Sober Thread: 3 women missing for 10 years found alive.

In the grand scheme of things I don't like the death penalty because the chances of executing an innocent person are too great. Plus the costs of appeals and all that make the costs of seeking the death penalty more than life in prison. If we were at a point where we could more efficiently try criminals in court and prove people committed the crimes they are accused with absolute certainty I would have no problem with the death penalty.

It should be reserved for criminals who can not be reformed as opposed to simply people who have done horrible things, even murderers and rapists, even Ariel Castro. America's judicial system is too punishment oriented and focus on rehabilitation seems to be almost nonexistent.

 

We do have absolute certainty in this case. This is why I would be in favor of the death penalty, but only in these circumstances. One trial, one appeal, and boom; bullet to the back of the head. In cases where there aren't multiple witnesses and an assortment of other condemning evidence then give them life in prison. I realize this is never going to happen, but it's a system I would get behind.

Also, after listening to some of Ariel's testimony I don't think he can ever be reformed. That aside, I don't really give a shit if people can be reformed after they commit first degree murder. That person they killed? They're gone forever and no amount of sobbing or guilt is going to change that. Murderers have enough time to mull over their crimes during the litigation process.

 

In a word, yes, I'm against capital punishment in any form. I wouldn't say I'm against it in all circumstances (see: Nuremburg Trials) but for whatever non-genocidal, peacetime society throws at us, we can do without it. I'm sure there are people who would think that I spend all day wracked with grief and guilt and cry about the poor criminals and how they were given a bad start in life and deserve to be forgiven for what they've done and given counselling and rehabilitation and released back into society. But it's not that. If this guy were to die in a car crash being transported to prison or struck by lightning or whatever, I'd say it was for the better. I wouldn't have a lot of sympathy if he were to be beaten, raped and killed in prison, but at the same time, a civilized society doesn't sentence people to be tortured and raped as punishment for crimes (and turning a blind eye to it isn't much different than actively endorsing it). Theoretically, death can be (but as it turns out, like with lethal injection, is probably not) delivered without pain. But anyone who trusts cops, lawyers and juries to be infallible in determining guilt is a credulous moron. Check out The Innocence Project for some real eye-opening stories. What if there's DNA evidence? This also doesn't mean much; it's only as good as it's collected and, more importantly, interpreted. It's simply not a magic bullet.

For crimes like these, well, I'm not happy that he gets to be in jail the rest of his life. On a moral level, what he did can be compared in the same sentence to, say, prison guards at Auschwitz. Does he deserve death? Probably. Does he deserve a comfortable ride in prison for the rest of his existence? Probably not. Is there doubt about his guilt? No. Can there be rehabilitation? No sane person would even take the chance. I don't think that putting him in prison and letting him live out the rest of his natural life is a perfect, or even particularly good response. To my mind, it's just the least reprehensible. Refraining from medieval punishment for criminals is a principle that a civilized society lives by, and if you carve out exceptions for guys like this, it isn't actually a principle, it's only a nice idea you have in your head that you might brag about when you read about stoning in Saudi Arabia and then throw out the window as soon as you think you have a good enough excuse to violate it.

 

If the amount of time spent debating the death penalty in theory, was instead spent pursuing and prosecuting those who actually committed crimes for which one may or may not receive such a penalty, there would be a lot more heinous, guilty people behind bars.

And I think, regardless of your individual stance on the death penalty, we'd all agree that we're happy about that.

 

What do you want me to do, put on a costume and start fighting crime by night? And for that matter, what amazing contributions could you make to humanity instead of complaining about people who debate the death penalty in theory?

 

I know I'd like to see this.

 

That's called being human. And until we remove the human element from the justice system (read: never remove the human element from the justice system), there will always be that margin of error. So it just comes down to, statistically, what margin of error are you willing to accept?

For me, I consider life in prison (I'd say a min of 15-20 years and that's really stretching it; disclaimer: I've never been in prison) to be worse than death. Accordingly, if I was wrongfully imprisoned for more than 15-20 years, I'd rather just be sentenced to death.

