Execution Halted

[Texsox]

Once we start the death penalty, the sliding scale of human value bothers me. And it isn't just the criminals, but the victims also. A cop is valued greater than a truck driver. A cop getting murdered automatically places the death penalty on the table, not so with a trucker. And it isn't the value of the life taken, we also factor in how they were killed. A drunk driver does not face the death penalty, why is the person he killed valued less than a shooting victim?

 

I believe that the value of human life is in the life, not what the individual does with that life.

[Soxbadger]

What about race and gender tex?

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

 

Shocking that of all the people put to death in 2006, not 1 is a female?

 

Kind of suggests that humans are unable to dole out such a penalty evenly.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

Once we start the death penalty, the sliding scale of human value bothers me. And it isn't just the criminals, but the victims also. A cop is valued greater than a truck driver. A cop getting murdered automatically places the death penalty on the table, not so with a trucker. And it isn't the value of the life taken, we also factor in how they were killed. A drunk driver does not face the death penalty, why is the person he killed valued less than a shooting victim?

 

I believe that the value of human life is in the life, not what the individual does with that life.

The genesis of the circumstances of aggravation that result in crimes against law enforcement officers (and fire and EMS personnel for that matter) is not about their life being worth more - its about protecting the symbols of law and order. Its judicial survivalism.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

What about race and gender tex?

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

 

Shocking that of all the people put to death in 2006, not 1 is a female?

 

Kind of suggests that humans are unable to dole out such a penalty evenly.

And of all those capitol crimes eligible for the DP, what percentage of them were committed by women? I'm guessing its very, very small.

 

[Soxbadger]

Its very low, and very hard to say.

 

There is really no good way to put together those statistics, because they are always faulty, hence why I just used the raw data.

 

Here is an aba article on gender (aba= American bar association)

 

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/fall96/genderbias.html

 

Victor Streib, a leading expert on gender bias, has shown that while women comprise 13 percent of U.S. murder arrests, they account for only 2 percent of the death sentences, and make up only 1.5 percent of all persons presently on death row. These last two figures have remained steady for 20 years.

 

Many people would point at the equal number of black and white death penalty and conclude equality, others would say that blacks compose 10% of the population and therefore by shear numbers should be a statistical minority in terms of raw numbers of death penalty victims.

 

The problem occurs at the district attorney level, most DA's are not going to go for death penalty against a woman because she is more sympathetic and that could blow the whole prosecution. Some times jurors start to get cold feet with death penalty and then render a verdict that is way out of line, hence why you see the most death penalty attempts at the prosecution stage for men, black men specifically because they are deemed the least sympathetic type of defendant.

 

If you look prior to 1970's (when executions were stayed), you will see that blacks actually out numbered whites in terms of death penalty. Unfortunately a large amount of those were from the south, and even sadder many times the jury pool was so tainted that there was no way they could get a fair trail.

 

Looking at our history and how we have dealt with the death penalty and criminal trials, it makes me very weary and I just think its safer to end the practice.

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...d=539&scid=

 

The conclusions arent necessarily great, but some of the stats are.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2007 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

The genesis of the circumstances of aggravation that result in crimes against law enforcement officers (and fire and EMS personnel for that matter) is not about their life being worth more - its about protecting the symbols of law and order. Its judicial survivalism.

 

When we take a life via the death penalty we are placing the criminal's life below the life they took. Trying not to be flippant or sarcastic with the next comment, but it would then seem we have now placed symbols ahead of human life. We have decided that someone who is part of the judicial process' life is more valuable and worth more protection than someone who is not.

 

I agree there is some logic in our hierarchy or else it would not still be used. But anyone who claims it is simply one life for another is not be intellectually honest.

[NorthSideSox72]

When we take a life via the death penalty we are placing the criminal's life below the life they took. Trying not to be flippant or sarcastic with the next comment, but it would then seem we have now placed symbols ahead of human life. We have decided that someone who is part of the judicial process' life is more valuable and worth more protection than someone who is not.

 

I agree there is some logic in our hierarchy or else it would not still be used. But anyone who claims it is simply one life for another is not be intellectually honest.

I am not saying I agree with this, but I think you missed my point. Its not placing more value on the life of someone who happens to work in the judicial system. Its placing a differential value representing the system ITSELF. Does that make it more clear?

 

[Texsox]

Looking over the male/female and black/white statistics never leads to anything truly useful. For those that accept the death penalty, the answer should be, execute more people, which is unacceptable to the anti death penalty group. And the opposite, don't execute anyone is unacceptable to the pro death penalty group.

[Soxbadger]

I dont think you can generally convince anyone of anything they dont want to believe. Hence the problem with juries and what they believe before they walk in the door.

