Death Penalty
Lori Lancaster | March 16, 2007
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | March 16, 2007
I guess it didn't pass anyway. =(
Mike Eberhart | March 16, 2007
At least there are some smart committee members on that board. Why anyone wants to treat hardcore murderers with respect is beyond me. As soon as they are found guilty and put on death row, they shouldn't be kept around for long.
Kris Weberg | March 16, 2007
There are undoubtedly people whose crimes are so heinous as to merit execution. There is no person, institution, government, or other authority who could or should hold the right to carry out an execution, no matter how well regulated. It's not solely or predominantly about trust, but about what I see as a key way in which the power to execute a prisoner is inherently different from killing an assailant in self-defense or waging war on an active enemy in the interest of general defense.
I'm also rather skeptical of the easy pleasures afford by giving oneself over to so-called "righteous anger" or moral indignation, but that's hardly a serious ethical argument in and of itself. And I'd be the worst sort of hypocrite to make it in more than a tongue-in-cheek fashion.
Tony Peters | March 16, 2007
I'm with Mike, statistically very few people who are sentenced to death aren't also guilty of other crimes. I'm not saying that everyone is guilty nor that we shouldn't insure that they are guilty beyond a doubt because ending a life is one of those things that you need to be sure about and not just that they had the best defense that they could get. But there are some people who just do things so heinous that they no longer deserve to walk the earth...when they are judged by a jury and sentenced to die they should.
Erik Bates | March 18, 2007
[hidden by request]
Scott Hardie | March 19, 2007
The abolition of the death penalty in future generations is probably as inevitable as the abolition of hunting and smoking. We may not live to see it, since we'll all have died from cigarettes, execution, or hunting accidents.
Anna Gregoline | March 19, 2007
Why anyone wants to treat hardcore murderers with respect is beyond me. As soon as they are found guilty and put on death row, they shouldn't be kept around for long.
For me, it's:
1. All human beings deserve respect.
2. Being found guilty doesn't mean someone is - we've executed completely innocent people, and until that can be fixed, I don't know how anyone COULD support the current system - obviously something needs to be changed if this can happen.
3. An eye for an eye makes everyone blind - I don't see revenge in this manner to be healthy for families or for society in general
4. Many people who are murderers aren't cold-blooded killers in the sense that they are sadists who get off on it - there can be drugs, mental illness, abuse, etc...all sorts of reasons that the murder occured. Doesn't mean they aren't at fault, but I don't see how it creates any good in the world to kill someone who wasn't a person with normal reasoning skills
5. I see death as an appallingly poor punishment. Life in prison is far more punitive than killing someone. I realize that people who believe in hell think differently.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on it.
* P.S. I also find it disturbing that it is overwhelmingly minorities and the poor that are executed - people who couldn't afford amazing lawyers and didn't have the benefit of being white in America. Something is REALLY wrong there.
Jackie Mason | March 19, 2007
[hidden by request]
Denise Sawicki | March 20, 2007
I think at least if the criminal is found guilty and prefers the death penalty then he/she should get it... I don't see the point in keeping someone alive to punish them, I thought the purpose was to prevent more crimes from happening. Apparently though this request is not granted very easily. Here are the results of a quick google search.
Anna Gregoline | March 20, 2007
I think anyone who is so out of whack with their reasoning skills is someone this world can do without.
I don't agree with throwing people away like garbage. I just don't believe we have the right to decide to kill other human beings - to me it makes us little better than the murderers themselves.
I think at least if the criminal is found guilty and prefers the death penalty then he/she should get it...
Letting criminals choose their own punishments? Interesting...
Well, which is it, is the question - is jail/death penalty punishment or simply to stop crimes from occuring? If jail time is to stop more crimes from occuring, why do we have a system that doesn't rehabilitate people for their future release from prison?
I don't want to abolish prisons, but I think we have some major reforms to do if we're ever going to stop the cycle of violence we've got with repeat offenders.
