the problem with prison.

Based on the documentaries and news reports I have seen, high security prison life is pretty nice. Cable tv is provided in their cells - they or their supports can purchase premium channels - 1 hour a day exercise time in the gym or yard. Good food, though not great. One person per a cell for high security, so no over crowding issues. Free internet activity - though censored and limited by time. Some free phone calls. A lot of this is considered their right to have so will be hard to change.

It hardly seems like punishment. So right now it is a question of death penalty or not much punishment.

Who rates high security? Getting raped in the showers, harassment, intimidation, threats, fights, never dating again...unless you're willing to cross over for the sake of getting something.

For the record, I don't believe in the death penalty, either. Amazing that such a thing even exists in a civilized society.

Don't "believe in" the death penalty?

I put quotes there because the phrase indicates an emotional investment. Now, what does the practice mean, practically?

Be honest about the alternative: you favor keeping a man or woman in a cage for the rest of their life.

You'd rather do that, "just in case".

Meanwhile, the victims of such people must carry on with shattered families and broken limbs, in most cases without restitution.

And there is the chance that the criminal will get out. You want to live next to the prison, right? You value that institution so greatly to preserve deserving (read, "criminal") life?

I'm not going on about revenge or making a public spectacle. Should someone bring up the apparent lack of deterrence of the death penalty, do be honest and note that it is not immediate at all - it doesn't even mean what its label says any more.

In all cases, self-defense is important. As an intended victim, your personal response will matter more than you think. The court will excuse a man for raping you or killing you and/or your family. You have to stop him in the act. Only there is there no mistaken identity.

Does your assertion that you would not take a human life, when applied to the death penalty, really mean you would not defend yourself with deadly force? If so, wow, where do you live?

There are cases about which there is NO doubt. None. In those cases, keeping the offender a prisoner does no one good, no matter how squeamish you are.

Millions of people can successfully be scapegoated by an ambitious law enforcement apparatus. Thousands have been. This does not mean that keeping a human being caged is immediately noble OR even effective in the conservation of public resources, which you might notice are mandatory to keep those and other people prisoner.

And about the "civilized society": what makes you think such a thing exists? Buildings? Law enforcement, which you will insist on calling, who will arrive with their guns to shoot the felon attacking you dead?

Gee, there doesn't seem to be an alternative to that, despite more innocent bystanders being killed by police than by executioners.

We have a wonderful existence here, where girls like Amy can travel without the expectation of being assaulted by either religious nuts or thugs in most places, but you damned well know there are places she can't go. Your "civilized society" still includes people who will kill you for being gay!

Fact: there are people in the USA who think that crime is a valid lifestyle - that killing people is fun. Oh, yeah, those people are valuable! (/sarc)

If you don't provide for exceptional cases, then you're just not done designing a justice system that works.

Can't agree with you, Amy. Life in prison carries hope-hope they'll get out someday somehow. Hope makes people dangerous. It makes them spend years and years locked in a cage planning how to escape. It also means survivors of the heinous crime committed have to live with that too-fear that someday, somehow, the perp will get out. That some idiot liberal governer or President will be so emotionally swayed by the airheads in hollywood petitioning for this or that killer to be freed, that they will actually free them.

If one values human life, one must also defend it. Which means, doing away with those who take it. There are certain crimes that you can commit that strip you of your humanity. You no longer deserve protection or concern from others. Society as a whole needs also to know certain actions won't be tolerated.

Im not a fan of the death penalty. I use to believe in it but now that im older and know all too well how corrupt,incompetent and unprofessional law enforcement can be i know that the death penalty guarantees that innocent people will be put to death and im obviously against that. If the law wasnt so quick to convict someone, anyone of the crime and actually put some effort and care into getting the right person. If law enforcement actually owned up to mistakes when they make them and didnt do everything in their power to cover the asses of their fellow police officers some of which belong behind bars then i might change my mind on the issue.

Radwaste: Meanwhile, the victims of such people must carry on with shattered families and broken limbs, in most cases without restitution.

How true. The victims must carry on with their lives without restitution...just as they would if we executed the perpetrators. I don't know why you seem to think execution would solve this problem.

Radwaste: There are cases about which there is NO doubt.

