Arkansas Executions

[CV]

Originally Posted by Paperpusher

Government has a God-given responsibility to carry out justice.

There's a lot wrong with this statement, and I imagine it will take me awhile for me to write out a thoughtful response. But, Governments don't have rights, and certainly not from divinity.

[grog18b]

Originally Posted by Paperpusher

There is no possible way to calculate the deterrent value of the death penalty. People who are deterred by it don't commit the capital crime. Just as with any law, there is a punishment for breaking it. In these cases, society determined that the penalty should be death. Consider this: the people who commit these crimes know that the death penalty is there waiting, yet they go ahead anyway. They make their deal right then and there. Government has a God-given responsibility to carry out justice.

The death penalty was never meant to be a deterrant. The only deterrant value it has is that the dead asshole will not commit any more crimes. Therefore, he is deterred.

Jail, death penalty... not designed to be deterrants. Removing trash from our society for a set length of time. Do the crime, do the time, get out, start over. Either rehab yourself, or go back to your life of crime until you get caught again. The reason most people do not commit crimes is not because they consider the penalties as a deterrant. The reason is, most people are decent, law abiding citizens.

[bobmueller]

Originally Posted by Paperpusher

Government has a God-given responsibility to carry out justice.

Indeed. That includes making absolutely certain that the government is killing the right person. If they can't guarantee that, then it has no business killing people.

[Gray Rhyno]

Originally Posted by CV

There's a lot wrong with this statement, and I imagine it will take me awhile for me to write out a thoughtful response. But, Governments don't have rights, and certainly not from divinity.

Governments have responsibilities delegated to them by the people. One of those, IMO, is the responsibility to maintain a safe society.

Originally Posted by bobmueller

Indeed. That includes making absolutely certain that the government is killing the right person. If they can't guarantee that, then it has no business killing people.

You keep reiterating this point. Do you think those of us that are in favor of the death penalty support the execution of innocents? Just speaking for myself, I am absolutely against the execution of innocent people. Just because I think society has the responsibility to remove evil doesn't mean I support the killing of people wrongly convicted.

[IronErik]

I support the death penalty. I offer Nidal Hasan as a prime candidate for execution. Caught in the act of multiple murders, and confessed. No doubt at all of his guilt.

Other cases are less clear cut, but there is a place for it.

[bobmueller]

Originally Posted by Gray Rhyno

You keep reiterating this point. Do you think those of us that are in favor of the death penalty support the execution of innocents? Just speaking for myself, I am absolutely against the execution of innocent people. Just because I think society has the responsibility to remove evil doesn't mean I support the killing of people wrongly convicted.

I suppose I am harping on it, but to me, it's the key point in my opposition to the death penalty. And no, I don't think anyone here is actively supporting the execution of innocent people.

LWOP removes evil from society as well, though, less expensively, and without the associated risks.

[EchoFiveMike]

It's only less expensive because of artificially inflated costs of lawyer sodomy upon the taxpayer. The judiciary-prison industry cartel. There's ZERO physical reason for a DP trial to cost any more than any other trial.

The shithead serving life is still subject to release by society wrecking shitlibs, who actively work to free criminals IOT create crisis, which they can then exploit. I'm in Illinois, they release this filth all the time, which is a major reason why there's 800 homicides/yr in Chitcago. Your faith that life without parole is truly permanent is ill-founded. Some fucking activist in a black dress rules it's "unconstitutional" and whammo, the shithead is back on the street.

However, I am well aware that our judicial system is full of incompetents, the egomaniacal, the corrupt and the lazy. By reserving the DP for repeat offenders and removing prosecutor discretion, it removes the grandstanding and reduces the chances of executing a truly innocent man to infintesimal %'s. S/F....Ken M

[Gray Rhyno]

Originally Posted by EchoFiveMike

It's only less expensive because of artificially inflated costs of lawyer sodomy upon the taxpayer. The judiciary-prison industry cartel. There's ZERO physical reason for a DP trial to cost any more than any other trial.

