Let's Talk About Politics - with a German

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
Matt
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Postby Matt » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:22 am

MK wrote:The sweet satisfaction of revenge, of course.

In all seriousness, I've got mixed feelings about the morality of killing a person for a heinous crime, but look at everything that's happened in the last ten years. Hell, look at Illinois alone, at every botched case on death row. Totally irresponsible, there's absolutely no way I can support the death penalty until they fix it, and so far, they've done jack-shit.

This past year, Texas executed a man who was probably innocent, but found guilty based on a half-assed, erroneous assessment of a crime scene (it involved a fire and the man's baby...I think it posted it here somewhere).


Things like this do happen:

(The account of the crime is somewhat graphic)

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Pending/06/may06.htm

I'm reffering to the murder of Lottie Rhodes commited by Jackie Wilson.

I can not comprehend how someone could be that fucking cruel.

In my personal opinion, he should get the death penalty.
-Matt

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:12 pm

So the measure of whether or not someone should get the death penalty is how grotesque the crime is? How is that about anything other than vengeance? If they want to kill Jackie Wilson, I'm not going to shed any tears for him, but let's at least be honest about why we're killing him -- to extract revenge for a particularly ugly crime.

Be honest -- do you really think the execution of Jackie Wilson will deter someone who wants to rape and kill a five-year-old and run over her with a car? Do you really think someone that mentally deranged would do the mental calculus of whether life in prison was a sufficient deterrent to acting out their impulses, or whether the stakes needed to be raised to death to rein them in?

So can we please stop pretending the death penalty has something to do with deterring crime and agree that the real issue is whether or not state-sponsored revenge killings are justifiable?

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Matt
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Postby Matt » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:54 pm

Rspaight wrote:So the measure of whether or not someone should get the death penalty is how grotesque the crime is? How is that about anything other than vengeance? If they want to kill Jackie Wilson, I'm not going to shed any tears for him, but let's at least be honest about why we're killing him -- to extract revenge for a particularly ugly crime.


No, murder is murder. We all know there are degrees of murder and manslaughter.

I posted that article to remind people that crimes like this actually do occur. There is more to this than vengance. What about the victims and the way they died? It's it so easy to minimize them because they are dead anyway and actually worry if the death penalty is too harsh or vengeful for the actual criminals?

Does Wilson deserve to live after what he did? Is any type of sentence revenge then?

Rspaight wrote:Be honest -- do you really think the execution of Jackie Wilson will deter someone who wants to rape and kill a five-year-old and run over her with a car? Do you really think someone that mentally deranged would do the mental calculus of whether life in prison was a sufficient deterrent to acting out their impulses, or whether the stakes needed to be raised to death to rein them in?


Most likely not. At this point, deterrence isn't my main reasoning for the death penalty.

Rspaight wrote:So can we please stop pretending the death penalty has something to do with deterring crime and agree that the real issue is whether or not state-sponsored revenge killings are justifiable?


OK. Honestly, again my initial reaction isn't deterrence. But what punishment fits the crime? Life in prison is getting off easy.

Should the taxpayers be burdened paying for the convicted rapist and murderers meals and healthcare for the rest of his natural life?
Last edited by Matt on Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Matt

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:56 pm

Rspaight wrote:So the measure of whether or not someone should get the death penalty is how grotesque the crime is?

Isn't this a bit like defining a hate crime?

So can we please stop pretending the death penalty has something to do with deterring crime and agree that the real issue is whether or not state-sponsored revenge killings are justifiable?

An altnerative viewpoint would be that it's more economical to kill someone than pay for them to be in jail. I haven't actually looked at the numbers, but I'm sure the costs of trials and hearings adds up quickly.
Chuck thinks that I look to good to be a computer geek. I think that I know too much about interface design, css, xhtml, php, asp, perl, and ia (too name a few things) to not be one.

