Executions

[K.D. Lightner]

Oh, boy.

I find myself swinging back and forth on this one.

The part of me that dislikes the idea of capital punishment, can argue that it is mainly because innocent people have been wrongly convicted and executed. Look how many people are getting out of prison these days because of DNA evidence.

Also, because of the long duration between conviction and execution, some criminals change and become different people than they were when they committed their crimes (many times on drugs). I am thinking of perhaps a Carla Fay Tucker or that guy in California who became an anti-gang crusader (last name Williams, I think? Someone here will know).

Of course, one can argue that anyone can claim they have changed and/or do good deeds, and one can say that it was their choice to take the drugs or drink the alcohol that lead them to do horrible crimes. So....

I know that when I read about some of the crimes committed, I feel like killing the criminal, myself. I feel if someone I loved were murdered, I would want to be the one to kill his/her murderer. And it wouldn't be by lethal injection, either.

I would think that part of the "torture" involved in these cases have to do with the last minute arguing, legal challenges, etc. Imagine you have geared yourself up to die and, at the last minute, here comes a reprieve -- for awhile. I would say, if I were that criminal, "oh, for God's sake, just get it over with."

Don't know -- haven't been there, haven't done that. Just my reflections.

karol

 

[Harry Lime]

I am most closely aligned with Feraud in thought on this one although I have a different conclusion. I feel that it's wrong for civilized society to judge whether anyone should or live or die, miscarriages of justice and mistakes and plain human error being a large part of that. Unfortunately it's our burden to punish in other ways, even if it "costs tax payers dollars," in my opinion. War cost tax payers dollars too; a lot of the same people who want the death penalty support questionable war efforts that cost a lot of money as well. They don't seem to squeak much about that fact.

I don't beleive the death penalty has deterred one significant crime ever and I don't think it ever will in the future, short of enacting a Hitler or Stalin-like police state. The only deterrence is increasing the odds a criminal will be caught; even that will not deter a lot of crime because criminals are seldom "thinkers" in this regard.

Although many claim they don't beleive in Capital Punishment as vengeance it seems their words often contradict this. The death penalty is a perpetuation of violence to punish other violence and that seems morally wrong to me.

One man's opinion only on this polarizing topic.

Harry Lime

 

[Prairie Shade]

OK Harry Lime

I find myself swinging over to even another point of view (no pun intended). Excellent observations of the costs to society in many futile ventures.

 

[jamespowers]

I would think that part of the "torture" involved in these cases have to do with the last minute arguing, legal challenges, etc. Imagine you have geared yourself up to die and, at the last minute, here comes a reprieve -- for awhile. I would say, if I were that criminal, "oh, for God's sake, just get it over with."

I think you have a good point and it goes to the point about prison for life being worse than death. If this were so then why do they fight so hard to keep from being executed? They should just march right in and say "Here I am."
We all know death is the worst punishment we can give. Its degrees of punishment depend on how much pain is involved. Having watched my mother fight cancer for many years and finally lose last year, I can truly say that executions of today have nothing over death from diseases like cancer and heart disease. I have no doubt that if left on their own, these criminals would die a death far worse than getting a lethal injection---the poor dears. :eusa_booh

Regards to all,


J

 

[MudInYerEye]

I am most closely aligned with Feraud in thought on this one although I have a different conclusion. I feel that it's wrong for civilized society to judge whether anyone should or live or die, miscarriages of justice and mistakes and plain human error being a large part of that. Unfortunately it's our burden to punish in other ways, even if it "costs tax payers dollars," in my opinion. War cost tax payers dollars too; a lot of the same people who want the death penalty support questionable war efforts that cost a lot of money as well. They don't seem to squeak much about that fact.

I don't beleive the death penalty has deterred one significant crime ever and I don't think it ever will in the future, short of enacting a Hitler or Stalin-like police state. The only deterrence is increasing the odds a criminal will be caught; even that will not deter a lot of crime because criminals are seldom "thinkers" in this regard.

Although many claim they don't beleive in Capital Punishment as vengeance it seems their words often contradict this. The death penalty is a perpetuation of violence to punish other violence and that seems morally wrong to me.

One man's opinion only on this polarizing topic.

Harry Lime

I agree with Harry in that captial punishment is essentially useless as a deterrent of significant crimes. However I do see execution as apt punishment for those conclusively proven guilty of the worst varieties of crimes. Call it vengeance, call it uncivilized, call it immoral, whatever. I see it as one of the many unpleasant but essential facets of properly maintaining society.

 

[jamespowers]

I agree with Harry in that captial punishment is essentially useless as a deterrent of significant crimes.

Actually it works quite well. That same individual will never hurt anyone again. It reduces his future crimes to zero. :arated:
Someone in jail for life can always have the chance of breaking out and doing something worse than he has before.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I'm pretty consistent on this one. I'm for capital punishment ... and for euthanasia (assisted suicide). I also believe that we must decriminalize attempted suicide. If the State can take away my life, why can't I?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I also believe that executions should be televised via pay-per-view. The profits would go to the victims' families, drug rehabilitation programs, and border control.

 

[scotrace]

OK

Marc, I run a pretty mean campaign. Add legalized pot to the list and You need to be in Congress. Whatsay?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I agree with you on the pot question. I don't agree on the Congress question! But thanks anyway :cheers1:

 

[Lauren]

I also believe that executions should be televised via pay-per-view. The profits would go to the victims' families, drug rehabilitation programs, and border control.

I'm actually with you on this one. Or maybe if we had public executions at no charge, people would think more before they did something that deserved being executed.

