We've recently seen that "Forensic Science/Evidence" can and HAS been faulty - more often than many people are comfortable accepting.

The constant stream of "CSI" type TV shows over the last decade or so, have largely convinced the American public that "forensic science" is water-tight & always right - unfortunately that is NOT the case.

Innocent people are convicted (of various crimes) every single day, and until we can be certain that absolutely NO ONE will face the death penalty - only to be found innocent at a later date, when the current/accepted "science" changes (Which it does, on a regular basis..), or new evidence come to light, witnesses recount their testimony,etc.

Until we can guarantee absolutely NO innocent person is put to death, the death penalty shouldn't be used, except in VERY limited circumstances - possibly... when dealing with persons who've made open/uncoerced admissions of guilt of serial murders or something of that sort.

We can't just go and use this on any and/or everyone found guilty of murder, rape, egregious sex offences, or whatever other heinous crimes the general public deems 'Death Penalty worthy'.

These actions ARE vile and detestable, But so is the death penalty. This is a prime example of the old saying "two wrongs don't make a right".

It very well might bring a sense of "justice being done" (aka vengence) and make the families of victims feel vindicated, or somehow "feel better", or whatever...  But that still doesn't make it right!

Any innocent person could (possibly/in theory) be wrongly convicted and found guilty - for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or any one of a variety of other situations where it's happened before.

One day, you could wake up and find yourself (or a loved one) as that person. Thats one thing you should really think twice about before supporting the Death Penalty. Is it highly unlikely? YES, but it IS possible.

If I am raising a child-rapist or a serial killer, may God have mercy on his soul.

What about people that kill multiple times? Would five wrongs, out-weigh your "two?"

I believe that some people are just fundamentally flawed; no amount of counseling or rehabilitation can change them. Why should they be allowed to live when they have no remorse, or empathy for their victims?

Mr. Snowden, our own president is allowing the religious genocide, of the entire Middle East. Our soldiers are being put to death, as well as thousands of innocent civilians.........Because your so opposed to the death penalty; why aren't you fighting for these people and their loved ones?

I agree.  I am a very liberal person, but if someone murdered my child i would want the murderer to get the death penalty.

I agree that there are a lot of people out there that could use some killing. I would do it myself in many cases. But here's the problem: human error. We make mistakes, we misremember, we convict based on emotion... Not to mention grievious inequalities in the justice system. And that is why I am against the death penalty.

Unpopular to whom? Certainly not to me and most other intelligent people.

Did these murderers have mercy on their victim's? Did they play,"God," when they claimed innocent peoples lives? Where was their mercy? So, if you try and rehabilitate them and turn them loose on society, and they kill again; does that also make me a murderer?

Funny how you assume I hate people I don't know. I don't hate them, I'm sad for them, their families and their victims/families. But, until you can rewrite the D.N.A. that makes up a murdering-sociopath, I believe the death penalty is a fair.

I also think that the families of the victims should be able to have a say, if they oppose or support it. And, I agree with S.Kelly, it should only be given, in specific circumstances.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html

The Death Penalty... what a ridiculous idea... rational thinking people should never support STATE sponsored killing,  in any form. As I have stated, and many others as well, many times in these forums, it is cost ineffectient, morally corrupt, and racially motivated in many ways. Due to the remarkable work of the Innocence Project, http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php we have only recently discovered that our state sanctioned murder has ended the lives of many innocent people, ruining the lives of their families as well.

This is unacceptable. So is the Death Penalty.

http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2009m10d21-Study-Death-penalty-is-a-waste-of-taxpayer-money

while browsing after making comments about this topic I discovered this article on the costs of the Death Penalty.

Woiuldn't this wasted taxpayer money be more useful in establishing educational programs????

Having sympathy for someone does not negate the evil of what they did.  I feel horrible for anyone who suffered anything in their life, especially as a child.  But having been abused as a child does not give you an excuse to go out and pass on the sickness to others.  We have to stop these crimes in some way.  Someone who molests a child WILL NOT STOP.  Even behind bars, they still spread their sickness.  Personally, I think the most merciful thing (for them as well as the rest of the universe), is an end to their life. 

And yes, there are certainly mitigating circumstances.  A crime of passion is not the same thing as systematically murdering people because it gives you pleasure to torture, or for some other arbitrary reason, like they all had blonde hair and were 5'6".  I don't think that killing someone in the heat of the moment should be grounds for the death penalty.  Nor should being convicted of statuatory rape.  But we have to keep in mind that there are really, really sick people out there who are incapable of functioning in society without partaking of their sicknesses.  A full-grown man who brutally rapes an infant?  What mercy should be shown to that person?  No one can ever convince me that someone that sick should be allowed to live.  And yes, I do agree that being behind bars for life could/should be more of a punishment than a quick, painless death, however that's not the case for many.  Hence, why so many people make "deals" with prosecution in return for taking the death penalty off the table.  The death penalty must be seen as quite the punishment if it gets that kind of universal response.

