For the Death Penalty or Not?

[mike4bmp]

I've often wondered why so many Americans support capital punishment? I've always thought of the death penalty as "premeditated murder by society."
I've heard all the arguments supporting capital punishment but none of them (in my opinion) justify it as being necessary. I've even had people tell me...."well if someone raped your sister and killed your mom you would want them executed." Not to be contrary...but I honestly think that I would NOT want another person to be senselessly killed by the system....I would be angry no doubt and I would want that person to be punished....but to take HIS/HER life away....NO! This is not the solution.....

Capital Punishment is barbaric, inhumane and excessive....not to mention expensive for tax payers! Capital punishment is the solution of the state to deal with an offense caused against it....but does it really deal with the offense caused against the people who were directly affected by it? Do the families and friends of the deceased truly feel better now that Timothy McVey has been put to death? Does healing come with taking another life? (Even though there are many families that want to see their offenders executed.....Does it do anything positive? Do they feel justified?)
We all need to think about a marginal justice system...and preventive measures as a society as a whole. We can't just get rid of our problems by electrocuting, or hanging them.....I think we need some social and political reformation if we really want to see some positive changes.

[ChairmanMah]

Difficult topic.

My ethical side usually wins so i'll have to say that i am against the death penalty.

Although my avengeful side says we need population control on these mofos that rape and kill.

I also believe locking people up is also stupid.

I'd be in favour of putting prisoners in their own AREA where they are open to kill and rape each other but not the general law abiding public.


My real stance on this though is somewhat in the middle. Maybe there should implants that monitor movements of criminals w/ repeated offenses. or transmission siganls to implement drug delivery that causes erectile dysfunction for rapists or tranquilizing drug doses for violent offenders.

There is already lots of reseach going on about implanting electronics in humans.

[angel nympho]

I don't support capital punishment... But there are some criminals out there who are just SICK... and in those cases, I don't care if they die. I just don't want to be the one out there supporting their death and pushing for it.

If somebody killed my child or something horrible like that, I'd tell them that they'd better HOPE the police caught them before I did. 'Cuz I'd kill 'em for sure.

I think it's a total double standard that the government allows us to kill criminals, but... yeah. You know? It's retarded. I've done many a debate on this stupid subject. But my main angle was saying that of a party supported euthenasia, they shouldn't be saying capital punishment is inhumane. They use the same needle.

[VV o n g B a]

well, given a case such as the virginia sniper, what are your feelings? i think the death penalty was made for people like this. they need to be destroyed. the situation may be much more grey for other cases, but i cannot agree with anybody who says these people have a right to exist on this earth after what they have done. lethal injection seems almost too good for them.

[wylin]

well i think that the death penalty is too humane they should just rot in the hell of prison till they die or lets create more accurate/ justifiable punishments like muslim countries.

- rape or child abuse - physical and chemical castration after 2nd offense. 1st offense gang rape other inmates (free love session)
- murder 1st degree - Iron maiden (casket w/ spikes) or burning at the stake
- Murder 2nd degree - drowning or castration and amputation of one or more limbs.
- assualt and battery - beaten until crippled or lame must loose one sensory organ of pairs; eye or ear
- money laundering - forced to eat metal money then given laxitive
- grand theft - amputation of hand or foot.

[artsfartsyjanet]

Oooh....tough topic. I don't support the death penalty, but I also believe it is the choice of the people who are victimized and/or the family of the victims. Yes, like all of you say, there are very sick people out there, and if I were raped, molested, almost killed by someone else's heinous act, I'd want that person to go to jail AND get treatment and re-educated about what they did. Of course, there's the mentally insane.... well in that case, I still wouldn't have the man/woman go through the death penalty. I do not have that kind of hate in me to do that. Of course, I'd be outraged and would think of a million ways to torture him, but I would never want the person go through the death penalty b/c to me... that's the equivalent of me stooping to his/her level.

And as for dealing with overcrowded correction units/jails, we the tax payers pay to sustain these criminals. There's no easy solution for this matter.... As easy as it is to say that we'd want all the criminals to live on one small island where they can hurt each other and "see how it feels" to be the victim, that's honestly not a realistic/feasible solution. Of course, I don't see it a justification to put people on death row either just so we don't have to pay any taxes.... Of course, this topic is really sensitive. I respect those people who defend the death penalty, and these people have very sound reasons to support it. This debate will never end, but just so you all know...this is what I think about the death penalty.

[sal612]

Well, everytime I think of this issue, I always relate back to Darwinism. It seems like we have a problem in the issue of ethics and justice.

I'm sure some people deserve death more than others (more being the operative word), but my ethical side also sides with against capital punishment. But hey, there's got to be a system of weeding out the people, as inhumane as that sounds, sometimes I feel like we try to be too pro-life or sympathetic. But then there are always circumstances that for certain people must require a great deal of sympathy.

[ChinaLama]

hmm i used to be very anti-death penalty, but recently i'm leaning towards the pro-side, at least in PRINCIPLE, because I really think it's just a matter of cold unemotional justice that someone should pay life for life.

But i guess the implementation is still so flawed i sometimes come back to being anti-DP. I would HATE to be injected w/ poison for someone else's crimes.

[sal612]

Yeah, and there is a statistic on a consistent percentage of people who are executed for a crime to be later discovered they were innocent. Kind of kills the whole system of justic doesn't it? <_<

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by sal612@Dec 3 2002, 03:28 PM
Yeah, and there is a statistic on a consistent percentage of people who are executed for a crime to be later discovered they were innocent. Kind of kills the whole system of justic doesn't it? <_<
if we had some reliable method of cryogenics or something, we could just freeze the criminals instead of killing them. If we had such technology cheaply available, I doubt I'd support the death penalty. Freezing a guy gets him out of society, unable to influence other prisoners, saves the expense of paying for his board and care, etc. Then we could just put all capital offenders in the freezer, and unfreeze them if we happen to find they're actually innocent. of course, then this becomes the basis for obvious Hollywood-type apocalyptic scenarios when there's an error in the cryogenics system and thousands of previously frozen serial killers wake up and start to terrorize society.

as for prisoners costing the state money: what ever happened to prison labor? make them work for their gruel.

[iris]

i think I saw that movie - Minority Report combined with that movie with Sty Stallone and Sandra Bullock yeah? :lol:

[sal612]

Well don't they make license plates? LoL...wait, that's way too hollywood. I'm sure they do things, but not quite what we all have in mind as productive enough to impact our lives.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Dec 3 2002, 08:04 AM

as for prisoners costing the state money: what ever happened to prison labor? make them work for their gruel.
Exactly. I hate all those stupid activists who whine about how we're exploiting prisoners for cheap labor and the fucking unions who hate that cuz it diminishes their cartel power. I say, their debt to society may be paid by the prison term itself, but their debt to upkeep isn't. :D

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Dec 3 2002, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Dec 3 2002, 08:04 AM

as for prisoners costing the state money: what ever happened to prison labor? make them work for their gruel.
Exactly. I hate all those stupid activists who whine about how we're exploiting prisoners for cheap labor and the fucking unions who hate that cuz it diminishes their cartel power. I say, their debt to society may be paid by the prison term itself, but their debt to upkeep isn't. :D
Prisoners have access to cable-tv. I still know everyday working and law abiding cats that can't afford cable!

As for the death penalty if it applies then fry.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Dec 3 2002, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Dec 3 2002, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Dec 3 2002, 08:04 AM

as for prisoners costing the state money: what ever happened to prison labor? make them work for their gruel.
Exactly. I hate all those stupid activists who whine about how we're exploiting prisoners for cheap labor and the fucking unions who hate that cuz it diminishes their cartel power. I say, their debt to society may be paid by the prison term itself, but their debt to upkeep isn't. :D
Prisoners have access to cable-tv. I still know everyday working and law abiding cats that can't afford cable!

As for the death penalty if it applies then fry.
that's why they can't be TOO law-abiding and gotta get a blackbox. :D

[thaite]

I'm for it.

Justice is letting the punishment fit the crime. Society is crafted on very fragile fabric: cknowledgement that people are sovereign individuals with basic rights. The acceptance of one's own rights is the responsibility and acceptance of those same rights for other people as well. Murder is the greatest social taboo because it is a rejection of the most basic sovereign right -- that to live.

Execution is government- and public-sanctioned judgement that serves three ends: removal, punishment and deterrment. A person who rejects another's right to live is a danger to others and must be removed from society, his punishment must fit the crime in neither a cruel or unusual way, execution must serve the purpose as an example of how dangerous individuals who cannot accept basic rights and responsibility will be dealt with.

[mike4bmp]

Originally posted by buoywonder@Dec 3 2002, 07:36 PM


A person who rejects another's right to live is a danger to others and must be removed from society
Whether or not hardened criminals reject other peoples' right to live.....Society in itself has a lot of responsibility in how those who reject those rights are formed.
These murderers and criminals are a byproduct of how society and the people within in it deal with each other.
People in general are cruel and mean to each other....This is fueled by the competition that is created by class antagonism....(sorry to use a Marxist phrase)....This in turn causes strife in the home, at work and mostly at public schools.....
I believe most criminals are psychologically conditioned to be the way that they are.....We are all at fault!
For thinking one person better than the other....For creating and joining cliques that only certain people would be welcome to join....Whose got the looks?....Whose got the brains?....Whose got the money?....Whose the most socially adept individuals?....
If you are none of the above then you aren't jack!
I think when a lot of people get this message early on in development....it is a good medium for producing the "monsters" of society that we don't want to deal with civily but rather would "remove" them through execution.

Hhmmph! :angry: I believe we are all responsible as a society for the deaths of those caused by criminals.....
So shall we all fry?

[kitty]

What was the point of capital punishment in the first place? To scare people into not committing horrible crimes? Doesn't seem like it's working... America has one of the highest rates of gun murders in the world, and is filled with seriously sick people.

The problem is that most of the people on death row are black, and not because blacks commit the most horrific crimes, but because it's easier for a jury to decide to commit a black person to death than a white person. The day we get rid of institutional racism is the day when someone could argue that the death penalty is fair.

