats.

About that list....there were 100 cases overturned. What time period and more importantly, how many actual death sentences were carried out in that time period. What percentage of innocent persons to actual deaths, if you will.

First, I was looking at an old PDF that is now outdated. The percentages of misconduct are still the same, but rather than 100 cases overturned, it's now, as of yesterday, 261.

Second, the statistics can vary wildly depending on how you want to look at them. You can look at how many felony convictions were overturned, or keep it to just capital punishment crimes.

In a painstaking study, authors Huff, Rattner, and Sagarin, of the 1995 book Convicted but Innocent, spent more than a decade studying the persistence of wrongful convictions, gathering evidence and assessments from police administrators, sheriffs, prosecutors, public defenders, and judges. They concluded that about 0.5 percent of persons convicted of felonies are estimated to be innocent of the crimes convicted of. (This rate amounted to 10,000 innocents per year in 1995 when there were only one million people behind bars, and today there are over two million). Convicted But Innocent shocked the criminal justice system and brought complaints from official experts that the three academics had drastically overstated the rate of wrongful conviction.

In their best-seller Actual Innocence by Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld and Jim Dwyer (all of the Innocence Project, who have their own point of view on statistics) suggested the true rate of wrongful convictions may be closer to 10 percent than to one-half of one percent.

DNA tests used before trial have exonerated at least 5000 prime suspects out of the first 18,000 DNA suspect samples at the FBI and other crime labs. That's a pre-trial error rate of more than 25 percent, but of course that assumes none of those suspects would have been exonerated by other means.

In the State of Illinois, 12 people have been executed since 1977 while 13 have been released after proving their innocence. That's an error rate of 52 percent. Holy crap. No wonder the Governor of Illinois called a moratorium on the use of the death penalty until all of the quirks in the process are ironed out.

So the mistake rate can be very high, or very low, depending on how you want to look at it.

The time period if from 1989 to the present, 21 years. To get the number of actual executions during that time period I'd have to dig into the records of the Bureau of Justice deeper than I care to at the moment. Because the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, the numbers since 1976 are easy to find (1231 executions). The ones since 2006 are quick and easy, as well (226 executed, an average of 42.5 per year). There are 3220 currently on death row.

In the 1980s, about 20 Death Row inmates were executed each year. In the 1990s, this number jumped quite a bit from about 30 in the early 90s, to about 50 in the mid-90s and to a high of almost 100 executions in 1999. But, the number of executions per year is now on the decline with 60 executions in 2005. As are the number of death sentences handed down. In the 1990's, about 300 death sentences were handed down each year. By 2000, it had declined to 225. In 2007, only 115 death sentences were handed out. In 2008 and 2009 it was 96 and 75, and so far this year 46 death sentences have been dealt.

There are several reasons for the decline in death sentences of late, not the least of which is many of the prime suspects (that would have been tried and probably convicted) are exonerated by DNA evidence before trial. Also, more due diligence is being paid in ensuring that mistakes happen less frequently. Barry Scheck noted that the chances of being exonerated by DNA evidence after being on death row for 13 years is far greater than for someone who has been on death row for 5 years or less. It's because fewer mistakes are happening, and fewer people are being sentenced to death. More and more, it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt" for death penalty cases, but it's becoming more of a "beyond all doubt" for juries.

Originally Posted by Turtle
If we're not going to carry out capital punishment swiftly and loudly, then there's no point in handing out a death sentence in the first place.

If we did, I'm sure you would see those percentages that you listed go up exponentially.

Actually, they would go down exponentially, by the simple fact that people would have less time on death row to be exonerated. Misconduct might increase somewhat, but not exponentially, but then again, if people knew that justice would be swift and not a lot of time to get a wrong conviction overturned, they would be less likely to commit the capital crime in the first place. The average time spent on death row between sentencing and execution is 11 years. If it was an average of 3 months, with a maximum of 6 months to get the appeals over and done with, people would, absolutely, think twice before committing a capital crime.