Who decides which cases have "NO doubt"? And what criteria do they use for this decision?

Momof4: That some idiot liberal governer or President will be so emotionally swayed by the airheads in hollywood petitioning for this or that killer to be freed, that they will actually free them.

Oh, yes. We want to support barbarism, just drag the evil "libruls" out as the boogie-men that will free the serial chainsaw murderers.

Momof4: There are certain crimes that you can commit that strip you of your humanity.

Who says?

Momof4: You no longer deserve protection or concern from others.

Dangerous judgments to be rendering. Everyone in this country has rights, even convicted murderers, distasteful as that might be.

Momof4: Society as a whole needs also to know certain actions won't be tolerated.

As if locking a person in prison for life is "tolerating" his actions.

For the record, I don't believe in the death penalty, either. Amazing that such a thing even exists in a civilized society.

Funny, that in a civilized society, we allow more children to be aborted, than people on death row to be executed. At least those on death row had a trial.

Ever since Barry Scheck testified for the defense in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, I don't believe a word he says.

A man who preys on his brother is not a man anymore, he is a mad dog, and should be dealt the same fate.

I support whole heartedly the elimination of such predators without let or reservation. There are people who simply should not be in this world, and it is NOT a mark of decency to keep them here.

The caveat to that that I would add is that D.N.A. evidence be present and blind tested to confirm the conviction prior to execution. With that done, execution should follow the very next day. Swift and final justice.

> Keeping people in a cage offers some
> possibility of make-good

Only partially: They were still incarcerated, and some measure of the punishment has in fact been applied.

Without disagreeing with you completely, let's not pretend this can all be made tidy and safe. Justice gets ugly no matter what.

Claude Jones committed the murder. An innocent man did not get executed. Ace of Spades has the story - http://minx.cc/?post=308178 - go halfway down, to where the updates begin.

3 witnesses placed Jones in the store w/o accomplice. Therefore, Jones pulled the trigger and committed the murder. SCOTUS ruled (w/exceptions) that physical evidence be in place for the death penalty to apply. W/o the hair, Texas has no physical evidence. But, Claude Jones committed the murder. He is guilty.

The authors of the Houston Chronicle piece are either ignorant or are intentionally misleading. Sheck is saying Jones was wrongly executed (b/c the case did not contain the required physical evidence to justify the death penalty), but the Chronicle piece says Sheck is saying Jones was wrongly convicted. Big difference between wrongly executed and wrongly convicted. Then the Chronicle quotes a reporter for The Texas Observer who also misleads re the difference between conviction and sentencing. Then the Chronicle quotes Claude Jones' son. The Chronicle article misleads readers. Claude Jones killed that storekeeper. He was not innocent of that crime.

Also, it's not relevant, but Claude Jones also murdered an inmate in a Kansas prison. He poured flammable liquid on the inmate and set him on fire.

All the usual objections to the death penalty apply: Our justice system is imperfect. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable, even when they believe they're being honest. Physical evidence can be corrupted by incompetence, corrupt law enforcement and ambitious lawyers. And rich people with good lawyers don't get the chair.

I don't see how life in a max-security prison is a good one, even if it's a relatively physical comfortable one.

Be honest about the alternative: you favor keeping a man or woman in a cage for the rest of their life.

That is what it boils down to. But most people aren't even willing to do that. Take the most heinous offense, add 25 years and an apparently contrite or otherwise model prisoner, and see if he doesn't get a parole or some sort of release.

I'm sure there will be some group that will agitate for release.

I'm all for a life sentance if we're willing to insure that the receiver of such a sentance only leaves prison in a body bag.

Well, it's always possibly to give them access to suicidal materials, if they'd rather be dead. Piece of rope would do it. Plus you can let them out of the cage to, like, walk around or sew potato sacks or something(/hint of sarcasm).

I hate the death penalty, because I just don't think the justice system is so effing perfect that it doesn't kill innocent people ever. I don't think human beings should set themselves up that high. But there you go, people are angry, arrogant creatures sometimes.

Anyone seen the prisoners' scene from "Young at Heart"? It's nice that none of those guys were dead. (Brilliant film by the way).

I can argue both sides. I think it should be applied to those who are sociopaths.