Unfortunately, many innocent people have poor legal counsel and can find themselves in prison on death row since too many lawyers fail to aggressively defend their clients, are incompetent or just don't care.  Listen to the video of Texas Todd Willingham's defense attorney. How would you like him representing you if you found yourself thrown into the criminal justice system? Man should not be playing God with people's lives. An eye for an eye leaves both people blind...

Rebecca,

If I follow you through all the 'spiritual mumbu-jumbo' I think you're saying "blame the parents" -- I agree.

In a great majority of the cases, the children run the "household" (if you can call it that), and the rest are composed of "true sociopaths".

Executing a true sociopath, represents zero loss to society.  It's a pity we lock them up for life.

But resy of the science issues you raised are, well, noise. You seem conflicted?

Premeditated murder, is (or should be) a capital offense...  But what about crimes of passion?  A spouse that cheats, not for love but to hurt the other???  Is that retalliation, is that just the final means to end the pain? Hmmm.

Robbery-homicide.  Waste of air to keep the perp alive (IMHO)  DNA can prove it, beyond reasonable doubt...  but what about the motive???

Bernie Madoff? 150 years? Duh?  Is that life? He should have to pay for every day he draws breath.  I don't think I could throw the switch on him, but there are others that could.

Drunk Drivers -- that's an easy one...  Put them in slop sink, pour alcohol over their patheitc selves until they die from EtOH poisoning, then flush the sink into a sewer. -- no ceremony, no regrets.

It's a complex issue, I'm still confused by your post.  I hope mine leaves less ambiguity ;^)

I was just saying that some people are so irreparably damaged that the death penalty is the merciful option. I'm also saying that I believe there are more problems with our prison system than with the death penalty and I think few prisoners come out better off than they went in.

What I am not sure of is exactly which crimes should be punished with death. I guess thats what a jury is for- to evaluate each specific case.

As a new mother and a resident of Central Florida (where young girls go missing and are found dead every month) I lean more strongly toward the death penalty than I did before. The are no extenuating circumstances that excuse someone from kidnapping and killing a child. Such monsters should definately be put to death because we cannot trust our justice system to keep them locked up.

another post disappeared from this thread.

gotta luv Leftist political debate...  delete the posts you don't agree with.

Hey! Whoever!  I wasn't selling viagra, so keep your mitts off the delete button!

I just got the content removed message...

The deleted post was in response to the line:

I don't know if I am liberal or conservative.

The worlds smallest political quiz tells folks if they are Liberal, Conservative, Statist, or Individualist.

Do I say thanks for admitting to one of several posts that are missing???  No, it just reinforces my opinion that the Left can't debate fairly.

The conservative boards I post on, frequently have to deal with my defense of a woman's right to choose, and keeping the government out of the bedroom of consenting adults.

I get flamed from the Right, but never deleted.

That's why I'm proud to call my self a LIBERTARIAN -- I'm more liberal than most of the clowns on the Left, more conservative than the clowns on the Right, I loath and am disgusted by the Statists and Socialists on the Left or Right, and I laugh at the crazy Anarchists that think all societal norms are to be shunned.

I'm actually probable an Objectivist, but that too carries the stigma of being an Ayn Rand cultist.

Who is John Galt? --  he's me ^_^

Cheaper to keep a prisoner housed, fed, clothed, as a burden on society for 20,30,40 years or more???

My I have no room for compassion for a person that kills innocents in the commission of a crime, or as the crime.

The difference is you think of them as hooman[sic] beings, I see them merely as H. Sapeiens trash. 

We've got 2 guys here in CT that murdered 3 women in a home invasion.  They are guilty *beyond ALL doubt*, they havent't even gone to trial yet...

A just society would have tried them in a court of law, found them guilty, sentenced them to death, and had them executed by now.  There are no extenuating circumstances, their rights were not violated, they invaded, they killed, they held off the police for a time, and they were arrested.

If this isn't a valid use of the death penalty, then I want to live in the majical mystical blissful utopian la-la land you seem to dwell in.

Yes, life without parole actually is cheaper, because death row cases are always delayed and appealed endlessly, and unless the defendant has deep pockets (rare), the state pays for the legal battle on BOTH sides. Legal fees can get astronomical in even simple cases...

Everyone can point to obvious cases where we all feel comfortable applying the death penalty, (I can think of plenty of people I'd be happy to kill with my bare hands) but the problem is less that; it's the innocent people we convict. Hundreds of death row inmates convicted before the widepread use of DNA evidence have been exhonerated with DNA in recent years... Think of the others, wrongly convicted, who weren't so lucky... The taking of even one innocent life negates the whole thing.

I should note that not ALL of those inmates exhonerated were convicted before DNA of course... the point is, humans are fallible, and you can't take back the ultimate penalty if you mess up.

Kristen,

You talk about exoneration of convicted felons. I acknowledge it can, does, and borbably will continue, People are dangerous dirty animals -- on both sides of the law.

