PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Cheering for Executions


Jenson71
09-09-2011, 07:56 AM
One of the most noteworthy moments of the recent GOP debate was the way the audience applauded the number of inmates executed by the state of Texas under Governor Perry.

It was bizarre. I can understand supporting the death penalty, but to cheer at the mere mention of 234 executions is a cause for concern.

Was it an appropriate response (both the audience's, and Perry's)?

Donger
09-09-2011, 07:58 AM
It's the difference between acknowledging the need for someone to die and wanting it to happen.

mlyonsd
09-09-2011, 08:00 AM
The response was in part, IMO, because of the jackass way Williams asked the question.

Chiefshrink
09-09-2011, 08:06 AM
One of the most noteworthy moments of the recent GOP debate was the way the audience applauded the number of inmates executed by the state of Texas under Governor Perry.

It was bizarre. I can understand supporting the death penalty, but to cheer at the mere mention of 234 executions is a cause for concern.

Was it an appropriate response (both the audience's, and Perry's)?

I don't know, do you think it was an appropiate "no response" from our "Usurper Zero" in office i.e. to Maxine Waters comments, Andre Carson's comments and of course "Zero's hitman" Hoffa's hit contract on the Tea Party comments ??????????:rolleyes:

Amnorix
09-09-2011, 08:11 AM
I don't know, do you think it was an appropiate "no response" from our "Usurper Zero" in office i.e. to Maxine Waters comments, Andre Carson's comments and of course "Zero's hitman" Hoffa's hit contract on the Tea Party comments ??????????:rolleyes:

.

http://genealogyreligion.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/translation.jpg

Deberg_1990
09-09-2011, 08:12 AM
They werent cheering for people to die.
They were cheering at the efficiency of justice being served.

KurtCobain
09-09-2011, 08:17 AM
They were cheering for bad people to die. So yeah.

Garcia Bronco
09-09-2011, 08:27 AM
I wouldn't applaud them, but sometimes people need to go.

Chiefshrink
09-09-2011, 08:30 AM
.

http://genealogyreligion.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/translation.jpg

Here moron let's start at the basics, let's compare the cheering of Hoffa hitman audience to Rick Perry's audience and then once you get that, if you do:rolleyes: go a little deeper with the "call for civility" by our "usurper in office" just after Gabs got capped, to his no response to his party's uncivil actual threats(Waters,Carson,Hoffa) on "We The People".

Jenson's OP and comments suggest Rick Perry's audience and party are uncivil?????

Seriously?

Chiefshrink
09-09-2011, 08:31 AM
I wouldn't applaud them, but sometimes people need to go.

F'n aaaaaaaaaaaay:thumb:

evenfall
09-09-2011, 09:06 AM
I think the applause was due to him standing up for a right policy without compromise or equivocation, as much as it was about the policy itself.

Justice is a social good. When justice is done we should as a society revere that. We are sorry something terrible happened, but we know when we find ourselves in that situation that we have the guts to do what needs to be done.

"Justice, as much as we are able" is an American concept. Making your own way and reaping what your actions sow (in whatever direction that is), is also an American concept. These are uniquely American ideas on the world stage today so Jo doubt those that dislike the America they grew up in find them odd or offensive.

ChiTown
09-09-2011, 09:11 AM
The way that question (s) was posed was just retarded. Those 2 moderators should NEVER have the opportunity to moderate a debate again. They were flat out disgraceful.

jspchief
09-09-2011, 09:20 AM
They werent cheering for people to die.
They were cheering at the efficiency of justice being served.

Exactly. Assuming a person supports the death penalty, I think its fair to say that same person likely does not support the inefficient manner in which most states carry out the sentence.

That their cheering anything related to the subject might make a person see them as callous speaks more to that persons opposition to the death penalty itself.

blaise
09-09-2011, 09:29 AM
The way that question (s) was posed was just retarded. Those 2 moderators should NEVER have the opportunity to moderate a debate again. They were flat out disgraceful.

How was it posed? I didn't hear it.

Bewbies
09-09-2011, 09:36 AM
People cheer for abortion rights, and unlike unborn children, murderers have been convicted of a horrific crime.

mlyonsd
09-09-2011, 09:39 AM
How was it posed? I didn't hear it.Something along the lines of 'Do you ever lose sleep at night wondering if you've put an innocent man to death?'.

I'm paraphrazing but that's close.

blaise
09-09-2011, 09:48 AM
Something along the lines of 'Do you ever lose sleep at night wondering if you've put an innocent man to death?'.

I'm paraphrazing but that's close.

Sounds like they were applauding the concept of the death penalty in general and not the individual deaths.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 09:57 AM
I have far more problem with people who have cheered for anything our current President has ever said.

wazu
09-09-2011, 10:09 AM
When I saw this thread title I thought it was going to be about opening up executions to the public so we could cheer them.

Demonpenz
09-09-2011, 10:12 AM
When I saw this thread title I thought it was going to be about opening up executions to the public so we could cheer them.

Go barbiturate Go!

fan4ever
09-09-2011, 10:32 AM
People cheer for abortion rights, and unlike unborn children, murderers have been convicted of a horrific crime.

Hey, killing is wrong no matter in what context...unless of course it can garner you the female vote.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 10:44 AM
It's the difference between acknowledging the need for someone to die and wanting it to happen.

The death penalty issue isn't just about killing people who need to die. It's also about the known circumstances where defendants are legally or actually innocent.

The issue is somber: there is first the crime that perpetuates the prosecution, then the defendant facing the end of life himself. I'm not asking anyone to sympathize with a murder convict, but the overall tone of this should be that this is a waste of more than one life here, and many public funds, and the suffering of many lives.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 10:45 AM
The response was in part, IMO, because of the jackass way Williams asked the question.

I'm not sure I buy that, if you are referring to the audience. The audience cheered during the middle of Williams' question.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 10:46 AM
They werent cheering for people to die.
They were cheering at the efficiency of justice being served.

But the entire question was directed at the possible/probable injustices of the system.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 10:48 AM
I think the applause was due to him standing up for a right policy without compromise or equivocation, as much as it was about the policy itself.

Justice is a social good. When justice is done we should as a society revere that. We are sorry something terrible happened, but we know when we find ourselves in that situation that we have the guts to do what needs to be done.

"Justice, as much as we are able" is an American concept. Making your own way and reaping what your actions sow (in whatever direction that is), is also an American concept. These are uniquely American ideas on the world stage today so Jo doubt those that dislike the America they grew up in find them odd or offensive.

Again, the question was geared to the possible injustices that come along with the death penalty (the convicted innocent person).

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 10:49 AM
People cheer for abortion rights, and unlike unborn children, murderers have been convicted of a horrific crime.

I would feel the same way if a bunch of people cheered after this line: "Last year, in New York, 1 million babies* were aborted."



*Made up number.

Donger
09-09-2011, 10:50 AM
Here's a transcript for reference:

MODERATOR BRIAN WILLIAMS: Governor Perry, a question about Texas. Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. Have you...

(APPLAUSE)

Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?

PERRY: No, sir. I've never struggled with that at all. The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place of which -- when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that's required.

But in the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is, you will be executed.

WILLIAMS: What do you make of...

(APPLAUSE)

What do you make of that dynamic that just happened here, the mention of the execution of 234 people drew applause?

PERRY: I think Americans understand justice. I think Americans are clearly, in the vast majority of -- of cases, supportive of capital punishment. When you have committed heinous crimes against our citizens -- and it's a state-by-state issue, but in the state of Texas, our citizens have made that decision, and they made it clear, and they don't want you to commit those crimes against our citizens. And if you do, you will face the ultimate justice.

vailpass
09-09-2011, 10:51 AM
Perhaps they were applauding the thought of a Potus who is decisive and consistent.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 10:53 AM
Perhaps they were applauding the thought of a Potus who is decisive and consistent.

At such a strange moment? From my perspective, they were applauding the number of executions and the fact that it was reportedly the most in modern times under a governor.

vailpass
09-09-2011, 10:54 AM
At such a strange moment? From my perspective, they were applauding the number of executions and the fact that it was reportedly the most in modern times under a governor.

I agree it seemed incongruous to the subject at hand.