Michael Paul Cote | March 20, 2007
I object to the "supporting" the criminal for the rest of their lives. If a killer is in prison, we as taxpayers are supporting that person and are we getting anything productive from them? Not in my book.
Anna Gregoline | March 20, 2007
What say you about prisons where you DO get something out of them? There are many, many prisons where inmates make license plates, answer phones, etc.
Tony Peters | March 20, 2007
There are very few prisons (none actually run by the government) that break even much less are profitable. having a person incarcerated for the rest of their natural life equated to +50 in most cases. In Pennsylvania for instance it cost about $33,615 a year to imprison someone; that's the average cost for 41,628 prisoners who make approximately $3.2 million for the state or about $78 per prisoner, the other 136 million comes from taxpayers. Now in no way am I gonna say that we don't need prisons and Penn was just the first state that I could find the numbers for searching here in Bahrain (don't get me started on what google looks like here) but it's pretty obvious that both justice and punishment in the USA need a bit of an overhaul.
Kris Weberg | March 20, 2007
I also object to "supporting" recidivists and sociopaths, but I'm still not willing to give anyone the right to execute people so I can save a bit on my taxes. Based on Tony's Pennsylvania statistic, in a state with 12.2 million people, the per capita tax burden for the entire prison system is around 11 and a half bucks a year total, only a very tiny percentage of which would be affected by increasing the number of executions...unless you want states to start executing thousands of prisoners per year, of course. In real terms the average person is paying less than a dollar a year to support specifically death-row criminals; my guess would be less than a cent based on the tiny proportion of death row inmates to inmates in general.
In the United States, as a whole, there were approximately 3,336 death row inmates as of July, 2006. As of January, 2006, Pennsylvania had 231 inmates on death row. Roundign Tony's figure up a whole lot to 137,000 prisoners, death row inmates make up .1686% (and some change) of the total prison population. Out of your 11 or so dollars, assuming it costs five times more to keep up a death row inmate -- they're dangerous! -- the average Pennsylvanian spends .09 cents per year on all of those death row inmates. That's 9 hundredths of a penny, for those of you keeping score. To make one penny back on the per capita tax burden, Pennsylvania would have to summarily execute -- that means no period of imprisonment, just straight from court to the chair -- around ten times the number of its current death row inmates: approximately 2,310 people a year, without any appeals process whatsoever.
Feel free to argue that the sheer immorality of the use of that fraction of a cent of yours warrants an increase in executions.
Anna Gregoline | March 20, 2007
I didn't even enter profitability into the picture - what I was referring to was that those prisoners are doing something "useful," if not rehabilitating.
Tony Peters | March 20, 2007
to me useful is paying for their rehabilitation since punishment has effectively been removed from the equation by the groups like the ACLU taking up space in a body warehouse isn't useful neither are all the people serving man/mins from victimless (except themselves) drug crimes...but I digress. Kris I wish I could find those statistics again because the only thing I remember for certain was that the per taxpayer cost in Penn was $114 and some change a year. The issue with deathrow inmates though is that we are so scared of making a mistake and killing the wrong guy/girl that we spend more money on them to insure that we get it right. This is what happens when Lawyers outnumber Engineers more than 8 to 1. I still believe there are people who have committed crimes so heinous they do not deserve to walk the earth in a cell or not. They have earned a spin of the Karma wheel and a chance to start over (maybe as a paramecium ). But as to how it managed well I'm not so sure there certainly seems to be a lot of our money spent insuring that a lowlife gets is fair shake at the justice system, maybe Joe Arpaio has the right idea
Kris Weberg | March 21, 2007
The issue with deathrow inmates though is that we are so scared of making a mistake and killing the wrong guy/girl that we spend more money on them to insure that we get it right....[T]here seems to be a lot of our money spent insuring that a lowlife gets [h]is fair shake at the justice system...
So your argument is that...we shouldn't be afraid to kill someone for a crime they didn't commit once in awhile? And that the notion that everyone gets a fair trial is wrongheaded at some level?
