Troy Davis killed

[AngusJS]

by the state of Georgia last night, despite the fact that 7 of 9 witnesses recanted parts or all of their testimony, some saying that they were pressured by the police.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15013860

:nope:

[August]

A convicted murderer who failed to sway the opinion of every court right up the highest in the land was executed for his crimes in accordance with the laws of our country.

:up:

[jumpy]

Not gonna trash your opinion August, but for me, the death penalty is a vicious throwback to a form of state sanctioned barbarism that I am profoundly glad no longer exists in my country.

[Platapus]

7 out of 9 witnesses recanting, limited physical evidence. Sounds like reasonable doubt to me, but clearly the appeal courts disagreed and they should know.

[Rockstar]

Apparently those media outlet facts were different than court room facts.

[magicstix]

This is the part where I point out he was convicted of another shooting that occurred earlier in the day and the shell casings from the off duty cop killing matched the shell casings used in the earlier shooting. So he shoots one guy, then goes and pistol whips a homeless guy, then shoots the off duty cop who comes to try and save the homeless guy...

This guy had a criminal record a mile long, had two trials related to the cop killing, exhausted every avenue of appeal, and had 20 years to prove his innocence, after twice being assumed innocent and proven guilty.

Forgive me if I don't shed a tear at his passing. :shifty:

In the end, I'd rather trust the decisions of all of the courts, where there are rules of evidence and both sides are heard, rather than mob rule cherry picking facts who try to save every scumbag that kills someone in cold blood.

[mookiemookie]

Not gonna trash your opinion August, but for me, the death penalty is a vicious throwback to a form of state sanctioned barbarism that I am profoundly glad no longer exists in my country.

Agreed. I think if we as a country are going to engage in this sort of behavior, couldn't we at least limit it to cases where there isn't even the possibility of a shred of "kinda maybe but probably" doubt? Like if there's video evidence of the crime happening, or DNA tests that have been done to death, or a confession? Couldn't we reserve it to cases where no sane person can possibly say that the person may not be guilty?

[CaptainHaplo]

Video can be faked

DNA can be mishandled

Confessions can be recanted

The system isn't perfect. But if there was reasonable doubt, it would have been found in 20 years....

[August]

Not gonna trash your opinion August, but for me, the death penalty is a vicious throwback to a form of state sanctioned barbarism that I am profoundly glad no longer exists in my country.

It's not my opinion Jumpy, but rather a simple statement of fact. What happened to who and why. I also oppose the death penalty, albeit for different reasons, but it's not like this guy was lynched as the OP implies.

Now you are of course entitled to your opinion, as well as entitled to run your country any way you want, but you have to allow us the same right.

Oh and FWIW I oppose the death penalty because a painless death is letting these monsters off way too easy considering the enormity of their crimes. A far better punishment IMO would be to put them in a dank cage and never let them see the light of day or the warmth of human kindness for the rest of their miserable existences.

[August]

This is the part where I point out he was convicted of another shooting that occurred earlier in the day and the shell casings from the off duty cop killing matched the shell casings used in the earlier shooting. So he shoots one guy, then goes and pistol whips a homeless guy, then shoots the off duty cop who comes to try and save the homeless guy...

This guy had a criminal record a mile long, had two trials related to the cop killing, exhausted every avenue of appeal, and had 20 years to prove his innocence, after twice being assumed innocent and proven guilty.

Forgive me if I don't shed a tear at his passing. :shifty:

In the end, I'd rather trust the decisions of all of the courts, where there are rules of evidence and both sides are heard, rather than mob rule cherry picking facts who try to save every scumbag that kills someone in cold blood.


Well said.

[AngusJS]

The system isn't perfect. But if there was reasonable doubt, it would have been found in 20 years....There can be plenty of reasonable doubt, but people still get executed anyways.

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

In this man's case, there is strong doubt that a crime was even committed. Too bad it's too late for him. But hey, the system works, right?

[Tribesman]

But if there was reasonable doubt, it would have been found in 20 years....
Incredible:doh:
Angus, would you like to post a couple of dozen links?
You could even do it just by limiting to cases where the convictions have been shown to be wrong without any shadow of doubt at all more than 20 years after the trial.

[AVGWarhawk]

Agreed. I think if we as a country are going to engage in this sort of behavior, couldn't we at least limit it to cases where there isn't even the possibility of a shred of "kinda maybe but probably" doubt? Like if there's video evidence of the crime happening, or DNA tests that have been done to death, or a confession? Couldn't we reserve it to cases where no sane person can possibly say that the person may not be guilty?

How would TX handle it? :O:

[joegrundman]

A convicted murderer who failed to sway the opinion of every court right up the highest in the land was executed for his crimes in accordance with the laws of our country.

:up:

I have heard the argument put that it doesn't matter in the end whether or not some people are wrongly sentenced to death, so long as due process is followed. No system is flawless, they say. Do you agree with that?

[gimpy117]

If 7 out of 9 witnesses recanted it should have been a mistrial....the problem is, there was no new evidence issued, so the appeal court couldn't do much.

He's an unfortunate product of the nature of the world, and the south, in 1989 and prosecutors wanting to convict somebody so bad they make it happen through other means.

[mookiemookie]

The system isn't perfect. But if there was reasonable doubt, it would have been found in 20 years....

That's cognitive dissonance as those two sentences completely contradict each other.

[MH]

Poor bastard.
If he was left to rot in jail nobody would care.

[Penguin]

"Politicians love the death penalty because it makes a bunch of candy-asses look like tough guys." - Tony Fitzpatrick

This is why there is no real pressure by politicians to abolish this primitive tradition, which puts the US into a shameful row together with countries like Saudi-Arabia and China.

It serves a call for revenge rather than fighting crime. While revenge is a deep and also understandable human feeling, it has no place in jurisdiction.

[flatsixes]

Some decades ago I came to the conclusion that I should oppose the death penalty. It was not an easy conclusion for me to make, as I even today I lack the strong moral conviction that taking the life of a social miscreant is, in of itself, unjust. In my mind, whether a person deserves to live depends on the criminal, and the crime, and the executioner. If a man attacked my family, I wouldn't hesitate to kill him. But that reaction, however morally flawed, isn't "barbaric." Barbaric behavior is intentionally killing someone who has done you no harm.

Similarly, state-sanctioned execution isn't "barbaric." Since the dawn of the social compact, societies have allowed their organized systems to assume the mantle of the wronged party, and to dispense justice on behalf of that party, in order to rein in private acts of revenge. This was not a question of morality, but rather of need: Tribal and family feuds disrupted commerce and local stability. By "taking the blood out" of retribution in both civil and criminal matters, a system of dispassionate justice confined the spiral of revenge to a single generation. In my estimation, its worked pretty well, too.

So, for me, it's not the morality but the impracticality of the death penalty that I find objectionable. Its utility as a deterrent is unfounded. Does anyone seriously think that a potential murderer mulls over the prospects of getting the death penalty before he acts? No, the only thing he calculates (if anything) is the odds of getting caught, which he must believe to be very low or he would not commit the crime. Empirical evidence is sketchy, but even a cursory glance at murder rates since capital punishment was reinstituted in 1976 indicates no wholesale drop in capital crimes as a result.

Moreover, the death penalty is impractical insofar as it is virtually impossible to be administered even-handedly. I am not speaking here about the oft-discussed disparity in death sentences between races - the individual nature of the crimes, criminals, and evidence makes it devilishly hard to convince that such a disparity exists, much less that it is systemic. But the hard economics of justice are much simpler to forecast. You want to avoid the death penalty? Do your crime is an impoverished locality. As much as the populace may cry out for fierce justice, most small counties simply can't afford to prosecute death penalty cases and endure decades of appeals, so they'll seek lesser penalties instead. Life sentences are rarely overturned, and once convicted the prisoner becomes a guest (and expense) of the state system. Such hard calculus, in my view, diminishes the administration of equal justice, but it's an inescapable consequence where the penalty to be meted out is irreversible.

