John Allen Muhammed Executed in VA at 9:22 pm

During the moratorium, the murder stats per capita jumped way up, then returned to pre-moratorium levels after it was lifted. You really don't see that?

Death Penalty Support by Religious Preference (in the USA)

Protestants are somewhat more likely to endorse capital punishment than are Catholics and far more likely than those with no religious preference. More than 7 in 10 Protestants (71%) support the death penalty, while 66% of Catholics support it. Fifty-seven percent of those with no religious preference favor the death penalty for murder.

Just going to ignore the part that addressed your peer-countries I see. Nice.

Further, I originally offered the graph to substantiate my claim that this country's supposed peers were no closer to being our murderous equals during the moratorium, but in fact, were even further away. Surely you'll concede this much?

Actually, given that it normally takes, I believe an average of ten years from conviction to execution, that graph is quite odd.

If Bill's theory were correct, I'd expect a considerable lag time before the alleged results began to show up.

So . . . does this mean that you're never wrong--even when drinking heavily?

Three times you ducked it, Joe; choosing instead to attack me and the phrasing of the question rather than answer in earnest.

This was obvious to all. Your fairytale "better prison" system doesn't seem to be on the horizon, so that's just another copout to avoid answering the question in earnest. There'd be less crime in the Ghetto if parents paid more attention to their kids too, but knowing that doesn't change the real world one iota.

People are imperfect... including Judges, Parole board members, guards, etc. I've already shown you a case where a fellow who had been condemned, was booted off of Death Row per the moratorium, then got released and commited several more senseless murders. Execution would have prevented this. A naive belief that we could just manage murderers "better" will not.

I'm now forced to oppose the Death Penalty because it keeps open the possibility of releasing an innocent man. The unfortunate side effect is that it also keeps open the possibility that conviced killers will kill again. Historically, the latter appears to have happened considerably more often than the former.

Sounds crazy... but I agree with Gunga on this. Juries can't be counted on for even the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, any more than D.A.'s can be counted on to seek justice over mere victory or Judges can be counted on to be impartial. They're all human beings and I suspect too frequently just go with their guts, prejudices and all. I think the only way I could resume advocating a death penalty is if it were a second panel of professionals who were charged with the sole responsibility of looking for any doubt. FWIW, I think 7 career military officers, as close to 10 years in as possible, should have to unanimously agree that there can be NO doubt about guilt or the sentence should be commuted to life. Ideally, they should be 10 years in, and face dishonorable discharge if any doubt is ever established. That would satisfy me, anyway.

Occom Bill wrote:

Just going to ignore the part that addressed your peer-countries I see. Nice.

I suppose you are referring to the following part of your previous post:

Occom Bill wrote:

Further, I originally offered the graph to substantiate my claim that this country's supposed peers were no closer to being our murderous equals during the moratorium, but in fact, were even further away. Surely you'll concede this much?

Although your conclusion may well be true, I don't see how the graph you offered substantiates it. Your graph, after all, shows data from the United States -- only the United States. How could it possibly support any claim about foreign countries?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Three times you ducked it, Joe; choosing instead to attack me and the phrasing of the question rather than answer in earnest.

You're criticizing me for failing to answer the question you meant to ask? Tell ya' what: next time, ask that question first. It'll make it easier on the both of us.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

We've been here too many times, Joe. This is where I list examples of murderers sentenced to life who've killed again...

You've posted lists before, but not of murderers sentenced to life without parole who have killed anyone outside the prison walls. And that's the only list that has any kind of relevance where the options being discussed are capital punishment and life without parole.

What is important about the distinction between inside and out? Guards don't matter? Fellow inmates? How do you reconcile it's not okay to kill inmates, but it doesn't matter if convicted killers do?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

What is important about the distinction between inside and out? Guards don't matter? Fellow inmates? How do you reconcile it's not okay to kill inmates, but it doesn't matter if convicted killers do?

My, but you do leap to some rather outrageous conclusions, don't you. I never said that it doesn't matter if convicted killers murder fellow inmates or guards.

Sure you did. Irrelevant= Doesn't matter... and you apparently consider the murders of fellow prisoners and guards irrelevant:

joefromchicago wrote:

You've posted lists before, but not of murderers sentenced to life without parole who have killed anyone outside the prison walls. And that's the only list that has any kind of relevance where the options being discussed are capital punishment and life without parole.

