Abolish the death penalty now!

[Johnny Coli]

And we have lawyers willing to make thier case for the defense or prosecution of lives in a death penalty cases  like a chess match, where the only desire is to win!

726915[/snapback]

Not entirely true. Many capital crime cases are given to public defenders because (surprise!) a good deal of these cases involve someone too poor to fund their own defense. Public defenders get paid very little to do their job, and often have to juggle multiple cases with very little resources. Anyone wealthy enough to mount a defense in a case involving the death penalty probably has a lawyer adequate enough to get a plea offer to take death off the table. I'm not saying that public defenders aren't savy enough in this aspect, it's often the case of being overburdened, or not having any clout to bargin with, ie let's plead this one and I won't fight you on this motion in this other case.

 

I'm sure some of the lawyers that post on this board could adress this better than I...well, all the ones that haven't been banned.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Not entirely true.  Many capital crime cases are given to public defenders because (surprise!) a good deal of these cases involve someone too poor to fund their own defense.  Public defenders get paid very little to do their job, and often have to juggle multiple cases with very little resources.  Anyone wealthy enough to mount a defense in a case involving the death penalty probably has a lawyer adequate enough to get a plea offer to take death off the table.  I'm not saying that public defenders aren't savy enough in this aspect, it's often the case of being overburdened, or not having any clout to bargin with, ie let's plead this one and I won't fight you on this motion in this other case. 

 

I'm sure some of the lawyers that post on this board could adress this better than I...well, all the ones that haven't been banned.

726957[/snapback]

 

Actually, judging by my sister's office, it's just the opposite: public defenders are more likely to try to strike a plea bargain because they're so overburdened, and it's far less time-consuming to plea out than go to court.

 

The real issue that comes in there is: prosecutors don't have to take the plea. Often they'd like to...prosecutors have a hellacious case burden, too. But they can force the public defender to court, if they so choose, and the PD doesn't have much of an option (a well-paid private attorney, on the other hand, can threaten to bury the prosecution in paperwork and use that as a bargaining chip in a plea bargain, which is where the real benefit of a private attorney comes in.)

 

Plus...never overlook the inherent stupidity of defendants. My sister had a guy in a drug/assault case who insisted on going to court because he swore he could beat the identification...no matter how often my sister pointed out to him that he had a damn swastika tattooed on his forehead. In a capital case, that guy would have fried regardless of whether he had his own lawyer or a public defender.

[Chilly]

We have a highway system, even though we know tens of thousands of innocent people will be killed each year in car accidents.  We have construction projects, even though this means construction workers getting killed. 

 

People are willing to pay this kind of price, because they see the benefits to highways, to construction projects, and to other dangerous things.  But my experience has been that most opponents of the death penalty aren't interested in hearing about the benefits of executing criminals.  They're willing to do a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to lives lost on highways or construction projects; but not when it comes to criminal executions. Hence my conclusion that many opponents of the death penalty are acting as though an incorrect execution is a greater tragedy than a highway death or murder or construction-related death.

726907[/snapback]

 

I gotcha now.

 

I think that executing criminals versus jailing them doesn't have many, if any, benefits and that the cost of executing an innocent man far outweighs the benefits from executing criminals. Whereas the other things obviously have much different benefits.

 

But I don't think its quite as simple as a cost-benefit analysis. Theres also a moral factor to throw in here. Some people believe that we should do everything reasonable in order to prevent someone innocent from getting murdered.

 

What reasonable is, however, seems to vary a lot, and can use a cost-benefit analysis like you are talking about to determine that, among other things.

[Orton's Arm]

Just tell me this: are you "Free Tookie!", or "Fry Tookie!"?

726939[/snapback]

I don't claim to be an expert on Tookie's case. From what I've read, it sounds like he's guilty of those murders. If so, I'm fine with his execution.

[Orton's Arm]

I gotcha now.

 

I think that executing criminals versus jailing them doesn't have many, if any, benefits and that the cost of executing an innocent man far outweighs the benefits from executing criminals.  Whereas the other things obviously have much different benefits.

 

But I don't think its quite as simple as a cost-benefit analysis.  Theres also a moral factor to throw in here.  Some people believe that we should do everything reasonable in order to prevent someone innocent from getting murdered.

 

What reasonable is, however, seems to vary a lot, and can use a cost-benefit analysis like you are talking about to determine that, among other things.

I see three benefits to executing criminals:

- Deterrent. An economist used econometric tools to determine that each additional execution deters four murders. Presumably this effect would be even stronger if there was more quickness and certainty with respect to capital punishment.

- Justice. Someone guilty of murder or another equally heinous offense deserves to be executed.

- Permanence. Liberal states in financial trouble--a redundant phrase if ever there was one--have been known to try to save money by releasing people from jail early. Whichever criminals are dead can't be released due to such a lapse in discipline.

