|
|
Post by windstone on Aug 3, 2007 5:26:15 GMT -5
I'm pro death penalty and I met on the Internet anti DPs. But, so far, none of their arguments managed to convince me. Death penalty is unacceptable : Jeremy Irons says it on a video on You-tube. What is unacceptable for me is that guys like Francis Heaulme, Michel Fourniret, Pierre Bodein or Marc Dutroux are still alive Death penalty is a violation of Human Rights Neither article 3 nor article 5 of Human Rights Declaration use the expression "Death Penalty". Article 3 talks about torture and article 5 talks about the right to live. Using these articles against death penalty is just an interpretation. Death Row is horrible Not as horrible as an innocent child girl who's raped and massacred. Death penalty doesn't make crime decrease Abolitionists say that the American states without death penalty are the ones with the lowest crime rates, or that the countries without death penalty are the ones with the lowest crime rates. Others say that the United States saw their crime rate decrease since death penalty was brought back, meanwhile France, who abolished death penalty, saw its one increase. I don't know who's right. I believe that death penalty does decrease crime rate, mostly when executions are public. And who cares if it doesn't, as long as the worst criminals got what they deserve ? Only God should decide about life and death No effect on me : I'm an atheist Justice makes mistakes This is the 21st century. The century of DNA. Some abolitionists say DNA is not reliable by 100%. Do they really think I'm gonna believe them ? With death penalty, no second chance So better, some people don't deserve a second chance. If you pronounce Death Penalty for a killer, you go down to his or her level How can the death of 1 guilty human be worth the death of several innocent humans ? By abolishing the death penalty, you give more respect to a killer than to his victim. Life jail has the same effect Death penalty uses the same principle as the soccer red card and other kinds of ban : for the most serious fouls, it's no longer about punishing the faulty guy, it's about getting rid of him. You don't get completely rid of a a life sentenced guy, because he's a load for taxpayers. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Aug 3, 2007 9:37:48 GMT -5
Your right about the dna part. Dna is, I'd say cut and dry.... If you've got dna, you've got the case solved, you've got the criminal responsible. Still, should they be executed? Only if we want to be a murderer just because they were. And think about this- what about the cases where someone is sentenced to death with no dna evidence at all, only circumstantial. See this www.njadp.org/forms/jacklong.htm for the cost comparison of executing someone verses life without a possibility of parole. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Aug 3, 2007 11:31:10 GMT -5
... Life jail has the same effect Death penalty uses the same principle as the soccer red card and other kinds of ban : for the most serious fouls, it's no longer about punishing the faulty guy, it's about getting rid of him. You don't get completely rid of a a life sentenced guy, because he's a load for taxpayers. IIRC, New Jersey has spent $256 million on DP cases and has never executed anyone. Most states which have computed the results have found that it costs considerably more to have the DP than not, with no reduction in crime. It's an easy, lazy way for politicians and prosecutors to get elected, it satisfies the blood lust of a part of the electorate, but it actually leads to more crime since resources are spent on DP cases which could go to effective crime control. |
|
|
|
Post by windstone on Aug 3, 2007 13:40:02 GMT -5
The links you guys posted were about the US. In France, Christian Ranucci's trial started on March 3rd 1976 and he was executed on July 28th on the same year, after being arrested on June 5th 1974. How much does one and a half year in jail and 5 months in death row coast ? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Aug 3, 2007 17:34:13 GMT -5
The links you guys posted were about the US. In France, Christian Ranucci's trial started on March 3rd 1976 and he was executed on July 28th on the same year, after being arrested on June 5th 1974. How much does one and a half year in jail and 5 months in death row coast ? In the USA, it wasn't that long ago that they just dragged some poor black man (as likely as not innocent of any crime) to a tree and hung him, often after torturing him for a while. So what's your point? |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Aug 3, 2007 22:41:49 GMT -5
Happyhaddock, I'd high-five you right now if I could, sweetheart! You and I mega-burn them in this section every time!
