Another Oklahoma Fail

[carlfense]

The problem with jailing them is that imprisoning someone is no guarantee they won't commit murder again.

 

http://www.slate.com..._than_free.html

I suppose that we could reduce the murder rate to 0% if we just killed everyone.

[carlfense]

It's not an invented problem, our jails are overcrowded. Overcrowded to the extent that people are trying to find ways to release even handfuls of convicted criminals, so it's obviously something people feel needs to be done.

We could take a giant step towards addressing that problem by not placing non-violent drug possession offenders in prison.

[Junior]

Yep, and 0% of the wrongfully executed people do not commit their first murder either! So it's a win/win situation.

 

The justice system has gotten things wrong before, yes. This isn't news.

 

So what would you call the wrongful execution of someone? I'd call it murder. So who do we get to execute now?

 

Those bastards killed someone. It's sick and it's wrong and now lets go kill someone over it!

[sd'sker]

It's not an invented problem, our jails are overcrowded. Overcrowded to the extent that people are trying to find ways to release even handfuls of convicted criminals, so it's obviously something people feel needs to be done.

We could take a giant step towards addressing that problem by not placing non-violent drug possession offenders in prison.

+1. and i wonder it the privatization of prisons has anything to do with the rising populations?

 

i think a lot of the problems with the criminal justice system has to do with our inability to address mental health needs.

[knapplc]

Yep, and 0% of the wrongfully executed people do not commit their first murder either! So it's a win/win situation.

 

The justice system has gotten things wrong before, yes. This isn't news.

 

So what would you call the wrongful execution of someone? I'd call it murder. So who do we get to execute now?

 

A mistake. Just like every other mistake the imperfect justice system makes. Some mistakes are more regrettable than others. Some are more permanent. But removing tools available to the justice system doesn't get us anywhere closer to finding an effective deterrent.

 

And before anyone goes accusing me of bloodlust or whatever the hysterical terms are here, as a child, a family friend was arrested and extradited to another state to stand trial, with the possibility of a death sentence if convicted, for a murder he did not commit. He was eventually acquitted, but for months there were many tearful prayers being sent by those who knew him. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky what-if question, at least not as far as I'm concerned. I can quite clearly remember the fear of losing someone I knew to a wrongful conviction.

[EbylHusker]

It's not an invented problem, our jails are overcrowded. Overcrowded to the extent that people are trying to find ways to release even handfuls of convicted criminals, so it's obviously something people feel needs to be done.

We could take a giant step towards addressing that problem by not placing non-violent drug possession offenders in prison.

We could, but that has nothing to do with this. That could be done at the same time as continuing to kill our death row inmates at a faster, cheaper pace. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor do they need to be. Both will help free up room in the jails, lower costs, etc.

[JJ Husker]

Death Penalty supporters have the most mind-blowing viewpoint of anything in politics and morality.

 

Let's see..."Killing people is wrong. So if you kill someone, we will kill you!" Yeah, not a shred of irony there. This is what makes us better than the criminals - we as a society are above "eye for an eye" (inb4 someone goes all hammurabi code on me, as if the laws of a 5000 year old civilization matter to us morally or legally whatsoever.)

 

Let's go over why the death penalty is an archaic, barbaric form of punishment:

1. Already said it - enough "eye for an eye." Organized society should not stoop to the level of criminals.

2. Life in prison is arguably worse.

3. An average of 20 years and millions of dollars of appeals are a gigantic strain on the legal system.

4. It punishes the criminal's family unnecessarily.

5. The cost of just the execution alone is about 3 times higher than housing someone in prison for life. Let alone the cost to the courts in lost time having to deal with the appeals.

6. Two wrongs don't make a right - killing a criminal will not undo the crime. Neither will life in prison, but life in prison doesn't come with all of these other drawbacks and is in no way cruel or unusual.

7. You cannot guarantee a clean, painless execution. There's no form of execution that has ever been able to guarantee this.

8. It is estimated that 1 in 25 death row inmates are innocent, with many more being shown to be innocent with newer crime scene technologies, DNA forensics, etc.

 

So if you're championing "well he raped and killed someone, haha he deserved it!" ...just take a timeout and realize that you're stooping to the level of thinking of a common criminal. Lock 'em up, out of sight, out of mind, let them waste away and think about their crimes and choices for the entire rest of their life. And maybe re-evaluate your morals a bit as well.

As usual we are not going to agree on this issue tschu but I think you're being overly dramatic saying DP supporters have the most mind-blowing viewpoint of anything in politics and morality. Per your numbered points;

 

1- I don't look at it as an "eye for an eye" type punishment but rather the ultimate punishment for the most heinous of crimes. More a situation of making sure they never have a chance of doing anything like it again.

2- I agree, life in prison is worse thereby making the death penalty more humane than life.

3- No doubt the costs for appeals and deathrow inmates is out of control. That says a whole lot more about our system than it does the validity of the DP.

4- I don't give two sh#ts about the criminals family. Why on earth would you put their concerns ahead of the victim, their family, and society in general. This is a weak ass excuse.

