Killing is a daily part of my job, yes it is animals but it is still killing.
I am pro-death penalty, people like the woman in Houston that drowned her 5 kids needs to be put to death. Her husband should be placed in prison for life also as he knew after the 3rd child she was suffering from depression (post-partum) and yet she went on to have 2 more kids. I see those poor kids in my mind struggling under the water reaching for help-she needs to die. It is unfortunate that innocent people are wrongly convicted but some of these people are truly guilty (Jeffry Dahmer also comes to mind as well as John Wayne Gacy etc..)

I would have no problem pulling the switch, If jury members were required to do this-no problem for me. BTW a bottle of beuthanasia is cheap-I don't understand why we don't use this- it works well.

I'd probably enlist in the Guardian Angels, and take it upon myself to administer justice for whoever I felt was wronged....But is it my place to commit such acts? And where do we draw the line? Peolpe have different perceptions of punishment, a victim of robbery may feel the same level of punishment is adequate for the offender as someone who lost a family member. There are too many mitigating circumstances and not a definable criteria to determine (right now) who receives this for a majority of cases. But since it seems so many ppl have no problem with pulling the switch, maybe the jury can possess the power of whether someone lives or dies.

OK, I've already given my stance on the issue, but I feel like there's a couple points being argued that I don't understand - Not to pick on skip101 at all - yours was just the first post I saw, many others have said similar things, I'm not trying to bash you or anything!

This isn't actually true - in fact, there's no proof of this at all, and most studies state exactly the opposite - that there is no deterrent effect associated with capital punishment.

Also, here's a somewhat poorly worded but fairly well-done cite

OK - I don't have that data here at hand, but I think this is sort of the fallacy of the complex question. "Most Crimes" aren't the ones that will fall under the death penalty anyway, right? Well here's an interesting case study, culled from the Portland Oregonian, of actual cases of the repeat offenders. A quick scan shows that some had committed 'capital' offences before, but most had not - they had committed much lower offences, and later worked up to murder or rape.

So does the problem then really lie in the lack of use of the death penalty? I'll argue that it's more of an institutional problem than this - the entire system has faults, and the death penalty is in no way a cure-all for the woes of murder, rape, etc in our society. Rather, I'll openly state that if we wish to institute the death penalty, it must only be openly due to the fact that death is felt to be an appropriate punishment for the crimes committed.

Other reasons - whether they be deterrence, revenge, religion, or monetary reasons - don't hold water, in my opinion.

KSig RC- Were we looking at the same thing??? What I saw was a lot of high level crimes that NEVER should have been pardoned or should have held greater sentences. People get out of jail far too easily IMO. Anyway, I didn't take a count on the cases or break it down into statistics, I just scanned it.

I share some of your thinking, but not all. One point you made that I readily agree with is-"Rather, I'll openly state that if we wish to institute the death penalty, it must only be openly due to the fact that death is felt to be an appropriate punishment for the crimes committed." However, I think it was James (Lil G also) who said we each could interpret this differently. When that young boy was caned in Singapore, Americas felt it was barbaric. Yet, it was acceptable in their country. So who will set the standards?

I also agree that the whole sytem is at fault, right down to Juvi and the court system as a whole. The only "solution" I see must start in the home. Believe it or not, a whole theory developed around the famous Dr. Spock. Many hold him and his theories of child rearing responsible for the impulsive nature of MY generation which in turn has been deemed responsible for the lack of conscience in some of our children-YOUR generation. When our values become so mired in looking out for number one, we lose site of the greater picture. What I am trying to say is until our society as a whole steps up to the task and takes responsibility for our deeds the criminal element will continue to thrive and commit atrocities. Sad thing is, I do not see this happening.

A criminal is a criminal. I believe I would be hard pressed to find one that DEescalated his/her activities. Does anyone start out raping an infant and drowning it in a tub of scalding water? OR do they start out by shaking the baby or locking it in a closet when it cries? If allowed to move beyond point A, aren't the odds greater that B occur?

As far as the state passing laws to kill its own citizens... It is also important that the state PROTECT all citizens and the death penalty absolutely assures at least ONE piece of excrement will NEVER harm another living soul.

IMHO, death is the easy way out. People who commit
these terrible crimes should SUFFER for the rest of their lives, prisons aren't utopias, well most aren't. Or at least go the route of execution that some twc's do, eye for an eye. For example, that woman who drove her kids into the lake, should be executed the same way. Unfortunately, that will never happen here, US is to PC for that.

I know this question could counteract the above statement: What about the innocent people who are wrongfully accused? It is rare, but it does happpen. That's major reason why I lean towards anti-death penalty.