Finally, there's a disturbing incongruity among the states as to what constitutes a capital crime. In New York, for example, legislation enacted in 1995 limited the application of death penalty to crimes involving the murder of law enforcement personnel, judges, witnesses, etc.* It strikes me as incomprehensible that a person lawfully can be put to death for the murder of a cop, but not for the murder of the cop's wife and children. The taking of a life is the taking of a life, no matter whose life it is, and I think it wiser to "level down" the death penalty to extinction rather than to make it applicable to all murders across the board, if not for moral reasons, then for economic ones.

This is a hard topic, and it's not my intent to try and convince anyone that I'm right or that they're wrong. Like I said, I claim no moral high ground on the subject. It's enough for me just to understand, finally, what I believe and why.

Cheers.

*(New York's former Governor Paterson later effected a de facto moratorium on the death penalty, but, to the best of my knowledge, the law I refer to is still on the books.)

Disclaimer: This is an opinion piece, not a scholarly article. You should do your own research, because I cannot be trusted. Once I even married the wrong woman. Consider yourself warned.

[Osmium Steele]

Once I even married the wrong woman. Consider yourself warned.

How, if I don't know her name?

[August]

How, if I don't know her name?

The wrong woman is known by many names. :yep:

[flatsixes]

How, if I don't know her name?

She is now only known as "That Woman." Ring a bell?

[frau kaleun]

She is now only known as "That Woman." Ring a bell?

Ms. Lewinsky? :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

Ms. Lewinsky? :O:

That's on the one! :up:

She has the dress to prove it. :DL

[Penguin]

@flatsixes: a very interesting op-piece! :up: - just want to hook on two points:

If a man attacked my family, I wouldn't hesitate to kill him. But that reaction, however morally flawed, isn't "barbaric." Barbaric behavior is intentionally killing someone who has done you no harm.

imo this is different than state-sanctioned killing: self-defense is nearly always justificable, it's a sponatenous reaction against an unlawful action and thus out of normal moral boundaries.
The urge to hunt someone down who brought harm to your loved ones is also understandable, this is what I meant by the very human urge for revenge in my post above.


Moreover, the death penalty is impractical insofar as it is virtually impossible to be administered even-handedly. I am not speaking here about the oft-discussed disparity in death sentences between races - the individual nature of the crimes, criminals, and evidence makes it devilishly hard to convince that such a disparity exists, much less that it is systemic. But the hard economics of justice are much simpler to forecast. You want to avoid the death penalty? Do your crime is an impoverished locality. As much as the populace may cry out for fierce justice, most small counties simply can't afford to prosecute death penalty cases and endure decades of appeals, so they'll seek lesser penalties instead. Life sentences are rarely overturned, and once convicted the prisoner becomes a guest (and expense) of the state system.


A racial bias may be hard to judge, so I don't want to get deeper into this, but it's obvious that there is a connection between the wealth of the accused and their sentence. This is why Mr poor Whiteman is more likely to be fried on the chair than an OJ. Of course are there also cases which draw a big public attention and a star lawyer decides to step in, either for a gain of publicity or an honest interest in the case, but they are not the majority of cases.

I find the point of a connection between the wealth of the county and the probability to be sentenced to death extremely interesting and I have never checked this out before. Can you link me to any reading material about this?

[RickC Sniper]

From an interview by CNN.

There is the legal case, the case in court, and the public relations case," Spencer Lawton, the former Chatham County prosecutor, said. "We have consistently won the case as it has been presented in court. We have consistently lost the case as it has been presented in the public realm, on TV and elsewhere."


I find it difficult to sit here at my computer and judge a man's innocence or guilt based on what I am reading in the media. I was not, and you were not in the courtroom. Or I should have said, courtrooms.

It took 15-20 years for those witnesses to change their accounts of what they witnessed, but they did not do that under oath, or in a venue where the prosecutor had the opportunity to question them to challenge their "new" story. Giving their account of events under supposed "pressure" works both ways.

I am not pro death penalty because NO system is infallible. However, I believe that a life sentence should indeed be a life sentence but in fact it rarely is.

I have no empathy for a repeat criminal who spent 20 years attempting to find a court to reverse his conviction when each and every court that did review the evidence presented in court upheld that conviction.

As for the pope:
Why is his opinion as well as Jimmy Carter's opinion supposed to sway a court? If it did, then we would surely have a broken system.

[flatsixes]

I find the point of a connection between the wealth of the county and the probability to be sentenced to death extremely interesting and I have never checked this out before. Can you link me to any reading material about this?

I hate to say it, Penguin, but I don't have any research to cite for this proposition, it's (shudder) anecdotal knowledge acquired professionally. For obvious reasons, it's not something widely discussed, at least not in public. Given the amount of materials that have been amassed on this subject, however, I find it hard to believe that there isn't at least a law review article dealing with this. I nose around a bit and see what I can find. (Or maybe I'll write the law review article myself.)


EDIT: And if I wasn't clear earlier, I didn't mean to imply that people were less likely to be SENTENCED to death in poorer locales, but instead that the death penalty was less likely to be SOUGHT by prosecutors in those locales. I have no idea what the judges or juries might do.

[Penguin]

No problem, I searched a little and found this (http://www.content-4seo.com/philospaper.html) interesting article, which refers to a 2008 study which was made in SC:

The findings of the research indicates that wealthier communities have larger numbers of filed capital cases. As the authors conclude, "The relationship between median household income and the number of capital charges filed in a county is statistically significant (p-value = 0.01), thus providing support for our hypothesis. Wealthier counties in South Carolina had more death penalty cases than less-wealthy counties ." Thus, for the same offense, an offender in a wealthier county is more likely to receive capital punishment than in a poorer county; an offender in one county can get away with a lesser sentence for the same crime for which another offender in another county receives a death sentence. This is what Douglas and Stockstill(2008) mean when they find "serious inequities in the administration of justice."


The cited Douglas and Stockstill study was published here: http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/criminal&CISOPTR=153
If your browser doesn't support direct hotlinking to the file, here is an alternative link to the magazine containing the article: http://www.ncsconline.org/d_comm/Projects/JSJindex/JSJ_TOC/Vol29_3/vol.29_3.html

I didn't have time to fully read both articles yet, but they seem to prove your thesis

A pro death penalty article, that calls for handling the cp cases by the state rather than by the counties, also follows this argumentation:
http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articles/2010/03/Gershowitz-Statewide-Capital-Punishment-63-Vand.-L.-Rev.-307-20101.pdf

[Bubblehead1980]

I was upset by his execution, there simply was not enough evidence to execute this man.Especially after majority of witnesses recanted, claiming police coercion which is not far fetched.I read that a couple were on parole and claimed officers threatened them with violation of their probation/parole which is a common police tactic in the US.I've witnessed it while on ride alongs in the past.The average joe thinks law enforcement has to always play by the rules, they do but are given wide lattitude, esp in the south, esp 20 years ago, esp with a black suspect.I am no bleeding heart liberal but as a southerner who considered a career in LE at one time and who was friendly enough with multiple officers ,deputies in addition to a state trooper, I witnessed these tactics.Nothing illegal but not exactly fair but they saw it as a means to an end.

Scenario:Ride along with a Deputy in an urban area outside city limits known for it's narcotic activity.No calls for service coming in, spot a guy who is a known hood in the area, stop, get out for a "citizen contact".Deputy asks questions, pats down the suspect, runs his ID over radio, oh hes on probation. "Well Tyrone, where are they selling dope tonight?" "I dont know sir" "you know, better talk or can call your PO about____(insert bogus charge here) OR guy happens to have a dime bag of weed etc or him, threatens to run him for that.Naturally, said hood will give a name and or location, at times accurate or at times false, just to get out from under the pressure.We checked out his info, it did net two arrests for crack possession and one for possession intent to sell.

