Death Penalty Split from Death of Prof thread

[MKSheppard]

As long as we're on the subject of naive perfect worlds, I'm also in favour of perfectly fair taxation, completely just laws, world peace, and everyone having great sex with good-looking partners.

How about we just limit the death penalty to cases where the
evidence is so damned overwhelming the guy's 99.999
convicted anyway?

[The Yosemite Bear]

It hardly works since most cases that are solved are done so fairly quickly, based on eye witnesses (very unstable), and possibly cooerced confessions. If watching Cold case files, even DNA and everything else usually doesn't help the police in their investigation. It's tricking the dumb scumbucket into contridicting himself/confessing.

[Darth Wong]

As long as we're on the subject of naive perfect worlds, I'm also in favour of perfectly fair taxation, completely just laws, world peace, and everyone having great sex with good-looking partners.

How about we just limit the death penalty to cases where the evidence is so damned overwhelming the guy's 99.999 convicted anyway?

I'm somewhat ambivalent on the death penalty. Both sides make pretty good arguments (it doesn't seem to reduce violent crime, but it does sometimes assuage the victims' families' grief and give them a sense of closure, which is important). The fear of executing the innocent is a serious concern, but then again, so is the fear of releasing a murderer into the public where he might kill again.

Certain kinds of evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, are almost worthless because they've been so adulterated and are limited by human frailties. That doesn't help.

I do know that I can think of a few people who I would execute without a second thought ...

[The Yosemite Bear]

Basically all police work comes down too Focard's principal, and the fictional detectives of Arthur Cohen Doyle, and Tolstoy. It's figuing out what the man left behind, and how it reveals about him, eliminating a large quanity of evidence and waiting for the person to make a mistatement. It can be done properly, but there is not sure fire way to tell who someone really is.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Definatly and they are always brought up in debates like this.

I think I am going to split this OK DW?

[InnerBrat]

I would just like to clarify what Colin and Mike have been saying (sorry if I'm being dumb blonde here)

Are you guys saying that the reason DNA evidence cannot conclusively proove guilt is because of the testing methods, or because there's other ways that that DNA could come to be where it was found?

In other words, if your DNA tested positive against a sample, would you argue that it's not yours, or that it is yours, but has nothing to do with the crime?

[The Yosemite Bear]

I said that the major factors of collecting the evidence are

1. Quanity of Sample
2. Purity of Sample (what other chemicals are present, since household bleach will destroy cells making DNA recovery almost impossible)
3. Chain of evidence in the handling of the samples

Primarily in rape cases you have enough material to get a damning gentic finger print. In rape/homicides you have a simular amount of gentic information. Now in most homicides the possession of a fire arm or other weapon gives the killer andvantages against forensic deduction. You have to reley on TRACE amounts of gentic information. So unless you find a hammer or Knife with blood soaked into the fibers/woods of a weapon, or into the fiber's of the suspect's clothing, very little of the killer's gentic material will be harvested. Since skin and hair is already dead, the most you can really get in most cases is a partail match. Strangely Saliva aseems to be teaming with the stuff and while an antibiotic, it tends to preserve DNA. They can harvest a partial sample over 20 years later from siliva.

Bone Marrow is also a good source for genetic info, Beople have been able to exclude the two corpses in Boliva from being Butch Cassidy, due to the fact that neither body possess any of the gentic tailings of his sister's decendants. Simular feats were done with Jesse James remains, these people had been dead for almost a century or longer when they were exhumed.

So far the majority of the use of gentic information has been to exclude rather then find suspects. Example berry Shrek and project innocence confirming that a number of well publicized false convictions were not correct as the person did not posses certian Matriarical bands that the perpetrator did. DNA by it's self is not a smoking gun. Other forms of circumstantial evidence needs to be used. To date it's more easy to use DNA to eliminate suspects (Thus we know that our Chief Zodiac, and East Bay Rapist/Original Night Stalker serial killers are not our prime suspects for the crimes. We have yet to use DNA ALONE to find/convict a murderer.)

Unfortuantly we also now know that Psychopath Albert DeSalvo was not the killer in at least 2 of the Boston Strangler Rape/Murders (although he did confess to all of them, some people think he was just the world's biggest "Attention Whore")

[Pu-239]

By committing suicide, she escaped her punishment. Justice was not done. The only honorable course to take was for her to accept her life sentence and serve it until she died of old age.

Only if you think a life sentence is fitting for a crime like that. I don't. I think letting such a person live is a travesty, and I'm quite pleased that she killed herself rather than receive an insufficient punishment for her crime.

So instead of decades of degredation and humiliation, she suffers a few minutes of discomfort, faints, and then suffocates to death? How do you figure the latter is more punishment than the former?

Agreed. Death in my opinion is preferable to lifetime inprisonment.

