OT: death penalty/innocent

[malcolm]

I've been hesitant to post this link because I don't want to create a political war or even a discussion of the death penalty but I would like folks to read the article, because I just couldn't believe I hadn't heard of it before and thought most of you guys probably hadn't either.

I'm sure it isn't the whole story, but what is presented is certainly compelling enough to make it seem an innocent man was executed. Most similar cases I've read about hinge on someone of less than the highest integrity recanting a testimony after the fact or some long ago collected genetic material being analyzed. This case seems a perfect storm of ignorance, arrogance and just basic not giving a crap.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

[csm]

w/o getting too much into it.... I'd say it's time to just stop with capital punishment. I think it's long past any deterence.

[sg8357]

The DP issue aside, what got me was Velasquez the arson investigator,
some of the techniques were worthy of Monty Pythons "How to find a Witch" sketch from "The Holy Grail".

[RPS]

w/o getting too much into it.... I'd say it's time to just stop with capital punishment. I think it's long past any deterence.
Without taking either side on this issue; I’m curious how one comes to such a conclusion on any subjective topic as this?

[paczki]

Without taking either side on this issue; I’m curious how one comes to such a conclusion on any subjective topic as this?

I have to concur. Deterrence statistics are very confused and confusing.

What sort of deterrence do we have in mind? Imagine that the death penalty is only given in cases where felons are already serving life sentences, say when someone serving a life sentence has witnesses or a judge killed for retribution (as sometimes happens). That might have a rather different deterrent effect than just a blanket death penalty for aggravated first degree murder.

[johnnymossville]

I'm against capital punishment and this is only one of the reasons. Life with Zero Chance of Parole is better.

People aren't perfect and make mistakes unfortunately.

[Ray]

As shown by the host of wrongful convictions that have been overturned based on now-available DNA evidence, its clear that the justice system is very far from perfect. Which is acceptable - its run by people after all and we all fruck it up sometimes. In evidence in the article Malcolm links to, above.

But the problem with the death penalty is that you just can't take it back once its implemented. No letting someone out of purgatory and sending them on their way with a nice fat settlement for wrongful imprisonment - they're dead. Leaving aside all of the moral questions associated with whether the death penalty is good or evil and even leaving aside the deterrence question (which I agree is as confusing as advocates on either side want to make it), the inability to get it right pretty damn close to ALWAYS is far more deeply troubling to me with the terminal penalty than with reversible penalties. I don't think we should have it for that reason alone. The moral and deterrence arguments I'm honestly conflicted about.

-Ray

[dannyg1]

The DP issue aside, what got me was Velasquez the arson investigator,
some of the techniques were worthy of Monty Pythons "How to find a Witch" sketch from "The Holy Grail".


I had no idea that arson investigation wasn't a certified science. I find that, frankly, amazing; in a really, really bad way.

[Tobias]

But the problem with the death penalty is that you just can't take it back once its implemented. No letting someone out of purgatory and sending them on their way with a nice fat settlement for wrongful imprisonment - they're dead.
For me the problem is more complex that executing a few innocent people once in a while. I’m more inclined to be persuaded by numbers than feelings of guilt. Besides, we are all going to die anyway, so it's only a matter of reducing our time on earth.

As a very simple example, let’s say we executed drivers found guilty of drunk driving; a minor crime today. Sometimes we’d get it wrong, but then again we’d take many drunk drivers off the street (at a minimum there would be few repeaters, right?), thereby saving many (in the order of 15,000) lives every year. So, are you willing to execute a few innocent drivers wrongfully convicted of DWI once in a while to save 15,000 innocent lives?

In other words, how many innocent victims does it take to equal one innocent execution? It's not really a "zero" tradeoff, is it?

[Ray]

In other words, how many innocent victims does it take to equal one innocent execution? It's not really a "zero" tradeoff, is it?
No, its not. The old ACLU line (maybe it wasn't theirs but it coulda been) was that "I'd rather see 100 guilty men set free than to see one innocent man sent to jail". I'm not sure I'm that pure. Somewhere between one and one zillion there may be a number that, from a societal standpoint, we could agree is a reasonable tradeoff. Or more likely we couldn't agree on it, but we'd each perhaps have a number in mind :cool: . But there are some few things in this life that are absolute and death is the most absolute of 'em all. And the idea of putting an innocent person to death on the hope that it would save other lives down the line is something I have a HUGE amount of trouble with. So I guess maybe it does come down to a moral argument. Not a the moral argument of whether eye for an eye punishment of the GUILTY is morally right (which I find far murkier), but the idea of even one innocent person sitting in a jail cell awaiting execution for a crime he or she didn't commit is something I couldn't impose if I knew it was happening even in a minuscule percentage of cases.

-Ray

[mister]

For me the problem is more complex that executing a few innocent people once in a while. I’m more inclined to be persuaded by numbers than feelings of guilt. Besides, we are all going to die anyway, so it's only a matter of reducing our time on earth.

As a very simple example, let’s say we executed drivers found guilty of drunk driving; a minor crime today. Sometimes we’d get it wrong, but then again we’d take many drunk drivers off the street (at a minimum there would be few repeaters, right?), thereby saving many (in the order of 15,000) lives every year. So, are you willing to execute a few innocent drivers wrongfully convicted of DWI once in a while to save 15,000 innocent lives?

In other words, how many innocent victims does it take to equal one innocent execution? It's not really a "zero" tradeoff, is it?

how are innocent lives saved by executing prisoners rather than locking up for life?
the problem with execution is someone can't be unexecuted.

[Tobias]

Not a the moral argument of whether eye for an eye punishment of the GUILTY is morally right (which I find far murkier), but the idea of even one innocent person sitting in a jail cell awaiting execution for a crime he or she didn't commit is something I couldn't impose if I knew it was happening even in a minuscule percentage of cases.

-Ray
If accused of a crime, I’d beg to have you on my jury. :beer:

[Tobias]

how are innocent lives saved by executing prisoners rather than locking up for life?
the problem with execution is someone can't be unexecuted.
You missed the point that it was an example -- maybe poor but the best one I could come up with.

When we don't execute drunk drivers (which we don't) we are in effect allowing many of them to kill (i.e. -- execution of a different kind) innocent people who also can't be "unexcecuted".

I don't see it as differently as you appear to do. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, we just have different opinions and different ways of looking at life and daily consequences of our actions and decisions. :)

[Ray]

If accused of a crime, I’d beg to have you on my jury. :beer:
Even this is a mixed calculation. I wouldn't have any hesitation about voting to convict someone if the evidence was there. But I'd be far MORE willing to convict in a non-capital case than in a capital case knowing that the sentence could be reversed if I turned out to be wrong. So, in the case of a jury that thought like me, we'd perhaps save more lives by NOT having the death penalty. Its never all that simple, eh?

I'd be more than happy to throw your ass in jail for life Tobias, but I'd have a hard time putting you to death! :cool:

-Ray

[RPS]

I'd be more than happy to throw your ass in jail for life Tobias, but I'd have a hard time putting you to death! :cool:

-RayI'm certain prosecutors take that into account when deciding whether to go after the death penalty.

[Tobias]

I'm certain prosecutors take that into account when deciding whether to go after the death penalty.
Could ruin their conviction percentage, and affect their next raise. :rolleyes:

[malcolm]

The death penalty argument will be there as long as there is a death penalty.

What struck me about this case is the fact I hadn't heard about it and no one I mentioned it to had heard of it either.

Also the just bad luck of the whole thing. The guy seemed to be for lack of a better term a good ole boy kinda low life not that much unlike many of my friends from high school, just want to drink beer smoke a little weed work when necessary maybe smack the wife occasionally when high, not a guy you want next door but not really a menace to society.

The fire investigators whose arrogance was astounding, and the public officials who didn't really seem interested in expending the effort required to give it a second look.

It was just sad to me that a poor uneducated guy that just happened to look the part never had a chance against guys that apparently had no idea what they were talking about and even when he insisted he was innocent no one gave it a second look.

[RPS]

Also the just bad luck of the whole thing. The guy seemed to be for lack of a better term a good ole boy kinda low life not that much unlike many of my friends from high school, just want to drink beer smoke a little weed work when necessary maybe smack the wife occasionally when high, not a guy you want next door but not really a menace to society.

What? Just a menace to his wife? Is that OK in some circles? :confused:

BTW, this is Texas. Stay clean and you'll likely be OK. Be a screw-up and they'll take you down.

[dannyg1]

Another interesting case involving a man, absolved via DNA test, yet still headed for the executioners table:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/story/2009/08/this-ones-a-jaw-dropper.html

[malcolm]

What? Just a menace to his wife? Is that OK in some circles? :confused:

BTW, this is Texas. Stay clean and you'll likely be OK. Be a screw-up and they'll take you down.

Don't get me wrong I'm not justifying any of this and think his life style and behavior were reprehensible, but had he been sans tatoos, educated and without a history of petty crime this never would have happened. This supports the adage, life is a series of choices/decisions and sometimes the smallest ones add up.

I would also like to think if I were ever making decisions where someones life was in the balance I would give it more thought than many officials gave his.

My wife is from Texas and I lived there for several years including and internship at UTMB in galveston. I love Texas and think the austin area/hill country in general could be one of the finest places on earth to live.

[goonster]

BTW, this is Texas. Stay clean and you'll likely be OK. Be a screw-up and they'll take you down.
There are no unincarcerated screwups in Texas? :confused:

[spamjoshua]

I think there is evidence that a number of serial killers can easily hide within the system... as arson investigators, as forensics experts, as hospice care providers.

I think there is plenty of evidence that the death penalty, as with much of the US (for profit) justice system, is rife with errors and injustice.

I no longer think the debate is about whether taking a life can be justified.

I think this debate is about whether we as a nation (as Mr. Scalia is) are willing to accept a margin for error that would allow an innocent man to be killed in the name of justice.

I, for one, am not.

Joshua

[malcolm]

I think there is evidence that a number of serial killers can easily hide within the system... as arson investigators, as forensics experts, as hospice care providers.

I think there is plenty of evidence that the death penalty, as with much of the US (for profit) justice system, is rife with errors and injustice.

I no longer think the debate is about whether taking a life can be justified.

I think this debate is about whether we as a nation (as Mr. Scalia is) are willing to accept a margin for error that would allow an innocent man to be killed in the name of justice.

I, for one, am not
Joshua


All things considered who has a better justice system? I agree I would hate to face a jury of my peers but if I had to I guess I would rather do it here than just about any where else.

[Trouble]

w/o getting too much into it.... I'd say it's time to just stop with capital punishment. I think it's long past any deterence.


I agree.

The fact that more than one person has been exonerated while on death row is compelling enough to me to put an end to it.

Overzealous prosecutors, detectives and criminalist can make any case they want. It's hideous that they would send someone to their death knowing that they have withheld evidence or worst, fabricated evidence to get a conviction.

[rugbysecondrow]

I read to page 5, then skipped too the last page...too long for me and my attention span is to short.

I think for most people it is not that the punishment is unjust, but that the process of determination is flawed. I think there are some instances where the crimes of guilt are so certain (Bin Laden lets say) that the death penalty can be appropriatly applied.

