From the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=517655&in_page_id=1770&ct=5)

I always thought this is why Australia was created :D

On a more serious note, this is becoming more of a problem every day. I know here in Massachusetts, USA for awhile we were shipping our inmates to other states that had extra capacity. I thought it was a brilliant idea, as renting a cell has to be cheaper then building new jails. However, the lawsuits started to pile up as family members were upset that they couldn't visit their "felons" and then the inmates started to sue that the conditions weren't what they wanted. I'm not even sure we do this anymore.

It just dawned on me, considering we are outsourcing all of our jobs to India anyway, maybe we can outsource our jails too?

Jails were declared absolutely full last night for the first time in history.

Even court and police cells were packed as the number of prisoners rose to 82,068 - almost 100 above the official safety limit.

The crisis is expected to trigger the early release of thousands of muggers, burglars and other convicts.

In a desperate attempt to buy time, Jack Straw begged magistrates to imprison fewer offenders.

Bursting point: For the first time, there's not one prison cell to spare

The Justice Secretary said the courts were giving short jail terms when community punishments would be better.

But magistrates refused point-blank to help him out of the shambles - saying they would continue to hand down whatever sentence they saw fit.

The Magistrates' Association said it did not react kindly to being placed under "pressure" by ministers.

Tory spokesman Nick Herbert said: "The prison system is now in genuine crisis. This is not the fault of magistrates but the result of sheer incompetence by this Government."

The scope of the crisis was revealed in a Ministry of Justice statement that the number of inmates had reached an all-time high of 82,068.

The total operational capacity - based on governors' advice on what is safe for "control, security and proper operation" - is only 81,972, including more than 350 places in police cells and courts.

In a bid to get through the weekend, inmates jailed yesterday were crammed into prison spaces normally considered out of bounds by governors.

But next week even this overspill is likely to be exhausted.

Plans have been drawn up to extend an existing early release scheme called End of Custody Licence, which lets convicts out 18 days before their sentence reaches even the halfway point.

It was implemented last June and has led to the early release of 16,000 inmates - one of whom has since committed a murder.

Extending ECL to 30 days would free hundreds of spaces, but Downing Street is nervous about such a drastic step for fear of yet more damage to Labour's reputation on law and order.

Officials at the Ministry of Justice, however, believe all other options have been exhausted.

In the past week alone, they have bussed scores of inmates to open jails and announced a scheme to send foreign offenders home nine months early.

But the panic measures have either come too late or achieved too little.

Mr Straw was reduced to appealing direct to the courts, echoing a similar Government request in January 2007 to jail only the most dangerous villains, which itself sparked uproar among the judiciary. He said: 'We have 350 magistrates courts in England and Wales.

"If each one ends up sentencing one extra prisoner a week to jail then we have got the increase we face.

"There are effective alternatives in terms of non-custodial penalties which actually have a better record in terms of preventing re-offending."

But Cindy Barnett, chairman of the Magistrates' Association, said the courts must have the freedom to impose sentences as they saw fit.

She added: "We don't use custody lightly, we use it when it is so serious that nothing else can be justified and we must make that individual decision.

"I think it would be very unfortunate if anything was said that is seen as pressure on individual sentences. I think that would be wrong."

Tories accused the Government of "catastrophic mismanagement".

Mr Herbert said: "They have ignored repeated warnings, failed to build adequate capacity and their belated building programme has fallen behind schedule."

He said there must be no extension of ECL.

Colin Moses of the Prison Officers' Association accused ministers of "total mismanagement".

He warned: "The prisons are not safe. We have increased numbers yet again with no change in regime and no increase in staffing. This is risk management at the highest level."

Ministers have promised to build an extra 14,000 prison places by 2014, including giant Titan jails holding 2,500 inmates.

But the prison population is already outstripping projections made as recently as December. It means the building effort is unlikely to be sufficient.

End the War on Drugs, problem solved.

Of course, since prohibition was such a brilliant success the first time around, maybe we should continue the WoD.

America could outsource their prisons to Iraq, Uganda, Cuba or China, and then insist they hire some expert Iraqi, Ugandan, Cuban or Chinese jailers, adding to the deterrent effect. Everybody will be scared ****less to be sent to such a hell hole. The aspect of likely prisoner abuse will be settled by the market - rising and or sinking demand will determine the intensity of abuse. Best, as we have learned from the current administration about Guantanamo - they're offshore, that is outside US soil, and thus, outside US jurisdiction, hehe ;)

Personally, I find the mere idea of having 'a prison market' and private businesses providing jails and earn money that way just creepy, and such a scheme is probably conceivable only in America.

In my view the American prison complex is an abomination. How was that, more people in jail in the US than in China that has three times the population? I doubt that the sentencing practice in the US is such a great idea, or effective.

EDIT: In case you didn't notice, this is a story about the UK (Jack Straw etc. in the article...).

Wow, over 80000 prisoners. The streets of the UK must be just crawling with criminals to have tha many actually caught and in prison! The citizens must live in constant fear of their lives and possessions! ;)

On the other hand, it sounds like they didn't plan very well, since the US has more prisoners per capita than the UK :lol:

Stop trying to confuse the issue with facts. Facts have no place on the internet.

EDIT: In case you didn't notice, this is a story about the UK (Jack Straw etc. in the article...).

Wow, over 80000 prisoners. The streets of the UK must be just crawling with criminals to have tha many actually caught and in prison! The citizens must live in constant fear of their lives and possessions! ;)

On the other hand, it sounds like they didn't plan very well, since the US has more prisoners per capita than the UK :lol:

I admit, I was being a stinker, by not directly mentioning that the article was about the UK. I got the responses I was expecting :D

I think it is an interesting dillema though. What do you do when your society is overrun with people who won't follow the rules of your society. Who is wrong, the people or the society?

I would hate to be the person to have to decide who gets let out early to make room for someone else. I believe the article

mentioned that a murder has already been committed because of this. How must the families feel, when justice is ignored?

As to Ragusa's comment. He may be on to something. If right now prison isn't something to be feared, maybe we need to "uncivilize" it a little bit. I know for me, the thought of going to prison is terrible. I know there is no way I would survive. For others who don't think that way, maybe it is time to make them. There is an old saying "If you do the crime, you do the time." Judging by the situaion in the UK, that doesn't seem to be true anymore. If criminals think they can "do the crime, and not do the time" doesn't that just make them bolder? I know in his heart Ragusa didn't really mean it, but I like how he is thinking "outside the box" (pun intended).

As to the China stat, that is probably because the Chinese know it is cheaper and easier to just put a bullet into a head.

If the objective is to make prisons Super Suck so as to encourage people to obey the law, okay. Except then you either need to never let prisoners out again, or invest heavily in mandatory therapy and counseling.

You don't stick people in Hell for seven years and expect them to emerge productive members of society.

As for 'is society wrong or are the people wrong', you're asking the wrong question. The correct question is whether the benefits of a given law and enforcement policy outweigh the drawbacks. When it comes to The War on Drugs, the answer is obvious.

Possible solutions:

1: Capital Punishment. Only for the most extreme of crimes, but it does free up room for one or more prisoners (In Canada, we have one specific prisoner who's in isolation for his own protection, and will never be released. You could house dozens of prisoners in the area he's confined to if you just string him up).

2: Building more prisons. This will increase the capacity available to incarcerate prisoners who deserve it. It will also increase the demand for corrections officers, creating more jobs.

3: Look at alternatives to incarceration. Not every person who commits a crime deserves to be locked up. If there is an alternative that will enable them to pay their debt to society while being rehabilitated, then that should be explored.

However, the lawsuits started to pile up as family members were upset that they couldn't visit their "felons" and then the inmates started to sue that the conditions weren't what they wanted. I'm not even sure we do this anymore.


There is your problem. Specifically the "Inmates started to sue that the conditions weren't what they wanted" If they dont like the conditions, then don't commit the crime, simple. Seriously, why on earth should they be given the conditions they want?

On a more serious note, this is becoming more of a problem every day. I know here in Massachusetts, USA for awhile we were shipping our inmates to other states that had extra capacity. I thought it was a brilliant idea, as renting a cell has to be cheaper then building new jails. However, the lawsuits started to pile up as family members were upset that they couldn't visit their "felons" and then the inmates started to sue that the conditions weren't what they wanted. I'm not even sure we do this anymore.

I'm not sure if you are speaking of MA in particular or the US in general. I can say, however that the state of Arizona does this. We've got dudes in Indiana and Oklahoma and had some in Texas up until a few years ago. As far as the lawsuits and such go, I think that making accommodations for the comfort and benefit of inmates is absolutely, patently ridiculous. Such is the litigious society that we live in. :mad:

A few suggestions:

1.) Make the only available form of official entertainment in jails be the library, and stock the library with lots of books that have higher than an 8th grade reading level. No excercize equipment except jogging and working.

2.) Make sure all the food in jails is healty, nutritious, and absolutely tasteless.

3.) Take a serious, hard look at the conditions in society that are causing these people to turn to crime in the first place. Are these people just meanies who beat on the weak to get what they want, or are they starving mothers of 3 children trying to survive? Address the original problem, and you'll have fewer criminals to contain.

2: Building more prisons. This will increase the capacity available to incarcerate prisoners who deserve it. It will also increase the demand for corrections officers, creating more jobs.

3: Look at alternatives to incarceration. Not every person who commits a crime deserves to be locked up. If there is an alternative that will enable them to pay their debt to society while being rehabilitated, then that should be explored.

I'm not exactly keen on 1, as it's darned hard to reverse if the system has, you know, messed up. As for the others, sure. BTW, do prisoners in the UK and US work? I think there was at least an option for most light-duty prisoners here, and it has its uses - it offers prisoners a way to get some small change, may give them work experience, provides some money for the prison and cheap-ish labor force for low-training jobs. It's not a panacea, but it can help bring the costs down and maybe even improve efficiency.

As for 3... I'm not sure on the options for low-level crimes. I mean, there's fine, imprisonment, and/or community service... What else?


Of course, that kind of thing has an history of really getting out of hand if you're not careful. I don't want 1943 Germany work camps, ok?

