Death Sentences

[lemurian]

Some of you have made some very thoughtful contributions to this discussion, explaining your thoughts at length, even though it all comes down to whether or not you believe it is "right" or "wrong".. I can see how the idea of destroying life is a black and white issue for most people. I respect everyone's opinion on this issue.

But I'm all for capital punishment! Even corporal punishment!!! (though not in a domestic setting) This country has an out of control crime problem that is CLEARLY not being helped by mere prison sentences. If you've done something wrong, or are even SUSPECTED of doing something wrong, you've probably got it coming. People just need to learn to effing behave! Or face the consequences.

 

[m4dswine]

I don't believe anyone has the right to decide who lives and who dies.

Absolutely noone has that right. To me, the death penalty is legitimised murder.

We have a massive overcrowding problem in teh UK, but thats more to do with our justice and punishment system, and our inability to acknowledge that some criminals are capable of being rehabilitated.

 

[*Stargazer*]

I strongly believe that many criminals can be rehabilitated. I am 100% uncomfortable with the idea of attempting to rehabilitate violent (murderers, rapists, child molesters and abusers) criminals, though.

One, I think its irresponsible to to risk innocent people in society by returning a violent criminal to the streets no matter how rehabilitated he appears to be. Lord knows many violent criminals are pathological enough to work the system of rehab.

Two, crimes of violence are so life altering to the victim that they deserve nothing less than a lifetime of incarceration for the perpetrator. It is patently unjust for a violent criminal to commit a heinous act that results in a life sentence of suffering for a victim (or death) and then be punished with mere months or a few years in prison.

Too many violent criminals in this country are repeat offenders. I am so very, very weary of seeing people like Mark Lunsford or Mark Klaas or Steve Groene grieving after the violent murders of their children when harsh punishment for the perpetrators could have prevented their deaths. So I won't complain about the death penalty in this country until we make it mandatory for all killers, rapists, child molesters and abusers to spend the rest of their natural lives behind bars. I have NO problem with someone being sentenced to life instead of executed, but it seems like life sentences aren't employed enough. In fact, if the sentences of everyone on Death Row in the US were commuted to life in prison tomorrow, I wouldn't be bothered that we stopped executing people. My big rant is the lax sentencing of a violent criminal the first time they come through the system. And the Three Strikes business? Bullshit. You shouldn't get two opportunities to commit violent crimes before you get sentenced harshly. It should be automatic on the conviction for a first violent offense.

 

[Tash]

I have and always will be 100% for the death penalty. Maybe if prison's were 100% secure and were actually LIKE prison's then I would consider it, but unfortunately a lifetime sentence doesn't mean that these days.

When someone can stab someone seven times and shoot them 3 times, get a life sentence, and still have a chance for parole, that's fucked up. Because of the US "laws" I have to go visit a prison in SC every 5-10 years to talk to a parole board about a monster that decided that my step-moms life wasn't worth as much as the drugs that he thought she had (which she didn't). If I could, I would shoot the guy myself. Call it inhumane, but when someone takes another person's life on purpose, they no longer have any human rights.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tash When someone can stab someone seven times and shoot them 3 times, get a life sentence, and still have a chance for parole, that's fucked up.

This is a very legitimate point you bring up. Violent criminals should never, ever get the option of parole, let alone an early parole. They should die in jail.

I am very sorry to hear that someone was selfish enough to take your stepmom's life. I hope you are successful in keeping him from getting paroled.

 

[Hawkeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tash when someone takes another person's life on purpose, they no longer have any human rights.

How true that is.

 

[Tash]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 This is a very legitimate point you bring up. Violent criminals should never, ever get the option of parole, let alone an early parole. They should die in jail. I am very sorry to hear that someone was selfish enough to take your stepmom's life. I hope you are successful in keeping him from getting paroled.

It is ridiculous. If the justice system worked correctly and people got the sentences they deserved, there wouldn't be as much of a need for the death sentence. If prisoners were actually treated like prisoners instead of people at a spa, then there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[lipstickandhate]

I feel that I should comment on this as I am a prosecutor. Keep in mind, however, a) it is late and b) i just ran 4 miles SO this probably will not be my opus.

I don’t think any of this can be looked at strictly from an economic point of view. It’s incorrect and dishonest to argue that our criminal system is simply designed for utilitarian, cost-benefit purposes. It’s very clearly designed (at least in very substantial part) to relieve human desire for vengeance and retribution.

Rehabilitation is a very nice idea and I certainly believe many people in prison can be rehabilitated if given the education and tools to be productive members of society. Unfortunately, prison rarely provides what is necessary for many individuals to accomplish this rather lofty goal and many simply cannot change. Some can, but the vast majority cannot. This obviously does not take into account incarcerated individuals with personality disorders or those who are sexual predators who, in my experience, are biologically incapable of altering their problematic behaviors and are therefore best kept locked away.