OK - this is a different discussion entirely. In a death penalty discussion, all I'm saying is that few (if any) committed capital crimes. Enforcement is a different issue, one that's totally unrelated.

This is why, although I'm in favor of the death penalty as a punishment (ie i support the concept), I DO NOT SUPPORT INSTITUTING IT! There's no way a system like this could work - and, like James states, there's TONS of implicit hypocrisy etc, and I have no doubt that constitutional issues will eventually arise, if given the right SC panel.

Well, altruism etc is good in theory, but I'll argue this point with you another time, I don't really want to hijack the thread. The point is, values are temporal - "time and place" if you will, and definition and experience differ from person to person. There's no real way to link any of this, and although you very well might be correct, it's a post hoc argument.

No?

This is a straw man argument - I don't have statistics right here in front of me . . . but I will definitely allow for differentiation between different crimes. A criminal is a criminal, sure - but what does that mean? Does that mean they lose rights as people? Does that mean we should spank them a few times and let them go? What this implies to me is that all criminals deserve the book thrown at them - which isn't a bad concept - but it's extensible conceptually to some system of across-the-board penalties, ie one harsh penalty for a variety of crimes. To me, this doesn't make sense, so I feel that differentiation needs to occur at some level. A criminal is a criminal, but only b/c they committed a crime - the human element has to remain.

. . . and it guarantees that this person will never see his or her family, hug the dog, etc - and there are many marked cases of the wrong person being convicted, even executed, for capital crimes. Doesn't this standpoint seem a little hypocritical then?

Also - the state's duty is to protect ALL its citizens . . . right? So isn't this duty also available to the criminal element? They're still people, and definitely citizens - what about making a forceful push to find ways to rehabilitate the criminal element, or prevent crime through various means (whether you feel these to be familial, religious, or via intensive drug use), and use these rather than a method which, in current form, appears to have no real value to the majority of the citizens of any given populous, since total overhaul of the system doesn't seem inordinately possible?

Just to play devil's advocate for a while . . .

K Sig RC,

:eek: Damn dude, you'll make a good lawyer or politician (sp?)! Take that as a compliment.

KSig RC , What in the heck are you arguing??? I'm sorry, but I'm a tad lost.
When you posted the link, you introduced it for discussion.

The death penalty is not "instituted" it is an option that a jury has. I am for having this option available, and yes, if I were a juror who was convinced, I would use it.

Crime is ALL about values.

Yes,criminals lose their rights. Being put in jail, they lose their "right" to freedoms of all sorts. The justice system offers them council (even though it could be inept council) to help protect those rights...to "help" see JUSTICE is served. Now, I know we can all get into a discussion of justice, but that too is philisophical.

The reference to looking to our homes and family life is nothing new when discussing topics of this nature. The thread did bring up the issue of Death Penalty as a deterent to future crime didn't it? Check out some Soc. and Psych courses as they reinforce the cause/effect that values and experiences one learns through their environment has in relationship to future crime. The time to deter crime is not after the fact. As a side note, I already took those courses and don't feel a need to post a link. The bit about Spock-Actually, it was a little FYI ( a universal FYI, not you individualy) that is interesting in the context of crime & deterents.

Of course there are different degrees of criminal behavior. This is a death penalty discussion, not parking violations. I don't think any two people on this thread hold the exact same "measuring stick" on the lower end, but for those who favor the death penalty
there are those case that hold no doubt.

Now I'll tell everyone what one of our neighbors think- He thinks those on death row should be used in medical experiments & trials...Now THAT'S a thought....

I study Sociology/Criminology and I have yet to find a conclusive study that supports evidence that it is a detterent. Greater studies of deterrence have repeatedly proven that there's a greater chance an offender would not commit a crime if he or she knew the chances of being caught were very high with a very low punishment as opposed to a very low chance of being caught with a very strict punishment. Hell if i knew there was only a 5% chance i'd receive harsh punishment from robbing a bank i'd probably go out and do it tommorrow.

Another "murderer" goes free
 

On Friday, another man convicted of murder after confessing was released from prison after DNA evidence revealed that he did not commit the crime. I wonder how many of you here would have pulled the switch and killed Mr. Bell?

From the Chicago Tribune:

Bell, 25, was charged with the July 2000 murder of his mother, Netta, after he made a videotaped confession in which he said he stabbed her to death because she had resumed her cocaine habit.

Bell, who is mildly mentally retarded and has a long history of mental illness, said in court documents that he confessed because police hit him so hard that he was knocked off a chair and because he grew weary and hopeless after being in custody for more than two days.

He said he believed that once in front of a judge he could explain that he was innocent and the judge would set him free. Instead, he was prosecuted and jailed.