From the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=517655&in_page_id=1770&ct=5)

It just dawned on me, considering we are outsourcing all of our jobs to India anyway, maybe we can outsource our jails too?

Brilliant! And how about China as well? Put the poor sods to work in a tube sock factory. Globalization is good for all of us!

I think there was at least an option for most light-duty prisoners here, and it has its uses - it offers prisoners a way to get some small change, may give them work experience, provides some money for the prison and cheap-ish labor force for low-training jobs. It's not a panacea, but it can help bring the costs down and maybe even improve efficiency.Some of this kind of thing is done in some states, but it is not done nearly enough.

BTW, do prisoners in the UK and US work? I think there was at least an option for most light-duty prisoners here, and it has its uses - it offers prisoners a way to get some small change, may give them work experience, provides some money for the prison and cheap-ish labor force for low-training jobs. It's not a panacea, but it can help bring the costs down and maybe even improve efficiency.

I'm sure it varies greatly from state to state, but here in Maryland, non-violent first time in jail offenders can actually keep their current job while serving their term! I was unaware of this until I served on a grand jury about two years ago. They put one of those tracking bracelets around your ankle so you can't bolt, and instead of going home to the wife and kids at the end of the day, you go back to prison.

For minor offences, letting perpetrators pay for their crimes through fines or community service is certainly more constructive than locking them up with hard criminals. It teaches them a positive lesson, rather than a negative one.

Example: Tourist forced to clean his own graffiti off glacier in New Zealand. (http://www.startribune.com/nation/15956047.html) I don't think either New Zealand or Germany (his homeland) would have gained anything from throwing this guy in jail. Now, however, he will probably think twice before spray-painting his tags in public places again.

Death sentences to all!!! *raving psychotic smilie here*

Putting people into jails is a booming business. One that the governments have their fingers stuck in deep, I might add. Think of all the people going out of jobs if you quit the war on drugs...

I'd be humane about criminals, three strikes and lobotomize them. Most of the people in jails are first-time offenders though...nah, just lobotomize all of them. Or perform a frontal lobe leucotomy, which isn't quite the same as lobotomizing. We need more drooling zombies, yup. But it'd be more cost efficient to perform radical surgery...I know! Human guinea pigs! Let's start doing questionable medical research on the prisoners! Yay! :banana:

Sometimes it seems we're only one single step away from totalitarian fascism...

Example: Tourist forced to clean his own graffiti off glacier in New Zealand. (http://www.startribune.com/nation/15956047.html)

New Zealand has glaciers? Really great big glaciers like you see in Alaska, Canada and Greenland? I never knew!

2 of them iirc. Franz Josef and Fox. Iku, hold back on the sarcasm... You seem to be blowing this a tad out of proportion.

Yeah, I just saw that bit on the Impressive/cool videos about how to behave in an internet forum and gee-whiz, that previous post of mine was goshdarn too close a hitler/nazi-argument. Not good. My bad.

On a serious note however, I am worried about how the legislation in western countries and enforcing the law is getting harder on the regular folk once again. Fortunately there hasn't been that much police brutality these days, but there's been far too many cases of excessive force and there's always reason to be concerned when a government gives more liberties to law-enforcement officials. It's a small surprise if the prisons are full if what was once a misdemeanor makes you a felon these days. More control is not a good thing and neither are harsher punishments. If everyone's a suspect, it'll easily lead to finding more people to put into jails than you'd ever want to.

I'm opposed to drug use but I have to agree with what's been said about ending this ridiculous war on drugs. The cops should be focussing on catching people who engage in violent crime or who through lack of self-control or consideration for their fellow citizens cause pain and suffering to those citizens (I am specifically referring to drunk drivers who kill decent people.)

For people who commit heinous crimes like murder and rape, I'm tired of them getting "nice" jail conditions. They need to suffer for what they have done, and there are so many cases where it is bloody obvious to anyone with half a brain that they are guilty. These people (the case Gnarff brought up about Paul Bernardo being a good example -- the videotapes he made are beyond damning evidence) they should be killed, ASAP, with extreme prejudice. After what he did to those little girls, it is a disgrace that my tax dollars go toward his care and feeding. I'd cheerfully pull the trigger/pull the trapdoor/perform the injection myself at his execution.

Release the peaceful potheads!

After what he did to those little girls, it is a disgrace that my tax dollars go toward his care and feeding. I'd cheerfully pull the trigger/pull the trapdoor/perform the injection myself at his execution.

All I need is a pair of handcuffs, a crowbar, and for irony, a video camera...

Actually, how many drug users end up in jail, where Rehab might be able to help them? Break the addiction, then what resources they have can be used better int he future...

For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison (http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=64858).According to the report, the inmate population increased last year in 36 states and the federal prison system.

The largest percentage increase — 12 percent — was in Kentucky, where Gov. Steve Beshear highlighted the cost of corrections in his budget speech last month. He noted that the state's crime rate had increased only about 3 percent in the past 30 years, while the state's inmate population has increased by 600 percent.So it's not so much a reflection about an increase in crime but about harsher incarceration and sentencing policies. Where is the utility in that I wonder?

I disagree, it IS about an increase in crime. The real question is WHY is there such an increase.

Last I checked all the violent crime rates had fallen significantly from where they were a few decades ago. Hence that bit in Freakonomics about abortion lowering the homicide rate.

I haven't paid too much attention, so I suppose it's possible that the nonviolent offense rate was increasing in the same time period.

I direct your attention back to the War on Drugs. Yeah, yeah, I'm a broken record. But, y'know, it ain't self-interest; I've smoked me a bold a grand total of one time, and have no intention of doing anything harder. Ever.

We need to put in an express lane for the death penality. No more appeals you had your already.
Also we need to work on rehapiliting criminals back into society. If we keep treating them like animals thats all they will ever be. We need to change the way they think.

We need to put in an express lane for the death penality. No more appeals you had your already.http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0504-09.htm


Cameron Todd Willingham is the first and only man executed in the United States for suspected arson after his three children, all under the age of three, burned to death at their home in Corsicana, about an hour's drive south-east of Dallas, Texas, in December 1991.

Willingham testified at his trial that he narrowly escaped the fire himself, that he tried and failed to rescue his children, that he then made repeated attempts to call for help and re-enter the building, at one point smashing a window with a pool cue in the hope of reaching the children's bedrooms.

Not everyone, though, believed him. One of his neighbours, who knew he was a drifter, knew he had trouble holding down a job and knew about his fondness for going out to drink beer and play darts, thought he hadn't done nearly enough to save his family.

When the fire marshals examined the aftermath of the fire, they too found some anomalies and began to wonder if Willingham hadn't set it deliberately. Particularly damning at his trial was the testimony of the deputy state fire marshal, Manuel Vasquez, who examined the burn patterns on the wood floor and the melted aluminium threshold piece, as well as the way certain pieces of glass has cracked into crazy patterns in the heat, and told the jury there was no way this was the result of an accident. Someone, presumably Willingham, had sprinkled fuel and set light to the building.

"The fire tells a story," Mr Vasquez said on the stand at Willingham's trial. "I am just the interpreter. I am looking at the fire, and I am interpreting the fire. That is what I know. That is what I do best. And the fire does not lie. It tells the truth."

Willingham was duly convicted of murder and, after 12 years on death row, was executed by lethal injection in February 2004.

Now, though, compelling evidence has emerged that Mr Vasquez did not in fact know what he was talking about. None of his testimony has passed muster with a panel of acknowledged arson experts, which has gone over it in detail. And without his testimony, the case against Willingham is left essentially baseless. Unlike most capital convictions, where a defendant's protestations of innocence raise the question of who else might have committed the crime, this case may well have constituted no criminal behaviour whatsoever, just one more ghastly element in an unspeakable family tragedy. That is certainly what Willingham asserted as he went to his death. "The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man, convicted of a crime I did not committed," he said. "I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do."

Thanks to the work of the New York-based Innocence Project - a team of defence lawyers who put dubious capital convictions under the microscope of modern technology - his protest is looking increasingly believable.

The group commissioned a real expert's report using advances in the understanding of arson evidence which will make uncomfortable reading for the prosecution in the Willingham case. Their findings will this week be handed to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which is constitutionally bound to launch its own investigation and report back to Governor Rick Perry, the man who gave the green light to Willingham's execution.

The Innocence Project's report will be hard to argue with. It was compiled by four of the country's leading arson experts who have testified on behalf of defence and prosecution in previous cases. Their conclusion: Willingham's conviction was based on bad science, and none of the evidence should have ever led investigators to believe the fire was set deliberately. "While we have no doubt that ... witnesses believed what they were saying, each and every one of the indicators relied upon have since been scientifically proven to be invalid," the report says.

And so the stage is set for the next big showdown over the death penalty in the US. Already, the pace of executions in most states has slowed because of doubts in recent years about the safety of capital convictions. The release of death row inmates shown by DNA evidence and other methods to have been innocent of the crimes of which they were accused is steadily increasing.

And a host of other doubts are being introduced. California's execution machine is at a standstill because of evidence that the lethal drugs administered during executions merely mask the pain felt by the dying prisoner instead of eliminating it. Reports emerged from Ohio on Tuesday of convicted murderer Joseph Lewis Clark taking 90 minutes to die after the team trying to deliver a lethal injection had problems finding a suitable vein.

The Project's lawyers have been instrumental in forcing courts to take new DNA-testing technology into account when reviewing convictions. Since 1992, when the Innocence Project first began, 175 prisoners have been exonerated, including 14 who spent time on death row.

It was the Project's lawyers who first questioned the arson evidence. They assembled the panel of experts and commissioned the report. More strikingly, they were also responsible for lobbying the Texas authorities and bringing about the existence of the Forensic Science Commission in the first place.

As the Innocence Project itself put it in a statement, the release of its report "marks the first time in the nation that scientific evidence showing an innocent person was executed has been submitted to a government entity that is legally obligated to investigate cases, reach conclusions and direct system-wide reviews to determine the extent of the problem". In other words, it could conceivably be the beginning of the end of the death penalty in Texas.

