Death Penalty

by Yerusalyim 49 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Yizuman

  I'm for the DP and the Govenor is an idiot. He's doing this at the last minute before leaving office. He's not even a conservative Republican, he's a liberal Republican and a moron to boot...

  Farkel wrote: : So, what do you all think, good or bad.

  "I'd rather see a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted." - Thomas Jefferson

  The major problem with the death penalty is that it is permanent, and DNA evidence has recently shown that a disturbing number of people have been wrongly sentenced to it. Most of my life I was a major advocate of it. Lately, I've wondered differently.

  Jefferson is a liberal. He's a moron too.

  This is like saying, "I rather see a thousand child molestors go free than one innocent man convicted" or "I rather see a thousand murderers go free than one innocent man convicted"

  Yizuman
• 

  Realist

  fantastic decision by Gov. George Ryan ! finally someone with a conscience!

  Xena,

  What I do know is this...we have a process of law in our country...these people went thru that process and were judged and sentenced by it

  ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION.....THIS SYSTEM IS CRAP AND NEEDS TO BE CHANGED!
• 

  Abaddon

  Yiz; So you would be happy to be accused, convicted and executed for something you didn't do? If you say yes, you're mad. If you say no, and support the death penalty, you're a hypocrite. Which one are you?

  roy; that is why I say IN APPLICATION. Even if it isn't racist in its intent, the factors you mention mean that a black person is normally more likely to die for the same crime. You happy with that level of unfairness?

  xena; in the end, whether one supports the death penalty or not is to an extent cultural; I would probably support it if I were an American, simply because of how I would have grown up and in what environment. I honestly don't think it's a moral issue of me being 'good' cause I oppose the death penalty. It's a cultural issue. However, even with this acceptance that it might be culturally acceptable to execute people, the huge flaws in the system as regards the certainty of conviction and it's racist application mean it needs a massive overview, and until that happens, they should suspend executions indefinately.

  In a country where it is culturally acceptable to carry out judicial killings, I conceed that if it IS an open and shut case, then maybe the death penalty should apply. But evidence would have to be of a high order, and that doesn't mean eye witness, as any study of eye witness tesitimony will show it is horribly liable to mistakes.

  But I come from a continent where it ISN'T culturally acceptable to carry out judicial killings, so whilst I don't think you're 'bad' for supporting killing people judicially, I just don't get it. The maximum life sentence for a sane person in Holland is seven years.
• 

  Englishman

  I used to be pro-death penalty, but I only felt this way after the death penalty was abolished here in about 1966. In other words I could talk it up all the time that it wasn't happening.

  When I met Her Ladyship she convinced me that it is not the province of the State (the UK government is commonly referred to as "The State") to have the right to terminate the life of one of it's subjects. One has a social contract with the State, ie, you pay your taxes, the State theoretically cares for you in sickness, retirement and unemployment. The State agrees to protect you from criminals and foreign assaults to the best of it's capability. However, the State will not kill it's own, no matter how heinous the crime.

  Englishman.
• 

  Country Girl

  I pretty much made up my mind long ago that the death penalty was too kind for some persons of questionable humanity who perpetrated some of the most heinous acts imaginable upon innocent victims. However, with the "discovery" (and I believe we all know at some deeper level that it happens) in recent times of innocent individuals sitting on Death Row, being acquitted with DNA evidence, it just made me question my long held belief! What a waste of human life! All of Society's floudering around about the humanity/inhumanity of the death penalty will never return to these men and women the years missed with their families, opportunities opened up, etc. Nor will it return life to those executed, when innocent. In these cases, the state has blood on its own hands.

  I think the Illinois governor did what he had to do. He didn't have much time, and he didn't want one more person to die or serve even one more day being innocent. He wanted to give those who may have not had enough time before his term ended, the opportunity to be found guilty or innocent by way of DNA technology. Sometimes it takes just such a broad sweep of a free man's hand to bring to boil an issue that has simmered for an unendurable amount of time. To bring everyone to sit up and take notice of a wrong that cannot be righted once there is no breath of life.

  I am still for the death penalty, don't get me wrong. I believe that the death penalty is the ONLY justice that can be exacted when a crime is so despicable and atrocious that it goes beyond our normal comprehension of evil. However, until there is a sure-fire way of providing a guarantee that it is being carried out for those it is meant for, I cannot as a human being honor its merits. Until there is just such a way, I believe we just have to settle for the next best thing: lifetime incarceration.

  However, I think the governor's move brings this back-burner issue to the frontline and begs all of us to dissect and determine just what inaction/action we will take to settle this matter once and for all.

