Alright Gungeon, How Do You Fare on the Death Penalty?

[LAGC]

Poll question: Alright Gungeon, How Do You Fare on the Death Penalty?

Barring any last-minute reprieve, in just a little over an hour, the State of Idaho is set to execute its first Death Row prisoner in over 15 years -- first prisoner UNWILLINGLY in over 50 years. (The last guy dropped all appeals and just wanted to die rather than live out the rest of his miserable life locked up, so the state granted his wishes.)

I plan on joining the ACLU in protest against the Death Penalty outside of the prison complex as soon as I post this poll, but it just got me thinking... how many folks who support using lethal force in self-defense of themselves or their loved ones feel about the state being able to take life as well? Should lethal force be reserved only to those truly immediate life-threatening situations, or is it fair game to kill a murderer not just before but after he has had his/her way with his victim(s) as well?

I must confess I'm a little torn on this issue myself.

[rfranklin]

1. False equivalency...

Premeditated killing versus self preservation in a moment of terror.

[RC]

2. Between the druggies and gun nutz, one sometimes need to stop others from

doing harm to innocents by whatever means necessary.

[ObamaFTW2012]

44. Violent criminals are not innocent

and certainly not at the moment when one has forced his way into your home, armed, and is just seconds from killing you. Acting with lethal force to defend yourself and your family is justified, and (in my opinion) a moral obligation to prevent the murder of someone you love. Executing violent criminals is understandable in some cases, as there will always be those criminals who are beyond rehabilitation, and whose crimes are so offensive that no punishment other than death would be just.

[jeepnstein]

3. The death penalty is just a blood sport for lawyers.

I have spent time with death row inmates and know quite well that they are, for the most part, monsters. You just don't get the death penalty in Ohio unless you've been involved in some pretty vile behavior or have the worst lawyer in the known human universe. I do know there are no rich men on death row. Partly because rich guys don't get into cannibalism, ritual murder, hooker hunting, or any of the other activities that get you the needle in Ohio. And partly because rich guys have better lawyers.

As a Christian I feel compelled to show compassion on even the lowest of the low. And I can pretty much tell you it doesn't get much lower than death row. So I oppose the death penalty on moral grounds.

One of the most interesting days I ever spent was at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Lucasville, being run through the execution protocol. They actually walked a few of us through it from the point of view of the accused as well as from the staff's perspective. I will tell you that it affected me deeply. It's all fun and games until they strap you down on that gurney and show you the needle they use.

Self-defense? That's a totally different set of circumstances.

[baldguy]

4. Does the use of lethal force automatically require the use of handguns?

And what about the majority of instances where guns are used as a defense in non-life threatening situations? A kid rings a doorbell and the homeowner shoots him. Or a guy is walking a dog & the dog shits on someones lawn and the homeowner shoots him. The shooters ALWAYS will claim self-defense - no matter how inconsequential the "threat" actually is.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. +1

[TheWraith]

49. It's sad that the two of you actually think that that's an argument.

It bears about as much resemblance to reality as the legends about "welfare moms driving Cadillacs." A cartoonish caricature of anyone who you disagree with. Not to mention completely unrelated to the original question.

[Hoyt]

52. So, you think it never happens? Or just not often enough for you to consider we have a problem?

[DrDan]

6. not sure there is such a thing as an inconsequential threat to some

I have read posts where killing is justified based on the theft of something as insignificant as a ball point pen.

And that is the view of some DUers here.

[Remmah2]

11. -1 nt

nt

[DrDan]

12. so you don't believe that? or you don't think it should be posted?

Just stating what was in the posts of others.

Not sure what the "-1" means.

[RSillsbee]

57. By all means show us a link NT

[DrDan]

62. I did - see post 30

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. link to that, please.

I have read posts where killing is justified based on the theft of something as insignificant as a ball point pen.

Had I read that, I would have bookmarked it -- surely, you did the same.

