Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

frankly, in the case that this thread is formed around, i'd much rather take the money spent on feeding, clothing and housing the guy for the next 50+ years and instead spend it on schools or something.

deterred, incapacitated... either way, the guy won't be harming anymore children.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

frankly, in the case that this thread is formed around, i'd much rather take the money spent on feeding, clothing and housing the guy for the next 50+ years and instead spend it on schools or something.

deterred, incapacitated... either way, the guy won't be harming anymore children.

fine by me, if you stop saying it's a better deterrent than life without parole. incidentally, i doubt this guy will live another 50 years. child molesters don't usually live long lives in prison.

so, to me that sounds like it's okay to let someone else execute the guy, and we can then walk away with a supposedly clear conscience.

while we're talking about ways to save money, we could also stop spending money on permanently housing guys that steal a can of beer for their third offense, and spend it on schools.

fine by me, if you stop saying it's a better deterrent than life without parole. incidentally, i doubt this guy will live another 50 years. child molesters don't usually live long lives in prison.

so, to me that sounds like it's okay to let someone else execute the guy, and we can then walk away with a supposedly clear conscience.

while we're talking about ways to save money, we could also stop spending money on permanently housing guys that steal a can of beer for their third offense, and spend it on schools.

out here, it was over a slice of pizza. just as stupid. i agree with ya there. and on non-violent drug cases as well. not everything deserves a big honkin' sentence or the death penalty.

it just occured to me that while this guy, and other convicted/paroled violent offenders, was walking around without an electronic ankle bracelet, unlike say, martha stewart...

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

fine by me, if you stop saying it's a better deterrent than life without parole. incidentally, i doubt this guy will live another 50 years. child molesters don't usually live long lives in prison.

so, to me that sounds like it's okay to let someone else execute the guy, and we can then walk away with a supposedly clear conscience.

while we're talking about ways to save money, we could also stop spending money on permanently housing guys that steal a can of beer for their third offense, and spend it on schools.

out here, it was over a slice of pizza. just as stupid. i agree with ya there. and on non-violent drug cases as well. not everything deserves a big honkin' sentence or the death penalty.

it just occured to me that while this guy, and other convicted/paroled violent offenders, was walking around without an electronic ankle bracelet, unlike say, martha stewart...

we agree on something, waddaya know. i could care less about this guy, personally. who knows, maybe he'll plead guilty. but for every guy like this, i'm afraid there's a guy on death row that doesn't belong there, and that's the guy i'm standing up for. scheck & neufeld overturned 157 convictions, but they only do cases where there's DNA evidence. don't tell me juries only make mistakes in capital cases where there's DNA to correct their mistake.

missed the post you're refering to--my bad. as you probably know, eyewitness testimony is not always incontrovertible. according to google, "he lies like an eyewitness" is a Russian proverb. in over 2/3 of the first 138 DNA exonerations by Scheck & Neufeld, there were mistaken eyewitness IDs.

(1) there's no conclusive evidence that it deters crime more effectively than a life sentence without parole.

(2) it is disproportionately applied to the poor and to minorities.

(3) there are inadequate safeguards to prevent wrongful executions.

(4) it is often conducted in an inhumane manner; i consider the electric chair and the gas chamber to be inhumane.

(5) it may be administered to defendants who lacked the maturity to understand the gravity of their crimes when they commited them; specifically, juveniles and the mentally retarded.

On the cruelty and savagery thing. It doesn't work. It was done for years in England but wasn't a deterrent even though such procedures as hanging, drawing and quartering were carried out.

On DNA - anyone is only ever convicted on the basis of probability. DNA evidence isn't the be-all and end-all, it's just physical evidence and again only goes to probability.

goodfielder wrote:

On the cruelty and savagery thing. It doesn't work. It was done for years in England but wasn't a deterrent even though such procedures as hanging, drawing and quartering were carried out.

On DNA - anyone is only ever convicted on the basis of probability. DNA evidence isn't the be-all and end-all, it's just physical evidence and again only goes to probability.

Do you know anything about DNA? The chances of someone havng the same DNA as you is so slim it is laughable, unless you have a twin. If it is good enough to get people off of death row, then it should be good enough to put them there as well.

yitwail:

Quote:

(1) there's no conclusive evidence that it deters crime more effectively than a life sentence without parole.

That could be because it isn't violent enough. People such as you are trying to make it so that people don't feel pain. While most people fear death, they also fear pain. If the death penalty were one of great pain before one dies then it might have the desired effect. Making the death penalty humane is the wrong direction.

Starting in 1994, rates declined each year, reaching 6.1 per 100,000 in 2000, the lowest rate since 1967. In 2001, the rate increased to 7.1, a number that included the victims of the 9/11 terrorism attacks.

i'll try to summarize my opposition to capital punishment.

(1) there's no conclusive evidence that it deters crime more effectively than a life sentence without parole.

(2) it is disproportionately applied to the poor and to minorities.

(3) there are inadequate safeguards to prevent wrongful executions.

i had two additional objections i haven't raised in this thread, but i'm retracting execution of juveniles & the retarded, since both are now unconstitutional. note to self: fact-check more carefully.

(4) it is often conducted in an inhumane manner; i consider the electric chair and the gas chamber to be inhumane. (but as it turns out, every state that uses a gas chamber also provides lethal injection as an alternatve; however, Florida still uses the chair.)

while i acknowledge significant improvement in the use of the final measure of punishment, in the areas of the adoption of humane methods and the exclusion of juveniles and the mentally retarded, much more needs improving IMO.

DNA evidence didn't do much for Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Ya gotta have a jury capable of understandin' more than the sports pages and TV Guide.

these statistics don't support your claim that humane methods of execution are reducing the deterrent effect.

incidentally, i overlooked supreme court decisions that banned execution of juveniles and the mentally retarded. i didn't finish editing my post in time before you responded.

As executions rose, states without the death penalty fared much better than states with the death penalty in reducing their murder rates. The gap between the murder rate in death penalty states and the non-death penalty states grew larger (as shown in Chart II). In 1990, the murder rates in these two groups were 4% apart. By 2000, the murder rate in the death penalty states was 35% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty. In 2001, the gap between non-death penalty states and states with the death penalty again grew, reaching 37%. For 2002, the number stands at 36%.