It also spells political trouble for Governor Perry as he faces an election race this November. Many of the arson panel's conclusions had been reached even before Willingham's execution, by a Cambridge-educated arson expert called Gerald Hurst, who passed on his findings to the Governor's office. As he told an investigative team from the Chicago Tribune at the time: "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." It does not appear, however, that Dr Hurst's findings were taken seriously by either the Governor's office or the state Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Barry Scheck, one of the two principles of the Innocence Project, who remains perhaps most famous for his role in defending O J Simpson, said he had established through open records requests that the Hurst report had indeed been properly filed before the execution.

"Neither office has any record of anyone acknowledging it, taking note of its significance, responding to it or calling any attention to it within the government," he said. "The only reasonable conclusion is that the Governor's office and the Board of Pardons and Paroles ignored scientific evidence and went through with the execution."

The prosecution, meanwhile, presented last-minute, second-hand evidence that Willingham had confessed to his estranged wife, something she later said was untrue.

Perhaps most poignant for Willingham's surviving relatives is that, at the time of execution, a similar case was going through the Texas legal system, that of Ernest Willis, who had been sentenced to death for his alleged role in setting a fatal fire in west Texas in 1987. Dr Hurst examined his case, too, found the forensic evidence similarly flawed and said he saw no evidence of arson. Willis was able to have his case reopened and dismissed. He walked out of death row a free man seven months after Willingham's execution.

All this adds up to a potentially explosive cocktail of political and social issues. Texans may be more attached than most Americans to the death penalty, but even they tend to draw the line at putting innocent people to death. One candidate in the governor's race, the humourist and former singer Kinky Friedman, does not appear to have been harmed by his record of campaigning on behalf of death row prisoners. One of Friedman's campaign lines is: "Texas: 50th in education, first in executions... how's that working for you?"

If the political tide is turning slowly, the sense of discomfort in the professional world of forensics and legal analysis is starting to be overwhelming. Copycat Innocence Projects have been set up. The original one, meanwhile, has been at the forefront of denouncing errors and unprofessional behaviour at forensic crime labs around the country, most notably in Virginia, Texas and Ohio.

The group has also made disturbing findings about the functioning of the criminal justice system more generally. The Innocence Project has found that the single biggest cause of wrongful convictions is mistaken eyewitness identification testimony. In more than a third of cases, forensic science has also been misapplied in some way, with experts presenting "fraudulent, exaggerated, or otherwise tainted evidence to the judge or jury".

Six years ago, the state of Illinois issued a blanket commutation of all its death sentences after it was established that 13 people on death row were in fact innocent of the crimes of which they were committed. (In that case, it was journalism students at Northwestern University who did the legwork.) Much more recently, New York state chose not to reinstate its death penalty law.

The backlash against capital punishment may be coming too late for Willingham, but his case remains a potent weapon in the hands of the Innocence Project and other campaigners. If Texas, of all states, is forced to acknowledge it killed an innocent man, then the death penalty may be on its way to extinction.

Still, they were found guilty in court. They have an implied contract with the state. We are obligated to obide by the laws. Does the obligation count for an unjust conviction? Law and Morality are not identical.

Overall, I still say an express lane to the death penalty would be better. Background checks would account if it really is someone who really did just fall in with the wrong crowd would account for a lesser sentence. But this really doesn't apply for the death penalty.

What is death? We all are going to die sooner or later. What is Justice? Can you really be so sure they didn't deserve it? The law must be upheld over personal greavences.

We need to put in an express lane for the death penality. No more appeals you had your already.
Also we need to work on rehapiliting criminals back into society. If we keep treating them like animals thats all they will ever be. We need to change the way they think.

Vhailor, something about what you said struck a chord with me, so I may be a tad more personal than usual. Death, whatever it may be, is not something to take lightly. To release an unjustly convicted prisoner is a matter of paperwork. To restore an unjustly killed one is a matter of divine intervention - and for good or ill, God does not often intervene in the judicial process. So until we find a way to restore people from death, I'd say go easy on ordering it. We only have one life, and there's no greater insult - or injury - than to waste yours or someone else's.

As for justice, as humans we seldom know all there is to know about an act or a person. We are imperfect, and so is any judgement we may pass - and we should have that in mind when dispensing it. I don't have any sympathy for mass murderers or rapists - but I cringe every time that I hear that someone who's been executed turns out to have been innocent. Hell, some of them were probably sentenced by well-meaning judges who actually believed they were doing the right thing - but lack of knowledge, mistake in judgement and/or lawyers' skill (or lack thereof) led to the person being convicted. I'm not quite sure how much it would cost me, but saving a man's life is supposed to be worth something, damn it.

Certainly, and thankfully, such cases are rare in many countries - but that doesn't mean I should be okay with it.

Still, they were found guilty in court. They have an implied contract with the state. We are obligated to obide by the laws. Does the obligation count for an unjust conviction? Law and Morality are not identical. First of all, the death penalty is not necessary for the rule of law. Second, you quite clearly advocated taking the right to appeal, a right expressly guaranteed by our constitution, away from death row inmates. This isn't just wrong. It's stupid.

What is death? We all are going to die sooner or later. What is Justice? Can you really be so sure they didn't deserve it? The law must be upheld over personal greavences.You didn't just say that, did you? You aren't seriously trying to defend the death penalty by arguing that, while some innocents may be put to death, that isn't a problem because they may still have deserved it? Wait...no, it looks like you did. Dude, there are a few reasonable arguments that can be made in favor of the death penalty. This is not one of them.

I meant limiting the number of apeals. Which if you read closely I said.
Are you against the death penalty in general?

I wasn't defending the death penalty. What I was getting at was the law shouldn't be changed because some "innocent" was put to death. It is regreatable but the justice system isn't perfect.

I meant limiting the number of apeals. Which if you read closely I clearly said.Death row inmates are allowed just as many appeals as any other prisoner. No more, and no less. Limiting their appeals would mean giving them less rights than every other inmate. The difference you are seeing in frequency of appeals is simply that death row inmates are far more likely (and , in some states, even required) to actually use their appeals than the general prison population. This is probably because if they don't appeal, they will die. A man who was fairly sentenced to life in prison is a lot less likely to appeal than a man who was sentenced to death.

You are against the death penalty in general?Yes, although I can respect reasonable arguments made in its defense. Your argument was not reasonable.

I wasn't defending the death penalty. What I was getting at was the law shouldn't be changed because some "innocent" was put to death. It is regreatable but the justice system isn't perfect.Rather coincidentally, I wasn't making a case against the death penalty. I was making a case for not taking away their appeals. Think about it, had the appeals process lasted just a little longer, Cameron Todd Willingham would likely be a free man today instead of dead, dead, dead for a crime he didn't commit.

So, you didn't answer my question. What is Justice?
socrates anyone?

Put your self in their shoes would you want the death penalty?
And don't go taking the "swan dive" if you don't get it.:eek:

Ah, Vhailor, do you have any idea how many people would have to be executed to meaningfully reduce the prison population in either the US or UK?

No, but I'm sure they aren't the most upstanding members of society having got the death penalty. How many people? I'm not saying kill everyone, rehabilate whom you can. Are you saying you would perfer life imprisionment?

limiting the number of apeals.

I propose that all convicts get one free. Anything beyond that, they must provide new evidence to warrant re-opening the case.

Limiting their appeals would mean giving them less rights than every other inmate.

Hence EVERY convice gets ONE free appeal. It would have no bearing what the sentence was or what the crime was. This dragging out the execution for 20 years from cinviction to execution is cruel and unusual punishment...

do you have any idea how many people would have to be executed to meaningfully reduce the prison population in either the US or UK?

How about anyone that has no realistic chance to be released from prison? What's the difference between life with no parole and death? Assume that the convict was guilty and the conviction was fair.

Vhailor,
in my country we differentiate between a revision and an appeal. The Anglos lump it all together in the term appeal. An appeal addresses procedural mistakes, in criminal cases mainly violations of the accused's rights, that have been made. No new evidence is allowed. What's the point here? In criminal law procedural rights are not about coddling criminals but about protecting the innocent - this can hardly be stressed enough.
Revisions mean that the trial has been so severely flawed that it has to be re-opened. New evidence is permissible. You see that rarely.

People who have been sentenced to the death penalty are supposed to have less or different rights than other criminals? What is jail time about then? Drew makes an excellent pointThe difference you are seeing in frequency of appeals is simply that death row inmates are far more likely (and , in some states, even required) to actually use their appeals than the general prison population. This is probably because if they don't appeal, they will die. A man who was fairly sentenced to life in prison is a lot less likely to appeal than a man who was sentenced to death.Your 'express lane' sets a double standard for criminals, that cannot be justified on ground of facts. The distinction is essentially arbitrary.

An 'express lane' rule would have an absurd consequence: It would mean that the severity of the accusation to an accused even before trial already determines the rights an accused will have after a verdict, with the perverse result that the more severe the consequences, with the death penalty being the ultimate consequence, the less possibilities there will be for appeal - while a person accused/ convicted of lesser crimes would have the full quiver at his disposal even though he might only face a few years in jail and has much less at stake. That doesn't reflect the supreme value attributed to life and individual freedom in western societies and their constitutions, including the US.

As for flawed, think of an inexperienced, hostile or drunken judge, an incompetent or sleeping attorney, a hostile jury, a hostile or self interested prosecutor (keen on building a portfolio of death penalty convictions to demonstrate him being 'tough on crime' for a later political career). Think of incompetent evidence assessment by experts, mistranslation of evidence or testimony, coerced confessions, sloppy or crooked cops, lying witnesses. All this is not the norm, but it happens. What I aim on is this: If the process that found them guilty has been flawed, how much worth is the verdict? Considering the demonstrated reality of faulty convictions we are speaking of 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt', guilty in a legal sense. Is a verdict, in a positivist sense, by default, just for being a verdict - no matter how flawed - reason enough to be executed? If that is the legal idea behind the 'express lane' America is moving on thin ice.

If you want to streamline appeals, then do it for everyone, and take care that after that effective legal protection still exists. As I see it, a guy who is proven innocent, say by the Innocence Project, and is executed anyway proves that legal protection as afforded by the law is ineffective. The system fails. In face of this I doubt that speeding up executions will help, to the contrary. The question you must ask yourself is if you want to be caught with such a prospect in this legal system as an innocent. Do you think it's better to sentence (and perhaps execute) a hundred innocents than let one guilty man go free? Or is ten innocents and one guilty more to your taste? Or one innocent for one guilty man? Because this is what limiting appeals is about.

