Execution delays

[Greenday]

so we as a society should become merciless monsters just like them?

That's what I'm getting from these arguments. In order to get rid of ruthless killers, we need to become ruthless killers ourselves.

[guywithashovel]

I tend to oppose the death penalty, though I usually don't fret much when homicidal maniacs get sentenced to death. The execution process is so slow and expensive, and many of them end up sitting on death row for decades before an execution date is even considered. It's often a life sentence with a different name. Take Scott Peterson, for instance. He was sentenced to death, and given the number of inmates on California's death row and how slowly it goes through the process, he'll likely die of natural causes before he ever has to face the execution chamber.

Also, I tend to think life imprisonment is a more severe punishment. Look at how they live in there. They get a 9 x 6 ft cell that in many cases has to be shared with another inmate. They have to eat and sleep when told to do so. They have to deal with other inmates who probably want to harm them. They have to shower only when permitted, and when they do, they have to worry about "making friends" in there. I think I'd gladly take lethal injection as opposed to living like that for the rest of my days.

[blas87]

I fail to see what makes people who believe in the death penalty monsters or barbaric or any other label I've been accused of being in threads like these before, or putting them to death making people monsters.

It all starts in the beginning. Showing no mercy, no thought of another person's life and just taking it away......that is something that is the worst of the worst you can do to a person, to take away their right to live. If you don't value the lives of others around you, why should anyone value yours?

I often hear that argument about being the better person or not sinking to that level, and it really doesn't work for me. See, it could have all been prevented if Joe Blow didn't all of a sudden shoot his ex girlfriend and her new boyfriend. It is not sinking to that level or being a monster yourself if you hope that Joe Blow gets the death penalty.

Perhaps it's because I think of the victims and their value more than the perp. Innocent people's lives taken away, family and friends now grieving with a huge loss, a community now terrified of the truth that it can happen anywhere, their safety, their justice, their closure is more important than Joe Blow's comfort and his very life as far as I'm concerned. If you show no value towards another human being's right to life and just take it away on your own accord for whatever your own delusional or psychotic or unbalanced reasons are, why should anyone show it back to you, and why should you still have a right to live?

I don't need to feel pressured to be a better person or feel bad about believing in the death penalty or consider myself a monster. I am a better person because I am not a murderer or a violent criminal. I have compassion and value for other people, something a murderer and violent criminal does not. I am the better person.

[linguist]

I have compassion and value for other people, something a murderer and violent criminal does not. I am the better person.

those of us opposed to the death penalty also have compassion and value for other people. i have compassion and value for those who are wrongly convicted. innocent people have been killed on death row. other people are fortunately proven innocent before they can be killed. in any case, the death penalty is the ultimate penalty, and if an innocent is executed it's not like the state can just say "oops, we were wrong. here's your life back."

[blas87]

That's not really the best of comebacks, because it's not an every day occurance. Perhaps it's because a lot of you are from bigger cities or larger areas, but around here, when there is a murder case, it's usually a very big deal, and there is almost always ONE suspect (unless it was a team effort) and without a doubt, it is the person who did it. Granted, most of it around here is domestic or drug related and not like a drive by or gang thing, and it's easier to pinpoint the murderer when all evidence points to the boyfriend or ex girlfriend or ex husband or ex wife.

In all honesty, the amount of people who have murdered and have been rightfully caught and brought to justice far outweigh the number of murderers who have been falsely accused and imprisoned and put to death.

[linguist]

In all honesty, the amount of people who have murdered and have been rightfully caught and brought to justice far outweigh the number of murderers who have been falsely accused and imprisoned and put to death.

it really doesn't matter if the number of people rightfully put to death outweigh those who have been killed while innocent. one innocent murdered by the state is one too many.

and for the record, someone falsely accused of murder is not a murderer.

[blas87]

accused murderers. There, happy?

[linguist]

With technology getting more and more advanced (and god knows forensics has tools we can only dream of) it will be easier and easier to prove someone is guilty beyond a doubt, and there will be less and less possibly innocent people being executed.

sorry for jumping backwards in the thread, but i missed this and felt it should be addressed.

you're making a fallacious assumption here based on a perfect world, which we all know is not the case.

when you look at the reality of the situation, which is continually shrinking state and city budgets limiting access to such technology, mostly low-income defendants unable to pay for their own defense, overly ambitious or aggressive police and prosecutors willing to make a conviction at any cost, and overworked, underpaid public defenders unable or unwilling to mount a vigorous defense of their clients, and you still have innocents being railroaded regardless of the state of technology.

and even if technology reduces the number of innocents executed, it won't eliminate the occurrence. and while i hate to beat a dead horse, one innocent murdered by the state is one too many.