Donger
09-09-2011, 10:56 AM
At such a strange moment? From my perspective, they were applauding the number of executions and the fact that it was reportedly the most in modern times under a governor.

They were.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 10:59 AM
At such a strange moment? From my perspective, they were applauding the number of executions and the fact that it was reportedly the most in modern times under a governor.

Its unfortunate that there are so many horrible criminals deserving of death. It is fortunate that justice has been served and our world has been rid of some of them.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:11 AM
They were.

Do you think everyone who applauded had an adequate understanding of any of the crimes committed, or what the evidence was against them, or what evidence was lacking in each case?

Donger
09-09-2011, 11:11 AM
Do you think everyone who applauded had an adequate understanding of any of the crimes committed, or what the evidence was against them, or what evidence was lacking in each case?

I doubt it.

ForeverChiefs58
09-09-2011, 11:12 AM
Its unfortunate that there are so many horrible criminals deserving of death. It is fortunate that justice has been served and our world has been rid of some of them.

Yes, for the henious of crimes texas does not take shit from anyone. Majority feel that is a good thing.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:12 AM
Its unfortunate that there are so many horrible criminals deserving of death. It is fortunate that justice has been served and our world has been rid of some of them.

And I can understand this response. But whistles, cheers, clapping for such a thing strikes me as out of line.

fan4ever
09-09-2011, 11:12 AM
Do you think everyone who applauded had an adequate understanding of any of the crimes committed, or what the evidence was against them, or what evidence was lacking in each case?

Yes, because in order to have an opinion on a subject you have to know everything that has ever happened on that topic, case by case, for the past 50 years.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:13 AM
Yes, for the henious of crimes texas does not take shit from anyone. Majority feel that is a good thing.

And my issue isn't whether it's a good policy or not, but how we approach the policy question.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 11:15 AM
Do you think everyone who applauded had an adequate understanding of any of the crimes committed, or what the evidence was against them, or what evidence was lacking in each case?

Of course not. They have faith in the justice system.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I have faith that airliners won't snap in half spontaneously.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:15 AM
Yes, because in order to have an opinion on a subject you have to know everything that has ever happened on that topic, case by case, for the past 50 years.

This went beyond having an opinion on a subject. It was applause for a specific number of executions, and the fact that it was the most of "modern times" under a governor, reportedly.

Donger
09-09-2011, 11:17 AM
This went beyond having an opinion on a subject. It was applause for a specific number of executions, and the fact that it was the most of "modern times" under a governor, reportedly.

What is wrong with them applauding the sentences of convicted murderers being carried out?

alpha_omega
09-09-2011, 11:17 AM
Go barbiturate Go!

More like this.....

Gimme an "E"
Gimme an "X"
Gimme an "E"
Gimme an "C"
Gimme an "U"
Gimme an "T"
Gimme an "I"
Gimme an "O"
Gimme an "N"

Gooooooooooooooooo.....Execution!

fan4ever
09-09-2011, 11:17 AM
This went beyond having an opinion on a subject. It was applause for a specific number of executions, and the fact that it was the most of "modern times" under a governor, reportedly.

Well I'm glad you can tell what people are thinking; the rest of us have to assume.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:19 AM
Of course not. They have faith in the justice system.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I have faith that airliners won't snap in half spontaneously.

Do you think more innocent people are put on death row and executed than airliners that spontaneously snap in half? How would you feel if some airliners did spontaneously snap in half? How would you feel if some airliners were more likely to snap in half than other airliners, and those that did moreso had a significant finding that more minorities rode that one?

Donger
09-09-2011, 11:20 AM
Do you think more innocent people are put on death row and executed than airliners that spontaneously snap in half? How would you feel if some airliners did spontaneously snap in half? How would you feel if some airliners were more likely to snap in half than other airliners, and those that did moreso had a significant finding that more minorities rode that one?

You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 11:22 AM
Do you think more innocent people are put on death row and executed than airliners that spontaneously snap in half? How would you feel if some airliners did spontaneously snap in half? How would you feel if some airliners were more likely to snap in half than other airliners, and those that did moreso had a significant finding that more minorities rode that one?

I'd feel like an Obama supporter.

jspchief
09-09-2011, 11:22 AM
Of course not. They have faith in the justice system.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I have faith that airliners won't snap in half spontaneously.

Exactly.

I think people who favor the death penalty would have to have faith in the system.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:26 AM
What is wrong with them applauding the sentences of convicted murderers being carried out?

I think it dangerously ignores the continually possible and the known injustices or mis-justices that have occurred to people. I think because of that, it is a topic that requires sobriety, not enthusiasm for its perpetuation.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:29 AM
You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Maybe we shouldn't have omelets. And the possibility and instances where we've been poisoned in our omelet making should drive home to people that this is a delicate issue.

Donger
09-09-2011, 11:31 AM
I think it dangerously ignores the continually possible and the known injustices or mis-justices that have occurred to people. I think because of that, it is a topic that requires sobriety, not enthusiasm for its perpetuation.

I would imagine that the people applauding weren't thinking of those at the time, Jenson.

jspchief
09-09-2011, 11:38 AM
I think it dangerously ignores the continually possible and the known injustices or mis-justices that have occurred to people. I think because of that, it is a topic that requires sobriety, not enthusiasm for its perpetuation.

Call it playing the odds. Or weighing risk versus reward.

I don't think many people refuse to believe that mistakes can happen. It's just that some people believe its worth the risk. Or believe that it happens so infrequently that it's of small consequence.

It's not like were saying "hooray for the execution of bad people and the .x% of wrongfully convicted people".

It's the mindset that separates anti vs pro. The anti focus on the one guy that might not have had it coming. The pro focus on all those that did

Jaric
09-09-2011, 11:38 AM
We could make them fight to the death in the Arena like the Roman's used to.

:shrug:

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:39 AM
I would imagine that the people applauding weren't thinking of those at the time, Jenson.

I think that those issues should immediately come to mind when the death penalty is mentioned. The costs and benefits of such a policy must stand prominently in the minds of citizens, especially those who care enough about politics to attend a debate, where policy is the most important topic.

Donger
09-09-2011, 11:42 AM
I think that those issues should immediately come to mind when the death penalty is mentioned. The costs and benefits of such a policy must stand prominently in the minds of citizens, especially those who care enough about politics to attend a debate, where policy is the most important topic.

Some people accept it as an inevitable (albeit rare) possibility of bringing those who kill to justice.

jspchief
09-09-2011, 11:43 AM
The costs and benefits of such a policy must stand prominently in the minds of citizens, especially those who care enough about politics to attend a debate, where policy is the most important topic.

The problem is that not everyone shares your view of the value of those costs and benefits.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:45 AM
Some people accept it as an inevitable (albeit rare) possibility of bringing those who kill to justice.

Some people do, but I would hope that they do so in a manner that does not suggest mind-numbed exuberance.

Donger
09-09-2011, 11:46 AM
Some people do, but I would hope that they do so in a manner that does not suggest mind-numbed exuberance.

Well, you can always hope for change.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:47 AM
The problem is that not everyone shares your view of the value of those costs and benefits.

My view is respectable, though. Applause is a disrespect of those costs, or an ignorance.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:49 AM
Well, you can always hope for change.

And I don't mind standing on a soapbox telling those people that they were wrong, and telling others that it was wrong what they did. And I don't mind teaching people why it is. But I'll be angry if they dismiss what I'm saying.

It's more than hope. It's action, and it's the right thing to do.

jspchief
09-09-2011, 11:51 AM
My view is respectable, though. Applause is a disrespect of those costs, or an ignorance.

No. Applause just exhibits how large the disparity is in the value the two sides apply to the risk/reward.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:56 AM
No. Applause just exhibits how large the disparity is in the value the two sides apply to the risk/reward.

Donger, vailpass, and me agree that those people weren't thinking of the costs/benefits at hand when they erupted in applause (I think they should be). You're the first person to suggest that upon hearing that 243 were executed, the most in modern times under one governor, people weighed the possibility that some of those 243 were innocent or wrongly accused, that minorities who kill whites are more often killed than whites who kill whites or minorities who kill minorities, and still applauded.