[RPS]

There are no unincarcerated screwups in Texas? :confused:
Way too many -- but not for lack of trying. ;)

To be honest, I don't think jails are much of an answer either. On the one hand we can't execute enough people to make a real difference, and on the other we can't build enough jails to house and feed all the criminals we are producing or are being born -- depending on which side of "that" argument you stand. There has to be a better answer than these two choices, and the "let's educate them so they can make something of themselves" argument doesn't work for me. I think we would just have smarter criminals. :rolleyes:

[SamIAm]

I read to page 5, then skipped too the last page...too long for me and my attention span is to short.

I think for most people it is not that the punishment is unjust, but that the process of determination is flawed. I think there are some instances where the crimes of guilt are so certain (Bin Laden lets say) that the death penalty can be appropriatly applied.

That about sums it up for me as well, except I did read the whole 17 pages. :)

There are some people that are just clearly guilty. I don't think that guy was clearly guilty, guilty maybe, but not death row guilty. The scary thing is that based on the evidence available and interpreted at the time, he was very close to clearly guilty, if he had had a motive that would have pushed it over the top for me. His defense team's own expert agreed that it was arson. They probably didn't look that hard for another as they believed he was guilty as well.

The problem is people get smarter, technology gets better and other evidence comes to light over time. Unless this evidence is overwhelming (DNA for example), there is a built in bias to leave well enough alone, ignoring more subtle evidence that could have had an impact at the original trial.

A fairer, but unfeasable, way to handle this would be to bring the original jurors back to the extent possible and present the new evidence and leave it to them, with the judge having to approve the new verdict.


As to deterrent, its all a matter of application. On one extreme, if a supreme being was watching us and immediately took the life of anyone who committed murder or other suitably heinous crime, you can be assured it would be a strong deterrent with the exception of suicide bombers and the like. On the other extreme, if that same crime resulted in possible execution many years down the road, well that probably doesn't change anything.

[torquer]

BTW, this is Texas. Stay clean and you'll likely be OK. Be a screw-up and they'll take you down.
A POOR screw-up.
That was my take-away from the article when I first read it; if he had a half-way competant lawyer, and money to hire investigators, independent lab analyses, etc., even if he had lost at trial, they could have bought time until these new facts emerged. (Tragicly, they were raised shortly before his execution, but he had no legal team capable of exploiting them.) Instead he had court-appointed "council" who urged him to plea out, discouraged appeals, couldn't challenge the "expert" testamony, etc.

There are many arguements against the death penalty, but for me, the uneven application (based upon wealth, race, politics, whatever) is the critical one. Coincidentally, the day after I read the New Yorker article, I'm hanging out in the den where the wife is watching the Dominick Dunne-hosted show on TRU (?)( formerly CourtTV) dealing with the millionaire NYC real estate scion, Durst, who literally got away with murder in the Lone Star State after his no-expenses spared legal team convinced the jury that the victim (who Durst had admitted to cutting up in his bathtub and dumping the body parts in Galveston Bay) was someone, in Texas parlance, who "needed killin'." And this wasn't the first murder Mr. Durst was implicated in.

I guess that just like in sports, when it comes to justice the most important thing is to pick your parents carefully.

[DukeHorn]

The sad thing is, as a convicted criminal, he at least got healthcare till his execution....

Blurb in today's NY Times about a 32 year old woman who died from lupus complications and her fight to get healthcare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=1&em


Back to the OP, the standard is set, in theory, very high. "Beyond a reasonable doubt", right??? Which is why Scalia and Thomas have said the following:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.

Amazing isn't it? Though the part you have to attack is whether the trial was really "full and fair" if you didn't have the economic or scientific resources that the "state" has. But I'm sure the caselaw has established a bare minimum metric for "full and fair" and that wealthy people are really spending money on the "gravy".

[rugbysecondrow]

In addition, I think we need to not color this as good or bad, but rather the perspective of the players. For instance, the arson investigator could have been biased, but he was also colored by the fact that three little girls died in that fire. What a horrible job, what a terrible crime to have to recreate not only physically (through narrative), but to mentally have to piece these pieces together. I would think that the only way one would be able to compartmentalize these things is if they were sure of their own decisions. If there is doubt in a job like that, how could one move one?

Most of us will never have to do analyze anything this horrible, but I can only imagine the horror of it. I don't think anybody goes into a situation strictly wanting to get somebody, they feel justice is necesary for the victims and through that process, sometimes the innocent get snagged. I am not sure that can get fixed, but the finality of the punishment can be mitigated.

Again, I hope I never have to do what he did.

[Keith A]

This summer I read the book "The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town" by John Grisham which is a true story about Ron Williamson who was convicted of a murder that he didn't commit. This certainly opened my eyes to the injustice that can and does take place in our criminal system.

For me, I don't think I can stand behind the death penalty any longer. Maybe it's human nature for us to want someone to "pay" for a heinous crime committed against another person and so we justify the use of the death penalty. I'm sure there are cases that have overwhelming evidence that a person is guilty, but I don't think the death penalty is an effective deterrent in preventing someone from committing a crime that has this as a possible punishment.

It is bad enough for someone to spend their life behind bars for a crime they didn't commit, but for an innocent person to have their life terminated is not acceptable.

[RPS]

A POOR screw-up.
It doesn't help to be poor, a minority, or both. I know these things. But if you are smart, you control the odds as much as possible. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is.

"When it comes to justice, money matters," .......... "Well, unfortunately, I don't want to break any illusions out there, but the color of justice is green," Cochran said.

I agree with Cochran. As much as I may dislike the way things are, I try to live in the real world. Money -- and power -- matters in a lot of things, not just justice. It buys things the poor can't have. Fortunately sometimes the poor may have things the rich can't buy. ;)

[RPS]

For me, I don't think I can stand behind the death penalty any longer.
Given a choice between life without parole and the death penalty, I’d personally take the death penalty – wouldn’t think twice about it. For me the hopelessness of incarceration for life along with the confinement and having to share space with some people one step above an animal would be far worse than a humane execution – whether I was guilty or not would make no difference.

For this reason alone I don’t take sides as if one is better than the other because I think it depends on the person convicted. I’d give them a choice – let them decide between life and death. As I said, I'd consider death more humane.

[paczki]

There are many arguements against the death penalty, but for me, the uneven application (based upon wealth, race, politics, whatever) is the critical one.

Couldn't agree more.

[torquer]

In addition, I think we need to not color this as good or bad, but rather the perspective of the players. For instance, the arson investigator could have been biased, but he was also colored by the fact that three little girls died in that fire. What a horrible job, what a terrible crime to have to recreate not only physically (through narrative), but to mentally have to piece these pieces together. I would think that the only way one would be able to compartmentalize these things is if they were sure of their own decisions. If there is doubt in a job like that, how could one move one?

Most of us will never have to do analyze anything this horrible, but I can only imagine the horror of it. I don't think anybody goes into a situation strictly wanting to get somebody, they feel justice is necesary for the victims and through that process, sometimes the innocent get snagged. I am not sure that can get fixed, but the finality of the punishment can be mitigated.

Again, I hope I never have to do what he did.
As I recall, one of the original arson investigators, when questioned about what percentage of the fires he examined were intentionally set, responded "all of them," or words to that effect.

[Keith A]

RPS -- You make some valid points. For some people (especially if they were guitly), they might not want to live a long life behind bars. So giving a person sentenced to life without the possibility of parole the option of death seems reasonable.

Edit: However, the choice of death should be an option, not a requirement (IMHO).

[goonster]

What a horrible job, what a terrible crime to have to recreate
Except, of course, when there is no crime. Yes, it's horrible, but that's no excuse to lock up a grieving parent.

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Inredible, but true: some of the SCOTUS justices are members of the "burn her anyway!" mob.

[rugbysecondrow]

Except, of course, when there is no crime. Yes, it's horrible, but that's no excuse to lock up a grieving parent.

The convenience of 25 years worth of hindsight is no justification for ritiousness. Fallible people make decisions in real time and most of us hope our decisions are not the sort which would be scrutinized 25 years after the fact. I know it is not a nice thing to say, but sometimes **** happens and it happens to the wrong people.

[Ti-Boy]

Downstairs neighbor breaks into apt. upstairs. He twice rapes woman in front of her cousin. He then stabs woman to death and puts her in the bathtub. He then smothers her 4 year old son to death and places him in the tub. He then smothers to death her 18 month old daughter and puts her in the tub. He then stabs the cousin. Cousin survives and identifies him immediately on a taped 911 call to police. He confessess to the crimes. His DNA (semen) is in her vaginal cavity. Her anus is torn open. The various victims' blood (DNA) is on his shirt, underpants and sneakers. His attorney's say he did it, but he was drunk/high. Death penalty???

[rugbysecondrow]

Downstairs neighbor breaks into apt. upstairs. He twice rapes woman in front of her cousin. He then stabs woman to death and puts her in the bathtub. He then smothers her 4 year old son to death and places him in the tub. He then smothers to death her 18 month old daughter and puts her in the tub. He then stabs the cousin. Cousin survives and identifies him immediately on a taped 911 call to police. He confessess to the crimes. His DNA (semen) is in her vaginal cavity. Her anus is torn open. The various victims' blood (DNA) is on his shirt, underpants and sneakers. His attorney's say he did it, but he was drunk/high. Death penalty???

twice, just to make sure

[oldguy00]

twice, just to make sure

+1 As soon as he committed the rape IMHO. Society doesn't need that kind of person.

[Walter]

In virtually every case (murder and other crimes) where a person has been determined long after the fact to be innocent through new DNA or other evidence (that even the most dogmatic prosecutors believe is foolproof), the case contains very interesting evidence used to obtain the conviction. In some the police claim the defendant confessed. In others, eyeball witnesses (often who are making deals to save their own skin) claim they saw the defendant commit the crime or confess it to them. Sometimes the police claim to have found damning evidence on the defendant or in a place controlled by the defendant. In other cases some or all of these coincide.

Yet we know from the scientific evidence that it was all wrong because the person is innocent in fact. They could not have confessed, the other witnesses could not have been right, and the evidence could not have been in the possession of the defendant.

These things occur in a number of the new DNA cases....and few folks ever look at the nature of the evidence that was used to convict and the conduct of those who vouched for it in the trial.

I have been in this business for almost 40 years and this is the kind of thing that makes me very wary of imposing the death penalty in any case. It is simply too subject to the whim and less than professional behavior of too many.

[Tobias]

I have been in this business for almost 40 years and this is the kind of thing that makes me very wary of imposing the death penalty in any case. It is simply too subject to the whim and less than professional behavior of too many.
OK, but can't these arguments be applied to any sentence or punishment? :confused:

Or are you arguing against the death penalty so that if we make a mistake we can take it back.......as if that can always work in practice. Think about it, if we send a 20-year-old man to prison for life and find out when he is 70 that he was innocent, how much of that person's life can we really take back?

Some things -- actually many things -- in life are final. We make decisions every day that we can't take back -- go right instead of left kinds of things that have great implications when viewed in hindsight. Some times they are decisions or mistakes we can't take back. Death penalty is the same in my opinion, we are not always going to get it right, but if we paralyze the justice system for fear that we may (or will) make mistakes then we do more harm.

As I asked in a previous post, what is the true cost of not making mistakes?