[TPaine7]

20. Unfortunately, that is true. Read this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=457614&mesg_id=457614

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. will have to read it later tonight --

but, thanks for the link.

[DrDan]

30. here ya go

question: "if Abbot had stolen a ball point pen from Canul, would you still defend the shooting and killing?"

response: "Yup. Armed robbery is armed robbery. If the thief values his life at the value of a ball point pen, who am I to argue with him?
What's mine is mine. I should have the right to stop people from stealing from me, even if they've already grabbed my stuff and are running away with it."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=456527#456534

posts #5 and #10

[SteveM]

46. Armed robbery is a lethal threat; the object of the crime is secondary. nt

[iverglas]

51. and cold-blooded murder is cold-blooded murder

And here is the scenario that was being responded to:

Once he took off with the money in the parking lot, reports indicate Canul, who has a concealed weapon permit, pulled out a gun and allegedly shot Abbot in the head. Abbot died at the Logan County Medical Center.

Another term for that is extrajudicial execution, and civilized societies and moral individuals generally condemn rather than celebrate it.

No "lethal threat" when the person is running away. And not all armed robberies are "lethal threats", in point of fact.

[DrDan]

53. it's killing someone for a ball point pen

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. Exactly.

Some kid gets blown away for swiping from garden tool from a shed.

What's the threat there?

[Callisto32]

54. Sorry dude.

I asked for a cite, saw it further down. I really need to stop posting before finishing a subthread. :yoiks:

[Atypical Liberal]

8. Which is why we have police.

The shooters ALWAYS will claim self-defense - no matter how inconsequential the "threat" actually is.

Which is why if you shoot someone, even in self-defense, there will always be a police investigation.

No one gets to just claim "self-defense" and then go on about their business with no repercussions.

[baldguy]

9. I thought you didn't trust the State?

And in the two events I cited, the shooters got to go on about their business with no repercussions.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. I don't trust the State to have oversight over ITSELF.

I thought you didn't trust the State?

I don't trust the State to police ITSELF.

And in the two events I cited, the shooters got to go on about their business with no repercussions.

I did not see any citations. Perhaps you forgot to link?

[baldguy]

21. You're joking, right? Either that, or you're woefully ignorant.

Google "Yoshihiro Hattori" - a very well-known case that literally caused an international uproar. When Americans wonder why the rest of the world correctly thinks of our gun laws as dangerous & insane - this is why.

As for the dogshit shooting, that happens practically ever week, but this is the one I was thinking of:
http://www.wwltv.com/news/strange-news/Dog-poop-in-neighbors-yard-leads-to-shooting-118733724.html

[iverglas]

27. yeah, don't trust the people whom the people elect

but trust every single unknown individual in the land not to behave badly.

Odd how many do.


Oh, that Hallowe'en doorbell ringer. Yes, and one of my favourite episodes of Homicide, one of my favourite TV shows ...

[Atypical Liberal]

39. No, I wasn't joking.

You're joking, right? Either that, or you're woefully ignorant.

Google "Yoshihiro Hattori" - a very well-known case that literally caused an international uproar.

No, I wasn't joking - you provided no citations in your post so I did not know which cases you were referring to. Of course I have heard of the case of Yoshihiro Hattori. And, just like I said, the shooter in this case did not get to just go about his business afterwards with no repercussions. There was a criminal trial in a court of law in which he was acquitted, and a second trial for a civil case in which there was a judgement against him for $650,000. No doubt he also racked up significant legal fees as a result of these two trials.

In the second case, from what I have been able to determine at least one of the people involved, Jerry Blasingame, was charged with aggravated assault, and charges may also have been filed against the other man involved also. So in this case also no one was able to shoot someone with no repercussions.


And in the two events I cited, the shooters got to go on about their business with no repercussions.

As I have demonstrated above, this is clearly false.

[Euromutt]

63. Did you actually READ that article about the shooting over the dog?

Let's bear in mind you claimed (in post #4) the incident was an example of:

Or a guy is walking a dog & the dog shits on someones lawn and the homeowner shoots him.

