I don't support the death penalty in any situation (I am pro-life), although I understand that some people do because they believe in our court system. If the Brad Cooper case did not convince you that courts convict people with flimsy evidence, you should go watch it again; anyone watching it can see that the defense more than met the standard of reasonable doubt. This case was not an isolated incident, Brady Cooper was able to afford a defense, just think about all the people who's cases are not broadcast who are relying on under-funded public defenders.

This is a thread to discuss the death penalty

Editorial written by Kirk Bloodsworth, the first death row prisoner cleared through DNA evidence:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/07/07/2668676/my-case-shows-need-for-abolishing.html

Because lethal injection drugs are in short supply, Missouri wants to bring back the gas chamber:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/05/missouri-threatens-return-of-gas-chambers-for-death-row-inmates/

Racial Bias Lawsuit costing taxpayes in CT $3.5MM to defend:
http://articles.courant.com/2013-07-05/news/hc-lender-column-inmates-costs-0707-20130705_1_longbranch-research-associates-death-row-inmates-stephan-michelson

I guess NC taxpayers are lucky that racial bias can no longer be used to appeal
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/19/2976674/racial-justice-act-repeal-is-law.html

7/7/2013 6:47:48 PM

if the courts were perfect (somehow) would you support the death penalty then?

7/7/2013 6:57:16 PM

This question came up in a recent conversation:

If you're a woman on death row, what happens if you get pregnant? Do they delay the execution for 9 months until you give birth? Does that mean that the inmates will try to seduce their guards? Could you elude the death penalty by getting knocked up over and over again?

7/7/2013 6:58:26 PM

^^ I think I said very clearly in the first post that I would not. I do not support the death penalty in any situation.

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 7:02 PM. Reason : I am Pro-Life]

7/7/2013 7:01:31 PM

I'm glad that you support protecting the life of a convicted criminal but have no problem killing unborn children. That says a lot about your morality.

7/7/2013 7:07:03 PM

but what about an unborn child inside of a convicted criminal?

7/7/2013 7:09:43 PM

I don't know why you think I am fine with abortion, I'm not, nor do I understand why you think it somehow changes my point or position about the death penalty.

^they would wait, obviously

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 7:28 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2013 7:28:05 PM

Babies are cute, that's the only reason there's any opposition to abortion. Can't blame people, but it's not completely rational.

7/7/2013 9:28:03 PM

i oppose the abortion of ugly babies too.


^but you do have a point... it is part of mammalian instinct to consider the traits that babies exhibit cute. (puppies, kittens, etc)

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 9:31 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2013 9:29:20 PM

I don't think we have any babies on death row, but we do have about 2600 juveniles in prison for life (compared to a reported 12in the rest of the world) so maybe its just a matter of time.

The death penalty is wrong, its killing by the state and some of the victims are absolutely innocent.

7/7/2013 9:43:54 PM

Not only do innocent people end up in jail and death row on a not-infrequent-basis, the government actively tries to keep those people imprisoned in spite of uncovered exculpatory evidence and bad-faith prosecutor behavior.

7/7/2013 9:59:18 PM

I have a hard time supporting the death penalty at this point, given how fucked up our judicial system is. If the courts actually worked, I would have no problem supporting it and would seek to have more crimes punishable by it, specifically to include gov't corruption.

7/7/2013 11:04:07 PM

Why would you want to use it more? What do you think the purpose of the death penalty is?

7/7/2013 11:08:56 PM

Quote :

"If the courts actually worked"

What is the acceptable error rate before we consider the courts to be "working"?

7/7/2013 11:21:47 PM

Something far less than what we currently have, that's for sure.

^^ I'd like to use it more for cases of gov't corruption and abuses of power than anything else.

7/7/2013 11:31:39 PM

Okay, so that's what you want to use it for. Why do you want to use the death penalty, what is the purpose of the death penalty?

7/7/2013 11:44:04 PM

In those cases, as punitive action against those who have abused their power and to serve as a warning to any others who would consider it. I am well aware that it serves little deterrent effect today, but that is mainly due to its implementation and the long delay between the crime and the sentence.

