US Committed Murder Tod...I Mean Carried Out the Death Penalty

[DesignFox]

The problem is when the jury convicts and the prosecution gets their death sentence when reasonable doubt exists. I've seen at least one case that I can think of off the top of my head, where doubt existed as to the person's guilt. They were convicted, anyway. (At least the one case I can think of, the convicted were not however, sentenced to death)

THAT is a problem. My problem is not with the punishment itself, only in the .8% of cases where it is inappropriately used. Give me a few to peruse those links. But my thought is that none of those people were accused of being repeat offenders. I will read them, and amend myself if necessary.

Which is why I think the death penalty needs to be reserved for only the most heinous, and repeat offenders at that.

It seems unlikely to me that someone linked to 3 separate deaths at 3 separate crime scenes would be innocent.

While I don't support the use of the death penalty in the case of most mentally ill people, I do believe that if they are murderously ill, like, they have no sense of morality at all and their broken wiring causes them to kill for the sake of killing, put them down. That kind of person will never be able to be integrated into society. Why do we put our prison guards and health care workers at risk by exposing THEM to people like that, let alone their fellow inmates, let alone *thinking* we fixed them and releasing them and having them go on another killing spree. I'm sure that case is extremely rare. Maybe it doesn't even exist, but is one of the few where I'd be ok with giving them the death penalty. Again, repeat offender. Not necessarily in a one time instance, although they should be incarcerated for life, and ideally would have NO opportunity for parole.

Ever see the movie Backdraft? With the pyro (who killed people in multiple fires) coming up for parole and the fireman has to go before the board every so often and show them that his remorse is all an act, so he stays behind bars?

Shouldn't have to happen.

[linguist]

It seems unlikely to me that someone linked to 3 separate deaths at 3 separate crime scenes would be innocent.

.

there was a case in texas not that long ago, of timothy cole, who was accused of being a serial rapist (though to be fair he was only convicted of a single rape--police linked him but couldn't produce evidence that he committed the others, just that he was nearby when they all happened. you know, since they all happened around the college he attended). he was tried and convicted based on shoddy investigation and incorrect eyewitness testimony. sentenced to life in prison, he died of an asthma attack after serving several years.

granted, i know this is a death penalty thread and cole was given life, but it goes to show that, evidence be damned, someone can be linked to separate crimes and still be innocent of any of them.

[DesignFox]

I've reviewed the link supplied by FashionLad. One guy they thought was innocent, after further review turned out to really be guilty. So, though I would have locked him up for life, not necessarily killed him, his execution was found to be just.

All of them were one time (possible) offenders. Some involved in shootings at a robbery.

Two were thought to be responsible for the death of multiple children. But now, apparently, the courts aren't so sure.

None of these people are those that I am advocating use of the death penalty on. Those are types of crimes I'd like to see people permanently locked away for. If they are eventually found to be innocent, then they should be released.

Also note which states these things happened in. Not every state throws the noose out as readily as Texas. Yikes. But I still insist it isn't the punishment itself that is inappropriate, just some of the cases it has been used in. I think that is what needs to be amended.

[Fashion Lad!]

We have sentences that are multiple life sentences so the person has no chance to serve his term. We have life w/o parole. Why not abolish the death penalty and go with that?

But people are arguing for the death penalty when we do have multiple life sentences available. States were the most egregious acts are punished by the death penalty could remove the death penalty and go with multiple life sentences.

[Rapscallion]

would you feel differently if the accused was a relative? sure, they're about to be murdered by the state for a crime they didn't commit, but it's okay because their death means some hypothetical future victim won't be killed by someone else?

Probably. I'm quite happy to admit that if a faceless stranger (with so many people around, this is pretty likely, so the odds are still in my favour) was involved instead of a relative I liked (there are some I'd cheerfull wave off), then I'd be of a different opinion. I'm arguing on the grounds of self-preservation - me and mine to be protected. Yes, I'd feel differently if it was someone I was related to and liked. The odds are in my favour.

For this case, my beliefs are irrelevant.

Hmm - true. More of a separate thread issue.

After all, that person was found guilty enough to be convicted, lose all their appeals, and be put to death, but then exonerated afterwards. If there's always that possibility, and better the guilty go free, then I ask again, using that, how many guilty people do you think is appropriate for one innocent to be executed?

