Death Penalty

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

It's interesting how you expect folks here to answer your questions, but you very rarely answer theirs.

Are you unfamiliar with the definition of the word interesting or did you just misspell boring?

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Are you unfamiliar with the definition of the word interesting or did you just misspell boring?

Heh, heh, heh. I plead the fifth!

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

It's interesting how you expect folks here to answer your questions, but you very rarely ever answer theirs.

It's one of the classic techniques of someone who doesn't want to have to defend their position, along with reversal of the burden of proof, which is what Warp12 has been doing throughout this thread. The question s/he has carefully avoided answering, for the most part, is:

Why should we kill murderers?

It's a fair question; the null hypothesis would be that there is no particular reason to kill murderers. Arguing against the null hypothesis would require an explanation of why killing murderers is superior to any other action that might be taken, on whatever grounds the arguer chooses. Warp12 has skipped this step and progressed to Just Asking Questions, a classic way of evading the argument.

Since I've presented my arguments against the death penalty quite clearly, I'm not going to bother discussing them until Warp12 advances some in its favour. If s/he doesn't, I'll assume that constitutes a concession that s/he doesn't have any good enough to offer.

Dave

[Thermal]

The whole question boils down to what the point is of punishing, right? Is it to keep society safe from predators, or to get even, or what?

Regarding execution being "more expensive" than life incarceration, disagreed. It is very artificially made to be more expensive. The cost could be knocked down to the $100 range with the simple dropping of pretense.

Warp asks if we are "okay with" a Gacy or Dahmer passing on a bit earlier than nature intended. Pretty sure we all are. But the question is whether we should be the ones bringing about that passing. Because of the inevitable eventual wrong verdict, we really shouldn't. It's more than a little barbaric to say "yeah, I'm ok with the occasional innocent being killed by the State as long as we can watch some guilty ones take a bullet". If we are all about Justice, that includes protecting against bad sentencing, which we can't possibly do if we kill the mother ****** in a fit of bloodlust.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Regarding execution being "more expensive" than life incarceration, disagreed. It is very artificially made to be more expensive. The cost could be knocked down to the $100 range with the simple dropping of pretense.

The links posted earlier don't support that assertion. The main cause of extra costs with execution appears to be the more complicated legal safeguards that have to be put in place to try to make absolutely certain that no innocent person is ever executed. The only 'pretense' that would have to be dropped, I think, is that it's never OK to execute the wrong person.

Dave

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The links posted earlier don't support that assertion. The main cause of extra costs with execution appears to be the more complicated legal safeguards that have to be put in place to try to make absolutely certain that no innocent person is ever executed. The only 'pretense' that would have to be dropped, I think, is that it's never OK to execute the wrong person.

Dave

That is what I mean by artificial expense. Bin Laden and Hussein's executions were not encumbered by such safeguarda, for instance. A Gacy or Dahmer probably don't need convoluted excersises in jurisprudence. There is a certain tier of guilt where you no longer need the tap dance of "just double checking" for 25 years. Determining just where that line is, compared to "beyond reasonable doubt" is the trouble area.

[Chris_Halkides]

"For every nine people executed, one person on death row has been exonerated." link. Some have come within days of being executed prior to their exoneration.

Once AEDPA became law circa 1996, it became much harder to appeal. "We have examined the published results on appeal of all federal habeas corpus applications filed by all death row inmates between 2000 and 2006, inclusive. The data can be summarized simply: whereas prior to AEDPA deathrow inmates prevailed somewhere between half and two-thirds of the time, they now prevail, nationwide, approximately 12 percent of the time. Further, the success rate, in most jurisdictions, appears to be declining."

[casebro]

11 executions took place in 2021.

Sorry, I just can't get worked up over the the chances of an innocent person dieing a few years early, out of 350,000,000.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by casebro

11 executions took place in 2021.

Sorry, I just can't get worked up over the the chances of an innocent person dieing a few years early, out of 350,000,000.

Bet you would if it was you or someone you love.

And it's not dying; it is being meticulously, deliberately killed by the State. Makes tax time extra fun, giving them the money that was used to wrongfully whack your loved one.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by Thermal

That is what I mean by artificial expense. Bin Laden and Hussein's executions were not encumbered by such safeguarda, for instance. A Gacy or Dahmer probably don't need convoluted excersises in jurisprudence. There is a certain tier of guilt where you no longer need the tap dance of "just double checking" for 25 years. Determining just where that line is, compared to "beyond reasonable doubt" is the trouble area.