[Alyeska]

That has never been proven after a person has been executed (at least after 1918 IIRC--nearly a century), proving that the appeals process serves entirely its point and purpose in weeding out false convictions.

Sure..... If we've got so many people innocent that are on death row and convicted don't you think it's obvious some have been wrongly executed? The fact no one has bothered to overturn convictions is because they're kind of dead.

Not to mention that states routinely destroy the DNA evidence after the execution and in some cases refuse to allow the evidence to be examined.

Oh, it gets better then that. Some states have laws on the books that make determining the guilt or innocence of already executed people a crime. The only purpose for these laws it to prevent the state from being nailed for wrongful executions.

[Alyeska]

The fact that there are people that have gone through the system and been found innocent later proves that it doesn't work right all the time.

Maybe you'd have a point if LIFE really fucking meant LIFE...

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/gatesbill.htm

Sentenced to life in California for second degree robbery and assault on a peace officer. Sentenced life (to run concurrent) again for possession of a weapon by a prisoner. Released on parole after serving approximately 6 years.

SIX years of a life sentence? What the fuck?

And of course, after being paroled, he goes into a womans house
rapes her, then strangles her to death

Irrelevent. All states have laws on the books that allow for Life Without Posibility of Parole. The typical meaning of Life is 100 years. Parole can be achieved after 1/4 of the sentence is served. However, parole can be denied on conviction and hence Life actualy means that.

Simple fact of the matter is Shep, if you replace the death penalty with actual life in prison, you will execute fewer innocent people (it is a statistical fact given ratios examined) while keeping the nasty criminals away from the innocent population. Also makes things cheaper. The saftey nets provided to keep innocent people from being executed cost a shitload of money. Remove the death penalty and you have a safer and cheaper system.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The problem is, life without parol, is not always life without parol, no matter what they say.
Adminitrations come and go, and politicians pardon. Remember the terrorist who opened fire in the capitol building, with the intent of killing US representatives? They were pardoned. So now, we have convicted murderers, sentanced to life without parol, walking the streets free!
The upside of the death peananty is the down side as well, PERMANENCE!
More people have been killed by convicted and released murderers, than have been executed. The number of innocent lives saved is greater than the number of potential innocents lost.
Purely by the numbers, less innocents die with the death peanalty, than without it.
The persuit of perfection actualy LOWERS the acuracy! It just shifts the death away from the rare innocent, to the greater number of innocents not in prison.
Innocent will ALWAYS die, just how many, and who they are changes.

Before you ask for numbers, which NO i can't produce, think a minute.
How many are executed in a year? They are rare to the point of notariety.
How many are murdered by repeat offenders in a year? It has to be higher!
The US DOJ says it is 6.6 percent.
6.6 percent of released murderers murder again.(1998) I don't know the exact number.
So, who do you have die?
The smaller number of wrongfuly convicted, or the larger number of trully innocent?
This is being cruel to the kind, by being kind to the cruel.

Or is it the fact that it is the state, not some thug doing the killing?
If so, what's the difference?
The state is not acting out of malice, and is trying it's best to get the right perp. Is the state now not allowed to make irreversable desisions, because they might be wrong? We will have perfect results, never.


Big picture, death peanalty saves lives, even with innocents factored in.

[Alyeska]

The problem is, life without parol, is not always life without parol, no matter what they say.
Adminitrations come and go, and politicians pardon. Remember the terrorist who opened fire in the capitol building, with the intent of killing US representatives? They were pardoned. So now, we have convicted murderers, sentanced to life without parol, walking the streets free!
The upside of the death peananty is the down side as well, PERMANENCE!
More people have been killed by convicted and released murderers, than have been executed. The number of innocent lives saved is greater than the number of potential innocents lost.
Purely by the numbers, less innocents die with the death peanalty, than without it.
The persuit of perfection actualy LOWERS the acuracy! It just shifts the death away from the rare innocent, to the greater number of innocents not in prison.
Innocent will ALWAYS die, just how many, and who they are changes.

Before you ask for numbers, which NO i can't produce, think a minute.
How many are executed in a year? They are rare to the point of notariety.
How many are murdered by repeat offenders in a year? It has to be higher!
The US DOJ says it is 6.6 percent.
6.6 percent of released murderers murder again.(1998) I don't know the exact number.
So, who do you have die?
The smaller number of wrongfuly convicted, or the larger number of trully innocent?
This is being cruel to the kind, by being kind to the cruel.

Or is it the fact that it is the state, not some thug doing the killing?
If so, what's the difference?
The state is not acting out of malice, and is trying it's best to get the right perp. Is the state now not allowed to make irreversable desisions, because they might be wrong? We will have perfect results, never.


Big picture, death peanalty saves lives, even with innocents factored in.