But until everyone gets the same punishment for a given crime, we can't say that the death penalty is working.

Besides, what are we saying if we say "killing is wrong........

... 'cept for when we do it"

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by mike4bmp@Dec 3 2002, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by buoywonder@Dec 3 2002, 07:36 PM


A person who rejects another's right to live is a danger to others and must be removed from society
Whether or not hardened criminals reject other peoples' right to live.....Society in itself has a lot of responsibility in how those who reject those rights are formed.
These murderers and criminals are a byproduct of how society and the people within in it deal with each other.
People in general are cruel and mean to each other....This is fueled by the competition that is created by class antagonism....(sorry to use a Marxist phrase)....This in turn causes strife in the home, at work and mostly at public schools.....
I believe most criminals are psychologically conditioned to be the way that they are.....We are all at fault!
For thinking one person better than the other....For creating and joining cliques that only certain people would be welcome to join....Whose got the looks?....Whose got the brains?....Whose got the money?....Whose the most socially adept individuals?....
If you are none of the above then you aren't jack!
I think when a lot of people get this message early on in development....it is a good medium for producing the "monsters" of society that we don't want to deal with civily but rather would "remove" them through execution.

Hhmmph! :angry: I believe we are all responsible as a society for the deaths of those caused by criminals.....
So shall we all fry?
Hmm well that depends on whether or not you believe in individual responsibility. Regardless of whether society had a hand in creating "monsters," I believe at least MOST people have enough free will to be able to make a decision of whether to kill or not.

And I believe life is so precious-- because I DON'T believe in an eternal soul and therefore only believe in one life-- that the only way for justice to be served, MAY be to take the life of someone who took another life, intentionally. Of course an accident is a different matter-- but any taking of life should have some serious social consequences.

But I haven't really thought things through, so i'm not necessarily pro-death penalty. In fact, I think its imperfect implementation alone is enough reason not to have it.

[igcognito]

This is how I honestly look at it. The problem with America are it's ethics. We have the highest jailed:free ratio than any country. Now these country practice, "unethical" punishments also. Like Arab countries, removing of the hand for steal. Less people steal in these countries. I honestly think that if you kill someone, premeditated, your life deserves to be taken. This is coming from a kid, whose uncle is in jail. I know it may seem inhumane. But we honestly have to suffer to babysit murderers. Our taxes go up as we store away more criminals. It is unfair to the American people. Then those who are in jail for other reasons, need rehibilitation rather than seclusion. I am for capital punishment, for PREMEDIATATED MURDERS.

[wylin]

Originally posted by mike4bmp@Dec 3 2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by buoywonder@Dec 3 2002, 07:36 PM


A person who rejects another's right to live is a danger to others and must be removed from society
Whether or not hardened criminals reject other peoples' right to live.....Society in itself has a lot of responsibility in how those who reject those rights are formed.
These murderers and criminals are a byproduct of how society and the people within in it deal with each other.
People in general are cruel and mean to each other....This is fueled by the competition that is created by class antagonism....(sorry to use a Marxist phrase)....This in turn causes strife in the home, at work and mostly at public schools.....
I believe most criminals are psychologically conditioned to be the way that they are.....We are all at fault!
For thinking one person better than the other....For creating and joining cliques that only certain people would be welcome to join....Whose got the looks?....Whose got the brains?....Whose got the money?....Whose the most socially adept individuals?....
If you are none of the above then you aren't jack!
I think when a lot of people get this message early on in development....it is a good medium for producing the "monsters" of society that we don't want to deal with civily but rather would "remove" them through execution.

Hhmmph! :angry: I believe we are all responsible as a society for the deaths of those caused by criminals.....
So shall we all fry?
yep like a bad dog that needs to be put down society has a resposibility to put down its rabid dogs and take out the trash. punishment has gotten too pacifist it should be our responsibility to put down rabid animals like killers and make it so that they have 1 single chance at appeal and if thats used up their dead. who cares if they were innocent no ones innocent and we're all sinners... the wages of sin is death. bam.

bring back the firing squad.

[thaite]

Whether or not hardened criminals reject other peoples' right to live.....Society in itself has a lot of responsibility in how those who reject those rights are formed.

I'll agree that society creates certain conditions and influences where criminal mentality can be developed. I disagree that somehow those conditions absolves people of their actions, as you seem to believe.

These murderers and criminals are a byproduct of how society and the people within in it deal with each other.
People in general are cruel and mean to each other....This is fueled by the competition that is created by class antagonism....(sorry to use a Marxist phrase)....This in turn causes strife in the home, at work and mostly at public schools.....

Okay, either criminals are a byproduct, or "People in general are cruel and mean to each other" Now which is it? Criminal activity is caused by class disparity? Prove it.

I'll match your Marxism: The state of nature is the state of war. - Hobbes.

I believe most criminals are psychologically conditioned to be the way that they are.....We are all at fault!

You may be, but I'm not. I never caused anybody to hurt anyone, and I'll be damned if I take the rap for it.

For thinking one person better than the other....For creating and joining cliques that only certain people would be welcome to join....Whose got the looks?....Whose got the brains?....Whose got the money?....Whose the most socially adept individuals?....
If you are none of the above then you aren't jack!

I think when a lot of people get this message early on in development....it is a good medium for producing the "monsters" of society that we don't want to deal with civily but rather would "remove" them through execution.

Not sure what you're saying here. Class disparity is not a crime in itself, nor do I think it produces 'monsters' though I'd agree that it produces quite a few jerks in this world.

Hhmmph! :angry: &nbsp;I believe we are all responsible as a society for the deaths of those caused by criminals.....
So shall we all fry?

Nope, not me. I ain't Jesus Christ. But if you want to take the responsibility for criminals, be my guest.

[loserbutt]

I'm for it, if just for the revenge factor.

granted it should be looked at more carefully to keep wrongful convictions from happening.

but the flexibility should still be there to apply the death penalty for nutcases like

John Muhammed
John Gacy
Tim McVeigh
Jeffrey Dahmer

and other mass-murdering psychopaths

[angel nympho]

You know what really scares me? Most sociopathic crazy psycho mass murder people are really really really charismatic. I think after talking to one of them, I'd feel bad giving them the death penalty. It's so easy for us to support it, because to us, they're not real people. They're just names.

[Hanuman]

Originally posted by iris@Dec 3 2002, 03:12 AM
i think I saw that movie - Minority Report combined with that movie with Sty Stallone and Sandra Bullock yeah? :lol:
I think that movie was Demolition Man. Sandra Bullock looked good in that movie, but Sly couldn't get anything more then a little futuristic cyber sex off a her.

I once read somewhere that it actually costs more to put an inmate on death row then to incarcerate them for life. It has to do with all the appeals and and trials they go through, get's pretty costly...

[wylin]

exact we should have expidited killing where they take them out back and just hang or give them the firing squad. i rather see nutjobs die right there then even be given a chance for apeal.

[mike4bmp]

Originally posted by buoywonder@Dec 4 2002, 12:02 AM


Okay, either criminals are a byproduct, or "People in general are cruel and mean to each other" Now which is it? Criminal activity is caused by class disparity? Prove it.

I'll match your Marxism: The state of nature is the state of war. - Hobbes.




I don't think there is a contradiction between people being mean and cruel and criminals being the by-product of society's short-comings. ?? :huh:

Also....notice: I APOLOGIZED for using a phrase from Marx because I did not want to come off like an arrogant pseudo-literati snob.....so in other words, I did not intend to start an intellectual repartee with you...so just chill... the truth is, though I enjoy reading philosophies myself, I'm probably not as well read as you are. More power to you.....but if you are trying to blow me out of the water. Good job homie....because I do feel pretty crunchy now.....

Don't let the philosophies of other "MEN" get to your head....because it is just a bunch of male intellectual posturing and mental masturbation.... <_<

Apologies to YW admin but I have to defend myself...and it was not my intent to personally attack anyone.....
Please accept my apologies! :frown:
Peace!

[kitty]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Dec 4 2002, 06:14 AM
You know what really scares me? Most sociopathic crazy psycho mass murder people are really really really charismatic. I think after talking to one of them, I'd feel bad giving them the death penalty. It's so easy for us to support it, because to us, they're not real people. They're just names.
Angel, I think you put that really well. It's so true, for hunting, for death penalty, etc... criminals are dehumanized because that makes it easier for us to think up all sorts of cruel and unusual punishments for them and hope they burn. We were all encouraged to not think about WHY osama bin laden might have reasoned it necessary to attack America and kill innocents, so that we can't imagine him to be anything more than an evil, murderous demon.

It's economically better for America to have capital punishment -- it's cheaper than keeping them in jail. But the truth of it is that it doesn't solve anything. It doesn't prevent crime, innocents are sometimes killed because of an unfair and racist justice system, and all it does is ule the bloodthirsty nature of Americans. Kill Tim McVeigh or put him in jail for the rest of his life? Either way he doesn't do it again... so why support the death penalty?

[wylin]

for vengence the agony of death and know hez gonna be killed makes you feel good! period.

if sumone killed my mama or brother i'd want them dead. period i dont give a fuck bout their civil rights cuz they took away sumone dear to me's. unless it was war of course then u have to realize they have lost their mothers, fathers and brothers. but in times of peace killers and rapists should be put to death as a deterant. 3 strikes and ur dead would be a good deterant.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Revenge is not a good reason IMHO. It's not some pussy excuse, it pretty much solves nothing. Also, most people would say that spending a lifetime in prison next to large hairy people who are itching at every single opportunity to pack your back door in the shower room is worse than something like lethal injection.

____________

If you drop the soap, just come to terms that you're gonna go to bed unclean that day unless you want to also go to bed more of a man.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

P.S. NOT speaking out of personal experience ^^

[wylin]

guess u never had a friend shot or killed before then, if u havent u cant really speak about it.

[ChinaLama]

i don't think DP should be a matter of revenge. It should be a matter os justice-- even if everyone has "forgiven" the murderer, based purely on the fact that he took a life, he deserves to die. Law and punishment is not based on people's personal feelings, but on an "objective" (by which i just mean, outside of any individual) standard.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Wylin:

Uh ok. Sure ^^ It doesn't matter really since I feel that revenge is a piss-poor motive period. Since your motivation happens to lie primarily in getting someone back because you feel saddened and pissed (rather than keeping the guy from killing or butchering anybody else), it's kinda tough to take you seriously.

