Put to death in some States in the US...

[JAG]

.... Or he would have been.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7950303.stm


A man jailed for murdering a woman in 1979 has had his conviction quashed at the Court of Appeal after spending 27 years in prison.

:oops:

Just thought I would highlight it, for all those people who still don't believe it is a legitimate reason to think the death penalty is absurd. There are of course many other reasons, but this one seems as good as any.

[CountArach]

Glad to hear he got out, but that isn't going to bring the 27 years back.

[Major Robert Dump]

the death penalty is absurd, especially if you equate all the people put to death before DNA testing and based on eyewitness accounts only. It's also now an undisputable fact that the death penalty costs significantly more money than life in prison thanks to the process, so even the most hardcore fiscal conservatives can't argue for it.

A lot of people will argue that it has never been proven an innocent person has been executed, except that executed persons kind of have their cases grow cold because, ya know, they are dead. I suggest An Innocent Man by Grisham, i think it may be his only non-fiction novel....turns out the culprit of the crime two men were sentenced to death for was the STAR WITNESS of the prosecution, all of which could have been cleared up through some simple testing that was available at the time. The Pontotoc County DA, who I had a run-in with myself once upon a time, will rot in hell forever and ever as he still refuses to show any remorse. Personally, I think the entire system is jacked.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I oppose the death penalty, but would not characterize it as absurd.

The basic component is: the state does not need to deal out death to protect society -- removal of the threat to society from circulation suffices. Mind you, I'm not a big fan of early release either...

[Major Robert Dump]

hey I'd be down with the death penalty under a few conditions:

-Scientific evidence only
-Painful
-You don't have the convenience of knowing when, just a general timeframe, which means the prison could take people in the middle of the night to be executed, give them a shot of saline and then say LOLZ SIKE!!! Wow, would it be awesome to know exactly when I was gonna die, a much better gift than the poor sap who got raped and murdered, yes?

anyway, rotting away at life inprisonment is still cheaper and , imo, more of a grueling punishment than being on death row and knowing when the day is coming

[Idaho]

Personally I disagree with the death penalty, but I think we should have it in this country, as most people are in favour of it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Personally I disagree with the death penalty, but I think we should have it in this country, as most people are in favour of it.

A lot of people think paediatricians should be tortured to death as well, but that doesn't make the peasantry right. :stupido2:

The fascinating thing in the above case is that whilst many murderers get out of jail after ten or so years, this gentleman has been locked up for 27. Why? Because he has protested his innocence consistently and therefore, under the rules, cannot be considered for probation, since he has not shown "remorse".

One might think that someone who refuses a way out of prison to preserve their principles might warrant a revisiting of their case, just to check.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A lot of people think paediatricians should be tortured to death as well, but that doesn't make the peasantry right. :stupido2:

The fascinating thing in the above case is that whilst many murderers get out of jail after ten or so years, this gentleman has been locked up for 27. Why? Because he has protested his innocence consistently and therefore, under the rules, cannot be considered for probation, since he has not shown "remorse".

One might think that someone who refuses a way out of prison to preserve their principles might warrant a revisiting of their case, just to check.

Two excellant points, (technically I am not a peasant, I am a Yeoman).

Now, I don't remember the answer to this (possibly because I was not alive at the time) but did people support the death penalty as much when we di have it as they do now?

[rvg]

Death penalty should always remain an option to be used cautiously.

[tibilicus]

The exact reason why the death penalty should be a no.

I can't even begin to imagine how happy this man must be right now, just imagine it. Stuck in a Prison with some of societies psychos and low life's and all for a crime you didn't commit. It's remarkable he managed to keep sane.

[LittleGrizzly]

This man deserves a huge check and the grovelling apologies of every single person who was wrong about him... nothing can bring back those 27 years but at least he is still alive so we can do something for him...

A victory for life a defeat for the death penalty... hurrah!

[rory_20_uk]

.... Or he would have been.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7950303.stm



:oops:

Just thought I would highlight it, for all those people who still don't believe it is a legitimate reason to think the death penalty is absurd. There are of course many other reasons, but this one seems as good as any.

A typical :strawman3: argument.

It could equally be applied to internment - or indeed punishment in any sense.

All it illustrates is that the justice system in the UK is flawed, not that the death penalty is absurd.

