Tookie executed

[H W Copeland]

I see that the guy that murdered 4 people 25 years ago was finally brought to justice.

 

Arnie said "hasta la vista baby" to his appeal for clemency.

 

There have been statements of "moral equivilency" regarding the death penalty and the murders that this guy committed.

 

Thoughts?

[ecoli]

I am, as a general rule, against the death penalty. what is a person has been put to death only find out later that they're innocent. There is no way to rectify this situation.

[silkworm]

He's admitted to killing other people, I think, and liked to claim to be a co-founder of the crypts. People bought it and gave him power. I'm didn't really care if he lived or died, but it's always hard when a children's book author is put to death by the state.

[john5746]

I think Arnold made the correct decision. When the jury passed the death penalty, it wasn't passed with a loophole for good behavior. He was allowed time to redeem some of his deeds and find purpose in his life, that was mercy enough IMO.

 

I understand the arguments opposing the death penalty and would have no problem getting rid of it completely, but see no reason to give him special consideration.

[bascule]

I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty. Especially in this case: this was a reformed man whose efforts almost earned him a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

It all gets back to "Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing is wrong?"

[H W Copeland]

I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty. Especially in this case: this was a reformed man whose efforts almost earned him a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

It all gets back to "Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing is wrong?"

 

So that others will see that society kills people who kill people and, not wanting to be killed themselves, will refrain from killing people?

[ecoli]

So that others will see that society kills people who kill people and, not wanting to be killed themselves, will refrain from killing people?

 

oh yes, and we can see how well that philosophy is working.

[Ophiolite]

I am opposed to the death penalty on three grounds:

1) I sense it is morally wrong to take life.

2) As noted by a couple of you, the possibility of error exists.

3) The state should be setting an example to its citizens. That example should include aspects of forgiveness and rehabilitation. I understand it is technically difficult to rehabilitate a corpse.

[aj47]

As most murders are impulsive and not pre meditated, I think its wrong to say the death penalty acts a deterent.

 

Very few murderer would stop to considerer the consequences if he/she were caught, as they are usually so intent on carrying out the murder they cannot be convinced otherwise.

 

I think its proof enough when looking at countries which have abolished capital punishment and had not had an increase in murders to show that it doesn't act as a deterent

[H W Copeland]

I am opposed to the death penalty on three grounds:

1) I sense it is morally wrong to take life.

2) As noted by a couple of you' date=' the possibility of error exists.

3) The state should be setting an example to its citizens. That example should include aspects of forgiveness and rehabilitation. I understand it is technically difficult to rehabilitate a corpse.[/quote']

 

I agree that it is important to be sure that the executee be guilty, but I also think that it is possible to establish guilt as a fact.

 

And of course it is wrong to take a life, that is precisely why Tookie got what he had comming to him.

 

And I think that the state is setting an example to it's citizens when it executes a murderer. The example being - if you kill one of our citizens, you will have to forfit your life in return.

[bascule]

So that others will see that society kills people who kill people and, not wanting to be killed themselves, will refrain from killing people?

 

Even if you had evidence to present that the death penalty proves a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment, how can you use this to justify the inevitable execution of the innocent?

[H W Copeland]

Even if you had evidence to present that the death penalty proves a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment, how can you use this to justify the inevitable execution of the innocent?

 

Don't you think it is possible to establish for a fact that someone was indeed guilty of a murder?

 

Keep in mind, I am not advocating the DP on any willy nilly basis, As a matter of fact, I myself am opposed to the DP, but when one is guilty, one is guilty.

 

Actually what I am looking for is a discussion regarding the moral aspects of executing a murderer.

[silkworm]

Yeah, although I couldn't care less about Tookie Williams (although he probably would have been worth more alive to society than dead because certain people believed he was something important and would listen to him a little) I do believe in the death penalty only in cases where the offender remains a threat to society.

 

Take BTK for example, he was looking to strike again, the smartest thing for society to do is kill him so he can't (although we can't for legal reasons). Although having the state put to death someone who killed their wife or husband or someone else under very special circumstances is stupid because I see nothing in these cases that show this person as a continued threat. Scott Peterson for example killed his wife and unborn son. We should lock him up for a real long time, but killing him protects no one from him. He's already killed who he was going to kill.

 

It should be all about protection, and just because someone is in custody doesn't mean they're no longer a threat. A random and/or multiple killer is someone who is always a threat and is neutralized by death. Protection doesn't need a moral argument to be valid, it's always valid.