I think that just pressing them to be executed to generate a desired deterrent effect (that appears to be more of an article of faith than rooted in reality) and 'serve justice', free up space in jails, reduce costs, or to drive down a political point of how 'tough' you are 'on crime', makes the innocents as much as the guilty a mere object of 'justice', and I find that very cynical. I put those words in quotation marks because I'm distrustful of language. To use such considerations to speed up executions is in irreconcilable conflict with the idea of criminal law per se - to judge offenders based on their individual guilt.
Also, there is and ought to be one set of rules for them all. If you don't think the legal system works, fix the system by generating 'justice for all', and without special and essentially arbitrary rules for special people. Imo the idea of an 'express lane' is a political stunt, it has nothing to do with justice. I say that because such an express lane rules would be, ignoring the issue of the death penalty, unconstitutional in Germany because it at the very least would violate the right for equal treatment under the law.

Do not mix up what you think they putatively deserve and what their real rights are. Especially ponder about what the purpose of their rights is.

I think Ragusa's objections to Vhailor's 'express lane' suggestion were well put and need no additional support from me. Well said.


What's the difference between life with no parole and death?


That, in the former, someone gets to live. If, like myself, one does not believe in an afterlife then the continuation of life gets a very high priority. Of course, if they are guilty as you say, then I can see quite a powerful argument for the death penalty in certain circumstances.

We all are going to die sooner or later.

I don't see how you think that translates to a justification of ending life prematurely. Just because something is inevitable, does not mean that it should take place immediately.

They have an implied contract with the state.

Be careful here, Vhailor. The force of the social contract argument is highly debatable. I am yet to see a contract theory (be it actual, tacit or hypothetical) that is not flawed in some way(s).

What I was getting at was the law shouldn't be changed because some "innocent" was put to death. It is regreatable but the justice system isn't perfect.

You mean that you believe the law should not be changed, even if it is proven to unjustly convict innocent people? Surely the whole purpose of the law is to ensure justice is carried out?

Secondly, you appear to be claiming that the justice system is not only imperfect, but that we should not be attempting to perfect it. Even if true perfection is unattainable (a belief about perfection that I hold in general), it does not follow that striving for it is unjustified. Care to explain how you feel that you are avoiding the perfectionist fallacy?

socrates anyone?

Socrates as portrayed in various dialogues was hardly without his flaws. If you are referring to his decision to take poison on command of the state, then there is a large difference between his act and the current debate. Quite simply: he chose to die when he had the chance to live. People convicted to death row are not really choosing to die- I can't imagine that most of them really desire to die. You cannot even argue that they chose to die by commiting the crime; we have already seen that innocent people can be convicted (something that you seem to be saying should be regarded as an unavoidable consequence of the law). Personal choice is a large factor here.

Put your self in their shoes would you want the death penalty?

In who's shoes?

In the convicted's shoes? In that case, no I would not be particuarly approving of the death penalty.

In the shoes of the victim's family (as I assume the victim himself/herself would not be alive at this point)? Again, while I obviously cannot be entirely certain what I would feel in a situation I have never been in before, I do not believe that I would be in favour of the death penalty. Even then.

but I'm sure they aren't the most upstanding members of society having got the death penalty.

Even the innocents who get wrongly executed? Do not forget that it is not just the guilty who can run afoul of the law.

I propose that all convicts get one free. Anything beyond that, they must provide new evidence to warrant re-opening the case.You are aware that, while all inmates are allowed to file an appeal with a higher court, the appellate court isn't actually obliged to hear it, right? If the appeal gets heard, it is because the convict actually has a case.

How about anyone that has no realistic chance to be released from prison? What's the difference between life with no parole and death? Assume that the convict was guilty and the conviction was fair.Why should I assume this? Not all of the convicts will be guilty. Not all of their convictions will be fair. Aside from the fact that re-sentencing inmates who were already fairly sentenced once would be double jeopardy, which is banned under our constitution...

Gnarff,Assume that the convict was guilty and the conviction was fair.If you do that, and derive from your considerations a rule, it will be unfair to those who are not guilty and who weren't convicted in a fair trial. They would have to face the same rules as those who are guilty and whose conviction was fair.

This approach must, inevitably, lead to excess. Under such a paradigm you'd have trials under the assumption of guilt. You don't ever want that. To give you a taste how that looks and sounds like (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi5256dhvM) ...

As a result of that insight there are procedural rights of an accused that someone who's guilty perhaps doesn't deserve, but that an innocent desperately needs.

While I am a strong propronent of the death penalty, I do believe it has been used in circumstances where it is inappropriate. The death penalty is only appropriate in cases where there is truly no shadow of a doubt and the evidence is so clear cut that even a moron has no choice but to acknowledge it. In these cases I'm all in favor of Vhailor's express lane. As an example, a bank robber shoots one of his hostages in full sight of all of the other hostages and the bank's cameras record it. However, without those conditions, it is too risky to put someone to death.

No, I was just interested in hearing your defination of Jusice which socrates often did.
If a law is unjust it will be changed.
Perfection? If there is a new way I will be the first in line but our current system is the best we have.

A bit offtopic but somehow I find it incredibly funny seeing a guy named Vhailor explaining the virtues of death penalty. I'm just waiting for the "mercy is for the weak, justice is strenght" comments. :p

Vhailor:

What I was getting at was the law shouldn't be changed because some "innocent" was put to death.
If a law is unjust it will be changed.

Unless you would like to admit that you have made a mistake somewhere, you are holding that a law which is capable of wrongly convicting, and killing, an innocent should not be changed and is therefore not unjust. I suspect that most of the members here will have similar definitions of justice; perhaps it is your's that needs further examination. Care to share your definition and explain how you are capable of maintaining both the quoted sentences at the same time?

Ok, we shouldn't abolish the death penalty. if a law is really unjust(number of appeals for example would be debatable). Although the death penalty should not be given lightly but once given should be fulfilled.
My definition of Justice is everyone getting what they deserve.

Or is Justice the advantage of the stronger?(rulers)
rulers make the laws to benefit themselves, then
rulers declare their laws are just.

Ok, we shouldn't abolish the death penalty. if a law is really unjust(number of appeals for example would be debatable)..This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr


While I am a strong propronent of the death penalty, I do believe it has been used in circumstances where it is inappropriate. The death penalty is only appropriate in cases where there is truly no shadow of a doubt and the evidence is so clear cut that even a moron has no choice but to acknowledge it.I have to admit that I lost no sleep when they executed Ted Bundy. I lost no sleep when they executed Tim McVeigh. That said, I simply do not trust our Judges and Juries to implement the death penalty only in cases of exceptional heinousness where the guilt is inarguable. I've seem too many instances in which juries grossly over- or under-estimated the strength of the evidence and arguments presented. Since the death penalty isn't necessary to have the rule of law, since it hasn't been shown to deter violent crime any more than life in prison, and since you can't release a dead man from prison, I would be much more comfortable with banning it outright.

That, in the former, someone gets to live. If, like myself, one does not believe in an afterlife then the continuation of life gets a very high priority. Of course, if they are guilty as you say, then I can see quite a powerful argument for the death penalty in certain circumstances.

If you are right, and there is no afterlife, that's an even stronger arguement for the death penalty--to completely destroy the worst of criminals.

You are aware that, while all inmates are allowed to file an appeal with a higher court, the appellate court isn't actually obliged to hear it, right? If the appeal gets heard, it is because the convict actually has a case.

Then there should be a tribunal or something to determine this. At least this way they get something heard so their trial is audited for fairness. But after that, they are to serve their sentence unless new evidence is actually found.

Why should I assume this? Not all of the convicts will be guilty. Not all of their convictions will be fair.

Why not scrap the whole justice system because someone screwed up? Society cannot function under such paranoia...

Aside from the fact that re-sentencing inmates who were already fairly sentenced once would be double jeopardy, which is banned under our constitution...

But for those who have not yet been sentenced, this is an option, thus reducing the future strain on the penal system.

If you do that, and derive from your considerations a rule, it will be unfair to those who are not guilty and who weren't convicted in a fair trial. They would have to face the same rules as those who are guilty and whose conviction was fair.

You talk like this is some great problem, and that courts are incompetent. You talk like no trial is ever fair or any defendant ever truly guilty. If the laws are followed, and investigators diligent, an innocent person should not be wrongly convicted, nor a guilty man acquitted. Can this not be assumed?

Under such a paradigm you'd have trials under the assumption of guilt.

There would be no presumption of guilt until after the conviction. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Then we have the right to assume that the convict was guillty as proven...

The death penalty is only appropriate in cases where there is truly no shadow of a doubt and the evidence is so clear cut that even a moron has no choice but to acknowledge it.

Well put. This is what I'm trying to get at. Guilt is obvious and proven...

I have to admit that I lost no sleep when they executed Ted Bundy. I lost no sleep when they executed Tim McVeigh.

And I'd lose no sleep over the death of anyone properly convicted after due diligence in investigation of any crime where there is no chance of release into society. I believe it more humane than locking them in a cage for the rest of their lives.

That said, I simply do not trust our Judges and Juries to implement the death penalty only in cases of exceptional heinousness where the guilt is inarguable.

Excuse me, but I thought conviction meant proof beyond any and all doubt. Therefore, a convict has to be assumed to be guilty. I'm not buying it...

Then there should be a tribunal or something to determine this. At least this way they get something heard so their trial is audited for fairness. But after that, they are to serve their sentence unless new evidence is actually found.You seem to misunderstand the purpose of our appellate process. Without supreme court appeals, police would not, for example, be required to advise people they arrest of their rights, nor would they be required to use a translator to ensure that the person understands those rights as read to them. Appeals serve a very important purpose. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona) Without cases like Miranda's reaching the highest courts, police would still be using "coercive interrogation" to get confessions. They still would be denying people their constitutional right to an attorney. No, thank you, I'd rather keep the appellate system as it was originally designed to work.