I mentioned a pair that we're already wasted *millions* of dollars on, and they haven't even been brought to trial yet!  *** I blame anti-death penalty fanatics like you for that travesty! ***

In reality there is *NO QUESTION OR DOUBT* that these two scumbags *KILLED THREE WOMEN IN THEIR HOME*.  All the wrestling is legal mumbo-jumbo, hyper-technical interpretations, and the search for loopholes to keep them alive.  It's NOT about justice.

If you believe so strongly in keeping criminal amimals alive, I want yyou to take out your checkbook and write a check to: Connecticut Guilty Murder Life Support Fund in whatever dollar amount you believe we've saved -- wait that's too easy, how about one days' expenses say $500 ought to do it.

Put your $$$ where your mouth is! 

I say kill the bastards -- one .22 caiber round each $1.25 plus the cost of digging a hole.

I don't know anything about whatever case you are talking about so I'm not going to comment on it.

I never said I wanted to keep criminals alive. I said in many cases I'd pull the trigger myself. I am interested in keeping the INNOCENT alive. And, yes, people are dangerous, dirty animals which is precisely why we have a court system, trial by a jury of peers, and why we *shouldn't* use the death penalty. We can't be trusted with it.

And calling my oh-so-moderate position of not wanting to kill innocent people fanatical is certainly not making you look very reasonable yourself...

OK I apologize for the use of fanatic. I will point out that is seems like you opposition to the DP is uncompromising however.

The economic argument holds no water, because a lifer will still continue to abuse the courts for perceived abuses in prison, like phone cards, tv channels, insults by guards, etc...  They do not contribute to society only take.

The just in case one is innocent, makes for wunderful[sic] rhetoric on a tv drama, but just like swine flu vaccinations, there will be a small number of casualties.  Yes it's sad but at some point we're all victims of the establishment and the powers that be.

DNA is just one part of the chain of evidence it's a darn good one.  So good that the absence of DNA evidence can almost be inferred as a reason to convict if the crime is well planned...  While I place little faith in the police departments ability to protect me, I also believe that anyone falsely accused of a crime *should* be able to prove their innocence should the need arise, unless it's a damn good conspiracy! Whaddya gonna do if the conspiracy is that well executed? Probably hang.

I simply don't attribute that much conspiratorial skill to the common criminal.

I'm sorry, but I don't think killing a small number of innocent people is acceptable, certainly not worth it. I studied this issue for a project back in college; the economic argument IS sound, and there is no evidence that the death penalty actually reduces crime. So what are we gaining, exactly, in exchange for innocent blood? The satisfaction of vengeance? Hardly a noble sacrifice... (Your swine flu analogy doesn't make any sense - we didn't release swine flu for some goal of ours).

For someone who complains so much in the criminal justice system, you sure put a lot of faith in their abilities... Me, I am all too aware of the woeful inadequacies, the history of racism, the overworked, underpaid defense attorneys, the abusive cops, the unreliability of memory... I don't trust it much at all.

You're confusing my statements, and mixing up the intended meanings...

Acceptable, Expectable, Unavoidable, Desirable, etc...  A lot of werdz[sic] in the mix, a lot of interpretations.

1st, we're not just rounding up innocents and processing them through some mill.  It takes a rather remarkable set of circumstances for a bad ID, no alibi, no motive, no opportunity, et. al. to come together in the 'perfect storm'.

I do acknowledge that law enforcement can be guilty of arresting the wrong person just to clear their case, but that usually doesn't happen *until* the accuses has been through the system several times and the frustration of law enforcement overcomes their sense of fair-play.  Please be honest, you *know* this is true!

There's alot to be said for good-old-fashioned deterrence.  Will the thread of the DP stop a junkie from robbing a liquor store?  Probably not.  Might the thread of being whipped or caned??? Yeah, after witnessing a real caning it will!  How about the jealouds husband that offs his wife and her lover in a fit of rage and confrontation?  Again, probably not.  But what about the gangster that buys a gun to go over and teach his 'business' rival a lesson? I think the spectre of quick and certain death might have a bit of a chilling effect on that particular crime...  And if it does not, so much the better -- 2 dead criminals are better than one!

Remember there are more classes of criminals and crimes than we have laws to *try* to combat. Better laws simply create better criminals; just like misuse of antibiotics creates better bacteria.

You are speaking in hypotheticals, but I am speaking in facts. The system is racially-biased, death penalty does not affect crime rates, and innocent people are put to death. Like I said, I wrote a research paper on this issue for a sociology class. I encourage you to go and actually look at studies and research journals on this issue to see the proof; sorry, I ain't about to do all that research all over again for you, hahaha...

Research paper?  OK, was it peer reviewed, graduate, under grad, high school?

The last thing on earth I want is for you to do it again, unless it was improperly conceived in the first place (hint-hint)

It's OK, if you're comfortable with your conclusions and your research, then stick with them.

I hope that you are never sitting in the back of the courtroom staring at a piece of human garbage that hurt a loved one.