|
|
|
|
Post by windstone on Aug 4, 2007 3:14:48 GMT -5
My point is not that Ranucci was executed without any trial. The whole procedure was respected. My point is that Death Penalty is expensive because US Justice is slow.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Aug 4, 2007 12:32:35 GMT -5
My point is not that Ranucci was executed without any trial. The whole procedure was respected. My point is that Death Penalty is expensive because US Justice is slow. It's surprisingly quick and effective at sentencing the wrong persons to prison or death. Recently, the US achieved the dubious record of executing its 1,000th condemned prisoner. At the same point in time over 125 people had been released from death row due to innocence. That means one time in 8 they got it wrong despite all of the alleged safeguards. A recent study found that when juries were presented with an innocent defendant for judging, they incorrectly found guilt about one time in four. Judges do worse. They convict the innocent about one time in three. For a penalty as final as death, a more reliable method is surely needed. For every person wrongly condemned, an actual murderer walks free. I suggest you read Laura James' recent comment in her Historic True Crime Blog about the skill level of defence attorneys and the jurors they now face. God help all who are protected and judged by such as these. I wouldn't let most of these jurors select my lunch at Burger King. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Aug 4, 2007 17:51:55 GMT -5
Chicago’s Lipstick Killer Up For Parole << LINKHe was dubbed the, “Lipstick Killer” who was apprehended while armed with a .25 automatic as he allegedly tried to kill a Chicago cop responding to a routine burglary call. 1946 was not a good year for prisoner’s civil rights in the Windy City. Interrogation rooms were simply confessionals. Police tactics were legendary and make brutality claims of the last three decades pale by comparison.He was an exceptionally bright 17 year-old student and part-time burglar from the prestigious University of Chicago. The crimes committed were in the Rogers Park neighborhood. A lot of burglaries and three brutal murders were pinned on the young suspect. The most notorious of the murders was that of six-year old Suzanne Degnan who’s dismembered body parts were retrieved from various catch basins. Lipstick was used by the killer to scrawl the ominous message on one victim, Frances Brown's living room wall, "For heavens sake, catch me before I kill more I cannot control myself." William Heirens became Chicago’s Boogieman feared by every young mother. Heirens was soon paraded around like a wild animal in a traveling zoo exhibit. Sensational news stories and bizarre photos were the rule for this sordid saga. Along with the beatings, in two lawless exercises of Voodoo Science of the day cops and prosecutors forced Heirens to undergo a spinal tap and injected him with the drug sodium pentathol. For a while that drug was wrongly thought to be some kind of a truth serum. Curiously Heirens easily passed the heralded, Keeler polygraph test. I can’t imagine what the courts would say today about the experiments and torture used by Chicago’s crime busters on William Heirens.
Was this lad the killer or a scapegoat? In the mid-1990s I was asked by ABC news to find a Chicago man, Richard Russell Thomas who confessed to killing the Degnan girl while he was in the Maricopa County Jail in Arizona but was quickly dismissed as a suspect by Chicago police. Police had already made their investment in Heirens and lost interest in the second confessor who was a convicted child molester. Richard Russell Thomas died decades before my search but his family members in Austin Texas verified the confession as well as telling me about his writing of at least one song made popular by Les Paul and Mary Ford. lots of additional evidence connecting Thomas to the Degnam murder surfaced over the years. Heirens’ Lawyer Jed Stone knows this story well and was not able to develop this as a basis for a new trial. God only knows what really happened or who the killer was or if the three murders were somehow connected. There was no security video or DNA in 1946. I don’t have much faith that justice really happened in this case. In the end William Heirens had two choices. Plead guilty to the crimes or be convicted and quickly fried in the electric chair. Unlike today, that process could be completed with all appeals within months in 1946. The Guilty plea was accepted and Heirens has since served more time than any Illinois prisoner.Ever since Heirens arrived at the Illinois prison system he’s never been a discipline problem and was the first inmate to get a college degree while incarcerated. 61 years later Heirens is a feeble and wheelchair bound old man. Heirens is far from a threat to anyone and his prison cell needs to be filled by a much younger convict who is really dangerous.
