I read an atricle in the paper a couple of years back only dealing with california and it was around 1200 just in calif during a specific amount of time.  I just googled for 5 minutes and found this,


Obviously, those executed can't murder again. "Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153)  Using a 75% murder clearance rate, it is most probable that the actual number of lives saved would have been 1026, or fifty times the number legally executed that year. This suggests that some 10,000 persons have been murdered, since 1971, by those who had previously committed additional murders (JFA). See B.5.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#B.Deterrence

I am sure the number over the past 75 years is astounding.


beth

           Those figures work out to 1.5%, low but it adds up.




beth

Quote from: beth on December 02, 2005, 11:28:28 PM
There have been thousands, yes thousands of second murders. By second murders I mean murderers convicted of murder, who went to prison then were released and then comitted another murder and were convicted again.

Life in prison, period.  No parole, period.  No second murder, period.  Our lawmakers just need to write that law.  I'm happy to report that ... has no death penalty, but the lawmakers decided Life = 25 years.  Dumb.

Dawn

(edited for clarity)

Quote from: DawnL on December 03, 2005, 05:58:17 AM
Life in prison, period.  No parole, period.  No second murder, period.  Our lawmakers just need to write that law.  Wisconsin has no death penalty I'm happy to report but the lawmakers for some reason decided life = 25 years.  Dumb.

That I could agree with. I however can not accept the death penality.

headlines

HUDSON, Ohio - Two small bodies found buried off Interstate 80 with duct-tape crosses over them were identified Saturday as the New Hampshire siblings killed by their father 2 1/2 years ago, authorities announced.

Do you honestly feel that the death penalty is not deserved?

If you think it is not then I am certainly glad that I am not your child.

Leigh

Quote from: Leigh on December 03, 2005, 07:59:30 PM
headlinesHUDSON, Ohio - Two small bodies found buried off Interstate 80 with duct-tape crosses over them were identified Saturday as the New Hampshire siblings killed by their father 2 1/2 years ago, authorities announced.
Do you honestly feel that the death penalty is not deserved?
If you think it is not then I am certainly glad that I am not your child.

a) this is an awful crime

b) the death penalty does NOT resurrect these two children

Okay, how should we decide what crime is heinous enough to deserve the death penalty?

Catch your partner in bed...bang...bang--should you die?

Run over a child and drag them for a quarter of a mile because you're drunk--should you die? This death penalty will NEVER be given in this case.

Kill a child as a paranoid schizophrenic because they messed up your medication--should you die?

You think that just because a crime looks ugly you have a right to commit murder? 

THOU SHALT NOT KILL!  By that premise, we make murder and wrongful homicides a crime but the state can kill people at will?  It's wrong, hypocritical, and barbaric.

If you were the child here, you'd be dead and unable to continue the discussion.

Dawn

Quote from: Leigh on December 03, 2005, 07:59:30 PM
headlines

HUDSON, Ohio - Two small bodies found buried off Interstate 80 with duct-tape crosses over them were identified Saturday as the New Hampshire siblings killed by their father 2 1/2 years ago, authorities announced.

Do you honestly feel that the death penalty is not deserved?



If you think it is not then I am certainly glad that I am not your child.

The death penalty would most certainly be deserved in this case. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, the goblin committed suicide in prison about six months after he was incarcerated. (Personally, I think he had some help)

For those who think that execution is too harsh or barbaric a punishment, I would say this. The Bible states in several instances that murderers shall be put to death. Is God a barbarian? A couple of examples.
Numbers 35;  16-21.  Exodus 21: 12-14

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm

http://www.augustana.edu/religion/lutherproject/TemporalAuthority/ScripturalLinks/Exodus%2021.21-24.htm     

Have we really evolved into a kinder, gentler, peace loving species?  No, we have not! The human animal is a predator. Whether we like it or not, that's the way it is. There are those who say, we have risen above that, but the basic instinct to kill is still there and always will be.