User avatar
MK
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:24 pm
Location: North America

Postby MK » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:07 pm

Yeah, I know stuff like that happens. Hell, people do worse shit and get away with it. If the death penalty only punished shit like that, I'm not gonna cry over it. Problem is, a good chunk of people who have been on death row have been exonerated or have been executed with serious doubts about their guilt. I'm not talking about a small minority, I'm talking a substantial amount, possibly a majority in some states (that's how bad it was in Illinois). I want closure too, but how does putting the wrong people to death do any good? The system's too fucked up right now, and the world may be a better place without a terrorist like Timothy McVeigh or a serial killer like John Wayne Gacy, but it doesn't balance anything out to execute ANY life that's wrongly convicted just so we can kill those guys instead of putting them away for life, and the situation right now is a lot worse than "just one" wrongly convicted man on death row.

BTW, anyone see the Thin Blue Line? I saw it for the first time a month ago. Exhibit A in how fucked up Texas law enforcement can be. They almost executed the wrong man, and the guy was something like 48 hours from execution when he won a reprieve.
Last edited by MK on Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto

User avatar
MK
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:24 pm
Location: North America

Postby MK » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:09 pm

I believe you're right on that. To my understanding, life in prison ends up costing the state a lot less than executing the same person. Granted, there's more to the issue that's far more important, IMHO, but hey, a lot of taxpayers do care.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower



"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto

User avatar
MK
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 4:24 pm
Location: North America

Postby MK » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:11 pm

From 2000 (and yes, same gov who's been found guilty of massive corruption, but the numbers here don't lie. Most opposition came from the families of victims who felt they were cheated out of justice/closure...for sturdier cases, I can understand, but this applied to the questionable ones as well, and again, if the wrong guy's on death row and the real guy's still out there, that ain't fucking justice)

January 31, 2000
Web posted at: 10:33 p.m. EST (0333 GMT)

CHICAGO (CNN) -- Illinois Gov. George Ryan on Monday imposed a moratorium on the state's death penalty. All lethal injections will be postponed indefinitely pending an investigation into why more executions have been overturned than carried out since 1977, when Illinois reinstated capital punishment.

"We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death," Ryan told CNN. "There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied."

Capital Punishment:
In the United States

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 struck down state death penalty laws, a ruling that also brought federal executions to a halt. In 1976, the court reinstated the death penalty after the adoption of new procedures.

But it was not until 1988 that Congress adopted a new federal death penalty law, and in 1994 expanded the number of federal crimes covered by the death penalty.

In Illinois

Illinois resumed executions in 1977. Since then, 13 death row inmates in the state have been cleared of murder charges, compared to 12 who have been put to death.

Some of the 13 inmates were taken off death row after DNA evidence exonerated them; the cases of others collapsed after new trials were ordered by appellate courts.


MESSAGE BOARD
Death penalty

Crime and punishment

ALSO
U.S. bucks international trend against capital punishment

The Republican governor will create a special panel to study the state's capital punishment system in general and determine what happened in the 13 specific cases in which men were wrongly convicted.

Condemned prisoners to remain on death row


As the review is being carried out, Ryan, who favors the death penalty, plans to grant stays of scheduled executions. But condemned prisoners will remain on death row.

"I still believe the death penalty is a proper response to heinous crimes," Ryan said "But I want to make sure ... that the person who is put to death is absolutely guilty."

Ryan said he would not impose a time frame on the length of the investigation. "I'm not going to set a deadline," the governor said. "I think we have to get the right people on the panel and ... have a free and open discussion about what has to be done here."

Death penalty opponents praised the governor's decision and called for the investigating panel to be a representative sampling of the general public.

"I hope this commission will truly and thoroughly and honestly examine the facts of these 13 cases," Bill Ryan, chairman of the Illinois Moratorium Project told the Chicago Tribune. "We need an investigation of why half the cases are overturned. We need to investigate what's been going on."

Public 'lacks confidence' in system


Jed Stone, a Chicago defense attorney who once headed the Illinois Coalition Against the Death Penalty, said the public "lacks confidence in a criminal justice system that results in wrongful convictions of innocent people."

Gov. Ryan "is right to say let's study it, before we ever again use it," Stone told CNN affiliate WFLD.

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Moses Harrison II also applauded Ryan's decision.

"I'm very pleased to hear that the governor is doing this," said Harrison, the sole member of the high court who has said the state's death penalty should be held unconstitutional.