And I'd lose no sleep over the death of anyone properly convicted after due diligence in investigation of any crime where there is no chance of release into society. I believe it more humane than locking them in a cage for the rest of their lives.Perhaps you do. If you are convicted of murder, feel free to request an execution.

Excuse me, but I thought conviction meant proof beyond any and all doubt. Therefore, a convict has to be assumed to be guilty. I'm not buying it...What planet do you live on again? A guilty verdict is reached when guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with that crystal clear standard*, we still have an alarming number of innocents being found guilty in court every year. Most of these innocent people, surprisingly enough, would prefer not to be killed for crimes they didn't commit and not to be denied their constitutional right to appeal to the highest court in the land - exhausting each and every legal remedy available - in the hopes of overturning their wrongful conviction.

Incidentally, your pie-in-the-sky interpretation of the meaning of a guilty verdict perfectly illustrates why I cannot trust Judges and Juries to implement the death penalty only in cases where the guilt is inarguable. Not all people who are found guilty are guilty. Not all people who are found not guilty are innocent. This is the world in which we live. To ignore this reality is to live in a fantasy land.

* that was sarcasm

No, thank you, I'd rather keep the appellate system as it was originally designed to work.

Then why not have a tribunal to audit trials in capital cases. If it is as open and shut as it seems, then send the person to their death, but if there was something wrong with the trial or some question as tot he absolute nature of guilt, then the death penalty should not be handed down in the first place, and the Tribunal could correct this. But enough of this mistrust of the legal system.

A guilty verdict is reached when guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But it's been proven, therefore, it then falls to the convicted to prove that there was evidence ignored or that someone lied. Furthermore, a Tribunal could overrule a death sentence if the evidence is as questionable as you suggest.

we still have an alarming number of innocents being found guilty in court every year.

Then that needs to be fixed. Investigations need to be more vigilant, trials need to be examined more closely, juries need to be trained better, whatever is contributing to innocent people being convicted. But I for one don't like the idea of dragging out a death sentence for 20 years because people are too scared of killing an innocent person...

i'm all for capital punishment. a murderer will do it again if he's let loose. the public needs to be protected from him. and i can't discount revenge for the victims. i know if someone murders my wife, if the police catch him before i do, i'm going to want to watch him die. if they let me, i'll throw the switch that kills him

while i'm not against filing an appeal, i feel it should be done in a short amount of time. i have no desire to have my tax dollars used to support a murderer for 20 years.i can agree some things about the legal system are wrong, but it's the only system we have. there has to be a way to protect the public from criminals without tax payers having to support them for decades. but i think the biggest question is: how do we change things? and the second biggest question is: what do we change them to?

2 of them iirc. Franz Josef and Fox.
More than two. Those are the main touristy ones. Wikipedia says that there were, at the last count (1980?) 3,155 glaciers with an area of at least one hectare (2.5 acres), in the South Island, and six in the North Island.

Anyway, on to the topic:

Capital Punishment = Murder with a fancy name.

It would be interesting to see the relationship between capital punishment supporters and those who claim to be 'pro-life' on the abortion issue.

Capital Punishment is a complete disregard for the value of human life. Sure, been caged up in a high security prison for ever probably isn't much of a life, but it IS a life. To deprive people of that - the one truely inalienable right - is playing god, and a bloody inhumane god at that. To losely quote lord of the rings (although I shudder at doing so) "not even the wisest amoung us can judge who should live and who should die" and to be honest, I very much doubt any one here would claim the status as the 'wisest amoung us'. I don't see how someone can seriously suggest a person should be dead. It's a sad reflection on this 'modern' society.

The solution to over crowded prisons isn't more (carried out) death sentences. Even if you double the number of current death penalties, the impact it would make on the over population of prisons is microsopic. Aim instead for rehabilitation and prevention. Target the youth and parents and you will see major changes. Encourage birth controls and provide cheap (if not free) abortions and you will see an even bigger change.

Then why not have a tribunal to audit trials in capital cases. If it is as open and shut as it seems, then send the person to their death, but if there was something wrong with the trial or some question as tot he absolute nature of guilt, then the death penalty should not be handed down in the first place, and the Tribunal could correct this. But enough of this mistrust of the legal system.I'm all for speeding up the appeals process as this serves the accused every bit as much as it serves the populace. To do that, though, it isn't necessary to invent new processes to add into the mix. All that really needs doing is capping prep time for appeals and, if necessary, creating additional appeals courts. Actually hearing an appeal takes very little time. What slows things down is the various legal teams stalling for time or the courts themselves being backed up.

Then that needs to be fixed. Investigations need to be more vigilant, trials need to be examined more closely, juries need to be trained better, whatever is contributing to innocent people being convicted.Obviously we need to constantly be improving on the process, but we will never reach a point at which all those found guilty are actually guilty and all those found not guilty are truly innocent. This is the ideal, but it is an impossible ideal. Therefore, we must always account for the fact that some people in our prison system are not actually guilty.

a murderer will do it again if he's let loose. the public needs to be protected from him.


Do not be so quick to pass judgement; murdering once does not mean that person will do so again. I would be inclined to say that there is a reasonable chance that murders are commonly carried out due to a relationship between the murderer and the murdered. Now that they are dead, whatever the problem was is likely to have gone- especially after the large amount of time spent in jail has passed. Most murderers don't just kill randomly because they happen to feel like it.


I very much doubt any one here would claim the status as the 'wisest amoung us'.


Objection! :p

Capital Punishment is a complete disregard for the value of human life.

Correction: Capital Punishment is a complete disregard for the value of a person's life who has previously shown a complete disregard for the value of another person's life. Personally, I also think the terms "cruel and unusual" should be judged based on the murderer's actions. 'Death by Drano' should be quite appropriate to a murderer who shoved Drano down his victims throat (actual case in Utah, a man forced a couple of children to swallow Drano).

I believe a death penalty should have a date -- and that date should be kept regardless of appeals. I also feel a life sentence should be a short sentence.

I have no compassion for most criminals.

You do make an interesting point about supporting capital punishment versus supporting abortion -- usually those are polar opposites in the political spectrum. I'm both pro-choice and pro-capital punishment.

You do make an interesting point about supporting capital punishment versus supporting abortion -- usually those are polar opposites in the political spectrum. I'm both pro-choice and pro-capital punishment.Heh. I'm just the opposite. I'm pro-life and against capital punishment, though I feel that both sides of both arguments actually make some very valid points. It's a shame that we so often allow partisan politics to get in the way of meaningful discussion and progress on both of these issues.

Capital Punishment = Murder with a fancy name.
.

Imprisonment = kidnapping with a fancy name.

Well, there's probably a better analogue, but the point is simply that every justice system I'm familiar with involves a certain degree of 'do as I say, not as I do' and, ah, necessary evil.

Which is not to defend executions per se, but to point out that a different critique is needed.

capital punishment supporters and those who claim to be 'pro-life' on the abortion issue.

Simple. The unborn child has committed no crime, thus aborting him, other things being equal, is akin to murder, where as the death penalty is reserved for duly convicted criminals who's crimes make them the worst of offenders. In most cases, this is reserved for first degree murder or high treason.

Capital Punishment is a complete disregard for the value of human life.

Only the life of the condemned...

Therefore, we must always account for the fact that some people in our prison system are not actually guilty.

But we cannot paralyse the system for that fear...

I would be inclined to say that there is a reasonable chance that murders are commonly carried out due to a relationship between the murderer and the murdered. Now that they are dead, whatever the problem was is likely to have gone-

But at what cost? Would this not create more problems with the living that cared for the murdered victim? Someone murders someone I love, that may solve the problem with the one murdered, but it creates problems with me. Does this justify me to kill them? If not, where is the justice? Shouldn't the state have the authority to end this with a simple execution?

But we cannot paralyse the system for that fear...Placing a moratorium on executions or, as many states have done, banning them outright hardly qualifies as paralyzing the system. Our prisons aren't over-crowded because we aren't executing people. Most of our prisoners have done nothing that would lead to the death penalty or even life in prison. If we want to reduce overcrowding, re-visiting drug sentencing would be a good start.

I find it striking that American conservatives don't trust the government to properly deliver their mail to their homes, but trust that it can be relied on to only execute the right guy.

My position on death penalty is that there are some who deserve this for their horrible deeds. Absolutely. But:

It is perfectly ok with me when the police kills a hostage taker when freeing the hostages, because he poses an imminent threat to the hostages and the police. What I have a problem with is to kill a criminal after he has been arrested and is imprisoned and no longer poses an imminent threat. This is cold blooded murder, not because it is 'no sport' in it, but because there is no more threat. A guy in prison is no threat to society any more, just as if he was dead. So killing him in order to remove a threat to society is excess.

The article of faith that the death penalty having a deterrent effect doesn't convince me either, because there is too much evidence to the contrary. It isn't as if Europe's murder rates jumped up after states abolished the death penalty, - just as if the idea that 'softer punishment' - life long prison vs. death - affects at all, or emboldens, a cold blooded murderer who expects to get away (and plans accordingly), or a criminal in a state of affect who doesn't think, or a creep who only pursues his urges. In a final bitter irony a cornered criminal who knows he would face death doesn't have a particularly convincing reason to keep his remaining victims alive. If he deliberates, silencing them in an attempt to later benefit from the in-dubio rule becomes attractive. The death penalty in such a scenario offers incentives for murder. He can only be killed once. Prison time for murder offers the criminal a 'golden bridge' that is not meant to protect him, but his victims.

Also, I feel intensely uncomfortable with cost-benefit calculations about human life. That is why I find utilitarian arguments like that 'murderers cost our money' unconvincing. So it is just about practical benefits, or money? So $ 25.000 per year for a criminal is too much, so let's rather kill him for just $ 12.500 and make quite a bargain? If we could cut costs to $ 500 a year, would you rather let him live then? What's the price you're willing to pay for the life of a murderer? Is there a price? What about the price to pay for a bank robber on a time sentence, who incidentally costs as much, or perhaps 30% less, per day as a murderer? What about the other utilitarian arguments, like that they occupy too much space in jail, and that they breathe too much air and eat too much food? Thinking of it aren't all criminals like rats, parasites that live large off the people and who are a threat to the health of the state? Don't they deserve to be annihilated, in self defence, or rather, retaliation? I distrust such language. I have read too many old questionable laws for such arguments to not be deeply suspect to me. It appears to me that the issue of cost, or utilitarian benefits is a rationalisation to justify a policy preferred for other goals, it isn't convincing at all, and in my eyes they're a side show that distracts from the real thing:

What we are left with is the idea of punishment for the deed, and there we approach a difference in philosophy (or broader: ideology). The idea of punishment is in my view the only convincing point that could possibly justify imposing the death penalty.