As for the death penalty, I am more worried about individuals sent to death row 25 years ago than those sent being sent today. Forensic science has greatly advanced and is an incredible tool for use by both the State and the defense. I also feel that there are many opportunities today to individuals on death row who have been wrongly convicted than there have been previously: there are many, many pro-bono organizations which devote resources and time into investigating the inmate’s claims of innocence. They review trial transcripts, DNA evidence, witness testimony, you name it as well as file appeals, etc. I think all of this leads to fewer innocent individuals being executed. It is excellent that these groups are dedicating private resources to this type of post-conviction investigation work as it is both expensive and time-consuming and not really feasible for a state. Personally, I think states ought to sub-contract out this type of work to private companies to ensure “absolute guilt” but that’s not going to happen any time soon.

It’s also worth noting that people are no longer sentenced to death by a judge, but instead are required to be sentenced by a jury of their peers to accord with due process concerns.

All of this being said, I can honestly say I believe some people deserve to die. I was raised Catholic and probably shouldn’t feel this way but I would be lying if I said otherwise. I also sometimes feel that I don’t care how much it costs to execute the monster if it gives his or her victim’s family some sense of peace. On the other hand, I am not sure that an eye for an eye is the way a civilized society ought to live and I was repulsed at these vengeance honor-shame values I encountered while working abroad. I am constantly surprised by the grace and dignity of victims and their families who forgive their aggressor and ask for leniency.

I work with monsters. The things people do to their wives, children, neighbors, and convenience store clerks are absolutely horrific and horrendous. They make you shake with rage and stutter in disbelief. There’s no easy answer.

 

[lipstickandhate]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 If our justice system was actually allowed to punish people for the crimes they commit, I would agree with abolishing the death penalty but for some reason people still refuse to accept that people who abuse little children, rape and murder are recidivists. They will NEVER be rehabilitated and when given the chance to be among society, they will victimize people until their time on Earth is over. Instead of sentences that fit the crime, we get judges who give rapists 2 months in jail when they should be locked up for life. http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605 If the US quit screwing around with all this "first degree" "second degree" "manslaughter" BS and sentenced anyone who killed someone (and not accidentally) to life in prison, then I would agree with abolishing the death penalty. Until then, my sympathy begins and ends with the victims. Our prisons would probably be a lot less crowded if we got rid of mandatory minimums for drug charges and implemented mandatory minimums of life in prison for rapists, murderers and child molesters. On a related note, we need to exploit DNA advances to make sure that all condemned prisoners are indeed guilty, if at all possible. And we should all demand that police officers are equipped with video and recording devices when conducting interrogations.

I just lol'd at your "quit screwing around with" comment. A One-size-fits-all-book-em-Dano charge would be a regression into idiocy. We have different "BS charges" b/c people kill people for different reasons, in different ways, and with varying amounts of planning, competance and knowledge not because DA's are too pussy to be tough. It's also called due process. Learn it, love it, respect it.

I do, however, absolutely agree with your ideas about mandatory sentances for drugs and higher mandatories for child molesters and rapists. Also I'd add felons violating conditions of parole. WRITE YOUR REPS!! That's how it will get changed. Get pissed enough and eventually they'll have to do something.

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lipstickandhate I just lol'd at your "quit screwing around with" comment. A One-size-fits-all-book-em-Dano charge would be a regression into idiocy. We have different "BS charges" b/c people kill people for different reasons, in different ways, and with varying amounts of planning, competance and knowledge not because DA's are too pussy to be tough. It's also called due process. Learn it, love it, respect it.

I know what due process is, thanks. And I never blamed DAs.

But I also don't care what the motivation, manner, planning or competence behind a murder is. If someone ends up dead, they end up dead and I fully believe the person responsible should spend the rest of their life in jail for taking a life. I don't care if that person set out to commit a robbery and ended up killing someone or they kidnapped someone with the intent of raping and murdering them. To me, the end result is the same. At some point, they chose to take someone's life. And I'm not talking about people dying accidentally or because of self defense, either. I'm talking about a person, who at some point make a conscious decision, for whatever reason, to kill someone. I don't find a death less egregious just because the stated intent of someone's initial intentions didn't include murder.

I just don't find any circumstances to be good enough to excuse someone from serving a life sentence for choosing to commit a murder. That said, there are some psychiatric reasons that I totally understand and accept as legitimate reasons to be not held legally responsible for commiting a murder, but I don't think those are as common as defense strategies would like us to believe.

