Question for Antis

[Mo-DAWG]

onetwobomb said:

This may seem like a stupid question, but why ARE you against the death penalty? Some of my friends are against it, and the only reason they have against it is that innocent people may be executed. Well, NO ONE wants innocent people executed. That would be horrible. But what about people who are unquestionably guilty? People like Michael Morales, McVeigh, Gacy, Bundy, etc etc. Why would people want them to live?

Also excluded from this question are people who are family members of death row inmates.

~Thanks, onetwobomb

thats easy to answer onetwobomb ... im against capital punishment cuz i respect ALL life so i wont ever agree with the idea of killing a human being ... no matter WHO does it or WHY ... plus i dont believe in vengeance or increating more suffering and pain by creating new suffering victims ... yes the inmate actually creates all of these victims with his actions but the states are the ones who carry new murders (executions) out so they are on the same level of killing the inmate was on...
Mo-DAWG

[skyloom]

happyhaddock said:

You have clearly missed the entire point. One can only say "the system works" IF the system does not convict the innocent or, if it does, rapidly reverses its errors. This is clearly not the case. DNA should have confirmed each and every case for which it was analyzed. Instead it proved over and over again that the system does NOT work and that its errors are numerous and grievous. The same applies to cases where journalists, journalism students or law students have uncovered errors. Otherwise you have to support the position that the system only works if every case is dealt with by such groups - a truly ludicrous position to take. You also have to admit that all cases need to be analyzed by as yet unknown scientific tests - also a truly ludicrous position to take.

Truthfully, for some reason discussions like these seem to always come down to whether or not "the system" works as it should. We know it does not. But that's beside the point.

The point is that there is no reason to execute anyone.

From a practical standpont, there's no need to do so. Maximum security prisons are pretty foolproof these days... given we don't build them around levees that give way in a hurricane.

From a moral standpoint, we simply have no right to murder one another intentionally. Wrong for the murderer; wrong for society as a whole.

[skyloom]

modawg said:

thats easy to answer onetwobomb ... im against capital punishment cuz i respect ALL life so i wont ever agree with the idea of killing a human being ... no matter WHO does it or WHY ... plus i dont believe in vengeance or in creating more suffering and pain by creating new suffering victims ... yes the inmate actually creates all of these victims with his actions but the states are the ones who carry new murders (executions) out so they are on the same level of killing the inmate was on...
Mo-DAWG

Perfect!

[slim00]

As you can see I'm new here, and after reading this thread, I just had to jump in. Everyone has their own opinion and I'm not here to start trouble, just express my point of view. I found this site after reading more about Richard Allen Davis who should feel lucky to be alive after what he did. Although I'm referencing Davis in this post, I'm referring to all murderers, child rapists, and so called "victims" of our failed justice system.

First off, modawg, I just cannot understand how someone can respect the life of a person, such as Davis, who is a REPEAT offender and does something like this to a child. It amazes me that people are more worried about "cruel and unusual punishment" or as modawg put it, "creating new suffering victims" in regards to the CONVICTED CRIMINALS. How about the WAY BEYOND "cruel and unusual punishment" that people like Davis FORCE upon their victims??? I think its an insult to the TRUE victims and their families to refer to the criminals as victims when their put to death. What is your method of punishment for this type of people... life in jail? What kind of message does that send? You can kill and rape as many people as you want, but instead of being put to death, you have the right to stay alive (a choice not given to the victims by the criminals) and still communicate with the outside world, make art, or whatever privileges they get.

In regards to skyloom's comment about no need to execute someone because of our maximum security prisons, you must be fine with your tax dollars being used to keep these kind of people alive. I know some people could say it costs more to put someone to death rather than keeping them alive, but if we weren't so objective to the execution process, a bullet or two to the head would do just as good a job and cost much less... but we know groups like the ACLU would wine and cry about how were violating the inmates human rights (again, rights not given to the victims by the criminals).

Lastly, regarding modawg's comment of "so they are on the same level of killing the inmate was on" in reference to the states. To me, that is DISGRACEFUL to even make a comparison like that. Are the states going around, kidnapping little kids, raping them, and finally killing them? Or did Kansas go around killing women in such a barbaric way that Dennis Rader did? These type of people do not deserve to breath another second after its clear that their guilty. In my opinion, its the RESPONSIBILITY of the states to send these people to god as quickly as possible. It's ok to believe that god will inflict his punishment (I sure hope so) on them once their dead but that is in the so called "afterlife", why should we allow them to continue living their current life where they've inflicted so much pain on human beings???