What would happen to a group of American cops and prosecutors who got caught forcing a murder suspect to submit to a spinal tap without anesthesia and later injected him with a Truth Serum? They’d get a well-deserved prison term for violating civil rights of the suspect. The suspect would also be awarded millions in civil damages. An additional result would be that the suspect, guilty or innocent, would escape prosecution, trial and punishment because of the egregious prosecutorial misconduct. 61 years ago this was the undisputed scenario played out in the case of then 17 year-old murder suspect William Heirens. Heirens pled guilty to avoid an almost certain short stroll to Cook County Jail’s very own four condemned cells and electric chair. That death factory was less than 100 feet from his housing unit at tier F1. The jail’s chaplain was busy that year accompanying condemned men to their dates with the hereafter. It was Heirens’ guilty plea that prevented any real review of evidence or consideration for a trial. The guilty plea entered by Heirens made any trial or real appeals unnecessary under law. The issues today are redemption, rehabilitation and if the release of William Heirens would depreciate the seriousness of the crime. The board has spoken and Heirens will continue to stay where the Voodoo practitioners sent him so long ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 10, 2007 10:45:21 GMT -5
Your right about the dna part. Dna is, I'd say cut and dry.... If you've got dna, you've got the case solved, you've got the criminal responsible. Still, should they be executed? Only if we want to be a murderer just because they were. And think about this- what about the cases where someone is sentenced to death with no dna evidence at all, only circumstantial. See this www.njadp.org/forms/jacklong.htm for the cost comparison of executing someone verses life without a possibility of parole. That link and essay just about says it all. It's a tour d'force summarizing most arguments against the DP. I've saved the link for future reference--and thanks for posting it. I was especially impressed with the utilitarian argument based on penal and law enforcement considerations pointing out the exceptionally high cost of the DP and the limited bang for the buck it attains compared to investing that money in better forensics, crime detection and enforcement if LWOP were applied instead. |
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 10, 2007 10:53:54 GMT -5
My point is not that Ranucci was executed without any trial. The whole procedure was respected. My point is that Death Penalty is expensive because US Justice is slow. It's surprisingly quick and effective at sentencing the wrong persons to prison or death. Recently, the US achieved the dubious record of executing its 1,000th condemned prisoner. At the same point in time over 125 people had been released from death row due to innocence. That means one time in 8 they got it wrong despite all of the alleged safeguards. A recent study found that when juries were presented with an innocent defendant for judging, they incorrectly found guilt about one time in four. Judges do worse. They convict the innocent about one time in three. For a penalty as final as death, a more reliable method is surely needed. For every person wrongly condemned, an actual murderer walks free. I suggest you read Laura James' recent comment in her Historic True Crime Blog about the skill level of defence attorneys and the jurors they now face. God help all who are protected and judged by such as these. I wouldn't let most of these jurors select my lunch at Burger King. I believe your referring to the study done at Northwestern. An actually innocent party had a 37% chance of being convicted at trial. Part of the reasoning behind the trial were post-conviction interviews with the presiding judge and the juries. Often the reached opposite conclusions about guilt/innocence. The researchers concluded they could not BOTH (where the judge and jury disagreed) be correct. Using that as a premise, they arrived at the figures later published. |
|
|
|
Post by justice on Mar 19, 2008 2:14:09 GMT -5
Look I am no expert in this field at all. All I know is what I believe. I am not good with words and may not sound intelligent like some of you other folks. I just can not understand how some one can defend some of these people, and say they do not deserve to die for their crimes. I understand that maybe the death penalty is harsh for some, But you will never convince me that people like John Gacy, Ted Bundy, and Wesley Alen Dodd did not get what they deserve. I see nothing wrong with pumping their veins with poison,electrocution or hanging . It's a heck of a lot more humane than what their victims got. Tell me does Richard Ramirez deserve to die. What about Gary Ridgway (not on death row). Of course there is Dennis (BTK not on death row). These people don't deserve the life they have been given. I am sure some one is going to have some spiffy come back to this, but I don't care. These people were, and are pure evil, and have no place in society or on earth. Leaving truly dangerous people on earth or even in prison is just an accident waiting to happen. They could rape, kill, or hurt other inmates or guards. Just get rid of them. Stop with all the years of appeals,and carry out the sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Mar 19, 2008 9:20:43 GMT -5
