New Jersey likely to abolish the death penalty

[Karl Connor]

i would rather get the death penalty than to be on lockdown for the rest of my life. i always thought of execution as a sort of amnesty. but i'm in aware that in the eyes of prosecutors it's the worst possible punishment, which kind of baffles me

i'm not really sure where i stand on the death penalty personally and i never really have been

[GlasgowKiss]

You'll be standing right on the trap-door if you dont turn your life around.

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I don't think its been proven that any innocent person has been executed anywhere in the US. There have been people sentenced to death who have later gotten off death row before their execution date (and a lot of those are not because the guy was innocent of the crime, but rather because of legal technicalities in the conviction/sentencing), and there are some cases where its at least questionable that they executed the right guy, but as far as I can tell there have never been any smoking gun cases of someone getting executed and then being proven factually innocent afterwards.

The problem is, it is hard to quantify the number of innocents executed (most interested parties abandon investigations once a prisoner is killed), or at the minimum, innocents who are on death row trying to stop their sentence. The most recent comprehensive study, in The Stanford Law Review (1987), stated that 23 innocent prisoners had been executed in this century. In addition, the Death Penalty Information Center reports that currently nearly 70 prisoners have been released from death rows since 1973 because DNA or other evidence demonstrated their innocence.

http://www.closeup.org/punish.htm

There is better info/sources out there, I just don't have the time to look at the moment. And there have been a couple of cases where DNA has later proved that someone who was executed was in fact not the culprit (I cited them in papers I did in undergrad).

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

My points were that the legislature is unending the will of the public

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy - that is how our government works. Its purpose is to control the Majority, as well as protect the Individual’s unalienable rights and, therefore, protect the rights of the Minority. If the people don't like it, they won't vote for those Represenatives next time around.

[Andrew_Pakula]

Why does it cost so much to execute someone in the U.S.?

If it costs $1-2 Million to execute someone what is all that money being spent on exactly?

[Smashing Turnip]

Originally Posted by Andrew_Pakula

Why does it cost so much to execute someone in the U.S.?

If it costs $1-2 Million to execute someone what is all that money being spent on exactly?

Mirrors? so all the sicko witnesses can watch.

[Smashing Turnip]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I don't think its been proven that any innocent person has been executed anywhere in the US. There have been people sentenced to death who have later gotten off death row before their execution date (and a lot of those are not because the guy was innocent of the crime, but rather because of legal technicalities in the conviction/sentencing), and there are some cases where its at least questionable that they executed the right guy, but as far as I can tell there have never been any smoking gun cases of someone getting executed and then being proven factually innocent afterwards.

"Studies have documented that over 400 innocent people have been sentenced to death and 23 executed in America in the 1900's. Illinois recently placed a "moratorium" on the death penalty after it was proved that there were more innocent people on Illinois' death row than the total number of people Illinois had executed since the state reinstated the death penalty in 1977. Over 100 people on death row have been released from prison since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. There is no way to correct a wrongful conviction after an execution."

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by Andrew_Pakula

Why does it cost so much to execute someone in the U.S.?

If it costs $1-2 Million to execute someone what is all that money being spent on exactly?

That money is spent on lengthy trials, housing inmates on death row and the tedious appeals process. Taxpayers pay the salaries of just about everyone involved in a trial. Lawyers, judges, public defenders, court officials, court reporters, etc. Not only that but trials where death penalty is sought take far longer than ones where the death penalty isn't sought. Also housing a death row inmate has extra costs because they get their own private cells, extra guards, facility costs, etc. Even THEN there's the whole appeals process that is guaranteed after the death penalty sentence is handed down. In California at least I know it usually takes up to 20 years from when a convict gets the death sentence up to the moment he/she is finally executed.

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Andrew_Pakula

If it costs $1-2 Million to execute someone what is all that money being spent on exactly?

Yep, what Mayfuck said. To get slightly more specific, while the exact cost varies somewhat by state, generally, trials where the death penalty is sought cost 50% more than non-death trials (trials involving the death sentence last approximately 25 days longer), the investigation costs are about 3 times greats, and the appeals costs are about 20 times greater.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by BlueStar

http://www.closeup.org/punish.htm

There is better info/sources out there, I just don't have the time to look at the moment. And there have been a couple of cases where DNA has later proved that someone who was executed was in fact not the culprit (I cited them in papers I did in undergrad).

The study that came up with the 23 innocents executed number fails to prove the innocence of a single one of them, and after critics responded to the study the authors have admitted that those 23 people are just ones that they personally suspect were innocent. A few of those cases might fall in the questionable category, but again, in none of them has it actually been proven to any amount of certainty that the person executed was innocent. In fact, on a lot of them its been shown that the authors of the study conveniently ignored facts that would lead one to believe that a good number of those 23 actually weren't innocent.