- Human dignity. People don't belong in cages; locked away like animals in a zoo.

 

If these four ends are to be achieved, it will sometimes happen that a person innocent of the crime they're accused of will be executed as well. As long as these people are guilty of some other serious crime, I don't see this as too serious an issue. In any case, DNA testing and other new forensic tools have significantly improved the criminal justice system.

[RuntheDamnBall]

As long as these people are guilty of some other serious crime, I don't see this as too serious an issue.

727107[/snapback]

Well I'm sure we're all glad Judge Holcomb's Arm is on the case. What if it was your brother being put to death for a crime he didn't commit, even if he'd committed a (less) serious crime? You'd have no problem with this, whatsoever due to some warped idea of the greater good? I'm sorry. As long as there is injustice, the work for justice is not done. You seem to indicate that there's an acceptable level of injustice. I don't.

 

Guilty criminals who've authored serious crimes can go to jail for life and are not being unjustly punished, and it's not as though it's not "enough" punishment. In the meantime, the justice system can work out the truth. I find your supreme confidence in an instrumental rationality that solves all issues wrt the death penalty troubling.

 

In the meantime, at some point, I keep hoping we're to rise above the criminal and renounce the violence they've decided to embrace - that we'll refuse to stoop to that level.

[UConn James]

I see three benefits to executing criminals:

- Deterrent.  An economist used econometric tools to determine that each additional execution deters four murders.  Presumably this effect would be even stronger if there was more quickness and certainty with respect to capital punishment.

- Justice.  Someone guilty of murder or another equally heinous offense deserves to be executed.

- Permanence.  Liberal states in financial trouble--a redundant phrase if ever there was one--have been known to try to save money by releasing people from jail early.  Whichever criminals are dead can't be released due to such a lapse in discipline.

- Human dignity.  People don't belong in cages; locked away like animals in a zoo.

727107[/snapback]

 

- That ain't a phenomenon exclusive to "liberal states," junior. But you go ahead and pretend there's a difference. Remember the guy who led the girl away on videotape in Florida? What was only his most recent crime before that was committed with a handgun. Mandatory 5-year sentence for that charge alone, yet he was out in 3.

 

Congress this week passed legislation that creates a national database and harsher fed punishments for child sexual assault including the death penalty when the victim is murdered. This, b/c some states fail to do more than catch and release.

 

- As for "human dignity"... I wouldn't really cite this as a reason for the death penalty, but the rest of the statement I can agree with. For those who think it's somehow more civilized to keep someone in an 8x8 for the duration of their life, I call BS. The only difference is how fast it happens, and that when someone dies of a heart attack 30 years later, we don't have to read about it in the newspaper and have our weak sensibilities shocked --- shocked I say!

 

As Darin said upthread about locking people up with nothing left to lose... Case in point is Esteban Carpio in Providence. Killed a cop in the interrogation room and there've been many incidents in holding, one that sent two guards to the hospital. These people do not become choir boys in prison and spend their free time feeling remorse just because society wants them to.

 

 

In the meantime, at some point, I keep hoping we're to rise above the criminal and renounce the violence they've decided to embrace - that we'll refuse to stoop to that level.

727110[/snapback]

 

I believe this methodology is also called, "Swatting at flies."

[Orton's Arm]

Well I'm sure we're all glad Judge Holcomb's Arm is on the case.  What if it was your brother being put to death for a crime he didn't commit, even if he'd committed a (less) serious crime?  You'd have no problem with this, whatsoever due to some warped idea of the greater good? 

And I see you do have a problem with this, due to some warped idea that those guilty of heinous offenses still have the right to live.

In the meantime, at some point, I keep hoping we're to rise above the criminal and renounce the violence they've decided to embrace - that we'll refuse to stoop to that level.

How would you feel about the concept of rising above thieves, by renouncing all fines? Or how about rising above kidnappers, by never forcibly constraining people in jail? The problem is this: the harder people like you try to be ethical, the closer to anarchy this country will get. Real ethics is to recognize that the government's duty is to deter future crimes by punishing past ones. Its duties have nothing to do with protecting criminals.

[Orton's Arm]

- That ain't a phenomenon exclusive to "liberal states," junior. But you go ahead and pretend there's a difference.

This portion of your post was of a significantly lower quality than the rest. I never stated nor implied that liberal states were the only ones to release criminals early. It's quite common for criminals to be released before they've served their full sentences.

 

But I've heard of a few times when states faced with severe financial problems were contemplating dramatic reductions in their inmate populations, through wholesale releases. The states that contemplated such measures were invariably liberal.

 

I did write that all liberal states tend to be in financial trouble. Maybe there's an exception to this somewhere, but as a general rule liberalism = lack of spending discipline = severe financial problems.

[RuntheDamnBall]

And I see you do have a problem with this, due to some warped idea that those guilty of heinous offenses still have the right to live.