Tony Peters | March 21, 2007
no....there is a difference between convicting a guilty person, and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he/she did it. the first is easy the second is the level we must achieve if the person is to be executed. My point further up was that very few people on death row aren't also guilty of other crimes for which they should also probably die. I object to a person getting off because of some protocol wasn't followed or a little unrelated detail was left out. If you commit a crime you should be punished not rehabilitated,
Anna Gregoline | March 21, 2007
That's interesting, because I feel the opposite - I'm thrilled that the system works well enough most of the time that people who abuse it (crooked/careless cops, careless lawyers, etc.) or do a poor job of representing the crime/person can mean that the trial won't proceed or that someone will get off on a "technicality." Of course sometimes they did the crime and they should be punished, but what about the people who were innocent, or were treated unfairly?
That's a huge protection that I, myself, am grateful for. We make a large attempt at a fair trial and conviction. And that's important when we're talking about altering people's lives forever.
Kris Weberg | March 21, 2007
The thing is, Tony, I see your argument as getting right back to the heart of my objection to the death penalty -- in matters of life and death, who decides what's proper protocol or which details are small enough to? Even in a democracy, or a democratically-leaning republic like the U.S.A., we tend not to grant general powers to decide life and death for citizens.
We don't grant majorities that kind of power in pretty much any other issue, and the death penalty is the primary exception. Why? After all, the decisions that make up the legal apparatus of a death penalty are pretty damned important decision, one that's hard to trust anyone or anything with. It's essentially a claim to absolute moral authority, and my own tendency is to distrust anyone seeking to claim the position of absolute moral authority for themselves.
Our system certainly doesn't give that power to anyone: even presidents can be impeached, and generals and policemen answer to elected officials, who answer to the people, who answer to the Constitution, which can be amended.... Checks and balances, as an idea, suggests that there is no final resting place of the kind of total claim to moral authority that the death penalty suggests.
Because if you decide the criteria for death wrongly -- and here I'm not just talking about our court system, but the very basis of determining what the standard of evidence is in a capital trial, and which offenses are capital offenses -- you create a murder machine. Who gets to decide at that primal ethical level where the right to continue living ends and the state's right to kill begins? Once, I suppose, you could say "God," by which was meant the priests or the monarch, but that doesn't quite work in a democratically-leaning republic like ours, one with freedom of religion. Whose God? Who's God?
Constitutionally, there is a death penalty for treason and sedition -- that is, acts of war against the state and the public. That's the 18th century basis for the death penalty, really, a sort of limited inheritance from the old idea of lese-majeste rather than the Enlightenment normativity we like to think our government is based upon. And the standards of evidence for either crime are, well, quite high, which is why we see so few treason trials and practically no sedition trials. (Those that occur tend to be hotly contested: see, for example, the pardon of Tokyo Rose and the still-debated execution of the Rosenbergs.)
That's a lot of my problem with death penalty advocacy -- at a certain level, it's someone or some group telling me that they've got it all figured out, that they know who among the indisputably living citizens of this country ought to continue to live and who among them ought to be killed.
Aaron Shurtleff | March 21, 2007
It seems to me that the argument basically comes down to which of these two options is the most "livable" solution:
1) We make sure everyone guilty is punished, to the degree that we realize that some innocent people might be wrongly punished.
2) We make sure everyone innocent is exonerated, to the degree that we realize some guilty people will be wrongly exonerated.
I think it's people who try to straddle these two extremes that lead to problems. I personally don't like either choice, but I think it's got to be one way or the other. I would lean slightly towards the second (especially in death penalty cases), since the first could be irrevocable, but the second could be corrected later if it needed to be. Of course, if I was the person who had a loved one who was harmed by a "rehabilitated" felon, or one who was wrongly released, I reserve the right to change my mind! :(
Although, I think for some people serving life sentences, the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" needs a re-thinking. Not that I favor torture, but some people, I think (based on stories whose veracity I, of course, cannot validate, although I have heard them second-hand from people who have seen and know the people involved, not from people who heard about it from some guy, who heard it from some guy, etc.) get treated better than they should, and are treated to perks that I would be hard-pressed to get.