And again, there has not been any executed person vindicated by DNA. That's an utter and total myth and I hope you really didn't put that in a paper. If such a person existed, they would be a perfect martyr and THE poster child for the entire anti-death penalty movement. That's why a lot of anti-death penalty people were excited last year when they ran DNA tests for Roger Keith Coleman, who was executed in Virginia in 1992 and had convinced a lot of people of his innocence. A lot of people were just sure that for the first time that they'd have some proof that an innocent man got executed...but as it turns out, the DNA proved that he actually did it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...virginia_x.htm

[Mayfuck]

But Corganist, has DNA evidence not exonerated prisoners in the past? I'm not talking just death row inmates I'm talking anyone who is in the prison system.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

But Corganist, has DNA evidence not exonerated prisoners in the past? I'm not talking just death row inmates I'm talking anyone who is in the prison system.

I'm sure it has. And I'm sure if all prisoners had the same kind of guaranteed appeals and safeguards that death row inmates get, you'd probably hear about a lot of cases of that happening. I don't doubt that innocent people get thrown in jail sometimes. I also don't doubt that innocent people get put on death row sometimes. There's proven cases of both of those happening. I just doubt that innocent people have gotten executed, because there hasn't been a single proven case of it.

[Mayfuck]

Okay then, so essentially you acknowledge that this is a system that second guesses itself and just because the fact that it has not happened yet with its most extreme punishment is good enough for you to confide in the existence of that punishment. I believe this a weak argument to support death penalty while at the same time speaks nothing of its merits or benefits to society.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Okay then, so essentially you acknowledge that this is a system that second guesses itself and just because the fact that it has not happened yet with its most extreme punishment is good enough for you to confide in the existence of that punishment. I believe this a weak argument to support death penalty while at the same time speaks nothing of its merits or benefits to society.

I tend to think that there's a reason it hasn't happened with the most extreme punishment, and that's because it has the most extreme safeguards. Its not just sheer luck that its impossible to find a undoubtably innocent person who has been executed.

And I don't really think any of this necessarily supports the death penalty so much. I was just trying to debunk what I see as misconceptions that people are using to come out against it.

[Mayfuck]

Well that's your whole premise on this board isn't it? Defend something without having to justifying its existence.

[Nate the Grate]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I tend to think that there's a reason it hasn't happened with the most extreme punishment, and that's because it has the most extreme safeguards. Its not just sheer luck that its impossible to find a undoubtably innocent person who has been executed.

And I don't really think any of this necessarily supports the death penalty so much. I was just trying to debunk what I see as misconceptions that people are using to come out against it.

Then you're in favor of the costly safeguards and lengthy appeals process that must exist with the death penalty to assure that the innocent people on death row (and you have confirmed that there have been innocent people on death row) are not put to death?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Well that's your whole premise on this board isn't it? Defend something without having to justifying its existence.

Not really. Usually the problem is that on issues like this people bring up a bunch of specious reasons to change the way things are, and then I get bogged down pointing out why those reasons are specious.

If we want to have a purely philosophical discussion about whether or not its right or prudent to execute criminals, we can. But its kinda hard to do that when people are throwing out a bunch of red herrings like "the system is insanely racist" and "innocent people have been executed" right off the bat. Even if those things are true, those are criticisms of the system and not the general idea of capital punishment.

Besides, I don't really have to justify the existence of the death penalty. It exists already. If someone wants to change the status quo, the burden is on them to offer reasons it should be changed. Too many people on this board try to put the conventional views on trial without even showing why those views should be challenged. So if you want to get down to brass tacks and just discuss the death penalty abstractly, then let's start with this question: Assuming that the justice system was perfect at establishing guilt and was economically efficient to boot, what exactly are the arguments against the prinicple of capital punishment?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

Then you're in favor of the costly safeguards and lengthy appeals process that must exist with the death penalty to assure that the innocent people on death row (and you have confirmed that there have been innocent people on death row) are not put to death?

Absolutely. I would still hope that as time goes on all efforts are made in making the system more cost and time efficient while still maintaining accurate results. But I think that its a given that the system will keep improving. As investigative techniques and courtroom procedures advance, I think a lot of the systemic error people use to challenge the death penalty will be eliminated.

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Not really. Usually the problem is that on issues like this people bring up a bunch of specious reasons to change the way things are, and then I get bogged down pointing out why those reasons are specious.