727201[/snapback]

1) You didn't answer my question, nice cop-out.

2) I've told you how I feel and I don't feel capable (ever) of deciding someone else's fate.

How would you feel about the concept of rising above thieves, by renouncing all fines?  Or how about rising above kidnappers, by never forcibly constraining people in jail?  The problem is this: the more ethical people like you think they're being, the closer to anarchy this country will get.  Real ethics is to recognize that the government's duty is to deter future crimes by punishing past ones.  Its duties have nothing to do with protecting criminals.

727201[/snapback]

I think that the taking of life is different by a longshot from these crimes. And yes, its duties have everything to do with protecting all citizens (criminal, suspected criminal or not) equally under the law. Read the goddamned Constitution.

[UConn James]

This portion of your post was of a significantly lower quality than the rest.  I never stated nor implied that liberal states were the only ones to release criminals early.  It's quite common for criminals to be released before they've served their full sentences.

 

Yes you did. It's right there in between the part where you make a point to single out "liberal states" as the ones who do this.

 

Don't try to tell me you're heading east into the setting sun.

 

But I've heard of a few times when states faced with severe financial problems were contemplating dramatic reductions in their inmate populations, through wholesale releases.  The states that contemplated such measures were invariably liberal.

 

I did write that all liberal states tend to be in financial trouble.  Maybe there's an exception to this somewhere, but as a general rule liberalism = lack of spending discipline = severe financial problems.

727205[/snapback]

 

Yep, in recent years there's been some in Calif. and Washington. But do you mean such liberal states as Kentucky? Maine (Family owns property there; they may be blue, but don't even try to tell me that's a 'liberal' state)?

 

And I'm sure Darin will be here to scoff at that last paragraph. The only time conservative pols are conservative is in the election speeches. In a few minutes time, you can find out that it's tough all over:

 

As more states explore options, they are caught between preserving public safety and preserving public coffers. One alternative used in some states is the release of nonviolent inmates into community- based supervision programs. States are using a variety of methods to trim corrections costs:

• Kentucky, Montana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas have released nonviolent criminals early by granting them clemency. Most of those inmates selected were close to their release date.

• Ohio is closing three prisons and Illinois is closing one.

• Iowa laid off prison guards.

• Minnesota started charging inmates

room and board.

• Michigan, North Dakota, Mississippi, Louisiana and Connecticut have either repealed or changed their mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

[Orton's Arm]

Liberal states in financial trouble--a redundant phrase if ever there was one--have been known to try to save money by releasing people from jail early. 

Maybe I should have been more clear that while both kinds of states do this, liberal states are more egregious about it.

 

As for the Kentucky article you provided, the most interesting part was this:

But the measure has drawn sharp criticism from both Republicans and Patton's fellow Democrats

The people of Kentucky elected a Democrat governor, only to find they got a politician who's soft on crime. What a surprise. Maine's governor is also a Democrat.

[UConn James]

The people of Kentucky elected a Democrat governor, only to find they got a politician who's soft on crime.  What a surprise.  Maine's governor is also a Democrat.

727237[/snapback]

 

Oh, I forgot.

 

Democrats=soft on crime. Republicans=want to fry everyone.

 

Democrats=liberal. Republicans=conservative.

 

Democrats=want to kill all the babies. Republicans=want to sew all vaginas closed.

 

These are all so easy to see and set in stone. And the people killed the fatted calf and they did eat.

 

Sigh.... I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

[cromagnum]

And I see you do have a problem with this, due to some warped idea that those guilty of heinous offenses still have the right to live.

727201[/snapback]

 

I live in N.H., a conservative state that has a death penalty law..

They haven't used IT since the 60's?

[Orton's Arm]

1) You didn't answer my question, nice cop-out.

You asked me how I'd feel in a case involving my own brother. In general, do you feel it's a good idea for people to sit on juries when their siblings are the accused? Don't you feel this would create too much lenience towards criminals?

2) I've told you how I feel and I don't feel capable (ever) of deciding someone else's fate.

If that's the case, I'm confused as to why you're participating in this discussion. The criminal justice system by its very nature decides people's fates all the time. If you convict an innocent man, that's an act of injustice. If you let a guilty man go, and if that guilty man kills again, that's an equally great act of injustice. Anyone who seeks to persuade others of his or her opinion about how the criminal justice system should work needs to take responsibility both for minimizing harm to the innocent and minimizing the harm criminals do.

[Orton's Arm]

Sigh.... I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

727246[/snapback]

In our discussions, I didn't use any personal attacks against you. So I was disappointed by the last line of your post; as I'd thought you were better than that.