I don't agree that it's better that the guilty go free. Numerically, more innocent people are going to die if we use the catch/release system currently in place.

Because I gotta say, 111 found innocent while waiting to be killed, and 12 actually killed before their innocence was proved (just from what I found on a quick search: source New York Times), even if the ratio stayed the same, you'd need 1200 murderers freed just to make up for the innocents killed.

Were they actually found innocent, or were their sentences brought down to a lesser charge, or what? Link, please.

Innocents killed - release those murderers, and the likelihood is that even more innocents would die. I'm interested in preserving as many innocents as possible.

Rapscallion

[kibbles]

. Murderers don't give their victims a choice, so why should we give them one?

Because we as a society are supposed to be better than murderers?

[Rapscallion]

Because we as a society are supposed to be better than murderers?

We are, that's why we strive to provide a safer, more painless way to die than they offered their victims. I know there are botched cases, though my memory of these are usually where the guilty party is a drug addict with poor veins.

It's not about being better - being better just releases killers to kill again. It's about self-preservation.

Rapscallion

[kibbles]

I don't agree that because it seems like too much work to reform the prison system, it will create more self-preservation to just implement the death penalty. I think that's just a lazy justice system, that's all IMO.

[Peppergirl]

The problem is when the jury convicts and the prosecution gets their death sentence when reasonable doubt exists.

So much WORD to this. I think about many of the stories we hear on CS, and then consider that these same people could be on a jury, deciding if someone should live or die.

One can examine the amount of frivolous, ludicrous lawsuits in the US in which a jury awards ridiculous amounts of money on baseless complaints. Granted, many are turned over on appeal, but the point is clear: A jury can be comprised of some of the biggest idiots on the planet. And *these* are the people deciding the fate of others.

A jury of 'one's peers'? I shudder at the thought.

The system seems irretrievably broken.

[Arcade Man D]

What I get from that is that the US system of double checks and appeals works. However, taken off death row and exonerated are vastly different concepts. How many of those were actually released as free and unsullied, and how many just went back to the general prison population on appeals as having diminished responsibility at the time of the event (for example)?

I can't remember what year it was off the top of my head, but Indiana's governor instituted a moratorium on executions when almost 50% (I believe the real numbers were 17 prisoners out of 35) of death-row inmates where proven innocent on appeals, and on evidence that should have exonerated them on their first trial.

Because humans are incapable of perfection, and because a government-sponsored execution of an innocent is a murder (after all, when a fascist/communist government executes a political prisoner, we decry it as murder, so any government executing an innocent person should be subject to the same definition), I cannot in good conscience support the death penalty at all. On the other hand, I think life sentences should be stricter, and even life sentences with parole should have more parole restrictions than any other sentence.

[daleduke17]

Why do black men get the death penalty so MUCH more often than white women? That makes the practice racist and sexist.

Black men commit more crimes fitting of the death penalty than white women.

Makes pretty damn good sense, doesn't it?

[blas87]

Come to think of it, I don't think many women have been put to death.

Anyone got any statistics?

[gremcint]

Come to think of it, I don't think many women have been put to death.

Anyone got any statistics?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-and-death-penalty

•As of June 30, 2009 there were 53 women on death row. This constitutes 1.6% of the total death row population of about 3,297 persons.

•In the past 100 years, over 40 women have been executed in the U.S, including 11 since 1976. See, Women Executed in the U.S. Since 1900 for the date, state, race, and method of each execution.

•Much of this information is taken from "Death Penalty For Female Offenders, January 1973 through June 30, 2009 [PDF]" by Victor L. Streib, Professor of Law at Ohio Northern University College of Law, with periodic annotations by DPIC (Please see the full-text of the report for more details.)

[kibbles]

I'm a woman; but, I find a lot of heinous crimes committed by women are downplayed because oh she was stressed, she was abused, blah blah blah blah. A crime is heinous whether it's committed by men women black white whatever. A crime shouldn't be downplayed because of a person's gender or race. *Sorry for the thread jack, it's just a trend that's irritating to me LOL!*

[BlaqueKatt]

Do you have a source for this info? I'd always heard the opposite. Just curious.

I do

covers the costs for all states that have the death penalty-