Donger
09-09-2011, 11:56 AM
And I don't mind standing on a soapbox telling those people that they were wrong, and telling others that it was wrong what they did. And I don't mind teaching people why it is. But I'll be angry if they dismiss what I'm saying.

It's more than hope. It's action, and it's the right thing to do.

My, you do puff up nice.

blaise
09-09-2011, 11:56 AM
And I don't mind standing on a soapbox telling those people that they were wrong, and telling others that it was wrong what they did. And I don't mind teaching people why it is. But I'll be angry if they dismiss what I'm saying.

It's more than hope. It's action, and it's the right thing to do.

You presume to know the reason for their applause.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 11:57 AM
I think that those issues should immediately come to mind when the death penalty is mentioned. The costs and benefits of such a policy must stand prominently in the minds of citizens, especially those who care enough about politics to attend a debate, where policy is the most important topic.

If someone develops a drug that cures cancer but causes death in .1% of people who take it, I'm still going to cheer even though some people will likely be misdiagnosed with cancer and die as a result of taking the drug.

Such is life.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 11:58 AM
You presume to know the reason for their applause.

I see no way that an applause was appropriate at that moment, unless it was caused by something off-stage.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:02 PM
If someone develops a drug that cures cancer but causes death in .1% of people who take it, I'm still going to cheer even though some people will likely be misdiagnosed with cancer and die as a result of taking the drug.

Such is life.

I would hope so. The medicine saves people. The alternative to the medicine is people dying of cancer. The alternative to the death penalty is prison with no parole, or life, and completely eliminating the risk of a state killing a person who was innocent.

Donger
09-09-2011, 12:02 PM
Jenson, what do you think is the approximate percentage of people who have been executed who were actually innocent?

blaise
09-09-2011, 12:02 PM
I see no way that an applause was appropriate at that moment, unless it was caused by something off-stage.

What if the people thought the question posed was meant to suggest the death penalty was wrong, and Perry's response represented a stance that it's a sometimes needed punishment?

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:03 PM
What if the people thought the question posed was meant to suggest the death penalty was wrong, and Perry's response represented a stance that it's a sometimes needed punishment?

blaise, watch the video. The applause came before Williams was even finished with the question.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:04 PM
Jenson, what do you think is the approximate percentage of people who have been executed who were actually innocent?

I don't know for sure, but I think it is very small. I would guess 1-2%.

VAChief
09-09-2011, 12:04 PM
Some people accept it as an inevitable (albeit rare) possibility of bringing those who kill to justice.

I'm sure they would stand by those principles if they found themselves wrongfully accused as well.

Donger
09-09-2011, 12:06 PM
I don't know for sure, but I think it is very small. I would guess 1-2%.

Thanks. Do you think that death is an acceptable punishment for one who has killed, without taking into account the above number. Say that the system was flawless.

Donger
09-09-2011, 12:06 PM
I'm sure they would stand by those principles if they found themselves wrongfully accused as well.

No, I doubt they would.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 12:11 PM
I would hope so. The medicine saves people. The alternative to the medicine is people dying of cancer. The alternative to the death penalty is prison with no parole, or life, and completely eliminating the risk of a state killing a person who was innocent.

I believe that more people are killed by murderers having been released from prison than from being wrongly executed. In that sense, the death penalty does save lives.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 12:11 PM
At such a strange moment? From my perspective, they were applauding the number of executions and the fact that it was reportedly the most in modern times under a governor.

It wasn't a strange moment. It was a group of people who apparently thinks that there is a lack of justice involved when it comes to the death penalty because too many states are reluctant to implement it. The fact that Perry comes from a state that uses multiple layers of safeguards to avoid killing the innocent while still getting the job done was what was being applauded. For good reason, IMO.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:12 PM
Thanks. Do you think that death is an acceptable punishment for one who has killed, without taking into account the above number. Say that the system was flawless.

I do not find it unacceptable, though I will hesitate to say that I would endorse the policy.

VAChief
09-09-2011, 12:12 PM
If someone develops a drug that cures cancer but causes death in .1% of people who take it, I'm still going to cheer even though some people will likely be misdiagnosed with cancer and die as a result of taking the drug.

Such is life.

Because life in prison is such a paradise on Earth and in no way should be considered a justifiable alternative as a measure of justice. Your doing some of the scumbags a favor by executing them.

Donger
09-09-2011, 12:13 PM
I do not find it unacceptable, though I will hesitate to say that I would endorse the policy.

Why do you hesitate?

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:13 PM
I believe that more people are killed by murderers having been released from prison than from being wrongly executed. In that sense, the death penalty does save lives.

I don't understand this. There does not seem to be a policy of "death penalty or released from prison."

fan4ever
09-09-2011, 12:15 PM
Well if it makes liberals feel any better, there are likely hundreds of murderers walking around free (Casey Anthony?) because of technicalities or lack of hard evidence, so you can get your warm fuzzies from that.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 12:15 PM
My view is respectable, though. Applause is a disrespect of those costs, or an ignorance.

Incorrect.

If I were at an auto show and an auto maker unveiled a fantastic new car to raucous applause, should my first thought be that these people are being disrespectful to the victims that could be injured by this car if it has a manufacturing defect? Of course not. They're subconsciously weighing the risks and coming to the conclusion that it's a great car despite those risks.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:15 PM
It wasn't a strange moment. It was a group of people who apparently thinks that there is a lack of justice involved when it comes to the death penalty because too many states are reluctant to implement it. The fact that Perry comes from a state that uses multiple layers of safeguards to avoid killing the innocent while still getting the job done was what was being applauded. For good reason, IMO.

The applause I'm concerned about came before Perry spoke of his multiple layers for safeguarding.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:16 PM
Why do you hesitate?

Because I still have to decide whether God would likely find it acceptable that we implement a system that terminates life unnaturally where life in prison is an option.

Donger
09-09-2011, 12:19 PM
Because I still have to decide whether God would likely find it acceptable that we implement a system that terminates life unnaturally where life in prison is an option.

Good luck with that.

Since we humans have to police our own, it's inevitable that human flaws will occasionally seep into the system and mistakes will be made. Some can accept that as "life." Others cannot or will not.

I'm one of the former.

Mile High Mania
09-09-2011, 12:19 PM
Yeah - the audience knew where the moderators wanted to go...

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/goQtl9SDUj0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:22 PM
Incorrect.

If I were at an auto show and an auto maker unveiled a fantastic new car to raucous applause, should my first thought be that these people are being disrespectful to the victims that could be injured by this car if it has a manufacturing defect? Of course not. They're subconsciously weighing the risks and coming to the conclusion that it's a great car despite those risks.

I'm not compelled to accept the "cars are like the death penalty" analogy, at first gut reaction. Especially in our case, how the facts were presented: it would be more like "10,000 people die every year from car accidents" and then every cheering because they subconsciously know how great cars are.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 12:22 PM
The applause I'm concerned about came before Perry spoke of his multiple layers for safeguarding.

The vast majority of people in the United States are well aware that there are multiple layers of safeguarding involved in death penalty cases. They didn't need to hear about the specific safeguards in Texas to know that they are doing something right.

mlyonsd
09-09-2011, 12:24 PM
Because life in prison is such a paradise on Earth and in no way should be considered a justifiable alternative as a measure of justice. Your doing some of the scumbags a favor by executing them.And maybe saving some innocent victim down the road.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:25 PM
Good luck with that.

Since we humans have to police our own, it's inevitable that human flaws will occasionally seep into the system and mistakes will be made. Some can accept that as "life." Others cannot or will not.

I'm one of the former.

You don't think life w/o parole is a viable alternative? Do you think life w/o parole is some idealistic navel-gazing experiment? Do you realize the death penalty was, at one point, unconstitutional in our country, and that other countries ban it?

Don't dismiss the alternative as blind idealism.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 12:27 PM
I don't understand this. There does not seem to be a policy of "death penalty or released from prison."

Of course not, but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes innocent people get executed and non-rehabilitated parolees murder again. There is no perfect system. The question is which one spares more innocent lives, and I say its the measured use of capital punishment.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:28 PM
The vast majority of people in the United States are well aware that there are multiple layers of safeguarding involved in death penalty cases. They didn't need to hear about the specific safeguards in Texas to know that they are doing something right.