It leaves me where I began. There is a difference between what people deserve and what they get. **** happens. Murphy's law rules. People screw up. Man fails. Groups of men, juries fail. Repeatedly. What characterises a free society is the insight that this is so, and the safeguard against mistakes, or worse, callous disregard or intent, that can cost innocent lives - and in face of US imprisonment terms, like 99 years without parole, I don't think of putative future victims. I do not think that it is ok to execute even only one innocent guy in jail.

I believe a death penalty should have a date -- and that date should be kept regardless of appeals. I also feel a life sentence should be a short sentence.I need to re-visit this. I strongly disagree with this idea because it isn't necessarily the death row inmates fault if the appeals process is taking too long. You can't deny someone a constitutional right just because the court system is taking too much time to process its appeals. If we want faster executions, the way to do it is by speeding up the appeals process. Denying even a prisoner on death row a constitutionally granted right simply because the courts are backed up is not in keeping with the rule of law.

T2,
I believe a death penalty should have a date -- and that date should be kept regardless of appeals.Drew is right. If you execute on a date and don't allow for appeals on the 'express lane' you set a double standards for criminals. A thief could appeal until exhausted, but a murderer is to be killed and thus limited in pursuit of his appeals? At the risk of executing the wrong guy? Both could be innocent and wrongfully convicted. The impression I get is that you want the death penalty, and you want it fast, never mind the legal system. So just make special rules that 'break the system' (which usually implies that they are illegal or unconstitutional), like the 'express lane', in an attempt to achieve this end. Does the end justify the means?

The crime you're accused and perhaps convicted for of determines your procedural rights after the verdict? Yeah? The arbitrary double standard aside, your view leaves no room for error, I can only repeat that.

Also, what I see in your argument is the apparently positivist view that a verdict has to be executed just because it is a verdict, never mind possible flaws. I can see room for such a view in 'averting of a danger' scenarios, where threats are imminent and are to be countered NOW to prevent harm - there is no time for deliberations - but not in criminal law, after the fact. In criminal law, in trial, you have the guy in jail, at your disposal, he threatens no more, and you have all the time in the world to deliberate whether you got him there wrongly or rightly. There is no rush.

Also, and that is quite ironic, you trust a jury to decide rightly once, but as soon as appeals are concerned the whole legal system apparently becomes corrupt, gets bogged down in delay, becomes flawed, a sham with sleazy lawyers and liberal anti-death-penalty activists interfering and delaying the delivery of swift punishment? This view would be highly inconsistent. If appeals are so flawed, why trust in the initial trial? Curiously, your distrust doesn't extend to the first stage? So the legal system is apparently broken, and can't to be relied on - especially as far as death penalty and executions are concerned - but instead of reforming it as a whole to fix that, there is only fiddling about rules for faster executions? That's just silly. I tell you this: It ain't that easy to get an appeal. If appeal is permissible there have been flaws in trial. You do want them being addressed, do you? You're comfortable with the possibility of killing an innocent for the sake of the death penalty being swiftly delivered?

Only the life of the condemned...


Are they not still human?


Does this justify me to kill them? If not, where is the justice?


Gnarfflinger, I may be reading you wrong, but this is looking increasingly like revenge. Retaliation is not justice.

A few comments....

Ragusa: I trust the post office (my sister is a Postmaster) -- so don't use sweeping generalities, it's a poor way to argue and I expect better arguments from you. I trust the justice system even though there are mistakes and it's a bit slow sometimes. I don't trust a government agency to make humane decisions (the people in the positions might, but too often their hands are tied by the bureaucracy).

There are two competing trains of thought about justice: It is better to have the occasional guilty man set free than have an innocent man imprisoned -- versus -- it is better to imprison the occasional innocent man than allow guilty men free. You appear to believe the first, I believe the latter. And I include the death penalty in that belief.

As far as capital punishment is concerned it really comes down to whether or not the death penalty is a deterent. It is not a deterent for everyone, but I believe it IS a deterent for some. IMO it is better to execute the most heinous as an example.

There is a rush -- it's called the Sixth Amendment. If the prosecutor takes too long, the murderer goes free.

Drew (and Ragusa): I agree, we need to speed up the appeals process. I believe capital cases should have a priority AND that capital criminals need to have good defense attorneys assigned pro bono. I think the biggest reason innocent men are convicted is substandard representation for the poor. The system HAS to change, but it needs to be forced into that direction.

I believe there should be specific guidelines for capital punishment to include the weight of evidence, gravity of the crime, number of victims, etc.. I personally believe anyone who would murder IS mentally unstable and so there should be no "not guilty due to mental defect" defense allowed.

Once again, the only reason for the death penalty is deterence. It is not revenge or punishment of the individual -- capital punishment is used to influence other people's behavior (much like terrorism ... there are very close parallels here). If it doesn't prevent some killings on some level, the death penalty should be abolished. I believe it does work, so I support it.

Going back to the UK, here's some facts and figures:

There is a greater "punishment" than a life sentence, known as a "whole life sentence" in the UK, where the prisoner won't ever get released.

There are a total of 35 people on "whole life" sentences in the UK (Comparing to over 30,000 in the US). Two of these were given their sentences last month. The "Whole lifers" are almost exclusively multiple muderers.

Muderers with life sentences (Averaging about 15 years imprsonment), raise the figures to just under 5000. Surprisingly (or not) England and Wales have more prisoners serving "life" than the rest of the EU combined (Data from end of 2002).

T2,
as far as mail delivery is concerned I relied on what I heard. No offence.it is better to imprison the occasional innocent man than allow guilty men free. You appear to believe the first, I believe the latter.We're talking death penalty. That means it is about killing the occasional innocent man than letting a guilty men live.

Would you be willing to let one of your relatives, erroneously accused and sentenced for murder, pay that price? Tragically he died for his country. I know you served in the military. Would it be like losing a family member serving in the military to friendly fire? Not quite, I think. Imagine yourself caught in the grinder of the legal system. Would you willingly accept death because even though innocent - your death would be good for the system? I don't say that to taunt you, but to give the problem a face. It must appear remote, after all there are just very few murderers compared to the entire population, but can we in a nutshell ask from every citizen to be ready to sacrifice themselves for the country? Like in Sparta?

And with all the time in the world I of course meant a reasonable time frame. I think, that irrespective of the verdict being about time or death, the procedural rights for everyone accused of a crime - no matter the eventual verdict - are the same because they are an expression of the individual rights enshrined in the legal system.

There are two competing trains of thought about justice: It is better to have the occasional guilty man set free than have an innocent man imprisoned -- versus -- it is better to imprison the occasional innocent man than allow guilty men free. You appear to believe the first, I believe the latter. And I include the death penalty in that belief.

The only problem with that thought is our legal system, with its presumption of inncence, is set up to operate under the first set of criteria. I cannot tell you what to believe, but that's not the way the system operates. And of further note, perhaps in philosophy there are two competing trains of thought about justice, but in practice, only one is implemented. Our country, and most other western democracies use the first. So there really aren't two completing trains of thought.

There is a rush -- it's called the Sixth Amendment. If the prosecutor takes too long, the murderer goes free.

You're kidding me right? You are not seriously using that arguement. I cannot ever recall that an accused murderer was allowed to go free because the legal system moved too slowly. I don't think it's occured in my lifetime. For those unfamiliar, here's the 6th Amdendment from the Bill of Rights:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The bold was added by me, as I think that is the specific part you were referencing. While it doesn't specifically say that they get to go free, it does guarantee the right to a speedy trial. However, there is no definition of what speedy is, and I cannot ever recall someone being released (much less someone accused of murder) because it took too long to set a date for the trial. The reason there is usually a fairly long delay between the arrest and the trial is to allow both the prosecutors and the defense teams time to prepare for the trial. To say there's a rush because of the 6th amendment, we should also point out that the court system shouldn't forget to pick a jury, or forget to tell the accused what charges are being brought against him. When was the last time any of these things have happened? Sorry, but it is not a particularly convincing line of arguement - at least not for me.

And I include the death penalty in that belief.

I always find the 'what if a member of your family' argument to be a bit overboard.

The majority of murderers on death row had numerous problems with the law. There is usually a history of violent behaviour. No one in my family meets that description, nor would I have anything to do with them if they were such violent miscreants.

People are judged by their past actions -- that may not be fair, but that's the way it is. Rodney King is a great example. He didn't deserve to be beaten, but he was a known PCP user with a violent record -- had he not had a history of violence, and not been high at the time, it is unlikely he would have been treated as harshly.

This is true for the entire justice system (throughout the world). A good person, who support the community and stays out of legal trouble is rarely targetted by the police for crimes. Known criminals are looked at more closely. If evidence points to a known criminal, the police are all over the person -- based on choices that individual made in their life. Why should I feel sorry for a violent criminal who get wrongly convicted?

Aldeth: Even murderers are granted the right to a fair and speedy trial. The Supreme Court has set some fairly specific guidelines. I've heard of cases waiting 17 years to go to trial -- but those have extremely unusual circumstances (such as the defendant being unfit to stand trial). In an interesting case US v MacDonald the Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the indictment of a man who had killed his wife and children on grounds of failure to provide a speedy trial. Fortunately, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling. They stated basically there is a requirement for a speedy trial, but this case did not violate that.

Why should I feel sorry for a violent criminal who get wrongly convicted?

Because no matter their history, sentencing people to imprisonment or death is WRONG if they are not guilty. Not only are you punishing the wrong person for a crime, you are also closing the case and letting the guilty one go free.