7/7/2013 11:48:29 PM

What sort of corruption and abuse of power are you thinking about?

7/7/2013 11:52:48 PM

kickbacks, police brutality, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. That kind of shit.
oh, and extra special treatment for the people spying on US citizens. fuck those guys

7/7/2013 11:55:51 PM

You believe it should be a capital offense when some guy down at the school bus motor pool gets caught taking kickbacks for purchasing from his buddy's auto parts business?

What should happen to James Crouch?

7/8/2013 12:05:35 AM

yep. I consider such actions to be treason and offense to all of the people represented by the gov't. It's extreme, I know, but I consider breach of the public's trust to be the most serious of all crimes.

7/8/2013 12:18:16 AM

Are you being serious? (I'm genuinely not sure)

7/8/2013 5:36:20 AM

Good read about Gov. Rick Perry murdering a probably most likely innocent man
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all

Quote :

"In December, 2004, questions about the scientific evidence in the Willingham case began to surface. Maurice Possley and Steve Mills, of the Chicago Tribune, had published an investigative series on flaws in forensic science; upon learning of Hurst’s report, Possley and Mills asked three fire experts, including John Lentini, to examine the original investigation. The experts concurred with Hurst’s report. Nearly two years later, the Innocence Project commissioned Lentini and three other top fire investigators to conduct an independent review of the arson evidence in the Willingham case. The panel concluded that “each and every one” of the indicators of arson had been “scientifically proven to be invalid.” In 2005, Texas established a government commission to investigate allegations of error and misconduct by forensic scientists. The first cases that are being reviewed by the commission are those of Willingham and Willis. In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny “rational reasoning” and was more “characteristic of mystics or psychics.” What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, “not only the standards of today but even of the time period.” The commission is reviewing his findings, and plans to release its own report next year. Some legal scholars believe that the commission may narrowly assess the reliability of the scientific evidence. There is a chance, however, that Texas could become the first state to acknowledge officially that, since the advent of the modern judicial system, it had carried out the “execution of a legally and factually innocent person.”"

[Edited on July 8, 2013 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2013 3:28:25 PM

The Willingham case had lots of problems, the sad thing is many of them were exposed prior to the execution.

7/12/2013 1:32:27 AM

Georgia is about to execute a mentally retarded man unless the Supreme Court stops it. Atkins v. Virginia clearly said that you cannot execute someone who is mentally retarded, this would be a clear violation of the 8th amendment.

Quote :

"Georgia is the only state that insists on the highest legal bar possible: "beyond a reasonable doubt". Yet even in that regard Warren Hill has been found to meet the definition – he has an undisputed IQ of 70 and all nine medical experts who have diagnosed him over the years have declared him to fall into the "mental retardation" category beyond a reasonable doubt."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/warren-hill-execution-supreme-court

7/12/2013 7:49:03 AM

FBI hair analysis may have falsely convicted thousands, including some on death row
Over 2,000 cases up for review in 'unprecedented' internal investigation
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/22/4544672/fbi-hair-sample-evidence-review-dna-testing-innocence-project

7/22/2013 10:54:14 AM

State senator in Florida has introduced a bill that would only allow the death penalty in cases with clear DNA evidence
http://www.newsherald.com/news/government/bill-would-require-dna-tests-for-death-penalty-cases-document-1.202559

I don't think it goes far enough, but hopefully its a common sense starting point that even pro-state-sanctioned-murder advocates can get behind

9/15/2013 5:00:44 PM

wouldn't "pro-state-sanctioned-murder" also include people who are in favour of abortion? [/troll]

9/15/2013 6:43:33 PM

abortion wouldn't be murder, it would be justified self defense.

9/15/2013 6:59:37 PM

I'm not aware of the state killing any fetuses, so I'm not sure what this thread has to do with abortion

9/15/2013 8:03:26 PM

Quote :

"If the courts actually worked, I would have no problem supporting it"

9/16/2013 5:37:41 AM

it's still murder even if the victim is guilty

but since the courts don't work, at least we don't have to worry about that distinction and can all agree that the death penalty has to go

9/16/2013 9:22:58 AM

I'm for the death penalty in extreme cases like the guy who shot all those people at Ft. Hood.