I firmly believe in the death penalty. Maybe I'm a product of the environments I have lived in. I don't know but this is the way I feel about the subject.

MaryEllen

Quote from: MaryEllen on December 04, 2005, 04:42:22 PM
For those who think that execution is too harsh or barbaric a punishment, I would say this. The Bible states in several instances that murderers shall be put to death. Is God a barbarian? A couple of examples.
Numbers 35;  16-21.  Exodus 21: 12-14

In actuality, the only murder that the Christian God directly dealt with he exiled the murder, didn't kill or imprison him, then God protected the murderer from revenge stating that anyone who killed him would receive his punishment 7 times over. In the first death penalty case Christ dealt with, he stopped the crowd from stoning the woman to death for adultery.  Remember Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. So we have one example here by the Christian God, and one by Christ. Both go contrary to the death penalty.

You need to read your New testament again because that is the law that applies to Christians. Christ came to replace the old law, and to provide a way to the Christian God for the non-jewish people in the world. Most so called Christian preachers hold on to the old testament law for the control it gives them over their congregations.

Yes some people need to be locked up for the rest of their life to protect society. That being said society does not have the right to remove the gift of life which whatever divinity you believe in granted to humanity and the chance that the person in question could have eventually found their salvation and perhaps even managed to atone for their crime.

Guess I'll dive into this one, too.   

First I'll ask a question of everyone, and if you don't answer on the thread, at least think deeply about it when you go about your day. 

To those of you who oppose the death penalty--- Would you still oppose it if you or one of your loved ones were brutally murdered ? (and I'm hoping no one here has had to experience that)

To those who support the death penalty--- Would you also support it if one of your loved ones was found facing it?  (again, hoping no one's had this happen!) 

The reason I ask is because people generally are quick to form a decision based on principle, yet haven't considered what such a reality would look like for them.  It's a nightmare no matter which side you're viewing it from. 

Beth, I noticed the information you obtained came from a pro-death penalty web-site.  I tend to be more cautious with getting statistics from sources that slant one way or the other. Anti-death penalty advocates woiuld use your information to show that in states where capital punishment is an option, it is not a deterrent. 

From what I have seen, the death penalty is not fair.  There is no set standard for who gets it and who does not.  Here in FL, 2 brothers got the death penalty, even though only one held the gun.  They were robbing I believe it was a conveniece store, and one brother purportedly shot and killed the clerk.  The other brother had no clue that that was going to happen, and didn't aid in the killing, but because he was there, he recived the death sentence as well.  Don't ask for the news article, as I don't have one.  I've been to death-row before, and seen these guys in the visiting area, and the man I was visiting told me their story. 

If you're poor you pretty much get the death penalty if you're eligible for it, unless a high-profile attorney will represent you pro-bono.  If you've got the cash flow, you can pretty much rest assured that even if you're eligible for the death sentence, you won't get it. 

Let me tell you, these guys don't like sitting around waiting for 20 and 30 years either. But if anyone is going to propose a quicker appeals process, they first need to correct the system.  As someone else said, DNA evidence has proven people innocent long after the fact.  Also from what I have seen, most of the guys on death row are too poor to afford a private attorney, so they are forced to accept whatever state-appointed attorney is tossed their way.  In many cases, they botch things up (not meeting filing deadlines, things like that), which serves to prolong the process. 

Who is the death penalty really punishing?  If you got the death penalty, would it punish you? Or would it cause anguish for the many who love you--your sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, parents, SO's?  So here we have one injustice commited in the murder of an innocent person, and that person's family has to suffer the loss.  And then we have a state-sanctioned killing and several dozen other people now have to suffer the loss of one they loved.  And the perpetrator?  He's dead, for cryin' out loud, he could care less.  How is this punishiment? 

It's not---it's revenge. Let's face it: it feels real damn good to give people what we think they deserve, and it feels even better when the government supports this.  Much as I disagree with Leigh, she hit the nail on the head and I respect her for not sugar-coating what she really thinks, or trying to give it another name. 

