main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Can we abolish the Death Penalty yet? - Illinois Legislature Bans Death Penalty

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by farraday, Aug 27, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brett_Bass

    Brett_Bass Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Unlikely doesn't cut the mustard in my opinion. One of the officers at the last place I did private-sector security work was a correctional officer who was almost beaten to death by a death row inmate. The other C.O. that was with him managed to disarm the guy of his shiv by virtue of it winding up lodged in his abdomen. It's a wonder that he survived at all, but he wound up on permanent medical disability as a result. So now we have the state of California paying this retired officer his pension ten years before he could've retired normally for the rest of his life, and thousands of dollars of hospital bills passed on to the taxpayers of the state on top of all the other expenses this parasite has racked up. Extending the felon's life only provides him more chances to continue inflicting pain and death.
     
  2. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Thats great, and if you can find a way to distinguish those from the legally guilty but innocent in reality that also get executed then I'm all for executing. Go on, tell me how.
     
  3. Black-Tiger

    Black-Tiger Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Just read my links and think about the victims for once, rather than the welfare of the cold blooded murderers. Part of the reason why these "things" do what they do is because they know the system. They know there's always some naive do-gooding sucker out there who'll take pity on them and save their butts from what they really deserve.

    Like I said, the death penalty should only be for special cases, those who obviously 100% did the murder. For example, does anyone disagree that Fred West committed those murders of those women and girls?
     
  4. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    So you want two legal categories of guilty? The guilty and the really guilty we mean it? Hell the grop set up by the FBI gent/informant were held for 30 years, who decides your super extra guilt since it's aparently beyod the ability of a court of law.
     
  5. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    That's terrible, but that man should be in much higher security if he was able to do that in the first place. All murderers and those deemed dangerous should be in maximum security prisons.

    I do think about the victims, don't tell me to "think about the victims for once."

    It's nobody's place to judge what someone really deserves, when it comes to taking away that person's life. Retribution is NOT justice.

    Like I said, if the difference between a law abiding citizen and a murderer is the maximum possible penalty being either life imprisonment or death penalty, then that person is really messed up to begin with and is NOT a normal person.
     
  6. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    No more than having jails makes the state a kidnapper. I'll grant you it making the state a killer, but murder is, I think, a loaded word.

    I'm going to say now that treason, rape, child molestation, child pornography, and drug smuggling should NEVER be capital offenses. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment, it should be reserved for the ultimate crime.
     
  7. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    But this comparison does not work because you are comparing apples with oranges. It is the role of the government to enforce the laws of society with punishment. That is not the role of citizens. Kidnapping is a violation of law regarding the right to personal liberty, whilst state sanctioned imprisonment is one of the legitimate functions of the state. The state provides the means to maintain social order, in return for that, the state is entitled to deprive citizens of their right to personal liberty. There is really no comparison because the state serves a unique role in maintaining an ordered society.
     
  8. Brett_Bass

    Brett_Bass Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 22, 2003
    What kind of increased security are we talking about? Unless you're suggesting he be physically restrained at all times, he still has opportunities to inflict damage on others. The man was on death row in a maximum security state facility. Should he have been denied human contact completely for the rest of his miserable life to insure that he never got the spork he fashioned into a weapon? Drugged into a coma so that he couldn't strike the C.O.s that were moving him?

    I work security for a living, and I scratch my head frequently when people state that they want more security. Invariably, they just want to either cut down on their insurance premiums or collectively feel good about themselves. Sometimes both. But two constants remain:

    1) Increased security only decreases the odds that the undetermined will commit crimes. If you want to bad enough, no amount of security will stop you.

    2) As soon as somebody that wears a suit and tie for a living is inconvenienced or stands to gain from taking up the cause of somebody who claims to have been, the security levels will be circumvented and thereby rendered purposeless.

    The first constant applies here in the most immediate sense. If a predator wants to continue preying upon people, he will do so as long as he has the means and the will to do so. The second constant will inevitibly come into play in the future, and whatever increased security measures are rendered to decrease the odds of violent felons killing will eventually be reduced, and we're back to square one, but without the ability to permanently prevent them from inflicting more damage.

    Those that have the desire to fight will continue to do so until they no longer have the means. Period.

    I'm on the fence about rape, because it absolutely destroys lives. The first girl I ever loved was a rape survivor, and I found out years after we broke up that the man that raped her killed her some time in 2008.

    Treason, though, I have to disagree. Treason can result in more than just one death. If I can be shot for falling asleep at my post during a time of war, the hypotheical bastard that gives my platoon's position away to the enemy deserves the bullet just as much--if not more--than I do.
     
  9. Obi Anne

    Obi Anne Celebration Mistress of Ceremonies star 8 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Nov 4, 1998
    I don't want to really get caught in this discussion, since I'm definitely against capital punishment, but I can't help but wanting to say this.