Your line of reasoning is flawed. People on death row can also be pardoned.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Correction, they only wounded some reps. Still the principal is the same . Life without parole is just not a sure thing.
Sorry Alyeska, you numbers are backward.
More convicted murderers kill again than can possibly be executed.


6.6 percent. That's a LOT of repeat murderers!

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

BUT DEAD ONES CAN'T!

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

I don't see how death row inmates being pardonable changes the NUMBERS of dead, innocent or guilty. Once they are dead, they can't commit any crimes now can they.

Pull me in some numbers to justify you statement more innocent die with the death peanalty. Just how many, top end estimate, innocent have been executed, compared to the number killed by relased murderers.
Don't give me a comparison of death toll, without any numbers.

What is the conection between pardonability and risk of recidivism?

I am concurently doing web searching, but the remurder rate seems hard to find.

[Alyeska]

I don't see how death row inmates being pardonable changes the NUMBERS of dead, innocent or guilty. Once they are dead, they can't commit any crimes now can they.

Pull me in some numbers to justify you statement more innocent die with the death peanalty. Just how many, top end estimate, innocent have been executed, compared to the number killed by relased murderers.
Don't give me a comparison of death toll, without any numbers.

What is the conection between pardonability and risk of recidivism?

I am concurently doing web searching, but the remurder rate seems hard to find.

You make the claim that guilty people are pardoned and thus will kill again. Your logic fails because death row inmates can also be pardoned. Life inmates are just as likely to recommit as deathrow inmates.

[RedImperator]

Big picture, death peanalty saves lives, even with innocents factored in.

Which is why I'm not arguing against the death penalty on principle, but anyone who says there aren't serious problems in its application is blinded by his ideology. The death penalty needs to be fixed--for that matter, the entire justice system needs to be fixed, so life sentences for murderers are really life sentences, and prisons aren't clogged with nonviolent drug offenders with mandatory minimum sentences, forcing violent criminals to be released.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Go to http://www.dpinfo.com/dpwhy.htm
Check out his numbers Vet them for us.

My research was surprising. Released murderers had the lowest rate of recidivism of any crime, but the highest rate of repeat killing. They don't fuck around with the small shit.
Compared to burglers, who have the highest rate of reoffence, but the lowest murder rate among convicted felons.
I would conclude that the length of the time in prison, aging and maturing the perp, combined, do act as a deterance. (I don't want to go back!)
On the other hand, murderers definatly have the highest rate of killing after release.
Hey, they already crossed that bridge once, and it gets easier with time practice.
The 6.6 percent remurder after release rate seem to be holding up under scrutiny.

6.6 percent!

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

What part of dead people don't kill don't you get?
That they are a danger until they die is my whole fucking point.
It is funny how anti death peanalty folk make it well nigh impossible to execute someone, then site the diffuculty of executing them as a reason for not executing them.
Because while they are alive, and on death row, they are dangerous.

Great, that's a great arguement for not killing them!
While they are waiting to die they might cause trouble. Better there, in a place designed to contain and minimise their violence, surrounded by prisoners,( who are there by their own doing) and prison guards, (Who KNEW the job was dangerous , and PAYS accordingly) than on the street, at a time and place of the perps choice!
Prison guards, like law enfocement, and military know what they are in for.

I got news for you pal, as a conviced felon who spent a brief time in state prison, everyone in prison for longer than 5-10 years IS dangerous. The three strikers in California are lifers, and ALL lifers are dangerous.
Note, lifers and murderers are not always one and the same.

[Alyeska]

What part of dead people don't kill don't you get?
That they are a danger until they die is my whole fucking point.
It is funny how anti death peanalty folk make it well nigh impossible to execute someone, then site the diffuculty of executing them as a reason for not executing them.
Because while they are alive, and on death row, they are dangerous.

Are you fucking stupid or something? This saftey net has saved 70 innocent people since 1975. I would like to see your figures on how many killers who were serving an actual LIFE sentence that got pardoned and killed again.

Great, that's a great arguement for not killing them!
While they are waiting to die they might cause trouble. Better there, in a place designed to contain and minimise their violence, surrounded by prisoners,( who are there by their own doing) and prison guards, (Who KNEW the job was dangerous , and PAYS accordingly) than on the street, at a time and place of the perps choice!
Prison guards, like law enfocement, and military know what they are in for.

Again I ask, are you fucking stupid? Those of us against the death penalty don't want to release the idiots onto the streets, we want them locked away for life.

I got news for you pal, as a conviced felon who spent a brief time in state prison, everyone in prison for longer than 5-10 years IS dangerous. The three strikers in California are lifers, and ALL lifers are dangerous.
Note, lifers and murderers are not always one and the same.