I'm in favour of the death penalty - but only in cases where there is no doubt - such as a premeditated stabbing leading to a death witnessed by several people.

~:smoking:

[Hooahguy]

A typical :strawman3: argument.

It could equally be applied to internment - or indeed punishment in any sense.

All it illustrates is that the justice system in the UK is flawed, not that the death penalty is absurd.

I'm in favour of the death penalty - but only in cases where there is no doubt - such as a premeditated stabbing leading to a death witnessed by several people.

~:smoking:
my thoughts exactly.

[tibilicus]

A typical :strawman3: argument.

It could equally be applied to internment - or indeed punishment in any sense.

All it illustrates is that the justice system in the UK is flawed, not that the death penalty is absurd.

I'm in favour of the death penalty - but only in cases where there is no doubt - such as a premeditated stabbing leading to a death witnessed by several people.

~:smoking:


Death is an easy way out. Let them rot in a prison cell for the rest of their lives, that's a worse punishment than death.

[Hooahguy]

Death is an easy way out. Let them rot in a prison cell for the rest of their lives, that's a worse punishment than death.
but is that justice?

[HoreTore]

but is that justice?

Don't confuse vengeance with justice.

[Xiahou]

Death penalty should always remain an option to be used cautiously.Agreed. For a laundry list of reasons, I prefer life sentences to the death penalty. But, the death penalty, as an option, should not be completely removed from the table.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I oppose the death penalty, but would not characterize it as absurd.

The basic component is: the state does not need to deal out death to protect society -- removal of the threat to society from circulation suffices. Mind you, I'm not a big fan of early release either...


Exactly.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sadly, it is true that innocent people have been convicted and likely killed.

I still think we should retain the death penalty, but very rarely, and only in cases where there is scientific and eyewitness evidence.

But the problem here isn't the death penalty but the handling of evidence and the legal system.

I'd also recommend the movie The Thin Blue Line, where the cops ignored the boasting ("I killed a cop!") of the real killer in order to get another man convicted.

CR

[Hooahguy]

Don't confuse vengeance with justice.
i know the difference.
but i truly do not believe that a serial murderer-who was prove beyond any doubt tha the was the one who committed them- should be allowed to live.

[LittleGrizzly]

TBH the one thing that does sway me towards the death penalty is the fact i think it may actually be more humane... for someone who is gaurenteed guilty and is not ever getting out of jail... hell i'd rather die...

I guess i would want it to be a choice for the jailbird.... but i think that pretty much goes against most other people's reasoning for it...

[Major Robert Dump]

I would rather be executed than rot in jail. Remember, death row inmates are segregated from the rest of the prison population and are therefore not a part of the prison drama that unfolds, they lead a fairly relaxed existence compared the the general population. Yeah, they are isolated, have little social contact but I'm thinking in prison thats probably not a bad thing. It's not like they are in a dank, solitary confinement cell where they have to eat porridge 3x a day. And they know when they are going to die. And they get to go on awesome field trips for their appeals. Wowza, where do I sign up

[JAG]

It makes me sad when people think vengence and self satisfaction is the same as justice.

:no:

[Ice]

It makes me sad when people think vengence and self satisfaction is the same as justice.

:no:

Out of curiosity what would be your definition ?

I also thought I'd post this:


http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/18/new.mexico.death.penalty/index.html

New Mexico governor repeals death penalty in state

(CNN) -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson signed a bill Wednesday repealing the death penalty in his state, his office confirmed.

"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said in a statement Wednesday.

He noted that more than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years, including four in New Mexico.

"Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe," he said.

With the governor's decision, New Mexico joins 14 other states that don't impose the death penalty. Several states, including Colorado, Kansas, Maryland and Montana, are considering changes to their capital punishment laws.

The bill replaces the death penalty with life without the possibility of parole.

"Throughout my adult life, I have been a firm believer in the death penalty as a just punishment -- in very rare instances, and only for the most heinous crimes. I still believe that," Richardson, a Democrat, said.

"The issue became more real to me because I knew the day would come when one of two things might happen: I would either have to take action on legislation to repeal the death penalty, or more daunting, I might have to sign someone's death warrant."

Richardson said the criminal justice system is "inherently defective" in its use of the death penalty, adding that he was bothered by the fact that minorities are "over-represented in the prison population and on death row."

