Innocent Man was Executed in TX

[thereom4]

Liberals are terrible when it comes to the valuation of human life.

I don't consider myself a "liberal" or for that matter "conservative", but.....

[TrainingDummy]

You are terrible. Harmless old caricature of a man? Manson? He didn't kill any body, but he got people to kill other people. If a man liked to strangle and beat people to death by himself, and then he became old and feeble and arthritic, then i'd be willing to say there might be less to fear from this person. Charles Manson did not rely on physical capacities to get people killed, and yet you're telling me that because he doesn't have much physical capacities no, i should no longer be afraid of him? It was his mentality and intentions that were and are to this day potentially dangerous, you moron. Let's focus on what's important, dummy.

No one would follow that raving old dumbass now. To be safe, we should keep him locked up. But I think reasonable people can debate about that - I don't hang out with Charles Manson and I'm not a shrink so I wouldn't know.

it is FAR more likely for someone to be sentenced to too long a sentence than too short a sentence.
You are just terrible. Are you kidding me? What do you mean TOO long? Do you even know how people get sentenced, or what a parole is? All your ideas are generally very expensive, unsustainable, and based upon complete fiction.

People who are sentenced for dealing drugs or using drugs are, IMO, serving sentences that are too long since those should not be crimes. "More than half a million people were behind bars for drug offenses in the United States at the end of last year, according to numbers from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In a report released Sunday, Prisoners in 2004, the Justice Department number-crunchers found that people sentenced for drug crimes accounted for 21% of state prisoners and 55% of all federal prisoners. "

Is drug rehabilitation too expensive and unsustainable? Why, what's this? http://www.rti.org/page.cfm?objectid...466cad5f1b786c and http://www.brooklynda.org/dtap/DTAP.htm and see also http://www.brooklynda.org/dtap/DTAP.htm

"The National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) reports that the average cost per treatment episode was $2,941 between 1993 and 1995.16 The average treatment benefit to society was $9,177 per client. This resulted in an average savings of three to one: every $1 spent on treatment saved society $3. The savings resulted from reduced crime-related costs, increased earnings, and reduced health care costs that would otherwise be borne by society. " from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...ent/index.html

No, YOU are the ignorant one.

[pigeonmeister]

I'm not opposed to the death penalty overall, but I am opposed to many aspects of how it is applied and carried out. First, I think it should only be used in cases where the crimes committed were so heinous that mankind is better served by removing the person from the face of the earth forever. Such as the person torturing and killing lots of people without any remorse whatsoever and the evidence is so clear that even his mother admits he did it. I don't think the case mentioned falls into that category. Second, it shouldn't take years and years to execute someone. They should fast track all appeals and resolve the issue promptly.

I think all people feel this way. My feeling, however, is that you cannot build an effective day to day judicial and punitive system around the very rare combination of extreme evil and ovewhelming evidence.

An eye for an eye mentality or urge for torturers to experience 'a taste of their own medicine' is an unavoidably cathartic human instinct. However, I also believe in the general advancement of humankind over history. Over the centuries, the State has gradually moved away from the application of extreme violence and mutilation on citizens. Over the last century it has moved away from the DP. Those countries that lag in the march towards greater democracy and freedom tend to execute the most of their citizens.

I may be going on a bit here, but quite simply it seems the destiny of Western democracies to move further and further away from the DP. I say we run with it.

[TrainingDummy]

I may be going on a bit here, but quite simply it seems the destiny of Western democracies to move further and further away from the DP. I say we run with it.

Capital punishment worldwide, FYI: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._World_Map.png

[Philistine]

{snip}it is FAR more likely for someone to be sentenced to too long a sentence than too short a sentence.
You are just terrible. Are you kidding me? What do you mean TOO long? Do you even know how people get sentenced, or what a parole is? All your ideas are generally very expensive, unsustainable, and based upon complete fiction.

I have to say, in general, from what I've seen, overlong sentences are more common than too short ones. Often-times a shorter sentence (of a celebrity or politician, for instance) will get a great deal of media attention while most long sentences don't.