We will need to "double check" whether someone really is over that line. You know, allow them to appeal that verdict and ... Aw, crap!

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by casebro

11 executions took place in 2021.

Sorry, I just can't get worked up over the the chances of an innocent person dieing a few years early, out of 350,000,000.

And yet, somehow I expect that you would be quite worked up if you were going to be a person who was about to be wrongly executed.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

I'm not a believer in organized religion, but I thought Jesus was a pretty cool dude.

At least the people who wrote some of the stories about him had some pretty good ideas. /off topic.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It's one of the classic techniques of someone who doesn't want to have to defend their position, along with reversal of the burden of proof, which is what Warp12 has been doing throughout this thread. The question s/he has carefully avoided answering, for the most part, is:

Why should we kill murderers?

It's a fair question; the null hypothesis would be that there is no particular reason to kill murderers. Arguing against the null hypothesis would require an explanation of why killing murderers is superior to any other action that might be taken, on whatever grounds the arguer chooses. Warp12 has skipped this step and progressed to Just Asking Questions, a classic way of evading the argument.

Since I've presented my arguments against the death penalty quite clearly, I'm not going to bother discussing them until Warp12 advances some in its favour. If s/he doesn't, I'll assume that constitutes a concession that s/he doesn't have any good enough to offer.

Dave

I think you have missed the point. As I stated earlier, my question about Gacy was so I could determine where people stand. If someone is against his execution, as numerous people stated, there is no point in further discussion. It's an example of a clear-cut, mass murder of a very heinous nature. If you are not an advocate for his execution, there is no point in debate.

I am not interested in explaining why Gacy warranted his punishment, and why it should have been carried out more quickly. If someone doesn't get that now, they never will. I also mentioned that revamping the way death penalty cases are processed, and what warrants the charge, could help make the system be more just and efficient/cost effective.

You see, what really drives this debate is that people are struggling with the ethics. That is why you get all the bitching and moaning about fairness and cost, and the process...but you don't hear these same people really rallying for death penalty law reform. They are hung up on abolition, no matter what.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I think you have missed the point. As I stated earlier, my question about Gacy was so I could determine where people stand. If someone is against his execution, as numerous people stated, there is no point in further discussion. It's an example of a clear-cut, mass murder of a very heinous nature. If you are not an advocate for his execution, there is no point in debate.

I am not interested in explaining why Gacy warranted his punishment, and why it should have been carried out more quickly. If someone doesn't get that now, they never will. I also mentioned that revamping the way death penalty cases are processed, and what warrants the charge, could help make the system be more just and efficient/cost effective.

You see, what really drives this debate is that people are struggling with the ethics. That is why you get all the bitching and moaning about fairness and cost, and the process...but you don't hear these same people really rallying for death penalty law reform. They are hung up on abolition, no matter what.

Then why should we answer your questions?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I think you have missed the point. As I stated earlier, my question about Gacy was so I could determine where people stand. If someone is against his execution, as numerous people stated, there is no point in further discussion. It's an example of a clear-cut, mass murder of a very heinous nature. If you are not an advocate for his execution, there is no point in debate.
.....

It's dishonest to point to one case and say "This is why we need the death penalty." It's astonishing to me that people who consider themselves small government (or downright anti-government) conservatives want the government to be able to kill people. Most Western democracies seem to function quite well without that practice. But it's real popular in places like China. The fact is that most death penalty cases are nowhere near as heinous as Gacy. There are numerous cases of multiple defendants in the same crime getting disparate penalties as much by whim as anything else.

And of course the strongest argument against the death penalty is that sometimes the system makes mistakes. Almost 200 people sentenced to death have subsequently been proven innocent. There is no doubt that innocent people have been executed. How many innocent people would you fry to kill a guilty one?
https://innocenceproject.org/nationa...-are-innocent/
https://healthresearchfunding.org/31...ty-statistics/
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence

Life in a cage -- maybe for 50 years or more -- should be plenty of punishment for anybody. You can't support the death penalty without claiming that the system that administers it is absolutely perfect. And it's not.