Now, apply this common tactic to the Troy Davis situation.A white male Police Officer is shot and killed in Savannah, GA, his fellow Officers are investigating.The next day they get the name Troy Davis from the guy who was harassing the homeless man the Officer was trying to help.Police see he has a record, he is black, we have witness who says its him, yep must be guilty.Police are humans and vulnerable to emotions, esp when it comes to a brother Officer, they are in shark mode looking for TROY DAVIS.They are convinced it's him, they want him, so some cop perhaps thinking he is doing the right thing, wanting to make sure this case sticks to the named suspect, "leans" on some witnesses, esp those who are vulnerable to coercion etc and boom they have 9 witnesses.Perhaps two saw what they thought they saw or were leaned on two but would not recant or were not able to, 20 years is a long time, perhaps witnesses are dead.Bottom line, they did not have anything other than questionable "eye witness testimony" to MURDER this man, yet another innocent person wrongfully convicted and executed, it's sad, demoralizing and makes a mockery of our great system.Way to go Georgia, blah:damn:

This is not a far fetched scenario, it has happened and continues to happen very often in our society.Sometimes it comes out and sometimes it does not but those "law and order" types who deny it are either ignorant or just dishonest.

[flatsixes]

No problem, I searched a little and found this (http://www.content-4seo.com/philospaper.html) interesting article, which refers to a 2008 study which was made in SC:


The cited Douglas and Stockstill study was published here: http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/criminal&CISOPTR=153
If your browser doesn't support direct hotlinking to the file, here is an alternative link to the magazine containing the article: http://www.ncsconline.org/d_comm/Projects/JSJindex/JSJ_TOC/Vol29_3/vol.29_3.html

I didn't have time to fully read both articles yet, but they seem to prove your thesis

A pro death penalty article, that calls for handling the cp cases by the state rather than by the counties, also follows this argumentation:
http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articles/2010/03/Gershowitz-Statewide-Capital-Punishment-63-Vand.-L.-Rev.-307-20101.pdf

Excellent work, mate! I must admit that I'm relieved that the little voices in my head weren't lying to me this time. :03: I'll take a look at these. Thanks!

[CaptainMattJ.]

I simply dont understand why people are so against these types of things.

There are people that, in every sense, deserve to die. There are Sick, disgusting people who deserve more then what we offer. many of these monsters are getting life or less, when they deserve no more then the fullest extent of punishment we can give. The system is flawed. IT has killed innocent men, and will continue to do so. But more often then not, the monsters that do monstrous things are the ones who reap what they sow.

Dont take out the death penalty. Just reform the system. Instigate more barriers, more rigorous and intense system of judgement to make it harder for cases with little proof to go foward. And make sure those who are convicted arent sitting there for 5 years waiting, or that cases dont take 10 years to reach a final verdict, ect. not only are there too few a obstacles to keep innocent men from getting the chair, but its wasting huge amounts of money to sit around all dam day doing nothing.

[magicstix]

While we're on the subject, why is noone whining that a racist murderer with no remorse was killed on the same day as Troy Davis?

Both were scumbags, both were found guilty by a jury of their peers and exhausted all legal avenues of appeal, and both were executed, however only one gets protested and "shocks the world" because the unruly mob has decided only one was not guilty.

If you think Troy Davis is not guilty, fine, you can be wrong and your protests are at least understood. If you think the death penalty itself is wrong, why is no one shedding a tear over the monster in Texas that was euthanized like a mad dog?

[mookiemookie]

EDIT: And if I wasn't clear earlier, I didn't mean to imply that people were less likely to be SENTENCED to death in poorer locales, but instead that the death penalty was less likely to be SOUGHT by prosecutors in those locales. I have no idea what the judges or juries might do.

An interesting hypothesis, and I'd like to see what you turn up.

If you think the death penalty itself is wrong, why is no one shedding a tear over the monster in Texas that was euthanized like a mad dog? While I'm not "shedding a tear" for the guy, I do oppose his punishment. It's hard having beliefs that aren't convenient to the moment, but that's what being principled is about.

Much like August said earlier in the thread, I'd rather see the guy thrown in a solitary cell for the rest of his days, with his only company being the pictures of James Byrd's lifeless body that wallpapered his cell.

[AngusJS]

While we're on the subject, why is noone whining that a racist murderer with no remorse was killed on the same day as Troy Davis?

Both were scumbags, both were found guilty by a jury of their peers and exhausted all legal avenues of appeal, and both were executed, however only one gets protested and "shocks the world" because the unruly mob has decided only one was not guilty.Maybe because people understand that some people really are guilty, and have had trials that are not marred by the inappropriate actions of police or prosecutors - thus showing your "unruly mob" caricature to be wrong. Have any other questions that answer themselves?

But regardless, I'm opposed to the death penalty in all instances. Take the Green River Killer - if this disgusting human being was executed, he might not have helped police find the remains of his victims and bring some closure to their families.

If we didn't kill Bruno Hauptmann, we might have known whether he really did act alone in the Lindbergh kidnapping (unlikely IMO), and thus be able to catch his co-conspirators, if they existed.

[CaptainHaplo]

Committing murder is a capital offense. Want to stop the death penalty? Fine - when murder stops, so will capital cases. The people that commit these crimes know that the outcome could be their own life is taken as repayment.

Are there innocents that get shafted? Possibly. But the system is designed to err on the side of the innocent.

The problem is not with capital punishment - the problem is in the reality of the "justice" system. It no longer err's on the side of the innocent. Too often a defendant must prove his innocence.

Look at what LE does most of the time in major cases. They often name a "person of interest" or make an arrest before their investigation is halfway complete. They arrest people often before they execute a search warrant. They make the accusation, then go try and "find" the proof. There are times when that "proof" is manufactured.

That isn't a slam on any particular LE, but they know it happens. "Justice" has become more about numbers and money than it has about true justice.

That is the flaw in the system.

[Penguin]

While we're on the subject, why is noone whining that a racist murderer with no remorse was killed on the same day as Troy Davis?


short answer: the media picture

While the US media might have painted a picture of a "shocked world", I can assure you from the little piece of Germany where I live, that I have not seen any people in shock about of Davis' execution. Certainly his case was reported in the media here as it was a media case, because of the many things in this case that stank. People talked about it, but most regarded it as "U.S. Business as usual", following a sad tradition of questionable executions, no real big news.

Regarding what the pope says: he held many speeches during his Germany tour, I wonder how much stuff from his 22 minutes speech in the german parliament was reported, where the name Davis was maybe mentioned once or twice, if at all. And how much did the US media report about that many Germans regarded having an representative of the Clergy in a secular country's parliament a scandal? - the first time a pope did that in Germany's history btw. Serious question, as I haven't scanned US media today.

But yes, I also blame the mainstream German media, that they didn't report that another man was also put to death in the US on the same day. I didn't know this before reading your post, however I remember the case of the killing in which he was involved. Certainly my initial reaction when I read it back in '98 was: those animals who did this should be put to death in the same, gruesome way they killed their victim.

Hell, I even blame our media here that they write about him Troy Davis as a US-prisoner, when he was a prisoner of Georgia. I blame them also for the fact that most people here think the USA has the death penalty and look goggled eyed when you state that a fair amount of US citizens lives in non-Capitol punishment states - too few if you'd ask me ;)

Then there are also pressure groups who try to bring attention through the media to a case were the guy has a high chance of being innocent, rather than to the one of a man who is more likely to be guilty and who shares believes which many people find quite unappealing.

And yes: I am against the killing of both men, guilty of murder or not, as much as I was against the killing of James Byrd that Brewer and those other 2 hicks committed. One law for all.

[mookiemookie]

Committing murder is a capital offense. Want to stop the death penalty? Fine - when murder stops, so will capital cases. The people that commit these crimes know that the outcome could be their own life is taken as repayment. The "death penalty as a deterrent" argument is not borne out by the data. States without the death penalty have had lower murder rates every year for the past 20 years. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout)

Are there innocents that get shafted? Possibly. More like definitely. As John Adams said:

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."

The problem is not with capital punishment - the problem is in the reality of the "justice" system. It no longer err's on the side of the innocent. Too often a defendant must prove his innocence.