[pumpkinpie]

Great opinion, but did you know that this is an anti-death penalty website??
Keep those criminals locked up in prison, and let them die when it is there time to die. They just might suffer worse in prison, then being dead. Even though they have commited murders, we are not as sick as they, and should not stoop to there level. Murder is murder, and they're gonna die soon enough anyway just as we all are. So keep them locked up, they are not hurting you, and are receiving there punishment. I hope for an end to the death penalty... Maybe you should go vent on another websight that is not anti-death penalty.

[slim00]

Yes, I know this is an anti-death penalty website but I was curious as to what your opinions were in regards to being anti-death penalty. Once I found this topic, titled "Question for Antis", inside of the "Debate The Death Penalty and Related Issues HERE" section of these forums, I thought I would pose my questions to the antis... was I wrong? Also, what would be the point of raising these questions to death penalty supporters? Thats why this section of the forums begins with the title, "Debate The Death Penalty..." so we can DEBATE the topic. I'm simply providing my point of view on this subject and had to jump in when I read some of these posts.

So now I pose a question to you (although I had a similar one in my first post). You mention that we should "let them die when it is there time to die" but did they do the same to their victim? To me, the punishment certainly does not fit the crime in these cases. You also said "They just might suffer worse in prison" and I wish that were true. The only problem is that extreme criminals such as those who rape and kill people or go on killings sprees are usually secluded from the rest of the prison population... so their actually being protected! If their going to suffer in prison, let them stand up like a man and face the beating of other inmates, but nooooo, we have to protect them. And even if they are "suffering" in prison, at least their ALIVE. I just feel that we have a MORALE obligation to remove these people from our world when its a given fact as to what they did.

Take the BTK killer (Dennis Rader) for example. This guy doesn't just kill, he binds, tortures, and then killed 10 or more women back in the 70's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but because the death penalty was not instituted at the time of the crimes, this guy is not eligible for the death penalty. How is that justice? It also sends a great message to sick minded people in states with no death penalty that you can kill as many people as you want and do whatever you want before killing them, but no matter what, the worst you get is life in prison. What a spit in the face to the victims families.

[pumpkinpie]

I mentioned let them die when it is there time to die, and I also mentioned that we are not as sick as they. In other words, why should we be murderers, because they are? Again, they are not hurting you, and they are suffering living in those little, confined cells.

[skyloom]

slim00 said:

In regards to skyloom's comment about no need to execute someone because of our maximum security prisons, you must be fine with your tax dollars being used to keep these kind of people alive. I know some people could say it costs more to put someone to death rather than keeping them alive, but if we weren't so objective to the execution process, a bullet or two to the head would do just as good a job and cost much less... but we know groups like the ACLU would wine and cry about how were violating the inmates human rights (again, rights not given to the victims by the criminals).

First off, Slim, there are only a very few categories of individuals that I would ever want to see in prison for life with no possibility of parole. Those would be serial murderers and serial pedophiles, and those only because medicine and/or science has no idea how to change their behaviors, at least for now. I would like to see the U.S. return to its original (colonial and post-colonial) concept of prisons as a place for correction. That does not mean that I would like public whippings, the stocks, or any of that sort of thing. Nonetheless, our earliest prisons were intended as places where prisoners were to reflect, read the Bible, and consider for themselves what they had done wrong and how to amend their lives in the future. Nowadays, that would translate into efforts to educate prisoners, equip them with job skills, provide them with psychological and other forms of counseling, give them opportunities to read library books, relocation assistance once they are released so they don't have to go back to the same environment, and such things as would work towards a new beginning for the individual.

Frankly, as far as my tax dollars are concerned, there are far more distasteful things my tax dollars are supporting at the moment: the invasion of Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of people in the country, government bailouts and other support for large corporations, holding people at Guantanamo without charges and/or trials, "extraordinary rendition" of individuals to secret detention facilities in Asia and Eastern Europe, and, of course, building more and more new prisons throughout this nation. I want my tax dollars to support universal, single payer health care for every person in the U.S., more funds to programs like Head Start and to our country's public schools generally, and more social services for those who are "at risk" or already in desperate situations.