But at the same time it needs to be used judiciously -- you murdered 4 people and have eight witnesses and physical evidence. An example would be the D.C. sniper -- not the Ryan Widmer case in Cincy.

I don't think human beings should set themselves up that high.

More than that, we're talking about granting state-sanctioned executions. I find it interesting that some of the same people bitching about the government having too much power are eager to give the state, in its infinite wisdom, the legal right to kill them and their loved ones.

>>If one values human life, one must also defend it. Which means, doing away with those who take it.

So, ideally we should execute women who have abortions, momof4?

Or - maybe you just mean, give or take a few human slip ups, those states retaining the legal death penalty figure God gives them the thumbs up?

I'm not going to lose too much sleep over this case. A guilty guy was wrongly executed.

The larger question remains.

Steven Hayes & Joshua Komisarjevsky.

They burned down a house with two girls tied to their beds inside, after raping and strangling the girl's mother. That's the shorter, cleaner version.

Executing these men won't, as they say, bring the victims back.

It also means they won't be able to do it again.

And frankly, while we keep talking about what our tax dollars are going to--I don't want any of mine going to the continued care and feeding of these two.

Well I think we need to look at what the death penalty is. Is it justice, vengeance, deterrent or a combination of all three.

The argument that the rich don't get the chair has some merit. Johnny Walker Lynn should have been shot in public for treason. However given his parents political connections he's still breathing.

There are some who are best to be put down for all our good. Like those two fucking monsters in CT. There are many others that need the same treatment, DC sniper. These can not be reintegrated into society ever. There is no benefit to anyone of value to keep these fuckers alive.

The justice system as it is is reportedly built on the premise that it is better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent is punished. That's why we have all the rights of the accused or even convicted. It might be easier to just banned governor pardons and require those that are given life without the possibility of parole to only be released with clear exculpatory evidence. Not "He has found Jesus" that can not facilitate a release.

The best and simplest way to stop a violent offender is the first victim put a hollow point in his/her chest. Problem solved no more victims not cost to the tax payers no predator.

Steven Hayes & Joshua Komisarjevsky.

They burned down a house with two girls tied to their beds inside, after raping and strangling the girl's mother. That's the shorter, cleaner version.

Executing these men won't, as they say, bring the victims back.

It also means they won't be able to do it again.

And frankly, while we keep talking about what our tax dollars are going to--I don't want any of mine going to the continued care and feeding of these two.

Agreed. 100+%. These guys are monsters, to say the least. There is irrefutalbe evidence of their crime. They were paroled not even a full week when they committed this atrocity. And according to some of the jurors, it was NOT easy to render a death penalty, but in the end, they all felt it was justified. And the argument the defense tried to used to justify a life sentence, that it would be cheaper to keep Hayes in prison for life than to execute him, is just absurd. Komisarjevsky goes on trial in January. I hope he gets the same sentence Hayes got, truly. The raping, killing and burning of Dr. Petit's family is beyond justification by any stretch of the imagination. The death penalty won't bring back his family, but a LOT of people will sleep better at night knowing those two are off the streets forever and cannot hurt anyone else ever again. Keeping them in prison would only validate their right to life, which I feel is forfeit if you take someone else's.

Oh, I don't think we should keep people like this alive for their own sake. I don't care about them as individuals.

I do care about not giving the state the authority to off American citizens on what is frequently bullshit evidence or incompetence. Or for any reason at all, really. I'm less afraid of people like this than I am of the the average person's need for "safety" and vengeance.

This ties in well with the TSA entry. We're not any better off for executing people. It's just more security theater at the expense of giving the state even more power over our lives.

Well, yeah, there is that. I mean, far be it from me to decide who should live and who should die. But I do think those 2 monsters are better off dead, as opposed to us taxpayers paying for them for the rest of their lives.

Well, yeah, there is that. I mean, far be it from me to decide who should live and who should die. But I do think those 2 monsters are better off dead, as opposed to us taxpayers paying for them for the rest of their lives.

What Rad and Flynne said.

I don't loose sleep over innocent people getting the death penalty, especially in cases of torture, murder of defenseless children or seniors. It doesn't happen as often as these crusaders would like.