It's too bad we haven't perfected telepathy yet! ;) Not that someone wouldn't cry, "Shenanigans!", and claim that the telepaths were lying for whatever reason.
Anna Gregoline | March 21, 2007
2) We make sure everyone innocent is exonerated, to the degree that we realize some guilty people will be wrongly exonerated.
How often does this happen, in the age of DNA evidence?
I think the opposite about cruel and unusual - many of our prisons ARE cruel and unusual to me in the sense that they create mental illness where none existed before. This is a huge problem when prisoners get released back into the general population. What's the point of locking someone up and not correcting the problems that got them into prison in the first place?
Aaron Shurtleff | March 22, 2007
How often does this happen, in the age of DNA evidence?
But, Anna, in your own post earlier, you stated that you were thrilled that careless cops or lawyers can cause people to get off on technicalities. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Sometimes, people are going to get found innocent, only because, as an example, the cops had a warrant that allowed them to search the person's apartment, but they search his work vehicle as well, find the crucial evidence, and have it thrown out in court because the discovery exceeded the scope of the warrant. Were you talking about a different kind of careless cop allowing people to get off on "technicalities"? If we loosened up the rules so that cops can exceed their warrants because of this, well, then we'll have people hopping mad about violating their civil rights, you know?
I think it happens more often than we might know (that the guilty are released), but I think that's the price we have to pay to try to ensure that we are minimizing the risks.
I think some problems can't be fixed (moving on to the next topic), which is the problem. I've been told (often...at great length) that (at the risk of inciting a riot) using corporal punishment leads kids to grow up into violent adults. What can prison do for this cause of violent crime? Can prison give you a new daddy that doesn't spank you when you steal a piece of gum from Wal-Mart? Sometimes, people are already irrevocably messed-up (in my opinion only, of course), and all the nicey-nice in prison won't change that (nor will all the beatings in the world, which I am not advocating).
Anna Gregoline | March 23, 2007
No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm thrilled that the system is in place so that crooked cops and lawyers don't always get AWAY with their crookedness.
No one likes when people get off on technicalities. But that's incentive for police departments and lawyers to do things RIGHT and "by the book." They only have themselves to blame if they didn't do it properly so that a conviction can be reached.
I don't think that hardly anyone is "irrevocably messed up." That's what talk therapy and drug therapy and behavior therapy are for. Yet hardly anyone in prison gets any of this. I just don't see how that helps anyone at all, if the criminal is to be released in the future.
These kinds of initiatives and prison reform are not popular because the people proposing them are accused of "coddling" violent offenders. I say we can either be realistic and try and "fix" the people who need fixing if we're going to release them some day, or we can keep them locked up, likely *increasing* their problems and anger and mental state, only to release an even more bitter and hardened person back onto the populace. I prefer to be realistic.
Amy Austin | March 24, 2007
I don't think that hardly anyone is "irrevocably messed up."
I definitely disagree with that. That's not to say that we can't keep trying -- and yes, there are prison programs that do this -- but I sure wouldn't hold my breath for any successfully rehabilitated criminals. Are they out there? Sure. But don't kid yourself into thinking that they are not the actual minority here... far more in number are not "fixable". Once again, I offer my personal example (which does not predate my opinion on the subject, btw):
One of my kidnappers was a parole violator -- he had already served only 10 years of a prior 40-year sentence for "strong-arm robbery" -- which also happens to mean that, by Florida law, he will be required to serve 85% of his sentence (I don't remember if that means the remainder of the old sentence or if it includes the new sentence, I just know that he's a LOT less likely to be paroled now). His wife -- the one who turned him in (after he apparently thought nothing about telling her what he did, and probably during a fight -- thinking she would be too scared, perhaps???) and who was also in Shands hospital on the night they victimized me (don't know if that was incidental or because he had put her there) -- was this man's substance abuse counselor and/or therapist during his previous (first???) tour of prison. Evidently, she must have thought he was "fixable", worth fixing, AND fixed by the time she was willing to exchange vows with the guy. My guess is that (unless she is hopelessly idealistic, a die-hard liberal, or just plain pathetic and with serious man issues) she's probably rethought that one by now.