Exactly. I can buy 500 rounds of 9mm for less than $150. That's like thirty cents a shot.

[SamEid]

Originally Posted by EchoFiveMike

It's only less expensive because of artificially inflated costs of lawyer sodomy upon the taxpayer. The judiciary-prison industry cartel. There's ZERO physical reason for a DP trial to cost any more than any other trial.

The shithead serving life is still subject to release by society wrecking shitlibs, who actively work to free criminals IOT create crisis, which they can then exploit. I'm in Illinois, they release this filth all the time, which is a major reason why there's 800 homicides/yr in Chitcago. Your faith that life without parole is truly permanent is ill-founded. Some fucking activist in a black dress rules it's "unconstitutional" and whammo, the shithead is back on the street.

However, I am well aware that our judicial system is full of incompetents, the egomaniacal, the corrupt and the lazy. By reserving the DP for repeat offenders and removing prosecutor discretion, it removes the grandstanding and reduces the chances of executing a truly innocent man to infintesimal %'s. S/F....Ken M

Spot on.

[8654maine]

Just so I understand this clearly, certain folks believe that we need a foolproof system so that innocent lives NEVER die as a result of our actions. Hence, the opposition to the death penalty.

How about war? How about the atomic bomb?

How about death from legal use of prescription drugs? How about death as complication of surgery.

What human endeavor is foolproof against human error?

I abhor that innocents get killed, institutionally or not. I also abhor the notion that we, the People, should do nothing. Life without parole is a scapegoat. It puts folks away in obscurity, to be forgotten. Out of sight, out of mind.

(A) Harsh crimes and suspects should get the light of justice probing into every shadow.
(B) Harsh criminals should be suspended for all to see.

The process from (A) to (B) should be like any government function: transparent, swift, and thorough.

I realize what should be is vastly different from what it.

[Gsniper]

The process from (A) to (B) should be like any government function: transparent, swift, and thorough.

There is no government function that meets the above criteria.

Like most of these type issues, I think it should be a states' rights decision. If some states want to keep serial killers alive for 40 years, so be it. If Texas or Virginia want to execute so be it.

[cj]

Originally Posted by EchoFiveMike

. There's ZERO physical reason for a DP trial to cost any more than any other trial.
. S/F....Ken M

Now that is an ignorant statement if you support the DP. Think it through a little and you might even figure out why.

[Sigi]

Originally Posted by 8654maine

Just so I understand this clearly, certain folks believe that we need a foolproof system so that innocent lives NEVER die as a result of our actions. Hence, the opposition to the death penalty.

In my opinion there is quite a difference between a DP judgement and all those other items you listed. We are asking 12 jurors and/or a judge to sentence someone to assured death. That system needs to be foolproof and it never will be. So many people in the American justice system do not get the "best" defense because they don't have "OJ Simpson money."

Until we have a system of justice that doesn't rely on people having truckloads of money to properly defend themselves, than to me the DP needs to be take off the table. Way too many rich motherfuckers don't receive the justice they deserve because they were blessed with money and an ability to hire expensive attorney's. This will never stop being a problem, so I do not support the death penalty. Plus it isn't doing shit to stop anything.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by 8654maine

Just so I understand this clearly, certain folks believe that we need a foolproof system so that innocent lives NEVER die as a result of our actions. Hence, the opposition to the death penalty...

As regards the death penalty, what percentage/margin of error would you deem "acceptable"?

[Ferryman]

Originally Posted by bobmueller

Indeed. That includes making absolutely certain that the government is killing the right person. If they can't guarantee that, then it has no business killing people.

So, if the government can't guarantee that only the right people get killed, then the government has no business going to war? Because an awful lot of innocents get caught up in that endeavor.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but isn't that the logical extension of your point as your wrote it?

We fight evil the best we can with tools we have, here and abroad. It's messy, yeah, but we do our best. In war, we work on making our soldiers and our weapons smarter, more precise to reduce collateral damage. Why can't we apply the same principle to the death penalty, working to make it smarter and more precise, rather than just giving up on it?