    Treason should never be punished by death, since it's simply not an objective crime. It simply depends on who's in government at the time, just think about all the Germans that were executed for treason by the Nazis. In our viewpoint they did the right thing (most of the time) but it was classed as treason by the ruling government. That is an extreme, but that is a reason why I think treason is a very subjective term.
     
  10. anakin_girl

    anakin_girl Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 2000
    A few points:

    1. I'm finding Black-Tiger's posts interesting, because I've heard that there are many in the UK who would like to bring back the death penalty there.

    2. Treason is subjective. We probably couldn't even come up with a good definition of it on this board. Henry VIII executed people for treason when they refused to sleep with him.

    3. I don't believe in the death penalty. I think some people do "need killin'" but I don't believe it's the job of another human being or group of human beings to decide who "needs killin'" and carry that out.

    That being said, I support a reform of the prison system. I think prisoners should be kept in a tiny cell, only big enough to turn around in, and only fed basic sustenance. And no cable TV.
     
  11. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Let's not forget the case of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. If Scotland had the courage to execute a man that's deeply deserving of capital punishment, he would not be walking around today a free man.

    His victim's families would not be further vicimised. Justice takes courage.
     
  12. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    The only reason he was extradited to Scotland was they didn't have the death penalty. You couldn't even have had the bad trial and dubious conviction if Scotland had the death penalty.

    Since Black Tiger has failed to respond as of yet, I'll open it up to anyone supporting the death penalty. How do you stop innocent people form being executed? (Presuming you want to)
     
  13. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Wait a minute. It's highly debatable that he was actually involved.

    Which is one of my main gripes about the death penalty. How do you turn back the sentence if it turns out somebody else did it?

    I will say that I'm firmly against the death penalty. I believe that if you support it, you're no better than a killer. It has long ago been shown that the threat that the death penalty poses isn't keeping people from perpetrating crimes. So that's not a good reason to have it. What else could be a good reason? Revenge? That's never a good reason. Anybody else got any good, morally justified reason to kill people?
     
  14. anakin_girl

    anakin_girl Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 2000
    It is worth mentioning, yet again because several people have brought it up already, that the justice system is not perfect. Not only that, but a guilty person who is wealthy enough to afford a good lawyer, is much less likely to be convicted, much less executed, than a poor person who might not even be guilty at all, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Case in point: O.J. Simpson. If he were a member of the working poor as opposed to a wealthy famous football star, he would probably would have been executed. That would be true even if he weren't guilty (which I believe he was, but my point stands).
     
  15. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    There's no way to stop innocent people from being executed. But with our system of justice there are many more guilty people walking free than there are innocent people being punished. And it should be that way...the bias should be against a conviction to protect the innocent. And that's how our courts are set up.

    I think that capital punishment should be used when it's justified. And I think that ever precaution should be taken to protect the innocent from being punished. But that's the best that can be done.

    Look, I'd gladly make a deal to end capital punishment if it also ended elective abortion. But until people want to "meet in the middle" both guilty adults and innocent children will be slaughtered.

    I'm just proud to say that I'm against the slaughter of innocent children. Even if that means that I'm for the execution of the guilty. [face_peace]
     
  16. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    Except the precaution of keeping the state out of the murder business on the off chance that new evidence might emerge proving the subject's innocence...
     
  17. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    How to know what J rod is going to post.

    1) Imagine the most reflexively reactionary thing you can
    2) Double it.

    I'm not going to insult anyone by presuming they agree, but does anyone else follow J-rods 'as long as innocent babies are being murdered a few innocent prisoners don't matter' theory of pro life?

    Well there we go, we do enough and anyone who gets caught, tough ****. Is there a differing opinion from the pro death penalty camp? Perhaps one that's actually worth arguing with?
     
  18. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    Actually, abolishing capital punishment would go a long way towards stopping innocent people from being executed. I believe it is better to have 100 guilty people walking free than to have one innocent person locked up or executed. That is how the court system is actually set up. It presumes innocence until proven guily. That is why the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and that is why the standard of proof for criminal matters is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That sounds great until you put it into practice, particularly when you have an elected sheriff in charge of the crimimal investigations, an elected district attorney in charge of the prosecution case and an elected judge presiding over the trial and a bunch of voters in the jury box and a community full of voters awaiting a verdict.

    In addition to that, you are being tried on the basis of circumstantial evidence (most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence). That means nobody saw you do it, rather, little snippets of evidence as to your whereabouts, opportunity, motive and other evidence physically linking you to the scene are introduced and the district attorney is able to weave a 'theory' which is presented as fact to the jury. If the jury accepts this theory as fact then you are found guilty. Your whole life depends on how well you are able to shoot down this theory. In this regard, factors beyond your control come into play: how good is your defence attorney, how articulate are you on the stand, what do you look like, do you have tattoos, prior convictions, are you black, asian,a homosexual, an atheist, did you once torture a squirrel when you were 8 years old, do you look 'evil' or 'untrustworthy'.