Minorities make up more than half of the death row population nationwide, according to the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit group that opposes the death penalty.

The state legislature approved the measure last Friday. Prior to signing the legislation, Richardson received thousands of e-mails and phone calls weighing in on the matter.

As of noon Wednesday, the governor's office said it had received 10,847 phone calls, e-mails and walk-in comments from people who wanted to voice their opinions on the legislation.

Of those, 8,102 were for a repeal of the death penalty and 2,745 were against it, according to Richardson's office.

In addition, Richardson met Monday with more than 100 New Mexicans to discuss the issue, his office said.

Other states also have considered repealing their capital punishment laws this year. In Kansas, state senators voted Monday to send such a bill back to committee, The Kansas City Star reported.


"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said in a statement Wednesday.


Those are close to my views.

[Strike For The South]

Now we have to suffer through the mans book deal. UGH.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'd want people to buy my book if I was wrongfully imprisoned for 27 years.

Hell, I'd want all sorts of things.

[Major Robert Dump]

Wow 130 exonerations in 10 years. And thats just for death row inmates. For murder and rapes in general the number must be in the thousands.

Face it, the US has executed innocent people. I'm not unlike Richards in that I think a properly applied death penalty is just, but I don't have enough faith in the system to properly apply it.

[Idaho]

A lot of people think paediatricians should be tortured to death as well, but that doesn't make the peasantry right. :stupido2:

You are an aristocrat BG - with an aristocrat's view on the world. Much as I think you are a decent person, you represent and reflect humanity's desire for oligarchy.


Control the coinage and the courts -- let the rabble have the rest. If you want profits, you must rule. There is truth in those words, but I ask myself who are the rabble and who are the ruled?

[HoreTore]

Out of curiosity what would be your definition ?

In our system, punishment is a matter between the society and the convicted, not between the victim and the convicted. It's the society who's judging him/her, we don't let the victim do that.

The feelings of the victim(s) in a criminal case is really quite irrelevant.

[Beefy187]

I used to be strongly agaist the idea of death penalty because most of those who gets death penalty wants to die anyway. Its not a punishment if those who gets punished don't feel any remorse or regret their action.

But I heard a few messy case recently in Japan. Heres one

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96DNL4G0&show_article=1

Very disturbing

I also realised that we the citizens have to pay to keep those in life sentence alive and the cost are pretty high. We can count on those who are in for less then 20 years to normal citizens who obey the law. But peoples like intentional murderers are not worth keeping them alive. Some of them won't feel regret. They will use every chance to get out and kill again.

I think death sentence should be used for every country. At least for serial killers who doesn't have mental damage.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

In the US, isn't it more costly to execute someone than to imprison them for life? Furthermore, reductions in cost for the death penalty usually involve reducing appeal time/attempts, so it would likely increase unjust executions, no?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In the US, isn't it more costly to execute someone than to imprison them for life? Furthermore, reductions in cost for the death penalty usually involve reducing appeal time/attempts, so it would likely increase unjust executions, no?

I can't see how that is true. I mean, with the death penalty the costs would be appeals, lawyers, and some imprisonment, plus the costs of the drugs or the electricity. In the case of a life sentence, you're also going to try the appeals, have the lawyers, and you will be imprisoned for a much longer time. Can anyone show me a cost breakdown to prove that the death penalty costs more?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

A quick search yielded this (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty) which is full of what looks like half-baked studies. However, the North Carolina study (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/northcarolina.pdf) looks legit (actually comparing murder cases, with death penalty vs. non-death penalty murder cases, unlike some of the other studies). According to that study, it costs North Carolina roughly $200k for processing a murder case with the death penalty available than one without it, and that's including cost of imprisonment differences.

You must also not forget that those on death row are often imprisoned for an extended period of time due to appeals and other judicial proceedings.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm against the death penalty, but I'm also against allowing lifers to sit around casually wallowing in their own guilt, that is, if they have any. I think the state needs to put these men into better use, a very regimented Gulag type system that involves hard... very hard labor doing menial tasks such as state ran Farms, and for those who refuse to work, they can go sit in Maximum security and be fed one measly meal a day, for a week. After each offense, their time in lock down increases, so for the first offense you get one week, the second you get two, third...three etc.

The benefit to such a system is that you get something back, Prisons are after all supposed to be a place where you repay your debts to society, not sit around, play cards and pump iron...