[EchoFiveMike]

Originally Posted by cj

Now that is an ignorant statement if you support the DP. Think it through a little and you might even figure out why.

I accept that I'm ignorant about a lot of things, can you elaborate? I personally demand, to what little extent that matters, that any/all criminal cases where you're potentially taking a man's freedom and money should be held to the highest standards of integrity. I fully understand that the judicial system is full of less than ideal humans, but I find it conceptually bullshit to propose that we should only really hold these people accountable to high standards when we're going to execute someone.

Perhaps I'm missing something, I'm in Cook county, this judicial system might as well be the 3rd world. S/F....Ken M

[CV]

Originally Posted by Ferryman

So, if the government can't guarantee that only the right people get killed, then the government has no business going to war? Because an awful lot of innocents get caught up in that endeavor.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but isn't that the logical extension of your point as your wrote it?

We fight evil the best we can with tools we have, here and abroad. It's messy, yeah, but we do our best. In war, we work on making our soldiers and our weapons smarter, more precise to reduce collateral damage. Why can't we apply the same principle to the death penalty, working to make it smarter and more precise, rather than just giving up on it?

That's a bit of an argument fallacy to map the two, as they are unrelated. One is regarding justice, and the other for war powers. Conflating the two is only going to toss this thread for a loop. Citizens have protections whereas foreigners do not.

That said, this is something that should be reserved to the States to decide, as the federal government really shouldn't have this power. I believe it's this way now, in which case I'm okay with that. I distrust the government in all areas, and have no reason to magically accept their ways for this issue.

As an aside, if the evidence is clear and the crime is heinous enough, I have no issue with removing someone from life. That's not the same as being pro-DP as it currently stands.

[KidA]

Originally Posted by Ferryman

So, if the government can't guarantee that only the right people get killed, then the government has no business going to war? Because an awful lot of innocents get caught up in that endeavor.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but isn't that the logical extension of your point as your wrote it?

We fight evil the best we can with tools we have, here and abroad. It's messy, yeah, but we do our best. In war, we work on making our soldiers and our weapons smarter, more precise to reduce collateral damage. Why can't we apply the same principle to the death penalty, working to make it smarter and more precise, rather than just giving up on it?

War and the death penalty can't possibly be compared in any logical universe.

Yes innocents are killed during war, but that's by "accident", not intent, and if innocents are killed during war and it can be shown it was deliberate or through gross negligence, then those responsible can be tried for crimes.

The death penalty has the potential to take someone completely innocent, not involved whatsoever, and then arrest them, jail them, try them, jail them for decades or longer, and then kill them. To top it off, if they have enough money they can all but buy their way out, and if they don't, oh well.

[8654maine]

Originally Posted by Shadow

As regards the death penalty, what percentage/margin of error would you deem "acceptable"?

I have not decided.

Originally Posted by KidA

War and the death penalty can't possibly be compared in any logical universe.

Yes innocents are killed during war, but that's by "accident", not intent, and if innocents are killed during war and it can be shown it was deliberate or through gross negligence, then those responsible can be tried for crimes.

The death penalty has the potential to take someone completely innocent, not involved whatsoever, and then arrest them, jail them, try them, jail them for decades or longer, and then kill them. To top it off, if they have enough money they can all but buy their way out, and if they don't, oh well.

Why can't they be compared?

They are both methods to deal with enemies.

The intent in both is to harm those who harm. The fact that innocents are ensnared is reality.

The intent for both is to be as precise as possible. It doesn't happen.

People with money can escape war or conscription. Same as with crime.

So are people against capital punishment or just the current system?

[MixedLoad]

Originally Posted by CV

There's a lot wrong with this statement, and I imagine it will take me awhile for me to write out a thoughtful response. But, Governments don't have rights, and certainly not from divinity.

Completely agree. 100% percent and then some.