If you'd actually read the article, you'd have noticed the following:

Terry Tenhet, 52, told The Associated Press he was struck Wednesday in both hands, the shoulder, chest and side by the spray of pellets from shotgun blasts fired by his neighbor, Jerry Blasingame, 60. The wounds are not life-threatening.

Washington County Sheriff's Assistant Chief Deputy Billy Barber said Tenhet was angry at Blasingame because he thought Blasingame's mixed-breed dog had defecated in his lawn.

It was the dog owner who shot the neighbor in whose yard the dog had allegedly relieved itself, after the neighbor came over to complain. I acknowledge that both parties in the article leveled various accusations at each other (and to paraphrase the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "Well, they would, wouldn't they?"), but the fact is that this wasn't a case of the property owner shooting the dog owner as you alleged.

[Atypical Liberal]

65. Even if it was, in both cases the shooters did not get away without repercussions.

No matter what the circumstances, the fact is in both of his examples none of the shooters got to go on about their business with no repercussions as he claimed.

There is always state oversight whenever there is a shooting, even in self-defense. Very occasionally the police will simply let the victim go after a quick interrogation when it is obvious that they acted in self-defense. But the adage goes that if you use a gun in self-defense you are looking at several thousand dollars in legal fees at a minimum, even if you are in the right.

[iverglas]

67. haha, now "oversight" is the buzzword du jour

No, sorry, ex post facto application of a test is not "Watchful care or management; supervision".

[iverglas]

66. I want my bedtime Tory!

Oh, too bad, one person here might get it, and he's got his blinkers on.

Although I dispute the sometime attribution to Mandy's, um, co-worker. Gerda Munsinger was the gal.

[iverglas]

18. the doorbell ringer

Are you talking about the kid in Boca Raton shot in the back on Hallowe'en, as he ran away, by a concealed weapons permit holder who claimed to believe he was a burglar?

Actually, despite the hue and cry around this board that if he'd done anything wrong the police would have arrested him then and there, the police did continue to investigate and the killer eventually pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

(Not a "castle doctine" case because the kid was on the lawn, and it may have been before the legislation anyway, I forget.)

[iverglas]

17. more of the false falseness

Which is why if you shoot someone, even in self-defense, there will always be a police investigation.

In "castle doctrine" states like Florida, the only investigation will be to determine whether the person who used force came within the presumption in the statute:

- they were in their home, and
- the person against whom the force was used was in their home, and
- they knew or reasonably believed that the person against whom force was used had entered their home unlawfully or forcibly

Once those are established, it's over.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=15738

Protection of Persons and Property: Authorizes a person to use force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker in a dwelling, residence, or vehicle under certain circumstances; creates a presumption that a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm exists; creates a presumption that a person acts with the intent to use force or violence; provides that a person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances; declares that a person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force in certain circumstances; authorizes a law enforcement agency to investigate the use of deadly force but prohibits the agency from arresting the person unless the agency determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful; provides for the award of attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and other expenses to a defendant in a civil suit who was immune from prosecution for justifiable use of force.

The only "probable cause that the force used was unlawful" possible is if:

- the person who used force was not in their home, or
- the person against whom the force was used was not in their home, or
- the person who used force did not know or reasonably believe that the person against whom force was used had entered their home unlawfully or forcibly
(or a couple of exceptions, like the person against whom force was used was a cop)

Once those are established, there is no further investigation.

If police are not satisfied on those points, and there is a trial, those are the only issues the court may consider.

[ileus]

23. You have to shoot a little lower if it's a kid behind the door..

I heard a guy say that once, he was talking about some noobie in Iraq asking what if it's a kid holding the door when they're doing door to door searches.


I however.com can't seem to google the last time a homeowner shot through a door to kill a trick or treater ringing a door bell.

