If that works for you guys, then rock on. Over here, we get rid of them permanently (ostensibly). Perhaps if all the states were like Texas, the death penalty WOULD be more of a deterrent than it is now.

I maintain my position that I don't feel that I should have to pay for these people to be housed and given luxuries that I can't afford, such as medical care. Putting them in prison for life is doing just that. It means I'm working to feed, clothe, shelter, and give medical care to the enemy, while they sit there being worthless and useless. They serve no purpose IN prison, and they're too dangerous to let out. What's the point of their existence?

Sidhe

Given that the quality of your legal representation is dependant upon your bankbalance I would posit that those with money are more likely to be found innocent and those without money guilty regardless of whether or not they did it. OJ is a case in point. He was able to afford the best of legal defense and therefore got away with murder ( we presume)

And whilst you may not care what colour or income bracket the defendant falls into the scales of justice seem to.

These are stats you provided earlier in the thread:

White-- 1,701 -- 46.71%
Black -- 1,562 -- 42.77%
Hispanic-- 312 -- 8.54%
Native American -- 45 -- 1.23%
Asian -- 32 -- 0.88%

You never provided a source for these...what are they? Where do they come from?

If that figure is suggesting that 42.77 per cent of those on death row are black then there is a serious problem. Unless 42% of the population are black that suggests the death sentence is being disproportionately applied to black americans

Or are those figures indicative of something else? more info please:)

I followed the link you provided on your post . Wasnt able to find those figures but did find a very interesting article

Towards Death Penalty Reforms

Nope...12%.

12%? I'd stabbed a guess at 10% so I wasnt far off;)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875651.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

I believe that's where I found them.

More interesting links:

http://www.geocities.com/bigmike_75/essays/w/11.html
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cp01.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/cap_punishment/
http://www.4essays.com/essays/CAPITAL_.HTM



Sidhe

46.3% of state and federal inmates are black? Thats terrifying

"Between 1973 and 2002, 102 inmates on death row have been exonerated and freed. The most common reasons for wrongful convictions are mistaken eyewitness testimony, the false testimony of informants and “incentivized witnesses,” incompetent lawyers, defective or fraudulent scientific evidence, prosecutorial and police misconduct, and false confessions. In recent years, DNA played a role in overturning 12 of these wrongful death row convictions."

So.....without DNA testing ( a fairly recent addition to the legal eagles arsenal) thats at least 12 people who would have been wrongfully executed. One wonders how many people each year who didnt have access to such methods have been killed wrongfully. The fact that so many deathrow inmates have been exonerated suggests to me there are likely also many who havent been exonerated and yet have been wrongfully convicted.

I mean......it's great if you happen to be one of those who have a good legal team working on your behalf, but from what I have read some states ( like Texas) are less than thorough in ensuring appeals are available and fully supported.

If the UK had had the death sentence over the last twenty years I know of at least 10 Irishmen who would likely have been hung for offences they were later proved to be innocent of. I simply do not trust the state , the judges, the jury or the legal system as a whole not to fuck it up and kill an innocent, either by accident or design

http://www.streetgangs.com/

How about that?

Much street violence, including murder is committed by gangs (No, I'm not saying that ALL street violence is committed by gangs, so everyone keep your shorts on). Check out the number of black gangs and then the number of latino, asian, and white gangs.

So basically, what you're saying is, for every one minority we execute, we should execute a white guy? Doesn't guilt matter? It shouldn't matter if it's a black/asian/latino/white guy, and another black/asian/latino/white guy evaded justice. It doesn't change the fact that this guy is still guilty, no matter his color.

A small percentage of the society is generally responsible for the larger percentage of crime, and perhaps race may have an influence on what type of crime one commits. But it doesn't make the person any less guilty. I can't help but feel that if white guys were found guilty and executed in disproportionate numbers, that no one would give a shit. But when it comes to minorities, it's considered racism and persecution.

I'm mostly Native American (a quarter), but I don't bitch about the number of Native Americans on death row. If they committed the crime, they deserve to be there.

This is just one more way to emphasize race. If race is being used as an excuse for everything, racism will always be an issue. Keep throwing it up in people's faces, and they'll use that as an excuse for racism. I've seen it happen.

People need to worry about guilt, not race. If someone murdered someone in my family, I wouldn't care what color they were or how much money they had. Given the chance, I'd execute them myself and save the state an assload of money.

Sidhe

Wow. *it* is subhuman? Did you really just say that?

I think this is where I get off this particular merrygoround. I cant argue with that.

Does it matter whether or not they're guilty?


102 out of how many in 29 years? Considering the thousands of people on death row, and the advanced science we have now, that's not a bad ratio.