I believe we need a change of course in the U.S., and I believe we are capable of significantly reducing the violent and non-violent crime rate... but we lack the will. Certainly, with ever-increasing crime of all sorts, plus the myriad other social ills from which we suffer, it's clear that what we are doing now is not working. I really do get disgusted with the idea that my tax dollars are spent on programs that have already and demonstrably failed so miserably.

[pinbalwyz]

onetwobomb said:

This may seem like a stupid question, but why ARE you against the death penalty? Some of my friends are against it, and the only reason they have against it is that innocent people may be executed. Well, NO ONE wants innocent people executed. That would be horrible. But what about people who are unquestionably guilty? People like Michael Morales, McVeigh, Gacy, Bundy, etc etc. Why would people want them to live?

Also excluded from this question are people who are family members of death row inmates.

~Thanks, onetwobomb

Golly, 1/2, I don't know that you'll be able to respond to this post as the 'white' associated with your nick may indicate you've been banned. I'm sorry to see that--I recall you as a regular and supporter of the DP on Charlene's board, the one that treats GREGGSMOM (an MVS) as a Sacred Cow and bans people who react to her vicious personal insults and attacks. I know I made a case at GREAT length on that board explaining why the DP was poor social policy, coarsened society, encouraged ad hoc violence and murder, diminished all of us by allowing the dehumanization of a person (a guilty person but still a person), and prevented us from having a government that we denied the power to coldly, calculatedly, and premediatedly kill/execute a human being in our name. Once again, YOU focus on how 'dastardly' the murderer is (admitted in the vast majority of cases) but ignore the rest of us and how deplorable acts of dehumanization injure us all. Even animals commercially slaughtered are not subjected to the daily abuse and anxiety the condemned are routinely, even enthusiastically, subjected to. Perhaps the appropriate 'answer' to your possibly disingenuous query is: "Why aren't you in favor of drawing and quartering or burning at the stake the most despicable murderers on DR?" The answer, of course, has NOTHING to do with the murderer so much as US! It's macabre, offensive to the conscience of anyone who considers certain rights of mankind to be inalienable and enodowed upon us not by government largesse (in the immortal words of JFK in his inaugaural address) but by our Creator.

Perhaps the Declaration of Independence is the more radical document when compared to the U.S. Constitution for it also declares that among those rights are "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." No one is suggesting that a murderer should be free to walk the streets and repeat the crime. Self preservation is among the most fundamental of all natural laws. But strapping a man down like a slab of meat about to be slaughtered takes a substantial toll on the very fabric of society--one that civilization (being a thin veneer) can not long endure without unraveling.

[pinbalwyz]

onetwobomb said:

I think nowadays the legal system we have is fool-proof. If we have DNA evidence, multiple eye-witnesses, video footage, etc. then theres really no doubt.

This is patently absurd given the number of exhonerations/releases of inmates from DR to the streets. The assertion is false and because it's false, led to the release of a number of DR inmates in Illinois before the DP there was suspended. There are other examples in other states, but I need only point out ONE counter-example to disprove such a universal (fool proof?) claim.

[pinbalwyz]

onetwobomb said:

The prosecutors are just doing their job. Their job is to present the Jury with incriminating evidence. I really don't think the jury should be allowed to sentence anyone to death unless they are 100% sure the defendant is guilty. But even if the jury makes a mistake, the system still works. There has been 100 people freed from death row. That to me is proof that the legal system works to punish the guillty and free the innocent.

Ford/GM recalls 100,000 automobiles. This is proof Ford/GM produce quality cars...or did I misunderstand you? No harm, no foul--nobody gets hurt, right?...just so long as you don't eat the recalled pound of hamburger or tuna can first. Think about what you just said.

[pinbalwyz]

onetwobomb said:

I am afraid those statistics you see are wrong. People say a lot of things to get their point across. Maybe perhaps you heard that 1 out of every 7 people executed claim that they're innocent? But there has been no proof whatsoever an innocent man has been executed since 1976. If there ever is proof, I will reconsider my support for the DP.