[iverglas]

29. who said "through a door"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

the one I referred to in another post was this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18563#18632

[SteveM]

47. "Rootie-toot-toot! Three times she shot, right through that hardwood door...."

One of the many "interactive" lines of the ballad "Frankie and Johnny." This one found in Jimmy Rodger's version.

[one-eyed fat man]

28. Not if you know what lethal means

There are countless ways to be lethal without the use of handguns, or firearms of any kind. Cain was reputedly pretty handy with a rock.

Source: Genesis 4:1-17, King James version.

Source: The Koran 4:27-31, translated by E. H. Palmer (1880).

I had a couple of drivers that proved to be pretty darn lethal with tank track.

[SteveM]

45. There are problems with your outlook...

"The shooters ALWAYS will claim self-defense..."

Shooters can claim that til the cows come home, but the case will be investigated to see how this claim holds up.

Concerning your other point about "automatic" use of "handguns," this seems off-point. One should not assume that the law will protect you for the "automatic" use of ANY weapon. Further, a handgun is a choice for citizens among any variety of weapons, firearms or no. I fail to see any reason for singling out this weapon as opposed to, say, a shotgun with turkey loads.

[Callisto32]

55. Oy.

I have a phrase for you to look up: "affirmative defense."


Have fun with that.

[RSillsbee]

56. Since this is so common

surely you can provide a cite?

[Hoopla Phil]

58. The examples have a ring of familiarity to them.

One Halloween incident where the homeowner was acquitted. Had to do with a teenage foreign exchange student that was acting "crazy" and didn't understand english. The homeowner misinterpreted "foolishness", and disregard of his orders as aggression. I really blamed the students "friends" over that one and thought they should have been charged in the exchange students death.

Dog shitting on a lawn provoked a crazed homeowner to come out swinging a bat.

The last I cannot remember what the results were.

[iverglas]

68. omg, I missed this one

Your summation of the facts is masterful.......ly disingenuous.

And you crown it with:

I really blamed the students "friends" over that one and thought they should have been charged in the exchange students death.

Quite an amazement, quite an amazement.

Do the knots one twists one's self into, to avoid laying blame on anyone who every shot anyone for their own voluntary actions, never hurt?

[Atypical Liberal]

7. I trust the individual, but not the State.

I trust the individual to know when his life or family or property is in danger, especially since when he uses lethal force there is judicial oversight.

I do not trust the State with the power to execute its own citizens, especially since there is effectively no oversight.

[Remmah2]

10. +1

Yowsah!

[iverglas]

19. "especially since when he uses lethal force there is judicial oversight"

Not in "castle doctrine" states there isn't.

But hey, keep on saying there is. You can fool some of the people ...

[57_TomCat]

77. If the constituted authority investigates the shooting...

Then there is judicial oversight. Whether or not you might believe there is "enough" oversight is a different issue.

[iverglas]

79. which it may not do

in "castle doctrine" states.

But keep on saying it! Somebody may believe you.

[rrneck]

13. Option 2.

Killing people is wrong every time. Sometimes it's unavoidable.

[iverglas]

15. bizarre unanswerable questions

I oppose the death penalty as a matter of public policy. I take positions on things that are matters of public policy.

I don't take positions on things that are purely personal.

I don't "support abortion". I might support a particular woman's choice to have an abortion (or another's not to have an abortion). As a matter of public policy, I support non-interference with access to abortion. There is no public interest involved in any woman's choice.

I don't support "using lethal force in self-defence". I might support someone's choice to do that, I might support someone else's choice not to do that.

Because "using lethal force in self-defence" actually means "killing someone" (barring a missed target or lucky break), there is a public interest involved: the important public interest in people not killing other people.

So: I support allowing women to have abortions. Do I support allowing people to "use lethal force in self-defence"?

I support allowing people to use force in self-defence, where they reasonably believe that they are in danger of death or serious injury and that they have no reasonable alternative to using force, and where they do not intend to kill the person against whom they use force. (In other words: I support the classic, time-honoured definition of self-defence.)