--Granola

What happened to yesterday's comment?

The justice system doesn't have a lot of credibility to begin with.  In CT the superior court hears about 30 cases a year???  97% are adjudicated via plea bargain. 

Again I agree about the innocent part, but let's be honest, how many *truly* innocent people are charged with capital crimes???

I'd agree that the fairness and checks of the criminal justice system could be strengthened and improved.  But at the same time the abuse of process loopholes need to be closed.

Legislators are not the brightest bulbs in the marquee, yet they try to write the laws that control us all.  They usually handle criminal law in knee-jerk reaction to specific events.  It's a well known axiom that "extraordinary events make for bad rules".  Yet that's the body of law we all suffer under.

State sanctionec killing: right or wrong?  A good kwestion[sic] for philosophers.  Knowing a dangerous criminal is taking the eternal dirt nap, helps me sleep better at night.

"Again I agree about the innocent part, but let's be honest, how many *truly* innocent people are charged with capital crimes???"

It's impossible to know the total number, but here are the ones that were saved: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

If we've managed to catch over 100 mistakes, then you know the number that we *haven't* caught has to be much more than that, given the limited resources of most convicts.

But really, just one is too many.

Yeah, and a guy here in CT was recently (2-3 years ago?) acquitted after spending 20 years in prison...  so the details are fuzzy but that hardly changes the argument.

He was a zero-prospect troublemaker in the wrong place at the wrong time, a bad ID, he had no alibi, and it was not a leap of the imagination to believe he did it...  This kid was charged, tried and convicted of the crime.  He went went down, for a rape/murder I believe, *THAT HE DIDN'T COMMIT* 

Was he as pure as the driven snow???  Somehow I kinda doubt it?  Was his incarceration just? No. Might jail have kapt him alive for 20 years that the street probably would have denied him?  Good chance of that.  What's my point? Dunno, I'm wavering here ;^)  Oh, yeah...  If he had been executed 20 years ago, nothing in the state of CT would have turned out much different, except the the controversy 20 years later.

The State apologized and offered him $500,000 compensation which was more that he'd have earned on the outside -- troublemaker remember...

He took the $500,000 then sued for $5M about 6 months later.

All I can say is bad things happen to good people.

I don't believe the victim(s) of the original crime were ever compensated in any way??? 

There is injustice everywhere in this world.  There is injustice that *should* keep you awake at night, there is injustice that most people sleep with just fine.  I believe the real criminal died of cancer or something and made a deathbed admission... so he really nailed two victims with the one crime.

Simply eliminating the death penalty is a naive solution that will have very little real effect on the crime rate, it might even make it worse.

It's like outlawing guns, because then only outlaws carry guns; law abiding folks who pose no threat become disarmed while crooks who do not care about the law merrily go on breaking it.

I agree, executing an innocent is deplorable.  But you've really got the crazies naming the people you called out.

Did those named cause the deaths of others? yup.
Did they do it in a *criminal* manner? nope.

Don't you dare equate a guy with a gun in a liquor store with anyone in ths system doing the job they were elected/appoinded to do -- unless you can show personal bias... e.g. A hick sherrif that arrests the town troublemaker because it's easier than charging the son of the town banker with a crime.

We disagree. If a sociopath kills somebody as part of a street crime, that is a tragedy and merits justice. If another sociopath tortures and kills large numbers of civilians for greed or ideology, that is an even greater outrage. 'Doing their jobs' is not a defense. Hitpeople for mobsters and gangs are doing their jobs.

Rev,

Did you mis-read my comment?  I called the 'hick-sheriff' a criminal -- I wasn't excusing that type of behavior.

Or, has the low protein diet has effected your sanity?

If you wanna call: "Oliver North, Contra funders, Blackwater, Halliburton, Cheney and W. Bush" -- "Hitpeople for mobsters and gangs..." then that's your 1st amendment right.

You may have the right to say such things, but I have the right to challenge your conclusions as delusions.

That is not what I was saying. I was not trying to say that the people listed were equal to hitpeople from the mob and gangs. I was saying that those listed were immeasurably worse.

Yeah, Rev, sure, ha, ha, ha, ha.

And I assume you got warm fuzzies from the death of the soldiers at Fort Hood?

I actually credited President Obama for making an appearance and delivering a memorial speech.

BTW: that's only the 3rd time I actually referred to him using the verbiage of POTUS.  The first time was inauguration day when the Chief Justice made him tongue tied by improperly prompting the oath of office. the 2nd time was... Hmmm maybe this was only the 2nd time... 

But since it's after midnight and the DC sniper is now dead by lethal injection **YAY**, I'll go back to calling him Presbo.

PS Lethal injection was too good for the sniper -- he should have been shot, and his corpse fed to pigs.  No memorial, no ceremony, nothing to remember him by except the his screams as he bled to death and his carcass was shredded and desecrated. {too far?}

Fort Hood was a tragedy and the victims do not compare to war criminals. The DC sniper was evil, but greatly outdone by perps of Contra wars.