I don't particularly worry about them getting out either (although i would suppose anything is possible) - I think more about it this way: Would this help bring a small measure of relief and closure to the victims families that the Monster that took away their loved one will not longer draw breath from his body? Yes, okay - give 'em the chair. If not, eh - doesn't bother me either way.

I see it as less of a retribution and more as a small, small, small, comfort given to the victims families.

I'm okay with that.

Respectfully Amy, have to disagree with you. I understand your argument, and support your idea to have prisoners work. Bring back the chain gang! Even though my religion (Catholic) says otherwise, I agree with the Death Penalty, mostly because of the idea that has been brought up in previous posts: You kill someone, you forfeit your right to live.
I've never seen an actual murder victim's body, but I've seen plenty of victims of rapes, stabbings, and shootings. Those things alone are so abhorent, I still can't understand why they happen. Throw the actual taking of a life on top of this, and it's unfathomable.
I live in the DC area, and have four friends who work for the FBI. They've seen things we can't even begin to talk about here. And all four of them support the death penalty. To me, when such a heavy majority of people on the front line of fighting crime support something, it's probably worth noting.

The execution of innocent people is the only argument against the death penalty that makes sense to me--but it does make sense. I'd favor a system where people can be convicted if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but can be sentenced to death only if found guilty beyond any possible doubt. (Who decides? If a jury is capable of deciding one, it can decide the other as well.)

By this standard, a Scott Peterson (for example) couldn't be executed, even though he was convicted of double murder. A case built on circumstantial evidence, however overwhelming, leaves room for possible doubt.

"You kill someone, you forfeit your right to live. " I think this needs to be clarified. If you murder someone then yes. Killing in self defense, defense of other or country is still killing. However it is not murder.

I think the death penalty should be applied in more heinous crimes then a simple death. Killing someone in a bar fight is not the same as killing a store clerk over $50. A DUI killing is not the same as rape murder. Not only should death itself be a factor but the method and events leading up to it. That's why Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky are especially deserving of death. Most people who would be normally against the death penalty support these two being done in. What about assisted suicide which is on the face of it taking a human life?

What about assisted suicide which is on the face of it taking a human life?

I'd like to think that if someone specifies in their will, or vocalizes it to their family on their deathbed, that it is their wish that their life NOT be prolonged artificially, that this should get a pass and not be considered "murder". Mercy killing, yeah, okay, IF the person wants it that way. Sign some forms, require "testing" whatever. My will specifically states that if I am incapable of sitting up and asking for a glass of wine or a shot after being incapacitated, that people are to pull the plug, roll up the tubes, and call it a day. I don't want to be an emotional or financial burden on my family any longer than absolutely necessary!

o.O

Feebi said :"I don't loose sleep over innocent people getting the death penalty".

I hope you meant guilty people because if not you are fucked.

@vlad -

People who have a "clean" record and kill someone in a bar fight don't get the death penalty. There are a lot of variables, but 99% of prosecutors would never ask for the death penalty in a case where a person with no violent felonies commits a murder.
Of course, there are exceptions like Timothy McVeigh where the first crime committed was so henious, it warrented the death penalty.
Despite what some groups like Amnesty International tell you, in the US, people who are given the death penalty usually have a loooong history with the correctional system and/or violent crime.
Also, let's remember that the average time from initial conviction to execution is over a decade. In this day and age, that is enough time to present a defense. I know many people feel that criminals are given far too many appeals on death row, but I feel they should be given as many as legally possible because we are talking about ending a life. In most states, like California, lawyers defending those on death row have to have additional qualifications above and beyond an ordinary defense attorney to protect the defendents rights.
Whenever possible,DNA evidence should absolutely be used to convict. If there is solid DNA evidence, I say fry those MFs.

"I hope you meant guilty people because if not you are fucked."

Either. I don't think there are many innocent people that wind up being put to death. I think that this is wildly overstated. Has it happened, mmmm, ya. Is it unfortunate, of course. Do I care? Absolutely. Do I think it is an epidemic that we should then outlaw criminal executions all together for? Nope.

That is what I meant by it. I don't think it happens often enough for me to loose sleep over, and I certainly don't think I'll loose sleep over someone like Richard Allen Davis getting gassed. Not one minute.