[csm]

Downstairs neighbor breaks into apt. upstairs. He twice rapes woman in front of her cousin. He then stabs woman to death and puts her in the bathtub. He then smothers her 4 year old son to death and places him in the tub. He then smothers to death her 18 month old daughter and puts her in the tub. He then stabs the cousin. Cousin survives and identifies him immediately on a taped 911 call to police. He confessess to the crimes. His DNA (semen) is in her vaginal cavity. Her anus is torn open. The various victims' blood (DNA) is on his shirt, underpants and sneakers. His attorney's say he did it, but he was drunk/high. Death penalty???

this sort of example really doesn't do the issue any justice. in this case what would be wrong with life in prison w/o parole? what purpose is executing him gonna do? will it bring back any of the victims? will it save taxpayers any money? In the fine state of Pennsylvania, 1st degree murder conviction is life in prison. and it means just that. unless somehow the convicted can get a commuted sentence from the governor and the parole board; highly unlikely in any state thanks to Dukakis.
The decision to make a case a capital case is almost always strictly a political decision based on the usual "can it help or hurt my reelection chances" and for that reason alone I think it should be done away with.

[goonster]

The convenience of 25 years worth of hindsight is no justification for ritiousness. Fallible people make decisions in real time and most of us hope our decisions are not the sort which would be scrutinized 25 years after the fact.
Yes, but:

I'm not talking about his personal decisions. I'm talking about the ability of investigators/law enforcement/prosecutors to accurately determine the facts of a case. An arson investigator who finds foul play in "almost all" of his fires, and isn't ashamed to say so, is incompetent. That's not fallibility in isolated cases.

[kestrel]

Convicted???

Kill'em all, let God sort'em out.

You have the potential to be with Him for eternity, so why argue about a few months more or less here in purgatory.

Wonder if you can take your Serotta with you?

[rugbysecondrow]

Yes, but:

I'm not talking about his personal decisions. I'm talking about the ability of investigators/law enforcement/prosecutors to accurately determine the facts of a case. An arson investigator who finds foul play in "almost all" of his fires, and isn't ashamed to say so, is incompetent. That's not fallibility in isolated cases.

I don't know what your point is. The investigator was flawed professionally and is a flawed person in general, as we all are. After reading the whole article, the investigator errored in his analysis, but so did others and so did an investigator in another case. It is very easy to go back after the fact and point as mis-cues and mistakes, but often in real time the reliance is on real people making real decision. Not these what if scenarios on a message board. This was a comedy of errors that probably led to an innocent man being killed. No one person is to blame and many others had thier chance to make it right, but again...real people, real time, real decisions. Sometimes life isn't clean cut or fair. If it was, these little girls wouldn't have died in the first place.

[torquer]

Death penalty???
You present just one example (and there are many) of an individual who has, by any measure, forfeit the right to live amongst other people. (I'll set aside the question of competence, since substance abuse was raised as a defense.) Its not crazy to take the next step and say that we have no need to sustain this miserable specimen, that he should suffer as much as his victims. This would, after all, guarantee that he could never again inflict these horrors on others, be they civilians (should he ever be freed or escape), his jailers or even other prisoners. It could be cheaper, too. (Not in practice, but maybe in theory.)

But, can you show me an example of a government that ALWAYS could be entrusted with this literal life-and-death decision? An administration that ALWAYS applied the law fairly and uniformly? A prosecutor that NEVER let political considerations shape decisions? Me neither.

I've always found it fascinating that, in general, conservatives, who mistrust government interference in their lives, are among those most likely to enthusiastically grant that same government this most extreme, and irreversible power, the power to extinguish life.

So the question is, how much of a margin of error do you accept? And, do you figure that your economic status, color or party affiliation put you on the winning side of that margin?

For me, it's not a case that nobody doesn't, in a phrase I used early, need killin'. It's a case of no government I've ever heard of being trustworthy enough to be given that power.

Any society that was that perfect could surely only be composed of perfect citizens, who would never need punishment in any case. And I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

[Tobias]

So the question is, how much of a margin of error do you accept?
Twice the break even number works for me.

I have to admit that I don't get this concern for mistakes that seems out of proportion to society. Something like 30,000 people die every year in car accidents which is an activity approved by government; and it generally happens to nice people. So why are we so concerned about the possibility of executing one or two innocent people? Even if 100 per year (not that there are that many which puts the magnitude of the problem in perspective) were killed it is still small compared to the number of people who die by social design to afford us a level of freedom.

Any one of us is about a million times more likely to get run over while cycling by a drunk driver than executed by mistake. It's just not much of a concern for me. As I said, I don't get this fear which seems out of proportion compared to other dangers we face every day.

[mister]

are you kidding?

it's not a fear of being executed. it's just the fact that it's wrong.

if you don't see a problem with an innocent person being executed, do you also feel murder is ok? what if the murder rate were under "twice the break even number"?
what if muder rate is lower than number of people killed by auto accidents? murder is ok now?
you're probably more likely to be run over on your bike than murdered...so murder is acceptable?

if someone is innocent and they are executed then it is murder...by the system designed to bring justice to criminals no less.

[Tobias]

are you kidding?
No.....dead serious.

The death of an innocent person is pretty much the same to me regardless of how they got that way. Whether the state kills them or someone else does the act is secondary to me. What's most important is that they are dead.

[cadence90]

Twice the break even number works for me.

I have to admit that I don't get this concern for mistakes that seems out of proportion to society. Something like 30,000 people die every year in car accidents which is an activity approved by government; and it generally happens to nice people. So why are we so concerned about the possibility of executing one or two innocent people? Even if 100 per year (not that there are that many which puts the magnitude of the problem in perspective) were killed it is still small compared to the number of people who die by social design to afford us a level of freedom.

Any one of us is about a million times more likely to get run over while cycling by a drunk driver than executed by mistake. It's just not much of a concern for me. As I said, I don't get this fear which seems out of proportion compared to other dangers we face every day.
Huh??? :confused:

First of all, to put a number on it is completely ludicrous.

However, beyond that, to compare driving accidents to wrongful execution is also, well, completely ludicrous.

The "government" does in fact approve of driving; however,the "government" does not, in fact, approve of "car accidents" as an activity, nor of killing someone while driving. That's called "vehicular manslaughter", at the least, and is actually quite illegal.

"Nice people".... Would you give me the benefit of the doubt and think that perhaps at least some of those who are wrongfully executed are also "nice people"?

What, exactly, is "death by social design"? And what does that have to do with "freedom"? :confused:

The "concern for mistakes" is, I believe, based on the fact that society demands a trustworthy, reliable, and accurate justice system.

In other words, if you were wrongfully accused, wrongfully convicted, and about to be wrongfully executed for a crime, would you then say, "Hey, go ahead guys, inject me. I'm cool with me and +/- 99 others going down, even though I'm/we're innocent. It's all statistics, I know. Sigh...see you later."

Come on, tell the truth now....

[93legendti]

Every innocent loss of life is tragic. Let's add abortion to the list of practices which should be ended.

[paczki]

Every innocent loss of life is tragic. Let's add abortion to the list of practices which should be ended.

Adam,

I'm going to Jerusalem for a week in mid-December. Is it worth it to schlepp my Breakaway?

Aaron

[93legendti]

Adam,

I'm going to Jerusalem for a week in mid-December. Is it worth it to schlepp my Breakaway?

Aaron
YES! Jersualem's winter weather can be cool and rainy, so I'd pack accordingly. Do a google on bicycling in Jerusalem. There's good JNF biking trails/roads; Beit Shemesh is a hotbed and Modiin has good roads. If your bike is a road bike, consider tires which will allow packed trail riding.

[paczki]

YES! Jersualem's winter weather can be cool and rainy, so I'd pack accordingly. Do a google on bicycling in Jerusalem. There's good JNF biking trails/roads; Beit Shemesh is a hotbed and Modiin has good roads. If your bike is a road bike, consider tires which will allow packed trail riding.

Thanks, I'll bring 28s!

[93legendti]

Thanks, I'll bring 28s!
I'll ask my friend who bikes outside of Jerusalem for some suggested routes. He just returned to the IDF after a year of study, so he might be slow on the reply.

[paczki]

I'll ask my friend who bikes outside of Jerusalem for some suggested routes. He just returned to the IDF after a year of study, so he might be slow on the reply.

thanks!

[Ray]

No.....dead serious.

The death of an innocent person is pretty much the same to me regardless of how they got that way. Whether the state kills them or someone else does the act is secondary to me. What's most important is that they are dead.
You honestly don't see any distinction between intentional killing and accidental death? Then why bother prosecuting murderers in the first place - they're just killing innocent people who would have eventually died anyway? What's a few years?

I believe I could live with losing a loved one to an accident more easily than losing one to an act of murder. I guess YMMV.

-Ray

[Tobias]

Huh??? :confused:

First of all, to put a number on it is completely ludicrous.

However, beyond that, to compare driving accidents to wrongful execution is also, well, completely ludicrous.

The "government" does in fact approve of driving; however,the "government" does not, in fact, approve of "car accidents" as an activity, nor of killing someone while driving. That's called "vehicular manslaughter", at the least, and is actually quite illegal.
The point I was trying to make (unsuccessfully) is that we as a society can’t always let the downside of human limitations prevent us from doing things we need to do, or should do. It’s all about us accomplishing the “greater good”.

No, I don’t directly equate a car accident with an execution; that would be absurd. What I was trying to state is that we the people (i.e. – the government) don’t prevent other people from driving even though we know that 30,000 will die every single year. Obviously we’ve decided that 30,000 deaths is an acceptable cost for our freedom of mobility. If not, we’d make everyone walk or whatever.

Similarly, I believe that the unintended execution of a few innocent people is an acceptable price to maintain social order. It’s not a perfect system, but I’m willing to pay the price of a few innocent executions for the “greater good”. And before you ask, yes, I’m willing to take my part of the risk just as I accept my part of the risk every time I get behind the wheel of a car. Or worse yet when I ride a bike.

Cadence, you don’t have to agree with me just as I don’t agree with you, however, if you insist on an uncivil tone regardless of how ludicrous you feel my reasoning and believes are I’ll be happy to end the discussion. :beer:

[Tobias]

You honestly don't see any distinction between intentional killing and accidental death?
Do we always have to get bogged down in details? :confused: Why even ask?

BTW, who is talking about "intentional killings"? Are we not discussing unintentional consequences (i.e. -- innocent executions) of a less than perfect system?

[cadence90]

Tobias, I don't agree with you on this issue, no.

One action (driving) stems from living, working, etc. There are indeed, as you say, risks/consequences to being out and mobile in the world, and accidental death may result. These risks have been with us since the dawn of man. We all accept these risks, but still, we consciously try to avoid really risky roads, driving near a weaving car, those saber-tooth tigers over there, etc.

The other action (execution) is completely premeditated (whether by a criminal or by the state) and I just don't equate accidental death with premeditated death on any level, ever.

Nonetheless, in any case I certainly do not "insist on an uncivil tone" and to me your last post was more clear regarding your position than the previous one. So, sorry if I offended you.

Still, what exactly is "unintentional" about an "innocent execution"? The execution itself is certainly intentional, wouldn't you agree? The victim is in some cases innocent, tragically, but the execution itself is not innocent at all, imho. There is nothing at all "unintentional" or "accidental" about putting a person to death, with witnesses, etc.

Again, if you yourself were innocent but were about to be executed, how would you feel about this? The same? Would you accept your own "risk-quotient" then?