She means me... Whaddya think??? Am I correct???  I'm the one with the big foam finger that's pointing at my head... ;^)

Should I feel honored that speaking my mind has earned me the death penalty in your mind.  Or should I interpret *your* statements as a threat to my life and safety?

I believe it's you who is the hypocrite.  In the next sentence you said I'm not sane, so the first sentence was probably just hyperbole and I'm safe.

You go on to declare that I have hatred for some...  I hate the crime, and I believe in accountability for one's actions.  I don't however feel that I've stereotypes anyone.  The killers I mentioned were 2 white guys, and they killed 3 white women, a mother and her daughters, the father survived the invasion.  As I said there is *no doubt* they are guilty.  Accountability demands they die.  If it was my wife and kids I'd kill them in the slowest most excruciating way possible.  Since I'm just a 'disinterested' citizen, I'd call for a quick and (relatively painless) execution.

As for god, vengence, & judgement...  I'm not willint to wait for 'eternity'  I live in the real world, and the continues existence of some amimals is a real-world problem, not a spiritual one.  I'll take my chances with the afterlife.  If a faithful person has a problem with being the agent of just execution, fine.  There are plenty of regular folks like me who see the criminals as nothing more than animals in need of putting down. 

Ya wanna know the real problem?  Lawyers!  I'll never sit on a jury, because unless I feign stupidity during voir dire, I get dismissed for cause.  Damn lawyers don't want intelligent folks hearing their bullshit arguments.  They reserve the law to themselves, and a lowly engineer like me is unworthy of interpteting anything unless they spoonfeed it in a way that begs the question.

I can sleep with my beliefs perfectly intact.

This may sound simplistic, but a *crime* is when one person or group oversteps the bounds of society and kills, harms, restricts, or steals from another person or group without provocation or for unbalanced personal gain.

Revenge, punishment, retribution, the death penalty, or even sanctioned torture, directed back to the original offender, while similar or possibly worse than the original offense, when performed only in response to the initial offense are not *criminal* nor are they morally unsustainable.

It's complicated... Paying taxes to the City/State is legal and proper, paying protection to a Boss is not.  Even if the Boss provides better protection than the City, the taxes are still OK. Why?  Both the City and the Boss will deprive the owner of his property if he chooses not to pay...

The City by definition operates openly, the Boss notoriously.  A merchant might establish in a city, while a Boss would encroach into it and eventually dominate it.

So even crime is relative, but the order of the events can be determined.  Anyway...

The Inquisition aside, the City doesn't go out and round up folks for lethal injection, torture, it just prints a tax roll and demands compliance.

Criminals select victims either deliberately or randomly.  When the State is alerted it motivates forces to capture/control the irritant.  When the State determines that a perticulat irritant is more troublesome than it is willing to tolerate, it acts.  The old treatment might have been banishment, but that doesn't work today.  Incarceration is possible but expensive, and sometimes fails to isolate the irritant from the rest of society.  What's left? Execution.  From a strictly practical perspective I have no difficulty with this. From any 'higher' perspective I have even less. 

What I see is a planet dominated by H. Sapiens -- a species of dangerous animals, thinly veiled in a veneer of humanity.

Some folks feel that every human has 'something special' (I deny that assertion because it is unquantifiable),  I will default to the assumption that any given H. Sapiens can be hooman[sic]. 

What I can measure is that an individuals' actions are the ultimate determination of hoomanity[sic].

We are a 'social' species, but like any population there is a distribution.  When individuals deviate too far from the center, there are consequences.  When an individual decides it is better to prey on the median, that person is a danger and *must* be eliminated.

The whole debate is how that expulsion from the group is performed.

Laura asked: "Who are we to make that decision?"

"We" are society.  "We" are people that live in harmony(more or less) that don't commit henious crimes.  "We" are are folks that don't want to get that call in the middle of the night saying: "Your [daughter | son | wife | husband | father | mother | etc. etc. ] was just found dead in an alley...  We are the people that can assess the relative worth of a criminal in comparison to a citizen and say with clear conscience "That one *deserves* to die."

What I find incomprehensible is that some folks (Liberals) place the life of criminal above the life of the victim.  And what astounds me is that the same (bed-wetting ) "sheeple" advocate yielding to the criminal during the act, to which I reply: "NEVER!"

Perhaps it's a Y-chromosome thing???  I was robbed at an ATM at knifepoint once, and during the attempt I was able to strike the would be robber.  Fortunately the event was wittnessed by a police officer driving by in the street.  The only reason the thief is still *alive* is because the cop stopped me immediately after the 1st blow.  The guy got off easy with only a broken jaw in addition to whatever jail time he plead to.  I was not charged, or even detained.  The cop said he would be arrested... when he woke up!

Would I have killed the lowlife scum?  Yup, with my bare hands & feet.  He threated my life with a knife, he failed. In the struggle for life and death, failure is fatal -- hence he got off easy.

