Abolishing the death penalty

[tvashtarkatena]

several organizations are mounting a campaign to end the death penalty in WA because they consider it cruel and unusual, unfairly applied, and too often condemns the innocent.

 

Should the death penalty be ended in our state?

[ivan]

my main problem w/ the death penalty is the expense - it's abhorrent to kill an innocent man, so every opportunity must be made for appeals, which inevitably takes a decade or more - death row guys have to be kept seperate so the expense in maintaining them is much greater, plus all the expense in endless appeals

 

mostly i think it should be up to the aggrieved - the state usurped the ancient tradition of private justice to eliminte the inevitable blood fueds that crop up as a result - if you kill my kid, i should have an input as to what happens to you - if i want to be enlightened and spare your life so you can have a few decades to suffer and reflect on what you did, that should be my right - if i think you must die, than the state should facilitate that so as to keep me from doing it myself, which likely would harm innocent people

 

i do like that in our state you get to select from a menu of options on your execution day

[ivan]

as to the cruel and unusual, that argument doens't impress me much - lethal injection is hardly drawing and quartering or burning at the stake - the guillotine was fine enough really, especially if you were to put the condemned to sleep first

 

the tendency to condemn people of color more is a problem, but not so great as to outlaw the whole practice - again, i think it should be entirely up to the family of the person you killed, and i don't particuliarly care how they arrive at the decision to kill you, they are the ones who have been wronged.

[Bug]

In general, I support whacking sickos.

How to prove that adequately is the question.

A court of law can be too subjective.

Perhaps if there were criteria for DNA, video footage, recordings, etc where the perp's life was not hanging on the testimony of a witness who might not like the color of his skin.

 

But given some standard of objective data I see no reason to keep them alive at great expense and risk to fellow prisoners.

[Kimmo]

the death penalty is a sad remnant of human barbarity outlawed in almost every "civilized" nation, performed here in the US under secrecy and during the dead of night (to hide it from the public).

 

it's beyond disgusting, entirely as offensive as any crime it serves as a penalty for.

[ivan]

maybe

 

for certain, there's nothing to be proud or certain of in the state killing any of citizens

[Kimmo]

the death penalty is a sad remnant of human barbarity outlawed in almost every "civilized" nation, performed here in the US under secrecy and during the dead of night (to hide it from the public).

 

it's beyond disgusting, entirely as offensive as any crime it serves as a penalty for.

 

i would actually amend the above to say that the state executing individuals is actually more barbaric than one individual's depravities in committing the crime being "punished", because the state's actions ostensibly represent the conscious, mediated, reflective, and higher position of the many, versus the ignorant, impulsive, and animalistic actions of the single individual.

[Mtguide]

Allowing the families of victims to determine punishment would certainly have to be done within legal limits of what the law provides in capital cases. But even so, I wonder if this kind of provision wouldn't result in even greater pressure on prosecutors to win a conviction, and to further facilitate the same kind of miscarriage of "justice" against innocent suspects that we're having such problems with already. I've seen a number of documentaries on this issue, and it is absolutely astounding how implacable, callous and hardened prosecutors, judges,detectives and police can be in resisting even the most obvious and blatant evidence that they made a mistake and condemned an innocent person to death.

 

I think there's far too much possibility for collusion and distortion or omission of evidence, bribery, etc., in the case of people who've lost a family member and are all too anxious to see someone punished for the crime, and all too vulnerable to the pressure of prosecutors who are also anxious to put forward a no-tolerance,action-oriented, tough-on-crime front to satisfy what are so often media- and local, politically, racist, or culturally driven clamoring for vengeance and blood. I'm all for victims' rights, but it just seems to me that giving a family a direct say in this whole procedure just does nothing but to amp up the frenzy even more, with what can be completely tragic, unjust results.

 

In any system which is going to maintain the option of capital punishment, it's really mandatory to have irrefutable evidence through DNA, video, etc. as Bug noted above. If the punishment is going to be irrevocable, then the burden of proof, to be fair, should be irrevocable on the state. "Innocent until proven guilty", beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not the other way around, must be the standard if the ordinary person is to have any chance at all, and if a so-called free and open society is to remain.