P.S. If I truly wanted to get back at you for decapitating one of my family members, nevertheless I'd still choose life in prison for your sorry ass because your starfish will be 10 times bigger by the time you croak.

[wylin]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Dec 4 2002, 12:56 PM
Wylin:

Uh ok. &nbsp;Sure ^^ &nbsp;It doesn't matter really since I feel that revenge is a piss-poor motive period. &nbsp;Since your motivation happens to lie primarily in getting someone back because you feel saddened and pissed (rather than keeping the guy from killing or butchering anybody else), it's kinda tough to take you seriously.

P.S. If I truly wanted to get back at you for decapitating one of my family members, nevertheless I'd still choose life in prison for your sorry ass because your starfish will be 10 times bigger by the time you croak.

no personal attacks dip shit! really unless sumone has experienced a friend being murdered or a family member being murdered they cant really understand kinda like the gun topic. but more serious unless sumone has had a life taken from them they wont understand. when i was bout 19 a friend of mine got murdered....over sum drug stuff. pretty sad. for what his in ability to control his addiction and pay for goods sumone poped him dude and it was messy and premeditated. people like that should be shot on de spot.

[wylin]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Dec 4 2002, 11:29 AM
Revenge is not a good reason IMHO. It's not some pussy excuse, it pretty much solves nothing. Also, most people would say that spending a lifetime in prison next to large hairy people who are itching at every single opportunity to pack your back door in the shower room is worse than something like lethal injection.

____________

If you drop the soap, just come to terms that you're gonna go to bed unclean that day unless you want to also go to bed more of a man.
also making light of rape is sad how bout women? so is their rape ok if they were a bad person so if a woman commited a murder should she be gang raped by prison guards (which does happen) and sexually abused?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Since when did I personally attack you, fellow dipshit? Maybe some of that so-called 'Korean inferiority' complex that you love to preach rubbed off a bit on you eh? Or maybe Taiwanese were just born with it from the start. :lol: Don't be so sensitive, as you so like to tell other people. Oh no, please don't ban me, oh powerful moderator you, now that I've committed the cardinal sin of personally attacking the moderator of the auto forum.

Most of your posts are either very or subtly condescending. The least you can do is try to make up for it by 'acting' respectful instead of revealing yourself for the true shithead you are. :)

[wylin]

the joys of children, u win some and u loose sum dim sum!

[wylin]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Dec 4 2002, 01:15 PM
Since when did I personally attack you, fellow dipshit? Maybe some of that so-called 'Korean inferiority' complex that you love to preach rubbed off a bit on you eh? Or maybe Taiwanese were just born with it from the start. :lol: Oh no, please don't ban me, oh powerful moderator you, now that I've committed the cardinal sin of personally attacking the moderator of the auto forum.
thats ok i dont live my life by attacking people and challenging authority behind a computer. small minded acts for small minded people.

right mr. personal attacking dipshit. right! :lol:

[wylin]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Dec 4 2002, 01:15 PM
Since when did I personally attack you, fellow dipshit? &nbsp;Maybe some of that so-called 'Korean inferiority' complex that you love to preach rubbed off a bit on you eh? &nbsp;Or maybe Taiwanese were just born with it from the start. &nbsp;:lol: &nbsp; Don't be so sensitive, as you so like to tell other people. &nbsp;Oh no, please don't ban me, oh powerful moderator you, now that I've committed the cardinal sin of personally attacking the moderator of the auto forum.

Most of your posts are either very or subtly condescending. &nbsp;The least you can do is try to make up for it by 'acting' respectful instead of revealing yourself for the true shithead you are. &nbsp;:)

dude no point to make stupid shit on the board child. period. u got beef go like play w/ ur self or sumthing nehows off to meeting.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Challenging authority? Don't overestimate your significance. I'm some punk behind a computer so what does that say about someone who gets riled up because of what this punk wrote?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Of course there is a point to trash talking on a board. It's to annoy and make life difficult for turds such as yourself. I'm sorry, I retract the ethnic jokes. I don't want to receive disciplinary action *shudder* :D

It sucks that you are leaving for a meeting. I was thinking about playing with myself but then I remembered my friend telling me about what great hands those Formosa peeps have. Sure could help me out a bit. :lol:

[deez nuts]

Wow getting raw up in herre!

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Dec 4 2002, 07:17 PM
Angel, I think you put that really well. It's so true, for hunting, for death penalty, etc... criminals are dehumanized because that makes it easier for us to think up all sorts of cruel and unusual punishments for them and hope they burn. We were all encouraged to not think about WHY osama bin laden might have reasoned it necessary to attack America and kill innocents, so that we can't imagine him to be anything more than an evil, murderous demon.

It's economically better for America to have capital punishment -- it's cheaper than keeping them in jail. But the truth of it is that it doesn't solve anything. It doesn't prevent crime, innocents are sometimes killed because of an unfair and racist justice system, and all it does is ule the bloodthirsty nature of Americans. Kill Tim McVeigh or put him in jail for the rest of his life? Either way he doesn't do it again... so why support the death penalty?
actually, on average the court costs for appeals is more costly than keeping the guy in jail for life. so economics is not a good reason to keep the death penalty.

here's a possible new use for death row inmates: medical test subjects. the subjects may avoid death once all appeals have been turned down if he/she "volunteers" for a life of testing new medicine. their life is forfeit anyways right? why not let them contribute to society? the only problem is conflict of interest where drug companies will want more death penalty convictions to increase their test base. B)

[thaite]

Originally posted by mike4bmp@Dec 4 2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by buoywonder@Dec 4 2002, 12:02 AM


Okay, either criminals are a byproduct, or "People in general are cruel and mean to each other" Now which is it? Criminal activity is caused by class disparity? Prove it.

I'll match your Marxism: The state of nature is the state of war. &nbsp;- Hobbes.




I don't think there is a contradiction between people being mean and cruel and criminals being the by-product of society's short-comings. ?? :huh:

Also....notice: I APOLOGIZED for using a phrase from Marx because I did not want to come off like an arrogant pseudo-literati snob.....so in other words, I did not intend to start an intellectual repartee with you...so just chill... the truth is, though I enjoy reading philosophies myself, I'm probably not as well read as you are. More power to you.....but if you are trying to blow me out of the water. Good job homie....because I do feel pretty crunchy now.....

Don't let the philosophies of other "MEN" get to your head....because it is just a bunch of male intellectual posturing and mental masturbation.... <_<

Apologies to YW admin but I have to defend myself...and it was not my intent to personally attack anyone.....
Please accept my apologies! :frown:
Peace!
No apologies needed, man, we're having a civil debate. No one's (at least between you and me) has attacked anybody.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me if you wanna refer to an outside philosophy to back your argument, just don't do it half-ass. Philosophy is not just posturing and mental masturbattion -- get out of the theory classes and study it's application in political science and economics and you'll see that it is truly at play.

Marx believes that people are inherently good and that criminal activity is the result of class disparity and uneven distribution of wealth -- eliminate both and you can eliminate crime and criminals.

Hobbes believes that people are inherently self-centered -- that is they seek that which is beneficial to themselves -- and in that pursuit compete (see, the state of 'war') for limited resources. Society is a construct of rules and boundaries by which people may pursue their self-centeredness. Some go outside those bounds. The society did not create the criminal, the criminal is driven by self-interest.

[igcognito]

Originally posted by wylin@Dec 4 2002, 07:22 PM
for vengence the agony of death and know hez gonna be killed makes you feel good! period.

if sumone killed my mama or brother i'd want them dead. period i dont give a fuck bout their civil rights cuz they took away sumone dear to me's. unless it was war of course then u have to realize they have lost their mothers, fathers and brothers. but in times of peace killers and rapists should be put to death as a deterant. 3 strikes and ur dead would be a good deterant.
Even though it was at tad "dickish" how he put it. Sometimes, you just need to be "evil". All the other countries who preform "cruel and unusual punishment" well, they don't have nearly as many crimes committed. I think, that sometimes, you give up your humanity once you take another life. Hell, some jails like Idaho for example. Have prison that are better than some Americans, homes. Is something wrong with that, or is it just me? I love people, like I said many of times. This may sound, odd, but I think I love people enough to be willing to take extreme measures for safety. Honestly, would you feel comfortable, riding a bus with a man you knew killed someone. That is all you know is that he is a felon and that he was let out.

[mike4bmp]

Originally posted by buoywonder@Dec 4 2002, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by mike4bmp@Dec 4 2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by buoywonder@Dec 4 2002, 12:02 AM


Okay, either criminals are a byproduct, or "People in general are cruel and mean to each other" Now which is it? Criminal activity is caused by class disparity? Prove it.

I'll match your Marxism: The state of nature is the state of war. - Hobbes.




I don't think there is a contradiction between people being mean and cruel and criminals being the by-product of society's short-comings. ?? :huh:

Also....notice: I APOLOGIZED for using a phrase from Marx because I did not want to come off like an arrogant pseudo-literati snob.....so in other words, I did not intend to start an intellectual repartee with you...so just chill... the truth is, though I enjoy reading philosophies myself, I'm probably not as well read as you are. More power to you.....but if you are trying to blow me out of the water. Good job homie....because I do feel pretty crunchy now.....

Don't let the philosophies of other "MEN" get to your head....because it is just a bunch of male intellectual posturing and mental masturbation.... <_<

Apologies to YW admin but I have to defend myself...and it was not my intent to personally attack anyone.....
Please accept my apologies! :frown:
Peace!
No apologies needed, man, we're having a civil debate. No one's (at least between you and me) has attacked anybody.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me if you wanna refer to an outside philosophy to back your argument, just don't do it half-ass. Philosophy is not just posturing and mental masturbattion -- get out of the theory classes and study it's application in political science and economics and you'll see that it is truly at play.