On the parole issue--federal courts no longer have parole (there is a potential for ~ 15% reduction for good behavior). Had Garrido been sentenced today, he would have served about 43 years (instead of 10) on his federal kidnapping charge.

--Philistine

[fencerchica]

Why has this thread been marked "warning" in the forums?

[Superscribe]

So I see.

The first part of your post relates to this issue of deterrence. I am unable to find compelling proof that this exists. You offer none either- only your own observations on human behaviour.

Your second point re-cost is actually related to this. As it stands, even if you do commit a murder in a state that nominally has the DP on the books- you are still unlikely to have it enforced. Basically, in order for the DP as it currently stands (i.e rarely and slowly) to carry real deterrence, America would have to start executing a lot more people, more quickly. Perhaps in even more colorful or painful ways.

That will cost money and almost certainly lead to miscarriages of justice. It will be politically very difficult.

You also have to ask why the appeal system has developed to be such a slow and protracted affair. Clearly, this is because of a history of new evidence emerging over time that if not totally exhonerating people who have been executed then casting considerable doubt on the verdict.

Another reason why appeals are both successful and lengthy is because the representation of often very poor African Americans is, how shall we say, not at the OJ simpson standard.

So you would need to find the political will to speed up the system, whilst in tandem raising the standard of legal representation and eliminating all notions of jury prejudice etc. Whilst handling more cases. The result is unlikely to be an economy or efficiency drive.

If we are talking practicalities, you have to basically admit that politically and legally the process of executing a convicted murderer is only going to go in one direction. Slower. All else is pie in the sky stuff.

This is not true. I'm still on deterrence. you're talkinga bout unlikely it is to get the machine to run faster with the given inputs we're putting intot he machine. I'm talkinga bout reducing the amount of inputs into the machine. Inputs being people suspected of committing crimes. You don't seem to think that we can reduce the amount of people suspected of committing crimes in our society. I do.

Instead of not doing anything bad, how about actively doing something to prevent yourself from ever being suspected of doing something bad?

1) Not committing a crime, but being present at the scene with a bad history.
2) Making sure you are never anywhere near situations where a crime may be committed and not having a bad history.

Do you see the difference?

[Superscribe]

I'll ignore the Mongol example. Do you even read what you write? "Encouraging people do to good things" describes well-funded and staffed voluntary education, drug treatment, and career programs in prison. "Preventing people from doing bad things" can be defined by locking them away for decades or killing them. I wouldn't call reducing sentences for no reason a "Liberal" stance. Most American liberals I know are really ignorant (not much less than conservatives) when it comes to crime and punishment issues, but the ones who are educated don't want shorter sentences, they want reform.

You are operating in the box. I don't care to encourage people who have already entered into the penal system... that's not my concern. I'm talking about preventing people from ever doing criminals acts, and leaving them only options of doing "good".

if picking up trash is more lucrative than stealing, and the possibilites of stealing include getting your hand cut off instead of a boring ride in a police car, do you think peopel would be encouraged to pick up trash and help others instead of turning to crime?

[Superscribe]

I don't consider myself a "liberal" or for that matter "conservative", but.....

Was nuking Japan justified? A yes/no response to that is indicative toward your value of life, and general understanding of extreme situations. I think some people have a very terrible opinion on the value of life.

[fencerchica]

Was nuking Japan justified? A yes/no response to that is indicative toward your value of life, and general understanding of extreme situations. I think some people have a very terrible opinion on the value of life.

What a simplistic view of the world you conservatives enjoy. Part of the reason why we nuked Japan was just to scare the Russians, with whom we were already in an arms race. Was that a morally acceptable reason to kill 220,000 civillians at a blow? Why did we have to nuke two Japanese cities instead of just one? Why didn't we drop a demonstration nuke on a military base with a low civillian population, instead of nuking two metropolises full of civillians? Some ultra-conservative Catholics even have weird conspiracy theories concerning the point that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened to be the 2 cities in Japan with the highest populations of Catholic Japanese. At the time of the bombings, Emperor Hirohito had already been engaged in desperately trying to regain control of his renegade, war-crazy cabinet and compel them to surrender. Would he have succeeded without the bombings, or if the bombings had been more restrained? Could we have just settled for some kind of containment, given that Japan's offensive capabilities had been neutralized at that point in the war?