The vast majority of people should think of the possibility that innocent people are executed, despite the multiple layers, and accordingly, hold back their wild glee for such a system.

Mile High Mania
09-09-2011, 12:28 PM
So, someone goes into a day care center and executes 12 kids... 4 teachers and 7 people in the parking lot. Explain the reasoning as to why he should be afforded life w/o parole and live out the remaining 30 years of his life behind bars on our tab?

Donger
09-09-2011, 12:28 PM
You don't think life w/o parole is a viable alternative? Do you think life w/o parole is some idealistic navel-gazing experiment? Do you realize the death penalty was, at one point, unconstitutional in our country, and that other countries ban it?

Don't dismiss the alternative as blind idealism.

Sure, it's viable. But I believe that an eye for an eye is the desirable and appropriate punishment in the case of murder.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 12:29 PM
I'm not compelled to accept the "cars are like the death penalty" analogy, at first gut reaction. Especially in our case, how the facts were presented: it would be more like "10,000 people die every year from car accidents" and then every cheering because they subconsciously know how great cars are.

No, it's like

Question: "Your company has produced more great American cars than any other company in modern times...

*applause*

... do you struggle to sleep at night about the fact that cars sometimes have defects that cause the death of innocent people?

Answer: We take great pains to avoid defects but we make great cars with lots of fantastic features.

*applause*

After hearing the clip that MileHigh posted, it's clear to me that you've been influenced/confused by Brian Williams' follow up question about the applause. Listen to it again. Try to listen to it in the best possible light, giving the people maximum benefit of the doubt about their decency and you'll be compelled to realize that your whole thread was a big Frankie-like mistake.

mlyonsd
09-09-2011, 12:29 PM
So, someone goes into a day care center and executes 12 kids... 4 teachers and 7 people in the parking lot. Explain the reasoning as to why he should be afforded life w/o parole and live out the remaining 30 years of his life behind bars on our tab?Because he might be innocent.

Mile High Mania
09-09-2011, 12:29 PM
The vast majority of people should think of the possibility that innocent people are executed, despite the multiple layers, and accordingly, hold back their wild glee for such a system.

Question - how many criminals (on average) are executed each year in the United States?

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:30 PM
Of course not, but that doesn't change the fact that sometimes innocent people get executed and non-rehabilitated parolees murder again. There is no perfect system. The question is which one spares more innocent lives, and I say its the measured use of capital punishment.

This is not a good argument (or I'm not understanding you); but you could instead argue that death penalty is a deterrent for people thinking of murdering innocents.

Mile High Mania
09-09-2011, 12:30 PM
Because he might be innocent.

I haven't read this entire thread... not sure if you're joking or not.

I'll edit... he's caught on camera and confesses to walking into the day care and executing those people. Why should he receive life without parole?

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:31 PM
No, it's like

After hearing the clip that MileHigh posted, it's clear to me that you've been influenced/confused by Brian Williams' follow up question about the applause. Listen to it again. Try to listen to it in the best possible light, giving the people maximum benefit of the doubt about their decency and you'll be compelled to realize that your whole thread was a big Frankie-like mistake.

And again, great American cars is not so similar to 243 deaths by execution that I can go along with this analogy.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:32 PM
So, someone goes into a day care center and executes 12 kids... 4 teachers and 7 people in the parking lot. Explain the reasoning as to why he should be afforded life w/o parole and live out the remaining 30 years of his life behind bars on our tab?

LMAO

Seriously?

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:33 PM
Question - how many criminals (on average) are executed each year in the United States?

Not sure. If 243 were under Perry's reign, and that was the most, then I'll guess 50 a year.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 12:34 PM
The vast majority of people should think of the possibility that innocent people are executed, despite the multiple layers, and accordingly, hold back their wild glee for such a system.

They do. The number of people who aren't aware of that possibility has to be tiny.

Mile High Mania
09-09-2011, 12:35 PM
Not sure. If 243 were under Perry's reign, and that was the most, then I'll guess 50 a year.

I think it was about 46 in the US in 2010... I don't know how many are on death row, but 46 is a very very small number when you consider all the things that go on every day.

There are appeals processes in place...

patteeu
09-09-2011, 12:36 PM
And again, great American cars is not so similar to 243 deaths by execution that I can go along with this analogy.

OK Frankie. Wave it away instead of dealing with it.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:36 PM
They do. The number of people who aren't aware of that possibility has to be tiny.

And how did so many of them make it to the debate at the Reagan library?

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:37 PM
I think it was about 46 in the US in 2010... I don't know how many are on death row, but 46 is a very very small number when you consider all the things that go on every day.

There are appeals processes in place...

Sure, it's a small number, I realize that. But the total number is beside the point.

Mile High Mania
09-09-2011, 12:38 PM
Sure, it's a small number, I realize that. But the total number is beside the point.

So are you for or against the death penalty... you never answered my other question.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:40 PM
OK Frankie. Wave it away instead of dealing with it.

What more can I say? There's no car-accident-less alternative to cars. Nobody is sitting around debating the worth of cars. But the death penalty is a topic that has a lot of ethical and moral prongs to it.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:41 PM
So are you for or against the death penalty... you never answered my other question.

In general, I'm against the death penalty because of the innocence issues, and, as I understand it, is more costly because of appeals, which is a second reason.

mlyonsd
09-09-2011, 12:42 PM
I haven't read this entire thread... not sure if you're joking or not.

I'll edit... he's caught on camera and confesses to walking into the day care and executing those people. Why should he receive life without parole?I was joking. In certain crimes there is no doubt who did the killing. In those cases the perp should be hung.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 12:43 PM
This is not a good argument (or I'm not understanding you); but you could instead argue that death penalty is a deterrent for people thinking of murdering innocents.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have crime.

In an imperfect world with a perfect justice system, we wouldn't have to worry about executing the innocent nor paroling those bound to kill again.

In an imperfect world with an imperfect justice system, sometimes you execute innocent people, and sometimes you release dangerous monsters. We have to determine what course of action minimizes the killing of innocents. Much like a supply and demand graph, you could chart executions of innocents with one line and people murdered by those who shouldn't have been released but were. The more people you execute, the fewer people murdered by released murderers, but the more people you have wrongly executed. Where the two lines intersect shows the ideal number of executions to minimize the killing of innocents.

I believe that more innocent people are killed by dangerous criminals being released than are wrongly executed. As such, we need to execute more criminals. This will increase the number of innocent people executed, but this number will be exceeded by the people spared from being murdered by dangerous criminals.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:48 PM
In an imperfect world with an imperfect justice system, sometimes you execute innocent people, and sometimes you release dangerous monsters. We have to determine what course of action minimizes the killing of innocents. Much like a supply and demand graph, you could chart executions of innocents with one line and people murdered by those who shouldn't have been released but were. The more people you execute, the fewer people murdered by released murderers, but the more people you have wrongly executed. Where the two lines intersect shows the ideal number of executions to minimize the killing of innocents.

I believe that more innocent people are killed by dangerous criminals being released than are wrongly executed. As such, we need to execute more criminals. This will increase the number of innocent people executed, but this number will be exceeded by the people spared from being murdered by dangerous criminals.

My understanding of the death penalty alternative is not that death row inmates, or would-be equivalents, are released. They get life w/o parole. The amount of subsequent civilian murders in life w/o parole and death penalty situations is 0 in both.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 12:50 PM
My understanding of the death penalty alternative is not that death row inmates, or would-be equivalents, are released. They get life w/o parole. The amount of subsequent civilian murders in life w/o parole and death penalty situations is 0 in both.

Its your understanding that no murderers are ever released back into society?

patteeu
09-09-2011, 12:51 PM
What more can I say? There's no car-accident-less alternative to cars. Nobody is sitting around debating the worth of cars. But the death penalty is a topic that has a lot of ethical and moral prongs to it.

Of course there is. People can walk and ride horses.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:53 PM
Its your understanding that no murderers are ever released back into society?

That's not what I said.

Take everyone that should be executed in your world. Instead of executing them, put them into life w/o parole situations.

The murders they commit later are 0. They can't commit murders, unless they break out of prison.

mlyonsd
09-09-2011, 12:53 PM
This is not a good argument (or I'm not understanding you); but you could instead argue that death penalty is a deterrent for people thinking of murdering innocents.My position is it probably does deter and save innocent lives. And even if that number is only 1 it's worth it.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:55 PM
Of course there is. People can walk and ride horses.