Marx believes that people are inherently good and that criminal activity is the result of class disparity and uneven distribution of wealth -- eliminate both and you can eliminate crime and criminals.

Hobbes believes that people are inherently self-centered -- that is they seek that which is beneficial to themselves -- and in that pursuit compete (see, the state of 'war') for limited resources. Society is a construct of rules and boundaries by which people may pursue their self-centeredness. Some go outside those bounds. The society did not create the criminal, the criminal is driven by self-interest.
Great.....you have some great things to say! Thanks for letting me know that I am a half-assed person when it comes to philosophy. Real cool dude! Oh yeah....and sorry about dwelling in the "theory classes"......I guess I better get my head out of my four-point of contact....cause I guess it has been proven that I am spring chicken.....
Real cool guy!
Peace!

[ChinaLama]

re: FrozenPizza and wylin. Please be careful of what you post. If I see any more exchanges b/w you two that can be construed as hostile, I'll have to close the topic.

[ChairmanMah]

:lol: haha, this has all been quite entertaining.

[thaite]

Originally posted by mike4bmp@Dec 4 2002, 05:38 PM
Great.....you have some great things to say! Thanks for letting me know that I am a half-assed person when it comes to philosophy. Real cool dude! Oh yeah....and sorry about dwelling in the "theory classes"......I guess I better get my head out of my four-point of contact....cause I guess it has been proven that I am spring chicken.....
Real cool guy!
Peace!
Uhhh, okay man. Lemme know when you stop acting like a wounded bird and wanna debate the issue.

[kitty]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Dec 4 2002, 10:06 PM

actually, on average the court costs for appeals is more costly than keeping the guy in jail for life. so economics is not a good reason to keep the death penalty.

here's a possible new use for death row inmates: medical test subjects. the subjects may avoid death once all appeals have been turned down if he/she "volunteers" for a life of testing new medicine. their life is forfeit anyways right? why not let them contribute to society? the only problem is conflict of interest where drug companies will want more death penalty convictions to increase their test base. B)
I didn't know that... I always thought it was taxpayers whining about paying to let inmates watch cable TV for the rest of their lives...

Jail is some fucked up shit. Ass-fucking aside... (which is SO not the point of the evils of jail)... most inmates complain that even though it's practically like living in a dorm room, the fact that you don't have the freedom to leave is the horrible part. Even if you have everything you want, you don't have basic freedom, and that's crueler than anything like an injection of potassium chloride (the injection used to kill people, and which is relatively painless... I think it speeds up a heart to cause a heart failure).

Uhm... medical experiments? I think they outlawed that with the Nazis.

[Hanuman]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Dec 4 2002, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Dec 4 2002, 10:06 PM

actually, on average the court costs for appeals is more costly than keeping the guy in jail for life. &nbsp;so economics is not a good reason to keep the death penalty.

here's a possible new use for death row inmates: &nbsp;medical test subjects. &nbsp;the subjects may avoid death once all appeals have been turned down if he/she "volunteers" for a life of testing new medicine. &nbsp;their life is forfeit anyways right? &nbsp;why not let them contribute to society? &nbsp;the only problem is conflict of interest where drug companies will want more death penalty convictions to increase their test base. &nbsp; B)
I didn't know that... I always thought it was taxpayers whining about paying to let inmates watch cable TV for the rest of their lives...

Jail is some fucked up shit. Ass-fucking aside... (which is SO not the point of the evils of jail)... most inmates complain that even though it's practically like living in a dorm room, the fact that you don't have the freedom to leave is the horrible part. Even if you have everything you want, you don't have basic freedom, and that's crueler than anything like an injection of potassium chloride (the injection used to kill people, and which is relatively painless... I think it speeds up a heart to cause a heart failure).

Uhm... medical experiments? I think they outlawed that with the Nazis.
Sounds like that might get hung up as it may be seen as "cruel and unusual punishment".

Besides what if some of these medical experiments turn into like a mutant power giving genetic experiment. Then they can use their super powers to do more crime. :(

[wylin]

Originally posted by FrozenPizza@Dec 4 2002, 01:26 PM
Of course there is a point to trash talking on a board. It's to annoy and make life difficult for turds such as yourself. I'm sorry, I retract the ethnic jokes. I don't want to receive disciplinary action *shudder* :D

It sucks that you are leaving for a meeting. I was thinking about playing with myself but then I remembered my friend telling me about what great hands those Formosa peeps have. Sure could help me out a bit. :lol:
doesnt bug me i dont take these forums seriously ever. sorry theres more important stuff then dealing w/ children.

fight if u want flame and do whatever, childish rantings dont bug me. i'll just make a silly comment. no one wants to see fighting keep ur posts either silly or constructive and not attacking other members moment i see frozen pizza attack a non-moderator i'll delete or have sumone delete it. censorship rocks

[VV o n g B a]

Originally posted by Tawee@Dec 5 2002, 07:44 AM
Sounds like that might get hung up as it may be seen as "cruel and unusual punishment".

Besides what if some of these medical experiments turn into like a mutant power giving genetic experiment. Then they can use their super powers to do more crime. :(
well, thats why ppl would have to volunteer for the experiments. it might be cruel and unusual, but given a choice between death and something akin to life, some ppl would choose life. but i only mean experiments in that they would be the first to test out new cancer therapy drugs per say. nothing like the head grafting to another person's thigh kinda thing. and nothing that would enhance an inmate's life like muscle builders or something. just drugs that have been proven useful in animals for treating disease and need to be tested in humans one way or another. but whatever. its never gonna happen.

[ChinaLama]

Ok, guys, to stop any future hostility in this thread, I'm going to close it. If any of the other mods feel it should be kept open, please feel free to do so.

[kimpossible]

In Oregon alone in the past couple years we've had two family killers that ran after killing their wives (one pregnant) and their children. Then we had this real piece of work that kidnapped molested and stowed the bodies of two girls - made a real media show out of it, tried to make it as publicly dramatic as possible.

In tree-hugging peacenik Oregon, we do have a death penalty. And I'm happy about it because I want these guys dead. Well early birthday present for me, one of them just got the death penalty today. Teach him to kill his infant child, stuff her in a suit case and toss her in a river.

Here's some wonderful homocidal Oregonians for you. Bet our state tourism board doesn't include these in their ads.

Longo sentenced to death (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf?/news/0416longo.html)

Ward Weaver (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/27/oregon.girls.sloan.cnna/)

Edward Morris (http://advancement.sdsu.edu/marcomm/news/clips/Archive/Jan2003/011503/011503killer.html)


Here's my stance. I'm comfortable with a death penalty. I want the above three guys dead. No sentence, no chance for parole, don't want to hear about their abusive childhoods, just dead. Yet I'm against cases like the one Mexico where the 'witch' casting spells was stoned to death.

In addition, I'm concerned that an uneven ratio of minority males seem to get the death penalty. Specifically thinking of Texas but I really don't have any solid information or understanding about this. Only what I may have watched on a news show like 20/20.

[ChinaLama]

i'm pretty sure we have a dp thread but i'm too lazy to do my job and dig for it. :)

anyway i'm kind of undecided on the death penalty. i think its imperfect implementation makes me against it. But in principle, I sort of believe in life for life cuz we only get one life, and there's nothing worse than taking it away.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Apr 16 2003, 04:29 PM
i'm pretty sure we have a dp thread but i'm too lazy to do my job and dig for it. :)

i know lama, i'm sorry about that. i got lazy too. my bad.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Apr 16 2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Apr 16 2003, 04:29 PM
i'm pretty sure we have a dp thread but i'm too lazy to do my job and dig for it. :)

i know lama, i'm sorry about that. i got lazy too. my bad.
sure, leave it to the mafia to do the dirty work, wouldn't want the mods to get their noble hands dirty :P
http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?ac...l=death+penalty (http://forums.yellowworld.org/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3946&hl=death+penalty)

[ChinaLama]

Thanks to Eric for finding the old topic and anonymous mod or admin for merging it. Since HH seems to want to start a new discussion, I'm reopening the topic. A lot of newbies have come in since we last talked about capital punishment; perhaps they'd like to offer their view.

[Tao]

hell i'm all for the death penalty. in those cases where you have serial rapists or just plain sick bastards going around commiting crimes for the fun of it, i say shoot'em in the head. The death penalty is probably one of the few issues I support Bush on. Hell, if our country treated convicted criminals the way that they do in china, there'd be a lot less crime going around. Don't get me wrong, i don't support the death penalty for petty crimes, only for murder and rapes, which I believe should be punished severly. I'm tired of supporting child molesters, rapists, people who kill others based solely on race (ie. Vincent Chin) with my taxes. You shoot one of these son's of bitches in the head, and show a recording of it to at-risk teens and other career criminals, and you'll see results fast.

[Emperor_Mike]

I'm an advocate of the death penalty. I'm also an ardent supporter of heavier penalties for petty crimes and the abolishment of the Young Offenders Act in Canada (and its cousins in other countries.) If a person is stupid enough or audacious enough to commit a crime, no matter how serious or minor, he or she should face consequences that bring the full weight of the law. Incarceration is much too costly for major criminals like murderers, serial rapists, etc. when you consider the fact that these things happen at such a disturbing rate that our prisons will soon be filled to brim. Instead of paying what basically accounts to a "maintenance fee" for society's miscreants and degenerates, we should do away with them (via humane methods of course.)

Or, if we're all squeamish about killing, we can ship all of them off somewhere as cheap labour in an agricultural or industrial capacity with no chance of being reintroduced to society. We'll still pay for their food and such, but at least everyone will get something out of it in terms of food, products, and the like. This may seem similar to what some prisons are doing now, but perhaps this could be done in a much larger scale?

[Tao]

in china death row inmates were required to buy their own bullets. i dunno if they still do that now, but frankly i find the idea to be very poetic. ....ironic to say the least.

[AngryABCGirl]

I support capital punishment some people just seriously deserve to die. Like HH's example is just sick. The worse thing you can do to a living being is put it out of its existence. If you've ever known anyone whose been raped and assaulted, or murdered, forgiveness is the last thing that will ever come out of your heart.