So I'd just say that someone who uses "lethal force" had better not be using it with the intent to kill. You pays your money, you takes your chances, in a society that holds you to the standard it should hold you to.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. OK I tend to agree with a lot of what you have written --

that last statement is not how I would word it but, it is your style.

[iverglas]

26. sniff

You're saying my style is to be ungrammatical?!

Only when I'm being stylish. And I'm ever so stylish, amn't I?

;)

[one-eyed fat man]

24. Tough question.

Certainly there are those who are so evil and their acts so horrific they deserve killing. Sometimes it is hard to determine if it is retribution or prophylaxis. One thing is certain, it cuts down on recidivism, whatever they did to get hanged it's a sure bet they will never do it again.

My biggest objection to capital punishment is the execution. If some msicreant is sentenced to life without parole the state has to support him until he dies of natural causes. On the other hand, if he is sentenced to death, the state only has to support him and two platoons of lawyers arguing both sides until he, most often, dies of natural causes. So may as well quit the charade, and simply lock them up and throw away the key. It will be cheaper in the long run.

As for self-defense, I will meet any lethal threat with as much force as needed with whatever mean at hand.

As an aside, on this date in 1978 Jim Jones put "Drink the Kool-Aid," into the American lexicon. When members apparently cried, Jones counseled, "Stop this...hysterics. This is not the way for people who are Socialists or Communists to die. No way for us to die. We must die with some dignity."

[spin]

31. I oppose the death penalty because of the added expense of the court proceedings ...

New Study Reveals Costs in Maryland: $186 Million for Five Executions

A new study released by the Urban Institute on March 6, 2008 forecast that the lifetime cost to taxpayers for the capitally-prosecuted cases in Maryland since 1978 will be $186 million. That translates to $37.2 million for each of the state’s five executions since the state reenacted the death penalty. The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. (This includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs.) The study examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that those cases will cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not existed as a punishment. At every phase of a case, according to the study, capital murder cases cost more than non-capital murder cases.

Of the 162 capital cases, there were 106 cases in which a death sentence was sought but not handed down in Maryland. Those cases cost the state an additional $71 million compared to the cost non-death penalty cases. Those costs were incurred simply to seek the death penalty where the ultimate outcome was a life or long-term prison sentence.
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Of course there is also always the possibility that an individual might be convicted and executed and later evidence will be found that would have totally exonerated him.

I support the use of lethal force to deter an attack which might lead to serious injury or death. Of course the use of such force should require a though investigation to determine if the action was justified.

[iverglas]

32. here's another possibility / unintended/perverse effect

It can arise if the death penalty is used as a bargaining chip, or even if an accused chooses spontaneously not to take the chance of a conviction leading to the death penalty after trial, and the accused pleads guilty with an agreement that the sentence will not be death.

The possibility is that an innocent person will be serving a sentence for a crime they did not commit. That's bad enough, but what it also means is that the guilty party - someone who evidently committed a rather awful crime - is walking around undetected and unpunished and society is unprotected from them.

There are other unintended/perverse effects as well.

People who oppose the death penalty are not likely to serve on juries in capital cases. People who support the death penalty are generally more "law and order", "tough on crime" oriented, and obviously just more vindictive than people who do not. Accordingly, they are more likely to convict on weaker evidence than people who do not have those characteristics - and so the chance of wrongful convictions may very well actually be higher in capital cases than in other cases.

edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death-qualified_jury

Bias

Several studies have found that death-qualified juries are made up of fewer women and minorities. Death-qualified juries are often criticized because they have a similar effect as excluding jurors based on race or gender<2>, which exclusion, in Batson v. Kentucky in 1986, was held as inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Empirical evidence adduced in Lockhart also has shown that death-qualified juries are more likely than other jurors to convict a defendant.<3> That is, death-qualified jurors are more likely than non-death-qualified jurors to vote for conviction when assessing the same sets of facts. It is argued that since death-qualified juries overrepresent these groups there is a propensity to render guilty verdicts on cases of any type, including those in which the death penalty is not considered.