This is getting silly, but I'll just point out that people can die from being thrown from horses.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 12:56 PM
LMAO

Seriously?

How can you laugh at the prospect of 12 kids, 4 teachers and 7 people in the parking lot getting murdered? That seems disrespectful to me.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:56 PM
My position is it probably does deter and save innocent lives. And even if that number is only 1 it's worth it.

What if it's 1 to 2 (executed innocent people)?

And how do you know it probably does deter?

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 12:57 PM
How can you laugh at the prospect of 12 kids, 4 teachers and 7 people in the parking lot getting murdered? That seems disrespectful to me.

I laughed because that's such a loaded question, not because the situation is funny.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 12:57 PM
That's not what I said.

Take everyone that should be executed in your world. Instead of executing them, put them into life w/o parole situations.

The murders they commit later are 0. They can't commit murders, unless they break out of prison.

If you can't flawlessly identify those to be executed, you can't flawlessly identify those who should never be released from prison. The flaws in the system aren't related to capital punishment. They are caused by the inherent nature of making judgments based off of imperfect information.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 12:58 PM
This is getting silly, but I'll just point out that people can die from being thrown from horses.

Innocent people can be killed by other inmates while in prison with no parole too. There's nothing special about the subject of the death penalty that can't be replicated with an analogy that makes you see how silly your position would be if you take the same position in that alternative situation. That's what should tip you off to the fact that your position is silly even in the death penalty context.

mlyonsd
09-09-2011, 12:59 PM
What if it's 1 to 2 (executed innocent people)?

And how do you know it probably does deter?I think the odds of it saving more innocents is greater than the number that are executed.

Do I know? Just as much as any expert knows when he says it isn't a deterrent. But seriously, it has to come into play in some murders. Like at the scene of a robbery, etc.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 01:00 PM
I laughed because that's such a loaded question, not because the situation is funny.

Tell me again how these people were applauding the application of the death penalty to innocents.

jspchief
09-09-2011, 02:18 PM
This is getting silly, but I'll just point out that people can die from being thrown from horses.

In fact, I'm willing to wager more people die from horse riding accidents annually than innocents dying by death penalty.

So the question is, why do they choose such a risk?

The problem here is you hear 250 executions, and apparently assume at least one was innocent, yet you're incapable of recognizing that others hear 250 executions and assume they were all guilty.

An emotional reaction like the applause comes from their general belief that system works, but you're so attached to your own belief that you interpret it as applauding executions even of innocents.

Amnorix
09-09-2011, 02:27 PM
I don't believe the death penalty really acts as a deterrent to the vast majority of crimes. The vast, VAST majority (but note the exception I discuss below). People who are going to commit the type of heinous crimes that will trigger the potential for the death penalty are not going to commit them if the punishment is ONLY life in prison, but not commit them if the death penalty is out there. They're either going to do it, or not.

It is for that reason that I used to oppose the death penalty, though my opposition was always rather weak. It just seemed to me that the joy of retribution didn't balance off against the possibility that you execute an innocent individual.

I now, however, support the death penalty for these two reasons, primarily:

1. a person who is in prison for life without possibility of parole already has absolutely no further punishment that can be inflicted upon him, except for time in isolation or what have you. Essentially, not much. As a result, the death penalty is a valid "threat" to keep the worst offenders in the prison population (who are NOT on death row) in check. Thsi may seem esoteric, or unlikely to matter much, but it's not. Killing a prison guard takes on a whole new meaning if you're in prison for life with the death penalty out there as a possibility if you commit a new crime.

2. It's greatly enhance the leverage of prosectors who are negotiating plea bargains with defendants in various contexts -- to either get them to roll on other criminals, or to accept a higher sentence (without death) than they would have if the death penalty were not on the table.

Amnorix
09-09-2011, 02:32 PM
I also note that I have long supported a higher standard for applying the death penalty -- guilty beyond ANY doubt. Not just a reasonable doubt, ANY doubt.

blaise
09-09-2011, 02:38 PM
I don't believe the death penalty really acts as a deterrent to the vast majority of crimes. The vast, VAST majority (but note the exception I discuss below). People who are going to commit the type of heinous crimes that will trigger the potential for the death penalty are not going to commit them if the punishment is ONLY life in prison, but not commit them if the death penalty is out there. They're either going to do it, or not.

It is for that reason that I used to oppose the death penalty, though my opposition was always rather weak. It just seemed to me that the joy of retribution didn't balance off against the possibility that you execute an innocent individual.

I now, however, support the death penalty for these two reasons, primarily:

1. a person who is in prison for life without possibility of parole already has absolutely no further punishment that can be inflicted upon him, except for time in isolation or what have you. Essentially, not much. As a result, the death penalty is a valid "threat" to keep the worst offenders in the prison population (who are NOT on death row) in check. Thsi may seem esoteric, or unlikely to matter much, but it's not. Killing a prison guard takes on a whole new meaning if you're in prison for life with the death penalty out there as a possibility if you commit a new crime.

2. It's greatly enhance the leverage of prosectors who are negotiating plea bargains with defendants in various contexts -- to either get them to roll on other criminals, or to accept a higher sentence (without death) than they would have if the death penalty were not on the table.

Some would argue that spending 30 years in iso is worse than being executed. That's debatable. I know there's guys who would run a high risk of being killed if they were put into general population because of their crimes, or grudges, being a rat, etc. and they'll still petition to be released from iso into general pop. They'd rather face a shank than stay in iso.
There are further punishments that can be inflicted if you're in prison without parole. In Fed Prisons, for instance, you could be in a place like Allenwood where you could be in a camp, which is very low security and inmates can move around the institution. From there you could go to minimum to medium to max. After that they'd send you somewhere where you spend your whole day in isolation.
I know, though, your point is for the guys who have already ended up in the max security and have nowhere else to go that's worse from there.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 02:44 PM
If you can't flawlessly identify those to be executed, you can't flawlessly identify those who should never be released from prison. The flaws in the system aren't related to capital punishment. They are caused by the inherent nature of making judgments based off of imperfect information.

I'm still not seeing how this changes anything that I'm concerned about.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 02:48 PM
Innocent people can be killed by other inmates while in prison with no parole too. There's nothing special about the subject of the death penalty that can't be replicated with an analogy that makes you see how silly your position would be if you take the same position in that alternative situation. That's what should tip you off to the fact that your position is silly even in the death penalty context.

I'm not objecting to analogies with the death penalty, just misguided ones, or unconvincing ones, which exist in any subject.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 02:50 PM
Tell me again how these people were applauding the application of the death penalty to innocents.

I never accused them of that, or if I did, it was not my intention and I misspoke. I'm accusing them of incredible oversight or of a callous disregard of an important part of the death penalty system, and inappropriate actions.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 02:53 PM
In fact, I'm willing to wager more people die from horse riding accidents annually than innocents dying by death penalty.

So the question is, why do they choose such a risk?

The problem here is you hear 250 executions, and apparently assume at least one was innocent, yet you're incapable of recognizing that others hear 250 executions and assume they were all guilty.

An emotional reaction like the applause comes from their general belief that system works, but you're so attached to your own belief that you interpret it as applauding executions even of innocents.

I'm not assuming one of the 243 executions was innocent. And I'm not accusing the applauding people of applauding for the executions of innocent people.

The facts are that innocent people die from this system, and that it is racially biased. It's unworthy of emotional applause at the mere mention of the number of executions occurred under a single governor.

Earthling
09-09-2011, 02:59 PM
Well if it makes liberals feel any better, there are likely hundreds of murderers walking around free (Casey Anthony?) because of technicalities or lack of hard evidence, so you can get your warm fuzzies from that.

While I am not against the death penalty I would have to say that hard evidence should certainly be required to terminate anybody's life.

dirk digler
09-09-2011, 03:02 PM
It is quite interesting that Perry, who supposedly is a very Christian man, doesn't lose any sleep over knowing he killed innocent men.

jspchief
09-09-2011, 03:11 PM
It is quite interesting that Perry, who supposedly is a very Christian man, doesn't lose any sleep over knowing he killed innocent men.