REX: I am a little rusty on my criminal law, but you are convicted of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". Where for the SENTENCING for the death penalty imposes the "beyond the shadow of a doubt" or some other higher standard. During the hearing the evidence must meet that higher standard for a judge to impose the death penalty as a sentence.

This is how i remember it anyway.

"Who decides which cases have "NO doubt"? And what criteria do they use for this decision?"

Ahem - the jury does, Patrick. And that would be the evidence. Got your example yet?

How about the guy who shoots the bailiff, the judge, etc., in the courtroom under the cameras?

Or - are you going to claim that no one, nobody, can be shown to be guilty of malice murder?

Gee, there are people who want to maim you for being gay, and here you are saying there's no way to be sure after they do it!

I'm with Alkon. I'm against the death penalty, it seems so unfashionable.

Kidding aside I was listening to some classic Stern. A guy called in who was a serial rapist. It seems some people are born with a desire to hurt. It is a lifestyle, as Rad pointed out.

But I still can't kill them.

Feebie - "I don't think there are many innocent people that wind up being put to death."

I have to disagree with you.
http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/DNAexonerations.html

I'm against the death penalty except when it's abundantly clear that they have the right person. I don't trust the cops and DAs, they have too much interest in getting a conviction regardless of actual guilt.

Here in Tx, the inmates work. My EX was in prison for 7 years, and they worked her. Maybe some places the prisoners have it easy, not here.

My aunt had a brother who was killed by his own wife. The wife was stealing from him, but she apparently was not content with just that. She took out an order of protection against him, and his guns were confiscated as a result. Nice, huh? Then she hired her brother, who had just gotten out of prison, and another man, to kill the man she had just made a sitting duck.

Now, I'm not sure that she should be put to death, but Amy, which would you choose, if the alternatives were death or this predator getting out again in 20 years to prey on somebody else?

William - I see your point, but if there was video of the incident, and or an admission but lack of physical DNA evidence (Beltway sniper?) - does that mean then that one would be precluded from the death penalty. A lack of DNA evidence, does not an innocent person make.

"But I still can't kill them."

Then, one of them will kill you. Only the mob around you is saving you now.

Life is no less a jungle for having buildings in it. Pavement doesn't mean civility and order.

In fact, the operative syllable in the term, "law enforcement" is force.

-----
Have you seen this?
-----

If you can't act in your own self-defense, nor act as part of the public will to control crime, you're just not supporting your own survival. And you're tacitly allowing the thug to go on her way. I hope you can do something.

I support the death penalty.

I also say that its use is evil.

I also say that it is a NECESSARY evil.

People who wring their hands about the evil of an action, such as the use of the death penalty, are not morally superior, they are moral cowards. So greatly do they fear to do something bad, that they refuse to do it even when it is necessary.

Some years back there was a hypothetical discussion about assassinating Adolf Hitler, people on one side of the argument were opposed, not because they liked him, but because they considered it to be essentially sinful. Another person on the other side of the argument said, "Yes, it would be sinful, but it is a sin that someone must bear for the greater good."

My point is that the extermination of a vicious murderer is necessary, and all the posturing about the morality or hazards of the act, does not get around that. There is no good reason to keep such predators alive.

"Keeping people in a cage offers some possibility of make-good if they were wrongly convicted, which some people are."

Do you think someone could make 40 years in prison up to you? I'd volunteer to be that innocent person executed, if it meant we got to keep killing the sociopathic monsters. Some things are bigger than one life.

Patrick, there are no rights guaranteed you past life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and criminals DO lose those.

UW girl, the catholic church isn't against the death penalty, They have plenty of situations where it is allowed. You might want to read your cannons.

"So, ideally we should execute women who have abortions, momof4?"

AT the moment, though I am working to change this, it's not against the law. Which means, the law cannot punish you for it. My personal feelings about women who kill their own offspring aren't the topic, legal executions for breaking multiple laws is.

" It seems some people are born with a desire to hurt. It is a lifestyle, as Rad pointed out. But I still can't kill them."