    In additon to that, you have 12 jurors picked from the community to adjudicate your guilt or innocence. Who are these people? What prejudices do they have, which nobody knows about. Do these jurors have the mindset of "where there is smoke there is fire" - do they trust the district attorney, after all has the district attorney ever been wrong? Do they trust the sheriff? If the sherrif thinks you did it, who are they to think otherwise? I don't have the reference handy, but studies over the years have shown that this is exactly the kind of mindset present in many juries, particularly in smaller towns.

    Finally, you have to combat the mindset that you yourself have just illustrated. The whole acceptability of 'collateral damage' in the criminal justice system. Even if the prosecution has not quite met its burden of proof, you probabably did it anyway and you are a bit of a scumbag and what the hell, let's convict you just to be on the safe side. I mean, you had tattoos on your neck - that's just not right.

    All of this makes capital punishment an unacceptable sentence in my opinion as the risk of executing innocent people is just too great.


     
  19. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    LOH, I understand your points, exceptfor the claim that most convictions are based on circumstantial evidence. But as I said, our system is accurate enough that, IMO, capital punishment is acceptable.

    Well Sparky, here we go again. You love to belittle arguements while not actually challenging them. Your poor man's Ender impersonation continues to get old. You should at least come up with some shtick of your own.

    Maybe this is why our own Congress gets gridlocked...if we get attacked here for offering a compromise then it must be suicide to offer one in Washington DC.

    Try coming up from your mother's basement once in a while and living real life! Maybe it'll soften your attitude.[:D]
     
  20. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    You're killing innocents so we can too isn't a negotiation strategy it's grade school ground stupidity.

    These are two unrelated issues you're attempting to conflate because you have no other defense for your willingness for innocent people to be executed by the state.

    You might as well say "We'll stop executing innocents when you remove all hand gun restrictions", "We'll stop killing innocents when you cut medicare benefits", or "we'll stop killing innocents when you make gay marriage illegal".

    This isn't a negotiation, it's you failing to have a defense and looking for unrelated issues to sidetrack discussion while hoping everyone here is stupid enough to fall for your goalpost shifting brand of thread********.
     
  21. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Whoa there Sluggo! You sound so upset that I don't think you took my advice about leaving your mom's basement for a little walk in the sunshine! Give it a try!

    Now, it's rare that two subjects are completely 100% related but abortion and capital punishment are related in that both end human lives. It would be a fair compromise to agree to end both practices.

    But I am no more willing to kill innocents than I am to lock innocents up for life. That doesn't mean that a life sentence should never be given.

    And again, I feel our system of justice is accuate enough to warrent capital punishment. What's wrong with that answer?
     
  22. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    You know what else ends human lives? Drunk driving. I'm pretty sure we can address the death penalty without addressing drunk driving. The issues are not related, and this isn't a subcommittee set on figuring out how to get rid of the death penalty so your insistence on trading isn't just stupid it's completely irrelevant. Much like your continued "your mom's basement" routine and, well, you in general.

    I'll ask you what you mean by accurate enough. Lets get some percentages here. How many innocent people killed per guilty people is accurate enough for you.
     
  23. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    J-Rod, the reason why most convictions are based upon circumstantial evidence is simply the common sense reason that most 'criminals' try and avoid generating direct evidence when they commit a crime. If you are going to murder someone, you are hardly going to do it in broad daylight with multiple witnesses. In murder cases, direct evidence is rare.

    If I had no moral or other objections to the death penalty, then at the very least I would limit its use to those rare cases where there is credible direct evidence.
     
  24. J-Rod

    J-Rod Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Yes, but the purpose of drunk driving is not to end human lives. Also, there was not compromise needed...it's illegal.

    But for numbers, as you can imagine they are hard to find. But if you look, you can see that we have 3500 poeple currently on death row in the U.S. Since the 1900, 350 people have been found innocent after a conviction. If we do the math using today's numbers on death row against the entire century of over turned convictions it will greatly slant the numbers in favor of ending the death penalty. But let's have a look see anyway...just for number's sake.

    Let's see... 350/3500 equals...0.01. Convert that to percent and we have one percent. One percent slanted heavily to your side. Now, if we were executing 1000 people a year I would say that would be unacceptable. But we are't. It seems that in 2008 we executed 37 people.
     
  25. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000

    I don't need the numbers slanted my way, but I'd appreciate it if you'd bother to do research and better math.

    350/3500 is 10% not 1%.

    Since 1973 there have been 135 exonerated from death row. citation.

    Combining executed since 73 with currently on death row add 500 or so for a fudge factor and you get roughly 5k death row inmates total since 73. 135/5000 is 2.7%

    That's just people who've been found innocent we have no records of people who are actually innocent and are still on death row, or have been executed. We have at least one example here but there is no way of knowing if that's it(I highly doubt it base don probability alone).

    So apart from your poor math and poor logic, did you have an argument?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.