Look at what LE does most of the time in major cases. They often name a "person of interest" or make an arrest before their investigation is halfway complete. They arrest people often before they execute a search warrant. They make the accusation, then go try and "find" the proof. There are times when that "proof" is manufactured.

That isn't a slam on any particular LE, but they know it happens. "Justice" has become more about numbers and money than it has about true justice.

That is the flaw in the system.

On this, we agree.

[Bubblehead1980]

What I love is how normally I disagree with people like Mookie but we agree on this issue it seems.Georgia murdered a man without REAL evidence to back up the penalty.More than likely Davis was not guilty of the murder, makes our entire system a joke because it's not isolated.The lucky ones are those who spent 20 years on death row only to be cleared by DNA etc.

[Platapus]

While we're on the subject, why is noone whining that a racist murderer with no remorse was killed on the same day as Troy Davis?



Perhaps because in one case 7 of 9 witnesses changed their story and there was not a lot of physical evidence and in the other case there were no witnesses retracting stories and plenty of evidence?

[jumpy]

It's not my opinion Jumpy, but rather a simple statement of fact. What happened to who and why. I also oppose the death penalty, albeit for different reasons, but it's not like this guy was lynched as the OP implies.

Now you are of course entitled to your opinion, as well as entitled to run your country any way you want, but you have to allow us the same right.

Oh and FWIW I oppose the death penalty because a painless death is letting these monsters off way too easy considering the enormity of their crimes. A far better punishment IMO would be to put them in a dank cage and never let them see the light of day or the warmth of human kindness for the rest of their miserable existences.

Well, I was only going on how I read your first post there. As I said, I'm glad we don't have the death penalty here in the UK. That's not a bashing statement on america (how often do non US people have to reassert that in making opinions of their own here? That's not directed specifically at you, August, more a rhetorical musing).
My distaste for the death penalty is just that. A legal system that is fallible ought not to have such a 'final and irreversible' means of dealing with those who broke the law. Not just for the sake of leftie liberal apologists.
However, over here, I think 'life' should mean just exactly that. There's a few cases where people die in prison, but not that many considering the nature of their crimes.
Certainly there's an emphasis in a civilised society that prison has evolved beyond mere punishment, and now resides in a place where 'rehabilitation' (re-education if you want to call it that also) is the key.
I'm sure there are many murderers who in their youth behaved and acted in a way which after 20 or more years behind bars have come to reflect upon their actions in a completely different way - they are quite probably not the same people as they were before. Whilst there are those who never change. Justice and courts for the most part try and reflect this here.

But coming back to 'Life' meaning life, to my view (though I'm sure there will be those who disagree) Life for the most terrible and grievous crimes where no pity or remorse or even understanding is shown, ought to mean solitary confinement until the end of your days - a true punishment to be removed from all of society, yet be kept aware of this. As you say, death is easy by comparison for some of the worst of humanity.
That is not rehabilitation, it is punishment, something that I think only a very small portion of prisoners truly deserve. To my mind such a thing reflects more the nature of the degeneracy - an act so abhorrent to society at large that sets an individual outside of what is acceptable - they do something that removes them so far from others, it is perhaps only fitting that they should remain so.

[Grayghost59]

Everyone is bitching and complaining about this and yet not one has seen all the evidence presented and not presented in trial. Why does everyone think they are smarter than all the judges who've looked at this case and why doesn't it seem absurd that jurors would change their tunes and witnesses theirs after being badgered time and time again by the do good crowd. Takes too damn long as it is for justice. The crooks have more rights than the cops and anyone in law enforcement knows it. When your love one is killed, your child raped or murdered then tell me how you feel and I can actually listen to someone who knows.

[magicstix]

Everyone is bitching and complaining about this and yet not one has seen all the evidence presented and not presented in trial. Why does everyone think they are smarter than all the judges who've looked at this case and why doesn't it seem absurd that jurors would change their tunes and witnesses theirs after being badgered time and time again by the do good crowd. Takes too damn long as it is for justice. The crooks have more rights than the cops and anyone in law enforcement knows it. When your love one is killed, your child raped or murdered then tell me how you feel and I can actually listen to someone who knows.

^---- This.

[mookiemookie]

Takes too damn long as it is for justice. The crooks have more rights than the cops and anyone in law enforcement knows it. When your love one is killed, your child raped or murdered then tell me how you feel and I can actually listen to someone who knows.

Funny that you equate vengeance with justice. It's not.

[CaptainHaplo]

Mookie,

Wouldn't that depend on your personal definition of justice?

For many people, the old adage of "an eye for an eye" is justice. In fact, legally speaking - that is exactly what justice is. Otherwise, there would be no such concept as recompense in the justice system.

However, we as a society also value the trait of mercy. Justice may be blind, but in the statue, notice nothing is covering her ears. This is why in capital cases, there is also the hearing of "mitigating circumstances".

There is a place for both, but then there is also the question of what burden should society bear as the cost of its mercy....

[Hottentot]

For many people, the old adage of "an eye for an eye" is justice. In fact, legally speaking - that is exactly what justice is. Otherwise, there would be no such concept as recompense in the justice system.

If someone kills my friend and then the society kills the killer, what exactly do I get out of it?

[CCIP]

When your love one is killed, your child raped or murdered then tell me how you feel and I can actually listen to someone who knows.

I've had one of the closest people in my life kidnapped and murdered, body never recovered, and the case remains unsolved, with the police more or less having given up chasing any leads. Said member of my family was an aging, innocent, defenseless person and my family was always poor and never involved in shady dealings, so that was a bolt from the blue. It was an ordeal for my family and me personally, but at no point did I feel any desire for someone to be executed for it in return. There was a possible suspect at one point, and it's my personal belief that that person was most likely responsible (albeit never directly identified), but the police didn't follow the lead. Again, at no point did I feel any desire for vengeance - in fact my only feeling in that was and still a mix of disgust and pity for someone so fallen as to commit so low an act. Otherwise, there's nothing in punishing the perpetrator that would do much for me or the rest of my family, and probably only make things worse.

If hypothetically that case happened in a country that used the death penalty and the case got to a trial of a suspect, I would take to the stand and ask the court to spare him the death penalty even if guilty. And that'd be the end of that from where I stand.

That's your view from someone who 'knows', if you wanted it.

[JU_88]

It's not my opinion Jumpy, but rather a simple statement of fact.
To me it read as fact that ignored many other facts - 'spin' if you like.
That'll be the stars and stripes glasses again.

[August]

To me it read as fact that ignored many other facts - 'spin' if you like.
That'll be the stars and stripes glasses again.

What facts are those?

Was he not convicted of murder by a jury of his peers?
Was this murderer not allowed to appeal his case all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States?

It seems to me that you are ignoring the pertinent facts of the case in favor of some unsubstantiated beliefs and opinions promulgated by his very vocal supporters. Of course those could be my stars and stripes glasses again... :roll:

[CaptainHaplo]

If someone kills my friend and then the society kills the killer, what exactly do I get out of it?

Hottentot - you (as well as the rest of society) gets the safety of insuring that the person in question will never again kill. The family and friends get the surety of knowledge that the person who took the life of someone they cared for has forfeited their own in recompense.

To take your stand to its conclusion - what does society get (over and above what capital punishment provides) out of keeping the killer alive and in jail for the rest of his or her life - other than a tax burden?

Heck, lets take it to the extreme - if you don't get anything by killing the murderer, you also don't get anything out of incarcerating them either. Using the fact that housing a criminal costs taxpayers, the logic that your using would ultimately state that we shouldn't incarcerate at all......

[mookiemookie]

In fact, legally speaking - that is exactly what justice is. Otherwise, there would be no such concept as recompense in the justice system. You're muddling the theories of justice. "An eye for an eye" is one school of thought on what justice is: retributive justice. Recompense is a characteristic of restorative justice, and it looks only at the perpetrator and the victim by themselves, without taking into account society as a whole.

However, we as a society also value the trait of mercy. Justice may be blind, but in the statue, notice nothing is covering her ears. This is why in capital cases, there is also the hearing of "mitigating circumstances".