 

Having said that, I have to admit that I'm in firm opposition to the death penalty. Killing the perpetrator of a blood crime is just perpetuating the cycle of violence, and it has been shown conclusively in a multitude of long term studies to have little to no effect as a deterrent. It further inculcates and sanctions violence as a viable principle in society while doing nothing to prevent it. And there are many cases of murder or manslaughter where an otherwise perfectly normal, decent, useful human being lost control and committed the crime in a fit of passion. Where one human life has already been"wasted", to destroy yet another only compounds the tragedy and suffering on all sides.

 

The Buddhists say that we should never give up on anyone or anything, that to do so is to lose precious opportunity for growth,learning, forgiveness and healing on all sides. One teacher used to tell his students to "try very hard to get through life without killing anyone, and that includes doing it legally as well," as in the case of service in the military, police, or capital punishment.(He recognized that there are cases in which you may have no other choice--everyone has the right to self defense of home and family).

 

And it's not just the Buddhists; it's worth noting that Christianity is based on the New Testament, where it says, "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, that ye be not judged, and (lots of us forget this part) "condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned". This is also the part where it goes on to talk about not trying to get the mote out of your brother's eye until you have pulled the beam out of your own eye. And even in the Old Testament, it says "'Vengeance is mine', saith the Lord".

 

While incarceration is unarguably expensive, the death penalty, death row, and the endless cycle of appeals that results, is many times costlier, both in terms of dollars and in the emotional and psychological turmoil and limbo inflicted on the families of both sides. Only the lawyers truly benefit. Everyone else, ALL the rest of us, pay and pay. Someone who is incarcerated for life can still be of some use to society, can still make use of whatever skills they may have as a way of repaying their debt to society and to the victim's family, while being forced to live with and confront their own misdeeds and suffering continually, every day.

 

For those criminally insane who may be utterly umcomprehending of the enormity of their crime, those completely lacking in any conscience or the ablity to feel any degree of remorse, or so seriously disturbed as to remain constantly unpredictable and dangerous, then the only option is life without parole. In most other "civilized" countries, even these are treated with compassion and humanity, not demonization and blind fear.

 

I also feel that life without parole should be exercised more than it is, especially in the case of career criminals who've committed capital crimes. On the more conservative side, there are far too many cases of murderers who are paroled after 15 or 20 years or more, who kill again once they're outside, like the man who killed the 4 policemen in Tacoma. We need to find more dependable ways of evaluating such people and seeing to it that they're not set free to go down the same road again.

 

After the Tacoma shooting, and the revelation that the shooter's own family was helping him elude capture, I heard comments that the whole family deserved the death penalty for what happened, and "good riddance to the whole lot of 'em", etc. But in reading about the family background, and the shooter's upbringing, it became clear that the family was very sick and dysfunctional, going a long time back, and that what the shooter and his family needed most was treatment, not death. Even with treatment, it's clear now that he never should have been released in the first place. But putting him to death would have done nothing to help his family get better, or those of the first person he originally went to prison for killing.

 

I think the Truth Commissions of South Africa and Rwanda, in the aftermath of the apartheid and tribal atrocities, are worthy of serious consideration as an alternative to the death penalty, at least as a part of the legal system. Their prime emphasis and operation is organized around confession, understanding and "real" forgiveness. Of course they have a much different and very complicated situation from ours. And I'm in no way advocating that they replace or substitute for legal punishment and incarceration, but at least act as a supplement, an adjunct, to how we deal with capital crime.

 

Bishop Desmond Tutu, who has served as a primary motivator and facilitator of these commissions, said a very profound thing when asked what was meant by "real" forgiveness. He said that it means not just saying "I forgive you", but also "to drop and forgo any vengeance, any further claim against, or right of reprisal, in any form, against those who have wronged you, once and for all, and to never take it up again."

 

And Bishop Tutu said that, as hard as it is to do this, that so far, it has proven to be the most effective way that the victims, as well as the assailants, have been able to really heal and move on. Because the desire for vengeance, the carrying and nurturing of anger and hatred for those who harmed you, and what they did, has been shown beyond all doubt to be far more harmful and corrosive to those carrying the hate, than it is to those who are hated. It's really the first time in the history of the world, so far as we know, that anything like this has been tried, and it seems to be working.