[bascule]

Don't you think it is possible to establish for a fact that someone was indeed guilty of a murder?

 

With absolute certainty? No. We use a "reasonable doubt" metric which has a margin of error. Russ Feingold cited the following statistics in his argument against capital punishment:

 

http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/speeches/senfloor/moratoriuminroduction.html

 

A 1987 study found that between 1900 and 1985, 350 people convicted of capital crimes in the United States were innocent of the crimes charged. Some escaped execution by minutes. Regrettably, according to researchers Radelet and Bedau, 23 actually had their lives taken from them in error.

 

Keep in mind, I am not advocating the DP on any willy nilly basis, As a matter of fact, I myself am opposed to the DP, but when one is guilty, one is guilty.

 

Actual guilt and what the system establishes are two different things.

 

Actually what I am looking for is a discussion regarding the moral aspects of executing a murderer.

 

I prefer a scientific approach: that every guilty verdict is potentially falsifiable given enough evidence. I do not think we can say with absolute certainty that anyone is a murderer.

 

If someone is found guilty of a murder and given a life sentence, and new evidence comes to light to exhonorate them, you can always let them out of prison.

 

If someone is found guilty of a murder and given the death penalty, and new evidence comes to light to exhonorate them, then the state has made a horrible, unforgivable mistake.

 

There is no excuse for executing innocent people.

 

Even if there were some magical absolute metric by which we could ascertain that someone was a murderer, I would not support the death penalty. I consider it blatent hypocrisy to solve the problem of a murderer with state-condoned murder.

[zyncod]

Don't you think it is possible to establish for a fact that someone was indeed guilty of a murder?

 

No. There's no way to prove that anything that supposedly happened in the past actually did happen.

 

In any case, that's not how our legal system works. The principle here is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." But plenty of things happen every day that are not at all reasonable or as obvious as they seem. Which is fine for most people wrongly convicted of a crime - you can set them free and they can sue you for the time that you locked them up unfairly. However, if you kill them, it's kind of a pointless apology in that case.

 

It should be all about protection, and just because someone is in custody doesn't mean they're no longer a threat. A random and/or multiple killer is someone who is always a threat and is neutralized by death. Protection doesn't need a moral argument to be valid, it's always valid.

 

So you're going to start killing people on the statistical likelihood that someone else will die as a result of their actions? Well, let's look at it this way: 4 murders happened out of every 100,000 inmates in 2002. I can't find it anywhere, but almost certainly this is overestimating the rate at which people on death row kill again, given the more stringent security. 1.5 million people were arrested for DUI in 1997. In 1998, 16,000 people died as a result of alcohol-related traffic fatalities. This is a rate of 1066 deaths per 100,000 arrested DUI drivers. Let's say that half of these were manslaughters, so a rate of 533 manslaughters per 100,000 arrested DUI drivers.

 

To match the rate at which prisoners kill in prison, 200 million people would have to be driving drunk each year to cause this death rate (which is definitely higher than the actual drunk driving rate). So, statistically, DUI drivers are much more of a threat than locked-up murderers. Therefore, we should be locking up DUI drivers for the rest of their natural lives. Does that sound reasonable?

[H W Copeland]

With absolute certainty? No. We use a "reasonable doubt" metric which has a margin of error. Russ Feingold cited the following statistics in his argument against capital punishment:

 

http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/speeches/senfloor/moratoriuminroduction.html

 

 

 

 

 

Actual guilt and what the system establishes are two different things.

 

 

 

I prefer a scientific approach: that every guilty verdict is potentially falsifiable given enough evidence. I do not think we can say with absolute certainty that anyone is a murderer.

 

If someone is found guilty of a murder and given a life sentence' date=' and new evidence comes to light to exhonorate them, you can always let them out of prison.

 

If someone is found guilty of a murder and given the death penalty, and new evidence comes to light to exhonorate them, then the state has made a horrible, unforgivable mistake.

 

There is no excuse for executing innocent people.

 

Even if there were some magical absolute metric by which we could ascertain that someone was a murderer, I would not support the death penalty. I consider it blatent hypocrisy to solve the problem of a murderer with state-condoned murder.[/quote']

 

Well, since you are unwilling to say that it is possible to establish guilt, your opinion of the morality of the DP is meaningless.