Here's a more typical case. You think she should die? And don't say "If she did it." The point is that we can't know.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...cio-death-row/
https://innocenceproject.org/new-fil...ate-withdrawn/

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Bob001

You can't support the death penalty without claiming that the system that administers it is absolutely perfect.

This is obviously and demonstrably false.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This is obviously and demonstrably false.

You're right. I should have said "You can't rationally support..." Nobody has to be rational.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Bob001

You can't support the death penalty without claiming that the system that administers it is absolutely perfect.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This is obviously and demonstrably false.

What's false?

Are you saying you can support the DP even though it's not perfectly administered?

Sorry, but all those double negatives are confusing.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Bob001

You're right. I should have said "You can't rationally support..." Nobody has to be rational.

Thank you

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Bob001

You're right. I should have said "You can't rationally support..." Nobody has to be rational.

What do you mean by "rationally support" here? Are you imagine arguing from universal moral truths?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Thermal

That is what I mean by artificial expense. Bin Laden and Hussein's executions were not encumbered by such safeguarda, for instance. A Gacy or Dahmer probably don't need convoluted excersises in jurisprudence. There is a certain tier of guilt where you no longer need the tap dance of "just double checking" for 25 years. Determining just where that line is, compared to "beyond reasonable doubt" is the trouble area.

It is not just legalese gobbledygook that separates one case from another. If you decide the state has the power to kill in very limited circumstances then it is incumbent on the state to only use that power where it can prove that it has met those circumstances and the defendant must be given every reasonable opportunity to show that the state has not met that burden.

If the rules are written such that only Gacy would fall under them, then what’s the point. He’s already dead. The rules will by necessity be broader than that. So, how broad? And what falls within that now broadened definition and what exceptions would that broadened definition require.

The only way to avoid this quagmire is to not give the state the power of execution.

Until someone explains to me why we need to execute I don’t see how it can be a net benefit.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

Heh, heh, heh. I plead the fifth!

That probably means you’re guilty. Or so I’ve heard.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by casebro

11 executions took place in 2021.

Sorry, I just can't get worked up over the the chances of an innocent person dieing a few years early, out of 350,000,000.

Turn that argument around. Why execute anybody if they're gonna die soon enough anyway?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am not interested in explaining why Gacy warranted his punishment, and why it should have been carried out more quickly. If someone doesn't get that now, they never will.

Your concession that you are unable to argue your case is duly noted.

Dave

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

That probably means you’re guilty. Or so I’ve heard.

That's one way of looking at it

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

It is not just legalese gobbledygook that separates one case from another. If you decide the state has the power to kill in very limited circumstances then it is incumbent on the state to only use that power where it can prove that it has met those circumstances and the defendant must be given every reasonable opportunity to show that the state has not met that burden.

If the rules are written such that only Gacy would fall under them, then what’s the point. He’s already dead. The rules will by necessity be broader than that. So, how broad? And what falls within that now broadened definition and what exceptions would that broadened definition require.

The only way to avoid this quagmire is to not give the state the power of execution.

Until someone explains to me why we need to execute I don’t see how it can be a net benefit.

Bin Laden was executed without trial. The State gave themselves power of summary execution (yeah, foreign soil and all but you get the point). Was that ok?

I think some extremities can be justified without going anywhere near The Line. Some criminals don't deserve the luxury of three hots and a cot for the balance of their days.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Your concession that you are unable to argue your case is duly noted.

Dave

I call it the Tucker Carlson technique.

Carlson bases most of his ridiculous statements as him just asking questions, but won't answer any put to him, because I suspect he's afraid his answers will make him look as ridiculous as he's trying to make dems look.

When I first came back to the forum last year, I actually sympathized with Warp12, especially the way folks here were attacking him, but now...

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

I certainly didn't cry over it.

Now, let me ask you a question. Gary Ridgway was able to avoid the death penalty because he agreed to help give closure to the families of those he killed. I personally wished he had been strangled to death, but I can understand the reason he was able to avoid it.

What do you think about that?

By the way, he can still get the DP if he's proven guilty of other murders outside of King County.

There's that word.