Umm not sure if this is a serious post, but how do you know I'd he loses sleep over it or not?

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 03:15 PM
It is quite interesting that Perry, who supposedly is a very Christian man, doesn't lose any sleep over knowing he killed innocent men.

Huh. At first I thought you were going outside the evidence, but it appears that Cameron Todd Willingham was an innocent man executed under Perry.

dirk digler
09-09-2011, 03:16 PM
Umm not sure if this is a serious post, but how do you know I'd he loses sleep over it or not?

Because he said he didn't

Q: Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?

PERRY: No, sir. I've never struggled with that at all.


Compare that with Huckabee:

Q: Do you think the death penalty is carried out justly in the US? And do you want to see it continued?

A: I probably dislike the death penalty more than anybody on this stage, but for a very different reason. Iíve actually had to carry it out, more than any governor in my stateís history. I had to carry out the death penalty because that was my job. I did it because I believed, after reading every page of every transcript and everything in that file, it was the only conclusion we could come to. But I didnít enjoy it. And God help the American who somehow has this cavalier attitude about the death penalty and says they support it and they can do it. Let me tell you something from the person whose name had to be put on the document that started the process: Itís a necessary part of our criminal justice system for those crimes for which there is no other alternative. But God help the person who ever does it without a conscience and feels the pain of it.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 03:17 PM
Umm not sure if this is a serious post, but how do you know I'd he loses sleep over it or not?

LMAO

dirk digler
09-09-2011, 03:23 PM
Huh. At first I thought you were going outside the evidence, but it appears that Cameron Todd Willingham was an innocent man executed under Perry.

Huh what?

patteeu
09-09-2011, 03:23 PM
In fact, I'm willing to wager more people die from horse riding accidents annually than innocents dying by death penalty.

So the question is, why do they choose such a risk?

The problem here is you hear 250 executions, and apparently assume at least one was innocent, yet you're incapable of recognizing that others hear 250 executions and assume they were all guilty.

An emotional reaction like the applause comes from their general belief that system works, but you're so attached to your own belief that you interpret it as applauding executions even of innocents.

Exactly.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 03:25 PM
Huh what?

Sorry, that wasn't a "huh?" but a "hm, that's interesting"

patteeu
09-09-2011, 03:25 PM
I also note that I have long supported a higher standard for applying the death penalty -- guilty beyond ANY doubt. Not just a reasonable doubt, ANY doubt.

Obviously an impossible standard to achieve, but we've already done this once so I'll leave it at that.

jspchief
09-09-2011, 03:26 PM
I guess I didn't read "knowing I did" as the same as "the idea that I might have"

And you left out the rest of the quote where he explains why he doesn't struggle with the "might have"

If there's more to this that shows in fact show that he has killed innocents, I plead ignorance. I did not know that.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 03:26 PM
I'm still not seeing how this changes anything that I'm concerned about.

You're advocating using a system of perfectly identifying those guilty of murder who will be a threat to society if released and then keeping them in prison forever. I'm saying that you can't do that. If you could, there would never be murderers who received parole and then went on to kill again.

As long as you have an imperfect system of justice, there will always be doubt as to whether or not those being punished are actually guilty. If there is no capital punishment, there will never be any innocent people executed. However, there will be people sentenced to life in prison who will eventually be let out of prison. Some of these people will be released because they were correctly found to be innocent. (That's good.) Some of these people will be let out because they were correctly found to be rehabilitated. (That's good.) Some of these people will be kept in prison forever and rightfully so. (That's good.) Some of them will be kept in prison forever even though they are innocent. (That's bad.) Some of them will be incorrectly released into society because they were incorrectly found to be innocent only to kill again. (That's bad.) Some of them will be incorrectly released into society because they are deemed rehabilitated only to kill again. (That's bad.)

If you use capital punishment, some murderers will be justifiably executed. (That's good.) Some will be incorrectly convicted of murder and wrongfully executed. (That's bad.)

The question becomes: Which results in the deaths of more innocent people, murders by those who should never have been released from prison or innocent people being executed?

As much as you would like to argue that we should just not release those who are threats to society, it doesn't hold water. I can just as easily argue that we should only execute those who are threats to society. The truth is that, if we could identify those people with 100% accuracy, the point would be moot. You could execute them or keep them in prison forever, and justice would always be served.

I suppose that you could sentence people to life in prison with no chance of parole and no chance of appeal, retrial based upon new evidence, etc. The problem is that, in so doing, you haven't solved anything. Innocent people rotting in prison until they die is no better than innocent people executed, and if you can't sentence people to death with 100% accuracy, you can't sentence people to life in prison with 100% accuracy. It's 6 of one and a half dozen of the other.

patteeu
09-09-2011, 03:27 PM
I never accused them of that, or if I did, it was not my intention and I misspoke. I'm accusing them of incredible oversight or of a callous disregard of an important part of the death penalty system, and inappropriate actions.

That's what I'm accusing you of in the day care mass murder. Callous disregard of those poor kids. I know why you laughed and I'm sticking to it!

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 03:30 PM
It is quite interesting that Perry, who supposedly is a very Christian man, doesn't lose any sleep over knowing he killed innocent men.

He didn't kill an innocent man any more than Ford (or Benz, or whomever you want to credit) kills people when there's a car wreck.

Should he lose more sleep because an innocent man was executed than he would if an innocent man spent 40 years in prison, died, and was later found to be innocent? How about if an innocent man was sentenced to prison and was killed by another inmate (when that other inmate should have been executed)?

Amnorix
09-09-2011, 03:32 PM
I know, though, your point is for the guys who have already ended up in the max security and have nowhere else to go that's worse from there.


Right. What I'm talking about is a max or SuperMax facility having the ability to control its population.

I'm also talking about a particularly egregious case I remember reading about -- from the 70s I think -- when a prisoner who had committed alot of REALLY bad crimes and been sentenced to life in prison (because the death penalty was then prohibited if memory serves), escaped and committed some more REALLY bad crimes. The issue there is what is the deterrent for this guy to not keep trying to escape and commit these horrible crimes?

At some point there needs to be a "fuck it, you're not fit to live" option to exercise.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 03:36 PM
Right. What I'm talking about is a max or SuperMax facility having the ability to control its population.

I'm also talking about a particularly egregious case I remember reading about -- from the 70s I think -- when a prisoner who had committed alot of REALLY bad crimes and been sentenced to life in prison (because the death penalty was then prohibited if memory serves), escaped and committed some more REALLY bad crimes. The issue there is what is the deterrent for this guy to not keep trying to escape and commit these horrible crimes?

At some point there needs to be a "fuck it, you're not fit to live" option to exercise.

What does it cost to keep these people in a supermax facility, and how many lives could be saved with that money if we were to just hang them instead? You could probably pay for a lot of healthcare for the poor with the money you saved by hanging these fuckers and re-using the rope.

Amnorix
09-09-2011, 03:37 PM
Obviously an impossible standard to achieve, but we've already done this once so I'll leave it at that.

Don't think it's impossible. Just means the jury has no doubt this is the guy. All the evidence, DNA, etc. etc. all goes one way, and that's towards guilt.

The other issue around death cases is the racial disparity, but that's a whole separate debate.

dirk digler
09-09-2011, 03:37 PM
I guess I didn't read "knowing I did" as the same as "the idea that I might have"

And you left out the rest of the quote where he explains why he doesn't struggle with the "might have"

If there's more to this that shows in fact show that he has killed innocents, I plead ignorance. I did not know that.

I am sure there was more than one but I guess my problem was his somewhat nonchalant answer. The guy claims he is a devout Christian yet it doesn't seem to bother him..at least that was my impression of him.

And for the record I firmly pro-death penalty along with pro-choice and pro-euthanasia.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 03:38 PM
What does it cost to keep these people in a supermax facility, and how many lives could be saved with that money if we were to just hang them instead? You could probably pay for a lot of healthcare for the poor with the money you saved by hanging these fuckers and re-using the rope.
I'll answer my own question.

http://solitarywatch.com/2010/10/03/obama-and-bureau-of-prisons-lowball-cost-of-supermax-confinement/

We do know that the average annual cost for a supermax prisoner, according to one study by the Urban Institute, is $75,000 a year... At the Illinois State Tamms supermax, it’s about $92,000 a year.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 03:39 PM
I am sure there was more than one but I guess my problem was his somewhat nonchalant answer. The guy claims he is a devout Christian yet it doesn't seem to bother him..at least that was my impression of him.