Then you are a coward, who depends on others to do violence for you. The worst sort of coward. I don't think you have kids, but imagine the person closest to you in this world, being raped and tortured. You couldn't kill the perp to save them from that? How do you justify your ongoing existence?

Yes, I should have said murdering another, not killing, in my first post. There is a difference, as even the correctly translated 10 commandments illustrate.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp08st.pdf

is some interesting reading. Merely committing murder won't get you the death penalty. You have to be doing other things as well, varies by state.

When we say murder there are three definition. Legal, biblical and vernacular. That's why I pointed out that killing (which is taking a life regardless of circumstances) is not in and of itself a justification of the death penalty.

"Then you are a coward, who depends on others to do violence for you." Not necessarily. The question is "In the act or after the fact?" There is a distinct difference. If I am in a situation where I or anyone around me is being violently attacked I will react with unhesitating lethal force. I will not however shot and kill a fleeing suspect no matter what they did. Now if you won't defend yourself then yes you are a coward, or at least misguided.

"I don't think you have kids, but imagine the person closest to you in this world, being raped and tortured." In defense of that person lethal force is more than justified and no jury will convict you. If it's after the fact then sorry you lack the proper imagination to actually get even with someone like this. I'd opt for a life w/o parole they pay his cellmates to use him for the rest of his natural life. Vengeance has no effect on the dead.

>>Then you are a coward, who depends on others to do violence for you. The worst sort of coward.

I'm not a coward either. Just a liberal, momof4.
Huge difference.

Vengeance has no effect on the dead.

Another good reason to oppose the death penalty: It's too easy. I want criminals waking up behind bars every day for the rest of their natural lives.

"I want criminals waking up behind bars every day for the rest of their natural lives."

So, you think this is more cruel than killing them?

What does that make you?

I just think you're confused. Man is adaptable. Any prison guard will show you repeat offenders who offend in order to return to jail!

"I'm not a coward either. Just a liberal, momof4.
Huge difference."

Nope, not at all. If you can't kill people who admit they live to prey on others, you are a coward, and a liberal. Fortunately they don't always go hand in hand.

"Just a liberal, momof4. Huge difference."

How is that?

Every measure I've seen which takes responsibility away from individuals or excuses them is backed by those identified as "liberal". I use the quotes because it's Newspeak.

And a person who shuns responsibility, as in the face of danger or unpleasant circumstances is...

If the perp is fleeing with my stuff, he's getting a bullet in the back.

I have no social contract nor obligation to the reaver of my goods.

So, you think this is more cruel than killing them?

Yes. If he's alive, there's the opportunity for him to continue suffering and for society to continue exacting punishment for the crime, as well as the opportunity for truly innocent people who got shafted to redeem what's left of their lives. Once he's dead, all suffering is over. It's far too quick and easy a punishment for someone who destroyed other people's lives.

"Man is adaptable." Only to a certain point and only certain people. For every repeat offender who wants back in I can show you at least one who would rather die. Depends on the person and the prison. County on say Long Island NY is a picnic or white collar club fed, Rickers Island or Sing Sing are a very different experince. Then there's Leavenworth. If the fed is feeling particularly nasty there is always Guantanamo. Having work military intel. (I guessing) you know that no matter how hard or how tough everyone has an absolute limit. Even SEALs can be broken it's just really hard to find that tiny sliver between dead and broken for someone like that.

BTW if the feds put the financial criminals in rikers I'd bet a years salary that a whole lot more of that money would magically appear.

I don't shot guys fleeing with my stuff for purely financial reasons. All of my personal possessions together are not wort the cost of getting my record cleared. I don't have any objection to shooting thieves in the back it's just not financially prudent.

Feebie - My position doesn't have anything to do with DNA evidence, it's just that DNA evidence has exonerated a lot of people since being available. A video is sufficient. An un-coerced admission is too. My concern is that many authorities are more concerned with getting an arrest and conviction than they are with getting the right person. It believe I've read that up to 1/4 of the people on death row did not commit the murder. It's been years since I read that; I can't give you a reference and I don't know if what I read had good statistics behind it. I do know that there is good evidence that the number is over 10%. Granted, the police probably usually choose horrible excuses of humanity to pin it on, but that still leaves the actual murderer free.