Cook County prosecutors dropped charges Friday after a final round of DNA testing failed to link him to the crime. Instead, the tests have connected another man already in jail for a crime similar to Netta Bell's murder. That man, prosecutors said, remains under investigation, although he has not been charged in Netta Bell's murder.

One of Bell's lawyers, Herschella Conyers, said videotaping the interrogations that produce confessions is a crucial step in preventing false admissions.

"You can't not tape the 50 hours of denials, and not tape the time the police strike someone in the head, and not tape the way the person is coached into saying whatever he says, and then only flip on the camera for the actual confession," said Conyers of the University of Chicago's Mandel Legal Aid Clinic.

"You have to tape everything that leads up to it."

According to Geller's study of departments that tape interrogations, it cuts down on claims of coercion and abuse and often leads to guilty pleas because a videotape of an interrogation and confession is powerful evidence.

Important point before I start - this post isn't to say what my feelings are on the death penalty (in fact, I go back and forth on it), but instead to comment on some of the posts I've seen thus far.

One thing that I think some people are missing here:
Jail is decidedly NOT an "easy way out." Just because someone wasn't put on death row doesn't mean that they're getting off easy. Jail is a hellish place - there's a good chance that, depending on the crime, violent criminals could meet their death in jail anyways.

Now - as far as making the case for the death penalty based on personal cases (what if a loved one was killed, wouldn't you want the criminal put to death?) - I think once you start trying to apply a hypothetical personal tragedy to an overhaul of the system, that there should be more to it than that.

The fact remains that the death penalty has not served as a deterrent to crime. A tougher criminal justice system is needed for that. As Lil G said - if there's more of a chance of getting caught, the likelihood of committing the crime is lesser. If there are 1000 crimes committed, and only 5 people are caught (and all put to death), there's more of a chance of wanting to commit a crime than if the same 1000 crimes are committed and 500 people are sent to jail (with no or very few people sent to their deaths) If you're talking about stopping people from committing crimes, then the answer would be to catch/convict more of the people who are committing these crimes.

Collin

haha - Sorry if I wasn't inordinately clear - I'll try to clean it up a bit, and not jump into arguing logic as much as I did the last post, terminology can become jargon quite easily.

OK - the reasoning for the citation was perverted in later arguments, I feel. The point was that the death penalty would NOT have 'prevented' (directly) many of the crimes from that particular case study. This was an attack on your point that "dead people don't commit crimes" - evidence shows that to be true . . . and there aren't a lot of repeat murderers. Many crimes are committed by repeat offenders - but not necessarily repeat capital offenders, and seeing as we're discussing the death penalty, I found it necessary to point out that the death penalty would NOT have 'prevented' (in a direct, measurable sense) crimes in many of these cases. Remember - capital crimes are an extremely small part of overall crime, and even of violent crime in general.

True, and well-put.

This is a values statement - not an arguable point, and I'll respect it as such. Criminal behavior is extremely complex.

Wow - not true, unless I'm taking this the wrong way. The criminal loses certain freedoms and rights, which is supposed to be a rehabilitative measure. In the US, they are still protected under the US constitution (see: amendments to constitution specifically), and in no way lose rights to freedom of all sorts (ie speech, assembly, representation). My point was that if you're going to argue Gov'tal responsibility to its citizens, then you must concede that, under the current system of rights granted to all citizens, the gov't has a right to protect and attempt to rehabilitate AND/OR punish criminals effectively - and I'm simply questioning the effectiveness of this type of punishment, as part of the current system.

I'm familiar with the topic - although perhaps not to the same level that you are, after all I'm studying a topic only related passingly.

HOWEVER - you are not correct in assuming the death penalty to be an effective deterrent to future crime. I posted a citation above that combines many studies into one overriding hypothesis to this point, and if you look you'll find many more. As Lil_G pointed out, I have never seen evidence to the contrary; however, many studies have shown evidence against the death penalty being an effective deterrent for crime. As you said - the time to prevent crime is not after the fact, and that's what the death penalty becomes.

To my mind, this is not a strong point in favor of the death penalty; I have stated previously the only basis on which I think a solid platform can be built, and a simple one at that - I can justify the death penalty to myself on a conceptual basis simply as a punishment, but can't justify making it a part of our legal system.

Good point - I was merely questioning the extensibility of the use of such a penalty, as well as the extensibility of the "A criminal is a criminal" concept, and was only doing this for discussion purposes.

