Illinois Death Row Clemency

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: My biggest problem with life in prison are the many aforementioned "luxuries" prisoners are allowed to have in todays system. Recreation centers, big screen TV's, access to the internet, and various other "amenities" make our prisons more like a low-budget hotel than a Corrections Facility. I realize that losing one's freedom is harsh, but most career criminals have adjusted to that as an "occupational hazard". One argument against the death penalty is that it does not serve as a realistic deterrent to crime. That may be true, but life in prison is no more effective as a deterrent.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that due to deficiencies in the US prison system it's easier to just have a death penalty anyway? I would have thought that overhauling the prison system to remove these luxuries and make hard time mean hard time would be the right thing to do? Or is that too hard?

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by madjim: The so called "western world" can hold it's nose all it wants over the death penalty. I prefer it. No person executed has ever hurt anyone again. I can cite case after case where killers were some how released only to kill again. In New York state a double murderer of children was released - he became a serial killer who murdered women in central NY In Pa - a man murdered a State trooper did 30 years and then murdered his neighbor over a minor disagreement. Pa - biker kills women after she refuses to have sex with ALL of his friends. He shots her in the face an dumps body in quarry. Original sentence is life but he is released despite the sentencing judges recomendation that the bastard never be released again. Yep, he was paroled and yep he murdered a NJ Sate Polceman. Heres one: Dear soul kidnapps a women, robs her, beats her, drags her behind a car on the highway with speeds past 50 MPH, then rapes her. She dies. Fortunately he did it it in Alabama - so he was executed. How about armed robbers known as the "Hi Fi Killers" - robbed a music store - raped the female employees and then forced them at gun point to drink drain cleaner - which killed them. Death penalty deserved- you bet? So you folks just keep holding your nose - I'll keep voting to pull the switch.

I don't want to get too caught up in a to-and-fro argument, but Madjim, don't you think there's a difference between justice and revenge? And in all the cases you mentioned above all criminals were released or did 30+ years - I thought that "NEVER TO BE RELEASED" meant just that.

From what I'm reading here the main reasons for the death penalty seem to be:

1. make sure the sucker never does it again (ie he/she might be released)
2. the sucker lives a life of luxury with internet access, swimming pool, tanning bed etc at taxpayers expense
3. it makes the victims' families feel better that the sucker is dead

It seems to me that the first two could be resolved by overhauling the prison system, expensive though that may be, isn't that the right thing to do? It almost seems to me that continuing on with the death penalty because it's too hard to overhaul the prison/justice system isn't quite a good enough reason. Just my 2c, of course.

As for the third...this is obviously a personal emotion unique to each individual. I've had friends that have been the victims of violent crimes where the perpetrator has walked away and it makes you feel sick - but there's a big difference between justice and revenge IMHO. I would have thought that life in prison doing hard labour with no luxury, no internet or any of that BS, no opportunity for parole or release EVER would be a more effective deterrent. Then again, someone might prefer to see someone else ride the lightning anyway - that's their personal choice, but we need to draw a distinction between justice and vengeance.

In any case, does anyone have any stats on how effective the death penalty is in reducing the rate of violent crime? I'd be curious as to whether or not it has proved to be a deterrent or is it just the "easy way out".

Interesting discussion - let's see if we can all keep a cool head while conducting it.

[ 01-14-2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Memnoch: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: My biggest problem with life in prison are the many aforementioned "luxuries" prisoners are allowed to have in todays system. Recreation centers, big screen TV's, access to the internet, and various other "amenities" make our prisons more like a low-budget hotel than a Corrections Facility. I realize that losing one's freedom is harsh, but most career criminals have adjusted to that as an "occupational hazard". One argument against the death penalty is that it does not serve as a realistic deterrent to crime. That may be true, but life in prison is no more effective as a deterrent.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that due to deficiencies in the US prison system it's easier to just have a death penalty anyway? I would have thought that overhauling the prison system to remove these luxuries and make hard time mean hard time would be the right thing to do? Or is that too hard? [/QUOTE]No, Memnoch, I'm not saying it's "easier" to have the death penalty...I'm saying that a prison sentence isn't considered "harsh punishment" by criminals. It's considered an inconvenience.