Where the Bible is concerned, Susan, you got it right with both the Old and New Testament examples.  Also remember what Christ says in the 5th chapter of Matthew, where He is practically re-writing Old Testament law.  Partcularly I'll point out verses 21 and 22: "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder' and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgement'.  But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment..."

Still, I don't believe that quoting verses of scripture back and forth will help anyone. People on both sides of the fence can hunt and peck for verses that support their view. What is important to consider is the nature of God.  For what I'm about to say next anyone, of course, can listen and comment. But I am specifically addressing Christians because it is Christians who believe they are goin' to Heaven on God's ticket, and it is that specifically which I address. I don't want anyone else to think I'm preachin' at them.   

So Christians, listen up:  Bible hunt-and-peck aside, as a whole, what does it reveal about God's nature?  Bottom line is, we are all sinners, the wages of sin is death, Christ came to atone for sinners, we don't go to hell.  If God truly gave us exactly what we deserve, where would we be? His nature is grace---As Christians, we ought to be examples of grace in this world.  Not one of us has the right claim that one sin is better or worse than another.  If you rob a bank, and I steal a dollar from my mom's purse, we are both equally as guilty under God, and deserving of the same fate, which through Christ all people have been spared from. This goes for Christians and non-Christians. Don't be surprised if the very people you would condemn here on earth are your neighbors in the afterlife. 

OK, preachin's done  .... 

Personally, as you all have guessed by now, I'm not a proponent of capital punishment.  If someone killed me, I would not want for that person to receive the death penalrty.

If somone killed someone I love, I would have to seriously fight the urge to go out and kill 'em myself.  My first instinct would be to do as much damage as possible. 

But I'm not a wild animal.  Instinct must be tempered by thought and reasoning, rationale.  I know that if I did hurt or kill someone, even out of revenge for another death, I would immediately regret it.  My true nature is to affirm life and growth. 

If someone killed even my most treasured loved one,though my heart be shattered and though my anger be near to consuming me alive, I would ask the judge not to impose the death sentence. And yes, I have thought about this many, many times over the past several years.

And if it were a loved one who was faced with the death penalty...let's go one step further and say that a loved one killed another loved one.... my heart would be doubly shattered and my anger would be in danger of consuming me, and I would be sick to my stomache....and I would (eventually!) sit down and write a letter to, or visit in prison, the guilty one.  This too, I have thought about frequently over the years. 

There's no easy or simple answer to this, no matter which position you take. We're so quick to judge people here on this site just because they have a different opinion than we do.  I hope none of us ever has to serve as juror for a murder trial. 

Valerie

Quote from: Valerie on December 05, 2005, 07:05:32 AM
Guess I'll dive into this one, too.   

First I'll ask a question of everyone, and if you don't answer on the thread, at least think deeply about it when you go about your day. 

To those of you who oppose the death penalty--- Would you still oppose it if you or one of your loved ones were brutally murdered ? (and I'm hoping no one here has had to experience that)

To those who support the death penalty--- Would you also support it if one of your loved ones was found facing it?  (again, hoping no one's had this happen!)... <cut>

 Valerie

While I am not a religious person, by any stretch of the imagination, I can see where one could be after reading Valerie's post.  This is one of the best replies I have read here at Susan's.

Your insight is very refreshing, thanks for that Val

Steph

Well said Valerie. And in answer to your question, if someone I loved were killed, I would not support the death penalty, but I would have to restrain myself from going out and killing them myself. If I were killed, I would not want the death penalty imposed.

When I have been a victim of a crime (break and enter), although I wanted to go out and hang the little buggers by certain body parts when it happened, by the time I found out who it was, I did not support a harsh sentence, and was willing to support alternative measures other than jail. Although I couldn't actually do that. I found out who it was through solicitor-client privilege, so they never were caught, because I couldn't turn them in.

