Good news/Bad news

[Paladin2000]

I agree with you Cerek. There are just too many people who can be rehabilitated by jail sentences, especially serial killers.

[IronDragon]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric

For every case of wrongful execution you produce, I can match it with another case where a convicted criminal killed again after being released from jail.

But Ted Bundy is not one of them. Your rant on Ted Bundy is completely out of place here. Bundy was arrested and convicted on and UNREALTED charge.

Also, our judicial system has improved dramatically since 1950. There are many more "checks and balances" in place now to prenent the execution of an innocent person. I realize the system still isn't perfect - not by any stretch of the imagination - but there are many legal obstacles that have to be overcome now before the Death Sentence can actually be carried out.

Just before leaving office Illinois Governor George Ryan commuted the sentences of all but four of the remaining 167 death row inmates to life in prison without parole. Since capital punishment was reinstated in Illinois in 1977, the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated when it has been discovered that they were falsely convicted EXCEEDS the number executed. In one case-that of Anthony Porter-the error was discovered just 48 hours before he was scheduled to be executed.

Governor Ryan was denounced by the republican right in his state however as stated in an editorial by the Chicago Sun Times these same republicans in the Illinois state legislature had “consistently refused to consider the proposals Governor Ryan made in an effort to ensure equity and accuracy in capital cases.”
Recognize that life in prison without parole is not a pardon. Convicted murderers in Illinois are not getting away without paying for their crimes. Indeed, some believe that the gruesome experience of life in prison without parole exacts a greater penalty than swift and painless death.

If murder is wrong in one instance than having the government murder is wrong as well.


[quote] I feel there IS a time and place when the Death Penalty is the only acceptable and fitting punishment. [/quotre]

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” Ghandi

[Ramon de Ramon y Ramon]

With all due respect, Cerek, but did you have dust on your logic chip when you posted see above?

The example of the Ted Bundy case, as you presented it, does certainly nothing to prove the necessity of the death penalty and that assessment is completely unrelated to one's personal stance on the issue: the problem very obviously was that it could not be proven that he was guilty in the earlier murder cases in which he was already a suspect at the time he was tried and convicted for the minor crime. If he had also been convicted for the murder(s) at the same time, both a subsequent death penatly or a (life-)long imprisonment would have prevented him from committing any of the later murders.

I am frankly tired of people trying to convince each other of any "objective truth" in this matter. It is clearly one that hinges entirely on a moral judgement, which in turn is based on cultural/religious and political beliefs: what is your idea of the role of the state, what is the predominant function of sentences (serving justice by exerting revenge or protecting the population from criminal offenders) and so forth ...

[Timber Loftis]

Good post on the Illinois sentence commutations, IronDragon. The CPD rule in Chicago, and many get convicted on the testimony of the arresting officer AND NOTHING ELSE. "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is a low hurdle in this town.

As I said, however, address this problem and I'm okay with the death penalty. There are prices we pay. The price you pay for choosing to take life should be forfeiture of your life. There is no other thing you can pay that is worth what you took. Note, this applies to MURDER -- CHOSING to take life. Murder is absolutely wrong. When you murder someone else, you also murder yourself because you forfeit your life by breaking the paramount rule. The state doesn't kill a murderer, his choices and actions do.

IMO.

[Ar-Cunin]

In a case as the one mentioned a the start of the thread (and similar) - can't you arrest the liars and charge them with conspiracy to commit murder? I mean, they knowingly let an innocent man die by lying in court.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: In a case as the one mentioned a the start of the thread (and similar) - can't you arrest the liars and charge them with conspiracy to commit murder? I mean, they knowingly let an innocent man die by lying in court.

The police don't police the police very well.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: For every case of wrongful execution you produce, I can match it with another case where a convicted criminal killed again after being released from jail.

But Ted Bundy is not one of them. Your rant on Ted Bundy is completely out of place here. Bundy was arrested and convicted on and UNREALTED charge.[/QUOTE]My "rant" about Ted Bundy??? I was not "ranting" any more than Donut was in his opening post. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] He gave an illustrative example to support his views, and I offered a counter-example. Ted Bundy was just the first case that popped to mind and was one that I could do quickly off the top of my head.