 

Obviousely, if one thinks that someone may be innocent, one would be loath to execute him. That is why we have appeals processes and is also why, not everyone who is found guilty of murder is sentenced to death.

 

As to the innocent being executed, there have been more people killed by murderers who were set free, or escaped or who killed someone in the prison system after they had been convicted of murder that innocents who were wrongfully executed.

 

http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/cap_punishment/vo06no17_murders.htm

 

How do you justify that? If these guys had been executed for their crimes, these later murders would never have occured.

 

Besides, as I said before, this thread was not started to discuss execution of innocents, it was started to discuss whether there is a morally equivelency between murder and execution......

[zyncod]

How do you justify that? If these guys had been executed for their crimes, these later murders would never have occured.

This is an incredibly specious argument. You said not two sentences before :

That is why we have appeals processes and is also why, not everyone who is found guilty of murder is sentenced to death.

 

Only two of these people killed while still in prison. Therefore, the problem here is releasing people from prison, not inability to execute them. Many of these people on the list that you gave wouldn't have been subject to the death penalty anyway, as they committed manslaughter, not murder.

[bascule]

Well, since you are unwilling to say that it is possible to establish guilt, your opinion of the morality of the DP is meaningless.

 

I said there's no absolute metric of guilt, and also stated my opinion if there was.

 

Obviousely, if one thinks that someone may be innocent, one would be loath to execute him. That is why we have appeals processes and is also why, not everyone who is found guilty of murder is sentenced to death.

 

Yet we still execute the innocent.

 

As to the innocent being executed, there have been more people killed by murderers who were set free, or escaped or who killed someone in the prison system after they had been convicted of murder that innocents who were wrongfully executed.

 

Holy specious reasoning batman!

 

Let's deconstruct this argument really quick and point out how flawed this kind of reasoning is...

 

there have been more people killed by murderers who were set free

 

1) Not everyone who commits murder is put on death row

2) People on death row can still be released

 

In order for the death penalty to be effective in preventing these kinds of deaths the above would have to be reversed: those convicted of murder must instantly be put to death.

 

or escaped or who killed someone in the prison system after they had been convicted of murder

 

And last I checked:

1) People on death row can still escape

2) People on death row can still murder guards or other inmates

 

So again, the only way the death penalty can be effective in preventing these situations is if the penalty is carried out immediately after the trial.

 

This would dramatically increase the number of innocents executed, and consequently the only way these murders could've been prevented by capital punishment is to increase the number of innocents executed.

 

But apparently you don't find the state executing innocent people to be more morally reprehensible than a deranged individual murdering innocent people. I hope you can hold the state to a higher standard than a murderer.

[silkworm]

So you're going to start killing people on the statistical likelihood that someone else will die as a result of their actions? Well' date=' let's look at it this way: 4 murders happened out of every 100,000 inmates in 2002. I can't find it anywhere, but almost certainly this is overestimating the rate at which people on death row kill again, given the more stringent security. 1.5 million people were arrested for DUI in 1997. In 1998, 16,000 people died as a result of alcohol-related traffic fatalities. This is a rate of 1066 deaths per 100,000 arrested DUI drivers. Let's say that half of these were manslaughters, so a rate of 533 manslaughters per 100,000 arrested DUI drivers.

 

To match the rate at which prisoners kill in prison, 200 million people would have to be driving drunk each year to cause this death rate (which is definitely higher than the actual drunk driving rate). So, statistically, DUI drivers are much more of a threat than locked-up murderers. Therefore, we should be locking up DUI drivers for the rest of their natural lives. Does that sound reasonable?[/quote']

 

I'm not talking about statistical likelihood, I'm talking about what the person has done and his threat to others. If the person has committed multiple homicides for ammusement or any form of insanity then it is likely that person will continue because that is who that person is. To not kill this person would be irresponsible because you're putting innocent people at risk by not doing it. They may get out for a variety of reasons or they may kill other inmates, which are still innocent people. Statistics are meaningless in this situation because different people kill at different times for different reasons and opportunities, and I think that living under confinement will change both their opportunities. For example, someone who finds enjoyment in killing teenage girls will probably not find it attractive to kill a fellow male inmate. However, if that person somehow finds his way out of confinement, teenage girls are at risk.

 

Correspondingly, if either a man or a woman kills their loved one for infidelity or some other stupid reason then there's no justification for execution because the victim was isolated and under special circumstances. Life in prison is the better option there.

 

However, if a man or woman has married and murdered two people then it appears as though that's what gets them off and they should be executed to protect others from their love.