Irrelevent

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

What YOU'RE missing, is that is a smaller number than the number of dead innocents, murdered by released convinvicted murderers.
Why are you using the wall of ignorance, on the simple matter of numbers?
Is it because they don't support your case?

Smaller number of innocent deaths= better justice
It's just that simple.
You are not reducing the amount of sorrow in the world, by eliminating the death peanalty. You are changing where is is, and making it bigger too boot.
You are rejecting the result, because you don't like the method.
Squeemishness promoted to as a virtue.

[Alyeska]

What YOU'RE missing, is that is a smaller number than the number of dead innocents, murdered by released convinvicted murderers.
Why are you using the wall of ignorance, on the simple matter of numbers?
Is it because they don't support your case?

Look whos talking. You have yet to provide any numbers to prove that prisoners released from life sentences have killed again. You further ignore the fact that right up until the execution death row inmates can also be pardoned.

Smaller number of innocent deaths= better justice
It's just that simple.
You are not reducing the amount of sorrow in the world, by eliminating the death peanalty. You are changing where is is, and making it bigger too boot.
You are rejecting the result, because you don't like the method.
Squeemishness promoted to as a virtue.

Your statements are meaningless and have not been backed up by any fact.

Try again.

[RedImperator]

The black-white fallacies in this thread are hilarious.

"If we don't hang every murderer fifteen minutes after he's convicted, some dunderhead liberal on the parole board will give him a knife and directions to the orphanage!"

A just society does NOT write off the lives of innocent men wrongly convicted as an acceptable sacrifice for keeping murderers off the street. Build more prisons, abolish parole, or FIX THE FUCKING DEATH PENALTY, but the state cannot trade the lives of innocent men to save hypothetical future murder victims.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The numer of convicted, released, and remurdering felons, is greater than the total number of perps executed.

DO the fucking math.
6.6 percent of the number of released murderers is what? I am having one HELL of a time finding the simple number of murderers CURRENTLY in prison, or released yearly. You can shut me down, and get an apology to boot, if you can come up with some MATH to back up point.
I guarentee that the number, multiplied by 6.6 percent, is much larger than the total number of executions.
Hence, the death peanalty saves lives. Your philosophy is influencing your reasoning.

I personaly think the whole system needs an overhaul, and there should be degrees of proof and certainty, and death peanalty requiers a higher level of proof, not heinousness.
The digust factor should take second fiddle to amount of proof, as per sentances.
If you can't get an air tight case, you can't execute.
My spin, is proof dictates the punishment, Death/life in hell till you die, BUT, all murders are death elligable, with enough proof.

I also support the idea of passing a federal law requiring DNA testing when possible, on ALL cased, old and new. With a provision for mandatory release and record clearing if exonerated by new evidence. This has to be done at the federal level.
This would seem to be right up their alley, as being falsely convicted is a violation of your civil right. Being held after proof of innocence is shown, no matter HOW much later has got to be unconstitutional.

[Alyeska]

The numer of convicted, released, and remurdering felons, is greater than the total number of perps executed.

Irrelevent. You have yet to prove that murders given LIFE sentences who got pardoned have recommited.

DO the fucking math.

Not our job. Your making the claim, you support it.

6.6 percent of the number of released murderers is what? I am having one HELL of a time finding the simple number of murderers CURRENTLY in prison, or released yearly. You can shut me down, and get an apology to boot, if you can come up with some MATH to back up point.
I guarentee that the number, multiplied by 6.6 percent, is much larger than the total number of executions.

Irrelvent. We are not saying you should release murders from prison.

Hence, the death peanalty saves lives. Your philosophy is influencing your reasoning.

I have twice asked for proof. You have twice ignored this and continued to claim victory. You are in error.

I personaly think the whole system needs an overhaul, and there should be degrees of proof and certainty, and death peanalty requiers a higher level of proof, not heinousness.
The digust factor should take second fiddle to amount of proof, as per sentances.
If you can't get an air tight case, you can't execute.
My spin, is proof dictates the punishment, Death/life in hell till you die, BUT, all murders are death elligable, with enough proof.

I agree that the system needs an overhaul in the least. However using your previous line of reasoning all those murders who fail to meet these criteria are going to be magicaly pardoned by ultra liberal govenors and are just as much a risk as when there is no death penalty.

I also support the idea of passing a federal law requiring DNA testing when possible, on ALL cased, old and new. With a provision for mandatory release and record clearing if exonerated by new evidence. This has to be done at the federal level.

Again I agree. Furthermore your own reasoning can still be applied here showing this as a failure.

This would seem to be right up their alley, as being falsely convicted is a violation of your civil right. Being held after proof of innocence is shown, no matter HOW much later has got to be unconstitutional.

Indeed. However you promote a system of innocent killed when you make the assine statements that murderers are being pardoned left and right and we must execute them QUICK to avoid this.