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

[Ice]

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

Out of curiosity what would be your definition ?

I also thought I'd post this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[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...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 which is full of what looks like half-baked studies. However, the North Carolina study 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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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?

[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?

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.

[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.

[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.

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?

[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