 

To use the DUI example, if someone drives drunk and kills someone by only stupidity and not malicious intent then lock them up for awhile and make sure they ride a bike for the rest of their lives (if it is malicious intent life in prison). If the same thing happens again, execute him to protect others.

 

When you're dealing with human behavior, statistics like yours don't do much because there are so many factors to consider, and these decisions need to be made on a case by case basis. In these types of cases that I have described are the ONLY time I am for the death penalty, for protection.

[Phi for All]

I oppose the death penalty in all instances.

 

It is not the deterrent people want it to be. It deters you and me, maybe, but chances are we wouldn't kill anyone even if it were legal.

 

If it's not a deterrent, then it's vengeance, and that diminishes us as a society. Retribution assumes the penalty is justly deserved, and no human, even a murderer, deserves to die at the hands of another human. It may sound good to say it regarding some vicious killer, but getting what you deserve should never mean death. Civilized society should face its problems, not sweep them under the rug.

 

I think when cryogenic freezing becomes commercially feasible, the death penalty should be abolished and everyone who gets life imprisonment should be frozen and stored in Antarctica. No maintenance costs, no killing, no inhumane treatment, and your case can be reviewed every hundred years or so.

[bascule]

If the person has committed multiple homicides for ammusement or any form of insanity then it is likely that person will continue because that is who that person is. To not kill this person would be irresponsible because you're putting innocent people at risk by not doing it.

 

Are you trying to tell me that an inmate given life without parole imprisoned in a Supermax Prison poses a risk to anyone? Maybe in the movies...

[silkworm]

I think when cryogenic freezing becomes commercially feasible, the death penalty should be abolished and everyone who gets life imprisonment should be frozen and stored in Antarctica. No maintenance costs, no killing, no inhumane treatment, and your case can be reviewed every hundred years or so.

 

I would think that being cryogenically frozen would fall under cruel and unusual punishment. I don't think it works as a deterrent either, and the death penalty is way overboard for just punishment, I only see it as useful in protection. I don't even really care if lifers are having a "good time," as long as they can't hurt anyone.

 

Are you trying to tell me that an inmate given life without parole imprisoned in a Supermax Prison poses a risk to anyone? Maybe in the movies...

 

I hear you bascule, but a low risk is still a risk and no risk is no risk, and no risk is true protection which can only be delivered by killing those who habitually kill other people.

[Pangloss]

I am opposed to the death penalty.

 

I am also opposed to pardons/clemency in standing death penalty cases unless there is scientifically valid and objective reason to doubt trial evidence. These people aren't unborn babies -- they did the crime, they knew the consequences, and a legal sentence was imposed. Society has an obligation to carry it out.

 

The only thing I find more annoying than the arrogance of people who believe that we can be certain enough of evidence to apply the ultimate penalty, are people who don't understand the concept of responsibility.

 

But yeah, you give me a good reason (as opposed to this Tookie nonsense), and I'd commute to life in prison, probably with a pretty well-inked pen.

[Phi for All]

I would think that being cryogenically frozen would fall under cruel and unusual punishment.

Why? Unusual maybe, but suspended animation isn't cruel, just very restrictive.

I don't think it works as a deterrent either, and the death penalty is way overboard for just punishment, I only see it as useful in protection. I don't even really care if lifers are having a "good time," as long as they can't hurt anyone.

It could be argued that, for those who don't see life in prison as being such a bad thing, being frozen would be a better deterrent. And someone who is a block of ice isn't going to escape to hurt anyone, not without some multi-million dollar Hollywood plot and the capabilities for cryonic resuscitation.

[zyncod]

Statistics are meaningless in this situation because different people kill at different times for different reasons and opportunities, and I think that living under confinement will change both their opportunities. For example, someone who finds enjoyment in killing teenage girls will probably not find it attractive to kill a fellow male inmate. However, if that person somehow finds his way out of confinement, teenage girls are at risk.

 

You are still speaking statistically. People that have murdered in the past put others "at risk." People that drive drunk put others "at risk." As I have already proven, DUI drivers put many more people's lives in jeopardy than do locked up murderers. And there is no system that can stop DUI drivers, really, from driving cars other than locking them up. So, I think that, by your reasoning, a first DUI should really get you at least 5 years in jail and probably the rest of your life. That is, if it's acceptable to kill somebody due solely to the "risk" they pose to others.