Let’s use your word then. Why are the murders of Guards and fellow prisoners irrelevant? If all lives have value; why is the inside/outside distinction relevant?

joefromchicago wrote:

It's the list that's irrelevant, you chucklehead. Is English not your native language?

The list contains people who have been killed by convicted murderers, Joe. Would you prefer a collage? Why are you refusing to explain why murdered guards and inmates have no relevance?

I see you're still ducking this question, Joe. Why would a list of those murdered outside of prison be relevant, but a list of those murdered inside the prison would not?
Your silly personal attacks don't hide the fact that you're ducking this question at all.

joefromchicago wrote:

You can't tell the difference between the names of people on a list and the people themselves? I see. Now I'm beginning to gain an insight into your thinking processes. No wonder you support capital punishment.

This is just pathetic. Answer the question, Joe.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

This was obvious to all. Your fairytale "better prison" system doesn't seem to be on the horizon, so that's just another copout to avoid answering the question in earnest. There'd be less crime in the Ghetto if parents paid more attention to their kids too, but knowing that doesn't change the real world one iota.

Of course there's no realistic chance for prison reform today in the US, largely because states can get by with killing their problems instead of solving them.

But then you advocate fixing the capital punishment system despite admitting that the system is inherently flawed, so I guess we're both just a couple of hopeless dreamers.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

People are imperfect... including Judges, Parole board members, guards, etc. I've already shown you a case where a fellow who had been condemned, was booted off of Death Row per the moratorium, then got released and committed several more senseless murders. Execution would have prevented this. A naive belief that we could just manage murderers "better" will not.

That's simply an argument for killing all inmates.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'm now forced to oppose the Death Penalty because it keeps open the possibility of releasing an innocent man. The unfortunate side effect is that it also keeps open the possibility that conviced killers will kill again. Historically, the latter appears to have happened considerably more often than the former.

And yet you're willing to live with that? How can you reconcile that with your statement that "I value the life of the murder's next victim more than that of the murderer"? Why do you not care for innocent lives?

Actually, given that it normally takes, I believe an average of ten years from conviction to execution, that graph is quite odd.

If Bill's theory were correct, I'd expect a considerable lag time before the alleged results began to show up.

Quote:

Sounds crazy... but I agree with Gunga on this. Juries can't be counted on for even the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, any more than D.A.'s can be counted on to seek justice over mere victory or Judges can be counted on to be impartial. They're all human beings and I suspect too frequently just go with their guts, prejudices and all. I think the only way I could resume advocating a death penalty is if it were a second panel of professionals who were charged with the sole responsibility of looking for any doubt. FWIW, I think 7 career military officers, as close to 10 years in as possible, should have to unanimously agree that there can be NO doubt about guilt or the sentence should be commuted to life. Ideally, they should be 10 years in, and face dishonorable discharge if any doubt is ever established. That would satisfy me, anyway.

Quote:

That would probably work. I didn't say it would be easy to figure out a way to do it but it wouldn't be impossible. You've got the one basic idea straight in that there has to be some sort of personal consequence involved for anybody getting the "guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever" thing wrong.

Nonsense; that creates a conflict of interest between the murderer and the juror.
Its like the direct opposite of bribery.
It is intimdation.
Every judge or juror woud know that for the rest of his life
he was in danger of retribution; its just not worth it.
Serving on a homicide jury woud not be worth it; forget it,
unless the juror is bloodthirsty.

That plan effectively repeals the death penalty.

Who do you think you're fooling with this foolishness, Joe? I think I'll borrow from OmSig's style to clarify this FACT for you.

Yes Joe. I think it's pretty obvious Joe, you ducked the question.

Moving on...

Nope. Convicted murderers have killed again before and after the moratorium, in DP States and those without. Perfect it ain't.

Only in the eyes of a buffoon who is unable or unwilling to offer an honest argument.

It's not easy, Joe, I'll tell you that. Statistically, a solid argument can be made that even if the State does error occasionally; less innocent Death = More good. But my personal opinion has evolved into believing the State has a much greater responsibility to defend the presumption of innocence.

Considering we agreed that the U.S has higher murder rates during a relatively low murder rate period; is it really necessary to prove that the U.S. had higher murder rates than these same supposed peers when internally our murder rates were at their highest?

That plan effectively repeals the death penalty.