 

[Michaelson]

I believe one of the problems is we no longer have what used to be referred to as 'hard time'. Individuals on death row have been supported by the public for many thousands of dollars a year. When I lived in Ohio, it was reported back in the late 1980's that it cost an average of $26,000 a year to support an individual on death row at the Lucasville So. Ohio Correctional Facility....the facility where the State executions take place.

These people are kept usually in solitary confinement, but enjoy access to the library, their own TV, and more often than not earn college degrees on the public dime. (Anyone here have a child that received 100% public funding to earn up to 3 degrees with no expectation of payback? Mine didn't.)

So, would we feel differently if these individuals were experiencing 'hard time' for real, or are we more apt to want them executed if we knew they were no longer being kept in relative comfort, and having some things even better than our own children?

I'm for capital punishment myself, but the system is so lopsided now, it's a gray area anymore.

Just some food for thought.

Regards! Michaelson

 

[Harry Lime]

Someone in jail for life can always have the chance of breaking out and doing something worse than he has before.

Regards to all,

J[/QUOTE]

Someone can always break out of jail because the system is imperfect. If the system is imperfect how can it be trusted with deciding the right to live or die? Personal paranoia isn't an adequate reason to ignore morals. Again, just one man's opinion. And I'll offer it without an over-use of those annoying smiley-face figures.

Harry Lime

 

[J. M. Stovall]

Sorry, I'm a facts nerd. A lot of discussion in this thread of escapes.


How often do U.S. prisoners escape?

Not very. In 1998, the most recent year for which data are available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 6,530 people escaped or were AWOL from state prisons. That was a little more than one-half of 1 percent of the total population of 1,100,224 state prisoners.

And the numbers are declining. Fewer people have escaped from state prisons every year since 1994, and the percentage of prisoners escaping or going AWOL has fallen steadily, too. In 1993, 14,305 prisoners escaped out of a prison population of 780,357. That's almost 2 percent.

True, there are still thousands of escapees a year. Why aren't you hearing about them? The vast majority of escapees are "walk-aways" from community corrections facilities that have minimal supervision. Dramatic, Hollywood-style escapes from maximum security prisons are the ones that draw media attention.

Like their maximum security counterparts, the minimum security walk-aways are usually recovered. State prisons reported that more escapees and AWOL prisoners were returned than escaped every year from 1995 to 1998. The last year with more escapees than recaptured prisoners was 1994, when 14,307 prisoners escaped and 13,346 were returned.

Federal prison breakouts are rarer than state prison escapes. One federal prisoner escaped and was recaptured in 1999, out of a prison population of more than 115,000. He was the only one to escape in the past four years.

 

[J. M. Stovall]

More facts. I can't find any statistics on death row escapes, apparently they don't keep records that specific (at least for the general public). This was the only factoid I could find.

In 1999 Mr. Gurule was the ony death row inmate to escape from a Texas prison since 1934. He scaled a pair of tall chain-link fences topped with razor wire after escaping from an outdoor exercise yard. He then fled into the foggy night early Friday. He was shortly recaptured hiding in a creek on prison property.

Texas is the only state in the nation that had allowed work privileges to death row inmates. An estimated 1/3 of those inmates participated in the program. That program has since been eliminated.

Facts are fun.

 

[jamespowers]

Someone in jail for life can always have the chance of breaking out and doing something worse than he has before.

Regards to all,

J

Someone can always break out of jail because the system is imperfect. If the system is imperfect how can it be trusted with deciding the right to live or die? Personal paranoia isn't an adequate reason to ignore morals. Again, just one man's opinion. And I'll offer it without an over-use of those annoying smiley-face figures.

Harry Lime[/QUOTE]

Say what you like the fact is that the person's recividism rate is zero.:kick:
Whose morality do you base anti-death penalty ideas on. We have already heard that the bible as a source for such is not moot on the issue. It makes the death penalty clear without deference to inhumane methods. [huh]
Realistically, the lifetime chances of a person going to prison are men: 11.3% and women 1.8%. (US Department of Justice) Even worse is the reason why penalties of any crime are not a deterent---Offenders know that the probability of being convicted and incarcerated for committing a crime is low. For example, in 1975, fewer than 6.15 percent of the reported violent crimes in Michigan resulted in a felony conviction. The probability of being incarcerated for committing rape, robbery, or burglary in North Carolina in 1981 were approximately 5 percent, 9.6 percent, and 1 percent, respectively (Orsagh, 1982). Not only is the certainty of conviction weak, the severity of the conviction when it comes is shockingly light. For example, by some calculations, convicted murderers in 1992 in the state of Florida could expect a sentence of 2.99 years.(Benson, Rasmussen, and Mast, 1994: 15). Wheee! They certainly will take their chances.
The system is the system we have to work with. The chance of someone breaking out of jail is low enough for the system to not be declared entirely flawed. The chance of someone being convicted for a crime they did not commit is similarly low. If you have a better sytem in mind then please enlighten us. :eusa_booh
My surmisation is that we are far too lenient as it is. They don't get caught in a majority of cases and when they are they are slapped on the wrist and let go. Fixing these two problems would likely fix the crime rate because it is the usual suspects that are commiting the crimes. :cheers1:

Regards,

J

 

[J. M. Stovall]

All right James, that's what I like to see. Facts and figures!

 

[jamespowers]

All right James, that's what I like to see. Facts and figures!

I figured as much.

Regards,

J

 

[Feraud]

An interesting discussion...

I tend to accept facts and statistics with caution. I have heard too many advocates use the same (or similar) stats to argue both sides of an arguement. The get so bogged down with 'facts' to prove they are right and it sometimes obscures any real dialogue.

I think we hold ourselves to a higher level here at the F.L.

 

[shamus]

I also believe that executions should be televised via pay-per-view. The profits would go to the victims' families, drug rehabilitation programs, and border control.

I'm just curious, why would money go to border control? How does that fit in?