Where the 1:7 figure comes from is extrapolation. When modern DNA evidence became available, something like one out of 7 inmates who requested (at least initially) re-examination of biological evidence in their case was exhonerated. But few DP cases and their evidence lend themselves to DNA analysis. A few staticians and researchers extrapolated the data to project the 'probability' that IF (a big word here) such evidence or something comparable WERE available, how many of those on DR would either be exhonerated or at least deemed to have insufficient evidence (taken in total) against them to be on DR.
That is where the 1::7 number comes from and it's probably not a bad estimate. A study at Northwestern assesses the likelihood of an actually innocent person being convicted at 37% during a trial. In my state (Washington) of all felonies charged, only 0.57% (for 2006) result in acquitals. The amount dismissed due to plea bargaining is drastically smaller than that number. Either the prosecutor and police here have godlike powers for discerning who the miscreants are (IMO) or we have a culture of hanging juries here. i.e. MANY innocent people are serving prison time as convicted felons. To imagine there are NO so called 'proven' cases of innocence since 1976 on DR pretty much begs the point. Not much effort is spent on people AFTER the state kills them. If they were 'proven' actually innocent before they're executed, presumably they'd be released from DR. It challenges credulity to think that actually innocent 'felons' only go to prison but not DR. In a few instances postmortem where investigators have wanted to review evidence because of suspicions of actual innocence, the state has resisted mightily. The reasons should be obvious--liability and wasn't the prosecutor in the Duke case recently booked into jail (for 24 hours) to serve his sentence for misconduct? It's as Sister Prejean described the legal process for the DP--it's full of one-way turnstiles that once passed cannot be re-entered...a kind of fish weir that refuses to allow the entangled to exit.

[pinbalwyz]

slim00 said:

In regards to skyloom's comment about no need to execute someone because of our maximum security prisons, you must be fine with your tax dollars being used to keep these kind of people alive. I know some people could say it costs more to put someone to death rather than keeping them alive, but if we weren't so objective to the execution process, a bullet or two to the head would do just as good a job and cost much less... but we know groups like the ACLU would wine and cry about how were violating the inmates human rights (again, rights not given to the victims by the criminals).

You're worried about the state's electric/drug bill? Why not release those convicted and sentenced for victimless crimes if that's your focus? We lock some (hopefully the violent first) criminals up for social policy reasons despite the cost. We do not execute citizens (like China) or harvest the organs of the condemned because it's 'cheaper' or more profitable to the state. What you're suggesting would yield something tantamount to a conflict of interest rather than justice. And it reduces humans to the status of a commodity--a process already in progress with the privitization of prisons.

[pinbalwyz]

onetwobomb said:

I agree, but I don't think the death penalty is wrong.

This is also a matter of opinion but the DP and whatnot clearly defies some of the amendments in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

True, but I am strongly against world government. People in other countries shouldn't have the right to tell other countries what to do, unless if a country is committing genocide or waging wars of agression. The US does neither of those.

I wouldn't be too certain of that last claim. The U.S. is mired in a swamp of crimes in Iraq of its own making. The American culture of violence where might makes right has turned out to be poor foreign policy. The lessons the U.S. hopes to impose by use of the DP apparently translate badly overseas. We might have done better if we'd figured it out at home.

[pinbalwyz]

pumpkinpie said:

Great opinion, but did you know that this is an anti-death penalty website??
Keep those criminals locked up in prison, and let them die when it is there time to die. They just might suffer worse in prison, then being dead. Even though they have commited murders, we are not as sick as they, and should not stoop to there level. Murder is murder, and they're gonna die soon enough anyway just as we all are. So keep them locked up, they are not hurting you, and are receiving there punishment. I hope for an end to the death penalty... Maybe you should go vent on another websight that is not anti-death penalty.

If everyone with an opinion followed suit, that would make the dialogue pretty boring, Pumpkin. It would also make each respective site little more than a 'fan' club or choir session. If any resolution of the DP debate is to occur, it requires various factions displaying their best arguments in a forum such as this for the common readership. Few people are going to flip back and forth between sites, and even if they did, little good would come of it given the lack of challenge and riposte. Imagine a courtroom setting (supposedly a search for the truth) where a jury only got to hear one side, but COULD (if they chose) attend a different hearing somewhere else with the other side presenting its case. Coca-cola and Pepsi might approve, but they're not searching for the truth...just customers for their brand. Such customers aren't all that reliable/loyal either. Offer them a price break and they'll change brands. Is that what you want the DP debate to hinge on?