Don't get me wrong here, either... just maybe she made a big enough difference in this guy's life that it's the only reason I'm here to talk about it today instead of dead 15 years ago -- I am very certain that the other guy involved could and would have "finished" the job that night if he had the full cooperation of the first -- and for that, I am grateful. (Can you imagine having gratitude toward someone who had violated you in this way???) And maybe -- just maybe -- he truly regrets the things he's done enough to try and become a productive and useful member of society... if he ever got the chance. Unfortunately for him -- but probably fortunately for the rest of us, as the state of Florida has already determined that he isn't worth the gamble -- he won't get that opportunity until he is at the end of his years... sometime in his 70s. Do I feel sorry for him? Maybe just the *tiniest* bit, actually. Do I think he should die? No. Do others? Yes. Am I happy he will be behind bars for pretty much the rest of his life, whether "rehabilitated" or not? You bet.
Which brings me to the other guy. One of those men that people would describe as having "shark eyes" -- the kind of person that you don't see any feeling or respect for human life behind. The kind of person who would think nothing of kidnapping and raping a young woman, then burning her clothes & belongings, and then... well... who's going to drive a naked girl back to town??? Yeah. No remorse. None seen at the sentencing, either. At least the other guy had a statement of apology for me... he may even have meant it. And the scariest part of all??? Without a record of prior offenses, this guy only earned 15 years behind bars. (Yes, I said this was 15 years ago... he could be out in another year or two -- or already, if he got paroled... although, I am supposed to be notified when this happens, and I have not been. Of course, that doesn't mean anything, either -- wasn't that long ago that I watched a "Cold Case Files" where a woman was killed by her released stalker as the notice of his release sat in her mailbox.) Honestly, I have hoped all along that this guy would just die in jail, because I am convinced that if he is ever released, he will kill an innocent.
The question of rehabilitation is a lot like presumed innocence/guilt: originally, there was a female public defender assigned to this guy who kept saying "allegedly" this and "alleged" that. She was also pregnant. My investigator said to her, "I'll tell you what... if you believe he's not guilty, then you go on and have him over at your house for dinner. Let him watch your kids, too." Yeah. Not bloody likely. (Btw... not too long after that, he was reassigned to a male pd.) Having said this, how many of you would welcome having this guy join your neighborhood/community? How differently would you feel if you knew he had been to "therapy" and deemed "rehabilitated"? Classic NIMBY syndrome, I bet.
Tony Peters | March 25, 2007
I knew that this thread would eventually attract Amy's attention. There are just some people who should not walk the earth. A bit strange but this just shows that the people will do almost anything....he already has no respect for life eventually he'll progress to humans and yet he essentially walks free...again. I thought that one was supposed to get a stricter sentence for a second offense
Jackie Mason | March 26, 2007
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | March 26, 2007
There are just some people who should not walk the earth.
I feel very sad every time you say that.
A bit strange but this just shows that the people will do almost anything....he already has no respect for life eventually he'll progress to humans and yet he essentially walks free...again. I thought that one was supposed to get a stricter sentence for a second offense
Sounds like that guy needs some help instead of a foregone conclusion that he'll eventually hurt people.
Michael Paul Cote | March 26, 2007
I don't know, my gut feeling is that someone who would have sex with dead animals, in fact killing said animals for that purpose, is a bit beyond help. Like Jackie said, people have to want to change. And I think that part of wanting to change means realizing that the behavior in question needs changing. Obviously this guy doesn't see it that way.
Kris Weberg | March 27, 2007
I agree that there are people who shouldn't be walking the Earth. My answer is that we have to make the very difficult and long-term choice to keep them sealed away from others whom they would harm, rather than arrogating to ourselves or to some authority the power to decide life and death in circumstances that are not those of immediate self-defense.
