What do you think about the death penalty

Post Reply New Topic

I do not measure at all. Perhaps I am naively blinded by the transparency of the Danish justice system. The SNAFU of the US, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. So I stand corrected.

The problem with the legal burden of proof is that one can never reach *clear* certainty (even physics cannot). Any judge worth his/her salt needs to acknowledge that some guilty people walk and that some innocents end behind bars.

So, supporting the death penalty means accepting that some innocent people will be put to death.

The use of penal colonies will accomplish the same end as executing death sentences. In either case the wrong doer or the one convicted of wrong doing is separated permanently from society. The main advantage of penal colonies is that in the (rare) case of mis-conviction the result can be partially nullified and undone.

ruveyn

Fair enough. And that is why I am not in favor of the death penalty as it stands to this day. Unfortunately many populist conservative imbeciles do not see the execution of innocent people as a problem. They view its as a "necessary evil" for the greater good of society as they believe that they will never be wrongfully accused and convicted of capital murder.

There really needs to be more meticulousness regarding the collection and analysis of physical evidence when it comes to homicide. I honestly think that people ITT underestimate modern forensics.

A requirement of forensic evidence for a death sentence to be carried out doesn't mean 100% certainty, but it will certain decrease the uncertainty to negligible levels to the point that even though it might be possible for an innocent person to wrongfully executed, the probability of this happening will be far less than allowing a death sentence for someone convicted on non-physical circumstantial evidence. And there are people with the training and experience in forensics to verify this with much greater accuracy than ordinary jurors.


The example you gave, of some biological trace of the killer handling the murder weapons is only 1 piece of physical evidence that would be considered and not by itself strong enough. There needs to be additional evidence that places them AT the scene of the crime when it happened.

I think our disagreements are negligible when examining the details...

But I just happened to have an interest in forensic science, too.... .

The increasing availability of mass spectrometry (pretty much the duct-tape equivalent in forensics) and the ability to extract DNA from progressively smaller samples (a single cell might be a viable source in the near future) might make the entire physical component of forensics more reliable. Unfortunately, passing judgement in a lot of crimes involves making assumptions which go beyond the hard sciences.

Rape, for instance, is a notoriously difficult crime to prosecute. Recent Danish studies suggest that the lesions on the female vagina caused by rape are indistinguishable from the lesions present after consensual sex... As such, the physical evidence can become completely useless...

If Cascadia ever becomes independent I will fight to make sure we do not have a death penalty. It's one American 'value' I would not like to see imported into the bioregional state.

The death penalty is wrong because 1) it promotes vengeance as a virtue 2) it's ineffective as a deterrent, which is the only truly moral argument for it 3) it's irreversible 4) it promotes a sadistic kind of voyeurism 5) it defines life as a privilege given to a person by the state and not as an inalienable right.

True. I have heard of death penalties imposed because someone who was drinking saw someone who liked like the defendant running from the scene.

If you have enough good evidence, or even a confession, they don't deserve to live out life at the tax payer expense, getting 3 hots and a cot, free health care, cable tv in some places while the victim is in a grave and his/her family left to pick up the pieces.

To me, revenge would be killing them the way they killed their victim. An execution, if done right, might hurt a little but I'm sure getting burned alive hurts more than a hanging.

Why is vengeance as a virtue such a bad thing? The whole point is that if you don't respect others' right to life then your right to life will not be respected. I see no virtue in treating criminals more humanely than their victims. But at the same time, there are killers who have begged for a death sentence because they are so fearful of prison justice! So to me that makes me think twice about whether capital punishment is such a good thing.

But I honestly believe that gangsters and mafiosi who commit premeditated murders should be executed because the only way to uproot organized crime is to kill off as many of these people as you can. They are protected by their fellow thugs in prison and continue to commit crimes behind bars.


It's a shame that people think the electric chair is so brutal and torturous simply because a Florida killer who was electrocuted in 1999 had a scrunched expression on his face and a nosebleed from it! The electric chair is far more human than it looks. A large enough current causes the executionee to have a massive seizure; and when someone has a full blown seizure they are not able to think, feel, or perceive anything at all. A current strength of 100-150 mA causes the heart to fibrillate, which means that it quivers but does not fully contract and stops pumping blood. With a high enough voltage there is electrolysis of water in the bloodstream and this causes gas bubbles to form and block smaller arteries(especially in the brain)causing anoxia.

The first electrocution occurred at Auburn prison in New York in the year 1890. The person executed, Kemmler, literally cooked. His flesh was smoking and body fats were oozing through his skin. The smell was so bad that many of the witnesses to the electrocution upchucked. It was an ugly death and not humane dispatch promised by the advocates of the electric chair.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kemmler

ruveyn

Death is irreversible and the judicial systems everywhere in the world make mistakes. If someone is jailed by mistake and we later find out it was a mistake, at least you can free him back. If someone is killed by mistake... And yes, this argument would look silly unless you consider there are actually documented cases of executed people that were later found to be innocent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

High power electronics technology has advanced far beyond those days, my friend. Besides, the article fails to give the amperage that was used in either attempt! It isn't the number of volts that kills, it's the number of AMPS. 2000 volts can be survived if the amperage is too low or not high enough to rupture blood vessels. But if the electric current is say, 10,000V and 150mA(which has a power level of 1.5kW) and administered for 5 minutes, that certainly WILL kill and will do so without being overly gruesome.

The second jolt of electricity that killed Mr Kemmler most likely caused a massive seizure that shut down all cognitive functions. It simply looked gruesome to the observers. But what defines "humane" when it comes to execution methods should be what the executionee experiences and not what witnesses see.

Maybe you're more American than you'd like to think Lol just playin ... but you should get the Occupied Cascadia movie on DVD when it comes out early this year. It was excellent!

I will, donnie_darko. But how am I more 'American' than I might think?

Being pro-death penalty is a very American position to have. I don't understand how a bioregionalist would want to maintain the industrial 'justice' complex the American Empire has.

I saw the trailer for "Occupied Cascadia" an it's mainly about environmentalism rather than criminal justice. I do not want violent thugs coming from the rest of America to the PacNW thinking that it's a place where they can be violent and don't have to fear harsh consequences. Besides, the majority of countries that aren't Western, particularly Asian countries, have capital punishment for murder and the people almost never question the morality of it.

I know the film has absolutely nothing to do with criminal justice. But, I think bioregionalism entails the respect of all life. Killing people just because they are dangerous is no more justifiable than killing rattlesnakes or grizzly bears for the same reason.

If thugs migrated to places just because they lacked capital punishment than criminals from Texas would flee to Europe and states without capital punishment in droves. And how do you know they never question the morality of it?

Um, donnie_darko, if you've ever wondered why Americans are not overly welcome to emigrate to Europe, the last paragraph is probably a big hint: Europe would NEVER allow American violent criminals to gain citizenship or be admitted into the EU! NO WAY NO HOW! Even the US is starting to get it together and deport criminals seeking asylum to flee justice. Besides, there are extradition treaties the US has with most European countries as well as with Interpol so crooks who went to Europe would be deported back to the US. Furthermore, if you have a criminal record in the US for anything violent, sexual, or that involves driving drunk(in the case of Canada)then you will be denied asylum.

But here in the US people are free to move about from state to state. And a couple of years ago, a very dangerous violent thug from Arkansas named Maurice Clemmons decided to come to my home state of Washington and while he was here he murdered 4 cops in cold blood while they were having morning coffee and on their laptops. I hope you see my point.