viscousmemories

An emotional issue, no doubt. I hardly think it's fair to put too much energy into criticizing the opinion of a pregnant mother who responds visciously to the idea of child-murderers. FWIW, DarthMom, I can imagine how it must make you feel to hear people suggest that child-murderers deserve to be treated humanely.

I support the death penalty, but not as a tool of revenge. As I stated in my earlier post (which was duly ignored by all) I believe it's a more cost-effective and rational method of removing a human tumor from society.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. I haven't read all the research, but I doubt it could be effectively shown that there is a direct correlation between enforcement of the death penalty and violent crime. If there are studies that prove me wrong please point me toward them.
So killing someone in self-defense is wrong? What about euthanasia?
No offense, but that just sounds crazy to me.
IMO, the only time "further imprisonment (of a violent criminal) would serve no purpose", would be when that person was no longer physically capable of committing violent crimes. Simply put, life. If you want to keep a person away from law-abiding society for life, in a humane way, kill them.
As someone who has been incarcerated, I really wish everyone who argues against the death penalty could have the opportunity to live in close quarters with violent criminals. I am quite sure your advocacy on their behalf would diminish considerably.

Darwin's Finch

DarthMom, are you seriously advocating that the appeals process be done away with in capital cases? We know that innocent people, for all kinds of reasons, have been put on death row; some have been executed. It's blindingly obvious to me that restricting or eliminating appeals in such cases will only lead to further injustices.

Perhaps I've mistaken a hypothetical argument for a conviction. If so, I apologize.

wildernesse

If you are defending yourself, and in the process you kill someone that is not a deliberate action. I don't think that you should think "Kill, kill" when you are defending yourself--the focus should be on getting out of that situation unharmed not on killing the person. If the focus is on killing the person, it's wrong.

I believe that deliberately ending someone else's natural life is wrong. I don't believe that invasive medical treatment like respirators and feeding tubes are part of natural life. Topping someone off with painkillers without their permission? Wrong. Euthanizing inconvenient people--like the severely developmentally disabled? Wrong.

Your life is your own, and no one should be able to decide when you die. Likewise, you should not be able to decide when others die.

--tibac

RoddyM

No viscousmemories I am not crazy (throws chair, strangles kitten, swigs (frozen Absolute) vodka from bottle).

What I am saying is don't point at the little sharp bit at the left hand end of the bell curve and knowing in advance that it's going to happen gleefully pounce when it does.

Edited to say that I didn't really swig the vodka.

lunachick

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deter.html

http://www.deathpenalty.org/facts/ot...ffective.shtml

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/deterrence.html

http://www.free-market.net/directory...n-depth/T16.2/

http://justice.policy.net/cjreform/studies/

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/law...h/cjp_publ.htm

http://justice.policy.net/cjreform/articles/

Some of these links also show how wrongful convictions are rather rampant, as well.

Interestingly enough (or not), is the fact that while doing a search I could only find ONE site that advocated the death penalty as a deterent to violent crime. It was a Christian site, which is here: http://news.christiansunite.com/reli...ion02909.shtml


I think you need to take a look at society as a whole, and try to find alternatives. While I'm not as 'soft' as RoddyM appears to be, I do believe crime (and punishment) is a 'whole society' issue. Cause and effect / prevention before cure, and all that. I'm trying to explore some of this here. What is in the best interests of society as a whole, and how do you go about becoming a healthier society, thereby reducing crime (and especially violent crime) per se?

seebs

A couple of problems:

1. Cause and effect are fuzzy; in a society with a rising problem with violent crime, people might want to adopt the death penalty in the hopes that it'd help.
2. I've never been clear on whether "wrongful convictions" includes technicalities.

My current inclination is to endorse the death penalty only in rabid-dog cases - people who admit that they did something and don't see why anyone cares.

viscousmemories

I skimmed those links, and they seem mostly to argue that current manifestations of the death penalty laws are unjust and ineffective, which I already knew, and that the DP is not an effective deterrent, which isn't the same as saying there is a direct link between the levels of violent crime and the existence of DP laws.

FWIW, I completely agree with you that the broader sociological concerns should be aggressively addressed. (But as long as the prison industry in the US is so economically powerful, won't.) But we still have to do something with existing violent criminals in the meantime.

It's like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Buffy is out to rid the world of vampires in an effort to save innocent humans from thier bite, but until she's able to do that, she has to kill those innocent humans that have already become vampires.

Viti

The 19 yr old confessed, saying it was in retaliation for a bad drug deal. He says he paid 125.00 for what he thought was speed but that the mother gave him salt. He also admitted being on methamphetamines at the time. Police have recovered the murder weapon(s), bloody clothing, and blood evidence exactly where the 19yr old said it would be. The teens stopped at home (where they lived with their grandma) to clean up before heading to Utah and ditched the clothing and knives at an abandoned gas station along I-15. The mother states there was no drug deal, but her robbery theory makes no sense. The teens knew the couple had not left the casino, so why would they look for them in the trailer? How did they know where the couple lived if they didn't know them?

Brittney is paralyzed from the waist down

Again, the whole situation starting with the trashy mother is just sickening

RoddyM

I could kill in a situation, but I wouldn't want to live in a society that cold bloodedly killed anyone. To me that is just plain creepy and would taint everything about the workings of that society.

Like I said earlier, imagine killing someone's child, and having that someone come to see you in pen. They would have permission to shitcan you or bring you beer. They could do whatever they liked as long as they didn't physically assault you. Or they could leave you alone. You could stay in your cell if you wanted if you didn't want to see them.

lunachick

An example:

Deterrence: Homicide Rates Fall in Canada After Abolition of Death Penalty
The abolition of the death penalty in Canada in 1976 has not led to increased homicide rates. Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished. In addition, homicide rates in Canada are generally three times lower than homicide rates in the U.S., which uses the death penalty. For example, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population and the rate in Canada was only 1.8. Canada currently sentences those convicted of murder to life sentences with parole eligibility. (Issues Direct.com, 8/4/02).


Another:

Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty: Another Examination of Oklahoma�s Return to Capital Punishment. In this study, author William Bailey speculated that if executions had a deterrent effect in Oklahoma, it would be observable by comparing murder rates and rates of sub-types of murder, such as felony-murder, stranger robbery-related killings, stranger non-felony murder, and argument-related killings, before and after the resumption of executions. Bailey examined the period between 1989 and 1991 for total killings and sub-types of killing. After controlling for a number of variables, Bailey found that there was no evidence for a deterrent effect. He did, however, find that there was a significant increase in stranger killings and non-felony stranger killings after Oklahoma resumed executions after a 25-year moratorium. (36 Criminology 711-33 (1998)).


And this:

The Geography of Execution: The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America. Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood studied differences in homicides and violent crime in 293 pairs of counties. Counties were matched in pairs based on geographic location, regional context, historical development, demographic and economic variables. The pairs shared a contiguous border, but differed on use of capital punishment. The authors found no support for a deterrent effect of capital punishment at the county level comparing matched counties inside and outside states with capital punishment, with and without a death row population, and with and without executions. The authors did find higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties. (Rowman and Littlefiled Publishers, Lanham, MD (1997))


Does seem to be some kind of link, wouldn't you agree?