If we want to have a purely philosophical discussion about whether or not its right or prudent to execute criminals, we can. But its kinda hard to do that when people are throwing out a bunch of red herrings like "the system is insanely racist" and "innocent people have been executed" right off the bat. Even if those things are true, those are criticisms of the system and not the general idea of capital punishment.

I don't think it's quite possible to completely seperate the system and the punishment when the perfection of the system is weighed on the severity of the punishment. That there were wrongly sentenced people taken off the death sentence is frightening and I'm not sure how any rational human being could not find that alarming. It goes to show there will always be wiggle room for doubt in the system no matter how many safeguards you implement. The weight of the problem that inmates COULD HAVE BEEN wrongfully executed is not that much less than if inmates were actually wrongfully executed so I don't believe it's completely uncalled for to raise that point. Quite the contrary. Nor is it rash to say the system is racist. From an observational standpoint you can clearly see that jurists will act on emotions and that white jurists are more likely to sympathize with white victims of black criminals. You could say the same if you flip the roles of both races but the fact is, prosecutors, policeman, district attorneys and judges are overwhelmingly white. Research shows a black suspect is more likely to be given a death penalty if the victim was white rather than black on black or white on black homicide. The deck of card are naturally stacked against black criminals.

Besides, I don't really have to justify the existence of the death penalty. It exists already. If someone wants to change the status quo, the burden is on them to offer reasons it should be changed. Too many people on this board try to put the conventional views on trial without even showing why those views should be challenged. So if you want to get down to brass tacks and just discuss the death penalty abstractly, then let's start with this question: Assuming that the justice system was perfect at establishing guilt and was economically efficient to boot, what exactly are the arguments against the prinicple of capital punishment?

There are both empirical and abstract reasons to change the death penalty though for pragmatic or more ethical alternatives

-The threat of wrongful execution will always linger.

-lack of fairness in the justice system. the defendants are most likely to be poor and represented by a public defender who will have to go up against an experienced district attorney. And although blacks and whites are victims in almost an equal amount of crimes, an overwhelming majority of those executed were responsible for crimes against white victims.

-As stated before it is more costly to execute an inmate than sentencing them to life. If CA were to abolish the death penalty it would save the state $70 mil. Interesting figure because as I read in the newspaper today, Gov. Schwarzenneger is rolling out his plans for health care, among them universal health care for children. The bill for that is estimated to be $50 mil. Not that there isn't other ways to circumvent that money, but consider the choice, would one rather spend that money on insuring 600,000 uninsured children, or killing 600 inmates, I'd wage a majority of folks would rather insure children. Of course that's a very simplistic scenario but you can see my point.

-The death penalty may not perhaps be the most fitting punishment for the worst crimes. Of course there are no stats on this but one might consider whether they'd rather spend their life in solitary confinement or not go through with it and be put to death. That's a very grey area of course it could go either way. But I believe there's a case to be made for both. The death penalty also has unintended victims as well, the friends and families of the executed. They will know their son/father/brother/whatever will die at the hands of the state government.

-The belief that what is essentially state sanctioned murder is wrong.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

-The belief that what is essentially state sanctioned murder is wrong.

So you're saying that a moral view shared by a minority of the population outweighs a moral view held by the majority?

[wolfo147]

How do you know the majority of people support capital punishment? As far as I know, there hasn't been any sort of national vote on the issue.

My uncle was a priest in Brazil for more than 20 years. His name was Padre Chico aka Robert Francis Readrdon aka Francisco Reardon, go ahead look him up. While there he worked in the prisons of Sao Paulo, and he saw many an innocent man put to death because he couldn't afford to appeal the decision, or because the system had simply decided he or she should die.

Now, it's not quite the same in America. I'm quite proud of our justice system, don't get me wrong. The same basic injustice, however, exists here. I'm turning again and again upon the same point, but I think it is perhaps the most valid point that exists. That point being, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be executed. Someone who murders someone and has money for their own lawyer will get life in prison, someone who has to rely on a court appointed defendent, convicted of the same crime, will be executed.

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

So you're saying that a moral view shared by a minority of the population outweighs a moral view held by the majority?

Ahem, Corganist and I are trying to have a discussion here. Go play in the gen chat board.

[GlasgowKiss]

YAWN NIMROD. YAWN.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

I don't think it's quite possible to completely seperate the system and the punishment when the perfection of the system is weighed on the severity of the punishment. That there were wrongly sentenced people taken off the death sentence is frightening and I'm not sure how any rational human being could not find that alarming. It goes to show there will always be wiggle room for doubt in the system no matter how many safeguards you implement. The weight of the problem that inmates COULD HAVE BEEN wrongfully executed is not that much less than if inmates were actually wrongfully executed so I don't believe it's completely uncalled for to raise that point.