The decision for which crimes to punish capitally begets a difficult problem, though - I don't know that there really is a 'line in the sand' as such where everyone who supports the death penalty will, in fact, know the crime deserves death. This introduces some sort of moral standard to crime and punishment, doesn't it? This, I feel, removes the 'blind justice' aspect to the judicial system. Why is one occurance of any crime worse than any other? Is moral outrage enough to institute a harsher penalty? I don't know - this almost smacks more of revenge than punishment.

haha - interesting . . . ; )

Did you ever see the Saturday Night skits-Point, Counter Point?
Dan Akroid starts out-"Jane, you slimy sleazy slut, how can you possibly think..." to which she responds, " Dan you pompous, purulent pervert..." I'm so glad we can have a discussion like this. I really miss sparring with agile minds on issues that get one to think a little deeper. (Even if there's not a damn darn thing we can do about it -unless we get jury duty lol)

Yes, I see where you and Lil_G are coming from on the studies about percentages of criminals and crime in relationship to being caught. I guess I'll have to pull out the old abnormal psychology
book and find what I'm trying to express. They did have an article in our paper that said as much, but again, are we talking about the same mind? By this I mean a study like that enters the arena of risk/reward which more or less forms a sub group or- another variable all its own. Since Lil_G is familiar with this area mabe a better explanation could be offered?

Valkyrie- I would like to think I would NOT have asked for the death penalty in that situation. Having a relative who is retarded and having worked with Downs children would have made that impossible for me. In the end, the system did not fail him. Thank God.

OK- You guys are great and this is fun! Give me some time to pull out my "stuff" and if the debate is still ongoing I'll chime in! It may take a couple of days since I'M A WORKING MOM!

--hocnsoc81

yep! i agree with that, too...these ppl that have done these horrible acts get lethal injection and go to sleep like a dog--and that's it. their stay in jail should be horrific to counteract the peaceful way they get to die...unlike their victims.

and i don't know how much of a deterrent capital punishment is b/c i've never had a class that got into the details of it all...but i do know that it is called capital punishment, not capital deterrent. i think that's its main focus. to punish those who have done wrong. i mean, if it keeps someone from killing another, then great...but if someone has got it fixed in their heads to actually take the life of another, there's probably not a whole lot to keep it from happening unless someone knows about it in advance. ya know? i don't think a psycho-path sits around and weighs his options...

NEW YORK (AP) - Marking DNA's stunning revelations for the nation's criminal justice system, new tests led to the release of the 100th person to be freed nationwide because of genetic testing.

The release of Larry Mayes in Indiana last month comes as a timely victory for a nationwide coalition of advocates seeking to free those wrongfully convicted. The advocates plan to gather this weekend to call for reform of the criminal justice system.

Mayes, 52, spent 21 years in prison for a rape of a gas station cashier that he steadfastly maintained he never committed. He was released from Indiana State Prison on Dec. 21 after DNA tests of old crime scene evidence was compared to his own genetic tests.

``This DNA revolution, it's made clear our criminal justice system is not as reliable as we always thought it was,'' said Peter Neufeld, one of the founders of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.

``It's very easy for an innocent person to be convicted,'' he said, noting problems with eyewitness testimony, police lineups and state crime labs.

Police, too, welcomed the latest exoneration.

``That's a good thing as well, and not only for law enforcement,'' said Sheriff Aaron Kennard in Salt Lake County, Utah, who worked with a national commission addressing DNA's uses in the criminal justice system. ``We want the bad people behind bars and held accountable, and those innocent to be let go.''

Last week, Kennard was able to pinpoint the rapist in an unsolved 8-year-old case through DNA, as the state goes through and tests evidence of unsolved cases. The rapist is in prison for another sex offense, he said.

Neufeld, a defense attorney who launched the Innocence Project with attorney Barry Scheck, said the first exonerations came slowly, with the first two released in 1989, one in 1990 and two in 1991. But as more judges allowed exceptions to statutes for DNA tests, and some states passed laws to allow for post-conviction testing, the pace picked up.

At the same time, more projects began modeling themselves after the New York-based pro bono project. Now there are at least 25 working nationwide.

Last year, there were 20 prison inmates freed by DNA tests, Neufeld said.

``This whole movement is about ... trying to make the criminal justice system a lot more reliable than it ever was in the past,'' Neufeld said. ``It's really mushroomed into a national civil rights project.''

The advocates are seeking a federal law to guarantee all those with claims of wrongful conviction have access to DNA evidence without time limits; compensation for those wrongfully convicted; widespread reforms of law enforcement procedures; and a moratorium on the death penalty until reforms are made.

In Mayes' case, Neufeld said, the victim had failed to identify him in two separate lineups and only did so after she was hypnotized by police prior to viewing his photograph.

He was able to get tested last year after a new law allowing the tests took effect last summer. Mayes will speak to the advocates when they gather in San Diego