These people don't deserve the life they have been given. I am sure some one is going to have some spiffy come back to this, but I don't care. These people were, and are pure evil, and have no place in society or on earth. Leaving truly dangerous people on earth or even in prison is just an accident waiting to happen. They could rape, kill, or hurt other inmates or guards. Just get rid of them. Stop with all the years of appeals,and carry out the sentence. Some people really are so purely evil, that they don't deserve the life they have been given, I agree with that! I can't begin to understand the actions of some people. Why, though, should we stoop to those same actions of murder? I think serial killers should be kept isolated, away from the general prison population so they can't hurt other inmates. Also, those who have had high profile cases need to be kept safe away from other prisoners. Prisons need to be kept safe and secure with plenty of guards monitoring at all times to prevent abuse within the prison system. No one should be abused in prison. No one should be executed either. Unfortunately, the DP when used isn't applied fairly anyway. Many are given it based on circumstantial evidence. And to do away with the appeals process in these and many other cases would be horrible. Maybe the DP would be ok if it were applied to serial killers only. Even then, it seems pretty revengeful when they can just sit in prison until their natural time is up. We don't have the right to kill anymore than they did, do we? And what if- oops, they got the wrong guy as the serial killer. Or what if he had an accomplice? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Mar 19, 2008 10:20:53 GMT -5
Look I am no expert in this field at all. All I know is what I believe. I am not good with words and may not sound intelligent like some of you other folks. I just can not understand how some one can defend some of these people, and say they do not deserve to die for their crimes. I understand that maybe the death penalty is harsh for some, But you will never convince me that people like John Gacy, Ted Bundy, and Wesley Alen Dodd did not get what they deserve. I see nothing wrong with pumping their veins with poison,electrocution or hanging . It's a heck of a lot more humane than what their victims got. Tell me does Richard Ramirez deserve to die. What about Gary Ridgway (not on death row). Of course there is Dennis (BTK not on death row). These people don't deserve the life they have been given. I am sure some one is going to have some spiffy come back to this, but I don't care. These people were, and are pure evil, and have no place in society or on earth. Leaving truly dangerous people on earth or even in prison is just an accident waiting to happen. They could rape, kill, or hurt other inmates or guards. Just get rid of them. Stop with all the years of appeals,and carry out the sentence. Your argument is a good one for the anti-DP person. In fact, many horrific killers avoid the DP while the penalty is applied to the least of them and even to the insane or imbecilic. Look at the execution of Rickey Ray Rector as one example; Rector was executed in violation of state statutes to ensure Clinton's election. Your argument about guards is specious - there are many dangerous prisoners who are not on death row and money is not spent on prison safety because it is wasted on DP trials. |
|
|
|
Post by justice on Mar 21, 2008 17:39:21 GMT -5
Pumpkinpie: Serial killers are not the only ones that harm other inmates. In fact it's them least of all. Let's say I'm serving life in prison o.k. I killed a man and his child during a robbery. I'm now sentenced to life in prison. At this point there is absolutely nothing else they can do to me. I am free within the confounds off the prison to do what ever I please. I want to rape the new guy fine. Someone pisses me off and I want to take them out fine. What else can they do. Nothing. There has to be a limit where enough is enough. More crimes are committed in prison by one time killers and gang bangers than by serial killers. And there is no shortage of crime in prison. I think we can all agree on that. I for one would rather be dead than spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder every single day.
|
|