 

As I say, they have a different situation than we do. On a purely practical level, neither of these two countries has the resources, the prison capacity, or the size of legal system necessary to prosecute and imprison the huge numbers of perpetrators, or even to identify and apprehend them all, for any length of time. And because of this, to simply be able pick up and carry on with ordinary daily life, in a reasonable amount of time, the Truth Commissions were what they came up with. It was the only way that made any sense for hundreds of villages and towns where people are living a few blocks or a few doors from someone who killed their relatives or raped, assaulted, or maimed them with machetes, without the whole situation descending into uncontrolled violence and rampaging madness all over again.

 

We may find such a method utterly ridiculous and ludicrous; but with the largest prison population per capita, and the largest number of prisoners on death row, of any developed, civilized country in the world, we may not be all that far from a time when real forgiveness may become a very necessary element in the reform and healing of a very sick and violent society. The simple fact is that you will never be able to execute and imprison your way out of the problems that are causing these things to happen over and over again. The solutions may not be all that clear, but it is all too abundantly clear that more killing is most definitely NOT the answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2010 by Mtguide

[tvashtarkatena]

Killing itself could be considered cruel and unusual. One need not compare it to the more imaginative medieval tortures to define it as such.

 

Countering one poster's argument, execution is actually not just more expensive, but several million dollars more expensive per case than life in prison.

 

Having victims determine punishment would fly in the face of a democratic system as well as violate the equal protection clause, given that punishment under such a system would most certainly not be consistently applied. One conviction gets a few years, an almost identical conviction gets death. Not good. Furthermore, families are in no way authorized, empowered or governed by the electorate. Judges, in contrast, are either elected or appointed by elected officials. Finally, families are not, and should not, be privy to the defendant's history and circumstance; they're not qualified, and I would go further as to say completely unqualified, given their obvious emotional involvement, to weigh these factors in any reasonable manner.

 

Such a system, in the end, would likely become a reality TV style media circus, rather than a deliberative process to determine innocence or guilt and, if the latter, appropriate punishment.

Edited January 10, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

It's also important to remember that in a majority of capital cases, the victims and perp know each other. In many of those cases, the victims are actually part of the problem and provocation. There can a long time feud between perp and victim...gang violence comes to mind...do we really want a system where the 'victim' can use the state to continue such feuds? As another example, do we want an abused woman who has murdered her abuser (not condoned, mind you...get a fucking divorce already) to have her fate decided by his family?

 

We all like to think of capital cases as being just like those on the cop shows: clear bad guy, innocent victim, but in a majority of cases, it's not that simple.

Edited January 10, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

i don't have a deep and committed opinion on the issue, and won't really until it affects me personally

 

the state kills, and we accept that as soon as we accept any situation in which war is acceptable - like war, the decision to execute must not be casual and pragmatic, but deeply and well considered and made only after all other options are exhausted

 

it's silly to think we'll ever be "civilized" - the concept itself is an avalon, a shining city on a hill that exists only in dreams - the real world is bloody and ugly - by your own admittance, tvash, we are hairless monkeyies w/ digital wristwatches, and we can not hope for more.

 

capital punishment should be very rare - but to say it's never acceptable is silly - walter e kurtz has my back on this one

[ivan]

Allowing the families of victims to determine punishment would certainly have to be done within legal limits of what the law provides in capital cases. But even so, I wonder if this kind of provision wouldn't result in even greater pressure on prosecutors to win a conviction, and to further facilitate the same kind of miscarriage of "justice" against innocent suspects that we're having such problems with already. I've seen a number of documentaries on this issue, and it is absolutely astounding how implacable, callous and hardened prosecutors, judges,detectives and police can be in resisting even the most obvious and blatant evidence that they made a mistake and condemned an innocent person to death.