Sentencing innocent people reduces the "justice" system, at least in my opinion, to a common kidnapper (in case of imprisonment) or murderer (in case of capital punishment). It can never be for the common good to incarcerate or kill innocents - and letting the guilty go free to boot, while laughing at their victims and at those who unjustly pay the price for the crime.

Because no matter their history, sentencing people to imprisonment or death is WRONG if they are not guilty.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I do agree with your comment about closing the case and letting a guilty person go free. But I'm still not going to feel guilty about keeping a violent criminal in prison and off the streets -- I would rather have the correct violent person put away.

I always find the 'what if a member of your family' argument to be a bit overboard.What I don't like is a view that holds that crime accusations always hits the right guys, and even more so if they anyway have a bad record. Indeed, more often than not that's true.

Still, the cases I have in mind are those where some guy is, his record non withstanding, being sentenced for a crime he did not commit. For that his record is utterly irrelevant. Either he is guilty now, or he is innocent. What he did in the past has no bearing on that very clear distinction at all. The guys exonerated through DNA evidence by the innocence project have largely been guys with a bad record, just that they didn't commit the crime they have been sentenced for - they may have traded with drugs, be thieves or whatever - just not murderers - that is important.

That they are or have been 'bad guys' doesn't mean they're free game and that they all only deserve what they get, and if they didn't deserve exactly that it still hits the right guy. That is not what the law sais.

The system can be perverted in very serious ways. Think of the legal travesty of the Don Siegelman case, where the prosecutor's have not only selectively accused, but also withheld exonerating evidence, and where the judge apparently still is colluding with the prosecution.

I believe a person's past actions are completely relevant. I know that's not always the case in a legal proceeding. The guys found innocent due to recent advances in DNA testing -- how do you KNOW they are not murderers (once again, an absolute in your argument). One of this nation's most notorious murderers was convicted of tax fraud, people are not always in jail for the most fitting crime. Due process works. There are glitches in the process -- damn the bad luck if you're one of the glitches.

Legal travesty of the Don Seigelman case is your personal opinion. But then, that could be because the name Rove is associated with the prosecution.

I believe a person's past actions are completely relevant. I know that's not always the case in a legal proceeding.

Not only is that not alway the case in a trial, unless the defendant's prior record is somehow relevant to the current case, the defendant's prior record is usually inadmissible in court.

I think past history of violence should always be admissible in a case involving violence.

Aldeth, to continue with your (much) earlier post...

You made good points and I really can't find an example where the courts have actually let a murderer off -- it's come close (and I did reference that in my comment, US v MacDonald). A lot of drug dealers and other assorted scum have been let off. I am one of those extremist who equate drug dealers with murderers.

I believe there are many cases where evidence was just not quite there for a conviction and so arrests were delayed -- this could be fears from either the 4th or 6th amendment. Certainly, Ted Bundy in Utah falls into this category. He was the prime suspect, they were watching him and he still committed another murder in the area (and many more afterwards).

I think past history of violence should always be admissible in a case involving violence ... I am one of those extremist who equate drug dealers with murderers.

Well, you'll be happy to know that drug dealers is one area where you WILL see evidence from prior convictions be allowed in court. Most drug dealers package their drugs in very specific ways and use very specific drug paraphernalia in the packaging process. It is unlikely that two drug dealers in the same area use exactly identical methods. So if you had prior convictions in which you distributed your drugs in a specific manner, and then the current case has you doing the exact same thing, then they will allow that as evidence.

However, I think you are saying that any past history of violence should be allowed, and it typically isn't. If a guy had a prior conviction on a burglary charge, that likely isn't going to be admissible if he is later charged with a murder. (Perhaps if he had previously been convicted of murdering someone, THAT would be admissible, but there aren't too many people who are convicted of murder, do their time, get out, and murder again.)

Give them appeals --the same appeals anyone else gets -- if the grounds for appeal are valid, but if the appeals are overturned or disallowed then kill the buggers. There are cases where the guilt is beyond doubt -- the criminal admits it, the evidence is overwhelming (I am here thinking of the Paul Bernardo case here in Canada wherein the guy TAPED HIMSELF raping and killing two (or was it three?) young girls -- the jury saw the tapes. 'Nuff said) and where keeping the criminal in line is a severe insult to the memory of the victims and the loss suffered by their family and friends. The world would definitely be better off without Bernardo and his ilk, and anyone who says that his life (or the lives of those guilty of similar crimes) has value has absolutely no influence on me. I cannot take that argument seriously. Killing him would free up but one cell but it would be a good start.

Once again, the only reason for the death penalty is deterence. It is not revenge or punishment of the individual -- capital punishment is used to influence other people's behavior (much like terrorism ... there are very close parallels here). If it doesn't prevent some killings on some level, the death penalty should be abolished. I believe it does work, so I support it.If the only reason we use capital punishment is because it serves as a deterrent, we may as well just quit using it. In keeping with previous years, the 2006 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South, which accounts for over 80% of executions, had the highest murder rate. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, again had the lowest murder rate. The death penalty simply does not deter more crime than life in prison. Don't just take my word for it, though. According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 84% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. It is important to note that the other 16% didn't actually endorse it, either. (They just didn't reject it.)

The majority of murderers on death row had numerous problems with the law. There is usually a history of violent behaviour. No one in my family meets that description, nor would I have anything to do with them if they were such violent miscreants.T2, first of all, there are plenty of death row inmates who did not have prior trouble with the law, so this isn't really a valid line of reasoning. It can happen to your family, and the argument is not "overboard". In any case, I find the fact that someone had legal problems in the past a weak justification for wrongly giving him the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit.
Why should I feel sorry for a violent criminal who get wrongly convicted?Because, after paying his debt to society, he is no longer a violent criminal.

top academic criminological societies

You, of course, realize any time you use the term "academic" your drawing from a populus that is overwhelmingly against the death penalty. Cite a reference where non-academic criminological societies are against the death penalty and you have a good argument. Also, the term "plenty" is very ambiguous (almost as ambiguous as 'majority' and 'numerous').

Because, after paying his debt to society, he is no longer a violent criminal.

No, just a violent ex-con. I'd rather not have those in my neighborhood either.

The guys found innocent due to recent advances in DNA testing -- how do you KNOW they are not murderers (once again, an absolute in your argument). Oh no, I was merely referring to the particular crime they have been, falsely, accused of and been sentenced for. The absolutes you read into it. And while we're splitting hairs already:Because, after paying his debt to society, he is no longer a violent criminal.No, just a violent ex-con. I'd rather not have those in my neighborhood either.No, as long as he isn't violent again, it is just someone who has in the past been punished for violent crimes. That's quite something else. If sayings like 'Once a drunk, always a drunk!' were true, institutions like 'alcoholics anonymous' wouldn't exist.

You, of course, realize any time you use the term "academic" your drawing from a populus that is overwhelmingly against the death penalty. Cite a reference where non-academic criminological societies are against the death penalty and you have a good argument.The fact that educated people are more likely to base their opinions on raw data doesn't make them inherently biased. If the death penalty deterred more crimes than life in prison, places that frequently employ it will have less murder. They do not. It is also worth pointing out that the only people actually studying this type of thing are going to be the academics. A criminologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminologist) is defined as someone who studies the etiology of crime, criminal behavior, types of crime, and social, cultural and media reactions to crime. Non-academic Criminologists do not exist. Now, if you insist on a non-academic assessment, you may be interested to know that A 1995 Hart Research Poll of police chiefs in the US found that the majority of the chiefs do not believe that the death penalty is an effective law enforcement tool.Also, the term "plenty" is very ambiguous (almost as ambiguous as 'majority' and 'numerous').You want real numbers? Fine. As I'm sure you know, 2 out of 3 people on death row have prior felony convictions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, then, that 1 out of 3 do not. Good enough?

No, just a violent ex-con. I'd rather not have those in my neighborhood either.Ragusa handled this one just fine. A person who is convicted of a crime, is released, and doesn't commit another crime is not a criminal. Nor is he violent. Perhaps he once was a violent criminal, but he is not anymore.

The guys found innocent due to recent advances in DNA testing -- how do you KNOW they are not murderers (once again, an absolute in your argument).Why is this question even relevant? It's not like we're just going to start imprisoning or executing people just because we can't prove that they absolutely aren't murderers. If someone is in prison for a crime he didn't commit, we shouldn't be asking ourselves if "are we sure he didn't have it coming?" It should be a question of how and where our legal system broke down and how to stop it from happening again.

Since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on the death penalty in 1976, 120 death row inmates have been exonerated. That means that for every 8 people executed, one is proven innocent of any wrongdoing. Given the fact that these exonerations are almost all due to genetic evidence and that such evidence is only available in 5-10% of those convictions (due to it either being corrupted, not collected at all, or destroyed after the trial), these exonerations are really just the tip of the iceberg. This is a problem.

Comparing a violent person to an alcoholic is quite astute. When an alcoholic falls of the wagon there is a possibility that individual will get in their car and endanger others. Usually, the alcoholic will call friend, get a cab, stay at a hotel, or just get drunk at home -- most don't want to hurt anyone. When a person who has violent tendancies falls off the wagon, someone WILL get hurt. Every time.

I've been around far too many violent people in my life, and whole lot of alcoholics as well. I've never seen evidence that either group can be completely cured. I don't want the violent guy around -- I don't want that person near anyone I care about.

Drew: Your very good at quoting deathpenaltyinfo.org -- don't you think that site is bit one sided?

Tip of the iceberg? That's 120 out of over 3,000 -- hardly the 12.5% opponents of the death penalty want you to believe. Genetic evidence is not applicable to many of these crimes. People against the death penalty like to point to those numbers and cast doubts on all the convictions. Demographics of murders are far more complicated than "south" or "New England."

There is a huge difference between someone convicted of a felony and a person with a history of violence. Neither are inclusive of the other. Usually, a murderer has a prior conviction of a violent crime. But not all murderers have such convictions. Not having a conviction does not mean the individual does not have a history of violence -- it may just means they weren't caught. In fact, there have been a few cases here in the Chicago area of murderers without records, but many cases of domestic disputes where the victims dropped charges.

You're against the death penalty. Fine. Call your Govornor or state legislature and change it. You have that right and I encourage you to do it. I am on the other side of that fence.