And for the record I firmly pro-death penalty along with pro-choice and pro-euthanasia.

Death to prisoners, babies, and old people!

stevieray
09-09-2011, 03:45 PM
And for the record I firmly pro-death penalty along with pro-choice and pro-euthanasia.

...wouldn't have been easier just to say you are pro death?

jspchief
09-09-2011, 03:45 PM
I am sure there was more than one but I guess my problem was his somewhat nonchalant answer. The guy claims he is a devout Christian yet it doesn't seem to bother him..at least that was my impression of him.

And for the record I firmly pro-death penalty along with pro-choice and pro-euthanasia.

It's a pretty loaded question. He has to dismiss the idea that he has doubts or it will be interpreted as conceding that the system is flawed, which would be used against him for eternity.

Does a general lose sleep when the bomb he drops results in colateral damage? I don't know. But I know if he were to admit he did it would call into question the validity of the war in the minds of some.

stevieray
09-09-2011, 03:48 PM
But I know if he were to admit he did it would call into question the validity of the war in the minds of some.

....more importantly lead...someone has to do the dirty work and make the hard choices.

Earthling
09-09-2011, 03:49 PM
What does it cost to keep these people in a supermax facility, and how many lives could be saved with that money if we were to just hang them instead? You could probably pay for a lot of healthcare for the poor with the money you saved by hanging these ****ers and re-using the rope.

Some states have essentially done away with the death penalty because of the high cost to get them killed, via the appeals processes. It cost millions of dollars and is more economical to keep in lockup for life.

dirk digler
09-09-2011, 03:52 PM
He didn't kill an innocent man any more than Ford (or Benz, or whomever you want to credit) kills people when there's a car wreck.

Should he lose more sleep because an innocent man was executed than he would if an innocent man spent 40 years in prison, died, and was later found to be innocent? How about if an innocent man was sentenced to prison and was killed by another inmate (when that other inmate should have been executed)?

Sure he did if he had the chance to stay the execution or grant clemency to anybody who was believed to be innocent.

jspchief
09-09-2011, 03:53 PM
Some states have essentially done away with the death penalty because of the high cost to get them killed, via the appeals processes. It cost millions of dollars and is more economical to keep in lockup for life.

The idea that cost factors in at all is IMO a bigger issue than capital punishment.

Earthling
09-09-2011, 03:55 PM
The idea that cost factors in at all is IMO a bigger issue than capital punishment.

With some states on the verge of bankruptcy what would you suggest?

dirk digler
09-09-2011, 03:58 PM
Death to prisoners, babies, and old people!

...wouldn't have been easier just to say you are pro death?

At least I am consistent :) And I did think about calling it pro-death.

I just want the option if I get some terminal disease or Alzheimer's to be put out of my misery and I certainly don't want to lay in a vegetative state for 10 years and have the Senate and POTUS try to keep me alive.

dirk digler
09-09-2011, 04:02 PM
It's a pretty loaded question. He has to dismiss the idea that he has doubts or it will be interpreted as conceding that the system is flawed, which would be used against him for eternity.

Does a general lose sleep when the bomb he drops results in colateral damage? I don't know. But I know if he were to admit he did it would call into question the validity of the war in the minds of some.

You make a fair point but I look at what he said compared to Huckabee and I see a huge difference. I think Perry comes across a guy that enjoys it

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 04:35 PM
Some states have essentially done away with the death penalty because of the high cost to get them killed, via the appeals processes. It cost millions of dollars and is more economical to keep in lockup for life.

That's not the fault of capital punishment. That's the fault of the system.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 04:36 PM
Sure he did if he had the chance to stay the execution or grant clemency to anybody who was believed to be innocent.

Anybody that's believed to be innocent isn't on death row to begin with. I'll take someone who trusts the courts to do their jobs as my POTUS over someone who thinks he knows better.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 04:56 PM
If there is no capital punishment, there will never be any innocent people executed. However, there will be people sentenced to life in prison who will eventually be let out of prison. Some of these people will be released because they were correctly found to be innocent. (That's good.) Some of these people will be let out because they were correctly found to be rehabilitated. (That's good.) Some of these people will be kept in prison forever and rightfully so. (That's good.) Some of them will be kept in prison forever even though they are innocent. (That's bad.) Some of them will be incorrectly released into society because they were incorrectly found to be innocent only to kill again. (That's bad.) Some of them will be incorrectly released into society because they are deemed rehabilitated only to kill again. (That's bad.)

Why would a non-innocent person later be deemed innocent, and actually be guilty? And why would a person who gets life w/o parole be released because they are deemed rehabilitated?

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 05:06 PM
Why would a non-innocent person later be deemed innocent, and actually be guilty? And why would a person who gets life w/o parole be released because they are deemed rehabilitated?

I don't know. Ask Willie Horton. It happens, though. Something about an imperfect system.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 05:18 PM
I don't know. Ask Willie Horton. It happens, though. Something about an imperfect system.

Willie Horton wasn't released from prison because of rehab. There was a furlough program.

I don't think it does happen.

Count Zarth
09-09-2011, 05:26 PM
Bread and circuses, Jenson. Bread and circuses.

dirk digler
09-09-2011, 05:26 PM
Anybody that's believed to be innocent isn't on death row to begin with. I'll take someone who trusts the courts to do their jobs as my POTUS over someone who thinks he knows better.

Believed by who?

Perry does think he knows better, there have been a few cases where the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, the members who he picks, have recommended clemency and he went ahead and executed them anyway. That doesn't seem very Christian-like...

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 05:29 PM
Bread and circuses, Jenson. Bread and circuses.

You mind spelling that out for me?

2bikemike
09-09-2011, 05:36 PM
That's not the fault of capital punishment. That's the fault of the system.

Exactly eliminate all the bullshit appeals, and fryem up. No reason to keep them hanging on for 20 years before the execution. IMHO that is Cruel and unusual. I think they should set up some sort of panel and make it a 2 year process. Convicted you get two appeals you get 1 year for each appeal you lose both and your toast.

Will mistakes happen yes were human. But IMHO the good outweighs the bad.

"The problem with the Death Penalty Ro Ark is we don't use it enough"

Lzen
09-09-2011, 05:51 PM
I would hope so. The medicine saves people. The alternative to the medicine is people dying of cancer. The alternative to the death penalty is prison with no parole, or life, and completely eliminating the risk of a state killing a person who was innocent.
Wrong. The alternatives are less deterrant for commiting heinous crimes worthy of the death penalty or the possibility that person may do it again if they ever get out. Not to mention the ramications to morale of the citizens.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 06:00 PM
Believed by who?

Perry does think he knows better, there have been a few cases where the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, the members who he picks, have recommended clemency and he went ahead and executed them anyway. That doesn't seem very Christian-like...

I guess we don't have to worry that his faith will get in the way of his governance, then. That's good.

Saul Good
09-09-2011, 06:05 PM
Willie Horton wasn't released from prison because of rehab. There was a furlough program.

True, but he shouldn't have been released, yet he was. An execution would have prevented that situation.

I'll tell you what. You find me examples of executionees later proven to be innocent, and I'll give you two examples of people murdered by criminals who should have been executed (or at least never released from prison).

Lzen
09-09-2011, 06:23 PM
I don't believe the death penalty really acts as a deterrent to the vast majority of crimes. The vast, VAST majority (but note the exception I discuss below). People who are going to commit the type of heinous crimes that will trigger the potential for the death penalty are not going to commit them if the punishment is ONLY life in prison, but not commit them if the death penalty is out there. They're either going to do it, or not.

It is for that reason that I used to oppose the death penalty, though my opposition was always rather weak. It just seemed to me that the joy of retribution didn't balance off against the possibility that you execute an innocent individual.

