The death penalty is OK by me!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney

Is this an indictment against the death penalty...or is it a stark reminder of the shocking degree of racial injustice that permeated this country for an embarrassingly long period of time? I started this thread by advocating the death penalty for cases such as the one chronicled in the link that I provided....where the defendant provides chilling testimony of the committed crimes with a smirk on his/her face. How much competence does it take to ensure that innocent people don't end up in the electric chair? You don't scrap the entire death penalty system when you find that the prosecutors and the police are corrupt. You just place the corrupt prosecutors and cops on death row themselves...where they belong. Justice for all!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Is this an indictment against the death penalty...or is it a stark reminder of the shocking degree of racial injustice that permeated this country for an embarrassingly long period of time? I started this thread by advocating the death penalty for cases such as the one chronicled in the link that I provided....where the defendant provides chilling testimony of the committed crimes with a smirk on his/her face. How much competence does it take to ensure that innocent people don't end up in the electric chair? You don't scrap the entire death penalty system when you find that the prosecutors and the police are corrupt. You just place the corrupt prosecutors and cops on death row themselves...where they belong. Justice for all!

Murphy's law is one of the few constants. Best to be wary of it when life and death are at stake. Some wrinkles can be removed from many pursuits of man, but our own fallibility in seeking justice, is I think authored or co-authored by Murphy

Hard to be just when the blood is boiling. No biggie when the official penalties are not final.

[Tom]

Murphy's law is one of the few constants. Best to be wary of it when life and death are at stake.

He covered that in his initial post.
You should read it.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

He covered that in his initial post.
You should read it.

I don't think so

[Tom]

Of course.
Why you want to understand the topic being discussed before jumping in with both feet! Your usual M.O. ?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by hcap

I don't think so

What did you feel inside you when you read the story on the link that I provided at the start of this thread, Hcap? Did you notice traces of "compassion" for the perpetrators of this heinous crime? What "punishment" would you consider appropriate for criminals such as these?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I started this thread by advocating the death penalty for cases such as the one chronicled in the link that I provided....where the defendant provides chilling testimony of the committed crimes with a smirk on his/her face.

You are advocating an error free system, something which is impossible to achieve. The best we can achieve is due process. When that fails there is still the possibility that the error will be discovered and the error rectified even though someone may have spent much of their life in prison. But there is no reversing a death sentence once it has been carried out.

Anyone who "provides chilling testimony of the committed crimes with a smirk on his/her face" is obviously insane, i.e., "unable to comprehend the consequences of his/her actions." Unfortunately the law has been unable to come up with a method determining who is or is not insane. The two tests which have been devised are "unable to comprehend the consequences of his/her actions" or "irresistible impulse." Medical science is so far unable to make either determination. Both the prosecution and the defense will put psychiatrists on the stand, each giving conflicting "expert" testimony.

Recently a man was put to death in Missouri. This person had suffered a Phineas Gage type brain injury, i.e., he had lost past of his brain in an accident. Obviously the man was not operating at full capacity but the prosecution argued that he had managed to control himself for years prior to committing his crime.

In the eyes of the law whatever a jury says in true is true, period. No court can change that, only another jury. And another jury can only hear the case if the findings of the first jury is set aside. In other words, there is no peer review.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You don't scrap the entire death penalty system when you find that the prosecutors and the police are corrupt. You just place the corrupt prosecutors and cops on death row themselves...where they belong.

But only those who "provide chilling testimony of the committed crimes with a smirk on his/her face."

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Justice for all!

The adversarial system of our courts guarantees that, regardless of evidence, the poor will be convicted more often than the wealthy.

[Tom]

You argue against the rule by citing exceptions to it.
There are cases where guilt is not at all in doubt.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

You are advocating an error free system, something which is impossible to achieve. The best we can achieve is due process. When that fails there is still the possibility that the error will be discovered and the error rectified even though someone may have spent much of their life in prison. But there is no reversing a death sentence once it has been carried out.

Anyone who "provides chilling testimony of the committed crimes with a smirk on his/her face" is obviously insane, i.e., "unable to comprehend the consequences of his/her actions." Unfortunately the law has been unable to come up with a method determining who is or is not insane. The two tests which have been devised are "unable to comprehend the consequences of his/her actions" or "irresistible impulse." Medical science is so far unable to make either determination. Both the prosecution and the defense will put psychiatrists on the stand, each giving conflicting "expert" testimony.

Recently a man was put to death in Missouri. This person had suffered a Phineas Gage type brain injury, i.e., he had lost past of his brain in an accident. Obviously the man was not operating at full capacity but the prosecution argued that he had managed to control himself for years prior to committing his crime.

In the eyes of the law whatever a jury says in true is true, period. No court can change that, only another jury. And another jury can only hear the case if the findings of the first jury is set aside. In other words, there is no peer review.