[RPS]

Still, what exactly is "unintentional" about an "innocent execution"? The execution itself is certainly intentional, wouldn't you agree? The victim is in some cases innocent, tragically, but the execution itself is not innocent at all, imho. There is nothing at all "unintentional" or "accidental" about putting a person to death, with witnesses, etc.

Again, if you yourself were innocent but were about to be executed, how would you feel about this? The same? Would you accept your own "risk-quotient" then?
You guys seem to be parsing words. All executions are indeed intentional, but I’d like to think that our justice system wouldn’t execute an “innocent” person knowingly, so it would therefore make it an “unintentional” execution of an innocent person. I’ve known of innocent men being executed intentionally to make a political point but not here in the USA. We’re above that.

I can’t speak for Tobias, but if executing a lot of convicted violent criminals could reduce my chances of being brutally murdered or victimized because it served as a deterrent then I’d take the odds if in my favor. The odds of being wrongfully executed must be much lower than 1 in a million (based on executions versus population), yet the number of murders is way higher than that (murders in my area versus local population). Therefore, it seems there is a huge gap that may offer a viable “numerical” tradeoff to increase one’s overall safety if one believes that punishment serves as a deterrent (and that’s the real issue for me; does deterrence really work).

Being analytical like Tobias I can relate to doing whatever it takes to improve my chances and those of people close to me. And if I factor that death by execution can be far more “humane” than many violent crimes, then it sways my reasoning even more – but only if deterrence works. Personally I’d rather go through ten humane executions than being beaten and hacked to death once. :(

[Ray]

Personally I’d rather go through ten humane executions than being beaten and hacked to death once. :(
Point taken. But, damn, that's gonna be a tough trade to work out. :cool:

-Ray

[Walter]

[QUOTE=Tobias]OK, but can't these arguments be applied to any sentence or punishment? :confused:

Yes they can. The difference is that the death penalty is final, other sentences can at least be corrected in some fashion.

Or are you arguing against the death penalty so that if we make a mistake we can take it back.......as if that can always work in practice.? Think about it, if we send a 20-year-old man to prison for life and find out when he is 70 that he was innocent, how much of that person's life can we really take back?It cannot be returned to the person wrongfully convicted.?

You are correct that years wrongfully taken cannot be returned. That, certainly, should not make a society turn its head away from abuses and to refrain from looking carefully at the quality of its justice system. If anything, the recognition of that should make a society be even more careful.

Some things -- actually many things -- in life are final. We make decisions every day that we can't take back -- go right instead of left kinds of things that have great implications when viewed in hindsight. Some times they are decisions or mistakes we can't take back. Death penalty is the same in my opinion, we are not always going to get it right, but if we paralyze the justice system for fear that we may (or will) make mistakes then we do more harm.

Putting in a system of checks and balances into a system that by and large is administered by human beings in an imperfect setting is far from "paralyzing" the criminal justice system...although that is exactly the argument offered up by the far right. It was also offered up by Hitler's party. "Trust us...we do not want the streets unsafe for our children...we will be careful in how we use these powers..." We know how that worked out.

The bottom line is that we need checks and balances in any system that takes away freedoms and lives...especially when it is administered by people.

[Joellogicman]

Being analytical like Tobias I can relate to doing whatever it takes to improve my chances and those of people close to me. And if I factor that death by execution can be far more “humane” than many violent crimes, then it sways my reasoning even more – but only if deterrence works. Personally I’d rather go through ten humane executions than being beaten and hacked to death once. :(

I have never seen any credible link showing the death penalty is a deterrence.

The FBI crime statistics recently released show most murderers and their victims are men between the ages of 18 and 30. African American men in this age group are murdered at a rate almost equal to whites, although they are a far lower overall percentage of the population. While this year's crime data has not been put to scrutiny, previous studies have also tended to show poorer areas have higer incidents of murder than more affluent.

States that have the death penalty but have more African Americans and higher poverty levels, such as Florida, Texas and California, have higher murder rates than states in the upper Midwest, New England, the Atlantic States and Alaska and Hawaii which do not have the death penalty.

New Hampshire does have the death penalty and has a slightly lower murder rate than Maine and Vermont which do not. On the other hand, California has a much higher murder rate in spite its use of the death penalty than Oregon which does not have the death penalty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state_by_state

Finally, it is curious you mention the possibility of being murdered by hand or sharp instrument. The FBI data show this year, as has been the case for many a year now, more than 70 percent of those murdered were murdered by someone using a firearm.

[1centaur]

If the death penalty were to be a deterrent it would have to be carried out far more often and more swiftly. The current system of appeals takes so long that it can't possibly be a deterrent for people who most likely are not rationally examining consequences at the time they are acting. Frankly life in prison might be a greater deterrent than "humane" execution, yet that does not seem to work much either.

So the death penalty really should be viewed as a money saver (over $1MM per murderer per lifetime, on average, based on ascribed yearly prison costs) and a societal decision to not wring hands over the preciousness of the physical continuance of the worst among us, or it should not be done. Personally, I am not so consumed with the preciousness of life that I can't tolerate the notion of a few innocents killed by accidental execution rather than imprisoned for long stretches and probably raped and beaten in the process. What does bother me is prosecutorial misconduct in the service of personal/political ambition (Fells Acres) or abject indifference to competent procedure that leads to such miscarriages of justice. I have long believed that it would be better for our society if there were independent, not "in-the-system" panels that reviewed the evidence and the rulings along the way to a death penalty or long sentence, and if abject indifference to the truth was found, that prosecutor would suffer the sentence to which she subjected the defendant. Under such circumstances, given the many advocates out there for the poor, I would feel a lot better about justice being done as well as possible and only the most meritorious cases leading to the death penalty. If the only downside of sending the wrong person to the gas chamber is the new attorney general/governor saying, "whoops, who saw that coming?" then the best outcomes are far less assured.

[vqdriver]

that's just about the most depressing thing ever

[Rueda Tropical]

Government has never met the ethical or competence levels required to be entrusted with the irreversible power of capital punishment. It has not been proven to save more innocents then it kills and there are alternative means of punishment and prevention.

I'm not opposed to capital punishment in ideal circumstances where only the guilty are punished, which never exist in the real world.

[Louis]

Personally, I think they should just get rid of the death penalty and replace it with weekly sessions of having phlebotomists dig around looking for a vein for two hours.

[csm]

Personally, I think they should just get rid of the death penalty and replace it with weekly sessions of having phlebotomists dig around looking for a vein for two hours.

ouch. I guess the death penalty is a deterrence of sorts for me; I absolutely hate needles. I'd rather be shot or hung.

[Tobias]

I just read that the DC sniper's execution was set for November 10; in Richmond near the capital, not out in the country in Texas. Let's assume the evidence is a little more convincing. :rolleyes:

I'd like to hear from the more liberal amongst us why this guy shouldn't be executed after killing at least 10 people at random and paralyzing an entire city. They found the rifle and the car with a hole cut in the trunk. Is there any doubt whatsoever he did it?

I'm honestly trying to understand the anti-death penalty argument but can't relate. If argued on basis of morality or religion I could disagree while understanding the objection, but to stop all executions because we may make a mistake? Give me a break. Some people deserve a lot more than a lethal injection. :mad:


While we are at it, how about the nut case that kidnapped the young girl and raped her repeatedly for many years, including fathering two of her children. Can we say nightmare for the girl, her two daughters, and the entire family? Again, I’d like someone to explain to me why that SOB shouldn’t be fried.

I guess I woke up on the wrong side of the bed today because I don’t feel any compassion for these idiots. We shouldn’t be arguing whether we need the death penalty, but rather how can we make it more effective.

[Tobias]

Being analytical like Tobias I can relate to doing whatever it takes to improve my chances and those of people close to me. And if I factor that death by execution can be far more “humane” than many violent crimes, then it sways my reasoning even more – but only if deterrence works. Personally I’d rather go through ten humane executions than being beaten and hacked to death once. :(
Let’s assume it’s not a deterrent at all. What’s wrong with other benefits like closure to the family of the victims, retribution, or simply feeling good about eliminating an SOB?

Deterrence is not the only consideration. What’s wrong with victims of violent crimes knowing for certain that their attackers will never get out of jail and come back to do it again? What price do we put on that?

I’d like us to go back to executing based on lesser crimes, not making it harder. The more lenient we become as a society the more unruly and uncivilized we become. Can’t we see it all around us today?

[csm]

I'm not sure closure is achieved for the victim's families after an execution. I've read some accounts that it really didn't make a difference; in the end they still were without their loved ones. Let's face it execution itself is pretty humane in comparison.
What is gained by executing the DC sniper vs keeping him in prison for the rest of his life? costs are about the same. he's not getting out. and executing for lesser crimes? what would that solve? should we start hacking hands off for shoplifting? should we make women chattel and take away their right to vote? where does one draw the line?

[rugbysecondrow]

I'm not sure closure is achieved for the victim's families after an execution. I've read some accounts that it really didn't make a difference; in the end they still were without their loved ones. Let's face it execution itself is pretty humane in comparison.
What is gained by executing the DC sniper vs keeping him in prison for the rest of his life? costs are about the same. he's not getting out. and executing for lesser crimes? what would that solve? should we start hacking hands off for shoplifting? should we make women chattel and take away their right to vote? where does one draw the line?

Treating women as chattel? Take away their right to vote? Not relevent in even the most remote way.

[RPS]

and executing for lesser crimes? what would that solve? should we start hacking hands off for shoplifting? should we make women chattel and take away their right to vote? where does one draw the line?
In the Dugard case, didn’t Phillip Garrido have a history of similar behavior? Is it that unlikely that he would escalate if given a second chance? I guess that in his case eliminating him would have eliminated the threat.

Regarding your comment about women voting, I’m trying to understand the significance in context of this thread. Are you suggesting that allowing women to vote somehow affected society’s view of crimes? Are we too compassionate and too understanding because of women? :confused:

BTW -- hacking is never acceptable punishment. That's barbaric.

[ss-jimbo]

I’d like us to go back to executing based on lesser crimes, not making it harder. The more lenient we become as a society the more unruly and uncivilized we become. Can’t we see it all around us today?

Yup, countries in which the death penalty is imposed for lesser crimes are much more civil, especially all the African countries. In Europe they deter that sort of thing by a sliding scale of penalties. Drunk driving in Finland carries a penalty that is based on your income. One rather rich fellow received a $150,000 fine. Having to pay some rather high percentage of your income is a better choice that having us become a country in which people fear their government.

[Climb01742]

the way i see it, execution and life without parole both achieve the same end: protecting society from that person killing or harming anyone again. what does execution achieve that life without parole doesn't?

in theory, if the person confessed, or there was indisputable evidence (i.e. video), or the crime was hideous enough (i.e. bin laden or crimes against children), there is, to be honest, part of me that wouldn't rule out execution. and yes, there's a part of me that wants the worst of mankind to suffer for their crimes. but what does that truly, ultimately gain society? a sense of "justice"? isn't that just a more "animalistic" or barbaric or primal version of the "justice" that life without parole offers? for example, i'd have been 100% for pot pol or saddam or some folks in darfur getting a blindfold at dawn. but doesn't that bullet just speak to a dark place in us? justice can be a cell for life, no?

finally, i don't think any of us can say they'd "accept" a few innocent people being executed unless they could also say this: that they'd be willing to be that person themselves...innocent but executed. to philosophically argue away someone else's life as a rounding error on the scales of justice is empty at best.