Gov. Ryan says he supports the death penalty but wants to make sure the system works properly

208K/19 sec. AIFF or WAV sound
One of the 13 exonerated Illinois inmates, Anthony Porter, spent 15 years on death row and was within two days of being executed before a group of student journalists at Northwestern University uncovered evidence that was used to prove his innocence.

Porter was released from prison last year.

The governor's decision makes Illinois the first of the 38 states with capital punishment to halt all executions while it reviews its death penalty procedures. The Nebraska legislature passed a moratorium on executions last year but it was vetoed by Republican Gov. Mike Johanns.

The Illinois House approved a bill to impose a moratorium last year but it failed in the Republican-controlled Senate.
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." – Dwight D. Eisenhower



"Neither slave nor tyrant." - Basque motto

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:30 pm

Matt wrote:Does Wilson deserve to live after what he did?


Why should you be the judge of that?
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

Matt
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Postby Matt » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:37 pm

lukpac wrote:
Matt wrote:Does Wilson deserve to live after what he did?


Why should you be the judge of that?


Alright, should anyone else here be the judge?
-Matt

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:02 pm

It's it so easy to minimize them because they are dead anyway and actually worry if the death penalty is too harsh or vengeful for the actual criminals?


I didn't say anything about the death penalty being too "harsh." (Given the choice between life in prison and death, I'd probably opt for death.) My objection to the death penalty isn't that it's cruel, it's that it's not necessary.

Is any type of sentence revenge then?


Putting criminals in prison serves a useful purpose because it keeps them out of society. Killing them accomplishes nothing further.

Should the taxpayers be burdened paying for the convicted rapist and murderers meals and healthcare for the rest of his natural life?


It's cheaper than killing them:

One conclusion is that the extra costs to the North Carolina public of adjudicating a case capitally through to execution, as compared with a noncapital adjudication that results in conviction for first degree murder and a 20-year prison term, is about $329 thousand, substantially more than the savings in prison costs, which we estimate to be $166 thousand. We note that a complete account must also include the extra costs of cases that were adjudicated capitally but did not result in the execution of the defendant. All told, the extra cost per death penalty imposed is over a quarter million dollars, and per execution exceeds $2 million. This last estimate is quite sensitive to our assumption that ten percent of death-sentenced defendants are ultimately executed.


http://www-pps.aas.duke.edu/people/facu ... /comnc.pdf

If you're really worried about how many tax dollars are being spent on keeping people in prison, lightening up on drug possession and other non-violent offenses would make a much bigger impact. 72% of the federal prison population are non-violent offenders with no history of violence.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/federalprison.pdf

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:03 pm

Matt wrote:
lukpac wrote:
Matt wrote:Does Wilson deserve to live after what he did?


Why should you be the judge of that?


Alright, should anyone else here be the judge?


Well, MK's post suggests that the state of Illinois sure as hell shouldn't be the judge.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:06 pm

Most people who justify death penalty argue that the punishment should match the crime. In other words, eye for an eye. They often compare the pain of the victim to the relatively kind treatment of the murderer. But in the name of the nation, no man should be treated the way murderers treat their victims. Otherwise, the state would be guilty of murder as well.


(I am simplifying a bit. Sorry for that.)

In my opinion, that is not at all the point of punishment. Only three principles of puishment are acceptable:

1. Deterrence
2. Protection of the society
3. Catharsis (I don't know the proper word for what I'm thinking of: The convicted should learn about his deed and its wrongness and should have the possibility of reentering the society)
Last edited by Andreas on Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:11 pm

And for something slightly different, do you have any ideas why there are many more people in prison in the US than in Germany? (Relative to the population, of course.)

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:12 pm

Andreas wrote:3. Catharsis (I don't know the proper word for what I'm thinking of: The convicted should learn about his deed and its wrongness and should have the possibility of reentering the society)

Rehabilitation?
Chuck thinks that I look to good to be a computer geek. I think that I know too much about interface design, css, xhtml, php, asp, perl, and ia (too name a few things) to not be one.

Bennett Cerf
Posts: 738
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm

Postby Bennett Cerf » Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:25 pm

Matt wrote:I'm reffering to the murder of Lottie Rhodes commited by Jackie Wilson.


Image