There is a place for both, but then there is also the question of what burden should society bear as the cost of its mercy.... Mercy has nothing to do with it unless you feel that the only punishment for murder is the death penalty. Mercy implies that the guilty are getting less than what they deserve - getting off easy. Removing a murderer from society by locking them away for life accomplishes justice for society and ensures its future well being, all without turning society into a murderer itself.

To take your stand to its conclusion - what does society get (over and above what capital punishment provides) out of keeping the killer alive and in jail for the rest of his or her life - other than a tax burden?

Exactly what you'd get otherwise - the assurance that the guilty person will never kill again, and less of a tax burden as well, if that's what you're concerned with.

[Tribesman]

Everyone is bitching and complaining about this and yet not one has seen all the evidence presented and not presented in trial. Why does everyone think they are smarter than all the judges who've looked at this case and why doesn't it seem absurd that jurors would change their tunes and witnesses theirs after being badgered time and time again by the do good crowd. Takes too damn long as it is for justice. The crooks have more rights than the cops and anyone in law enforcement knows it. When your love one is killed, your child raped or murdered then tell me how you feel and I can actually listen to someone who knows.

What a strange post.
Its like someone has decided to single handedly provide every opening needed to shoot down the pro death penalty arguement.

[Hottentot]

The family and friends get the surety of knowledge that the person who took the life of someone they cared for has forfeited their own in recompense.

The "won't kill again" argument I can understand. But as a possible friend or relative of the victim I really don't see the satisfaction in eye for an eye mentality, hence I questioned that part of your post. I frankly find that a very sickening idea, to take joy of anyone's death. Because that's what it ultimately is, in my opinion: you satisfy the people's urge for revenge. The deceased victim probably doesn't care if the murderer lives or dies.

what does society get (over and above what capital punishment provides) out of keeping the killer alive and in jail for the rest of his or her life If the idea is only to keep the prisoners away from society, then I propose we stop building and maintaining expensive prisons and replace them with ship containers. Much cheaper. But the idea of prison is also to make the convict again a member of the society. Something that killing him/her won't achieve.

[CaptainHaplo]

If the idea is only to keep the prisoners away from society, then I propose we stop building and maintaining expensive prisons and replace them with ship containers. Much cheaper. But the idea of prison is also to make the convict again a member of the society. Something that killing him/her won't achieve.

Prison is about reforming the prisoner to return to society. But why have a prison that seeks to reform someone who is not ever going to get out in the first place - or do you feel that murderers should be allowed back into society - hoping that they do not recommit their crimes? That would be a total failure, no?

As for shipping containers - if we are going to keep them alive, then we should do so with a modicum of civility. Which is why solitary for life would not be workable.

Exactly what you'd get otherwise - the assurance that the guilty person will never kill again, and less of a tax burden as well, if that's what you're concerned with.

Ok I am not trying to be obtuse. I don't understand, How is executing a criminal less expensive than housing them for 20+ years? Now before you answer, realize I am talking in upkeep - not the costs of the endless appeals and such that our current, flawed system allows to be billed to taxpayers.

And by all means - address this part:

Heck, lets take it to the extreme - if you don't get anything by killing the murderer, you also don't get anything out of incarcerating them either. Using the fact that housing a criminal costs taxpayers, the logic that your using would ultimately state that we shouldn't incarcerate at all......

[Hottentot]

Prison is about reforming the prisoner to return to society. But why have a prison that seeks to reform someone who is not ever going to get out in the first place

With that attitude it's no wonder if they won't. If I'm going to allow the possibility for one, I don't see why not allow it to the other.

or do you feel that murderers should be allowed back into society - hoping that they do not recommit their crimes? That would be a total failure, no?

Most killings in where I'm from go by the same formula: lots of alcohol, argument and the first sharp object you can use as a weapon.

So yes.

[joegrundman]

Prison is about reforming the prisoner to return to society. But why have a prison that seeks to reform someone who is not ever going to get out in the first place - or do you feel that murderers should be allowed back into society - hoping that they do not recommit their crimes? That would be a total failure, no?

As for shipping containers - if we are going to keep them alive, then we should do so with a modicum of civility. Which is why solitary for life would not be workable.



Ok I am not trying to be obtuse. I don't understand, How is executing a criminal less expensive than housing them for 20+ years? Now before you answer, realize I am talking in upkeep - not the costs of the endless appeals and such that our current, flawed system allows to be billed to taxpayers.

And by all means - address this part:

how is it more expensive if you discount the expensive bits, you mean?

and you feel that things can be improved in capital cases by reducing the right to appeal.

this may save money, but do you not think this will increase the chance of wrongful execution?

and is that an acceptable cost/benefit to you?

once upon a time, there were no appeals right? sentence was passed and the condemned was taken straight to the gallows to be hanged.

do you think that would be ideal, or how much time and how many appeals are appropriate in capital cases?

[August]

The deceased victim probably doesn't care if the murderer lives or dies.

And by what reasoning do you make that statement? What the deceased would or wouldn't want is not something you can just assume.

But the idea of prison is also to make the convict again a member of the society.

A murderer will always be a murderer. There is no debt that he can pay which will change that.

[Hottentot]

And by what reasoning do you make that statement? What the deceased would or wouldn't want is not something you can just assume.

By the reasoning that dead persons do not think.

A murderer will always be a murderer. There is no debt that he can pay which will change that.

And a communist is always a communist.

[mookiemookie]

Ok I am not trying to be obtuse. I don't understand, How is executing a criminal less expensive than housing them for 20+ years? Now before you answer, realize I am talking in upkeep - not the costs of the endless appeals and such that our current, flawed system allows to be billed to taxpayers.


But those are part of the costs of capital punishment, as death penalty defendants have more constitutional protections that must be satisfied. You can't discount these costs because they don't support your argument. Death penalty trials are more expensive as they take longer, require more witnesses, court personnel, etc...and that's before you even start counting the costs of the appeals process.

And I don't get what you're getting at with your last statement? What do you achieve? You remove the offending party from society without making society a bloodthirsty murderer itself in some sort of legalized revenge killing. That's the bottom line.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

However, over here, I think 'life' should mean just exactly that. There's a few cases where people die in prison, but not that many considering the nature of their crimes.Few years ago I read in quite a disbelief about case where person was going to court THIRD time to respond in to murder charges. If I remember correctly he served 15 years from his first sentence, got paroled, made another murder, served another stint in prison and was paroled again. :doh:

Again if I remember correctly he committed his third murder less than a week from being paroled second time. I can understand giving a second chance but third? No way!

[August]

By the reasoning that dead persons do not think.

Then why did you use the word "probably"? Weren't you sure about that at first?

And a communist is always a communist.

No, beliefs are not the same thing as actions. A person who has murdered will always be a person who has murdered. You seriously think you can rehabilitate a person into changing the past?

[Hottentot]

Then why did you use the word "probably"? Weren't you sure about that at first?

Is sarcasm a new concept for you?

No, beliefs are not the same thing as actions. A person who has murdered will always be a person who has murdered. You seriously think you can rehabilitate a person into changing the past?Changing the past is impossible. Changing the future is not.

Do you instead believe that giving people labels that instantly mark them as good as dead is a sign of a healthy society?

[CaptainHaplo]

OK I am going to be semi-sarcastic here...

A person is convicted of murder and sentenced to death. They should have a date of execution set - 5 years from the date of conviction. They have 5 years to have the appeals done. Then, if unsuccessful - they pay the price for their crime.

What you have to remember is that most of the appeals are purely procedural - they dont contain new evidence, etc. Too many people think an appeal is like another hearing. Its not - an appeal is just to see if the structure of the law was followed properly. If new evidence is found, then a new hearing is requested - not an appeal.

Heck, people scream about how man uses up the environment - and we all know the earth is growing more and more overcrowded...... One murdering SOB off the face of the planet can only help, right?