[LAGC]

33. Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

Instead of being a deterrent to high crime, it could be more of an enabler if the wrong person dies and the "right person" goes free due to jury bias.

[spin]

36. You make a good point ...

I would be eliminated during the Voir dire process because I oppose the death penalty. I feel that if I were allowed to serve on a death-qualified jury, I would listen to both the prosecution and the defense carefully and make a decision based on the evidence. Some people that I know who strongly support the death penalty seem to me as people who would favor the prosecution's side in court and would be more inclined than I am to discount the defense.

[Hoopla Phil]

59. LOL, while reading your reply I had the Void dire scene from My Cousin Vinny

running through my mind.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

71. Just because one supports the death penalty...

...does not mean they cannot view the facts with an open mind. Maybe you have a problem with being more inclined to the defense, but do not assume others share your failing.

[iverglas]

72. ah, if only you could have seen my post 32

I know it's around here somewhere ...

You could have seen the synopsis of actual studies that have been done, and then pursued your investigation of the matter, and then maybe had something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.

Instead, you were left with nothing but dumb insults to fling around. Tsk. Sad.

[LAGC]

34. Well, its all over now. After a short delay, Paul Ezra Rhoades was executed by lethal injection...

He passed at approximately 9:15 A.M. Mountain Standard Time.

He didn't protest his innocence, but only admitted to partial guilt to one particular murder, denying the other two. So I guess that makes it an easier pill to swallow for some, that an admitted killer "got his due rewards." I must say though, I was really disgusted reading many of the comments on the local news sites' stories... many were not just advocates of the Death Penalty, but were flat out celebrating and reveling in this guy's death. Events like this really bring out some of the basest elements of human nature, and make me seriously ponder whether we will survive as a species, with as blood-thirsty for revenge as many of us are.

I just fear this will pave the way for many more executions here in Idaho in the coming years ahead. Idaho is one of only 12 states that still allow for the Death Penalty, with the U.S. being among only a handful of countries that still practice it. My only hope is that support for it will continue to wane and that we will rise above such primitive impulses and set an example for what it means to be a civilized society, instead of lowering ourselves to convicted murderers' level.

Goddess help us all.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. I dont see it as blood-thirsty revenge.

Humanity has always seen execution as an appropriate penalty for murder. It has only been very recently in human history that we have lied to ourselves and believed that someone who commits the ultimate crime should not pay with his own life.

Personally I find it revolting and offensive to suggest that a murderer should receive a long life at the expense of everyone else.

[LAGC]

37. Well, the ironic thing is...

It cost Idaho taxpayers three times as much to house his sorry ass on Death Row for 20+ years and pay for all the extra court costs involved with capital death cases than it would have to just let him live the rest of his miserable life in general population.

I know some would say we should streamline the process, so that prisoners sentenced to death would be executed in a more expeditious fashion, but look how many people have been on Death Row for 20+ years and have been exonerated due to new evidence or re-testing old evidence that casts serious doubt on the original decision?

The main problem with the Death Penalty is that you can't take it back when you fuck up. We've already seen at least two likely innocent people put to death at the hands of the state in recent years. Even if you're right 99% of the time, and the truly guilty get their "just rewards" most of the time, isn't the price of error just too high? Its not so much whether this particular bad guy deserved it or not, its the principle of the thing.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

38. Well yeah - streamlining the process would help...

As far as your suggestions, the problem is, you're equating reasonable doubt with all possible doubt, and the two are very different.

Yes, i am fully aware of the risk (as small as it is) of executing an innocent man, but there is also the plain fact that by letting these scum file appeal after appeal after appeal, seeking the slightest obscure technicality or even misprint of a document as an excuse to let them free, what you end up doing is making a mockery of justice.

What about their victim's families? Why should they have to be put through decades of seeing the killer of their loved one filing appeal after appeal at taxpayer's expense?