[Joellogicman]

I’d like us to go back to executing based on lesser crimes, not making it harder. The more lenient we become as a society the more unruly and uncivilized we become. Can’t we see it all around us today?

Otherwise, I would have to say yours is an interesting understanding of civilized behavior at best, if you think the U.S. less civilized now than back in the day of broader use of the death penalty.

Life in the 1950s and before was not all that grand as hollywood would suggest. The powerless were trampled with impunity. Those in power used all manner of force and societal pressures to enforce strict social barriers. Open, aggressive racism was embraced as a right. Conformity was strictly imposed.

In smaller town U.S. people may have been able to rely on a more orderly society than exists in urban areas today. The national drift away from extended family unit living in a smaller community to nuclear families living in large urban areas had nothing to do with the use of the death penalty.

[Climb01742]

I’d like us to go back to executing based on lesser crimes, not making it harder. The more lenient we become as a society the more unruly and uncivilized we become. Can’t we see it all around us today?

you pose an interesting option for dealing with joe wilson. :D

[93legendti]

you pose an interesting option for dealing with joe wilson. :D
As well as Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, John Kerry and Chuck Schumer. The things they said about Pres. Bush and/or the CIA should not have gone unpunished. Wait, they're Democrats-it's ok for them. :D

[rugbysecondrow]

As well as Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, John Kerry and Chuck Schumer. The things they said about Pres. Bush and/or the CIA should not have gone unpunished. Wait, they're Democrats-it's ok for them. :D


Can we thrown Barney in there...not Frank but the charector...I hate that thing.

[DHallerman]

All things considered who has a better justice system? I agree I would hate to face a jury of my peers but if I had to I guess I would rather do it here than just about any where else.

Well, if the US has the best justice system, and also has a much higher percentage of its population in prison than any other major industrialized nation, that would indicate the US is a more criminal nation than most.

Or, if you're of a religious perspective, a more evil nation than most others.

Here's one way to look at the US prison population, according to the New York Times in April 2008: "The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners."

Here's another way, calculated from stats given in the same article, percentage of population in prison:

US = 0.75%
Russia = 0.63%
England = 0.15%
Germany = 0.08%
Japan = 0.06%

Or, perhaps, the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison just because of its vaunted justice system, far more able at getting the evil-doers into prison than slacker nations such as Germany.

Just saying.

Dave, who tries to imagine being imprisoned and sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit and thinks that the greatest hell on earth and if you don't have empathy for such people then what do you have

[Joellogicman]

In the Dugard case, didn’t Phillip Garrido have a history of similar behavior? Is it that unlikely that he would escalate if given a second chance? I guess that in his case eliminating him would have eliminated the threat.

And in the Anne Le case had the accused been executed for stalking his high school girl friend then perhaps Le would be alive enjoying her honeymoon.

So would you advocate then we execute all high school boys who go off half cocked when their first sweet heart breaks up with them? I don't know. What would that cover? About 1/4 of adolescent males?

In Dickens' London when you could get hanged for stealing an umbrella, death penalty proponents argued, among other things, hanging was an efficient way to deal with the surplus population. Lethal injection to boys not handling breaks up well would certainly meet that criterium. Whether it is the appropriate way to prevent future unfortunate cases like Ms. Le is a much tougher argument.

[RPS]

you pose an interesting option for dealing with joe wilson. :D
Humor aside, do you not think that US society is less civil today that it was when you and I were young?

I would never suggest that fewer executions are the reason, but it does seem that as we become more tolerant of “bad” behavior the more “bad” behavior we get.

Wilson is a good example of inappropriate behavior due to rampant impulsiveness in society today. But that type of reaction doesn’t exist in a vacuum – it’s cultivated over many issues, isn’t it? He knew immediately he had made a huge mistake, but what drove him to act out if he knew it was wrong? Does long-term frustration make us all less civil?

[1centaur]

the way i see it, execution and life without parole both achieve the same end: protecting society from that person killing or harming anyone again. what does execution achieve that life without parole doesn't?

in theory, if the person confessed, or there was indisputable evidence (i.e. video), or the crime was hideous enough (i.e. bin laden or crimes against children), there is, to be honest, part of me that wouldn't rule out execution. and yes, there's a part of me that wants the worst of mankind to suffer for their crimes. but what does that truly, ultimately gain society? a sense of "justice"? isn't that just a more "animalistic" or barbaric or primal version of the "justice" that life without parole offers? for example, i'd have been 100% for pot pol or saddam or some folks in darfur getting a blindfold at dawn. but doesn't that bullet just speak to a dark place in us? justice can be a cell for life, no?

finally, i don't think any of us can say they'd "accept" a few innocent people being executed unless they could also say this: that they'd be willing to be that person themselves...innocent but executed. to philosophically argue away someone else's life as a rounding error on the scales of justice is empty at best.

I agree, I'd be willing, and I think most people who make the argument would be willing, though personally I'd like to see the standard of care in the sentencing that I referenced in my earlier post.

Rationally, the death sentence is not a deterrent though I think it is a cost saver for a youngish murderer. Emotionally, there are some who feel that planned killing is wrong and some who think it's just fine depending on the circumstances, and I don't think there is any compromise or winning argument to be had on a feeling. The difference is ascribed societal character between wrongfully imprisoning someone for life and humanely but mistakenly executing an innocent person is just the feeling issue in a different form. We can probably agree that we are more civilized when we try very hard to convict only the guilty and that we punish the guilty in a manner commensurate with the crime. I would not feel more civilized if my child's killer was put in prison for 50 years than if he was executed. I think if he viewed my child as dispensable I would feel it unbalanced to view him as worthy of sustaining, paying for him year after year watching TV and reading magazines and books and lifting weights and eating food that occasionally gives him pleasure. I don't view my feelings as dark or unworthy of a civilized human. I view them as natural, fair, and reasonable. But they are feelings, in the end, and thus inarguable.

[RPS]

And in the Anne Le case had the accused been executed for stalking his high school girl friend then perhaps Le would be alive enjoying her honeymoon.

So would you advocate then we execute all high school boys who go off half cocked when their first sweet heart breaks up with them? I don't know. What would that cover? About 1/4 of adolescent males?Don't know much about this case so I won't comment. Besides, the entire premise of the question above does not deserve an answer in all honesty.

Personally I've always differentiated greatly between regular crimes and those that are violent for the sake of being violent. However we do it, we need to take people like that out of society, whether it's because they are evil or they can't control their actions. I couldn't care less why they committed the crime; I'm more after results than excuses.

[malcolm]

Well, if the US has the best justice system, and also has a much higher percentage of its population in prison than any other major industrialized nation, that would indicate the US is a more criminal nation than most.

Or, if you're of a religious perspective, a more evil nation than most others.

Here's one way to look at the US prison population, according to the New York Times in April 2008: "The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners."

Here's another way, calculated from stats given in the same article, percentage of population in prison:

US = 0.75%
Russia = 0.63%
England = 0.15%
Germany = 0.08%
Japan = 0.06%

Or, perhaps, the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison just because of its vaunted justice system, far more able at getting the evil-doers into prison than slacker nations such as Germany.

Just saying.

Dave, who tries to imagine being imprisoned and sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit and thinks that the greatest hell on earth and if you don't have empathy for such people then what do you have


My question still stands, which country would you rather face the justice system in. I'm not saying ours is the best and I'm not even commenting on the penal system, totally separate in my mind.

I would take my chances here at least whe have the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, especially if you can afford a decent lawyer.

[DHallerman]

My question still stands, which country would you rather face the justice system in. I'm not saying ours is the best and I'm not even commenting on the penal system, totally separate in my mind.

I would take my chances here at least whe have the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, especially if you can afford a decent lawyer.

It's the nature of our justice system -- as good as it may be -- that puts people in prison.

Or, to put it another way, no one goes to prison without first going through the justice system.

So, I find it difficult to separate the justice system from its results, a substantially higher percentage of population in prison.

[Joellogicman]

Don't know much about this case so I won't comment. Besides, the entire premise of the question above does not deserve an answer in all honesty.

Personally I've always differentiated greatly between regular crimes and those that are violent for the sake of being violent. However we do it, we need to take people like that out of society, whether it's because they are evil or they can't control their actions. I couldn't care less why they committed the crime; I'm more after results than excuses.

Dugard raped a woman. Many young men, possibly Wilson as well - details are not clear what transpired between him and his earlier girl friend - rape women. The difference between Dugard and the latter is Dugard was not on a date with the woman when he raped her.

At one time in the good old days of society for which some of the above posts wax nostalgic, the notion that boys will be boys on dates was generally tolerated. Especially so where, as it may be with Wilson, the boy was a star athlete.

I would respond that its my, and many others' decidedly modern civilization view of things that rape is rape. There is nothing more ordinary about a high school boy deciding he has a right to have sex with his date willing or not, than a Dugard offering a ride to a woman he never met before and raping her.

If it makes sense that one be executed to proactively protect society, the other seems no different to me.

[malcolm]

It's the nature of our justice system -- as good as it may be -- that puts people in prison.

Or, to put it another way, no one goes to prison without first going through the justice system.

So, I find it difficult to separate the justice system from its results, a substantially higher percentage of population in prison.

I think I follow that quite well, but what are you suggesting we don't put people in jail or that we have many innocent people in jail. I'm not saying ours is best but I can't think of another I would rather face and you've still not answered the question.

[Joellogicman]

Humor aside, do you not think that US society is less civil today that it was when you and I were young?

When were you young? If in the 1950s or even 1960s, was a society that tolerated discrimination against an entire segment of society because of the color of their skin really more civil than what we have today? Or that, per our discussion above which you feel does not deserve an answer, tolerated date rape as long as the boy was from a good family and the girl considered less good for whatever notion?

[Joellogicman]

I think I follow that quite well, but what are you suggesting we don't put people in jail or that we have many innocent people in jail. I'm not saying ours is best but I can't think of another I would rather face and you've still not answered the question.

But spent a good deal of time with the U.S. and Illinois justice system. From what I have seen of the Canadian and French justice system, were I wrongfully accused of a crime, I think I would much rather take my chances in the courts of Canada or France than Chicago.

[rugbysecondrow]

Well, if the US has the best justice system, and also has a much higher percentage of its population in prison than any other major industrialized nation, that would indicate the US is a more criminal nation than most.

Or, if you're of a religious perspective, a more evil nation than most others.

Here's one way to look at the US prison population, according to the New York Times in April 2008: "The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners."

Here's another way, calculated from stats given in the same article, percentage of population in prison:

US = 0.75%
Russia = 0.63%
England = 0.15%
Germany = 0.08%
Japan = 0.06%

Or, perhaps, the US has the highest percentage of its population in prison just because of its vaunted justice system, far more able at getting the evil-doers into prison than slacker nations such as Germany.

Just saying.

Dave, who tries to imagine being imprisoned and sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit and thinks that the greatest hell on earth and if you don't have empathy for such people then what do you have

First, crime does not equal evil. Crime doesn't even equal sin, which would be the true descriptive if you were wanting to bring religion into the debate which I don't think you want to.

Second, comparing stats like that is useful for writing an article, but does little to explain anything that would help you draw a useful conclusion. We may have different laws, different standards, different enforcement, policing budgets, facilities for housing,..the list of reasons to explain the difference could go on and on.

Third, maybe we are more criminal as a culture, but I would also say that our unique history as a melting pot (whether natural through immigration or forced through slavery) has caused unique social conditions that speak to many of these variances.