[Uncle Tat]

I think any liberals against the Death Penalty should have one of their family members raped, tortured, then murdered.

Then let's see what they have to say about the Death Penalty.

Until then, diehard liberals who say "the Death Penalty is so wrong because it's wrong to take another human being's life" should SHUT THE F*** UP because they don't know what they're talking about.

[Uncle Tat]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Dec 4 2002, 11:52 PM

I didn't know that... I always thought it was taxpayers whining about paying to let inmates watch cable TV for the rest of their lives...

Jail is some fucked up shit. Ass-fucking aside... (which is SO not the point of the evils of jail)... most inmates complain that even though it's practically like living in a dorm room, the fact that you don't have the freedom to leave is the horrible part. Even if you have everything you want, you don't have basic freedom, and that's crueler than anything like an injection of potassium chloride (the injection used to kill people, and which is relatively painless... I think it speeds up a heart to cause a heart failure).

Uhm... medical experiments? I think they outlawed that with the Nazis.[/quote]
And them stabbing, shooting, raping their victims are somehow less cruel because...?

People who do that sort of stuff aren't even humans anymore. They don't deserve freedom. They don't deserve life.

[ChinaLama]

come on uncle tat, we all know you're a mass-murderer in training, and the only reason you're not against the death penalty is cuz you expect to be shot down by the cops.

[Elizabeth A.]

All the ethical and moral issues aside, the death penalty is damn expensive. You think keeping someone in prison is a waste of your tax money? Execution is far more expensive because of all the appeals cases. We're talking millions and millions of dollars here. And who's paying for it? Not the criminal. The taxpayer.

Oh, and a random fact: the three countries with the most executions last year were China, Iran, and........the United States of America.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Elizabeth A.@Apr 17 2003, 06:30 AM
All the ethical and moral issues aside, the death penalty is damn expensive. You think keeping someone in prison is a waste of your tax money? Execution is far more expensive because of all the appeals cases.
Which is why some of the people here at YW are saying to do it more along the lines of the Chinese system. No appeals and you pay for the bullet. My husband is a big advocate of this and he's for the most part rather leftist.

Anyhow, I thought of a counter argument to my pro-death penalty argument. Using Taiwan as an example, sometimes the death penalty can increase the severity or occurence of violent crimes. They've used the death penalty so freely that the punishment for rape is the same as murder, so the likelihood of rape-murders has gone up. If the punishment is ultimate and the same for rape as it is murder, why leave a witness? Just to clarify I don't know the specifics of the law or death penalty, merely what I've heard in conversation and maybe some new articles online.

But my point is the same. Overuse of the death penalty could be counterproductive. That's an excellent point about the appeals process too. Not so much the cost but it's a hell of a mistake to make if the defendant is not truly guilty.

[Elizabeth A.]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Apr 17 2003, 10:45 AM
Which is why some of the people here at YW are saying to do it more along the lines of the Chinese system. No appeals and you pay for the bullet.
China isn't exactly known for its immaculate human rights record. Should we really be following their example on this?

We're talking about human lives here, and human faults on all sides. The fact remains that there is always the chance that an innocent party may be convicted. And without appeals cases, the likelihood that an innocent person may be executed increases. Chalk it up to my Christian leftist bleeding-heart mindset, but I cannot live with that. And I cannot accept a criminal justice system based on primal feelings of vengeance. Don't give me the "What would you do if your loved one was killed" argument. You know what, if someone killed my mother, I probably would want him to fry. But the system of law and order is not simply an institution of vengeance. It is there to, well, maintain law and order. And how do you do this? Imprisoning people who have been found guilty of a crime. Killing them all and letting God sort them out is not justice to me.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Elizabeth A.@Apr 17 2003, 09:10 AM
China isn't exactly known for its immaculate human rights record. Should we really be following their example on this?


No, China doesn't have a good human rights records but in reality it's not that much worse than the US human rights record in many ways. This is most likely birthed from my US-China foreign policy classes rather than absorbing points of view from Chinese since I mostly know anti-mainland Taiwanese, but the US does a fantastic job of concentrating on the human rights violations of China while turning a blind eye to its own. There's some translated phrase regarding the US' focus on China's human rights record, let's see how badly I can mangle it.

The US keeps two eyes open on China, one eye open to the rest of the world, and both eyes closed to itself. ((Wouldn't that be like 5 eyes?))

Save this post Lama, I'm actually defending China.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Apr 17 2003, 09:47 AM
No, China doesn't have a good human rights records but in reality it's not that much worse than the US human rights record in many ways.
I'm far from a defender of the U.S. and their record on human rights...

...but comparing it to China? I dunno about that. Throw us some more meat on what you're talking about.

[kimpossible]

Well I'm going crazy from lunch hunger right now but if I'm going by subject matter from class... prison labor, death penalty, biggest jailor, police brutality. I think those were the biggies.

[Emperor_Mike]

The Courts of Appellate need to be streamlined in order to reduce the cost for capital punishment, I think. At this juncture we have too many people trying to appeal decisions that are (most of the time) entirely "fair." China's system is perhaps a bit...draconian...but a compromise should be reachable if new procedures are created to ensure that appeals can only be made when the outcome of the case or cases in question were established by way of ambiguous evidence. Certainly this will require a lot of work in itself because of the very nature of the evidence lifecycle and the fact that exculpatory/inculpatory bits are disturbing common due to shoddy investigation work or just plain malice and discrimination.

[kitty]

Originally posted by Uncle Tat@Apr 17 2003, 01:59 PM

I didn't know that... I always thought it was taxpayers whining about paying to let inmates watch cable TV for the rest of their lives...

Jail is some fucked up shit. Ass-fucking aside... (which is SO not the point of the evils of jail)... most inmates complain that even though it's practically like living in a dorm room, the fact that you don't have the freedom to leave is the horrible part. Even if you have everything you want, you don't have basic freedom, and that's crueler than anything like an injection of potassium chloride (the injection used to kill people, and which is relatively painless... I think it speeds up a heart to cause a heart failure).

Uhm... medical experiments? I think they outlawed that with the Nazis.
And them stabbing, shooting, raping their victims are somehow less cruel because...?

People who do that sort of stuff aren't even humans anymore. They don't deserve freedom. They don't deserve life.[/quote]
Wow...whendid this thread get dug up?

Tat, not really following your logic. My basic point is that jail is evil and may even be crueler than killing the inmate. Not to mention Elizabeth's point that it is expensive and studies showing that it doesn't prevent crime.

I see that stabbing, rapping, etc is cruel but that doesn't really answer to what I'm trying to say (see above).

And I really don't think having a member of my family murdered is going to change my mind on this. I don't believe in killing as an answer to killing. I'm sorry, it seens way hypocritical to me.

[kitty]

And without appeals cases, the likelihood that an innocent person may be executed increases.

...and it's not like innocent people aren't being executed now.

[angelwiththesword]

like the stone at the center of town says: an eye for an eye

[Kuchana]

Who in here is for it and who is not? And why?

[Tao]

off with their heads!

because i believe in the whole eye for an eye deal.....it leaves everyone blind, but hey it's fair.

[Banana]

No.

1.) It's based more on revenge than justice.

2.) People of color receive harsher penalties on average than whites.

3.) We're killing someone instead of giving the guilty a chance to rehabilitate.

4.) Multiple appeals from a death sentence ties the court system.

5.) It's state sanctioned murder.

[bluemonq]

No, because
(a) You can't undo an execution if they're later found innocent

and...
No.

1.) It's based more on revenge than justice.
[snip]


(b) If you want revenge, "thur ar oder, more persuasive veys uv revenge, yeess?"

[Tao]

No.

1.) It's based more on revenge than justice.
well yeah, but revenge is so sweet though :tongue:

2.) People of color receive harsher penalties on average than whites.
hmm...not familiar with that

3.) We're killing someone instead of giving the guilty a chance to rehabilitate.
yep, because there's plenty of lives to spare, spending the money to heal one is a ton more work than i'd be willing to spend

4.) Multiple appeals from a death sentence ties the court system.
that's why i want reforms in the justice system....texas is a good example.

5.) It's state sanctioned murder.
i don't see what's wrong with that idea

most of the people on death row deserve to be there to begin with. a lot of them have serious problems that realistically you can't rehabilitate them.
i would also add that anyone who is a serial rapist should be given the death penalty. Just my views, feel free to disagree.

[ChinaLama]

merged w/ an old DP thread.

[teaz0r]

merged w/ an old DP thread.
i thought of double penetration.

[teaz0r]

i'm for it. i like the single shot to head while blindfolded thing.

[mr. x]

i'm for it. i like the single shot to head while blindfolded thing.

ami's gonna scold me for this but...

it works for sex too!

[AngryABCGirl]

I support it in principle, but too many flaws in our legal system to carry it out.

[kasia]

just to throw this in the equation -

criminological studies have shown that the death penalty has little to no deterrent effect. the only people actually turned away from killing *as a result* of the death penalty are people who wouldn't have committed murder to begin with.

also - think about how long it takes for a sentence of death to be carried out - if at all. typically years after the crime took place. which means - after society has long fogotten about the crime. it's not like americans have long attention spans.

don't forget - most murders are assaults gone wrong. throw in felony-murders into the mix and things become even more complicated.

finally, the death penalty is not cost effective. it costs more money to put a person on death row than it is to keep him in prison for life.

so these are just some things to think about before saying that we are in favor of the death penalty.


and as for 'eye for an eye' - no other crime is punished in accordance with that theory. why should murder be an exception?

[ChinaLama]

i thought of double penetration.

oh there's plenty of that,too, on death row, i'm sure.

[bluemonq]

criminological studies have shown that the death penalty has little to no deterrent effect.
this goes under the why'd-they-even-need-to-spend-the-money category
with historical precedence
a)jurisdictions institute death penalty
b)murder rate stays fairly constant, even after adjusted for population and other related factors
c)ergo, death penalty does not deter murder


finally, the death penalty is not cost effective. it costs more money to put a person on death row than it is to keep him in prison for life.
never heard of this before, but it makes sense, what with all the extra security and stuff, plus legal fees (heh) from all the legal appeals


and as for 'eye for an eye' - no other crime is punished in accordance with that theory. why should murder be an exception?
hmm...it would be sort of intersting (in an academic way) if other crimes were punished 'eye for an eye'. any ideas how the following would be punished? :confused:

-burglary
-voyeurism
-embezzlement (spelling?)
-any others?