There is zero doubt or ambiguity the guy did it. Witnesses are abundant as is evidence. The crime was far beyond a basic murder in scope. No appeal is going to overturn the verdict. The guy will never be freed.

I have no interest in seeing my or anyone else's tax dollars going toward keeping someone like this alive.

9/16/2013 3:08:31 PM

so we can kill people if it makes things more convenient?

9/16/2013 3:17:39 PM

I support it, but only in extreme cases. Serial rapists, mass murderers, child abusers (i don't care what anyone says, you can't "fix" these people) where there is an abundance of evidence.

9/16/2013 3:21:02 PM

so regardless of any future threat, you want to use it for punishment.

why? for what purpose?

9/16/2013 3:22:02 PM

In the case of rapists and child abusers, I think it provides closure for the victims and their families, helps them move on with their lives. Even if sentenced to life in prison, the victims may still end up having to attend parole or appeal hearings. It's unfair to the victim to make them keep going through that, tormented by the perpetrators continued existence. With mass murderers, I just don't see what possible value there is in keeping them alive.

9/16/2013 3:29:06 PM

Quote :

"so we can kill people if it makes things more convenient?"

In the example I gave, absolutely. But the example I gave is a rare case.

And to clarify, I'm not talking about a cost comparison between a life of incarceration and capital punishment as it currently stands. We pay way too much money to execute people, and the farce of a "humane" execution is a joke. We don't have to be cruel, like pushing people into a meat grinder, but we certainly shouldn't be spending the ridiculous amount of money we spend to kill someone today.

Just shoot them in the head. Or hang them.

[Edited on September 16, 2013 at 4:55 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2013 4:53:49 PM

murdering someone is cruel

9/16/2013 5:07:22 PM

not if they earned it

9/16/2013 5:17:14 PM

that is only true in self defense, everyone has the right to self preservation. but you want to hang people, that is murder and its cruel.

9/16/2013 5:23:21 PM

Quote :

"that is murder and its cruel"

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of someone. In this example, it's the lawful killing of someone, so it's not murder.

Cruel? Meh. In my example, I don't really give a shit.

9/16/2013 5:34:16 PM

we are talking about issues of morality, not the law. i'm aware of what the law currently is, the point is that the law needs to change because killing is immoral. its state murder.

9/16/2013 5:39:10 PM

That's subjective and your opinion.

My opinion is that there is no immutable decree anywhere that any of us are entitled to life. I believe that we as a society have the right to condemn and execute people who commit and are found overwhelmingly guilty of extremely heinous crimes (ex: Fort Hood), and that we should not be forced to support their continued presence on this earth.

If that seems cruel, then fine, I'm cruel. But I'll be standing on the opposite side of the isle of you on this debate and fighting against your point of view into perpetuity.

9/16/2013 5:45:43 PM

its the opinion of the civilized world

9/16/2013 5:46:21 PM

you must not consider the US civilized

9/16/2013 5:47:50 PM

its not, that's the point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country

[Edited on September 16, 2013 at 5:51 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2013 5:49:09 PM

Quote :

"its the opinion of Europe and a handful of other states around the world"

there, fixed this for you

I consider the US, Japan, South Korea, China, India and Russia (it's technically still legal there) to be civilized.

9/16/2013 6:01:19 PM

Quote :

"why? for what purpose?"

life is a precious gift, and people that so callously disregard theirs and the life of others do not deserve it.

however, it's infinitely more cruel to make someone sit in solitary for the rest of their life than letting them peace out and not deal with the consequences of their actions

9/16/2013 6:10:17 PM

Quote :

"I'm not aware of the state killing any fetuses, so I'm not sure what this thread has to do with abortion"

The state has laws that make it legal to kill fetuses and even provides funding for organizations that do it... I think a case could be made that such things amount to "state sanctioned"...

Quote :

"so we can kill peoplefetuses if it makes things more convenient?"

hmmm....

9/16/2013 7:34:14 PM