Fourth, I think the numbers you site speak little to the quality of the system and more to other factors you haven't dealt with.

[malcolm]

But spent a good deal of time with the U.S. and Illinois justice system. From what I have seen of the Canadian and French justice system, were I wrongfully accused of a crime, I think I would much rather take my chances in the courts of Canada or France than Chicago.

Interesting and disappointing. I'm talking about overall though not one particular corrupt city, especially for anything with even remote political implications. Would you feel the same overall. I'm sure there are places in Canada and France that stand out amoung the Canadians and French as well.

[Ray]

Humor aside, do you not think that US society is less civil today that it was when you and I were young?
No, I don't think its less civil today at all. I was born in '59, so was a kid in the 60s and came of age in the 70s. Political discourse was more civilized then. Perhaps the language that was used publicly and on television (young technology that it was) was more civilized. Life in the fictionalized suburbs that we saw on TV on Leave it to Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet was POSSIBLY more civil than it is in some upper middle class suburbs today. But I wouldn't bet much on that either.

But in terms of the way non-straight-white-male members of society were treated, we're so much MORE civilized today its not even close. Perhaps you don't remember segregation? Lynchings? Women having practically no rights or social status? Gay bashing was so accepted there wasn't even a term for it. Open racism and antisemitism? Workplace discrimination of ALL sorts - I've seen plenty of this in my adult life, but its gotten much much better over the past 25 years and was much worse before I entered the workplace.

I'll take the Nixon-Kennedy debates over what's passed for political discourse today, but that's impossible given today's instant communication technology. But that's about the only thing that looks more civilized to me about life in the '60s or even '70s. And the music was arguably better, but that might just be bias. :cool:

-Ray

[RPS]

When were you young? If in the 1950s or even 1960s, was a society that tolerated discrimination against an entire segment of society because of the color of their skin really more civil than what we have today? Or that, per our discussion above which you feel does not deserve an answer, tolerated date rape as long as the boy was from a good family and the girl considered less good for whatever notion?
Actually, you have it backwards. When I was young a man could be executed for rape in my state. And I don't have numbers, but think that violent crime was far less than what it is today. Personally I felt much safer walking the streets at night than I do today. It really was that different.

Joel, with all due respect, I'm not going to get pulled into a discrimination debate which isn't even the topic of this thread.

[RPS]

But in terms of the way non-straight-white-male members of society were treated, we're so much MORE civilized today its not even close. Perhaps you don't remember segregation? Lynchings? Women having practically no rights or social status? Gay bashing was so accepted there wasn't even a term for it. Open racism and antisemitism? Workplace discrimination of ALL sorts - I've seen plenty of this in my adult life, but its gotten much much better over the past 25 years and was much worse before I entered the workplace.Ray, I see and agree with your points, but also think we are not talking about the same thing. Unfortunately I don't have the ability to clearly differentiate in writing between the social problems you addressed and our daily behavior that I referred to as uncivil.

At this point this mostly seems like a subject looking for a fight, so I'm going to step back a little. :beer:

[Joellogicman]

Interesting and disappointing. I'm talking about overall though not one particular corrupt city, especially for anything with even remote political implications. Would you feel the same overall. I'm sure there are places in Canada and France that stand out amoung the Canadians and French as well.

Prosecutors in the United States have something in the area of a 95% victory rate.

The U.S. has a higher rate of violent crime and a higher number of people in prison as a percentage of the general population than similar industrialized nations.

The odds of my being wrongly condemned and a victim of crime are higher in the United States than nations with similar standards of living. I am familiar with law in Canada and France because I worked on deals in their systems. I expect most other Northern European nations, and Pacific democracies have similar systems that by all accounts do not seem to favor their respective government's ability to prosecute as much as in the United States.

[Joellogicman]

Actually, you have it backwards. When I was young a man could be executed for rape in my state. And I don't have numbers, but think that violent crime was far less than what it is today. Personally I felt much safer walking the streets at night than I do today. It really was that different.

Yet when one considers the number of rapes and other incidents of violence against women that went unreported back in the day, there is more than likely far less such violence than in the past.

In the past it was generally accepted that women did not go out into the world without male guardians. And if a woman did, she was inviting trouble. That attitude has changed not through incarceration, but rather through public education.

Joel, with all due respect, I'm not going to get pulled into a discrimination debate which isn't even the topic of this thread.

Well, maybe I am off base, but I do not see how we can say the past was more civilized yet ignore how society treated a significant percentage of its members.

[Ray]

Ray, I see and agree with your points, but also think we are not talking about the same thing. Unfortunately I don't have the ability to clearly differentiate in writing between the social problems you addressed and our daily behavior that I referred to as uncivil.

At this point this mostly seems like a subject looking for a fight, so I'm going to step back a little. :beer:
I hear you. There is something that seems a bit courser today. Some decorum, manners, etc, real or imagined, has been lost. OTOH, we're more immediately honest today. Which, like everything else, is a double edged sword, with both upsides and downsides. And I'm also not sure if some of it isn't just the difference between how a kid views the world and how an adult views it - I'm much more aware of all sorts of darkness and evil (and good and transcendent things as well) than when I was a kid. I know that for generations, if not forever, older people have tended to think the world was going to hell while the younger folks were embracing the changes.

But I tend to agree with Joellogicman that the way a society treats large chunks of its population is a more critical part of what defines "civilized" than what I *THINK* you and I are talking about. And probably more relevant to the death penalty as well. But I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at and I'm not looking for a fight, either, so I'm with you there... :beer:

-Ray

[Tobias]

Unfortunately I don't have the ability to clearly differentiate in writing between the social problems you addressed and our daily behavior that I referred to as uncivil.
Ray beat me to it, but the type of personal behavior you are likely referring to as more civilized probably falls under the word “decorum”. And because everything Ray mentioned as improvements in society could have been accomplished without necessarily sacrificing our collective level of decorum, I’d agree that these can be viewed as two separate issues. In general we could all be more polite and courteous and show a little more class.


As a side note, I generally don’t agree with much of what Obama stands for, but I really respect him calling a jackass a jackass. That’s the kind of rudeness that all of us should never tolerate. I just hope that jackass doesn’t get invited to other award shows.

[Joellogicman]

I hear you. There is something that seems a bit courser today. Some decorum, manners, etc, real or imagined, has been lost. OTOH, we're more immediately honest today. Which, like everything else, is a double edged sword, with both upsides and downsides. And I'm also not sure if some of it isn't just the difference between how a kid views the world and how an adult views it - I'm much more aware of all sorts of darkness and evil (and good and transcendent things as well) than when I was a kid. I know that for generations, if not forever, older people have tended to think the world was going to hell while the younger folks were embracing the changes.

But I think to the extent there is a change in public decorum today has a lot more with the mainstreaming of a sense of righteousnous. Humility ceases to be a force among people where there religious or philosophical outlook says theirs is the only way to approach a topic.

There have always been people who think this way. They appear to be more common and more among than main stream than had been the case in the 19th century and through the mid-20th.

(Obviously I was not around for much of that period. I base my theory on literature and other communications that survive. The reality among the general populous could have been different from what I understand.)

[Joellogicman]

As a side note, I generally don’t agree with much of what Obama stands for, but I really respect him calling a jackass a jackass. That’s the kind of rudeness that all of us should never tolerate. I just hope that jackass doesn’t get invited to other award shows.

I think this is a better example of how hard it is to compare different epochs.

Yes, a grown male grabbing a microphone from the hands of teenaged female is pretty darn rude. But there is an undercurrent that complicates.

These endless awards shows are not so much an effort to give talent its due respect as shameless marketing. I do not follow pop or country music at all. From what little I know, however, it stands to reason Beyonce almost certainly had made the better music video. There certainly is a better way to protest the system. But the system hardly deserves respect.

In the good old days, would be entertainers were subjected to far greater audience abuse than that young woman received at the hands of that older jackass. Read accounts of the vaudeville era. Heckling and even throwing things at perfomers was common.

[DHallerman]

I think I follow that quite well, but what are you suggesting we don't put people in jail or that we have many innocent people in jail. I'm not saying ours is best but I can't think of another I would rather face and you've still not answered the question.

Is your question "What other judicial system would you rather face?" Specifically, then, I do not know enough to say which other nation's judicial system I'd rather face.

But I can say that the much higher percentage of population in the US going to prison implies a certain harshness in our judicial system that likely is not as harsh in several other developed nations.

Sure, my education and relative financial comfort might protect me more than some poor, ill-educated guy -- but the only way I can look at that is "there but for fortune"...

Dave, who would say if he had to pick another nation's judicial system if he had to pick at the point of a gun would pick, say, Denmark

[DHallerman]

Second, comparing stats like that is useful for writing an article, but does little to explain anything that would help you draw a useful conclusion. We may have different laws, different standards, different enforcement, policing budgets, facilities for housing,..the list of reasons to explain the difference could go on and on.

No, statistics in this case are useful to help illustrate the debate better than "it's immoral to have a death penalty" vs. "it's right to get revenge".

Yes, we have different laws, standards, et cetera.

That's also why we kill people via the death penalty while virtually all other developed nations do not.

And those differences are reflected in the stats about the related part of our system -- first we put them in jail, and then we kill a certain number among them.

You know, it's American exceptionalism that's all wrong. -- the attitude that it's okay to be different because, darn it, we're Americans.

* We have more people in jail than other developed nations, and that's because we're different.

* We still impose the death penalty while others do not, and that's because we're different.

* We don't have a fully available health system like other major nations, and that's because we're different.

Really, we're not so different. We're just humans on a planet, trying to share that planet with other humans and other species.

Dave, who says to apply that attitude toward cycling would mean something about sharing the road with mutual respect toward all

[Climb01742]

i think "manners" have declined greatly, and i think there is much to be said for acting and speaking in a respectful, decorous way in public. as my folks said when i was a kid, manners are free yet they'll take you so far. that said, i was raised in georgia by parents who's families had both been southern for generations, so teaching me manners was almost genetic. yet beneath the veneer of southern manners, some of the most inhuman things were done, said and thought. so while i applaud manners, i hope they run more than skin deep.

[rugbysecondrow]

But I think to the extent there is a change in public decorum today has a lot more with the mainstreaming of a sense of righteousnous. Humility ceases to be a force among people where there religious or philosophical outlook says theirs is the only way to approach a topic.

There have always been people who think this way. They appear to be more common and more among than main stream than had been the case in the 19th century and through the mid-20th.

(Obviously I was not around for much of that period. I base my theory on literature and other communications that survive. The reality among the general populous could have been different from what I understand.)

It is mainstream because of media, not religion or philosophy. There have been no new religious or philosophical movements that support this behavior. Humility doesn't sell, neither do cogent discussions. Sound bits, clips, one liners, loud accusations (soft retractions)...these all sell. I don't think that individual people/citizens are like this, but I agree that the mainstream media certainly portrays this image. Most people, as seen here in our discussions, are reasonable, well meaning and open to discussion. Unfortunatly, media of all types lends credibility to the loudest.

[malcolm]

Is your question "What other judicial system would you rather face?" Specifically, then, I do not know enough to say which other nation's judicial system I'd rather face.

But I can say that the much higher percentage of population in the US going to prison implies a certain harshness in our judicial system that likely is not as harsh in several other developed nations.