5- Once again that is an indictment of our legal system and not the death penalty. Kill them the next day, without appeal, and this becomes a moot point.

6- Two wrongs don't make a right- correct. That doesn't mean there can't be consequences for certain actions. IMO, life in prison is more cruel than the death penalty. You admitted as much in your item #2.

7- I think you could guarantee a painless execution. Knock em out with anesthesia and then kill them. I don't know why they don't do it this way. Once again it's more a problem of how our system does things than with the DP itself.

8- And once again #8 simply points out how our system is failing. An innocent person should not be punished. It matters little for the point if that punishment is a fine, incarceration, or execution. Not assuring guilt is a problem of the system and not the form of punishment.

 

Some people get too hung up on thinking death is the absolute worst thing. I guess that is natural for people who have no belief in eternal life.

 

Now if we want to talk about questionable morals, let's visit about people who are opposed to the death penalty (for people who have proven through their own actions that they don't deserve to live) but have no problem with abortion of an innocent fetus who has harmed absolutely no one. Talk about mind blowing......

[Junior]

It's not an invented problem, our jails are overcrowded. Overcrowded to the extent that people are trying to find ways to release even handfuls of convicted criminals, so it's obviously something people feel needs to be done.

We could take a giant step towards addressing that problem by not placing non-violent drug possession offenders in prison.

We could, but that has nothing to do with this. That could be done at the same time as continuing to kill our death row inmates at a faster, cheaper pace. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor do they need to be. Both will help free up room in the jails, lower costs, etc.

 

True, if we killed them faster, there would be less time for appeal and we'd probably hear less about those pesky innocent parties being convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

[EbylHusker]

True, if we killed them faster, there would be less time for appeal and we'd probably hear less about those pesky innocent parties being convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

I've already stated "express lanes" should be put in only for people where there are multiple lines of essentially irrefutable evidence. Stopping the numerous "we'll appeal forever just because we can, not because there's any real reason to think this person is innocent" thing.

[sd'sker]

I've already stated "express lanes" should be put in only for people where there are multiple lines of essentially irrefutable evidence. Stopping the numerous "we'll appeal forever just because we can, not because there's any real reason to think this person is innocent" thing would be stopped.

who would decide that? how many cases have been overturned that at the time of conviction would have met your standard of "essentially irrefutable evidence"?

[Junior]

True, if we killed them faster, there would be less time for appeal and we'd probably hear less about those pesky innocent parties being convicted of crimes they didn't commit.

I've already stated "express lanes" should be put in only for people where there are multiple lines of essentially irrefutable evidence. Stopping the numerous "we'll appeal forever just because we can, not because there's any real reason to think this person is innocent" thing would be stopped.

 

What do you consider irrefutable evidence?

[sd'sker]

Some people get too hung up on thinking death is the absolute worst thing. I guess that is natural for people who have no belief in eternal life.

i do not think that really plays into it. i mean, is nothingness that scary? it is all we knew before birth. i find eternity of anything much more frightening and overwhelming.

 

but i think the issue is about due process and efficacy.

[EbylHusker]

DNA evidence would be helpful, multiple corroborating witnesses without any real variation in story, video/photogrpahic evidence, etc. You could construct a statute that would lay down a framework for it. I'm not saying all of the above al lthe time, just providing examples of some things that could be included in combinations.

 

Who would decide? I dunno, leave it to a jury or a judge.

[knapplc]

i mean, is nothingness that scary? it is all we knew before birth. i find eternity of anything much more frightening and overwhelming.

 

Reminds me of Louis CK:

 

[Junior]

 

+1. and i wonder it the privatization of prisons has anything to do with the rising populations?

 

i think a lot of the problems with the criminal justice system has to do with our inability to address mental health needs.

 

Not just privatization of prisons, but also probation companies:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/01/1803561/how-private-probation-firms-are-landing-poor-georgians-in-jail/

 

In most cases, the system works like this: A person is issued a summons for a relatively minor crime, such as speeding, driving with a suspended license or public intoxication. Upon conviction, those who can pay the fine at once usually are done with the Georgia justice system. But in Richmond County, where Census data show nearly a quarter of its population of about 200,000 live in poverty, and others, many cannot pay in full.

Those who can’t are put on private probation. For an additional monthly fee of between $25 and $45, they can pay the fine over the duration of their probation term.

Probationers may also find themselves responsible for additional costs, such as a one-time “start-up” fee of $15, a daily fee of $7 to $12 for electronic monitoring, a $25 photo fee required for DUI convictions, among others.

Adding to the cost, defendants in Georgia must pay $50 to the court to apply for a public defender, though the judge can waive the fee if a defendant is unable to pay.

Under Georgia law, an indigent person cannot be jailed for inability to pay a fine, unless the refusal is willful. But critics say neither courts nor probation companies make an effort to determine ability to pay. Instead, they say, companies routinely use the threat of jail against probationers for failing to pay not only court fines, but the private fees generated by what is known as “offender-funded supervision.”