[Crazed Rabbit]

One thing to note about the death penalty; if it is abolished, how do you punish a man already in prison for life who murders another inmate or guard?

And on the dangers of eyewitness evidence (http://www.newsweek.com/id/189294):

Throughout the ordeal, she scrupulously studied her attacker, determined to memorize every detail of his face and voice so that, if she survived, she could help the police catch him. Thompson soon identified Ronald Cotton in a photo lineup. When she—after some hesitation—again picked Cotton out of a physical lineup a few days later, a detective told her she'd picked the same person in the photo lineup.

But in this case Thompson got it wrong, although Cotton served 10 years before DNA evidence exonerated him and decisively implicated another man, Bobby Poole. The curious part of the story is that despite Thompson's determination to memorize every detail, when she first saw Poole in court she was certain she had never seen him before.

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

One thing to note about the death penalty; if it is abolished, how do you punish a man already in prison for life who murders another inmate or guard?
What do we do currently if someone on death row does so?

[Hooahguy]

if thats the case, dont we move him to a higher-security prison or something?

[Crazed Rabbit]

What do we do currently if someone on death row does so?

I don't know. I'd imagine the trial and any possible conviction and death sentence would be after their current sentence.


if thats the case, dont we move him to a higher-security prison or something?

I suppose, if they weren't there already. Or move them to solitary confinement maybe.

But that can't stop them.

CR

[tibilicus]

Any one heard about that Fritzl guys punishment?

For raping his own daughter the vile little rat will get a nice cell at a Psychiatric ward with access to a colour t.v, his own garden terrace and even his own computer. Now whilst I'm against the death penalty I'm not against long, long, long incarceration in places void of all luxuries where a person can truly reflect on the crimes they have committed. I don't understand why this monster deserves his deluxe bed sit. I personally feel that a lot of countries could do with reforms in the justice system. It either seems to be that countries are at the end of the harsh scale or are at the end of the 10 years free holiday scale..

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

He's probably rather disturbed. Furthermore, his "luxury" is probably significantly less than you are making it out to be.

Unless you would choose prison, with all its Epicurian excess.

[Major Robert Dump]

In the US, isn't it more costly to execute someone than to imprison them for life? Furthermore, reductions in cost for the death penalty usually involve reducing appeal time/attempts, so it would likely increase unjust executions, no?

Death Penalty costs more. It may not be a lot more, but it costs more. This of course is assuming the lifer doesnt end up with some form of degenerative illness that must be treated for 20 years, but in virtually all cases, they would treat it with the death row inmate as well.

Life in prison: an appeal or two, and room and board for the rest of the life.

Death Sentence:
-Capitol Punishment cases require a special prosecutor and, in the case of an appointed attorney, a special defense attorney. Special=more expensive.
-Seperate living quarters. This seclusion means more guards are needed as this inmate is not being housed with the general population.
-Multiple, multiple appeals, and during these appeals the inmate must be shackled, escorted, and transported to the appeals location, and given special sleeping quarters in the case of overnight stay. And once again, an attorney from the prosecution will be present as will the defense attorney. And keep in mind that courts get backlogged, case get delayed due to overruns and illness, so going to the appeals hearing is not always an in-and-out process and can actually take severla more days than intended. Sometimes, the appeal is rescheduled, the inmate sent home, wash rinse repeat.

All of the above costs time, money and manpower. A lot more than spending 55 dollars a day to house a lifer.

[HoreTore]

One thing to note about the death penalty; if it is abolished, how do you punish a man already in prison for life who murders another inmate or guard?

Life in Prison? Almost as bad as the death penalty....

A maximum of 21 years in prison is more than enough. By the end of that, your life is already gone anyway, no need to remain in jail. I'm very happy that the maximum sentence is written in our constitution.

[Kralizec]

Anybody heard about that Iraqi guy who recently got his third death sentence?

Anyway, punishment is at its core about two things:
-protecting society from the convicted
-retribution

The death penalty does those two marvelously. "Reforming" someone while they're in jail is a nice thought but doesn't work in the vast majority of cases and the death penalty doesn't have that problem.

I think death would be a fitting punishment for someone who has committed more than one murder, but I'm against the death penalty for practical reasons that others have already covered.