[telecom_goddess]

when you look at the reality of the situation, which is continually shrinking state and city budgets limiting access to such technology, mostly low-income defendants unable to pay for their own defense, overly ambitious or aggressive police and prosecutors willing to make a conviction at any cost, and overworked, underpaid public defenders unable or unwilling to mount a vigorous defense of their clients, and you still have innocents being railroaded regardless of the state of technology.

Even so.....things have progressed a LOT in the last hundred years........and the likelihood of someone innocent being executed is still remote at best. Besides executions take so damn long to carry out anymore that the person is more likely to die of old age, as someone pointed out. It's not like the old days where someone was convicted and hauled out back to hang that day.

[linguist]

Even so.....things have progressed a LOT in the last hundred years........and the likelihood of someone innocent being executed is still remote at best.

you're right, things have progressed a lot, and i'm sure in the past innocents were killed much more frequently. still, however remote the possibility, the fact remains that it still happens, and until such time as we can be assured that an innocent person will *never* be killed on death row, the state shouldn't be in the business of killing people.

here's a question i'd like to pose: if the difference between "execution" and "murder" is the innocence of the victim, should we be prosecuting those responsible for the state-sanctioned death row murders of innocent victims?

[Greenday]

It all starts in the beginning. Showing no mercy, no thought of another person's life and just taking it away......that is something that is the worst of the worst you can do to a person, to take away their right to live. If you don't value the lives of others around you, why should anyone value yours?

Once again, what do we do to the executioner then? I mean, the execution is "showing no mercy, no thought of another person's life and just taking it away". The only difference between murder and execution is "Since we are the government and we are the ones doing it, it's totally cool for us to kill people".

Execution = legalized murder

It's still murder.

[telecom_goddess]

here's a question i'd like to pose: if the difference between "execution" and "murder" is the innocence of the victim, should we be prosecuting those responsible for the state-sanctioned death row murders of innocent victims?

Interesting point....I think the difference between execution and murder lies more with the circumstances. Murder is done with no valid reason, execution is carried out as an end to a legal process. I think if someone innocent gets put to death for some reason we shouldn't be prosecuting the people who did it, since it was done within the sanctions of the law, and they were carrying out their job function. If they execute outside of the sentence being carried out then yeah they should be prosecuted regardless because then it's not within the sanctions of the law.

make sense?

[Greenday]

So you don't believe that executions is a form of vengeance? Because we could just let them rot in jail for the rest of their life and they actually suffer.

[linguist]

Interesting point....I think the difference between execution and murder lies more with the circumstances. Murder is done with no valid reason, execution is carried out as an end to a legal process. I think if someone innocent gets put to death for some reason we shouldn't be prosecuting the people who did it, since it was done within the sanctions of the law, and they were carrying out their job function. If they execute outside of the sentence being carried out then yeah they should be prosecuted regardless because then it's not within the sanctions of the law.

make sense?

it does, and i do agree with you, to a certain extent. however, the argument i seem to hear most often from pro-death penalty people against the anti-death penalty side is that we don't care about the rights of innocent victims, as if innocence of the victim is all that makes the difference. nothing could be further from the truth, however. i care very much about victims' rights, but i also know that sometimes the victims are the ones sentenced to die, and until we can be 100% certain that an innocent will never die on death row, the death penalty shouldn't be an option.

as for my question, i wasn't so much even referring to the executioners, especially as many states have multiple-executioner systems in place such that nobody knows which is actually responsible for the death. i was thinking more along the lines of the prosecutor who chooses to ignore or actively suppress evidence which may prove the accused innocent, or the "tough on crime" judge who disallows such evidence from even being introduced.

[telecom_goddess]

i was thinking more along the lines of the prosecutor who chooses to ignore or actively suppress evidence which may prove the accused innocent, or the "tough on crime" judge who disallows such evidence from even being introduced.

That's a whole other argument in regards to the justice system and how corrupt it is.....