 

All you can do is provide the facts for why something is not fair, why something should be looked at, or why perhaps another policy may be more prudent.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Jenks,

 

Well Ive clearly argued that life imprisonment should be used instead.

 

Therefore they are never getting out of jail afterwards, and can never kill again.

 

So the amount of lifes lost from life imprisonment: 0

 

Amount of lifes potentially saved: All those wrongfully convicted, as of this time in the 100s, perhaps as science develops (less than 20 years ago DNA evidence was very raw) we will find out that we made even more mistakes. Mistakes that could be prevented.

 

That is my position, if you can prevent an innocent death you should try to.

 

I guess thats why I became a lawyer.

 

Well I don't know about that... What are the odds that some gets killed in prision? I doubt other prisioners wait to find out if a fellow inmate is guilty or innocent "for real" before shanking them. Without knowing the statistics, I would imagine that some people who are actually innocent and in prision do get killed. If they hadn't have been wrongly convicted, you could argue they wouldn't have been murdered.

 

I have a hard time with the arguement that you can't punish someone because of factors like that, because how far do you go? Do you quit sending people to jail because innocent people get convicted, and they might get murdered in prision? They are just as dead as if you executed them right? I would imagine the odds of being killed in prision are better than being executed, right? I wonder how the numbers would actually work out???

[NorthSideSox72]

Well I don't know about that... What are the odds that some gets killed in prision? I doubt other prisioners wait to find out if a fellow inmate is guilty or innocent "for real" before shanking them. Without knowing the statistics, I would imagine that some people who are actually innocent and in prision do get killed. If they hadn't have been wrongly convicted, you could argue they wouldn't have been murdered.

 

I have a hard time with the arguement that you can't punish someone because of factors like that, because how far do you go? Do you quit sending people to jail because innocent people get convicted, and they might get murdered in prision? They are just as dead as if you executed them right? I would imagine the odds of being killed in prision are better than being executed, right? I wonder how the numbers would actually work out???

Is that you, Justice Brennan?

 

[Texsox]

I am not saying I agree with this, but I think you missed my point. Its not placing more value on the life of someone who happens to work in the judicial system. Its placing a differential value representing the system ITSELF. Does that make it more clear?

 

I understood what you meant. We agree. We then place something else into the equation other than the lost human life.

 

What I am stating is best done with an example.

 

L.C. is a 45 year old male who is killed in a shooting. His murder and the person who murdered him, would be treated differently if he was a custodian or a cop. There is some value to society in us doing that. I agree. But there is the sliding scale I am uncomfortable with. In deciding who is eligible for the dealth penalty, we look at who is killed, what that person has done with their life, and how they are killed.

[Soxbadger]

SS2k,

 

To me thats simple:

 

The govt can not control a persons actions. They can not stop people from murdering out in the streets, they can not stop people from murdering in prison.

 

But what they can control is the govt not wrongfully murdering anyone.

 

As for sending innocents to jail, Ive already covered that. There is a bail out provision, the going rate is about $1mil a year for each year wrongfully in jail. Sure some may die in jail before they ever get the chance to be freed, but if they were on death row they would still have that chance of being murdered by a fellow prisoner, and they would be facing the govt killing them as well.

 

When I was writing the scenario I thought of this situation, but I just left it out because I feel that a prisoners chances of being killed by another prisoner do not change if they are there for life imprisonment or for death penalty, atleast they dont change prior to the time the govt would have put them to death. After that (as in if they would have been put to death in 30 years by state but because there is no death penalty a fellow inmate kills them on their 31st year) then yes the chances of being killed rise exponentially.

 

But once again, the govt's responsibility first is to control that it can control. It can control whether or not it pulls the switch, it will never be able to take away free choice.

 

Otherwise we could just stop murder altogether

[Texsox]

Where do we draw the line? We draw the line at irreversible punishments. We can open the doors of a cell, we can not revive the dead. It is not a perfect reversal, we can not replace the time lost.

[Soxbadger]

Its not perfect, but no one in society ever is.

 

Its a personal choice, I draw the line at:

 

I feel that you can repay some one for lost time. You cant change the past, but you can at least try and give them a better future. Its not perfect, but at this time it is the best we can do.

 

There will always be some mistakes, you just try and minimize the damage that those mistakes cause.

[southsider2k5]

SS2k,

 

To me thats simple:

 

The govt can not control a persons actions. They can not stop people from murdering out in the streets, they can not stop people from murdering in prison.

 

But what they can control is the govt not wrongfully murdering anyone.