A maximum of 21 years in prison is more than enough. By the end of that, your life is already gone anyway, no need to remain in jail. I'm very happy that the maximum sentence is written in our constitution.

I disagree. Life imprisonment should always be an option.

The Dutch system might be slightly flawed- as far as I know, we're the only ones who don't do interim evaluations or whatever for those who've been convicted for life. The only possible way to get out alive (besides health reasons) is a pardon from the crown. I'm not sure if I have a problem with it, though.

[rasoforos]

I think death sentence should be used for every country. At least for serial killers who doesn't have mental damage.




I think this statement is self-contradictory...

...Why would someone go kill scores of people who did nothing to him if he is not mentally insane?




I think that the case Jag brought forward is an absolute argument against the death penalty. Nothing more should be said. We, of course, as a habit will debate this argument to death. Any oppinion, no matter how strong, crumbles after 2 dozen people have expressed their opinion.

Also, I believe that judges and jury should be held accountable in such cases. If you destroyed a person's life by wrongfully convicting him you should go be a guest at the big house yourself.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think this statement is self-contradictory...

...Why would someone go kill scores of people who did nothing to him if he is not mentally insane?

Is your contention then that all multiple killers are insane? Does that mean, since they bear no responsibility for their actions, they should all be exonerated after a short spell in psychiatric care?



Also, I believe that judges and jury should be held accountable in such cases. If you destroyed a person's life by wrongfully convicting him you should go be a guest at the big house yourself.

Not very practical or remotely just. Judges and juries are there to consider the evidence - they cannot guarantee that all the evidence has been presented, or is indeed available at the time. Your proposed sanction would best be aimed at the prosecution and police, surely? And if then granted, should not defence counsel then be imprisoned as soon as someone is rightfully convicted? :stupido2:

[Beefy187]

I think this statement is self-contradictory...

...Why would someone go kill scores of people who did nothing to him if he is not mentally insane?




I think that the case Jag brought forward is an absolute argument against the death penalty. Nothing more should be said. We, of course, as a habit will debate this argument to death. Any oppinion, no matter how strong, crumbles after 2 dozen people have expressed their opinion.

Also, I believe that judges and jury should be held accountable in such cases. If you destroyed a person's life by wrongfully convicting him you should go be a guest at the big house yourself.

What I meant by mental damage is like person who is clearly mad like a mental disorder.

If the person could do logical thinking like planning how he is going to kill and who he is going to kill etc, then he isn't mentally damaged but his simply dangerous to be kept alive.

If that makes sense.

[rasoforos]

If the person could do logical thinking like planning how he is going to kill and who he is going to kill etc, then he isn't mentally damaged but his simply dangerous to be kept alive.



It does make sense but I would still have to disagree.

Not all mentally ill people are hunting imaginary butterflies in a world of their own. Many mentally ill people have perfectly good and intact planing and managing abilities.

For example I once saw the house of someone who thought he was the Emperor of Byzantium. He would produce amazingly good edicts and laws and publish them in boards on the walls external walls of his house. The texts were well thought of, nice and coherent; he wasn't :yes:

[Banquo's Ghost]

You are an aristocrat BG - with an aristocrat's view on the world. Much as I think you are a decent person, you represent and reflect humanity's desire for oligarchy.

That may well be, but the principle I rather clumsily illustrated remains. The desire for incoherent vengeance is another desire of humanity and an ugly one - a desire that needs to be controlled and expressed judicially through calm reflection and intellectual analysis.

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of the mob instinct for immediate and simplistic justice. To move your suggestion further, I have no doubt that if a government wished to raise a lot of revenue, they would be able to sell tickets to the Great Unwashed for attendance at public executions, ideally of the traditional sorts like hanging, drawing and quartering. No doubt the majority would also be keen for half-time events at soccer matches to include the torture of terrorist suspects accused of being in the possession of a beard after the hours of darkness.

There are strong arguments to be made in favour of the death penalty as a judicial penalty, but appeal to the will of the masses is not one of them.

[Strike For The South]

Do you have titles? Or are you one of those uncouth nouveau riche we've been getting allot of lately?

[HoreTore]

I disagree. Life imprisonment should always be an option.

It is an option here too. It's just that we've defined "life" as meaning 21 years in jail...

[rory_20_uk]

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of the mob instinct for immediate and simplistic justice.