[mr. x]

what pisses me off about the death penalty is that it takes so many damn years just to kill a measly inmate. all those appeals and stuff. i know its necessary in some cases but to me it just turns what fear the dp could generate into a joke.

[Kuchana]

Hhmmph! :angry: I believe we are all responsible as a society for the deaths of those caused by criminals.....
So shall we all fry?

I think that's going overboard since you're generalizing everything and blaming everyone for innocent victims being murdered.

I'm all for it. I see it primarily moreso as justice accomplished instead of revenge.

[Martino]

I think that's going overboard since you're generalizing everything and blaming everyone for innocent victims being murdered.

I'm all for it. I see it primarily moreso as justice accomplished instead of revenge.

Hmm ... who should actually carry out sentence? Do you think there should be any exceptions?

[>:^|]

I am not for the death penalty
Because it seems unfair to me
Black, red and brown
Are the ones who get put down
Another example of race inequality.

[kasia]

I am not for the death penalty
Because it seems unfair to me
Black, red and brown
Are the ones who get put down
Another example of race inequality.

is that the only reason? would you be otherwise for it?

[>:^|]

Well, essentially I believe in reform
Although recidivism is the norm.
And prosecutors make mistakes
And some folks never catch breaks
All in all, it's a flawed punishment form.

[kasia]

Well, essentially I believe in reform
Although recidivism is the norm.
And prosecutors make mistakes
And some folks never catch breaks
All in all, it's a flawed punishment form.

recidivism is only the norm for certain crimes, like theft. and even then, it's only up until a certain age. then there is a sharp decrease.

[Faithless]

recidivism is only the norm for certain crimes, like theft. and even then, it's only up until a certain age. then there is a sharp decrease.
Hm. That's hard to believe, considering we haven't put much effort in keeping those rates down.

[Faithless]

Religion far from unified on executions (http://www.modbee.com/local/story/9628778p-10513347c.html)
Some like it, some don't, others leave it to courts

By AMY WHITE
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: December 18, 2004, 04:41:54 AM PST

Knowing he could be chosen as a juror deciding the fate of Scott Peterson, Tom Marino sought out his priest to ask if it were acceptable to vote for the death penalty.

The priest told him the rules of God are separate from the rules of man — and that he could vote for execution, said Marino, of San Carlos, during jury selection.

The spiritual struggle of the 55-year-old retired postal worker illustrates the intersection of faith and civic duty in a nation that allows the death penalty but whose religious faiths espouse a variety of views on capital punishment.

Some faiths claim all life is sacred; others justify an "eye for an eye." Still others define a difference between faith and courts of law.

Taking a third life will compound the tragedy, said the Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor at St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto. Illo performed the private funeral service in Modesto for Laci and Conner Peterson.

"This will not make the hurt of the family go away," Illo said. "It is just going to hurt another family. … Killing Scott is not going to bring Laci back."

Ahmad Kayello, assistant imam at Islamic Center of Modesto, said that if a judge finds someone was killed senselessly, the death penalty can be used as punishment.

Lutheran doctrine says authority and legislative and enforcement responsibility are "bestowed by God upon the ruler," and that "Christians are obliged to be obedient and respectful to the state so far as their conscience permits," said Paul Bodin, pastor of Modesto's Emanuel Lutheran Church.

Marino was the last holdout of the 11-member panel in recommending life in prison without parole for Peterson, who was convicted of killing his wife and their unborn son, other jurors said.

On Monday, Marino — who became known as Juror 2 — changed his position and voted with other jurors to recommend the death penalty for Peterson.

"I'm not against the death penalty," Marino said earlier this week in an interview with The Bee. But Roman Catholic teachings about the sanctity of life gave him pause, he said.

Catholics generally against death penalty

A 2001 survey by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center showed that 42 percent of those who oppose the death penalty do so because of religious beliefs. Only 15 percent of death penalty supporters said they do so because of religious beliefs.

Catholic teaching is that capital punishment can only be used if it is impossible to contain the perpetrator — unlikely in the modern age in a developed nation, Illo said. Killing another is only condoned in self-defense, he said.

Illo cited the fifth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," as well as Jesus on the cross telling the thief crucified near him that "today you will be with me in Paradise."

"All three of them had the death penalty," Illo said. "That's an indication that even someone who has been condemned to death is worthy of Paradise."

Pope John Paul II has appealed to Catholics to join efforts to abolish the death penalty. "It's hard to imagine the death penalty being anything but vengeance," Illo said. "And vengeance perpetuates vengeance."

Bodin said Lutheran theology does not oppose the death penalty, though it is concerned about unequal application of the penalty, such as among minorities.

There are no restrictions on the death penalty, when it is properly exercised by the state, with due process, in accordance with the law and as a decision of civil authorities, he said.

"I would say that if the death penalty is a legitimate punishment, then the jury applied the criteria correctly (in the Peterson case)," said Bodin, adding that some members of his congregation knew Laci Peterson. "If any case qualifies, this one does."

According to its Web site, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment, regarding the issue as "to be decided solely by the prescribed processes of civil law."

The National Association of Evangelicals and Southern Baptist Convention have passed resolutions supporting the death penalty.

A Southern Baptist Convention resolution adopted in 2001 states that "God forbids personal revenge (Romans 12:19) and has established capital punishment as a just and appropriate means by which the civil magistrate may punish those guilty of capital crimes (Romans 13:4)."

Someone must step in to protect those who could be victimized, representatives said.

Pastor Wade Estes of the nondenominational First Baptist Church of Modesto said he believes the Bible is clear that certain offenses demand a death sentence.

"It's not vengeance, it's not a lack of respect for human life," said Estes, who read Scriptures at a public memorial service at his church for Laci and Conner Peterson. "It is an appropriate result of a heinous crime against humanity."

God holds a high view of human life, Estes said, "but … if you intentionally murder someone else, biblically, you forfeit your life."

Koran advocates death penalty

In Islam, murder can be punished by death, or — if family members don't insist on death as retaliation — payment of "blood money" to the family. "This is a merciful dispensation from your Lord," the Koran says. "He that transgresses thereafter shall be sternly punished" (2:178-179). The same punishments apply to the death of an unborn child in the commission of a crime toward the mother.

Kayello said such cases ideally would be handled by judges familiar with Islamic laws, who thoroughly investigate the accusation. In addition to serving as punishment, the death penalty sends a message to others, he said.

Rabbi Paul Gordon of Modesto's Congregation Beth Shalom declined to comment on the Peterson case, but said according to Jewish law and tradition, "Capital punishment is allowed, but has been regulated and legislated to make it almost impossible to carry out."

For example, a person would have to be warned immediately before he or she committed an act that it would be eligible for the death penalty.

"According to Jewish tradition, a court that would sentence someone to death once in 70 years was considered a murderous court," Gordon said. "It is discouraged as much as possible in Jewish tradition and law because life is sacred."

Capital punishment takes away someone's ability to repent, improve themselves or make the world a better place, Gordon said.

Some mainline Protestant churches have publicly opposed the death penalty, and called upon Christians to respond to violent crime restoratively rather than violently.

Erin Matteson, pastor at Modesto Church of the Brethren, said she was disappointed in the jury's recommendation of death for Peterson.

"In our denomination, we say, 'Why do we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?'" said Matteson, whose church is one of the historical "peace" churches, including Quakers and Mennonites. Her denomination stands against the death penalty.

"(Our denomination) doesn't believe it is in line at all with the teachings of Jesus Christ," Matteson said. "We believe as people of faith we are called to an accountability to something beyond the law."

Jesus, she said, had compassion and love for all people, believing that all are capable of transformation. Following Jesus' example, Matteson said, "is a way of deep compassion and a love that is deep and beyond anything that we can know and imagine."

Violence only begets violence, she said, adding that she doesn't believe humans are called to make the decision on which lives are lost.

"If (Peterson) did it, I think it's abominable and there needs to be accountability," Matteson said. "But to kill him — I think that is awfully bold … and I think it goes against many of the things we teach our kids."

Bee staff writer Amy White can be reached at 578-2318 or awhite@modbee.com.

Bee staff writers Garth Stapley and John Coté contributed to this report.

RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

CATHOLIC: Does not exclude death penalty if it is the only way to defend lives against a perpetrator, but nonlethal means are "more in keeping with the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person." -- Catechism of the Catholic Church

ISLAM: Death penalty is justified in cases of unjust and proven murder. Life is sacred, but justice must be applied to those who have done injustice. -- Pew Research Center

BUDDHISM: All have potential to commit crimes, a tendency not overcome by executing people. Capital punishment is a severe form of punishment that deprives a person of the opportunity to change or compensate. -- Dalai Lama

CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS: Capital punishment is an appropriate penalty for murder, but proper only after an offender is found guilty in a lawful public trial. -- www.lds.org

LUTHERAN-MISSOURI SYNOD: Capital punishment is in accordance with the Scriptures. Government has the authority to apply the death penalty. Christians should exert a positive influence on the government's responsibility to "bear the sword." -- www.lcms.org

REFORM JUDAISM: The Central Conference of American Rabbis and the Union for Reform Judaism are formally opposed to the death penalty. The CCAR says the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. URJ: "We believe that there is no crime for which the taking of human life by society is justified, and that it is the obligation of society to evolve other methods in dealing with crime." -- Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: Southern Baptists believe there is biblical support for capital punishment. All people are conceived with the right to life, but some forfeit that right. -- www.bpnews.net

UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST: Capital punishment is inconsistent with human life, and is retributive, discriminatory and a nondeterrent. "As a community of faith promoting justice, equity and compassion in human relations, we call for an end to the death penalty." -- Unitarian Universalist Association

[Faithless]

La. frees inmate, 40, believed innocent (http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/031205/new_freed001.shtml)
ANGOLA -- As an overcast sky turned blue above the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Michael Anthony Williams signed his name in the prisoner release book, changed clothes in a public restroom and left the only home he's known since the age of 16.
...
The Chatham man who spent 24 years in prison was freed Friday after DNA testing confirmed he is not the man who sexually assaulted his 22-year-old tutor in February 1981. He has been released without bond pending a new trial, should authorities decide to pursue one within the year.
...
Williams is the ninth Louisiana prisoner freed after a wrongful conviction in the past two years and one of more than 20 since 1989. The last was Ryan Matthews, 24, who was released from death row last August after DNA cleared him of a 1997 murder.
...