Let's be very honest about what executions are -- the killing of people who are already captives, by definition incapable of resisting being put to death in any meaningful fashion. This isn't to call them helpless or tragic, but rather to acknowledge something that seems obvious to me: someone whom we can kill at will and at any time we choose who cannot kill us at will is already someone no longer threatening or (socially) dangerous.
Anna Gregoline | March 27, 2007
I don't know, my gut feeling is that someone who would have sex with dead animals, in fact killing said animals for that purpose, is a bit beyond help.
Except your gut feeling is refuted by tons of science and psychology/psychiatry - not everyone who does stuff like this is damaged beyond repair. It certainly isn't a sentence to guarantee future behavior, as is stated so confidently here.
I don't understand the "throw up your hands" approach. I'm unsure why you don't think this man doesn't want to change - how are we to know? I don't see anything obvious about it.
If no one ever tries then there will never be any victories, will there? The unwillingness to help our fellow human beings can not continue if we are to survive as a society.
Now that I'm thoroughly depressed, I'm off to start my work day.
Michael Paul Cote | March 27, 2007
Valid points all, but still, the man was convicted once and repeated. Now did "society" drop the ball and not rehabilitate him? Or did he "put one over" on the shrinks? Who knows? But the fact remains he did it again. Seems like either he is incapable or rehab or doesn't want to change. I could be wrong. One thing we seem to be overlooking is the fact that we are giving people convicted of heinous crimes more rights and compassion than they gave their victims. Is that justice? And I agree with Jackie, I don't want any of my money going to the preservation of criminals the law has decreed "killable".
Amy Austin | March 27, 2007
I've been reading all along, Tony... I just don't choose to speak unless compelled, particularly about this experience. Yes, I am very open about it, but I also realize that it makes others uncomfortable to speak of it... which, in turn, makes me uncomfortable for them -- moreso online when you cannot judge reactions by body language. It isn't something I generally like to bring up.
And yeah, I think there's a difference -- albeit slight -- between sex with animals and killing animals for the explicit purpose of having sex with them... and I think that this goes beyond "psychology/psychiatry". There are some things that are not taught or learned, but are just innate for some unfortunate souls. Some functional deviants successfully deny these inborn impulses just because they know that society deems them "wrong", but many more lack this impulse control, and this is not something easily corrected -- much like a drug addiction or severe eating disorder. This is why there are so many "criminals" (serious perverts) who just as readily welcome a life sentence (or even a death sentence) as not, because they *know* that they are messed up individuals and will continue to behave in said fashions... whether they see the "wrongness" of their ways or not. It's not impossible to find compassion for someone who does these things and thinks they are a very sick individual for doing them... but does that mean that they still have "rights" to a second (or third or more) chance to try to behave like the rest of us???
This intersects very much with a discussion from a while back about parenting... and I agree that there is just too much catering to the children and the criminals today. Even without addressing corporal punishment, it just sickens me to see the sorts of concessions that are made for the growing numbers of ADD/ADHD kids in the classroom and in daycare. I work across the hall from an educational outreach program, where there are 5th graders present every day. There are 2 teachers and an administrative assistant over there, all of whom are mothers and one of whom has an ADHD 11-year-old. I hear every take on every side of the issue, and even this ADHD mother believes that the modern school system lets her son get away with murder (haha). Things that he *knows* would not fly at home and behavior that his own parents have taught him as acceptable or unacceptable are suddenly overlooked as part of some sort of mini Bill of Rights for the "special". Kids that find it hard to sit in their seats and pay attention in class are now permitted to get up and wander about the classroom -- or hallways -- if they feel like it... did you know this??? Children who bully other kids and/or don't feel like doing what the daycare coordinators tell them to (recess is over, time to come off the playground and go inside now) are now allowed -- as part of "parenting plans" or some such nonsense -- to isolate themselves on the playground while someone oversees them from a window or doorway... just because they don't feel like following the agenda for the rest of the group!!! And corporal punishment??? Definitely not unless it comes from a parent, and even then, those parents had better watch themselves that their kids aren't hauled away by the authorities as a result of squelching the independence of these budding personalities and imposing upon their free wills. Is it any fucking wonder then, that some of these children take home the lesson that they can do whatever the fucking hell they want to??? Seems to me like "society" is doing enough damage already with all the touchy-feely psychobabble bullshit going on these days... so yeah, by the time they're done with all that, what else is there but the "throw your hands up" approach -- that's what we're already doing.