I now, however, support the death penalty for these two reasons, primarily:

1. a person who is in prison for life without possibility of parole already has absolutely no further punishment that can be inflicted upon him, except for time in isolation or what have you. Essentially, not much. As a result, the death penalty is a valid "threat" to keep the worst offenders in the prison population (who are NOT on death row) in check. Thsi may seem esoteric, or unlikely to matter much, but it's not. Killing a prison guard takes on a whole new meaning if you're in prison for life with the death penalty out there as a possibility if you commit a new crime.

2. It's greatly enhance the leverage of prosectors who are negotiating plea bargains with defendants in various contexts -- to either get them to roll on other criminals, or to accept a higher sentence (without death) than they would have if the death penalty were not on the table.
Now that is a logical take. I might even be inclined to agree with your subsequent post.

alanm
09-09-2011, 06:24 PM
So, someone goes into a day care center and executes 12 kids... 4 teachers and 7 people in the parking lot. Explain the reasoning as to why he should be afforded life w/o parole and live out the remaining 30 years of his life behind bars on our tab?100 yrs ago that person would of been shot dead on sight and spared the taxpayers the expense of a trial. Or he would of been tried and hung in the public square and it would of been celebrated by the town.
Past generations tended to have more common sense then the present generation.

Count Zarth
09-09-2011, 06:25 PM
You mind spelling that out for me?

LMAO

I thought you were learned.

Zebedee DuBois
09-09-2011, 06:48 PM
disclaimer: There are truly evil people in the world that have no regard or remorse for the lives of others, and I have absolutely no problem with them exiting this earthly existence early.

Statement: I find it astonishing that people who, on a daily basis, castigate and decry government for its inefficiency and ineptness would empower that government to kill any of its citizens.

Earthling
09-09-2011, 07:10 PM
That's not the fault of capital punishment. That's the fault of the system.

Exactly. But it is a very real concern for cash-strapped counties or states who have economic priorities to juggle.

go bowe
09-09-2011, 09:49 PM
True, but he shouldn't have been released, yet he was. An execution would have prevented that situation.

I'll tell you what. You find me examples of executionees later proven to be innocent, and I'll give you two examples of people murdered by criminals who should have been executed (or at least never released from prison).

i'm not sure but was he in for murder or sentenced to death?

if not, then they couldn't possibly have executed him no matter how badly they wanted to...

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 10:08 PM
True, but he shouldn't have been released, yet he was. An execution would have prevented that situation.

I'll tell you what. You find me examples of executionees later proven to be innocent, and I'll give you two examples of people murdered by criminals who should have been executed (or at least never released from prison).

Or at least never released from prison? Hah, that's funny, because that's my argument here, except we just eliminate the death penalty and go only with that -- "never released from prison."

There are people who are executed who are later proven innocent. And there are people who shouldn't be released from prison, and I can hold that position without believing a death penalty is necessary here.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 10:09 PM
Wrong. The alternatives are less deterrant for commiting heinous crimes worthy of the death penalty or the possibility that person may do it again if they ever get out. Not to mention the ramications to morale of the citizens.

Wrong? Your post doesn't make my post wrong.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 10:10 PM
LMAO

I thought you were learned.

I've heard the phrase; don't know why it fits here.

Jenson71
09-09-2011, 10:11 PM
100 yrs ago that person would of been shot dead on sight and spared the taxpayers the expense of a trial. Or he would of been tried and hung in the public square and it would of been celebrated by the town.
Past generations tended to have more common sense then the present generation.

You sound as if you speak from experience.

Psyko Tek
09-09-2011, 10:18 PM
I don't know, do you think it was an appropiate "no response" from our "Usurper Zero" in office i.e. to Maxine Waters comments, Andre Carson's comments and of course "Zero's hitman" Hoffa's hit contract on the Tea Party comments ??????????:rolleyes:

can somebody decode conspiranese for me?
there is so much going on here I have no idea what he is trying to say
does any of it make sense?

VAChief
09-09-2011, 10:39 PM
100 yrs ago that person would of been shot dead on sight and spared the taxpayers the expense of a trial. Or he would of been tried and hung in the public square and it would of been celebrated by the town.
Past generations tended to have more common sense then the present generation.

Let's bring back the witch trials too for that matter. Although poor Christine...such a waste of pleasingly plump virginity.

Earthling
09-09-2011, 11:36 PM
Let's bring back the witch trials too for that matter. Although poor Christine...such a waste of pleasingly plump virginity.

I don't know. If she's not good enough for herself..... ;)

Chiefshrink
09-09-2011, 11:47 PM
It's also about the known circumstances where defendants are legally or actually innocent.

The issue is somber: there is first the crime that perpetuates the prosecution, then the defendant facing the end of life himself. I'm not asking anyone to sympathize with a murder convict, but the overall tone of this should be that this is a waste of more than one life here, and many public funds, and the suffering of many lives.

I can't help but draw an 'ironic parallel' here with killing the 'unborn' as well:shrug:

Chiefshrink
09-09-2011, 11:56 PM
can somebody decode conspiranese for me?
there is so much going on here I have no idea what he is trying to say
does any of it make sense?

Jenson has started a thread here that 'suggests' that the GOP audience was cheering for violence and as the Left always does with their 'advanced demagoguery' otherwise known as getting "Alinskyized". Jenson is trying to come through the back door suggesting that GOPers once again show they are the 'barbarians" we thought they were who are just "cowboy hang'em high types":rolleyes:.

I drew the "accurate parallel" and the real truth who are the real violent threats of Waters,Carson and Hoffa.

You that dense?:hmmm:

VAChief
09-10-2011, 12:40 AM
"Alinskyized"

Everyone take a drink!

Chiefshrink
09-10-2011, 12:47 AM
Everyone take a drink!

LMAO Excellent VA !! Glad to see you have a sense of humor.

Are you finally 'intoxicated' on Marxism yet;)

alnorth
09-10-2011, 01:13 AM
Anybody that's believed to be innocent isn't on death row to begin with. I'll take someone who trusts the courts to do their jobs as my POTUS over someone who thinks he knows better.

Nonsense

Todd Willingham was an innocent man who was executed because Rick Perry and the entire freaking Texas Appeals system was too damned stupid to prevent an obvious state-sanctioned murder of a man who was not guilty of killing anyone.

The death penalty should be abolished because Texas is too retarded to be trusted with it.

patteeu
09-10-2011, 08:36 AM
disclaimer: There are truly evil people in the world that have no regard or remorse for the lives of others, and I have absolutely no problem with them exiting this earthly existence early.

Statement: I find it astonishing that people who, on a daily basis, castigate and decry government for its inefficiency and ineptness would empower that government to kill any of its citizens.

Do you also find it astonishing that people who think the government can screw up even these life and death matters go on and support ever more government regulation of all aspects of our lives?

Zebedee DuBois
09-10-2011, 10:11 AM
Do you also find it astonishing that people who think the government can screw up even these life and death matters go on and support ever more government regulation of all aspects of our lives?

Yes, I do. Both Democrat and Republican.

Jenson71
09-10-2011, 11:10 AM
I can't help but draw an 'ironic parallel' here with killing the 'unborn' as well:shrug:

So if, at the mention of 1 million babies being aborted last year, a crowd full of feminist activists cheered, how would you feel?

craneref
09-11-2011, 10:21 PM
So if, at the mention of 1 million babies being aborted last year, a crowd full of feminist activists cheered, how would you feel?

An absolutely TERRIBLE comparison. To compare the death of a serial killer,usually to lethal injection to the murder of an innocent fetus by having a sharp object stuck into it's brain, scrambled andthen vacuumed out. I will allow you that a very few that die on death row are innocent, and that is terrible, but ALL babies in abortion are innocent. And they do cheer when abortion stays legal and funded by the government.

Jenson71
09-11-2011, 11:24 PM
An absolutely TERRIBLE comparison. To compare the death of a serial killer,usually to lethal injection to the murder of an innocent fetus by having a sharp object stuck into it's brain, scrambled andthen vacuumed out. I will allow you that a very few that die on death row are innocent, and that is terrible, but ALL babies in abortion are innocent. And they do cheer when abortion stays legal and funded by the government.

Yeah, it's obviously a terrible comparison when you hold the position that abortion is wrong. But let's say that you think a fetus is not a person, is not a baby, is just the developing cells of an organism that will form a baby if and when it comes to delivery?