Reasonable doubt is just that - reasonable. To me, if the number or people who have to say you're guilty and deserve to die have all agreed that is the case, then the "reasonable" standard has been meet. Give them one appeal to review the legal procedures and make sure nobody was paid off, and upon that appeal, take them out back and put some lead in their brain.

Cold? Yep. Borderline barbaric? Sure is. Do i feel guilty about it? Not one damned bit. 99.9999% of the people on death row are pure scum. Removing them from society is the best possible solution.

The only alternative I could accept would be banishment, but to where would you send them?

[LAGC]

40. Well, maybe we'll banish them all to Mars someday.

Didn't Australia start out as a place of exile for British prisoners back in the day? ;)

Look, I appreciate your opinion on this issue, but maybe I just don't have as much faith in our judicial system to be as free from error and bias as you apparently do. Solid DNA evidence is one thing, but many death penalty cases are decided on eye-witness testimony alone, and that can be the most unreliable of evidence of all.

Consider how many black people "all look the same" to white witnesses? "I saw a black guy... oh, you caught a black guy? THAT MUST BE HIM!" No one will admit it, of course, but how often is this the case?

Granted, this guy was white and was clearly guilty, but this mindset that death is the answer can only lead to inevitable abuses of power.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. Mars is an excelent idea...

...however it isn't an option.

Yes, Australia was an exile colony.

I don't expect the judicial system to be free from bias or error. However, I also don't expect them to arrive at a decision where they have NO doubt. I expect them to reach one of reasonable doubt.

Your last two lines are so vile and racist I wont dignify them with a response.

[iverglas]

42. "innocent people put to death at the hands of the state"

Remember to consider also those who could have received the death penalty if it had applied at that time / in that place. There is a larger pool of wrongfully convicted than it might otherwise seem.

Google marshall milgaard morin to see Canada's famous trio of wrongful murder convictions. The latter two at least would likely have qualified as capital in the wrong time and place: both involved sexual assault and murder, the victim a child in Guy Paul Morin's case. All three have been exonerated, one way or another.

We do it differently here. If fresh evidence comes to light, there is just a hearing on that, none of the US's bizarre weirdness about having to prove procedural errors when the world and its dog know, based on new evidence or proof that old evidence was bad, that the person was innocent.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/08/17/56525/scalia-actual-innocence/

... Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent, however, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for thinking that mere innocence is grounds to overturn a conviction:

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. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

So in Justice Scalia’s world, the law has no problem with sending an innocent man to die. One wonders why we even bother to have a Constitution.

Seen from this side of the border, that just makes y'all look like Klingons. ;)

[SteveM]

43. Oppose death penalty, would use lethal force when there is a lethal threat...

The death penalty is a violation of due process and equal protection, in addition to being too costly.

An ARMED robber, whether after a Jaguar or a dried-up ballpoint pen, is a lethal threat and should be treated accordingly.

[TheWraith]

48. I have no moral objection, but I have a strong practical one.

I don't have a personal moral objection to the idea of someone being put to death or a particularly heinous crime. However, in practice with any kind of civil justice system it is impossible to guarantee that no innocent persons will be convicted, making the use of the death penalty an unacceptable risk. An innocent person put in jail for 20 years is bad enough, but at the worst that person can be released and given the remainder of their life back. Someone who's been executed can't be.

Combine that with the fact that executing a convict is actually much more expensive than putting them in prison for the rest of their lives, and it simply makes no sense to continue using it.

[Euromutt]

64. I'm in complete agreement

My opposition to the death penalty on moral grounds actually got eroded away working for the prosecutor of the ICTY, which is somewhat ironic given that the ICTY can't impose the death penalty, but I still don't trust any criminal justice system to never convict the wrong person. An additional risk, moreover, is that if the wrong person does get executed, the case cannot be revisited (which is why nobody has ever been exonerated post mortem) which means that the actual culprit can never be identified.

