Scott Petersen: Death - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #16 12-13-2004, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Scalia likes to say that the death penalty is obviously constitutional because the Constitution states requirements for imposing it. What he leaves out, IMHO, is that the Constitution also requires due process and equal protection in administering the death penalty. No system yet devised in this country comes close to meeting either of those requirements. Until such a system is devised, then the death penalty is wrong Constitutionally and morally.

If a murder case goes to trial and there are numerous reliable witnesses to a murder, and/or indisputable DNA evidence, etc..... How does that not constitute "due process and equal protection"?

Mike

Cap'n Carageous · #17 12-13-2004, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

By the way, can you cite a single benefit to society from having the death penalty?

$50,000 a year in room and board??

KirkVining · #18 12-13-2004, 07:41 PM

Well, mm, that gets to the heart of the matter. In cases like that , the death penalty is just. But currently it is too easily applied, and some innocent people have been executed. It needs reform, not elimination.

KirkVining · #19 12-13-2004, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cap'n Carageous

$50,000 a year in room and board??

That's a little high. I think it is more like $30,000 in the high dollar states. They cost us about $12k each here in Texas, mainly because we don't give them air conditioning, and the work farms return a profit. 10 x 12 in 110 degree heat's got to be a real treat. We get a few who beg to be executed.

Honus · #20 12-13-2004, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

If a murder case goes to trial and there are numerous reliable witnesses to a murder, and/or indisputable DNA evidence, etc..... How does that not constitute "due process and equal protection"?

Mike

Three reasons:

(1) You describe a miniscule fraction of the cases in which the death penalty has been applied.

(2) Those factors pertain to the guilt phase of the trial. They have nothing to do with the penalty phase.

(3) Long, miserable experience has proven that our system has so far been incapable of administering the death penalty in a fair manner. Our capital punishment system is an abomination. If we want to execute people, we should do it in public and we should spend the resources needed to do it right. The reasons that will never happen is that so few people are directly affected by the death penalty, so it is easy for politicians to get the masses to go along with what seems to be emotionally appealing to them.

I say we stick with the Sixth Amendment. It is nice and simple.

mikemover · #21 12-13-2004, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

It is not rubbish. You can disagree, but my comments are not rubbish.

I was unclear on that. The only reason I cited the Sixth Commandment is because I think it is a good rule, not because I think the Peterson case should be decided by it.

First, it is not crap. Second, I would have no problem telling the victim's family that the death penalty only injures them further.

EDIT: That is assuming the family was interested in my thoughts on the matter, which is a far fetched assumption.

I think Matthew 7:1 gets that one right, as well: Judge not, lest ye be judged. Before you freak out about my citation of religious authorities in a secular matter, I am not saying we should follow a particular course because I think the Bible commands it. I am just saying that my moral judgement is that I am not authorized to decide who lives and dies.

By the way, can you cite a single benefit to society from having the death penalty?

If it is my OPINION that your comments are "rubbish" or "crap", then I will say so. You are free to express your opinions, and so am I.

How do you figure the death of a known murderer "injures them further"?

No, you are not authorized to decide who lives and dies. No one is. But when a MURDERER takes that decision into his own hands, his own like becomes forfeit. No one made that decision for him....HE made it. No one can claim ignorance to the penalties for murder....The murderer HIMSELF chooses his own death sentence, the moment he commits the murder.

Yes, I can cite the single most important benefit to society: 0% recidivism. NO murderer that has been put to death has ever committed another murder. This seems to me to benefit society in quite a direct and effective manner.

Mike

Honus · #22 12-13-2004, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cap'n Carageous

$50,000 a year in room and board??

Every study I have ever seen finds that it is cheaper to imprison people for life than to execute them. And those studies are based on our current system which tries to do the death penalty on the cheap. If we did the death penalty right (now there's an oxymoron for you), the cost would go even higher.

Cap'n Carageous · #23 12-13-2004, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

That's a little high. I think it is more like $30,000 in the high dollar states. They cost us about $12k each here in Texas, mainly because we don't give them air conditioning, and the work farms return a profit. 10 x 12 in 110 degree heat's got to be a real treat. We get a few who beg to be executed.

We treat our "guests" better than yall. Much of the Georgia prison system is privitized now. Heck, we even PAY them to go out on the road to pick up litter, if they agree to do it of course!

koop · #24 12-13-2004, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Every study I have ever seen finds that it is cheaper to imprison people for life than to execute them. And those studies are based on our current system which tries to do the death penalty on the cheap. If we did the death penalty right (now there's an oxymoron for you), the cost would go even higher.

Absolutly correct. Cheaper to keep them.

It will be overturned on appeal. Obviously I wasn't there but everything I read says that there was no physical evidence linking him to the death, little less evidence of premeditation or aggravating circumstances.

Not to mention that CA has only executed 11 people since the death penalty came back in the 70's.

mikemover · #25 12-13-2004, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Every study I have ever seen finds that it is cheaper to imprison people for life than to execute them. And those studies are based on our current system which tries to do the death penalty on the cheap. If we did the death penalty right (now there's an oxymoron for you), the cost would go even higher.

Including the cost of the lenghty appeals process, you are correct.

But....

I have no problem with my tax dollars paying for someone's trial, to establish whether they are truly guilty or not....regardless of how long it takes.

I have a BIG problem with my tax dollars paying for a lifetime of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, reading, and recreation for PROVEN murderers.

Mike

KirkVining · #26 12-13-2004, 07:57 PM

We do privitzed some prisons, in fact you might have seen the films of the Wackenhut guys sicking the dogs on the boys. But Texans are very thrifty, and nothing turns a profit like slavery, and the state keeps that lucrative part for itself. TDCJ runs an agricultural empire that stretches across the state. Some years, when cotton and rice are both high, the system will actually turn a profit, meaning the prison bed cost is -x$'s. Welock em up here, because we need the labor!

Honus · #27 12-13-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

How does the death of a known murderer "injure them further"?

Our death penalty is unjust. It is an abomination. If someone kills my loved one, the injury is only compounded by the state's unjust killing done on my behalf.

Quote:

No, you are not authorized to decide who lives and dies. No one is. But when a MURDERER takes that decision into his own hands, his own like becomes forfeit...

So, which is it? Either no one is authorized to decide, or you are authorized to decide that a murderer's life becomes forfeit. Can't have it both ways.

Quote:

No one made that decision for him....HE made it. No one can claim ignorance to the penalties for murder....The murderer HIMSELF choses his own death sentence, the moment he commits the murder.

That's true, but I don't live by his moral code.

Quote:

Yes, I can cite the single most important benefit to society: 0% recidivism. NO murderer that has been put to death has ever committed another murder. This seems to me to benefit society in quite a direct and effective manner...

Direct? yes. Effective? no. There has never been a study that shows that the death penalty reduces the murder rate. To the extent a correlation between death penalty and murder rate has been detected, it is in the opposite direction. In other words, there is some admittedly shakey evidence that a state's adoption of the death penalty is more likely to increase the murder rate than to reduce it.

Cap'n Carageous · #28 12-13-2004, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Welock em up here, because we need the labor!

Even if they commit no crime?

Honus · #29 12-13-2004, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Including the cost of the lenghty appeals process, you are correct.

But....

I have no problem with my tax dollars paying for someone's trial, to establish whether they are truly guilty or not....regardless of how long it takes.

I have a BIG problem with my tax dollars paying for a lifetime of food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, reading, and recreation for PROVEN murderers.

Mike

Even though your approach is more expensive? I miss your logic on that one.

KirkVining · #30 12-13-2004, 08:00 PM

Those are the best ones - they have all that anger to work off!