And Ted Bundy is every bit as "relevant" to this issue as Donut citing a case that occurred more than half a century ago.

Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Also, our judicial system has improved dramatically since 1950. There are many more "checks and balances" in place now to prenent the execution of an innocent person. I realize the system still isn't perfect - not by any stretch of the imagination - but there are many legal obstacles that have to be overcome now before the Death Sentence can actually be carried out.

Just before leaving office Illinois Governor George Ryan commuted the sentences of all but four of the remaining 167 death row inmates to life in prison without parole. Since capital punishment was reinstated in Illinois in 1977, the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated when it has been discovered that they were falsely convicted EXCEEDS the number executed. In one case-that of Anthony Porter-the error was discovered just 48 hours before he was scheduled to be executed.[/QUOTE]Sorry, IronDragon, but the fact that exonerations exceeds executions makes it sound as if the system DOES actually work. Anthony Porter had a close call...but he wasn't killed. If you wish to prove your point about the Illinois system, then cite the number of examples where the convicted person was found innocent posthumously. THAT would prove that Illinois had a habit of executing innocent men and women.


Also, I specifically said the system had improved, but was not perfect (see highlighted text).

Originally posted by IronDragon: Governor Ryan was denounced by the republican right in his state however as stated in an editorial by the Chicago Sun Times these same republicans in the Illinois state legislature had “consistently refused to consider the proposals Governor Ryan made in an effort to ensure equity and accuracy in capital cases.” Recognize that life in prison without parole is not a pardon. Convicted murderers in Illinois are not getting away without paying for their crimes. Indeed, some believe that the gruesome experience of life in prison without parole exacts a greater penalty than swift and painless death.

Given the numerous failings of the Illinois system (as pointed out by our own Timber Loftis on several occasions), I would have to say he did the right thing. I personally thought it was just a "political move" at first, but the more I learned about the state of affairs in the Illinois judicial system, the more I realized Governor Ryan was doing what he felt was the only "right" thing to do. I commend him for having the courage to follow his conscious despite the resounding criticism he knew he would receive for his actions. :clap:

Originally posted by IronDragon: If murder is wrong in one instance than having the government murder is wrong as well.

I disagree. The Bible admonishes individuals not to kill, but does grant governments the right to take a life as punishment for a crime.

Originally posted by IronDragon: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I feel there IS a time and place when the Death Penalty is the only acceptable and fitting punishment.

“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” Ghandi [/QUOTE]Ghandi is entitled to his opinion...just as I am entitled to mine and you to yours. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Ramon de Ramon y Ramon]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: ... As I said, however, address this problem and I'm okay with the death penalty. There are prices we pay. The price you pay for choosing to take life should be forfeiture of your life. There is no other thing you can pay that is worth what you took. Note, this applies to MURDER -- CHOSING to take life. Murder is absolutely wrong. When you murder someone else, you also murder yourself because you forfeit your life by breaking the paramount rule. The state doesn't kill a murderer, his choices and actions do. IMO.

What bothers me about your reasoning is that you seem eager to make your position appear as one supported by some kind of "objective logic". If it was that way though, I would have to be able to recognize it as such and agree. But the central premise of your argument, namely that it was possible for the murderer to repair any of the damage caused by his crime by paying (whom?) with his own life seems utterly illogical to me: he cannot pay the victim. Who else is a damged party? Society, whose strictest taboo has been broken, thus violating its members' sense of justice and security. Family and friends of the victim, whose loss is of course of a much more concrete nature. If the murderer could ever "pay" either of those parties by losing his own life depends exclusively on their belief systems: do they believe in the concept of retribution as much as you do, Timber? If they do, they might derive a certain degree of emotional satisfaction from the execution - I have always been skeptical about how much that really counts for fot those immediately affected - if they don't, it only adds insult to injury, thus the murderer's death would be at the best senseless.