 

I think there's far too much possibility for collusion and distortion or omission of evidence, bribery, etc., in the case of people who've lost a family member and are all too anxious to see someone punished for the crime, and all too vulnerable to the pressure of prosecutors who are also anxious to put forward a no-tolerance,action-oriented, tough-on-crime front to satisfy what are so often media- and local, politically, racist, or culturally driven clamoring for vengeance and blood. I'm all for victims' rights, but it just seems to me that giving a family a direct say in this whole procedure just does nothing but to amp up the frenzy even more, with what can be completely tragic, unjust results.

 

In any system which is going to maintain the option of capital punishment, it's really mandatory to have irrefutable evidence through DNA, video, etc. as Bug noted above. If the punishment is going to be irrevocable, then the burden of proof, to be fair, should be irrevocable on the state. "Innocent until proven guilty", beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not the other way around, must be the standard if the ordinary person is to have any chance at all, and if a so-called free and open society is to remain.

 

Having said that, I have to admit that I'm in firm opposition to the death penalty. Killing the perpetrator of a blood crime is just perpetuating the cycle of violence, and it has been shown conclusively in a multitude of long term studies to have little to no effect as a deterrent. It further inculcates and sanctions violence as a viable principle in society while doing nothing to prevent it. And there are many cases of murder or manslaughter where an otherwise perfectly normal, decent, useful human being lost control and committed the crime in a fit of passion. Where one human life has already been"wasted", to destroy yet another only compounds the tragedy and suffering on all sides.

 

The Buddhists say that we should never give up on anyone or anything, that to do so is to lose precious opportunity for growth,learning, forgiveness and healing on all sides. One teacher used to tell his students to "try very hard to get through life without killing anyone, and that includes doing it legally as well," as in the case of service in the military, police, or capital punishment.(He recognized that there are cases in which you may have no other choice--everyone has the right to self defense of home and family).

 

And it's not just the Buddhists; it's worth noting that Christianity is based on the New Testament, where it says, "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, that ye be not judged, and (lots of us forget this part) "condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned". This is also the part where it goes on to talk about not trying to get the mote out of your brother's eye until you have pulled the beam out of your own eye. And even in the Old Testament, it says "'Vengeance is mine', saith the Lord".

 

While incarceration is unarguably expensive, the death penalty, death row, and the endless cycle of appeals that results, is many times costlier, both in terms of dollars and in the emotional and psychological turmoil and limbo inflicted on the families of both sides. Only the lawyers truly benefit. Everyone else, ALL the rest of us, pay and pay. Someone who is incarcerated for life can still be of some use to society, can still make use of whatever skills they may have as a way of repaying their debt to society and to the victim's family, while being forced to live with and confront their own misdeeds and suffering continually, every day.

 

For those criminally insane who may be utterly umcomprehending of the enormity of their crime, those completely lacking in any conscience or the ablity to feel any degree of remorse, or so seriously disturbed as to remain constantly unpredictable and dangerous, then the only option is life without parole. In most other "civilized" countries, even these are treated with compassion and humanity, not demonization and blind fear.

 

I also feel that life without parole should be exercised more than it is, especially in the case of career criminals who've committed capital crimes. On the more conservative side, there are far too many cases of murderers who are paroled after 15 or 20 years or more, who kill again once they're outside, like the man who killed the 4 policemen in Tacoma. We need to find more dependable ways of evaluating such people and seeing to it that they're not set free to go down the same road again.

 

After the Tacoma shooting, and the revelation that the shooter's own family was helping him elude capture, I heard comments that the whole family deserved the death penalty for what happened, and "good riddance to the whole lot of 'em", etc. But in reading about the family background, and the shooter's upbringing, it became clear that the family was very sick and dysfunctional, going a long time back, and that what the shooter and his family needed most was treatment, not death. Even with treatment, it's clear now that he never should have been released in the first place. But putting him to death would have done nothing to help his family get better, or those of the first person he originally went to prison for killing.

 

I think the Truth Commissions of South Africa and Rwanda, in the aftermath of the apartheid and tribal atrocities, are worthy of serious consideration as an alternative to the death penalty, at least as a part of the legal system. Their prime emphasis and operation is organized around confession, understanding and "real" forgiveness. Of course they have a much different and very complicated situation from ours. And I'm in no way advocating that they replace or substitute for legal punishment and incarceration, but at least act as a supplement, an adjunct, to how we deal with capital crime.