Sidhe

Damn, Onyx....you just make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...:)


Sidhe

I can only offer my respect and support for coming through such an ordeal without loosing your sense of reason, as happens in so many cases. There is an overwhelming trend to base actions (and reactions) on past experiences so forgive me for assuming your pro dp stance is entirely emotional and rooted in past conflict. If you have succeeded in objectivising the argument and still believe in 'eye for an eye', I cannot then argue this is an irrational response resulting from years of undeserved abuse.

So what then do I argue? We have already agreed that:

- past experience/abuse is no excuse for killing
- it is disproportionately expensive to keep them alive
- the act of murder is dehumanising (although I cannot concede to 'subhuman' - they are still physiologically, technically and literally human beings)
- a killers 'worth' is questionable

Aside from the economical factor (which I believe is callous and should not take precedence in this argument), the above statements are all condemnations of the act of killing - and are not automatically a valid advocation for our right to terminate. We are all in agreement here that killing, particularly the brutal cases you refer to, is abhorrent and intolerable. Where we differ in opinion is that it is right to take their life 'in return'. You may argue the above as justification - and you may be quite right - why should an abuser, a torturer, a killer - deserve to live? Maybe they don't. But that they deserve it is not a good enough reason to act upon it. That hypothesis underpins our justice system - a culture of punishment, not of response. I do not feel that committing a person to death is a response to their crime. I do not have the breadth of experience or knowledge to suggest an appropriate response. I do know that some things in this life lie beyond our power of expression, that sometimes a feeling so strong although not 'proven' should be acknowledged - and this I feel most strongly about. No one has the right to kill, no matter whether it is deserved. It is cyclical, endless and irresolvable.

"Aside from the economical factor (which I believe is callous and should not take precedence in this argument), the above statements are all condemnations of the act of killing - and are not automatically a valid advocation for our right to terminate. We are all in agreement here that killing, particularly the brutal cases you refer to, is abhorrent and intolerable. Where we differ in opinion is that it is right to take their life 'in return'. "




The only real answer I can give to that is the fact that the penalties for crimes are well-known. We have established punishments, agreed upon them, and codified them as law. The individual, as part of the society, accepts those laws, and when s/he violates one or more of those laws, s/he knows the penalty.

If you don't believe in state-sanctioned execution, don't kill and therefore place yourself in the position of being executed if caught. Murderers on death row seem to be the most vocal anti-dp voices in the world. Murder is apparantly ok, as long as it's not THEM facing death.

The simple fact is, the state has said, "if you murder, the penalty for the life you took is your own life." That's the law. It hasn't changed yet, so the fact that it is law, and that it is WELL-KNOWN law, is its justification. This is how we have chosen to deal with the most dangerous predators. If you don't want to die, don't commit cold-blooded murder. It's very simple, and doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the logical connection.

The economical factor IS important, however. While it may seem callous, it really isn't. It's an example of how crime and recidivism drains society's resources, resources that could be used to the betterment of society rather than the upkeep of society's predators. WHY should we first have to worry about where they will strike next until they're caught, and then be forced to take care of them for the rest of their lives AFTER they're caught? We don't owe them that. We don't owe them ANYTHING. They owe society. However, they prey on society when they're on the outside, and then leech off society when they're in prison. That seems to me to be placing the well-being of the predator over the short-and long-term well-being of the society that they've offended.

For instance, we have to pay the cops who patrol. Then we have to pay them overtime when they're trying to find a killer. Their family life suffers because of the time they put in (I know some cops, and I've heard it from them); think of all the money we spend in court costs, appeals costs, costs for recidivists, food, shelter, clothing, weight rooms, medical, dental, vision, free schooling, cable, law libraries, attorney's fees, etc. All this, for the rest of their lives. That's a huge price tag.

If we're not allowed to make them useful, such as in the laboratory, and prisons, rather than being self-sufficient, depend on society for their upkeep, society is not benefitting, other than the fact that the predator is in jail, using up yet more of our resources.

Some people do not deserve life. When one person's life causes misery and destruction of the lives of others wherever s/he goes, when this person cannot be rehabilitated, cannot be studied, cannot be made useful, then there is no point in this person's existence.


I think that the benefit to society should outweigh the concern for the murderers. Kinda along the lines of, "if you don't contribute, you don't eat." The Arizona governor who put inmates in tents in the desert had the right idea. They bitched and moaned about how HARRRRD it was, but he said that if it was good enough for our boys in Iraq, it was damn sure good enough for them.

That's just an example of how we cater to criminals. They don't have a RIGHT to accomodations any better than that which can be afforded by the poorest of us. If that's a tent, so be it. If it's a box, so be it. They shouldn't be entitled to health care, when most poor folks, and not-so-poor-folks, on the outside can't afford it. They shouldn't be entitled to entertainment that can't be afforded by people on the outside.

If we'd strip them down to the bare minimum needed for survival, like a lot of honest folks live on, we'd save a lot of money. Anything after food, water, clothing, and minimal shelter is lagniappe, and they aren't entitled to any of it.


Sidhe