Supreme Court bans execution of juvenile offenders: Another blow against the execution system (http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/534/534_02_DeathPenalty.shtml)

...
The system also makes horrendous mistakes--since the death penalty was reinstated, at least 118 people have been proven innocent and released from death row.
...

An old list of names showing those that have been released from death row (http://www.fdp.dk/uk/released.htm)

Former Death Row Inmate Lobbies To Allow Lawsuits (http://www.local10.com/news/4205973/detail.html)


POSTED: 8:45 pm EST February 16, 2005

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Three years after walking off death row a free man, Juan Melendez is pushing to make police and prosecutors liable for wrongful convictions based on "fabricated or deceptively manipulated" evidence.

Bills have been filed in both the state House and Senate to make police agencies or prosecutors liable for civil damages in wrongful convictions based on tampered evidence. The annual two-month legislative session begins March 8.

Abe Bonowitz, director of Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, said Wednesday the legislation (HB 247/SB 1004) is an important start toward accountability -- especially in Florida, where two dozen people have been released from death row after having their convictions overturned.

Juan MelendezMelendez, 53, lived on death row for nearly 18 years. He was released in January 2002 after his murder conviction was overturned and prosecutors said they would not try him again.

Melendez and Bonowitz said prosecutors have conclusive evidence before Melendez went to trial that another man was the killer.

'"They knew I was an innocent man a month before I went to trial," Melendez told reporters.

'Hardy Pickard, a Bartow prosecutor who worked on Melendez's case, said Wednesday he would not comment.

"I've got nothing to say about that case at all," Pickard said.

[kimpossible]

Hm. That's hard to believe, considering we haven't put much effort in keeping those rates down.

I think you'd be surprised at what kind of programs are available during incarceration. Drug treatment, life skills, job skills, critical thinking, parenting classes. The classes usually help an inmate replace short term impulsive thinking with long term critical thinking that considers consequences. Some inmates work very hard in their programs and make great strides but as soon as they hit the streets and return to previous lives and patterns the impulsive short term decisions regain strength.

It doesn't always have to be a government top-down effort either. Many people from the community come forward to volunteer as chaplains or teachers.

[deez nuts]

I think you'd be surprised at what kind of programs are available during incarceration. Drug treatment, life skills, job skills, critical thinking, parenting classes. The classes usually help an inmate replace short term impulsive thinking with long term critical thinking that considers consequences. Some inmates work very hard in their programs and make great strides but as soon as they hit the streets and return to previous lives and patterns the impulsive short term decisions regain strength.

It doesn't always have to be a government top-down effort either. Many people from the community come forward to volunteer as chaplains or teachers.

plus those fuckers have cable tv. i didn't have cable tv till 2 years ago.

[kimpossible]

plus those fuckers have cable tv. i didn't have cable tv till 2 years ago.

There's a reason for that. Keeps people preoccupied thereby reducing risk of rioting.

[Chu Chi]

I'd be in favour of putting prisoners in their own AREA where they are open to kill and rape each other but not the general law abiding public.

.

They already have that, its called the GHETTO.

As a side bar, if we have a "death penalty", should we also have a "rape penalty" too?

Just following the logic.

CC

[kimpossible]

just to throw this in the equation -

criminological studies have shown that the death penalty has little to no deterrent effect. the only people actually turned away from killing *as a result* of the death penalty are people who wouldn't have committed murder to begin with.

also - think about how long it takes for a sentence of death to be carried out - if at all. typically years after the crime took place. which means - after society has long fogotten about the crime. it's not like americans have long attention spans.

don't forget - most murders are assaults gone wrong. throw in felony-murders into the mix and things become even more complicated.

finally, the death penalty is not cost effective. it costs more money to put a person on death row than it is to keep him in prison for life.

so these are just some things to think about before saying that we are in favor of the death penalty.


and as for 'eye for an eye' - no other crime is punished in accordance with that theory. why should murder be an exception?

yeah, i'm currently rethinking my stance on the death penalty. formerly, i was a big supporter and in theory i still am but the practical application doesn't seem to accomplish much. but if we removed the death penalty i think it should be really hard for heinous violent offenders to get out, more for the protection of past and potential victims than to further punish the offender.

[yoMAMA]

did you guys heard about the Iranian execution recently of a serial killer , it was on yahoo news.

Basically what they did was:

1. they flogged him 100 strokes
2. then they hanged him up 100 meters and then hung him.

There was a huge mob, including many children brought by their parents to witness the event.


sounds like the [I]passion of the christ.......

:frown:

[Faithless]

U.S. Catholic bishops to launch campaign denouncing death penalty (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/nation/11188063.htm)

Posted on Sun, Mar. 20, 2005 * BY CARLOS SADOVI * Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO - (KRT) - Tying the move to the beginning of Holy Week, which celebrates the execution of Jesus more than two thousand years ago, the Roman Catholic bishops of the United States on Monday will announce one of the most aggressive campaigns against the death penalty in recent years.

Chicago Archbishop Cardinal Francis George said the campaign - featuring legislative action, legal advocacy, educational work and a new Web site - stems from the church's belief that all life is sacred and should be preserved.

"As we contemplate the way in which Christ died ... this is a moment to ask how is it that we administer death as a society and to try to come to a better understanding that we don't need to kill people in order to protect ourselves," George said after Palm Sunday Mass at Holy Name Cathedral. "There are prisons for that, and we should trust them and allow people to live."

The effort will be unveiled Monday at a news conference in Washington, D.C., marking the 25th anniversary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' decision to oppose capital punishment. The church first took a public stance against the death penalty after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled capital punishment unconstitutional in 1972. The court reinstated it four years later.

At the news conference, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, is expected to announce the results of a new poll commissioned by the bishops that shows a dramatic rise in Catholic opposition to the death penalty. He will be joined by Bud Welch, whose daughter was killed in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and Kirk Bloodsworth, who spent more than a decade on death row before he was exonerated, according to a statement issued by the group.

The bishops' decision to launch a new campaign against the death penalty comes after two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions limited the use of capital punishment. On March 1, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed the use of capital punishment for juveniles under 18 years old, and in 2002 the court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional when it came to mentally ill defendants. In both cases, the bishops group filed briefs against capital punishment.

Steven Drizin, Legal Director for the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University, said he believes that those two decisions have fueled the latest efforts by the church, which has long been against the death penalty. Pope John Paul II has taken a stance against the death penalty in the United States and across the world. George pointed to a visit by the pope in St. Louis in 1999 where he spoke out against the punishment even for someone who has done great evil.

Since 1976, nearly 1,000 people have been executed in the United States, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes the death penalty.

The briefs filed by the bishops group had a major influence on the Supreme Court, Drizin said.

"The Roman Catholic Bishops are feeling emboldened by the recent Supreme Court decisions, and in that context it makes sense to step up pressure and flex the considerable muscle of the Catholic Church in this debate," he said.

Church officials have grown to believe that they have a mandate by their followers, which number about 65 million across the nation, to take a stance against the death penalty, he said. Exoneration of people on death row in Illinois and in other states largely because DNA evidence cleared them has added fuel to the debate, Drizin said. Since 1977, there have been 119 death row inmates exonerated nationally, including 18 in Illinois.

Recent studies have shown increasing opposition to the death penalty among the American public, although a solid majority still supports it.

Drizin also cited recent statements by leaders of the religious right, including conservative religious broadcaster Pat Robertson's call in 2000 for a national moratorium on the death penalty. He also pointed to President Bush's acknowledgement in his State of the Union Address that a flawed legal process may have sent innocent people to death row.

"There is still strong support for the death penalty in the religious right, but it is weakening," Drizin said.

But there is by no means unanimity among Catholics over the value of the death penalty.

Karen Foster and her sister Louise Foster, residents of Omaha, Neb., who were visiting Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago on Sunday, said they welcome the church taking a stance on the issue.

But like many Americans, the sisters are divided. Karen Foster supports the death penalty in the most heinous cases, while Louise Foster said she is currently leaning toward having it eliminated.

"I tend to support the death penalty myself. But I realize they would be against it. I would see why they would take a stance against it," Karen Foster said. "Given that it is Holy Week, it will bring the message home to more people comparing it to Christ's death and that death penalty with this death penalty."

Louise Foster said that that she is not letting the church's stance affect her view of the death penalty. "They have a right to their own personal opinion basically. But I would have a right to mine and any individual would," she said.

Others, like Daniel Serna, a lawyer from San Antonio, Texas, who attended mass on Sunday at Holy Name, said there should be a clear separation between church doctrine and secular law.

"As a Catholic, I think the church should take a strong stance against the death penalty. But we have to respect the separation of church and state," Serna said. "I respect the law. If that (the death penalty) is what the law is, then we must abide by the death penalty."

George said the church has a moral obligation to speak out about the death penalty because it aims to preserve life.

Darlene Snytra of Naperville, Ill., said that while she supports the use of the death penalty in criminal cases, she believes the church has an obligation to take a stance for what it believes.

The legal battle over whether Terri Schiavo, a severely brain-damaged Florida woman, should have her feeding tube removed is linked to the debate over the death penalty because both are about how society should handle life-and-death issues, Snytra said.

"I think it's brought up a lot of controversy as to how people feel personally," she said.

George agreed that the death penalty debate and the issues in the Schiavo case are similar and, for that reason, the church has a moral obligation to back efforts to save lives.

"The presumption is always in favor of life, the general bias has to be toward preserving life," he said. "Killing is always not preferred if there is another way."