Tony Peters | March 28, 2007
interesting tie in Amy I hadn't thought about it from that angle. The whole ADD/ADHD thing today is really twisted IMHO especially since I was diagnosed as ADHD and mildly dyslexic over 30 years ago (before the diagnosis was used as a catchall like today). My parents chose to explore alternative forms of control rather than the default Ritalin that's used today, though not because they were hippies rather they were both rather Anti-Drug. So I learned to meditate which I'm sure led me to my choice of religion in the long run (Zen Buddhist) but I was better able to deal with my problems (then and now) than the typical fix it with drugs kids are today. I know my parents spent a lot of time insuring that I was occupied and therefore not off doing things I shouldn't. Mostly I attended catholic school so it goes without saying that corporal punishment was part of my daily fair. I don't find a problem with this either...I found out at an early age what was acceptable and what wasn't regardless of where I was. To this day I know it's what gives me such a guilty conscience when I try to cheat the system. But these days people really don't seem to get taught that there are things (crimes) that you just don't do and when people do them we seem to fall back on the "He's sick" excuse when we should be saying this guy/girl needs to learn a lesson in what is acceptable and what's not...
7*S
Michael Paul Cote | March 28, 2007
I totally agree. I've often wondered how a child that can sit in front of a PS2/Xbox/whatever for hours at a time can be considered to have an attention disorder. As a stepfather to one that was categorized that way at 11 and is now 13, and is adjusting well in school, drug free, we realized that it wasn't that he was attention challenged, it was that he was at varying times, bored, not challenged at all, or totally ignored. Thus, his behavior would determine his desire for attention. We worked with him (not his teachers - they couldn't be bothered) to find things that interested him, but still be educational and worked ourselves at spending more one on one time. He has since moved to a new middle school, found a teacher with a like mind set and is doing much better, receiving 90-100 on his daily evaluation. And the best part is he is self-motivated to continue to maintain those standards. Guess we're lucky that he's one that didn't "slip through a crack in the system".
Jackie Mason | March 28, 2007
[hidden by request]
Kris Weberg | March 29, 2007
My argument, Michael, is that the law loses its legitimacy when it starts declaring that people already in custody are "killable."
Tony Peters | March 30, 2007
I understand your POV Kris, I just feel that certain people commit crimes that negate their right to continued existence.
Amy Austin | September 17, 2009
Ohio execution on hold due to unsuitable veins
Any thoughts on this?
Aside from the more major implications here... after reading it and skimming over the previous comments from two and half years ago, one of the things that does stand out to me is the twenty-five years that has passed between his crime and the botched execution attempt. How many of those years were spent waiting on Death Row, I'm wondering. One thing that I do tend to agree with is that if capital punishment is going to remain the law, then it seems completely antithetical to the intent of it to draw out the process for this length of time. I mean... entire legislatures change in that amount of time -- not to mention the mindset of the criminals themselves. It really does underscore Kris's argument about killing an already disenabled captive. "Cruel and unusual"? Yes... I think so.
Anyone else?
Samir Mehta | September 17, 2009
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | September 17, 2009
Twenty-five years long to establish that? Really???
Tony Peters | September 17, 2009
Really Samir you think that Vengeance is the only plausible reason for Execution? I am of the opinion that there are some crimes for which there is no forgiveness. you commit that crime you forfeit your privilege to walk the earth
Samir Mehta | September 17, 2009
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | September 17, 2009
You mean... like our government already has/does?