I read an article several years ago about a new prison that had been built in one of our western states (maybe Arizona). It didn't rely on steel bars, concrete walls, or barbed wire to contain the prisoners. Instead, it was built in the middle of the desert. Nothing but sand and heat in any direction for over 50 miles. It also had no TV, no library, and no Rec Room. Prisoners were housed in large open tents and had cots to sleep on. You know what inmate said about the place?

"They are treating us like a bunch of criminals!"

Guess what? YOU ARE!!!

I don't advocate the death penalty simply as an "easy alternative". Like many others, I believe there are some crimes that are just too heinous to allow the criminal to continue living.

As for our prison system, I dare say if more of them were like the Arizona facility, THAT would solve the "overcrowding problem" most of them face. The whole idea is to make prisons a place criminal DON'T want to go to. That just doesn't happen in most of our facilities.

Is it too hard to "overhaul" our prison system? Apparantly so. If prisons tried to take away some of the amenities I mentioned, then the various human rights groups will descend on them en masse in protest and call it "cruel and unusual punishment". It puts prison and state officials in a "no win" situation.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Memnoch: In any case, does anyone have any stats on how effective the death penalty is in reducing the rate of violent crime? I'd be curious as to whether or not it has proved to be a deterrent or is it just the "easy way out". Interesting discussion - let's see if we can all keep a cool head while conducting it.

There are two ways to look at that question.

1) Does the threat of the death penalty act as an effective deterrent to heinous crimes? Statistics would seem to indicate it does not. The Bloody Code of England has been mentioned before as proof that it doesn't work. I agree with that to a degree. But just because it isn't an effective deterrent does not mean it isn't a justified punishment. In fact, I would say the opposite is true. If the threat of death is not enough to prevent some people from committing heinous crimes, then death is the only effective way to prevent them from committing these crimes again.

2) Does the threat of death act as an effective deterrent? Now wait, this is not the same question I just asked above. THAT question dealt with the death penalty as administered by state governments. I am talking about the threat of a swift and unavoidable death as punishment. If you don't think there is a difference or that this any more "effective"....then go out and rob a mafia-run business or drug dealer.

The difference is that they won't wait years to execute the sentence and you won't get any appeals.

I am not advocating that states adopt this same "mentality"....I am merely offering this as proof that - when the threat of death is considered REAL AND IMMEDIATE - it IS an effective deterrent.

[ 01-14-2003, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: No, Memnoch, I'm not saying it's "easier" to have the death penalty...I'm saying that a prison sentence isn't considered "harsh punishment" by criminals. It's considered an inconvenience.

Hmm, my name's highlighted. [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] Don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

This is the heart of the problem then, isn't it. If people see prison as an inconvenience then there's something seriously wrong with the legal and justice system.

I read an article several years ago about a new prison that had been built in one of our western states (maybe Arizona). It didn't rely on steel bars, concrete walls, or barbed wire to contain the prisoners. Instead, it was built in the middle of the desert. Nothing but sand and heat in any direction for over 50 miles. It also had no TV, no library, and no Rec Room. Prisoners were housed in large open tents and had cots to sleep on. You know what inmate said about the place? "They are treating us like a bunch of criminals!" Guess what? YOU ARE!!!

Sounds like more of these need to be built. And publicise what they're like.

I don't advocate the death penalty simply as an "easy alternative". Like many others, I believe there are some crimes that are just too heinous to allow the criminal to continue living.

Fair enough. [img]smile.gif[/img] I don't think it's up to human beings to make a decision on ending the lives of others, but it happens all the time in war I guess. To each his own...

As for our prison system, I dare say if more of them were like the Arizona facility, THAT would solve the "overcrowding problem" most of them face. The whole idea is to make prisons a place criminal DON'T want to go to. That just doesn't happen in most of our facilities.

Why is that? Maybe your next paragraph will answer this...