Until you have an up-close and personal interaction with a criminal, it's easy to rationalize that crooks are just people that are misguided...  That ain'e even close to fantasy -- it's beyond niave!  I hope you *never* find out for real!

Oh, and as for celebrating the execution of the sniper, a former co-workers sister-in-law was one of the victims.  Not exactly close to me, but, I saw the devastation-effects it caused first-hand.  A man pulled a trigger that he had no earthly right to pull, and 500 miles away a good engineer was damaged.

That's who "we" are to make such decisions.

I think using the word "sheeple" is akin to invoking Godwin's Law... you automatically lose the debate.

As I inferred in the above post, the death penalty is not meant to teach the condemned, it's not menat to educate a would be criminal, it's meant only to punish as harshly as practical, and to deter throught fear.

Besides, 'killing' isn't necessarily a DP offense.  Murder is a higher standard than manslaughter.  But I don't want to get into a philosophical contest trying to list DP crimes vs prison crimes.  Let me give an example of how confusing the standard *should* be.

A new mother kills her 3 week old infant; not a "crime".  A tragedy certainly, but not a crime. --versus-- A new father kills his 3 week old infant; possibly a "crime" certainly a tragedy, unless, the infant has some terrible disease... then it's just a tragedy.

A bank robberwalks into the lobby, quietly threatens the teller (i.e bank employee) with a gun or a bomb; a crime. --versus-- The robber loudly threatens other customers in the lobby (i.e innocent hostages) w/ gun or bomb DP crime!

If only the laws were so clear and simple!

The problem is that the lawyers have created so many shades of grey.  Certainly the ability to form intent is important.  The robber might be under duress because "his" family is being held hostage...  but all this is what is supposed to come out at the trial.  Instead, facts and data are suppressed due to 'technicalities' and 'hyper-technicalities' (both are defined terms).

Which is more 'wrong' killing a killer or loopholes in the system.

Dear Mr Aeon,

"More Wrong"?  How would you measure that? You sound like me when I was 17, mixing reason and emotion.  Perhaps you should get a job and let the anger play out chopping wood or something, then revisit the subject.  I'm tired of hearing from you.

Hmmm, I agree with your previous statement that the State isn't automatically right because it's the State.

Did the worlds smallest political quiz help you to understand yourself any better?

If you're tired of hearing from me that I've partially succeeded.  I post with the express intent of getting under peoples skin -- of forcing, coercing actually, them to re-examine their convictions on an unfamiliar terrain.

Your first error was assuming I believe everything I type.  Very few folks actually know me.  They sometimes get to see how far I'm willing to extrapolate a position or a concept to see when premises crack under the strain.  That's when folks true character is revealed.

Some re-trench, falling back on stale arguments, dogma, and sound-bites.  Others twist in the wind, uncertain about their original position.  Occasionally I win a convert, when they examine the data and discover the flaw in their conclusion, or the conclusion they've been taught to parrot. 

From time to time, I'm introduced to *facts* that I was unaware from that I'm unable to refute.  When that happens I'm the one who is forced to re-evaluate a previously held conviction.  In truth I wish this would happen more often than it does.  My opponents wish they could use emotion instead of facts to sway me.

I do not lead with emotion, I start with facts, and sometimes opinion, but only when it is objective, as I did in this discussion.  On 10/25 I said: "This American supports the Death Penalty!" that's a fact.  And I threw down a gauntlet; it worked.

I didn't say I won't use emotion to punch up a piece, but I don't rely on it for my conclusions as my debating opponents frequently do.

I was busy on the 6th, making what I thought was to be some closing arguments.  I made one post to Thomas on the 7th after a private message, I thought this thread was done.  I can't remain silent in the face of flawed conclusions.

The final issue it what will you do next?  I grew tired of a certain music teacher in a global warming thread.  I told him so and I unchecked the box to monitor the thread. What will you do?

Except it's pretty well-established that the DP doesn't deter crime.

Um... last time I checked, killing an infant was a crime no matter who does it...

And to answer your question, the state killing the innocent, which certainly happens, is far, FAR worse than friggin loopholes, and anyone who says otherwise is obviously no better than all those you so gleefully wish to kill.

In conclusion, you argue like a 15-year-old boy (17 is too generous), and I am done discussing the death penalty with you. I hope you mature some day.

Kristin, 

When the ringing in your ears subsides, please go back and re-read my thoughts on infanticide.  I'm sure I hit a nerve on such a hot-button issue, and I believe you've misinterpreted it.

I don't "gleefully wish to kill" anyone!  I recognize the situation that sometime the death of a guilty person is the proper outcome of a long string of events.

And for age/maturity, I'm not the one sporting cruciferous-vegetable-colored hair.  And why the angry look?

It takes talent to misspell someone's name when it's written right in front of you. But everyone does, so I'll forgive you.