There are strong arguments to be made in favour of the death penalty as a judicial penalty, but appeal to the will of the masses is not one of them.

To use the death penalty as the wishes of the mob is to use a very broad brush. I would agree in the case of impromptu public stoning, a lynch mob or a "kangaroo court". But a trial that may take months of deliberation is neither immediate or simplistic.

Democracy is based on appealing to the will of the masses.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

That may well be, but the principle I rather clumsily illustrated remains. The desire for incoherent vengeance is another desire of humanity and an ugly one - a desire that needs to be controlled and expressed judicially through calm reflection and intellectual analysis.

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of the mob instinct for immediate and simplistic justice. To move your suggestion further, I have no doubt that if a government wished to raise a lot of revenue, they would be able to sell tickets to the Great Unwashed for attendance at public executions, ideally of the traditional sorts like hanging, drawing and quartering. No doubt the majority would also be keen for half-time events at soccer matches to include the torture of terrorist suspects accused of being in the possession of a beard after the hours of darkness.

There are strong arguments to be made in favour of the death penalty as a judicial penalty, but appeal to the will of the masses is not one of them.

The death penalty is less a demand from the 'great unwashed' as you rather unplesantly quote, but much more to do with the propertied classes being in terror of those same people.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The death penalty is less a demand from the 'great unwashed' as you rather unplesantly quote, but much more to do with the propertied classes being in terror of those same people.

Now you are confusing me.

I thought your position was that the death penalty should be introduced because the majority wanted it. Are you now claiming it is a tool of the elite to suppress the working class from revolution?

[rory_20_uk]

I think that the thing is the majority is the Elites plus the Middle Classes. Please note these two terms are used pajoritively.

These two evil groups are persecuting the Proletariat by demanding the death sentence for not using a saucer with a cup for tea, not having an estate in the country or not even having a school tie.

As they are Evil, and Good always prevails they are hence scared of the minority.

~:smoking:

[rasoforos]

Is your contention then that all multiple killers are insane? Does that mean, since they bear no responsibility for their actions, they should all be exonerated after a short spell in psychiatric care?




Not very practical or remotely just. Judges and juries are there to consider the evidence - they cannot guarantee that all the evidence has been presented, or is indeed available at the time. Your proposed sanction would best be aimed at the prosecution and police, surely? And if then granted, should not defence counsel then be imprisoned as soon as someone is rightfully convicted? :stupido2:


Perhaps we define 'serial killer' differently.

My definition would not apply to someone who kills people in a series of armed robberies for example. It would apply to someone who just murders people for no apparent reason. The first one benefits from his action, the latter does not and in my books is mentally insane (acting against his best interests and for no altruistic cause)

I dont see why holding the jury accountable is unjust. They are there to review the evidence and their validity. As you very well say evidence might be lacking. Consequently, with inadequate evidence, the logical thing is to acquit or err on the side of caution. A jury that decides to put a person to death on inadequate evidence makes an informed decision and should be held accountable for their actions. Of course if let us say evidence was tampered or mishandled by police then the jury was mislead and the onus should go to the law enforcement.

[KukriKhan]

I'm part of the Great Unwashed. Wait: as of 2004 I 'own' 1/7th of an acre of California dirt. Maybe I'm now part of the bourgeoisie. And didn't Idaho buy a house a couple years back, too?

Anyway, I oppose capital punishment on principle: it ain't right for an individual, or group of individuals, to end the life of another. I oppose War and Murder on the same grounds. But, since we still have War, we also have to have Cap'l Pun'mt too, for when somebody does it (war) wrong. Likewise, since we keep murdering each other, we need to have CP as a last resort.

The trick is in accurately assessing guilt when murder has happened. We've been shown to've made mistakes before, so it makes sense to me to still have it on the books, but not used except in cases of absolute certainty (un-coerced confession + 3-4 eyewitnesses + DNA). And those rare occasions should be abhorrent to all but the victim's families.

[HoreTore]

I'm part of the Great Unwashed. Wait: as of 2004 I 'own' 1/7th of an acre of California dirt. Maybe I'm now part of the bourgeoisie. And didn't Idaho buy a house a couple years back, too?

Nah, they are the traders who live in the cities.

You're a peasant. Go find yourself some nice Maoists...

