Capital Punishment

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
But I don't think that just because you're poor or a minority that you should be afforded special privileges. If you did something to warrant the death penalty, you should pay the price. Just because you're poor or a minority doesn't mean you aren't dangerous. I'm poor, AND I'm a minority (I'm a po' female native American). Just because so-and-so had a good lawyer who got him off doesn't change the fact that YOU'RE guilty. We shouldn't let one murderer go free just because we didn't get a conviction on another...

Everyone should have the right to an attorney that will be truly involved in their case, that will truly fight for their client, rather than that client being just another file folder in a drawer. I don't think it's an issue of special privileges.

I believe we need to take a more comprehensive look at why the poor and minorities are targets of the death penalty. However, that is not going to be easy...there are a lot of issues involved (social, economic, behavioral, etc.).

[Troubleshooter]

My turn...

Ok, defining whether capital punishment works or not requires defining your goals.

For myself, capital punisment should serve two purposes.

1) Prevention

Well, to be sure, death is rather likely to prevent recidivism.

2) Deterrence

Here is where we run into the problem. To be a true deterrent, any punishment must not only be noted for its certainty, but also for its severity. Well, we're sure of the seveity, but the certainty of it has been in question for quite a while now.

Everyone is familiar with the term "deadline," but most people aren't familiar with where it came from. Back in the day, prisons didn't have walls, just a line on the ground. If you crossed the line, you died. When people began to doubt that, prisons got walls.

Now a question on my part:

What numbers are that statement about it being cheaper to keep them than to kill them based on?

As to innocent people being executed:

It's going to happen, no matter how good the system would ever become. It can be improved and any case without ironclad evidence such as video, or DNA or anything similiar would raise the question of whether death is an option.

Life sentences should exclude cable, conjugal visits, cigarettes, weights, and just about any other commodity that is, in many cases, denied our service members.

On the other side of the coin, I'm against many of the restrictions that are placed on people that have paid their price under the present system. Either their price has been paid or change the way the system classifies them.

[Lady Sidhe]

I think that someone fighting for their lives should be able to exhaust all avenues, as well. And they can. That isn't an issue. The accused and the convicted are afforded every avenue possible to get a sentence reheard, reduced, overturned, commuted, or pardoned.

No, you CAN'T bring a victim back. That's one reason we should keep the death penalty. Murder doesn't just take away one life. Think of all the lives it traumatizes irrevocably: family and friends, the society at large who lose their sense of safety...It isn't just one person who is affected. The murderer or rapist or whatever, affects society as a whole by his/her predatory actions.

And yes, I do believe in rehabilitation. There are behaviors that can be rehabilitated, and I think that those who can benefit from such rehabilitative programs should be offered them. Like the idea I mentioned about education. But there are also those whom it has been shown by a preponderance of research cannot be rehabilitated, such as sex offenders, which includes sexual murderers.

As to public humiliation, I don't see the problem with it. I don't see why it should violate anything. It's not a violent form of punishment, it's merely exposure to public censure, which can be a great motivator, and it may be traumatic enough so that it prevents further criminal acts.

I mean, we have to do something. What's wrong with public humiliation? S/he might be embarrassed?? Oh, poor baby! We already put names in the paper when someone is arrested or convicted of a crime. It's public knowledge anyway. It's not like people don't already KNOW. Which would be worse, stocks, or risking becoming Bubba's girlfriend during a prison term? Personally, I'd take the stocks.

We've become way too soft on crime. The justice system bends over backwards to protect the accused and the convicted. When is someone considered guilty, if there's always the remote possibility that they MAY be innocent? How much proof is enough to make it ok to mete out an appropriate punishment? If you have five eyewitnesses that say John Doe raped and murdered Jane Smith and her kid, and DNA evidence is found to substantiate that John Doe raped and murdered these people, is that enough, or do we question the motivation of the eyewitnesses, and/or their veracity? Do we say the DNA evidence is flawed or planted? If we believe the evidence, and John Doe is convicted, should we worry about whether or not we hurt his feelings by punishing him severely? How many more people would be raped and killed if we let him out?

I'm not a rabid "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" type. I just believe that there comes a point at which we have to start making it clear that predatory behavior will be dealt with severely. Society's safety should come before a convicted predator's feelings.

I like the Governor in Arizona who put the prisoners in tents. He said that if it was good enough for the soldiers in Desert Storm, it was good enough for them. I agree. Not having all their privileges didn't kill them. They were fed, watered, clothed and sheltered. That's all they are entitled to.


Sidhe

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
As to public humiliation, I don't see the problem with it. I don't see why it should violate anything. It's not a violent form of punishment, it's merely exposure to public censure, which can be a great motivator, and it may be traumatic enough so that it prevents further criminal acts.

Reminds me of a story I heard. There was a town out west that had a channel that broadcast the names and faces of people caught either picking up prostitutes or being picked up as prostitutes. They had to quit because the prostitutes were benefitting from the advertisement...