 

As for sending innocents to jail, Ive already covered that. There is a bail out provision, the going rate is about $1mil a year for each year wrongfully in jail. Sure some may die in jail before they ever get the chance to be freed, but if they were on death row they would still have that chance of being murdered by a fellow prisoner, and they would be facing the govt killing them as well.

 

When I was writing the scenario I thought of this situation, but I just left it out because I feel that a prisoners chances of being killed by another prisoner do not change if they are there for life imprisonment or for death penalty, atleast they dont change prior to the time the govt would have put them to death. After that (as in if they would have been put to death in 30 years by state but because there is no death penalty a fellow inmate kills them on their 31st year) then yes the chances of being killed rise exponentially.

 

But once again, the govt's responsibility first is to control that it can control. It can control whether or not it pulls the switch, it will never be able to take away free choice.

 

Otherwise we could just stop murder altogether

 

Well you obviously know the field better than I do, but aren't the general population and the death row prisioners segregated and guarded differently? Maybe it is too much TV, but I was under the impression that death row inmates were in a section by themselves, which was much less populated, and much better watched. I always understood there were many less opportunities for something to happen on death row, than in the regular population, where the lifers are located.

 

Also the government does control bad convictions to some point. They control all the mechanisms of law after a crime has been convicted. They decide who to try, how to try them, and what happens to them after they are convicted. They just as responsible for setting someone up to be murdered, as if they did it themselves. Both people are just as dead, and it is because of the government. I just don't see how the potential of a mistake is grounds for scrapping an entire system.

 

I guess that is just how I see it, whatever that is worth.

[Texsox]

I also thought death row inmates were under closer scrutiny. I assumed because they had "nothing to lose" and presumably represented a bigger risk to the guards.

[Soxbadger]

SS2k,

 

I really have no idea about the in prison crime statistics between a death row inmate and a lifer. I would have thought they would be similar, but I really have not done any research nor gone to many prisons. A prison guard would know better about that stuff, as my guess is a million different factors go into it, like what prison, what are the security guards like, what type of facility (super max) etc, are they being isolated, what type of cells are in they in, what type of restrictions are placed on them, what type of freedoms do they have.

 

And Im not saying to scrap the system, Im just saying that our system only has 1 legal punishment for which there is no real remedy for, death penalty. Our system is filled with mistakes, flaws, and inconsistencies.

 

Imo its best to remove the punishment for which there is no remedy, because I believe that mistakes will always happen, that no matter what people will always be wrongfully convicted (unless we get pre-cogs and even then wasnt Cruise being wrongfully prosecuted), so I just try and minimize the damage of the mistake.

 

My guess is that you have a better chance of making it as an innocent prisoner if you are sentenced to life in prison versus death penalty, but really there is no way to statistically prove it.

[StrangeSox]

Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting. I just find it odd that people consider one innocent life so important when we deal with death on a daily basis. If people are so strongly opposed to the death penalty because innocent lives are taken, then it shouldn't matter that the costs of society prevents us from protecting every life. How is that not a double standard? What if the statistics show that for every innocent person wrongly convicted and put to death, 10 lives are saved from criminals convicted of murder who kill again after they do their time? Would your positions change?

 

No. Those people should be imprisoned for life, not put to death.

 

Risk plays zero factor into the death penalty; there is no more risk with the person locked in max. security vs. dead. The death penalty is a conscientious act of ending someone's life, not at all similar to a car accident, a fire, a tornado, etc.

[Rex Kickass]

Well I don't know about that... What are the odds that some gets killed in prision? I doubt other prisioners wait to find out if a fellow inmate is guilty or innocent "for real" before shanking them. Without knowing the statistics, I would imagine that some people who are actually innocent and in prision do get killed. If they hadn't have been wrongly convicted, you could argue they wouldn't have been murdered.

 

I have a hard time with the arguement that you can't punish someone because of factors like that, because how far do you go? Do you quit sending people to jail because innocent people get convicted, and they might get murdered in prision? They are just as dead as if you executed them right? I would imagine the odds of being killed in prision are better than being executed, right? I wonder how the numbers would actually work out???

 

I think the difference here is that if the state has reason to believe in the guilt of an individual regarding a crime, the state has the right and ability to hold the suspect accountable. However, it's entirely reasonable to expect the state to refrain from directly ending someone's physical life - especially in the question of cases where there is some legal question regarding the conviction - be it over the denial of due process, or any question regarding the physical evidence. The state does not have direct control over anyone's every action. As such, the state can not be held responsible for the actions of one specific inmate in a murder. However, the state does have the responsibility to make sure that each ward of the state is being treated humanely and with basic human respect - regardless of the crimes committed by that person.