Its not totally uncalled for, but I don't think its a strong point. Its not as though all these guys are being rescued from the electric chair as the switch is being pulled. Its not great that it takes some time for the system to work, but by indications it does eventually work the way it should before its too late. Keep in mind that a lot of these people who have been removed from death row aren't exactly innocent in fact.

Nor is it rash to say the system is racist. From an observational standpoint you can clearly see that jurists will act on emotions and that white jurists are more likely to sympathize with white victims of black criminals. You could say the same if you flip the roles of both races but the fact is, prosecutors, policeman, district attorneys and judges are overwhelmingly white. Research shows a black suspect is more likely to be given a death penalty if the victim was white rather than black on black or white on black homicide. The deck of card are naturally stacked against black criminals.

Then how do you explain why white on white crime makes up the majority of death penalty cases? Its true that a black suspect is twice as likely to get executed for killing a white victim than a black one, but note that a white suspect is 50 times more likely to be executed for killing another white person than they would a black person. Admittedly, that may show that there's an unhealthy correlation between white victims and the imposition of the death penalty that needs looking at, but I don't know if that really says anything about any bias against black criminals.

If anything, you could argue that since the vast majority of black victims are killed by black suspects, black criminals are actually getting off lightly as far as the imposition of the death penalty goes. If the disparity in victims for death penalty cases was corrected, far more black criminals would be sentenced to death than even are right now. But like I said earlier, its difficult to play these numbers games and have it mean anything. Death penalty cases are usually a lot more fact dependent than merely "Person of Race X kills person of race Y."

-The threat of wrongful execution will always linger.

I think the threat of this is minimal as things stand today, and its growing more minimal all the time as forensic technology advances.

-lack of fairness in the justice system. the defendants are most likely to be poor and represented by a public defender who will have to go up against an experienced district attorney.

I think public defenders get a bad rap mostly. A lot of them are pretty capable true believer crusader types who usually do the best they can with what they're given. They just usually aren't seen as overly successful because their clients are usually guilty. At any rate, I'd probably take a public defender over a "reasonably priced" criminal defense lawyer. That said, the system isn't perfect. But it's improving I think.

Not that there isn't other ways to circumvent that money, but consider the choice, would one rather spend that money on insuring 600,000 uninsured children, or killing 600 inmates, I'd wage a majority of folks would rather insure children. Of course that's a very simplistic scenario but you can see my point.

I think most people would rather have both if possible. But nevertheless, I don't think money is really an object when it comes to the death penalty. I would think that in a lot of people's minds its one of the few legitimate uses of tax money for a government.

The death penalty may not perhaps be the most fitting punishment for the worst crimes. Of course there are no stats on this but one might consider whether they'd rather spend their life in solitary confinement or not go through with it and be put to death.

I'm not of the mind that we really have to decide what the worst punishment for a killer is and let that one be the one we go with. Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with seeing guilty people suffer horribly, but one of the anti-death penalty themes I hear a lot is that the state shouldn't be exacting vengence. Isn't locking someone in a room for the rest of their life because we think its worse than killing them a little vengeful? Personally, I come from the "just get em out of society's hair" school of thought. And nobody's more out of your hair than when they're dead. Locking them away doesn't quite have the same effect. Look at Charles Manson. That guy's more famous now than he ever was.

The death penalty also has unintended victims as well, the friends and families of the executed. They will know their son/father/brother/whatever will die at the hands of the state government.

I think those are unintended victims of the original crime. If a murderer doesn't want his poor family to suffer losing him, maybe he shouldn't go around killing people. Besides, its kinda hard to feel too sorry for the killers family. At least they get the courtesy of a couple decade's notice to get used to the idea of their loved one dying. The most the victim's family gets is a late night phone call from the morgue or the police after the fact asking them to come down and ID what's left of their loved one.

-The belief that what is essentially state sanctioned murder is wrong.

I don't know about that. The state does all sorts of things in the criminal justice system that we'd think would be "wrong" if a normal person did it. It'd be wrong for me to take a person and lock them in a 8x8 room all their life, but I don't think its wrong for the state to do so. I think theres a strange tendency that shows up only in the case of the death penalty for people to somehow draw a connection between the legal actions of the state and the illegal action of citizen murderers and say they're the same. I think it takes an extreme amount of moral absolutism to have that kind of view where no killing, no matter how rational, can be seperated from cold blooded murder.

[jczeroman]

good.

[Lie]

Originally Posted by ravenguy2000

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...World_Map2.png

LOL at Kansas. Too bad that's not up to date.