But only those who "provide chilling testimony of the committed crimes with a smirk on his/her face."

The adversarial system of our courts guarantees that, regardless of evidence, the poor will be convicted more often than the wealthy.

The death penalty should be dished out only in cases where the killer is guilty beyond any doubt. No bullshit eyewitness testimonies...and no bullshit cases hinging on bullshit confessions coerced by corrupt or overzealous cops. There are plenty of murder cases where the killer is caught practically in the act...but true justice in these obvious cases stalls either because of the "compassion" of the religious right...or because of the "forethought" of the enlightened left. Could there be any doubt about the guilt of Ted Bundy...or John Wayne Gacy...or Charles Manson? Should criminals like these be allowed to die of OLD AGE as they await execution? Why are we confusing these cases with the "insanity" cases...or with the cases where criminal conduct by the prosecution leads to false imprisonment of innocent people?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What did you feel inside you when you read the story on the link that I provided at the start of this thread, Hcap? Did you notice traces of "compassion" for the perpetrators of this heinous crime? What "punishment" would you consider appropriate for criminals such as these?

I felt the monstrous human being, the perpetrator, should be punished and removed from society. I felt enormous sympathy for the victims.

But I also know how things work on a larger scale as far as carrying out justice and how often it falls flat and I am sad and heartbroken that theory rarely equates to compassionate practice. One muse try to look thought the expanded scope of previous attempts to enact things fairly, and keep that foremost in mind. Looking through the keyhole of one case or a few, pulls one deeply in. Identification (attachment) with the sympathy for the victim or hatred of the perpetrator, becomes a way to lose one's emotional balance. Not an easy way to use and know compassion. I am not by any means suggesting aloofness or coldness so often Buddhists are accused of. But a deeper and larger experience remembering many things at once in perspective. That includes oned's own strong reactions, the futility of the death penalty, the very great danger of executing the innocent, and no going back.

[maddog42]

From Newsweek:"Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. As a percentage of all death sentences, that's just 1.6 percent. But if the innocence rate is 4.1 percent, more than twice the rate of exoneration, the study suggests what most people assumed but dreaded: An untold number of innocent people have been executed. Further, the majority of those wrongfully sentenced to death are likely to languish in prison and never be freed."


This article claimed that 4 percent of people executed are innocent.

[RunForTheRoses]

Tangentally, has anyone ever seen Rectify? Im on s1ep6, pretty good so far.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Let me understand this:

"Mr Bucklew" killed his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend, and then raped the ex-girlfriend...in the same trailer where these two victims lived with their KIDS. And then this maniac was captured after a shootout with the police? And now he is defending his right to a "painless death"?

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

This is a topic I've thought about for a very long time. The question is, when does killing become murder? If I'm cleaning my gun (I don't own a gun, rifle or AK. I shot a rifle once in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. The guy I was with wanted to test it and he gave me a shot. That's the total of my gun experience.) and it goes off and kills somebody because I forgot there was one in the chamber, am I guilty of something? If you come home and someone is in bed with your wife/husband and you shoot them, did you commit a crime? One of the basic commandments is Thou shall not murder. Does that make killing in war acceptable? Is knowingly and deliberately leading someone to a death chamber and flipping a switch murder by the common definition?

The interesting thing is if someone attacked my mom and I came on the scene there would be absolutely no line I would draw in stopping the attack. I'd worry about consistency after I dealt with the situation, assuming I was still able to worry.

The other point is one that has already been made. You better be 100% sure before giving anyone the needle. And if all you have is circumstantial evidence, you better be able to convince reasonable people that there is no possibility of there being a different killer.

I've had only one real knockdown, drag out fight in my life, a very long time ago. A guy took a swing at me out of the clear blue and I beat him to a bloody pulp. I had no idea why he did it, but the only part of my brain that was working was the Cro-magnon part. I wouldn't have stopped except three of my friends pulled me off him. I promised myself it would never happen again and it hasn't. I played ice hockey instead!

I don't begrudge anyone their opinion. You live with your beliefs. It's just a difficult issue for me.

I need TV when I got T-Rex
Mott the Hoople

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by hcap

I felt the monstrous human being, the perpetrator, should be punished and removed from society.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ution-62611972

So you WOULD rather keep PAYING to house this guy...for another 20-40 years...already paid for 20...

EXACTLY what GOOD does THAT do???

Obviously this is rhetorical...cause they finally put him down...like the sick animal he was...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by sammy the sage

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ution-62611972

So you WOULD rather keep PAYING to house this guy...for another 20-40 years...already paid for 20...

EXACTLY what GOOD does THAT do???

Obviously this is rhetorical...cause they finally put him down...like the sick animal he was...

I stated my thoughts on this topic. Don't particularly want to go thru it again