A guy in prison is no threat to society any more, just as if he was dead. So killing him in order to remove a threat to society is excess.

But when it's wasteful to take on the expense for his life, the choice becomes between feeding the scum for the rest of his life or ending it, Excuse me for having no sympathy.

If appeal is permissible there have been flaws in trial.

Then that's why I want a tribunal set up. To determine if there are flaws with the trial, then the appeal occurs. If there were no flaws, then hang the sucker.

Are they not still human?

So was the victim. It wasn't a factor in their decision at the time, why get soft now? Besides, locking them up just treats them like animals, anyway.

Retaliation is not justice.

Which is why I want the state to handle this. It controls the situation, so that it does not escalate into a feud.

There is a greater "punishment" than a life sentence, known as a "whole life sentence" in the UK, where the prisoner won't ever get released.

These are ones I believe should simply be executed.

The guys exonerated through DNA evidence by the innocence project have largely been guys with a bad record, just that they didn't commit the crime they have been sentenced for - they may have traded with drugs, be thieves or whatever - just not murderers - that is important.

If the quality of evidence is improving, then the likelyhood of an innocent man being convicted is reduced.

There are cases where the guilt is beyond doubt -- the criminal admits it, the evidence is overwhelming (I am here thinking of the Paul Bernardo case here in Canada wherein the guy TAPED HIMSELF raping and killing two (or was it three?) young girls -- the jury saw the tapes. 'Nuff said) and where keeping the criminal in line is a severe insult to the memory of the victims and the loss suffered by their family and friends. The world would definitely be better off without Bernardo and his ilk, and anyone who says that his life (or the lives of those guilty of similar crimes) has value has absolutely no influence on me. I cannot take that argument seriously. Killing him would free up but one cell but it would be a good start.

Actually, wouldn't that free up more space to put jail cells? He's in isolation, and the area that they use coud likely hose more cells. If the state lacks the stones to get rid of him, then the other prisoners in General Population would be just fine with this public service...

Drew: Your very good at quoting deathpenaltyinfo.org -- don't you think that site is bit one sided?Facts are facts. I really don't like Bill O'Reilly. He is, in many ways, the very antithesis of everything I hold dear, but when Bill O'Reilly says something that is factually correct, I don't refuse to acknowledge the fact just because Bill O'Reilly brought it up. Give me the same courtesy.

Tip of the iceberg? That's 120 out of over 3,000 -- hardly the 12.5% opponents of the death penalty want you to believe.Actually, that's 120 exonerations extrapolated against the number of executions...not the number of people on death row. I'm not trying to be sneaky, here. That said, 120 exonerations were the result of an audit of genetic evidence from only some of the 5-10% of cases where such evidence is available. This is a big problem. Out of all the people on death row since 1976, 120 of them were proven inarguably innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. If, from the 5-10% of cases they could check, we had 120 exonerations, it stands to reason that there is at least an equally substantial number of innocents among the other 90%. Probably a lot more.

Not having a conviction does not mean the individual does not have a history of violence -- it may just means they weren't caught. The vast majority of Republicans are corrupt and accept bribes. The fact that most of them haven't been convicted doesn't mean that they don't have a history of corruption or bribery -- it just means they haven't been caught.

You're against the death penalty. Fine. Call your Govornor or state legislature and change it. You have that right and I encourage you to do it. I am on the other side of that fence.I have no problem with you being on the other side of the fence. I have a problem with intellectual dishonesty and incorrect facts.

I have a problem with intellectual dishonesty and incorrect facts.

Substantiate that accusation. I have been stating my opinion all along and have not represented myself in any other way. You don't agree with my opinion, fine. But don't start throwing insults such as liar and stupid.

T2, in response to my arguments about just how disputed the death penalty's status as a deterrent is, you have responded by attacking not the substance of my argument, but who you perceive to be their source. At one point, you made the ridiculous argument that, hey, how can we KNOW that wrongly convicted people on death row aren't murderers? You also argued that death penalty opponents want you to believe 12.5% of death row inmates have been exonerated, when I have neither seen nor made such an argument. To your credit, though, you stopped pressing the issue when I explained how the numbers were actually reached. You argued that a majority of death row inmates had a history of violence, which I did not dispute, but you then argued that not being convicted does not mean no history of violence (as if the onus should somehow lie with proving the absence of violence rather than with proving the presence), citing dropped domestic violence cases in your area as your example. The problem with this specific example is that they don't actually need the spouse/girlfriend's consent to press charges in Chicago. If there is enough evidence, they press charges anyway (and a staggering percentage of domestic violence cases are pressed against the will of the victim). While dropped or unpressed charges can certainly be evidence of criminal activity, they can also be evidence of no criminal activity.

You and Ragusa have made statements that were extreme in one viewpoint. My responses have often been to show the opposite extreme is equally viable -- and by conjecture, equally wrong. That you and Ragusa have failed to grasp such an argument is unfortunate.

You also fail to grasp that statistics are used to convey a perception -- stating that one person is release for every eight executed is planting a perception that 12.5% of convictions are wrong. Those who a have solid grasp of statistics may realize the ruse, others tend to fall into the intentional trap. I chose not to pursue the issue because you apparently fell into the trap. At that point it's like arguing religion with Gnarff.

I attack your source because your precepts (in this case references) are flawed. There is no point in debating an issue based on flawed precepts -- that is fundamental logic (from the basic philosophy course). Once again, you quoting of the propaganda is like arguing with someone that repeatedly quotes the Bible to an agnostic or athiest.

T2,
that's not a question of being liberal or conservative. If one takes that constitution of yours serious you're just flat wrong.

Criminal law has been conceived the way it is to protect the innocent. That's a fact. You don't like it, or appear to do, and it appears that you would rather prefer an order that instead effectively prosecutes the guilty, or for good measure the bad guys who deserve it anyway, trifles like individual guilt aside if the bad guy has a bad enough record. The problem with it is that it is against the law, and worse, that such a view corrodes the rule of law that distinguishes a cop from a criminal.

You referred to Capone earlier. The analogy is flawed. The difference between Capone and some bad guy who was innocent but executed is that that legal workaround was legal - because Capone was guilty of tax evasion, among all his other crimes. They didn't falsely accuse him of that crime. He was not convicted of a crime he didn't commit. He committed the crime he was accused of.

The problem with your views here is that they are in conflict with the law as it is. That is very simple. You don't care about constitutionally mandated procedural rights because they don't conform with your views how the law ought to be. Laws like the 'express lane' are not just a reform of the law, but a reform of the constitution to something authoritarian and pre-bill-of-rights as far as criminal law is concerned, for the sake of expediency. If that's what you want, why not follow the lead of Iran or Saudi Arabia? They have harsh punishment, no appeals and swift executions aplenty.

I attack your source because your precepts (in this case references) are flawed. There is no point in debating an issue based on flawed precepts -- that is fundamental logic (from the basic philosophy course). Once again, you quoting of the propaganda is like arguing with someone that repeatedly quotes the Bible to an agnostic or athiest.Then attack the precepts if they are wrong. Are you disputing that we've had 120 exonerations of death row inmates? Are you disputing that a majority of Criminologists (the people actually qualified to study this type of thing) reject the very notion that the death penalty deters more crime than life imprisonment? Are you disputing that the south, where 80% of executions are conducted, had 6.8 murders per 100,000 people in 2006 (which is in keeping with their normal trends - 2006 is not an anomaly) while the Northeast, where only 1% of executions have been conducted (and where most states either have a moratorium or an outright ban on the death penalty) has a murder rate of only 4.5 per 100,000?* Are you disputing that, since 1976 (when the death penalty ban was lifted), the murder rates in the south haven't gone down? So far, all you've done is attack what you perceive to be my source.

*I'm not trying to use this data to argue that the death penalty increases violent crime. That would be absurd! What I am arguing is that we haven't seen any evidence that the death penalty deters more violent crime than life in prison. Sure, if speeding or stealing carried the death penalty, you can bet your balls that speeding and theft numbers would drop, but we aren't talking about stealing. We are talking about murder. People that commit murder either don't care about the consequences (and let's not forget that no one wants to spend the rest of their life in prison) or they don't plan on getting caught.

The idea that the death penalty would deter more crime than spending the rest of your life behind bars is, on its own merits, a pretty tough sell for many people. When you couple it with the fact that there aren't any metrics to indicate that the death penalty deters more crime, it becomes really hard to make a strong argument that the death penalty actually works better as a deterrent than life in prison. This is not to say that we absolutely shouldn't have the death penalty. There are other reasonable arguments to be made in its favor, but arguments about the death penalty being an effective deterrent are unsupported by the metrics.

You also fail to grasp that statistics are used to convey a perception -- stating that one person is release for every eight executed is planting a perception that 12.5% of convictions are wrong.This is no ruse, T2. 120 out of 4000 (600 higher than our current death row population), if you'll notice, is 3%. I could have easilly argued that over 3% of our current death row inmates were exonerated before they could be executed. If I factor in the people who were already executed as well, I can still argue that 2.5% of everyone we have put on death row since 1976 was exonerated. Even if I artificially bloat the number of death row inmates by 1500, I can still argue that 2% of everyone we've put on death row since 1976 was exonerated. These arguments are, in my opinion, even more powerful than my initial argument.

My responses have often been to show the opposite extreme is equally viable -- and by conjecture, equally wrong. That you and Ragusa have failed to grasp such an argument is unfortunate.


Just because we can prove that the opposite extreme of an argument is false, does not mean that we can infer that the original argument is also false. I (and going by their replies, so would Ragusa and Drew) would dispute that you have proved the opposite extreme to be viable. Do you have any facts that you wish to share?

The opposite extreme to the theory of gravity would be if things either did not accelerate in a specific direction, or that they accelerate away from the planet. Both of these are provably false, yet we take the theory of gravity to be true.


So was the victim. It wasn't a factor in their decision at the time, why get soft now?


So we should lower ourselves to their level?

I started out by saying:

I believe a death penalty should have a date -- and that date should be kept regardless of appeals. I also feel a life sentence should be a short sentence.

I have no compassion for most criminals.

Just what part of