It almost seems to be accepted as a given that closure will be be the result when the perp gets the rope, the gas, the seat in sparky, or the jab. The closure may be even better if the ones seeking it get to witness the execution.

I wonder how we can measure the effectiveness of closure and has any study been done on it?

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Bob001

....You can't support the death penalty without claiming that the system that administers it is absolutely perfect. And it's not.

...

I'd say 11 possibilities per year out of 340,000,000 is close enough to perfect for me. Anybody who doesn't think so is statistically challenged. Or an idealist with his head in a very dark place.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

There's that word.

It almost seems to be accepted as a given that closure will be be the result when the perp gets the rope, the gas, the seat in sparky, or the jab. The closure may be even better if the ones seeking it get to witness the execution.

I wonder how we can measure the effectiveness of closure and has any study been done on it?

I don't know about getting closure from watching someone get executed, but I believe knowing what happened to a loved one (in Gary Ridgway's case) is better than never knowing.

Personally, rather than execute him (like I stated in a later post), I'd rather have him shackled naked to a wall with the loved ones of his victims being able to whack him in the nuts with a lead pipe, and maybe that might make them feel better, but that's just me.

Your mileage may differ from mine.

ETA:

Quote:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ctims-families

Death Penalty May Not Bring Peace to Victims' Families

The long process of capital punishment can prolong grief for a victim's family.

(SNIP)

Their study showed that only 2.5 percent achieved true closure, and 20.1 percent said that the execution did not help them heal. Co-victims in the study also expressed feelings of emptiness when the death penalty did not “bring back the victim.”

(SNIP)

[shuttlt]

Does that study claim that 79.9% of victims families report some measure of closure following the execution? That seems pretty good.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Life in a cage -- maybe for 50 years or more -- should be plenty of punishment for anybody. You can't support the death penalty without claiming that the system that administers it is absolutely perfect. And it's not.

Here's a more typical case. You think she should die? And don't say "If she did it." The point is that we can't know.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...cio-death-row/
https://innocenceproject.org/new-fil...ate-withdrawn/

You see, here we are...exactly where I expected we would wind up. You mention the Gacy case as being an unfair example, but at the same time I don't hear you endorsing his execution.

The whole, "the system isn't perfect, so we should limit the punishment" argument is a pretty weak one. I mean look at your words above about "50 years in a cage, or more". So, you figure that is ok for an innocent? The goal of the system should be to properly convict, not to hedge your bets when you do.

The link you gave doesn't touch me, at all. Most who are on death row will claim innocence. However, I have already mentioned (repeatedly) the idea of reform regarding the death penalty. Things such as further refining the cases in which it is called for, procedural review, etc...but, nobody seems to care about that. They seem to be entirely focused on abolition. And that, to me, is where it shows that it is more of an ethical matter. And that debate is endless.

Let me ask you this, Bob. In the case you linked, what if we have the woman beating the child to death, on camera. She then looks at the camera, smiles, and says, "I killed this kid intentionally, and I planned it for weeks". Would that be adequate for you to endorse her execution?

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Does that study claim that 79.9% of victims families report some measure of closure following the execution? That seems pretty good.

That would be my guess, but what does "some measure" even mean?

Are they happy that they're dead or is it like watching a movie and the bad guy or gal gets whacked with one quick shot to the head or would they rather have their loved ones back?

Personally, I'd rather see the ***hole suffer.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Was somewhat surprised to find no reference to this on this forum when I did a search.

Given that a high percentage of posters here are from the US of A, and this being the last developed Western country retaining the death penalty in many states, I would like to hear their opinions.

Mind you I suspect that most here, being probably brighter that the average Joe Blogs on the street, would be anti the death penalty.

I'm pro death penalty. Pre meditated murder deserves the death penalty. The man who killed Polly Klaus and his ilk deserve the death penalty. Horrible people deserve drastic unpleasant fates.

My motive is not revenge but to relieve the world of a totally worthless and obnoxious person from troubling decent people ever again. Nobody is completely safe as long as a merciless murdering felon is still alive.

So am I intelligent? I graduated with difficulty from a mediocre University and worked for an Insurance company till I retired for a mediocre salary. I'm mediocre at best but I do have the redeeming quality of working to earn my way in life.