[iverglas]

70. well, maybe not in the US

An additional risk, moreover, is that if the wrong person does get executed, the case cannot be revisited (which is why nobody has ever been exonerated post mortem) which means that the actual culprit can never be identified.

(A point I also raised earlier, of course.)


http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/hhmattan/index.html

Mahmood Hussein Mattan was convicted on 24 July 1952 at Glamorganshire Summer Assizes, Swansea of the murder of Miss Lily Volpert in her shop in Cardiff on 6 March 1952. Leave to appeal was refused on 19 August 1952. Mr Mattan was hanged 2 weeks later at Cardiff Prison.

The CCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal on 23 September 1997, and the conviction was quashed on 24 February 1998 when Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Holland and Mr Justice Penry-Davey ruled that the conviction was unsafe because the evidence of the main prosecution witness was unreliable.

Unfortunately, in that case, the quashing of the conviction came too late not just for the accused, but for any chance of identifying the real culprit. (Keeping in mind that the fact that a conviction is unsafe doesn't mean that the accused didn't do it, although that case seems pretty genuinely bad.)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. Would this...

...point to a change in the justice systems of the UK or US? What could be improved systematically that might prevent this?

[iverglas]

76. well to start with

the UK abolished capital punishment quite a long time ago. ;)

Both Canada and the UK did it piecemeal.

Canada: 1969 for criminal offences, military capital offences eliminated 1998
- last execution 1962

UK: suspended 1965, gradually eliminated, final military capital offence eliminated 1998
- last execution 1964 in England

The military offence things, weird hangovers, never used after the last criminal executions.

That's the best systemic improvement I can think of!

Meanwhile, though, you have that strange "actual innocence" business -- that there can be proof positive in the real world that someone is actually innocent, but if there were no procedural flaws in the criminal process, there are no grounds for quashing the conviction. Just weird.

Here, we refer the thing to the Supreme Court, or the provincial Attorney General just moves to have the conviction set aside (which can leave the person in guilt/innocence limbo if the AG declines to reprosecute, but they're free anyhow).

Some process for bringing exonerating evidence before a court, surely there has to be that.

All our countries have complicated formulae for compensating the wrongfully convicted for time wrongly served, too, and they vary significantly, including from state to state in the US.


... they vary, they don't very ...

[DissedByBush]

60. None of the above

I support the concept of capital punishment, but I can't support its use as long as our system sends innocent people to their death, and unfairly implements it.

So, in a practical sense, no, I don't support it.

But for self defense, of course I do. You know you need to shoot in self defense, there's no doubt, do it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. Self defense is a right.

There isn't a need to kill criminals.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

69. That's your opinion

In my opinion, some people simply cannot be rehabilitated or have committed a crime so heinous that storing them in jail is an unreasonable expense on the public. Killing them is a kindness both to the criminal and the people.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

73. Those are my shortcomings...

...I admit. I have seen great inequities in the application of justice to the poor and to minorities. There is a principle of American justice recorded by Franklin and attributed to Voltaire that says: "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." This idea has roots as far back as the Book of Genesis.

I am not foolish enough to believe that more than a small percentage of the guilty are actually rehabilitated in prison.

It is nothing short of heinous to warehouse in prison for years and then finally kill an innocent man.

I can accept a cop (or anyone) making a mistake under exigent circumstances and killing someone. I can't go along with supporting a system that kills (by mistake) with slow deliberation.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

75. Not shortcomings...

...just varying opinion.

When it comes to certain things, I can be borderline bloodthirsty and I freely admit it. I find it to be a waste of time to attempt to rehabilitate certain kinds of criminals and fully support the idea of giving those kinds of crimes a single appeal to confirm proper procedure was followed, and then taking them out back and ventilating their skull. I do, however, recognize that to be just a tad on the extreme side when it comes to real life. Its more of an "If i were King" kind of thought...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. No borderline about it...

...I am absolutely bloodthirsty about self-defense and the defense of my family.