>>Every measure I've seen which takes responsibility away from individuals or excuses them is backed by those identified as "liberal". I use the quotes because it's Newspeak.

I can see how you might have that impression, Radwaste.

Although I do generally identify as a liberal, I am not naive. (Nor are the Innocence Project people. I've heard the co-founder talk about the staggering amount of sifting needed before they even identify a potential wrongful conviction case. Most of the criminals who contact them, he said, are as guilty as charged.)

I just think the death penalty is barbaric, uncivilized and pointless as a deterrent to future monsters.

"I just think the death penalty is barbaric, uncivilized and pointless as a deterrent to future monsters." It is however an absolute 100% guarantee that there will not be a repeat offense from this predator. Which begs the question what is the point of the death penalty, deterrent, to mollify, vengeance or punitive?

>>Which begs the question what is the point of the death penalty, deterrent, to mollify, vengeance or punitive?

Oh, probably, all of them, vlad.

Look, I admit that I've often read of some unfathomable act of cold-blooded killing and thought "jesus, hanging's too good for the bastard...".

I think that's a normal emotional reaction. But I have never been persuaded that hanging - or whatever the ultimate punishment du jour might be - does any good for society or for the victims.

"What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer."

Full article with links
here:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html

>>"What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes.

momof4,

I'll be very generous - and say that we have a draw here with respect to any statistical PROOF that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

From your own link:

"Critics of the findings have been vociferous.

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."

"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell...

Don't have time to read everything here.....

I'll admit I really don't have a problem with the Connecticut scumbags being executed. (I will not dignify them by calling them animals - animals are far more decent than that.) I'd even be disappointed, I guess, if the trial for the second killer doesn't result in an execution.

What bothers me deeply is that we can't seem to come up with a system that says "if there's the slightest doubt, 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable,' as to the identity of the killer, you can convict, but you cannot execute."

I mean, I really don't know what to say - or think - when I hear people talk about the execution of innocent prisoners as if they were so many pesky mice. *I* don't even have to ask myself "what if the innocent party were a friend of mine." There's a REASON we say that it's better to let a dozen guilty men go free than to put one innocent man even in JAIL.

I will not support the death penalty until the above system is in place. If then.

While it clearly would have been worse than torture for the CT victims' loved ones if the killers had never been captured, they are still not entitled to a false sense of closure that would have come from punishing some innocent person - possibly someone cleverly framed by the killers. Things like that happen. I don't know whether the executions of innocent people number in the dozens or hundreds in the U.S., but there are certainly thousands of innocent people in JAIL.

"Then, one of them will kill you. Only the mob around you is saving you now.

Life is no less a jungle for having buildings in it. Pavement doesn't mean civility and order."

What's your point Rad? That I dont fully comprehend human nature simply because I'm not willing to kill another human being after a trial? We give people trials and convict them. I'd rather they rot in cages then put them to death and I'd rather be as far away from "jungle" justice as I can be. The likelihood of an convicted serial murder escaping is very small.

It doesn't deter anyone, this is just a case of an "eye for an eye".

"Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws." If there are flaws then point them out, no one has done so. If you attack the conclusions without the flaws then you fail at science.

Any idea how to get the source material for the studies? Then we can decide if the arguments are legit?

BTW none of the death penalty opponents have voiced in on lethal force in self defense or defense of others.

>>Any idea how to get the source material for the studies?

Vlad,
Here's a start (and good luck!).

I started by googling Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business, as well as the other players (like Naci Mocan) mentioned at momof4's link.

I was looking for ABSTRACTS of the studies (because I personally suck at statistics)- and for commentary on them - so I scooted past the papers themselves.

It seems very hard to find a meta analysis of the various studies - and it was Justin Wolfer, IMO, who best explained why, somewhere, saying it was practically impossible to reconcile the methodologies.

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/DeathPenalty%28ALER%29.pdf

Read a chunk but not all. Looks like the use of the death penalty has a mixed affect as a deterrent. If there is one it sits very close to the noise level. Put simply if there is an effect it's minimal. Interesting read. BTW "practically impossible to reconcile" is the scientific equivalent of either "don't understand" or "I hate you you suck". It used when you disagree with a finding but can't or won't explain why.