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by sycamore


Everyone should have the right to an attorney that will be truly involved in their case, that will truly fight for their client, rather than that client being just another file folder in a drawer. I don't think it's an issue of special privileges.

I agree with that. I didn't say that an attorney who gave a shit was a privilege. I said that it was true that someone with money, innocent or guilty, WAS more likely to get off than a poor person who got a PD who didn't care. I also said that I don't think that just because one guilty person got off because he had a good lawyer is a reason to let another guilty person get off just because he's poor or a minority. If he did it, his race or monetary status doesn't change the fact that he's guilty, and he should have to pay for what he did. Two wrongs don't make it right (god, I hate using truisms, even if they apply).

Maybe we ought to have defense attorneys who are randomly assigned to capital cases. You can't hire an outside attorney to defend you--they would be provided by the state. They work for the state, defending people accused of capital crimes, and that's it. that's their only job, they get a flat yearly paycheck, and they can't take outside cases. Then that would make things more even and fair insofar as the accused getting a fair shot. The attorney wouldn't know whether the client was rich or poor, or it wouldn't matter, because he was being paid by the state, not the client. But that's probably too much to ask for, huh?

Sidhe

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I think that someone fighting for their lives should be able to exhaust all avenues, as well. And they can. That isn't an issue. The accused and the convicted are afforded every avenue possible to get a sentence reheard, reduced, overturned, commuted, or pardoned.

Your previous posts made appeals sound like they are a bad thing.

Think of all the lives it traumatizes irrevocably: family and friends, the society at large who lose their sense of safety...It isn't just one person who is affected. The murderer or rapist or whatever, affects society as a whole by his/her predatory actions.

So we should add insult to injury by killing someone and further damaging that person's family?

But there are also those whom it has been shown by a preponderance of research cannot be rehabilitated, such as sex offenders, which includes sexual murderers.

I'd like to see those sources. I am aware that there are many who cannot be rehabilitated, but no two offenders are alike.

As to public humiliation, I don't see the problem with it. I don't see why it should violate anything. It's not a violent form of punishment, it's merely exposure to public censure, which can be a great motivator, and it may be traumatic enough so that it prevents further criminal acts.

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

As I see it, in today's society, forced public humiliation is unusual and has been for many years. Therefore, it is a violation of the 8th Amendment.

We've become way too soft on crime.

Violent crime dropped in the 90s, finally bottoming out in '02. More people are in prison than ever before. We're giving pot dealers life sentences in prison. Texas is executing a mentally ill man on Thursday. The Supreme Court is going to review the juvenile death penalty in the fall. Lee Boyd Malvo was tried in Virginia first, in hopes of getting a death penalty conviction.

Soft on crime? I think not.

[Lady Sidhe]

I don't think appeals are a bad thing. I think fifteen years' worth of appeals is a bad thing.


" quote:But there are also those whom it has been shown by a preponderance of research cannot be rehabilitated, such as sex offenders, which includes sexual murderers.



I'd like to see those sources. I am aware that there are many who cannot be rehabilitated, but no two offenders are alike."


Ok, I'll look up the research for you and post it.



"quote:As to public humiliation, I don't see the problem with it. I don't see why it should violate anything. It's not a violent form of punishment, it's merely exposure to public censure, which can be a great motivator, and it may be traumatic enough so that it prevents further criminal acts.



Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

As I see it, in today's society, forced public humiliation is unusual and has been for many years. Therefore, it is a violation of the 8th Amendment."

So what's cruel and unusual? Being embarassed in public? What's the difference between that and having your name in the paper, your picture on tv or in the paper? Isn't punishment supposed to deter crime? Public humiliation isn't cruel and unusual. Torturing someone to death is cruel and unusual. Denying someone food and water for a week is cruel and unusual. Playing polka music full-blast at 3am in the morning is cruel and unusual I think we need to redefine the meaning of the term to not be so warm and fuzzy.

"quote:We've become way too soft on crime.



Violent crime dropped in the 90s, finally bottoming out in '02. More people are in prison than ever before. We're giving pot dealers life sentences in prison. Texas is executing a mentally ill man on Thursday. The Supreme Court is going to review the juvenile death penalty in the fall. Lee Boyd Malvo was tried in Virginia first, in hopes of getting a death penalty conviction.

Soft on crime? I think not."


Those are good starts, but they're only a few examples. Now I don't think pot dealers should get life sentences. That's a clear example of the punishment exceeding the crime, considering that weed is less harmful to the body than alcohol; I think people who sell heroin on playgrounds should get life sentences, maybe, but not pot dealers...And Lee Malvo deserves what he gets. He helped execute people for fun. He put people in fear because they never knew where the shots would come from next. Now he's trying to blame it on the Matrix? Gimme a break....

Sidhe