Scott Hardie | September 19, 2009
Life is one of the three inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. It's not a privilege and it can't be forfeited. Most governments around the world have adopted Locke's centuries-old philosophy and have no death penalty; we claim to have adopted it but we still allow executions in some states. We like to denounce China for their human rights violations, but do we really look much better to an outsider? Every time that new evidence (or worse, formerly suppressed evidence) exonerates someone on Death Row or someone already executed, our system just becomes that much more of a barbaric circus. What happened to Romell Broom is just another incident in the sideshow.
Steve West | September 19, 2009
It amazes me sometimes how we readily admit that our system of justice is imperfect yet feel it justifiable to impose a perfect solution. Perfect as in irreversible.
Samir Mehta | September 19, 2009
[hidden by request]
Anna Gregoline | September 30, 2009
I have an even stronger feeling towards what I've said here now. I now work for the Illinois Appellate Defender's Office, and every day I read cases involving murders and rapes and violent assaults (as well as small stuff like burglaries and forgeries). The social histories of these defendants is absolutely appalling - I really think that most people have no idea the kind of background that produces such crime.
I also want to say I've changed my perspective on one thing - the usage of the idea of someone getting off on a "technicality." A quote in my friend's office at work says it best - "The Constitution is NOT a technicality."
Most of our clients are guilty. G-U-I-L-T-Y. But that doesn't mean that it gives prosecutors and judges fair license to ignore the law, ignore procedure, and subject that person to an unfair trial. Our office is part of the checks and balances, to make sure that all was fair and done right. Sometimes we can do nothing - other times, we can correct a wrong that ANY of you would want corrected if you had an unfair trial. And let me tell you - the justice system is not as perfect as some might think. Oh, the things I've seen already, shudder.
It's not always pretty - I spent the afternoon reading one very long trial of a man who had about 8 different rape prosecutions (all tried pretty much simultaneously). Sometimes, the sentences are comforting (he will never get out of prison). But how many people would feel satisfied if he was prosecuted and sentenced but his trial was completely unlawful? Would you like it if all the time and money and sense of justice spent on his trial went "to waste," so to speak, because he was let out on appeal?
I don't feel very eloquent right now, so I'm going to stop talking, but I feel even more strongly against the death penalty now because of what I've seen.
Amy Austin | September 30, 2009
Another timely news item tie-in
Samir Mehta | October 1, 2009
[hidden by request]
Samir Mehta | January 5, 2010
[hidden by request]
Steve Dunn | January 5, 2010
I was not following this thread before so forgive me for catching up.
1) Holy crap, Amy, you were kidnapped?
2) I oppose the death penalty but I do not think the "inalienable rights" language from the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with it. After all, it says "liberty" is an inalienable right but we're all (I think) comfortable with the concept of prison. I don't think there's a strong argument that the death penalty is prohibited by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other American legal tradition (indeed capital punishment has existed uninterrupted with widespread political support throughout our nation's history).
I oppose capital punishment from a policy standpoint. The risk of error is my main problem with it. We know innocent people sometimes get convicted of crimes. I think there should always be some form of redress for those who can show they are innocent. The advent of DNA technology is affecting everyone's thinking in this regard - if it were up to me, DNA would be re-tested in every case where it could be determinative of innocence or guilt. Our system of justice isn't worth a hill of beans if it doesn't accurately determine innocence and guilt. Anything that effectively improves its accuracy (consistent with other rights and principles) should be popular with everyone.
Long way of saying, you can't let an innocent man out of prison if he's dead.
I also think the death penalty process is unduly expensive, and I question whether it has a significant deterrent effect on crime. Bad policy all around, in my view.
Samir Mehta | January 5, 2010
[hidden by request]
Amy Austin | January 8, 2010
Yeah, what can I say... some crazy shit happens in my life. (Kind of funny to me that you're gettin' it three years late, Steve... ;-D) C'est la vie... c'est la guerre... ;-)
Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.
Anna Gregoline | March 15, 2007
This year, Maryland has been on a path to become the first state to abolish capital punishment, and a bill to repeal the death penalty will be voted on in committee within days.
I'm not sure if this is allowed or frowned upon on TC, but I thought this Metafilter post had a LOT of interesting links regarding this topic. I hope that Maryland manages to pull this one off!