*And yes - that was the sarcasm....*

[Hottentot]

Anders Behring Breivik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik) wasn't executed, even though I'm sure many people (in Norway and abroad) would have liked to see that happen. He too is just one man, and in his case what Mookie said on the previous page is very much true:

You remove the offending party from society without making society a bloodthirsty murderer itself in some sort of legalized revenge killing.One person is better as a tax burden than a reason to change what the society fundamentally believes in. I'm happy to live in a society that doesn't believe in revenge.

[August]

Is sarcasm a new concept for you?

"Sarcasm", yeah right... :roll: You got all the answers until someone calls you on it and then you claim that you didn't really mean it.

Changing the past is impossible. Changing the future is not.

Yet the fact remains that this hypothetical person that you're defending still murdered another human being. What makes you so arrogant as to believe you can change a leopards spots? Would you be willing to allow a "reformed" pedophile to supervise your children? Allow a "reformed" rapist to guard the woman's dormitory?

Do you instead believe that giving people labels that instantly mark them as good as dead is a sign of a healthy society?

Good as dead? No that distinction is reserved for their victims and their future victims of the madness that you call a "justice" system.

[MH]

One person is better as a tax burden than a reason to change what the society fundamentally believes in. I'm happy to live in a society that doesn't believe in revenge.

Looking at it as revenge is one way.
Seeing this as ultimate justice is another....
Its what ever makes you feel better about yourself.

I live in country where there is no capital punishment because we are supposed to be better than that-what the better means in some cases i don't really know.

[CaptainHaplo]

One person is better as a tax burden than a reason to change what the society fundamentally believes in. I'm happy to live in a society that doesn't believe in revenge.

Unfortunately - its not "one person" that we are talking here. In addition, your society may not believe in justice (of which vengeance is only a one component) through capital punishment. Where I live - society does.

I am not telling you that you have to change your society. I respect that yours has its views. Mine does as well. Different societies don't always agree. I am ok with that.

[Hottentot]

You got all the answers until someone calls you on it and then you claim that you didn't really mean it.

Calls me out on it? Okay, what do you expect me to say? That I don't really believe in biological fact that dead persons do not think and therefore won't care if their murderer lives or dies. You were the one who brought up the idea that they care. Do you want us to debate if dead persons can think or not? How many corpses have started smiling after their murderers have been executed?

Yet the fact remains that this hypothetical person that you're defending still murdered another human being. What makes you so arrogant as to believe you can change a leopards spots?

The fact that we here don't execute murderers, rapists and pedophiles neither hold them all for life in prison, yet this society still seems to work out just fine?

I am not telling you that you have to change your society. I respect that yours has its views. Mine does as well. Different societies don't always agree. I am ok with that.

:salute:

[flatsixes]

I'm certainly glad to hear that all 5.3 million Finns can live happily together in such complete harmony. Now just double its population and add a healthy dose of people and ideas from other cultures, and it can be New York City.

[Hottentot]

I'm certainly glad to hear that all 5.3 million Finns can live happily together in such complete harmony. Now just double its population and add a healthy dose of people and ideas from other cultures, and it can be New York City.

There are quite a few (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_Penalty_World_Map.svg) big countries which have abolished the death penalty. Also getting familiar with Finland's cultural policies would be helpful if you are going to make such comments.

[August]

Calls me out on it? Okay, what do you expect me to say? That I don't really believe in biological fact that dead persons do not think and therefore won't care if their murderer lives or dies. You were the one who brought up the idea that they care. Do you want us to debate if dead persons can think or not? How many corpses have started smiling after their murderers have been executed?

So according to you if a person dies his wishes are no longer valid? I wonder if you'll remember that when your Aunt Olaf leaves you a bunch of money in her will...

The fact that we here don't execute murderers, rapists and pedophiles neither hold them all for life in prison, yet this society still seems to work out just fine?In your tiny little homogeneous society maybe it does.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

... Aunt Olaf ...LOL :DL

[flatsixes]

There are quite a few (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_Penalty_World_Map.svg) big countries which have abolished the death penalty. Also getting familiar with Finland's cultural policies would be helpful if you are going to make such comments.
I am not familiar with Finnish "cultural policies, but I did check my facts (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fi.html) before I spoke." (If you disagree with my source, I invite you to produce your own facts and citation.)

A cursory review of population statistics reveals that Finland's net migration (i.e., persons entering the country vs. those leaving) is a mere .61 migrants per 1,000 population, ranking it #60 worldwide (between #59 Kuwait and #61 Nepal). In comparison, the Untied States ranks #23 with a net migration of 4.18/1000. This may help explain why fully 99% of the population of Finland is Finnish or Swedish, with the remaining 1% being Russian, Roma, or Sami. That one percent is about 53, 000 people - or approximately half the population of Lowell, Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population), the 247th largest city in the United States.

Given the overwhelming homogeneity of Finland's population, it's not surprising to see that of 85% of Finns who practice a religion, all but 3% practice Lutheranism. I light of these facts, I would think that Finland's "cultural policies" wouldn't need to fill more than a very slim volume. Consequently, your society is sufficiently unique as to be a curious, but ineffectual example of global society. But as I said, I'm happy that you're happy.

[Penguin]

Yet the fact remains that this hypothetical person that you're defending still murdered another human being. What makes you so arrogant as to believe you can change a leopards spots? Would you be willing to allow a "reformed" pedophile to supervise your children? Allow a "reformed" rapist to guard the woman's dormitory?


apples and oranges!
A carnivore animal has the instinct and biological determination to kill to survive, humans have a mind.

Your justice system also does not see any murder as the same. Not only talking about 1st and 2nd degree, but also that the circumstances and the personality of the offender are taken into consideration.

And yes: humans can change.
Given, there are people that deserve to be locked away forever, who should never be in contact with society again. However I still would like to differ.
A pedophile has most likely a mental defect, a murderer not necessarily - serial killers a another thing. While I think it is hard till impossible to change a pedo, there are murderers who can become members of society again. Especially in justice systems that work with the people rather then only punish.

[August]

apples and oranges!
A carnivore animal has the instinct and biological determination to kill to survive, humans have a mind.

No they're not. Animals have a mind, albiet not as efficient as ours but humans have survival instincts every bit as strong as any carnivores. Don't let our double lattes, social networking sites and Beemers fool you.

Your justice system also does not see any murder as the same. Not only talking about 1st and 2nd degree, but also that the circumstances and the personality of the offender are taken into consideration.

Circumstances yes but personality? Oh c'mon. "He's just an excitable boy" is not going to wash in an American courtroom.

And yes: humans can change.
Given, there are people that deserve to be locked away forever, who should never be in contact with society again. However I still would like to differ.
A pedophile has most likely a mental defect, a murderer not necessarily - serial killers a another thing. While I think it is hard till impossible to change a pedo, there are murderers who can become members of society again. Especially in justice systems that work with the people rather then only punish.

And rapists? Sadists? Your use of "most likely" and "not necessarily" give you a lot of wiggle room here but what in your professional opinion is their chance of recidivism?

The bottom line Penguin is I am not claiming a murderer can't EVER be reformed but you're betting the lives of future potential victims that your social adjustment efforts are successful. There are just too many Willie Hortons in this world for me to support this concept.

If it were up to me the people who released him should be held accountable if a murderer kills again after being "rehabilitated".

[Dowly]

The bottom line Penguin is I am not claiming a murderer can't EVER be reformed[...]

You haven't been very clear on that, quite the contrary. :hmmm:

[sidslotm]

To stand on the gallows a wait for the trap door to spring knowing all the while that, no matter what anyone says, you are innocent. What that must feel like God only knows.

I know there is or was a British lawer who works or worked the American death row system analysing cases of people he found were innocent and about to be put to death, he saved only a few and it seems this happens quite a lot. I have a friend who was on death row in PA, but recently removed from the row after 10 years of living on the edge of the abyss.

I don't object to the death penalty at all, it's just I would not execute someone if there was the slightest doubt in my mind and in my heart that this person is innocent, but there are people who will, whatyado.