Is it too hard to "overhaul" our prison system? Apparantly so. If prisons tried to take away some of the amenities I mentioned, then the various human rights groups will descend on them en masse in protest and call it "cruel and unusual punishment". It puts prison and state officials in a "no win" situation.

Would human rights groups prefer the death penalty for an individual found guilty in a court of law of capital crimes like murder, etc. or life in prison in a maximum security prison similar to the Arizona facility you mentioned? Can't have it both ways. Keeping someone alive for the term of their natural life, where they know that they will NEVER be released, never taste freedom again, sounds pretty bad to me (then again I don't know what it's like to be dead, so I can't really make a fair comparison).

[ 01-14-2003, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 2) Does the threat of death act as an effective deterrent? Now wait, this is not the same question I just asked above. THAT question dealt with the death penalty as administered by state governments. I am talking about the threat of a swift and unavoidable death as punishment. If you don't think there is a difference or that this any more "effective"....then go out and rob a mafia-run business or drug dealer. The difference is that they won't wait years to execute the sentence and you won't get any appeals. I am not advocating that states adopt this same "mentality"....I am merely offering this as proof that - when the threat of death is considered REAL AND IMMEDIATE - it IS an effective deterrent.

Had some time to think...under Sharia (Islamic) law, people caught stealing have their left (?) hand chopped off. I don't recall many thieves in such hardline Islamic states like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. In Nigeria adulterous women are put to death by stoning. I don't hear of many adultery cases (other than the high profile one recently). In former Communist Russia criminals were caught and swiftly executed, often without benefit of trial. I don't recall there being much crime at all in Soviet Russia, come to think of it. Sure some innocent people got executed, but that's the way it goes - this was Russia after all. At least Death Row inmates get the right of a fair trial and appeal, and if 98% of them are guilty and 2% are innocent, then that's close enough (you can round it up to an even hundred... j/k).

Maybe it *is* possible that violence prevents more violence? Maybe that type of punishment strikes a chord with that dark, violent, primeval shadow deep within our hearts. I just wonder how much advocation of the death penalty has to do with justice, and how much of it has to do with vengeance, that's all. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by MagiK: LOL Qman you got that right! it just occasionally irks me to see some people make claims which have no factual studies on wich to hang them.

I thought he was just offering his opinion. You don't need factual studies to offer your opinion, right?
There have been a few times when you yourself have made statements that seemed a little...emotionally driven. But that's ok, we're all allowed to say how we see things, regardless of what others might think.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Memnoch: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: No, Memnoch, I'm not saying it's "easier" to have the death penalty...I'm saying that a prison sentence isn't considered "harsh punishment" by criminals. It's considered an inconvenience.

Hmm, my name's highlighted. [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] Don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
[/QUOTE]If you follow my posting style, you will have noticed that I almost always "highlight" the name of a member when I am addressing a specific point or post by that member. The only time I don't do this is when I join a discussion already in progress and try to address the major points that had been made up to that point by various people.

I also try to use a color that "suits" the person I am addressing. These colors are purely subjective on my part and are determined by the person's sig or posting style.

Melusine asked me several months ago if there was any pattern or logic to the colors I chose. The answer is YES, of course there is.

For instance, I used red to highlight your name because your name is outlined in red in your sig. I use yellow for Yorick and Melusine. Hugh has the "bouncing egg" in his sig and yellow just seems to "suit" Mel. I use lavender for Cloudy because it is one of her favorite colors and I use lime for Magik because - well, Magic just reminds me of green. That's what I mean about the "subjective interpretation".

Anyway, it is definitely a "good thing" when you're name is highlighted. If it isn't, it usually means that I wasn't addressing you specifically - or I was doing a really long post like this one with too many freakin' colors in it and just got lazy.

Originally posted by The Hierophant: I thought he was just offering his opinion. You don't need factual studies to offer your opinion, right? There have been a few times when you yourself have made statements that seemed a little...emotionally driven. But that's ok, we're all allowed to say how we see things, regardless of what others might think.

Well I realize that the conversation wasn't aimed at you, and you might have missed the part where I told him...but I will explain to you that the post was NOT about just one person or one instance.

MagiK like Lime!