[relus]

When a person is guilty of 3+ murders, obviously they cannot be innocent so that removes the idea of killing an innocent person. To keep them alive is just waste of taxpayers money since they cannot turn themselves around and the safety of the society is more important than the rights of a criminal :P

[Faithless]

Now with John Roberts being confirmed, focus shifts to the cases to come before the Supreme Court under his chief role. One of the cases will be that involving deathrow inmate Paul House, who was convicted of murder in 1984.

According to dealthpenaltyinfo.org... (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=248&scid=38)
HOUSE v. BELL, No. 04-8990
To be scheduled for oral argument, October Term 2005-2006
On June 28, 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a capital case challenging the standard of proof needed for claims of innocence based on new evidence. The Justices will consider an appeal filed by Paul House, a Tennessee death row inmate who says new DNA evidence proves he was wrongfully convicted. In 1993 in Herrera v. Collins, a 5-member majority of the Court said a claim of innocence based on new evidence alone is generally not enough to merit a new hearing in federal court. However, in 1995 in Schlup v. Delo, the Court ruled that a convicted murderer who had other constitutional claims in addition to an innocence claim could get a new hearing if he could show that his new evidence makes it probable that "no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Last year in House's case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit voted 8 to 7 that House's evidence did not meet this standard. Six of the dissenters believed his new evidence was strong enough to show his innocence. The issue before the Supreme Court is what standard should be used by federal courts to evaluate claims of innocence on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See Innocence.

Testing DNA's Truth (http://www.alternet.org/rights/23297/)
By Kelly Hearn, AlterNet. Posted July 1, 2005

Score one more for DNA.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court voted to hear the case of Paul House, a Tennessee death row inmate whose guilt has been questioned by DNA tests that didn't exist at the time he was convicted. The Supreme Court decision, whenever it comes, will clarify how prisoners can use advanced scientific methods to reverse convictions.

House, now in his 40s, suffers from multiple sclerosis. The MS makes communication almost impossible for him and he needs help with daily activities such as bathing and walking.

But his real problems started in 1984 with the contentious marriage of Carolyn and Hubert Muncey Jr., a dirt-poor union etched in tobacco fields and consummated in an Appalachian shack in eastern Tennessee.

The Munceys had no electricity or running water in their home. But they did have plenty of space to accommodate Hubert's violent liquor-fueled rants. When on July 14, 1984 Carol was found beaten to death near her home, suspicions rested on her husband. But police instead arrested 23-year-old House, a neighbor with a previous sex crime conviction. The evidence, all circumstantial, piled up fast.

The day after the murder, a witness said he saw House near the crime scene carrying a black shirt, causing police to theorize House had raped and killed Muncey then backtracked to retrieve his forgotten shirt.

House said he had been at his girlfriend's trailer the previous night, but that woman contradicted his story, saying House went walking the night of the murder. Soon tests came back showing the semen on Carolyn's clothes matched House's blood type and that a speck of her blood was found on House's jeans. Furthermore, Hubert had been at a dance at a local community center, he said, and hadn't seen his wife. In the end, with rape as an aggravating factor, House was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

Fifteen years later, with House growing sicker and sicker on death row, problems arose for the prosecution's case.

DNA testing showed the semen on Carolyn Muncey's clothes belonged to Hubert Muncey. A top forensic expert testified that the blood on House's jeans appeared to have been the result of a laboratory mishandling. Two new witnesses came forward claiming that Hubert had confessed to killing his wife, while another witness said he even asked for help in establishing his alibi.

The prosecution tweaked its assertions, saying that House attempted to rape Muncey (also a felony) before killing her. The state of Tennessee has said it will not investigate or charge Hubert Muncey with his wife's murder. (In a television interview in 2004, Mr. Muncey admitted to hitting Carol but claimed he did not kill her.)

House's lawyers kept it up.

In 2002, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati cited problems with the evidence against House and asked the Supreme Court of Tennessee to decide if he should receive a new trial. The Tennessee judges refused and last October the 6th Circuit narrowly denied House's petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a politically divided vote of 8 to 7.

Observers say the vote highlights the fallibility of the death penalty system and underscores the judicial impact of voting decisions. It's unusual for a court to take such divergent views of the same evidence in a case where a life hangs in the balance, unless political careers hang in the balance as well. All eight Republican-appointed judges on the court had voted against House while six Democratic appointments ruled that House was innocent (another Democratic-appointed judge ruled he should be given a new trial).

"We are faced with a real-life murder mystery, an authentic 'who-done-it' where the wrong man may be executed," wrote a 6th circuit dissenter, Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, at the time of the ruling. Another judge, Gilbert S. Merritt, wrote that at least a new trial was needed.

"There can be no doubt that the State claimed rape as the motive from the beginning and throughout the trial, and that the jury so found, and that the Tennessee Supreme Court approved the verdict on that basis," wrote Merritt. "Without any evidence of rape, the State has lost its motive, its theory of the case and the aggravating circumstance on which the State and the jury relied for its death verdict."

House's Knoxville attorney, Stephen Kissinger, filed the U.S. Supreme Court brief with support of the Innocence Project, a legal clinic in that has helped free 155 people using DNA-based methods, according to the group.

"I've practiced law for 20 years," Kissinger said in an interview with the Tennessee Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, "and this is far and away the best innocence claim I've ever seen." He added that he had gained acquittals for people "who had claims half as good as this."

Speaking about the October appeals court ruling, Stacy Rector, a Nashville minister who has followed the case, voiced frustration. "If in this country, our courts have become more concerned about playing politics and protecting the reputation of a broken system than in the truth or in saving a man's life, then I find that extremely troubling," she wrote in an email interview.

If judicial roads are exhausted, activists say they are preparing for a political effort to convince Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen to stay House's execution. Randy Tatel of Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing said his group has been laying the groundwork for such a campaign for some time but does not want to pressure the governor until the time comes.

For now, House's hopes are pinned on the Supreme Court. If multiple sclerosis doesn't kill him first.

Kelly Hearn is a former UPI staff writer who lives in Washington DC and Latin America. His work has appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, American Prospect, and other publications.


What's scary is that Roberts is wishy washy when it comes to the death penalty. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/07/death.penalty/)

Though his wife is supposedly against it (which people talk about but doesn't really mean shit), Roberts writings on the subject would leave one to believe that he supports the death penalty, especially when it comes to doing away the appeals that go with death penalty cases.

In a February 1983 memo while serving in the Reagan White House, Roberts suggested that the high court could cut its caseload by "abdicating the role of fourth or fifth guesser in death penalty cases."

[haplesshobo]

criminological studies have shown that the death penalty has little to no deterrent effect. the only people actually turned away from killing *as a result* of the death penalty are people who wouldn't have committed murder to begin with.

That is true, but I don't agree with your conclusions. We also need to remeber that most murders are commited by a small group of felons, something akin to pareto numbers where 20% of population is responsible for 80% of the crime. In these cases, studies have shown that almost all those people who are commiting those crimes to not respond, and are therefore not deterred by the threat of death penalty. There's something wrong with them in the head or something like that. Otherwise, they wouldn't be commiting all those felonies punishable by death. But, this is true only for this small subset, who happen to be responsible for most of those crimes.

However, we also need to take in account that the rest of the normal population is deterred by the threat of the death penalty.

And, how can it be really a deterrent when death row inmates have tied up the court system with appeals. Right now, death penalty seems more like a paper tiger.


also - think about how long it takes for a sentence of death to be carried out - if at all. typically years after the crime took place. which means - after society has long fogotten about the crime. it's not like americans have long attention spans.
finally, the death penalty is not cost effective. it costs more money to put a person on death row than it is to keep him in prison for life.

Yes, death penalties are extremely costly because of the extreme litigousness of the system with multiple appeals. Remove those extra appeals to both federal and state level, and you'd have a more efficient process. Maybe, that's a good thing that there's some redunancy built into the system in light of those overturned convictions due to DNA. But, even when there's no doubt that the person commited the murders, it still takes decades to process it through our legal system.


also - think about how long it takes for a sentence of death to be carried out - if at all. typically years after the crime took place. which means - after society has long fogotten about the crime. it's not like americans have long attention spans.

Huh? You could use that same logic for any crime, and argue that we shouldn't lock up anybody for heinous crimes. So, if you commit murder, then you should only get less than 10 years cause society will have forgotten it by that point?


don't forget - most murders are assaults gone wrong. throw in felony-murders into the mix and things become even more complicated.

I don't follow this either. Does it really matter that it started out as a robbery gone wrong? At some point, the felon made a decision to commit a horrible crime. Our system already recognizes different levels of responsbility for a person's death, and punishes it accordingly. Manslaughter isn't going to get you the death penalty.

The interesting thing I always find about death penalty debate is the intersection it has with abortion especially when the debate turns to taking another person's life away. For liberals, they're pro-abortion, but anti-death penalty. And, with conservatives, they're pro-life for abortion, but pro-death penalty. To me, the Catholic Church seems more consistent when it rejects both.

[kuilong]

For supporters of capital punishment: do you think there's any effect on the moral right of the state to mete out the death penalty if it's ever applied incorrectly? For an example, see the Timothy Evans case.

[haplesshobo]

For supporters of capital punishment: do you think there's any effect on the moral right of the state to mete out the death penalty if it's ever applied incorrectly? For an example, see the Timothy Evans case.

Sure, there might be people mistakenly convicted and sentenced to death. I googled up Evans case, and he went to the police and confessed to the murder. But, I don't think that's an argument to therefore abolish capital punishment. After all, there have been plenty of publicized cases of people convicted of rape or other crimes who were sentenced to long prison terms who were later released years later with DNA evidence that exonerated them. But, that doesn't mean we should also not sentence anybody to long term sentences because we might accidentally send an innocent man to prison for 10+ years.

In Illinois' case, while I agree that the governor should have stopped any executions where the culpability was very much in doubt or where the criminal was exonerated, I think he went overboard in stopping all executions, even for those when there was no doubt that the criminal was truly guilty.

[kuilong]

Sure, there might be people mistakenly convicted and sentenced to death. I googled up Evans case, and he went to the police and confessed to the murder.