Dennis

I would hope that I too would have a similar reaction Dennis but I guess until in the position you can only guess.

Shelley

Visited a friend this weekend and saw the bumpersticker on her vehicle:

"When Jesus said to love your enemies, I think He probably meant don't kill them." 

If the evidence points in their direction...fry 'em up like bacon!

Tookie is a racist. He killed for no other reason than the person was white. Given the chance would he do it again? If he isn't eliminated from society than yes he will. If he had murdered someone who was TG, I wonder how many in this community would change their votes. It's a matter of perspective. It is one thing to look at these things from a philosophical standpoint, but from the point of reality and were it intersects with your own life I think perspectives tend to change.

If someone is inclined to murder as Tookie is, the only solution is to insure that they never see the light of day. Perhaps if courts years later weren't inclined to let such people go because gosh gee their really a nice guy I would not be so inclined to call for the death penalty. But unless you can gaurantee that such people will never be realeased the only certain solution is the final solution.

Cassie

Two very good points Cassie but I can't get past the fact that if it is wrong to murder how can the state commit it and it be right. I know that in individual cases it appears justified but it's still wrong to take the life of another in my mind.

Shelley

There is a tradition amongst various "primitive" tribes that if a person kills a family member that killers life belongs to the family and it is up to them what punishment the perpetrator should endure. Perhaps there is wisdom in this.

Cassie

Quote from: Cassandra on December 13, 2005, 01:28:15 PM
Tookie is a racist. He killed for no other reason than the person was white. Given the chance would he do it again? If he isn't eliminated from society than yes he will. If he had murdered someone who was TG, I wonder how many in this community would change their votes. It's a matter of perspective. It is one thing to look at these things from a philosophical standpoint, but from the point of reality and were it intersects with your own life I think perspectives tend to change.

If someone is inclined to murder as Tookie is, the only solution is to insure that they never see the light of day. Perhaps if courts years later weren't inclined to let such people go because gosh gee their really a nice guy I would not be so inclined to call for the death penalty. But unless you can gaurantee that such people will never be realeased the only certain solution is the final solution.

Cassie

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Murder = The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Execute = To put to death especially in compliance with a legal sentence.

There is a difference between the two.

The state of California did the right thing in executing "Tookie". The only gripe I have is that it took so long to do it. I totally agree with Cassandra. He was an animal and deserved to die.

Quote from: Harper on December 12, 2005, 10:02:03 PM
Time is ticking away for Tookie, four hours and counting.

These executions solve nothing. Just imagine the family of the victimes waiting how many years to see the sentence carried out. State sponsored killing only begets more violence.

If execution is to be a viable deterant, it needs to be swift and sure.  Tookie waited - what - 25 years?  Waiting for the executioner's axe for one score and five is, in my opinion, unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.  Under this format, the death penalty is not a viable deterent to crime.  This present format teaches the criminal public to play and work the system to stave off the needle.

How much money was spent for each appeal?    One reason former Gov. Cuomo did not sign the death penalty into law was that it was not ecconomical.  It was far less expensive to confine a criminal to life in prision than to pay for all the appeals.

In a tribal situation, executing a member for some terrible act can be justified by the act placing the entire tribe at risk.  We have far greater resources than any tribe to isolate any criminal from society.  I would rather spend my money there - as life imprisonment - than pay the cost for accidentally executing one innocent person.

Chaunte

Quote from: Cassandra on December 13, 2005, 07:20:27 PM
There is a tradition amongst various "primitive" tribes that if a person kills a family member that killers life belongs to the family and it is up to them what punishment the perpetrator should endure. Perhaps there is wisdom in this.

Yeah they do stuff like that in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan--oh and the Mafia--they do stuff like that, but seeings how we are supposed to be a decent civilized bunch of people with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and all that, I'm guessing we're supposed to be above all that.  If you want to be "primitive", you'll need to find yourself a jungle, some grass huts, and some other "primitives" to hang out with.  Watch your back though...

Dawn