[rory_20_uk]

Juries do not decide on a sentence.
Unless one of the lawyers points out holes in the argument, how are they supposed to know? They made a decision on uninformed evidence.

If anyone is guilty, it is the defense lawyer for doing a poor job.

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Perhaps we define 'serial killer' differently.

My definition would not apply to someone who kills people in a series of armed robberies for example. It would apply to someone who just murders people for no apparent reason. The first one benefits from his action, the latter does not and in my books is mentally insane (acting against his best interests and for no altruistic cause)

Fair enough. :bow:


I dont see why holding the jury accountable is unjust. They are there to review the evidence and their validity. As you very well say evidence might be lacking. Consequently, with inadequate evidence, the logical thing is to acquit or err on the side of caution. A jury that decides to put a person to death on inadequate evidence makes an informed decision and should be held accountable for their actions. Of course if let us say evidence was tampered or mishandled by police then the jury was mislead and the onus should go to the law enforcement.

Perhaps it is different in Greece, but here juries are composed of citizens selected for that purpose. To hold them accountable for the quality of evidence would, at a stroke, remove the jury system because no-one would agree to serve in fear of that penalty.

A jury cannot be held accountable for inadequate evidence, for they have no responsibilty for its gathering or quality. If as you say, they should acquit if they cannot be certain, then I suggest all cases would result in acquittal because there is no way a jury can guarantee the accuracy of the evidence presented - they are not scientists, or lawyers, or witnesses.

Finally, in the case presented in the OP, no-one had even considered DNA as a possible corroboration to confessional evidence because the technique did not exist. Your view therefore, is that the jury should be punished for not taking into account the findings from a technique that was not invented for another ten years?

Not exactly what I would call just. Would you?

[Kralizec]

That may well be, but the principle I rather clumsily illustrated remains. The desire for incoherent vengeance is another desire of humanity and an ugly one - a desire that needs to be controlled and expressed judicially through calm reflection and intellectual analysis.

The death penalty is the ultimate expression of the mob instinct for immediate and simplistic justice. To move your suggestion further, I have no doubt that if a government wished to raise a lot of revenue, they would be able to sell tickets to the Great Unwashed for attendance at public executions, ideally of the traditional sorts like hanging, drawing and quartering. No doubt the majority would also be keen for half-time events at soccer matches to include the torture of terrorist suspects accused of being in the possession of a beard after the hours of darkness.

There are strong arguments to be made in favour of the death penalty as a judicial penalty, but appeal to the will of the masses is not one of them.

I suppose that if there was to be a referendum on person X being executed or not, I could see how it would be an expression of mob instinct...

Judges are supposed to make verdicts in specific cases and do it by applying general rules laid out by the legislator. If through democratic process the most heinous crimes become punishable by death, it's still the judge who has to decide wether it should be applied or not.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I suppose that if there was to be a referendum on person X being executed or not, I could see how it would be an expression of mob instinct...

Judges are supposed to make verdicts in specific cases and do it by applying general rules laid out by the legislator. If through democratic process the most heinous crimes become punishable by death, it's still the judge who has to decide wether it should be applied or not.

Yes, indeed, but capital punishment needs to be allowed by law. The existence or otherwise of the right of the state to execute is what I am discussing, not individual cases. Idaho's original assertion was that because the majority wanted the death penalty (to exist on the statute book) it should be made legal.

I dissent from that view for the reasons stated.

[Kagemusha]

I agree that the death sentence should not be an option, other then during state of war. Other then that. I think that prison sentences should consist of forced labour atleast 8 hours a day. It would be only fair for the prisoners to give something back to the society, who is feeding and clothing them for years in some cases.

[Kralizec]

Yes, indeed, but capital punishment needs to be allowed by law. The existence or otherwise of the right of the state to execute is what I am discussing, not individual cases. Idaho's original assertion was that because the majority wanted the death penalty (to exist on the statute book) it should be made legal.

I dissent from that view for the reasons stated.

There's a long string of practical problems associated with the death penalty, so I don't think reintroducing it is a good idea. Philosophically I have no qualm with it. It's universally accepted that you can lose your freedom as a punishment, and it shouldn't be any different with the right to life. "Human rights" are nice but they are manmade products. I don't see why society should be obligated to respect someone's rights, any right, when that someone has voluntarily committed the largest infraction possible.