Like I tried to explain earlier, it all comes down to personal beliefs and convictions or even much more concrete: do you believe in the principle of "an eye for an "eye" or do you, like I do, believe that that is as anachronistic as slavery or blood feuds?

Speaking of blood feuds, if retribution is to be the central principle, why not be consistent and return the right to execute the sentence to the party most directly affected, the family of the victim? To avoid the more unpleasant aspects of traditional self-administed justice, of course only after an independent jury has returned a guilty verdict after a trial due process.

[Timber Loftis]

Ramonster:

I think that all persons injured by the murderer OTHER THAN the one murdered (as you astutely point out) receive a great deal of emotional remedy when they get to watch the murderer sizzle. Retribution may be a banal, antiquated way of doing things, but so are many other things we do (like sex -- we don't really *need* it anymore to procreate, but it brings a certain amount of animal satisfaction). There is just some emotional response that is pleasing in watching one PAY for what they took, whether or not the person they took from is around to benefit.

How about we give the decision to the victim's next-of-kin? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Anyway, my point is about the fact that my attempted objective logic does not look to the remedy to the victim, but rather the punishment to the wrongdoer. Both of these things, along with rehabilitation and public safety, form the core principles justifying criminal penalties in this country. I know that over there in Europe, you have developed more refined sensitivities and taken the "retribution/punishment" principle off of your list of justifications. We haven't. For many of us, it is nice to see someone get what's coming to them.

Besides, what does NOT killing someone who is obviously guilty of a heinous crime accomplish? Do we rehabilitate them and turn them loose?? Not normally -- life in prison is the sentence. And what if we do "rehabilitate" them. Seriously, no matter how much they've found God or changed their ways, once someone has gone that far down the path of moral despicability, I NEVER want to share the world with them. There is simply no amount of good they can do to make up for their wrong. They are nothing. So, just kill 'em, I say.

Also, I argue that letting our sensibilities (against violence, but also against vulgarity, prejudice, and greed) go this far to the extreme is BAD for society. Remember, the evil that develops is not always born of bad intentions. It can also creep into our world via complacency or fear of action. Sensibilities today can wrap back around and tommorrow we may be a namby-pamby society unable to stick our own thumbs up our asses for fear of doing something wrong. Some of us argue we're already there.

Next, let me point out a logical disconnect ion your own reasoning. "It is wrong to kill so we can't kill." Hogwash. It is wrong to imprison someone, to remove their very freedom of movement, but that is what prison is. It is wrong to take money from someone, yet a court orders a tortfeasor to pay the victim or a speeder to pay a fine. The very notion of criminal law is all about determining those times when the government will step in and do things to an individual that the individuals are not allowed to do to each other themselves.

Finally, let us not eschew all remnants of our animal nature. Let us not feel so bad when we are angered to hit. Or when we like seeing Dahmer sizzle in the seat. (Can't remember if that example is factually correct - but you get the point.) Let us enjoy the occassional burp, fart, or moment of rough sex. We are after all animals. Reasoning animals, but animals nonetheless. To paraphrase on of the more famous thinkers in your neck of the woods, "We must be the beast lest we become the beast."

Boy, I didn't mean to ramble this much. Sorry for the long post.

[ 06-11-2003, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Attalus]

I agree with you Timber, that the idea that the state cannot take a way a life as it can take anything else away is a fallacy. I believe it is much more logical to point out, when death penalty opponents say, as if it were graven in stone somewhere, that "it is better to let nine (or ninety, or nine hundred)guilty parties go free than to execute one innocent." Actually, the damage that nine, let alone ninety or nine hundred crimiunals can do to society probably far outweighs the theoretical contributions of the lost innocent. Also, it is, as Cerek pointed out, entirely imposssible for an executed murderer to do it again. I will, however agree with Davros and TL that the degree of proof in capital cases should be very high. Oh, and also, there was an article in the Dallas Morning News yesterday by Jacquelynn Floyd, interviewing the mother of a murdered man, and describing her satisfaction at their conviction and possible execution.