The question is often asked of people who believe in the death penalty if you had to pull the switch yourself. The answer is yes as long as there was no reasonable doubt as to the murderers guilt.

Georgia death penalty has a stipulation that the murder has to be done under aggravating circumstances and I agree with that. People sometimes fight and sometimes they get angry and kill their opponent. Abused house wives and sometimes abused children kill their abusers. I would not pull the switch on such a person nor would I give them an exorbitant amount of time. Some time yes but not a lot of time.

To me the guy who kidnapped, sexually molested Polly Klaus is in a category by himself. Get rid of that animal. Its not necessary to torture him but him and his ilk need to be eliminated.

Waiting to be condemned.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

That would be my guess, but what does "some measure" even mean?

Are they happy that they're dead or is it like watching a movie and the bad guy or gal gets whacked with one quick shot to the head or would they rather have their loved ones back?

Personally, I'd rather see the ***hole suffer.

I'm not sure that one can know this in the hypothetical.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You see, here we are...exactly where I expected we would wind up. You mention the Gacy case as being an unfair example, but at the same time I don't hear you endorsing his execution.

The whole, "the system isn't perfect, so we should limit the punishment" argument is a pretty weak one. I mean look at your words above about "50 years in a cage, or more". So, you figure that is ok for an innocent? The goal of the system should be to properly convict, not to hedge your bets when you do.

The link you gave doesn't touch me, at all. Most who are on death row will claim innocence. However, I have already mentioned (repeatedly) the idea of reform regarding the death penalty. Things such as further refining the cases in which it is called for, procedural review, etc...but, nobody seems to care about that. They seem to be entirely focused on abolition. And that, to me, is where it shows that it is more of an ethical matter. And that debate is endless.

Let me ask you this, Bob. In the case you linked, what if we have the woman beating the child to death, on camera. She then looks at the camera, smiles, and says, "I killed this kid intentionally, and I planned it for weeks". Would that be adequate for you to endorse her execution?

Don't answer him, Bob, until Warp12 answers your question:

"You think she should die?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...cio-death-row/

And here's another one:

Do you like it when people are killed by the government, or maybe you enjoy t*** kitties and puppies?

You won't answer, of course, but I think it's obvious anyway, so don't even bother.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Waiting to be condemned.

Not by me. I may disagree, but I respect the intellectual honesty of someone who states their position instead of JAQing off.

Dave

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I'm not sure that one can know this in the hypothetical.

or (I suspect) even IRL.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I'm pro death penalty. Pre meditated murder deserves the death penalty. The man who killed Polly Klaus and his ilk deserve the death penalty. Horrible people deserve drastic unpleasant fates.

My motive is not revenge but to relieve the world of a totally worthless and obnoxious person from troubling decent people ever again. Nobody is completely safe as long as a merciless murdering felon is still alive.

So am I intelligent? I graduated with difficulty from a mediocre University and worked for an Insurance company till I retired for a mediocre salary. I'm mediocre at best but I do have the redeeming quality of working to earn my way in life.

The question is often asked of people who believe in the death penalty if you had to pull the switch yourself. The answer is yes as long as there was no reasonable doubt as to the murderers guilt.

Georgia death penalty has a stipulation that the murder has to be done under aggravating circumstances and I agree with that. People sometimes fight and sometimes they get angry and kill their opponent. Abused house wives and sometimes abused children kill their abusers. I would not pull the switch on such a person nor would I give them an exorbitant amount of time. Some time yes but not a lot of time.

To me the guy who kidnapped, sexually molested Polly Klaus is in a category by himself. Get rid of that animal. Its not necessary to torture him but him and his ilk need to be eliminated.

Waiting to be condemned.

I mostly agree, but what criteria do you use to establish it really is beyond reasonable doubt?

I think the closest we can come is with cases like Gary Ridgway who knew where all the bodies were buried.

Personally, I'd rather see him suffer, but I do get the reason he got LWOP.

Can you imagine having someone you love disappear and never knowing what happened to them?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

or (I suspect) even IRL.

I'm not sure that that suspicion is worth much. Before I had kids, I didn't really know what it was like to have kids. It surprised me how my reactions changed to news stories where children came to harm. Similarly I didn't really know how I would feel when my father died until it happened. One can reason about "what it must be like", but we don't really know until it happens. Same here.