[I_luv_saber]

What a simplistic view of the world you conservatives enjoy.

And we wonder why partisanship is rampant...

*sigh*

[pigeonmeister]

You don't seem to think that we can reduce the amount of people suspected of committing crimes in our society. I do.

Instead of not doing anything bad, how about actively doing something to prevent yourself from ever being suspected of doing something bad?

1) Not committing a crime, but being present at the scene with a bad history.
2) Making sure you are never anywhere near situations where a crime may be committed and not having a bad history.

Do you see the difference?

Some of your posts are getting a bit weird, but anyway.

I THINK you may have missed my point. The DP is possibly not much of a deterrence because you are very unlikely to be executed if convicted in America. The only way of reversing this is by removing the various obstacles operating on this sentence (SC freezes, clemency, other interventions, excessive appeals).

That means more executions (encouragements in your parlence) and thus more 'inputs'.

There are many ways in which you can attempt to reduce crime in America. I suspect that social-economic changes and law enforcement are going to be more important than the debates surrounding the death penalty.

Ask yourself how and why murder rates dropped in NYC and DC? Then ask yourself if the DP spectre 'encouraged' these changes.

[thereom4]

Was nuking Japan justified? A yes/no response to that is indicative toward your value of life, and general understanding of extreme situations. I think some people have a very terrible opinion on the value of life.

No I don't think it was justified. Now I'll wait for you to tell me what my "value of life, and general understanding of extreme situations" is.

[TrainingDummy]

OK I am guilty of it too, but don't feed the trolls!

[telkanuru]

Well this went downhill fast...

[Superscribe]

What a simplistic view of the world you conservatives enjoy. Part of the reason why we nuked Japan was just to scare the Russians, with whom we were already in an arms race. Was that a morally acceptable reason to kill 220,000 civillians at a blow? Why did we have to nuke two Japanese cities instead of just one? Why didn't we drop a demonstration nuke on a military base with a low civillian population, instead of nuking two metropolises full of civillians? Some ultra-conservative Catholics even have weird conspiracy theories concerning the point that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened to be the 2 cities in Japan with the highest populations of Catholic Japanese. At the time of the bombings, Emperor Hirohito had already been engaged in desperately trying to regain control of his renegade, war-crazy cabinet and compel them to surrender. Would he have succeeded without the bombings, or if the bombings had been more restrained? Could we have just settled for some kind of containment, given that Japan's offensive capabilities had been neutralized at that point in the war?

Let's pretend that we both know something about the nuking of Japan. Let's pretend we both know something about Japanese society, and how they felt about civilian populations at the time. As i said before, sometimes you take all the terrible fallout (intended) associated with the choice and still accept it. Some people don't accept it. I was just wondering if you would have or would not have gone with the choice of nuking Japan. I didn't say it was wrong or right, it just gives me a very quick baseline to go by. It's not my worldview that's simplistic... i CHOSE to make this simplistic so i wouldn't have to hear people rehash something i'm more than familiar with.

[Superscribe]

Some of your posts are getting a bit weird, but anyway.

I THINK you may have missed my point. The DP is possibly not much of a deterrence because you are very unlikely to be executed if convicted in America. The only way of reversing this is by removing the various obstacles operating on this sentence (SC freezes, clemency, other interventions, excessive appeals). I haven't missed your point. the DP as it stands now is not a deterrence I agree. Speeding things up may (and i feel will) act as a deterrance. If this is true, and the deterrence is successful, people will be more likely to not commit crime. As a result, the "machine" or "sytem" will have to deal with less criminals. Does that make sense? You have to deal with the existing inputs quickly and harshly to reduce future inputs.

That means more executions (encouragements in your parlence) and thus more 'inputs'.