Yes, I've clearly flown into a rage over infanticide... my eyes are rolling pretty hard right now. I suppose you are just confused so I'll repeat myself; infanticide is a crime regardless of who commits it. Remember the college kid who dumped her baby in the dumpster (twice)? That was at my school. And she was tried for murder. And that's just a day old, not 3 weeks old. But this is a complete derail (not that there's any productive discussion goin on on this thread anymore anyway).

Despite what you say, you clearly have no respect for the gravity of taking a human life, which is why myself and others question your maturity. You get off on indulging your violent instincts when it is condoned by society, but the tendancy towards emotional vengeange shouldn't be fed. That's not what justice is about; it just feeds our worst tendancies.

As if it mattered to the discussion: I am 23, a college graduate, an artist, and my hair is not green at the moment. It was purple, but I dyed it black for Halloween. None of this has hampered my ability to work for a law firm or is indicitive of my maturity level or grasp of the issues.

Mea culpa. I apologize for the typo with your name.  Some people butcher names as a token of disrespect, I assure you that was not my intent.

I was trying to lighten the mood with the hair color comment.  My daughter, currently pursuing her BFA, likes to do interesting hair effects too.  It's only hair after all.

I'll share one more final aside, it's just an interesting observation that when purple dye fades it appears green, and when green dye fades it appears purple.

What brand of dye does that? o_O

Yea, really.  You could do half and half and watch them switch.

Repeat?  No, your complaints are as old as dirt. 

What you should do is learn which reply link to click. Hint: Look for "Reply to thread"

Further, you are free to lurk, audience is audience after all.  But I'd rather you participate in a *meaningful* manner.

Don't just stroll in, declare yourself old and wise, and expect folks to take your advice at face value... Until you *WRITE SOMETHING* you're just a profile in a group; a cipher, naught. 

You may think you outgrew me... but this is a fresh space and a diffferent time.  If you're lost in your recollectiions, then go tell war stories at Happy Meadows retirement home, but don't expect strangers to be all that interested in your old dusty carousel of slides and foggy narration.

No Tiffany!

An eye for an eye does not leave the world blind and toothless, as has been uttered so many times in 'deaf' opposition to punishment.

In fact it has just the opposite effect.  Good grief, do you really think the vast majority of people are that stupid?

Life, the game and the reality, (if you believe in reality), has rules.  Only the people that break the rules need fear being punished.  I've never contemplated robbing a store, raping a woman, killing a rival, or any list if crimes that the 'rules' of society have declared 'unacceptable'.  Therefore what is by basis of fearing punishment for theft, rape, murder, or any reciprocal punishment on the (rather long) list of crimes?

What you DP opponents do is to try to blure the lines between crime and punishment. Punishment in the absence of a crime, is a stain on society!  It is reprehensible, and in itself it *is* a crime.

But punishment *for* a crime, is just, reaconable, and necessary, lest we decay into anarchy.

I allowed myself to get drawn into the flawed argument, because I'm an imperfect debater (heh-heh).

But I will call you for begging the question.  Executing a convicted murdered is *NOT MURDER* -- it is death, it is killing, it is the end of a life -- but not murder.  And that simple fact means the State does not neet to assert itself as 'better' than the murderer, for the murderer has made himself *inferior* to the rest of us.

I'm using objective reasoning to reach that conclusion. If you can only subjectively defend the relative worth of a murderer and the State, then _I_ certainly don't want to be a member of _your_ society.

Trevor,

  I see you're another one that has no concept or proportionality.

What exactly do *you* mean when *you* say "undesirable"?

aside: This ought to be amusing...

Discipline is teaching.  "Both sides" of the discipline debate agree that children need discipline.  A lack of discipline altogether constitutes neglect and is a very different problem.

Hitting is not discipline.  Hitting is punishment.  Further, it's also assault by definition.   If committed against an adult it would not only constitute a physical crime but depending on the location of the strike, a sexual assault as well.

There is no need or just cause to hit a child.  Hitting does not teach lessons, instruction does.  Hitting is an act that only relieves the parent - it serves absolutely zero educational benefit to the child.

Further, study after study shows that spanking actually encourages bad behavior AND teaches not only cycles of violence in families but the thinking that goes into justifying use of violence as a response to provocation.  

Just because your children grew up without ending up in jail doesn't mean that hitting was doing right by them or that they necessarily turned out "okay."  You gave them an education in the use of 'justified violence,' which is exactly what this blog argues against by protesting capital punishment.

For more on 'turning out okay' look up Jordan Riak's "Plain Talk about Spanking," available on the PTAVE website NoSpank.net.

Well Christine,

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  I'm not having any more kids, but I can say from first hand experience that *all* of our friends that had kids an tried the "instruction without a spanking to back it up" wound up with their kids ruling the house.

And of course the one yesterday is so far the youngest to become a parent...  Then again I remember a "couple" of friends that became prego in high school, but that was back when AIDS was a gay & Jamaican disease...

I will always firmly believe that a *little* corporal punishment is the right way to rear a child.  Yes, you are correct it is the use and control of justified violence, I cannot disagree on the definition, but it still works IMHO.