 

I'm an "unarmed person" because it's not immediately obvious to me that two states with Democratic governors aren't being run by conservatives? I've lived in the South, and I've seen a lot more liberalism there than I'd expected. I'm not going to automatically assume Kentucky is conservative simply because of its location. If I see a Democratic governor taking pro-crime measures, I'm at least open to the idea this governor is a liberal. If you have substansive evidence this isn't the case, I'd like to hear it. If all you've got is more personal attacks, don't bother.

[/dev/null]

In our discussions, I didn't use any personal attacks against you.  So I was disappointed by the last line of your post; as I'd thought you were better than that.

 

I'm an "unarmed person" because it's not immediately obvious to me that two states with Democratic governors aren't being run by conservatives?    I've lived in the South, and I've seen a lot more liberalism there than I'd expected.  I'm not going to automatically assume Kentucky is conservative simply because of its location.  If I see a Democratic governor taking pro-crime measures, I'm at least open to the idea this governor is a liberal.  If you have substansive evidence this isn't the case, I'd like to hear it.  If all you've got is more personal attacks, don't bother.

727300[/snapback]

 

dude, your signature makes me sad

[UConn James]

In our discussions, I didn't use any personal attacks against you.  So I was disappointed by the last line of your post; as I'd thought you were better than that.

 

I'm an "unarmed person" because it's not immediately obvious to me that two states with Democratic governors aren't being run by conservatives?    I've lived in the South, and I've seen a lot more liberalism there than I'd expected.  I'm not going to automatically assume Kentucky is conservative simply because of its location.  If I see a Democratic governor taking pro-crime measures, I'm at least open to the idea this governor is a liberal.  If you have substansive evidence this isn't the case, I'd like to hear it.  If all you've got is more personal attacks, don't bother.

727300[/snapback]

 

How was that a personal attack? Just like the guy last month on the main board who suggested that we "CUT RIAN LINDELL RIGHT NOW!!!" my problem is with the strength of your arguments and how you express them. (Maybe that first post in this thread is clear in your head, but for others here it was written in Greek).

 

You can't get past the standard classifications. And that's all right I guess; 100M other Americans can't either. Some of us are hip to the idea that any state can have fiscal problems no matter who its leaders are or what the letter is in parenthases after their names. When defecits arise, wise pols cut spending to balance the budget. It happens in CT, it happens in Iowa, it happens in Alaska. Usually, social services are the first to go sometimes its not enough and other areas are explored. I simply believe that releasing prisoners early is a bad idea and if it were up to me, I'd first close DMVs to make sure all sex offenders and violent criminals would rot if they can't be executed.

 

What we need to rid ourselves of is the idea that Republicans are somehow more trustworthy with the public purse. They are just as bad as Dems, only they want to spend the tax money in different areas. Make no mistake. A $150 tax rebate is next to nothing --- and from a certain economic viewpoint, when you're running a defecit during a war, it's foolish --- but some people see that as them doing us a big G-D favor, and they get away with stealing thousands from each person to fund crap like teacup museums and a military that's too bloated and disorganized for its own good.

 

So there you go. It's not an ad hom attack. It's an ad Wacka-approach attack.

[Chilly]

I see three benefits to executing criminals:

- Deterrent.  An economist used econometric tools to determine that each additional execution deters four murders.  Presumably this effect would be even stronger if there was more quickness and certainty with respect to capital punishment.

- Justice.  Someone guilty of murder or another equally heinous offense deserves to be executed.

- Permanence.  Liberal states in financial trouble--a redundant phrase if ever there was one--have been known to try to save money by releasing people from jail early.  Whichever criminals are dead can't be released due to such a lapse in discipline.

- Human dignity.  People don't belong in cages; locked away like animals in a zoo.

727107[/snapback]

 

- Deterence: I have not read one study which suggested that executions deter crime. In fact, all of the studies that I have read say just the opposite, that there is no effect. Care to post a link?

 

- Justice: And someone who is innocent deserves to not be executed. It works both ways. Live in prison = middle ground.

 

- Money: And it costs moer money to execute someone then to keep them in prison for life. Fix the issue with priorities, which is a seperate issue from this one.

 

- Dignity: Being executed has more dignity then being put in jail? Personal Opinion perhaps, but not a factor that I agree with beign in consideration for the death penalty.

[Orton's Arm]

You can't get past the standard classifications. And that's all right I guess; 100M other Americans can't either. Some of us are hip to the idea that any state can have fiscal problems no matter who its leaders are or what the letter is in parenthases after their names.

I agree many Republicans can't be trusted with money. Traditionally, there's been a correlation between Democrats and liberalism; and between liberalism and waste. The first correlation is becoming weaker, because the Republican party is drifting away from its Calvin Coolidge tradition of small government. One need look no further than the current president to see a Republican spending money like a drunken sailor.

 

But the fact the Republicans have lost legitimacy in recent years doesn't add an iota of credibility to Democrats. On the contrary, it seems most Democrat politicians are just as eager to spend other people's money as ever.