 

Bishop Desmond Tutu, who has served as a primary motivator and facilitator of these commissions, said a very profound thing when asked what was meant by "real" forgiveness. He said that it means not just saying "I forgive you", but also "to drop and forgo any vengeance, any further claim against, or right of reprisal, in any form, against those who have wronged you, once and for all, and to never take it up again."

 

And Bishop Tutu said that, as hard as it is to do this, that so far, it has proven to be the most effective way that the victims, as well as the assailants, have been able to really heal and move on. Because the desire for vengeance, the carrying and nurturing of anger and hatred for those who harmed you, and what they did, has been shown beyond all doubt to be far more harmful and corrosive to those carrying the hate, than it is to those who are hated. It's really the first time in the history of the world, so far as we know, that anything like this has been tried, and it seems to be working.

 

As I say, they have a different situation than we do. On a purely practical level, neither of these two countries has the resources, the prison capacity, or the size of legal system necessary to prosecute and imprison the huge numbers of perpetrators, or even to identify and apprehend them all, for any length of time. And because of this, to simply be able pick up and carry on with ordinary daily life, in a reasonable amount of time, the Truth Commissions were what they came up with. It was the only way that made any sense for hundreds of villages and towns where people are living a few blocks or a few doors from someone who killed their relatives or raped, assaulted, or maimed them with machetes, without the whole situation descending into uncontrolled violence and rampaging madness all over again.

 

We may find such a method utterly ridiculous and ludicrous; but with the largest prison population per capita, and the largest number of prisoners on death row, of any developed, civilized country in the world, we may not be all that far from a time when real forgiveness may become a very necessary element in the reform and healing of a very sick and violent society. The simple fact is that you will never be able to execute and imprison your way out of the problems that are causing these things to happen over and over again. The solutions may not be all that clear, but it is all too abundantly clear that more killing is most definitely NOT the answer.

 

 

 

 

 

i'm sure there's plenty of fine substance in there, senor, but remember the golden rule of spray

 

you get about 100 words to make your point

 

if you gotta break up into seperate posts, do so at your peril

 

fortune cookie wisdom is all that's required to achieve nirvana

[ivan]

It's also important to remember that in a majority of capital cases, the victims and perp know each other. In many of those cases, the victims are actually part of the problem and provocation. There can a long time feud between perp and victim...gang violence comes to mind...do we really want a system where the 'victim' can use the state to continue such feuds? As another example, do we want an abused woman who has murdered her abuser (not condoned, mind you...get a fucking divorce already) to have her fate decided by his family?

 

We all like to think of capital cases as being just like those on the cop shows: clear bad guy, innocent victim, but in a majority of cases, it's not that simple.

i know you don't intend it, tvash, but this could easily be taken as "the victim deserves it"

 

in your situation, yes, the murdered ass-fuck's family should still have the primary say - the state's rule is simple - you shall not kill - The Man Alone has the Monopoly on Death - if you kill (and that is the only act that the DP should be applicable to - rapists, traitors, druglords, etc. should not be considered unless they've killed) than you may be killed by the state, on behalf of the victim's kin

 

i am not keen to have the state in on the people's dirty work, but that is the reality of situation - either the state dispenses justice, or the people as individuals - i'd rather it be the former

[ivan]

at any rate pat, if you can't convince a dumb-ass libtard like meself, it don't bode well for the rest of amerikkka - we have a deep and abiding love for killing folks, especially innocents!

[ivan]

why is charles manson alive?

 

what would you done w/ hitler, were he captured alive?

 

was israel wrong to make its only exception to the no-kill rule for eichman?

 

why did pol pot get to cheat the hangman?

 

stalin?

 

is the world really a lesser place now that ted bundy is gone?

 

the logic is simple - it works for abortion too - sometimes your life is too fucking inconvenient for the rest of us

 

hey, maybe the buddhists are right? see you on the other side beyotch!

[ivan]

WWGCD?

 

What Would George Carlin Do?