Sure, my education and relative financial comfort might protect me more than some poor, ill-educated guy -- but the only way I can look at that is "there but for fortune"...

Dave, who would say if he had to pick another nation's judicial system if he had to pick at the point of a gun would pick, say, Denmark

If we have more violent crime then it would stand to reason we should have more people in jail. I would wonder why we have more violent crime in the first place. Again I'm not arguing ours is better, I don't know and my knees would tremble facing any jury anywhere because you never know.

[Joellogicman]

It is mainstream because of media, not religion or philosophy. There have been no new religious or philosophical movements that support this behavior. Humility doesn't sell, neither do cogent discussions. Sound bits, clips, one liners, loud accusations (soft retractions)...these all sell. I don't think that individual people/citizens are like this, but I agree that the mainstream media certainly portrays this image. Most people, as seen here in our discussions, are reasonable, well meaning and open to discussion. Unfortunatly, media of all types lends credibility to the loudest.

Popular media certainly does tend to favor the loudest - and usually simplest - source on any debate.

At least among the power elite fundamental religious thought is far more common than ever before. The Wasps of yore who dominated politics and commerce attended main stream - usually protestant - churches mainly because it was what one did, as opposed to any real thought about a supreme being requiring it. Fundamentalism has grown increasingly more powerful among all major religions than it was in the 19th and through much of the 20th centuries.

At the same time, virulent revolutionary movements arose in many parts of the world. While some of these movements have come and gone, their philosophy continues to inform many attitudes.

Almost certainly there are strong connections between both these phenomena and the explosion of popular media.

[Ray]

But I think to the extent there is a change in public decorum today has a lot more with the mainstreaming of a sense of righteousnous. Humility ceases to be a force among people where there religious or philosophical outlook says theirs is the only way to approach a topic.

There have always been people who think this way. They appear to be more common and more among than main stream than had been the case in the 19th century and through the mid-20th.

(Obviously I was not around for much of that period. I base my theory on literature and other communications that survive. The reality among the general populous could have been different from what I understand.)
Interesting point, but I'm not sure people are more self-righteous today, as much as just more threatened in that righteousness. And, hence, feel a need to make more noise about it.

At least in America. I mean, in the '50s and '60s, who's to say how deeply the "WASPs of yore" believed what they believed? The bottom line was they were such a dominant majority that they felt secure in their beliefs and their standing in society, regardless of depth of belief. So they didn't have to yell about it much (although fringe groups like the Klan could yell pretty loud in those days too). And too many of them (although FAR from all or even most) did some pretty horrendous things to maintain and reinforce that dominance.

Today, we're a VASTLY more diverse country. Whether in terms of race, religion, sexuality, you name it. The basic WASPy guy, who used to basically run this country without a lot of interference from the uppity women/blacks/jews/asians/gays/younameit, is a much smaller percentage of the population than 40 years ago. We're on the cusp of being minority/majority. And many, understandably, feel threatened by that. I personally think its a great and wonderful thing. But lots of people don't. And I can certainly try to put myself in their shoes and understand that.

When you're deepest beliefs, which may or may not have been questioned in the past, are suddenly or gradually called into question by the very society that you live in, you'd be apt to shout about them from the mountaintops, wouldn't you? So I think that's a lot of what we're seeing and hearing today, greatly amplified by today's instant media.

We're in the midst of a big transition with big power shifting implications. That'll bring out the righteousness in people. I think Obama's a pretty massive symbol of that. Which is a big part of why the opposition to him sounds as intense as it does. Some of it is purely policy based. Some of it is racial (although I think its a very small, but loud, percentage). But a lot of it isn't racist as much as something to do with him being an undeniable symbol of a big and inevitable cultural shift. Which makes some people very very happy and some people very very unhappy. And people who are feeling very very anything tend to make noise about it!

I'm glad everyone agrees that Kanye was a jackass. But I don't. I think he was a dickhead. Or as someone recently put it, a first class Ricardo Cabeza!

-Ray

[Joellogicman]

Interesting point, but I'm not sure people are more self-righteous today, as much as just more threatened in that righteousness. And, hence, feel a need to make more noise about it.

At least in America. I mean, in the '50s and '60s, who's to say how deeply the "WASPs of yore" believed what they believed? The bottom line was they were such a dominant majority that they felt secure in their beliefs and their standing in society, regardless of depth of belief. So they didn't have to yell about it much (although fringe groups like the Klan could yell pretty loud in those days too). And too many of them (although FAR from all or even most) did some pretty horrendous things to maintain and reinforce that dominance.

Today, we're a VASTLY more diverse country. Whether in terms of race, religion, sexuality, you name it. The basic WASPy guy, who used to basically run this country without a lot of interference from the uppity women/blacks/jews/asians/gays/younameit, is a much smaller percentage of the population than 40 years ago. We're on the cusp of being minority/majority. And many, understandably, feel threatened by that. I personally think its a great and wonderful thing. But lots of people don't. And I can certainly try to put myself in their shoes and understand that.

When you're deepest beliefs, which may or may not have been questioned in the past, are suddenly or gradually called into question by the very society that you live in, you'd be apt to shout about them from the mountaintops, wouldn't you? So I think that's a lot of what we're seeing and hearing today, greatly amplified by today's instant media.

We're in the midst of a big transition with big power shifting implications. That'll bring out the righteousness in people. I think Obama's a pretty massive symbol of that. Which is a big part of why the opposition to him sounds as intense as it does. Some of it is purely policy based. Some of it is racial (although I think its a very small, but loud, percentage). But a lot of it isn't racist as much as something to do with him being an undeniable symbol of a big and inevitable cultural shift. Which makes some people very very happy and some people very very unhappy. And people who are feeling very very anything tend to make noise about it!


I had not quite thought this through but certainly a valid and logical perspective.


I'm glad everyone agrees that Kanye was a jackass. But I don't. I think he was a dickhead. Or as someone recently put it, a first class Ricardo Cabeza!

-Ray

Funny. Jackass as a put down has kind of fallen out of the main stream. The President probably last had time to keep up with popular culture a few years back when the show and (I think movie) were the rage.

[93legendti]

While tragic and sad, the execution of an innocent man seems to pale in importance to the news that the promised missile shield will not be placed in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Iran has launched an icbm and can produce a nuclear weapon; Korea has tested nukes; Russia has subs patrolling our waters for the first time in 10 years and, once again, this administration has decided to cater to an enemy's demands to the detriment of our allies. As an added insult, we got nothing in return.

I am sorry about the executed individual in question, but this news, on the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland, seems to me to be more threatening to our liberty.

[1centaur]

I do not follow pop or country music at all. From what little I know, however, it stands to reason Beyonce almost certainly had made the better music video.

Would that be inductive or deductive reasoning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mVEGfH4s5g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw9QMSl9Xic


Personally, I think it's no contest.

[Louis]

Yeah, I hear Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs are so opposed to this that the military is about to revolt.

While tragic and sad, the execution of an innocent man seems to pale in importance to the news that the promised missile shield will not be placed in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Iran has launched an icbm and can produce a nuclear weapon; Korea has tested nukes; Russia has subs patrolling our waters for the first time in 10 years and, once again, this administration has decided to cater to an enemy's demands to the detriment of our allies. As an added insult, we got nothing in return.

I am sorry about the executed individual in question, but this news, on the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland, seems to me to be more threatening to our liberty.

[csm]

Treating women as chattel? Take away their right to vote? Not relevent in even the most remote way.

admittedly not... but I was using it as an illustration of increasing the amount and type of crimes that could be capital offenses. slides us very close to the middle eastern mentality; where it is relevant.

[Rueda Tropical]

I guess I woke up on the wrong side of the bed today because I don’t feel any compassion for these idiots. We shouldn’t be arguing whether we need the death penalty, but rather how can we make it more effective.

I don't have a problem with these sorts being executed. The problem is in order to be able to kill the guilty you have to accept killing the innocent as well. I'd rather see these creeps doing life if it meant sparing a guy who was innocent getting fried.

Think of it this way. If you had the chance to pull the trigger on one of these scumbags. You'd do it without regret. But what if the price was, first you had to kill an innocent man. And only then would you be allowed to kill the bad guy. Would it still be a no brainer? Would you be willing to murder an innocent citizen to be able to execute a criminal?

[Louis]

I don't have a problem with these sorts being executed. The problem is in order to be able to kill the guilty you have to accept killing the innocent as well. I'd rather see these creeps doing life if it meant sparing a guy who was innocent getting fried.

Think of it this way. If you had the chance to pull the trigger on one of these scumbags. You'd do it without regret. But what if the price was, first you had to kill an innocent man. And only then would you be allowed to kill the bad guy. Would it still be a no brainer? Would you be willing to murder an innocent citizen to be able to execute a criminal?

I agree with this sentiment nearly all the way, which is the primary reason I oppose the death penalty. My only comment is that the ratio of wrongly executed : guilty guy executed is not quite 1:1. I have no idea what it really is, maybe 1:100, let's hope even lower.

However, we should also acknowledge that as a whole society accepts risks like that all the time. People drive on highways to get where they want to go faster, knowing that there is a small chance that they may be killed by an out-of-control 18-wheeler. Of course the difference is that that choice is made freely, whereas someone wrongly accused of a capital crime does not choose this. However, my point is that American society as a whole freely (OK, somewhat freely, you can always argue that there is a cabal out there manipulating public opinion) chooses to live with this sort of situation.

Other modern societies choose not to do so. The reasons for this are quite interesting but beyond the scope of this post... :)

[Rueda Tropical]

I agree with this sentiment nearly all the way, which is the primary reason I oppose the death penalty. My only comment is that the ratio of wrongly executed : guilty guy executed is not quite 1:1. I have no idea what it really is, maybe 1:100, let's hope even lower.

However, we should also acknowledge that as a whole society accepts risks like that all the time.

The ratio is not that important unless you could prove you were saving many more lives then you where taking. Even then it's problematic because intentionally killing someone is not the same as accepting a certain level of fatality risk in traffic, drug treatment, etc.,..

[Louis]

Even then it's problematic because intentionally killing someone is not the same as accepting a certain level of fatality risk in traffic, drug treatment, etc.,..

I agree, but most folks have no problems with killing, as long as their hands don't get dirty when it happens.

[Rueda Tropical]

I agree, but most folks have no problems with killing, as long as their hands don't get dirty when it happens.

Yes, as long as it's not your ass that get's sacrificed for the greater good it's easy to be a tough guy.

[Rueda Tropical]

While tragic and sad, the execution of an innocent man seems to pale in importance to the news that the promised missile shield will not be placed in Poland and Czechoslovakia.


Yes while Bush and company where focused on a billion dollar cold war missile system (that never actually worked) whose main purpose was to defend the profits of some big defense donors and lobbyists, we suffered the biggest attack on American soil in modern history perpetrated by a few guys with box cutters.

The Poles according to a recent poll don't want our 'protection' neither it seems do a lot of other people we are spending billions to defend. So we have poured trillions into weapon systems and wars that have been great for the business interests of a few while the country has gone bankrupt. Where are we going to get the trillions to carry on as we have? The country with the biggest economy always winds up the most powerful militarily. We are on course to destroy our security along with our economy.

[malcolm]

Yes while Bush and company where focused on a billion dollar cold war missile system (that never actually worked) whose main purpose was to defend the profits of some big defense donors and lobbyists, we suffered the biggest attack on American soil in modern history perpetrated by a few guys with box cutters.