They do touch on the one difficult to quantify aspect in these analysis and the the psychology of the predator. The lack of deterrent on serial killers is well know and touched upon in that paper. Also the deterrent factor is useless if the killer either doesn't know, doesn't care or is sure he won't get caught.

There is always the retribution aspect. If the killer is siting in jail for life the chances of a revenge killing goes down. The problem in particularly gang riddled area is that killers often get off clean. Mainly because no one wants to testify. That usually sets off a set of revenge killing. Which would be fine except gang bangers can't shoot for shit so mostly non gang bangers get killed. Usually little kids who aren't smart enough to dive for cover as a "car starts creepin".

Oh and that the Manhattan and Bronx DAs are nut-less effete cowards. As I'm pretty sure if one of their loved ones ended up in a pine box the killer will die horribly in jail.

Just to reiterate:

None of the death penalty opponents have voiced in on lethal force in self defense or defense of others.

>>Looks like the use of the death penalty has a mixed affect as a deterrent. If there is one it sits very close to the noise level.

Neatly put, vlad

(If I may agree with you while forestalling any counterclaim from you that, actually, we are yards apart on many topics! I know that.)

As I said, I am not nimble assessing complex statistics but Wolfers' overall point strongly indicates that the assertion momof4 pulled from her original link:

"They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer..."

is just that - an assertion. And not proof.

>>None of the death penalty opponents have voiced in on lethal force in self defense or defense of others.

I oppose the death penalty but I agree there are circumstances when this is justified.

"we are yards apart on many topics!" Mainly guns. While I support the use of executions I wont' find it a personal affront were it abolished. While the proponents scream about liberals letting killers go. This does not happen often when it comes to those who were or could have been facing the death penalty. Violent predators don't get released unless they found Jesus and that was by the conservatives.

If we had armed victims the death penalty would be come unnecessary.

>>If we had armed victims the death penalty would be come unnecessary...

Pfffft!

(Translation: predictable liberal snort!)

Here's something else to think about. From lawyer Wendy Kaminer's essay "The Wrong Men," Dec. 1992:

"A less frivolous line of attack is that these wrongful convictions are anomalies. The authors, however, contend that the cases they describe are typical of hundreds or perhaps thousands of others. Readers will be guided by their own instincts and experience in deciding whether this claim is true. The authors do suggest, persuasively, that coerced confessions are a particular problem in capital cases: people plead guilty out of fear of receiving the death penalty. They also point out that in questionable cases, investigations of guilt and innocence are rarely pursued after an execution has been carried out. Except for the occasional cause celebre, like the Rosenberg case, people's cases die with them.

"Finally, some statistical evidence indicates that capital punishment is not fairly applied. Practically all the more than two thousand defendants currently on death row are poor; many have received less than competent defense counsel at trial, particularly in states that rely on court-appointed private attorneys, who may have little criminal litigation experience, instead of seasoned public defenders. There is also much evidence that the system is racially biased, particularly with regard to the race of the victims, suggesting that the lives of white people are valued more within the system than the lives of blacks. Of the 231 victims whose convicted killers have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated, 194 were white.

"It's difficult to predict how supporters of capital punishment would react to statistics like this if they were publicized, say, on Oprah. Some might lose faith in the system; others might question the reliability of the statistics or dismiss their implications. The Supreme Court has held that the greater statistical likelihood of being sentenced to death for killing a white person 'does not demonstrate a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias.'

"Support for capital punishment requires leaps of faith like this....."

(snip)

You can read the rest in Kaminer's essay collection: "True Love Waits." She's great.

It starts on page 256.

"I just think the death penalty is barbaric, uncivilized and pointless as a deterrent to future monsters."

Make no mistake about this: if you confine a human animal until he or she dies in confinement, or you personally pull the trigger on either the electric chair or a shotgun in your hands, you are still killing the criminal under your power.

You just hide from the consequences of your actions by backing a life sentence.

Yes, hide.

Meanwhile, the thug you have decided is worth tens of thousands of dollars a year in everyone's tax dollars occupies truly worthless space. It's a hole into which money and effort is thrown. It is this system, which perpetuates the idea that a survivable, paid-for existence will be provided, which is no deterrent.