There are many ways in which you can attempt to reduce crime in America. I suspect that social-economic changes and law enforcement are going to be more important than the debates surrounding the death penalty.

Ask yourself how and why murder rates dropped in NYC and DC? Then ask yourself if the DP spectre 'encouraged' these changes. I suspect most of my time would be researching how many more police there were in place in NYC and DC. Than I'd go back to the cost.

I hope that made sense. We're butting heads on the wrong topic. I think that the way we currently use DP is wrong, and I would want a more of an express lane put into death row.

[Hauptman]

Actually the Manson case isn't obvious since he didn't actually kill anyone and is now a mosly harmless old caricature of a man. I wouldn't personally parole him, though.

You are talking about extending a jail sentence for no crime, a definite violation of due process. We cannot jail people for no crimes. I understand the sentiment, but I believe this slope is too slippery to be realistically implemented. Still, with sentence reductions for non-violent drug offenders and the abolition of mandatory minimum sentences we could free up prison space for those who seriously need to be in there. There ARE dangerous, incorrigible menaces to society. The way I see it, cases like these are in the minority - it is FAR more likely for someone to be sentenced to too long a sentence than too short a sentence. Of course, that's based on the way I view law and the penal system. REAL attempts at reform and rehabilitation could also cut down on the necessary length of prison sentences. As it stands now, prisons are schools for criminals and get gang members street cred when they get out. Many of the heads of the most violent gangs are in prison - it gives them MORE power, not less!

But don't we do this already?

Our psychiatric institutions are filled with people who society has deemed to be a threat to themselves or others. The issue is that our prisons contain many people whose crimes are the result of psychological issues that make them a threat to themselves and others too. Letting them back out on the streets when they are still a clear threat makes no sense.

This really has to do with the current system of classifying crimes. Let's look at murder for example; a man kills another man having walked in on him in bed with the first man's wife, or a man kills another man during a drug deal gone bad, or a man kills another man because he thought the other man was a space alien who was going to abduct him. Superficially these are all the same; a man kills another man, but there is much more involved there.

The first crime being a crime of passion is mostly about punishment and the criminal serves his time and is released. The second crime is possibly social/economic and requires at least minimal rehabilitation to prevent him from going out and getting involved in the same situation. The third example is the result of mental illness that requires the illness to be adequately addressed, otherwise releasing him is almost a guarantee of him committing more crimes based on his delusions.

[Superscribe]

[QUOTE=fencerchica;821078]What a simplistic view of the world you conservatives enjoy. QUOTE]

Btw you can't use me as an example of being a conservative, simply because i'm more liberal on other things when it comes to social conduct. My previous remark on liberals was the stereo typical liberal. I'm not saying anybody here is in the "liberal" or "conservative" box. If you are a liberal than i hate you. I do, however acknowledge that you can be liberal on somethings and conservative on other things.

[Superscribe]

I think all people feel this way. My feeling, however, is that you cannot build an effective day to day judicial and punitive system around the very rare combination of extreme evil and ovewhelming evidence.

An eye for an eye mentality or urge for torturers to experience 'a taste of their own medicine' is an unavoidably cathartic human instinct. However, I also believe in the general advancement of humankind over history. Over the centuries, the State has gradually moved away from the application of extreme violence and mutilation on citizens. Over the last century it has moved away from the DP. Those countries that lag in the march towards greater democracy and freedom tend to execute the most of their citizens.

I may be going on a bit here, but quite simply it seems the destiny of Western democracies to move further and further away from the DP. I say we run with it.

Just because a state has gone in a certain direction doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. There such things as advancement's in the wrong direction. Dutch scientists have lamented over the breakdown of family values in the Netherlands, and have blamed it on a variety of thing, such as the allowance of same sex marriages. They've basically aside that social "progress" in the direction they've been heading is not good. This is just an example of way some "advancements" are bad. Like our current views toward the DP.


http://www.heritage.org/research/family/wm577.cfm

It's not so much the article but the references that are intriguing to me.