I think the problem is my thoughts don't necessarily translate to feasible enforcement. I know that there are many people out there that disagree with my idea that any intentional killing is just as bad as the next. And I understand that presents problems when it comes to prosecuting a case because some people on a jury would then be potentially unlikely to come through with a stricter sentence. So I imagine that presents the quandry of whether or not you go for a lesser charge simply to get the person punished in some manner instead of being let of completely.

 

[lipstickandhate]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladybug10678 I know what due process is, thanks. And I never blamed DAs. But I also don't care what the motivation, manner, planning or competence behind a murder is. If someone ends up dead, they end up dead and I fully believe the person responsible should spend the rest of their life in jail for taking a life. I don't care if that person set out to commit a robbery and ended up killing someone or they kidnapped someone with the intent of raping and murdering them. To me, the end result is the same. At some point, they chose to take someone's life. And I'm not talking about people dying accidentally or because of self defense, either. I'm talking about a person, who at some point make a conscious decision, for whatever reason, to kill someone. I don't find a death less egregious just because the stated intent of someone's initial intentions didn't include murder. I just don't find any circumstances to be good enough to excuse someone from serving a life sentence for choosing to commit a murder. That said, there are some psychiatric reasons that I totally understand and accept as legitimate reasons to be not held legally responsible for commiting a murder, but I don't think those are as common as defense strategies would like us to believe. I think the problem is my thoughts don't necessarily translate to feasible enforcement. I know that there are many people out there that disagree with my idea that any intentional killing is just as bad as the next. And I understand that presents problems when it comes to prosecuting a case because some people on a jury would then be potentially unlikely to come through with a stricter sentence. So I imagine that presents the quandry of whether or not you go for a lesser charge simply to get the person punished in some manner instead of being let of completely.

I didn't mean to offend you and if I did, I apologize. I find it interesting that you don't care how or why someone killed another person, whether it was well-planned or a spur of the moment activity, or an accident b/c in my experience most people take all of these things into consideration. They usually have ideas of varying levels of moral blame-worthiness based on a variety of factors. For example, to many, killing someone in the heat of a passionate argument is less morally reprehensible than planning to kill them 4 months in advance. Charges are designed to reflect this sliding scale.

As for your above comment about killing someone in the commission of a robbery etc... many states would consider this felony-murder and will prosecute accordingly. Felony murder is a first degree murder charge adn will frequently carry the death penalty. It's pretty controversial b/c it removes from first degree murder the intention to kill (the required culpable mental state) and instead makes it a strict liability crime. I personally find strict-liability crimes somewhat morally problematic but many don't.

Anyway, again hope I didn't offend you as I didn't mean to. Perhaps I was too glib. I'm always really interested to hear various ideas on this subject!

 

[*Stargazer*]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lipstickandhate IFor example, to many, killing someone in the heat of a passionate argument is less morally reprehensible than planning to kill them 4 months in advance. Charges are designed to reflect this sliding scale.

Quote:

As for your above comment about killing someone in the commission of a robbery etc... many states would consider this felony-murder and will prosecute accordingly. Felony murder is a first degree murder charge adn will frequently carry the death penalty. It's pretty controversial b/c it removes from first degree murder the intention to kill (the required culpable mental state) and instead makes it a strict liability crime. I personally find strict-liability crimes somewhat morally problematic but many don't.

No offense taken.

I've left portions of your response because I want to respond specifically to them. I can't understand why intentionally murdering someone is less reprehensible if you do it spur of the moment versus planning it for months. That is my fundamental argument with the system by which we prosecute crimes in which the victim ends up dead.

My example of murder during a robbery was poor, because I do know that deaths that happen in the commission of a felony act are considered felony murder in many states. So I didn't mean it from the perspective that it wouldn't get prosecuted as such, only that I find it just as egregious and reprehensible as a murder that is planned for months.

The thing, to me at least, is that every non-accidental/self defense death caused by someone else happens because someone at some point chooses to end someone else's life. To me the timing of that choice is irrelevant to the responsibility on the part of the perpetrator. I just wish our system reflected this and we could punish these people for the rest of their lives. I truly believe that someone who choses to end someone else's life does not deserve to spend any part of their life in freedom.

 

[Beauty Mark]

My feelings about the death party were best put by a friend, when describing Saddam's execution: it seems like too much but not enough.

In this thread, there's a lot about giving the family peace. Do you think the law should be one size fits all or that the family should have some say in what happens? I'm just curious, because I've read about families who are anti-death penalty, despite having had members of their family dead and don't want the murderer sentenced to the death penalty.

 

[*Stargazer*]

I think some weight should be given to the victim's family. I don't think they should get to say "give him two years instead of 60" but if they want to choose between life sentences and death, I think those wishes should be taken into account when they can be. I guess it could be tricky because people within the same family could have opposing views, then who would you choose?