 

[Kimmo]

i don't have a deep and committed opinion on the issue, and won't really until it affects me personally

 

the state kills, and we accept that as soon as we accept any situation in which war is acceptable - like war, the decision to execute must not be casual and pragmatic, but deeply and well considered and made only after all other options are exhausted

 

it's silly to think we'll ever be "civilized" - the concept itself is an avalon, a shining city on a hill that exists only in dreams - the real world is bloody and ugly - by your own admittance, tvash, we are hairless monkeyies w/ digital wristwatches, and we can not hope for more.

 

capital punishment should be very rare - but to say it's never acceptable is silly - walter e kurtz has my back on this one

 

i hope you don't teach class when drunk....

[ivan]

i don't have a deep and committed opinion on the issue, and won't really until it affects me personally

 

the state kills, and we accept that as soon as we accept any situation in which war is acceptable - like war, the decision to execute must not be casual and pragmatic, but deeply and well considered and made only after all other options are exhausted

 

it's silly to think we'll ever be "civilized" - the concept itself is an avalon, a shining city on a hill that exists only in dreams - the real world is bloody and ugly - by your own admittance, tvash, we are hairless monkeyies w/ digital wristwatches, and we can not hope for more.

 

capital punishment should be very rare - but to say it's never acceptable is silly - walter e kurtz has my back on this one

 

i hope you don't teach class when drunk....

do you think i teach my students what to think on the subject?

 

ever more so, even if i wanted, do you think i could convince them?

[Bug]

I know two women who were raped.

Both were random victims unlike the norm.

One was raped at knife point and fought just enough to get his blood on her and her blood on him.

He is up for parole in two years.

The other one was raped and testified against the rapist. This put him in prison for several years. She was killed by the rapist just as he said he would if she testified against him. He got out on parole and she was dead within 24 hours.

Let's try to rehabilitate him again eh?

I have two daughters and two step daughters.

I beleive in owning guns.

[ivan]

 

i hope you don't teach class when drunk....

i can't really teach when i have to pee

[Stonehead]

the state's rule is simple - you shall not kill - The Man Alone has the Monopoly on Death -

 

Yet, most people have no problem with abortion or Death with Dignity, cases where death is determined by the individual. Of course, these deaths are not in the context of crime and punishment but there are the somewhat common elements of innocence and expediency.

[Mtguide]

Thanks Ivan, did not know that about lengthy comments in Spray. Especially appreciate the reminder about "fortune cookie wisdom", absolutely the truth.

[ivan]

the state's rule is simple - you shall not kill - The Man Alone has the Monopoly on Death -

 

Yet, most people have no problem with abortion or Death with Dignity, cases where death is determined by the individual. Of course, these deaths are not in the context of crime and punishment but there are the somewhat common elements of innocence and expediency.

exactly - death is not necessarily bad

[ivan]

The other one was raped and testified against the rapist. This put him in prison for several years. She was killed by the rapist just as he said he would if she testified against him. He got out on parole and she was dead within 24 hours.

Let's try to rehabilitate him again eh?

I have two daughters and two step daughters.

I beleive in owning guns.

per my view, this man deserves death

 

and yes, guns are fine

 

but a blackpowder weapon would do just fine in all these cases, either for her to have killed him in defense or you to kill him in vengeance, for which your own life must be subject to his kin, dumbfucks that they might be, per The Golden Rule

[Stonehead]

Well, here's a case where who was killed can strongly predetermine the likely punishment.

 

Death, the Drug War, and Cory Maye

 

Cory Maye, a young father from Prentiss, Mississippi, was asleep in his home when it was invaded by a pack of armed intruders. Maye grabbed a firearm and fatally shot one of the marauders, unaware that the intruders were a SWAT team conducting a narcotics raid on the wrong address.

 

Despite the fact that the police raided the wrong house, and Maye was acting in what he believed to be self-defense, Maye was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Persistent appeals by Maye resulted in commutation of the death penalty, but he remains in prison, potentially for life.

 

An individual is within his rights to use lethal force to defend himself when his life is threatened by police who invade a home without a warrant. This is recognized in both law and judicial precedents. Fortunately, Maye will have a chance to make that case: On November 17, the Mississippi Court of Appeals granted Maye a new trial.

Justice, at Last, for Cory Maye?