To me it is a moral issue and to you its an effective deterrent. I hope I never have to be placed on a jury or experience it first hand.

Oh, it's a moral issue with me, too, in addition to an effective deterrent. I just think that as a society, an imperfect one, it makes no sense to try and eliminate any and all possibilities of that one innocent man versus the 10, 50, 10,000 guilty ones. It's up to society to try and eliminate the probability, rather than the possibility. When you start eliminating all possibilities of a wrongful conviction for death penalty cases, then you must also begin doing the same for life-sentence felonies, then other felonies, and then finally misdemeanors, to the point where justice cannot be served under any circumstances because of the possibility of a wrongful conviction. The best we can do as a society, and keep our society in tact, is reduce as much as humanly possible the probability of mistakes. Our system of justice is far from perfect, but it's the best one out there.

I actually have been falsely accused of something I didn't do. I was arrested and everything. Except, mine didn't go to trial and I wasn't wrongly convicted. The judge dismissed the case with prejudice (which is like a not guilty verdict, mandating that the charges cannot be filed again), and even later expunged the arrest itself (tho no one told US or Canadian customs, or if they were told they didn't care, which made obtaining my FAST card just a lovely experience, and is why I carry a copy of the judge's order with me at all times). I still on occasion have to deal with a bogus arrest record from 18 years ago. So I have more of a bleeding heart vested interest in someone being falsely accused, tried and convicted than you might think.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I guess so.

 

[witness23]

Actually, they would go down exponentially, by the simple fact that people would have less time on death row to be exonerated. Misconduct might increase somewhat, but not exponentially, but then again, if people knew that justice would be swift and not a lot of time to get a wrong conviction overturned, they would be less likely to commit the capital crime in the first place. The average time spent on death row between sentencing and execution is 11 years. If it was an average of 3 months, with a maximum of 6 months to get the appeals over and done with, people would, absolutely, think twice before committing a capital crime.

I was referring to the number of wrongly executed going up.

Second, the statistics can vary wildly depending on how you want to look at them. You can look at how many felony convictions were overturned, or keep it to just capital punishment crimes.

Depending on how we look at them? Well, since we are talking about Capital Punishment(Death Penalty) I would assume that you would look at stats reflecting those cases.

In a painstaking study, authors Huff, Rattner, and Sagarin, of the 1995 book Convicted but Innocent, spent more than a decade studying the persistence of wrongful convictions, gathering evidence and assessments from police administrators, sheriffs, prosecutors, public defenders, and judges. They concluded that about 0.5 percent of persons convicted of felonies are estimated to be innocent of the crimes convicted of. (This rate amounted to 10,000 innocents per year in 1995 when there were only one million people behind bars, and today there are over two million). Convicted But Innocent shocked the criminal justice system and brought complaints from official experts that the three academics had drastically overstated the rate of wrongful conviction.

From the way I am reading the above, these are stats on felonies? Are these felonies carrrying the Death Penalty?

 

[Turtle]

I was referring to the number of wrongly executed going up.

Ah, OK, yeah, that would likely be true. Again, not exponentially, tho, especially with death sentences on a downward trend already.

Depending on how we look at them? Well, since we are talking about Capital Punishment(Death Penalty) I would assume that you would look at stats reflecting those cases.

Well you would, except that as I showed, it's possible to look at other wrongful conviction statistics and apply them, as well. Depending on how you look at it, the numbers can be all over the place. Wrongful convictions being overturned, or prime suspects being released, based on DNA evidence only applies to where DNA evidence exists in the first place, like where rape occurred or the killer left behind some blood or other bodily fluid. There are many capital cases where no DNA evidence exists. So it's not unreasonable (and this is actually making your case) to look at non-capital crime conviction errors and apply, at least in part, those percentages to capital cases.

From the way I am reading the above, these are stats on felonies? Are these felonies carrrying the Death Penalty?

Yes. No. Those stats are for felonies in general, capital and non-capital alike.