[Tribesman]

I am not familiar with Finnish "cultural policies, but I did check my facts (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fi.html) before I spoke
very good, but don't you think it strange that given the topic your example of the "opposite" happens to be a place where they don't bother with the death penalty?
Hey finland is largely homogenous the second largest group of foriegners after the swedes are also foriegners, they can have a justice system without the problems from a melting pot society and the penalties that society needs to survive.
Perhaps you should compare Italy or France either for net migration or diversity to New York..or choose a place that uses the death penalty to make a comparison with Rome or Paris, you could try Houston for example, or Riyadh or Pyongyang...though I don't think Pyongyang has much net migration or diversity.

[Penguin]

No they're not. Animals have a mind, albiet not as efficient as ours but humans have survival instincts every bit as strong as any carnivores. Don't let our double lattes, social networking sites and Beemers fool you.


I should have written "a mind on top of it". Yes, some animals have even a consciousness about the concept of being an individual personality, but it goes not that far that we can say that animals have a moralistic judgment. Nature gave a carnivore a certain role and that's what they fulfill. I am not too sure about our role, but this would be another philosophic discussion.
Morale is what we are talking about here - while we all agree that murder is immoral, we are discussing the (im)morality of killing a killer, here's where we differ.


Circumstances yes but personality? Oh c'mon. "He's just an excitable boy" is not going to wash in an American courtroom.


:hmmm: still hoping that my "I don't like Mondays" defense will work in a German one! :O:
You are right, personality is not regarded much enough imo. Otherwise a guy with a mental deficit, who might not even be clear of the deed he has done would not get on death row but in a different facility. There are too many sad examples where retarded people got executed.


And rapists? Sadists? Your use of "most likely" and "not necessarily" give you a lot of wiggle room here but what in your professional opinion is their chance of recidivism?


I was intentionally vague, as the spectrum is enormous, the spectrum of the circumstances as well as the mindset of the offenders. A 18-year old who consensually shagged a 16yr old is certainly something else than a father who rapes his daughter.
To me a rapist or a pedo are even lower than somebody who offs a person quickly, as the suffering they cause to the vic is much longer, even lifelong.

About recidivism: this is also very broad. For "normal" crimes, Europe in general has much better recidivism rates than the US. For crimes of mental offenders, I don't have any statistics, but I must say that many perpetrators - on both sides of the pond - would better fit into a mental facility than into prison.

I can't talk about recidivism of nutjobs before I don't have more infos from professionals. If you're interested, I will ask a friend who works in a forensic psychologist about statistics. But she has the hard cases, where many people will never be out of the walls because they can't be treated to the extent that you can assure that they don't have a relapse, they can only be locked away.


The bottom line Penguin is I am not claiming a murderer can't EVER be reformed but you're betting the lives of future potential victims that your social adjustment efforts are successful. There are just too many Willie Hortons in this world for me to support this concept.

If it were up to me the people who released him should be held accountable if a murderer kills again after being "rehabilitated".

That's why there are many hurdles, to check if a person has changed before they get released. The Horton case is a sad example of missjudgement,
I agree if there is poor judgment, the responsible folks should be held accountable. A high standard of the people who are involved in judging prisoners should be compulsory, they have the same responsibility for other people's lives like an ATC has.

[August]

You haven't been very clear on that, quite the contrary. :hmmm:

If you'd have checked the position papers that I filed with Neal you'd have known... ;)

[MH]

From my point of view anyone who can get convicted of premeditated cold blood murder may deserve death penalty.
Issue should be the concept of cold blooded planed murder vs crime of heat of the moment ....and so on.
I think that law should put emphasis on those factors when considering death penalty where premeditation must be proven beyond the doubt.
Spending time in 2x2 cell rest of natural life in isolation is OK with me too.

The concept of returning criminals to society is very nice one but it should be reserved only for special cases.
Someone who thought out taking life and later regretted his action deserves nothing in my view.

[flatsixes]

very good, but don't you think it strange that given the topic your example of the "opposite" happens to be a place where they don't bother with the death penalty?
Hey finland is largely homogenous the second largest group of foriegners after the swedes are also foriegners, they can have a justice system without the problems from a melting pot society and the penalties that society needs to survive.
Perhaps you should compare Italy or France either for net migration or diversity to New York..or choose a place that uses the death penalty to make a comparison with Rome or Paris, you could try Houston for example, or Riyadh or Pyongyang...though I don't think Pyongyang has much net migration or diversity.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. Is it that Finland and New York are incomparable? No kidding. That why I used the absurdity of comparing the two. Too subtle?

[Tribesman]

I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue here. Is it that Finland and New York are incomparable? No kidding. That why I used the absurdity of comparing the two. Too subtle?
They are comparible in this topic, neither of them use the death penalty.

[Hottentot]

Given the overwhelming homogeneity of Finland's population, it's not surprising to see that of 85% of Finns who practice a religion, all but 3% practice Lutheranism.

I'm just going to have a say on that. 80 or so % of Finns might belong to the Lutheran church, that's a percentage the church itself loves to repeat all the time when arguing its necessity for the society. However, to belong to a church and practise a religion are two different things. Finns have even a word for such people, the so called "habit Christians" who belong to the church for reasons different than religion (church's services, the tradition, etc.)

Naturally this is no melting pot, never claimed it was. But we have our fair share of different views and cultural differences, which with the current policies are growing and also a topic of very heated debates at the moment as well.

Consequently, your society is sufficiently unique as to be a curious, but ineffectual example of global society. But as I said, I'm happy that you're happy.Which is why I provided the map, because I too understand this. I, naturally, discuss as a Finn and from a Finn's point of view. Again, never claimed otherwise, and never would try any other, hopefully no one either expects me to act as any other.

[flatsixes]

I'm just going to have a say on that. 80 or so % of Finns might belong to the Lutheran church, that's a percentage the church itself loves to repeat all the time when arguing its necessity for the society. However, to belong to a church and practise a religion are two different things. Finns have even a word for such people, the so called "habit Christians" who belong to the church for reasons different than religion (church's services, the tradition, etc.)

Naturally this is no melting pot, never claimed it was. But we have our fair share of different views and cultural differences, which with the current policies are growing and also a topic of very heated debates at the moment as well.

Which is why I provided the map, because I too understand this. I, naturally, discuss as a Finn and from a Finn's point of view. Again, never claimed otherwise, and never would try any other, hopefully no one either expects me to act as any other.

I appreciate your perspective. It's all good.

[Grayghost59]

The satisfaction I get in the death penalty being actually carried out is that no one else will ever have to suffer at the hands of that person again. People in prison kill people in prison if there is anyone who hasn't noticed. The death penalty insures, if carried out that the public is protected. You look at a dead child that suffered at the hands of a maniac and then tell me you would not want to insure that it never happens again. Before you say life in prison takes care of that, realize that everyone is someone's child. I ask who is more worthy of having their life taken the killer or the victim. In our family we were taught if you do the crime you are no better than anyone else to suffer the penalty for that crime. Would you say to someone who is coming into your home,"you poor unreformed fellow, let me get you some help as soon as your done or would you kill them before they killed your loved one. The death penalty is basically the same thing, it protects the people.

[mookiemookie]

The satisfaction I get in the death penalty being actually carried out is that no one else will ever have to suffer at the hands of that person again. If you get satisfaction from people being killed, I would seek professional help.

People in prison kill people in prison if there is anyone who hasn't noticed. What does that have to do with anything?

The death penalty insures, if carried out that the public is protected. You look at a dead child that suffered at the hands of a maniac and then tell me you would not want to insure that it never happens again. Life in prison ensures that. Before you say life in prison takes care of that, realize that everyone is someone's child. Uh, so? I ask who is more worthy of having their life taken the killer or the victim. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. In our family we were taught if you do the crime you are no better than anyone else to suffer the penalty for that crime. Irrelevant Would you say to someone who is coming into your home,"you poor unreformed fellow, let me get you some help as soon as your done or would you kill them before they killed your loved one. The death penalty is basically the same thing, it protects the people. Protection is life in prison without parole. Vengeance killing is still vengeance killing, regardless of the noble goals behind it, or the state sanctioned-ness of it.