I wish you the best with yours.  And I mean that sincerely ^_^

I wanted to split this part into a separate post.

On the other hand I resent it deeply when pure anti-spanking advocates stick their noses into the personal matters of how one family chooses to raise their children.

Not only is it invasive, it is also potentially risky.  My wife and I were investigated when a 'suspicious mark' turned up on my son...  It's a good thing I'm a calm person with a sense of humor and connections at the police department.  Turns out the bruise occurred during gym class and wasn't *properly* reported.  The teacher had written the report, submitted it, and there were witnesses and it really was no big deal... SNAFU!

The "zero-tolerance" policy could have been devastating to me and my family.  So forgive me when I say that I'm unwilling to allow organizations like no-spank and their ilk to operate without opposition from people like me!

Imagine that I was charged, or a permanent incident was recorded.  If I was a hot headed type I might have been tempted to escalate the violence...  A coward would beat his child, a psychopath might beat his wife, and a sociopath might take out the gym teacher, the nurse, and the principal of the school...

It's hard to know how far a person might go when the full weight of the 'justice system' lights on his shoulders despite having done nothing wrong -- or in your position, nothing more than spank a child.

We're *almost* on topic...  See when the accusation involves the school system, an accusation carries more weight than a conviction!

They accuse, then they sentence, and lastly notify the condenmed.

There is no appeal, because the bureaucracy circles the wagons faster than you can blink.  They hide behind the 'justification' that it's for the good of the child.

Did you catch the recent story of the 1st grader that brought a 'really cool' Swiss Army knife to school because he wanted to use the folding spoon to eat his pudding?  He was suspended and the parents were charged with contributing to the deliquency of a minor.

How about the kid that drew a picture of a gun in crayon and was suspended for threatening?

Wrongly convicted implies due process.  It still sucks, I agree.

BTW I was once suspended for 2 weeks -- I cut a class, the teacher found me and asked me: "Why I cut *his* class?". Without blinking I said: "I had something more important to do than sit in *your* classroom."  I spent the time doing relief effort for the victims of an earthquake in Italy.  Earned a couple of very nice commendations far more satisfying than anything I could have possibly been involved with in school during the same time. 

The point is I was suspended.  No appeal, no process, no interview *NO RIGHTS*.  We are all a product of our upbringing, and I have some deep seated resentment towards the Left!

So much for staying on topic {sorry} ;^)

As staying on topic goes, in what other studies do you know of a 100 percent rate of confirmation of the theory being tested during the investigation? 

Refer back to the excerpt from Dr. Murray Straus's book, above.

If 100 percent of the people studied who have committed violent crime were all raised in violent homes ... and I'm sorry to say off hand I don't recall the percentage but if a very high number of people raised with violence repeat (and/or believe in justified use of) violence ... obviously somewhere in the process of raising our children in this country we are, as parents, CREATING the problem of 2/3 of adult Americans believing in the death penalty.

How can restorative justice ever prevail over retaliatory justice when retaliatory behavior is part of how people are raised?

Trying to fight back against capital punishment without also tackling the many social problems caused by corporal punishment is about as smart as trying to fix the financial downfall of predator lending without stopping the predator lenders themselves.  Sure, we can keep trying to clean up the mess left by the source of the problem but if we don't address the FULL problem by acknowledging its source we won't be victorious, even with all of our hard work.

Hey Christine,

  Ever hear the bromide: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics."?  :^O

All I's[sic] saying the just because *prison inmates* report a condition doesn't mean it's either causative or significant.  They probably all ate bologna sandwiches too... perhaps it was the nitrites, made'm[sic] crazy?

Your premise that the DP is a problem is unsupported; it's an opinion.

Restorative justice is a concept only applicable to property crime.

Retaliatory justice is the only form possible when the victim was assaulted and/or killed.

Clearly 2/3rds of Americans are satisfied with the DP, it's the other 1/3rd that are out of touch.  Actually it's less, of the 1/3rd I'm sure a lot simply don't care.  So it's really only a tiny fraction that would rather coddle criminals than issue justice, swift, firm, and yes, final.  (note I didn't say without due process, but I do advocate without endless loopholes)

And regarding the prisoner survey, bringing the post back around...  Even if they were beaten as children, there is no possible restorative justice, only retaliatory.  And what about the thousands of kids that were beaten, that grew up to be normal well adjusted adults?  Wanna compare scars?

I'm an entirely unsympathetic bastard, when it comes to complainers.  I justify my attitude because I survived without turning to crime, drugs, violence, cults, alcohol, or a hundred other excuses.  I have 2 vices. 1) A good cup of coffee. 2) an insatiable desire to mix it up verbally ;^) 

I defend my choices because I'm 20 years happily married, and we have 2 really good kids, that are respected by their peers, my peers, teachers, employers, and adored by adults in general as good old fashioned well mannered and well raised young adults.

We can discuss 'predatory lending' and it's complement 'foolish borrowing' in another thread. ;^)