I can't speak for everyone, but I would be legitimately curious (this would never happen) if it went to a nation-wide educational poll on what margin of error people were willing to accept and just a general polling on how long people would consider "innocent" life in prison to be better than death.

 

So long as they don't consider the thought of themselves or a loved one being the statically acceptable loss; I don't see why they wouldn't agree.

My main concern is cost. The law enforcement-corrections-judicial industrial complex has become an unwieldy leviathan that just continues to grow and cost only continue to escalate. With that said, I, as a tax payer, do not want to pay one extra cent more for incarceration than is necessary. So life in prison, instead of death isn't very appealing to me but I agree with the argument over margin of error.

If we get rid of the death penalty I think we need to make prisons human rights-free zones for lifers. Give them a set number of appeals as necessary and after that its into a cage at the bottom of an abandoned mine living on the carcasses of dead rats and other prisoners until you punch out.

 

I agree with this 100%. When there is any reasonable semblance of innocence, the death penalty shouldn't even be on the table at sentencing.

However, if you're found with 6 human heads and other assorted body parts in the freezer of the house that you live in, or three missing humans residing in your fucking house that claim they have been held against their will and raped for 10 years, or you're caught in the middle of the woods with a missing 16 year old girl whose mother and brother were discovered murdered in your fucking house, you are guilty.

There is no other reason for the above scenarios other then 100% surety of guilt. Kill them.

 

I'm actually not opposed to the death penalty, but I would make a contribution to the innocence project if this would happen.

These are my terms:
1. Ghetto posts a photo of himself in the crime fighting costume. It doesn't have to have black, include spandex or tights, but there must be a mask of some kind.
2. TiB gets to name the super hero. (Although, the theme song for "here comes ghettoastronaut" already seems to have a ring to it.)
3. I will send $20 if ghetto reports back on an actual arrest being made because of his involvement.
4. I will send $100 if "Ghetto Man" gets his picture in the paper / eNews.
5. I will send $500 if the caption of this news outlet (and not like a blog or something) includes the phrase "Who was that masked man?"

Just curious, I know a number of advocacy groups post statistics about death penalty cases where it turns out the person is not guilty, but what are the statistics of those cases where the person is not guilty of anything, including what previous convictions they have? The statistically acceptable margin of error discussion should include that, I think, if it's going to be part of the reason to keep the death penalty.

 

"The state killed a man who turned out to be innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted."

"That's cool, I'm sure he was guilty of something..."

 

Uhh, any time served can't be undone. You can't give people years of their lives back.

 

And, moreover, frequently exonerated convicts are not given any monetary compensation, let alone adequate compensation.

 

You're right, that isn't what I'm saying. And, I don't think you're a simpleton, although I freely admit that I am. But, I'm okay with that.

First off, I am not against the death penalty. The whole justice system has flaws, not just the part of the justice system that gets people on death row. Understanding that things have flaws, yet trying to work for improvement is part of participating in life and a civil society.

But this comment was made:

So, all I was implying, is that if we're going to do polling or studies or discuss the idea of what percentage of "innocent" people are actually executed, and have as part of that argument 'well, the number is so small, it's not worrying about' or whatever, then I think it's relevant to discuss the other parameters involved in those statistics.

 

Get rid of the death penalty, and turn prison into a self funding organization. No more innocent people killed, and no more wasted money on keeping those that should be offed around. Everybody wins. And hey, if they have these prisoners doing something worthwhile, maybe the few that actually do get out will have a set of skills that can be used in the real world.

 

Well I do put on a uniform of sorts and an arrest was just made at a place I only recently stopped working at.

Your move.

 

Most prisons in the US do have some type of work program. Those of the manufacturing variety usually make office furniture that is sold to government agencies, hardly enough to make the prisons financially self-sufficient and the prisoners have to earn their way into those jobs. Many of the prisons in the south have farmland that is maintained by the prisoners (grueling work--who wants to work 10 hour days on a farm in the summer in Louisiana?) and the produce is used by prison, but that only nominally offsets some of the operations overhead.

Corrections is big business as many states are at least partially outsourcing it to private concerns.