[CaptainHaplo]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

No, it teaches people that there are equal repercussions to their wrong actions. It teaches personal responsibility.

Unfortunately, we don't livein a perfect world, so unpleasantness - like violence, murder, etc - exist. Thus we have a system that creates a reason for people not to commit such acts.

Of course - the issue of recevidism always comes up. Yet if "prison" wasn't 3 square meals a day, a nice warm bed, free medical care, cable tv, internet, gyms, etc - but was instead more miserable - with the old chain gangs, bread and water (supplemented to reach minimal nutritional standards), no tv etc - then it would be a lot more like a place a person wouldn't RISK going back to.....

[1480]

The criteria for capital punishment has been narrowed down by the courts when it was reinstated in the US. Felony murder cases are the only ones (beside federal) that are legal in this country. For all of you out there that uses cold blooded murder, heat of the moment BLAH, BLAH, BLAH circumstances, those do not fall into Felony murder parameters.

Felony murder occurs when one or both circumstances occur: 1. A murder occurs during the commission of a forcible felony. 2. More than one person was murdered.

A forcible felony means any treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement, and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual

Not like these choir boys are making a rash decision, a silly mistake, an error of judgment, an oops or a mulligan.

And strangely enough, the SCOTUS allows police officers to use deadly force to prevent the defeat of an arrest when it comes to forcible felonies.



to prevent an arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape (Use of Force to Prevent Escape (720 ILCS 5/7-9) X
A peace officer or other person who has an arrested person in custody is justified in the use of such force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody as he would be justified in using if he were arresting the person.)

and the sworn member reasonably believes that the person to be arrested:


a. has committed or has attempted to commit a forcible felony ( Forcible Felony (720 ILCS 5/2-8) X
A forcible felony means any treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement, and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.)

which involves the infliction, threatened infliction, or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or great bodily harm or;
b. is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or;
c. otherwise indicates that he or she will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.



So if it is legal and justified to use force that can cause death or great bodily harm to prevent escape, why is all the hating over the death penalty....

[Grayghost59]

Strain at a nat and swallow a camel, the stisfaction is in knowing that no one will ever be that person's victim again. I will never change your liberal mind and you sure as hell will never change mine.:damn:

[Tribesman]

Of course - the issue of recevidism always comes up. Yet if "prison" wasn't 3 square meals a day, a nice warm bed, free medical care, cable tv, internet, gyms, etc - but was instead more miserable - with the old chain gangs, bread and water (supplemented to reach minimal nutritional standards), no tv etc - then it would be a lot more like a place a person wouldn't RISK going back to.....
As came up during the Breivik atrocity, the "luxury" prisons some people were complaining about have a far far lower rate of re-offence.
Chain gangs and bread and gruel didn't work in the past and are unlikely to work any better now than they have ever done.

[1480]

As came up during the Breivik atrocity, the "luxury" prisons some people were complaining about have a far far lower rate of re-offence.
Chain gangs and bread and gruel didn't work in the past and are unlikely to work any better now than they have ever done.

Depends on what you consider the goal for a criminal justice system is. Some believe justice equals punishment, others believe its rehabilitation. Harsh treatment falls in the former camp.

No one has any fear anymore. Time outs, reasoning and withholding privileges are considered negative reinforcement? How is that working for us....:rotfl2:

[CaptainHaplo]

As came up during the Breivik atrocity, the "luxury" prisons some people were complaining about have a far far lower rate of re-offence.
Chain gangs and bread and gruel didn't work in the past and are unlikely to work any better now than they have ever done.

What area of the world are you talking about? Statistics regarding the US show your data is incorrect. Prisons in the US have grown more lax - yet recidivism has increased.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17

Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%.


Those are the latest number the BJS has published. From 83-94 there was a significant rise in recividism in the US under the study. In other countries the data may be different - but in the US - there it is.

[Tribesman]

What area of the world are you talking about?
The one with a "luxury" prison people were complaining about that a mass murderer might eventually have had a chance of getting sent to.

Statistics regarding the US show your data is incorrect
No they don't, unless you corelate all those figures with actual changes of regime in the prisons concerned to make a real link.
Besides which mid 80s to mid 90s most certainly doesn't cover a switch in regime as described

[CaptainHaplo]

Well considering you made a claim with no souces or proof.....

Its easy to claim things. Harder to prove them.

Can't speak for other countries - but the data shows returns to prison increased in the US - as shown by the data. You can try and twist that all you want - but you still have nothing but your "claim" to start with.

Not much reason to put faith in that......

[Hottentot]

Well considering you made a claim with no souces or proof.....

Its easy to claim things. Harder to prove them.

I think Tribesman is referring to this. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html) The prison in question of Breivik's case is also featured in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halden_Prison).

Edit to add: though with quick search I didn't find any specific results from Halden itself. All the sources just refer to the Norwegian justice and prison system, which may or may not be called "luxury prisons" depending on person.

[MH]

As came up during the Breivik atrocity, the "luxury" prisons some people were complaining about have a far far lower rate of re-offence.
Chain gangs and bread and gruel didn't work in the past and are unlikely to work any better now than they have ever done.

Interesting....i would check what type of criminals end up at those prisons.
in particular when they exist in line with old style prisons.

[Hottentot]

Interesting....i would check what type of criminals end up at those prisons.
in particular when they exist in line with old style prisons.

From the Time's article above:

Halden houses drug dealers, murderers and rapists, among others

[MH]

From the Time's article above:

Sorry i cant believe that pathological criminals can be rehabilitated in such a prison.
The authorities have to be careful in balancing the the population.

Its a good place for some lost souls who turned to violence because of some unfortunate life circumstances.:up:

[Hottentot]

Sorry i cant believe that pathological criminals can be rehabilitated in such a prison.

That remains to be seen, as Halden is still a new prison and apparently received attention mostly because it seems pretty extreme on most standards. Norway's prisons so far, however, appear to have worked well enough for their purposes.

But more than prisons and percentages of recidivisms in that article, I'd pay attention to the part of having 69 per 100,000 people in prison. That I find more impressive and interesting than any prison.

[MH]

But more than prisons and percentages of recidivisms in that article, I'd pay attention to the part of having 69 per 100,000 people in prison. That I find more impressive and interesting than any prison.

I did pay attention to that.:up:
I would not be surprised if its due to social and cultural homogeneity combined with liberal social democratic system.

[Hottentot]

I would not be surprised if its due to social and cultural homogeneity combined with liberal social democratic system.

We could make an entire topic out of that, but you are most likely right. It's combination of both good starting position and good politics.

[Tribesman]

Well considering you made a claim with no souces or proof.....

What was the claim?

Its easy to claim things. Harder to prove them.

Indeed, and as your proof provides no corelation with actual changes in the specific prisons regime or a timeframe for any changes it doesn't prove anything apart from the existance of a simple increase over a relatively short period.

You can try and twist that all you want
No need to twist anything, just take it for what it is..... Figures on one element of an equation.

Not much reason to put faith in that......
Yet you have failed to deal with it.


But more than prisons and percentages of recidivisms in that article, I'd pay attention to the part of having 69 per 100,000 people in prison.
One interesting angle as it mentions the US and UK there would be the British problem of recdivism(and levels of incarceration).
You could go for a specific period where there was a marked regime change, say for example the late 70s early 80s short sharp shock attempt at preventing repeat offences(which was itself a re-run of an effort from the 1820s where prisons were far too pleasant for the inmates due to bleeding heart liberals:03:).

[1480]

If you want deterrence to work, make the punishment as inhumane as possible. Make it public. Pay per view. Get some of our state governments become more fiscally stable. It's a win win as far as I can see. Once a dirtbag exhausts all of their remedies of appeal, bring out four draft horses and four ropes. I'll bring the popcorn. :O:

[Tribesman]

If you want deterrence to work, make the punishment as inhumane as possible.
Yes it worked so well in the past:doh:

It's a win win as far as I can see
Yes, its a win win if you are quite blind.

[mookiemookie]

It's sad to see a society pride itself on its bloodthirstiness.