  Country Girl

  Edited by - country girl on 13 January 2003 9:16:53
• 

  Yerusalyim

  OK,

  Here's what I'm thinking...too much of a good thing.

  I am, in principal, not oppossed to the Death Penalty. I do have serious concerns about how it is administered in the US, especially Illinois. The DP is not racially administered, but there is an economic bias. No one who can afford to pay for a good attorney gets the death penalty in Illinois. Some 29 of those on death row in Illinois were represented by guys who were later disbarred for being complete idiots where the law is concerned.

  Bravo for Ryan Pardoning the 17 he found to be innocent of the crime. I think to do a blanket commutation was wrong, I think he should have done it on a case by case basis.
• 

  roybatty

  roy; that is why I say IN APPLICATION. Even if it isn't racist in its intent, the factors you mention mean that a black person is normally more likely to die for the same crime. You happy with that level of unfairness?

  Well, how would you level the playing field because it isnt a racial issue as much as an economic one. And it doesnt only apply to capital murder cases. EVERYTHING before the courts, from a simple ticket to civil lawsuits to murder cases, is effected by the lawyer(s) one can afford. I saw it first had with my father who invented a new device to extract people from an automobile wreck. Guess what happened? Someone (a rich elder BTW) stole the idea. They got involved in a lawsuit. My dad, being the nave, small business man, hired a local attorney. On the other hand, the rich "elder" could afford to hire three high powered, downtown lawyers. Guess who won round one? The elder. But my dad learned his lesson. Round two comes along and my father breaks the bank and hires a very expen$ive attorney who specializes in patent applications. Guess who won round two? Yup, my old man. It left him broke but he "won."

  Im getting off the topic here but my point is life in the US court system isnt fair. Instead of breaking down the death sentence by race, Id be curious to see it broken down my economic class. Am I happy with this level of unfairness? Heck no. From what little I know of the European court system (in criminal cases) it sounds like they have a better system. I believe they have a representative of the court (someone whos not on either side) who investigates the charges. His objective isnt to "win" but to discover the truth. Sounds like a better system to me.
• 

  Farkel

  Yizu,

  You should learn to talk out of a different orifice other than the one you use for elimination.

  : Jefferson is a liberal.

  Jefferson was a libertarian. There is a major difference between "liberal" (the term wasn't even invented when he was alive, you dummy.) and "libertarian." Obviously you don't know the difference.

  Oh, by the way, Jefferson "isn't" anything now. He's been dead for two centuries, you jackass.

  :He's a moron too.

  Yizu tells the world that the man who wrote our own Declaration of Independence is a moron. Good show, Yizu. You're a mental giant, you.

  : This is like saying, "I rather see a thousand child molestors go free than one innocent man convicted" or "I rather see a thousand murderers go free than one innocent man convicted"

  That's it exactly what it is saying. Would you just rather hang everyone you think might be guilty and leave the questions for later?

  I don't suffer idiots easily. I don't suffer you.

  Farkel
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION.....THIS SYSTEM IS CRAP AND NEEDS TO BE CHANGED!

  Changed to what? I would love to hear your solution.

  What they need to do is bring back the firing squad, and then we need to cut that bastards up and give their organs to all the people stuck in the ER.

  What we need is more politicians like Hamilton and Jefferson. Guys that will go out and have a duel in the street. We need some wild west polticians who will duke it out!! Make duels legal! Give them one shot balck powder revolvers, and 20 paces. Being that we are media freaks we could put it on pay per view and send 50% of the proceds to the fight to cure cancer.

  Just my $2 being that my opinion is 100X more valuable than yours.....
• 

  Abaddon

  roy; If the legal system in the US is so flawed, then surely stopping judical killings until these flaws are removed is a good idea?

  In the UK we have a jury system much like the US. If you're poor, you get represented by a court appointed solicitor. This is not a government employee, but a solicitor who will charge the case to the legal aid fund. You can also approach a solicitor directly and apply for legal aid. It works pretty well, so even the poorest can have good solicitors.

  Most of Europe uses a Magisterial System, where one to three Judges sit on the case (small crimes in the UK are dealt with the same way). I presume most Western European countries have a similar method of providing legal aid to those that need it, as you still need a representative in court.

  Magisterial vs. Judicial systems is a different arguement over having a legal system where money is too often the determinant of guilt. Obviously even in Europe the rich have an advantage in court, but a/ if the poor lose they live, so mistakes can be rectified, and b/ they can get fairly decent legal representation anyway, which was clearly not the case with many poor people residing on death row.