The Poles according to a recent poll don't want our 'protection' neither it seems do a lot of other people we are spending billions to defend. So we have poured trillions into weapon systems and wars that have been great for the business interests of a few while the country has gone bankrupt. Where are we going to get the trillions to carry on as we have? The country with the biggest economy always winds up the most powerful militarily. We are on course to destroy our security along with our economy.

Not to get off on a political tirade, but a few guys with box cutters are much harder to defend against than someones army. To defend against that type of attack you have to be right everyday while still providing the freedom we expect and take for granted, they only have to be right/lucky once.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic though.

[Rueda Tropical]

Not to get off on a political tirade, but a few guys with box cutters are much harder to defend against than someones army. To defend against that type of attack you have to be right everyday while still providing the freedom we expect and take for granted, they only have to be right/lucky once.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic though.

Just responding to the comment about the missile system. We had all the info we needed to stop the attack. Field agents tried to sound the alarm. It just never made it up the chain to the top or got shared between agencies because of bureaucratic incompetence. It had nothing to do with our freedoms, it was managerial bungling in DC. Of course to cover their butts they had to say they didn't have the tools and they were hobbled by our freedoms.

The billions we spent on another over budget under performing defense boondoggle and the trillion it might cost to make Iraq a client state of Iran and empower the Shiite fundamentalists (because dealing with Sunni fanatics wasn't enough) could have gone to make us energy independent. Cutting off the terrorists source of funding by making oil unnecessary would have done more for our security then bombing a thousand middle eastern cities.

[malcolm]

Maybe so, but I still stand by my original statement, it is very hard to guard against a lunatic that actually wants to die.

We also had the intel necessary to eliminate osama bin laden about three administrations ago. All this just serves to prove my point with a huge government like ours particularly with adversarial parties it is very difficult to defend against small covert attacks and hindsight is always 20/20. Everyone knows the good intel after the fact.

[1centaur]

Part of intel is scenarios, theorizing, etc. If one of those scenarios plays out later in real life, those who suggested it jump up and down to take credit (and perhaps criticize those who did not pay enough attention). If the scenario does not happen, you don't hear the proponent jumping up and down to declare how wrong he was.

One of the President's tasks is to screen what the agencies have already screened and pick out what to act on. If the agencies are asked to produce scenarios from every angle, it's not surprising that sometimes a prophetic scenario actually comes true. Picking the wheat from the chaff is generally a thankless, difficult task.

BTW, you can spend as many billions as you want and we will not be oil independent for at least 20 years, possibly 50.

[mister]

back to willingham. been getting some news lately. FYI.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/texas.execution.probe/index.html

DALLAS, Texas (CNN) -- An investigation into claims that faulty evidence led Texas to execute an innocent man in 2004 was at a "crucial point" when the state's governor replaced three of its members this week, one of the three said Thursday.
A family photo shows Cameron Todd Willingham with his wife, Stacy, and daughters Kameron, Amber and Karmon.

A family photo shows Cameron Todd Willingham with his wife, Stacy, and daughters Kameron, Amber and Karmon.
Click to view previous image
1 of 3
Click to view next image

Gov. Rick Perry's shake-up of the Texas Forensic Science Commission came two days before it was to hear from the author of a scathing report in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. That Friday session has been postponed indefinitely in the wake of Perry's new appointments, and critics of the governor accused him of trying to quash the Willingham probe.

"I think people are making a lot of this issue," Perry told reporters Thursday in Austin, Texas. He said the replacement of commission Chairman Sam Bassett and commissioners Alan Levy and Aliece Watts, whose terms had expired, was "pretty normal protocol."

"If you've got a whole new investigation going forward, it makes a lot more sense to put the new people in now and let them start the full process, rather than bring people in there for a short period of time and then replace them," he said. "I think it makes a whole lot more sense to make a change now than to make a change later."

The Forensic Science Commission began investigating the Willingham case in 2008, hiring Maryland fire investigation expert Craig Beyler to examine the evidence used to convince a jury the fire that killed Willingham's three daughters was deliberately set. Levy said Thursday he told the governor's office "that it would be disruptive to make the new appointments right now."

"The commission was at a crucial point in the investigation," he said. Asked about the future of the Willingham investigation, he said, "I don't know if it will ever be heard."

Levy, a top prosecutor in Fort Worth, Texas, said he had asked to remain on the commission, but received no response from the governor's office. Sam Bassett, the panel's former chairman, said he also asked to remain.
Don't Miss

* The Innocence Project

Beyler's report is the latest of three to conclude that arson was not the likely cause of the 1991 fire, and the first commissioned by a state agency. Death penalty opponents say an impartial review of the Willingham case could lead to an unprecedented admission that the state executed an innocent man.

The Beyler report concluded that the ruling of arson at the heart of Willingham's conviction "could not be sustained" by modern science or the standards of the time. The report, filed in August, said the state fire marshal who testified in Willingham's trial approached his job with an attitude "more characteristic of mystics or psychics" than with that of a detective who followed scientific standards.

Perry, who faces a Republican primary challenge in his bid for a third term next year, refused to issue a last-minute stay of execution for Willingham in 2004 and has said he remains confident that Willingham was guilty. So have authorities in Corsicana, south of Dallas, who prosecuted Willingham in his daughter's deaths.

Asked whether the governor wants to see the Willingham investigation go forward, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said, "That's a decision of the commission."

"The governor has made his position on this case clear, and has said that he has not seen anything that would cause him to think that the decisions made by the courts of Texas was not correct," Cesinger said. "Beyond that, the business of the commission is up to the commission."

Wednesday's appointments raised concern among Willingham's relatives, who worked to avert his execution and to clear his name after his death.

"It sounds like someone made Gov. Perry mad," his stepmother, Eugena Willingham, said after hearing the news during an interview with CNN at her home in Ardmore, Oklahoma.

"I think it's going to delay things," she said. "It makes me wonder why."

Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck compared the shake-up to the Watergate scandal's "Saturday Night Massacre," when embattled President Richard Nixon sought the removal of a special prosecutor investigating his administration.

"Rather than let this important hearing go forward and the report be heard, the governor fires the independent chairman and two other members of this commission," Scheck said. "It's like Nixon firing Archibald Cox to avoid turning over the Watergate tapes."

The Innocence Project seeks to help prisoners who were wrongfully convicted. Its 2006 report on the Willingham case concluded that "an innocent man was executed." That report led to Beyler being hired by the Forensic Science Commission to review the case.

Neither Bassett nor Levy would say whether they believed political considerations were behind their replacement, though Bassett said in a written statement that the investigation should not be dropped "because there might be political ramifications."

Perry replaced Bassett with John Bradley, the district attorney of Williamson County, north of Austin. The governor appointed Bradley to his current post in 2001, and Scott Cobb, president of the Texas Moratorium Network, called him "one of the most hard-line prosecutors in the entire state."

"I really don't have a lot of confidence with him on this commission," Cobb said. On the other hand, however, "If he is convinced by the evidence, it would make an even bigger impact."

Bradley spoke about the appointment via telephone Thursday afternoon.

"My day started off yesterday with a phone call from the governor's office informing me that I had been appointed, so I've got a lot of work to do," he said. "I've got a pretty full-time job as district attorney and was already chairing another statewide commission," one that focused on mental health issues in the Texas criminal justice system.

He said he would "approach the job very methodically," and said he did not know when the Beyler hearing would be rescheduled. But he dismissed claims that his appointment was meant to stall the Willingham investigation.

"People tend to read into these things the kind of preconceived notions they come to these issues with," Bradley said. "They're not going to change those positions overnight. They're going to watch how the commission does its work." He said if he does his job right, the commission will "probably satisfy most of those people."



http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/10/12/1012arson.html

Perry refuses to release execution report
Arson analysis was sent to governor 88 minutes before inmate was put to death.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Monday, October 12, 2009

Gov. Rick Perry's office is refusing to release information about how it reviewed an attorney's attempt to stop an execution based on an arson expert's report, arguing that staff comments and analyses of the report aren't public records.

The Houston Chronicle reported Sunday that it tried unsuccessfully to obtain documents that might show whether Perry reviewed or his staff discussed the report. It was faxed to the governor just 88 minutes before Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in February 2004.

The newspaper cited records it did obtain that showed Perry's office got the five-page faxed report at 4:52 p.m. on Feb. 17, 2004. The newspaper reported that it was unclear from the records whether Perry had read the arson report that day.

A statement from Perry spokesman Chris Cutrone, sent to the Chronicle late Friday, said that "given the brevity of (the) report and the general counsel's familiarity with all the other facts in the case, there was ample time for the general counsel to read and analyze the report and to brief the governor on its content."

Willingham, 36, was convicted of setting the fire that killed his three young children, 2-year-old Amber and 1-year-old twins Karmon and Kameron, on Dec. 23, 1991, in the family's Corsicana home.

Investigators with the Texas State Fire Marshal's Office ruled it an arson started by an accelerant. The report sent to Perry by Austin-based arson expert Gerald Hurst, who holds a doctorate in chemistry from Cambridge University, said investigators "made errors" and relied on discredited techniques.

Willingham's attorney, Walter M. Reaves Jr., first alerted Perry about the new arson analysis three days before the execution and requested more time to develop it.

"There is nothing more I would like than to be able to present you with evidence of actual innocence," Reaves wrote Perry, according to a document released to the Chronicle. "I think we are close. ... The death penalty, whether you agree with it or not, should be reserved for the most serious crimes. More importantly, it should be reserved for those crimes about which there is no doubt about the guilt of the person."

Reaves later got word that Perry would not stop the execution, and Willingham went to his death at 6:20 p.m., proclaiming his innocence.

Summaries of gubernatorial reviews of execution cases previously were released as public records in Texas, most recently under former Gov. George W. Bush.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/firstreading/entries/2009/10/12/monday.html

Gov. Rick Perry’s office has repeatedly said that Perry removed Sam Bassett from the helm of the Forensic Science Commission simply because his term was up. But according to a story in this morning’s Chicago Tribune, Perry lawyers had for months expressed unhappiness with the commission’s investigation into the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. The newspaper reports, “According to Bassett, the governor’s attorneys questioned the cost of the inquiry and asked why a fire scientist from Texas could not be hired to examine the case instead of the expert from Maryland that the panel ultimately settled on. Following the meeting, a staffer from the general counsel’s office began to attend the commission’s meetings, Bassett said. And although Bassett said he had hoped his work on the commission would focus solely on forensics, the meetings he described likely will add to questions about Perry’s moves.”

Bassett claims Perry’s office told him that the commission, whose hired expert found a number of faults with the arson investigation that led to Willingham’s conviction for murdering his children, was putting too high a priority on the Willingham case, and Bassett claims Perry lawyer Mary Anne Wiley called payments to fire scientist Craig Beyler — the expert hired by the commission — a waste of taxpayer money.

Perry’s office does nothing in the Tribune story to dispute Bassett’s claims. His staff has refused to give any public rationale for replacing Bassett. Similarly, Bassett has previously claimed to Texas reporters that he did not know why he was removed.

On a related note, the Houston Chronicle reported Sunday that Perry’s office declined to release records related to a late-hour request for a reprieve from Willingham’s lawyer. Similar records were released by former Gov. George W. Bush, the Chronicle reported.