So you would lie under oath (I think juries are sworn in for selection).

And then if it happens you can't manipulate the jury because you happen to not be the smartest guy there for once?

You possess an amazing degree of certainty in your statements.

Despite the rage I feel for murders and rapists living in prison eating three hots and sleeping on a cot and getting better health care than my own family only because it would be cruel and unusual to let them suffer illness in prison... I don't support the death penalty. The system isn't perfect, and it is not equal. Men who can afford their own private justice seem to be able to do whatever they feel like doing. That does not make them any less guilty or any less deserving of the punishment fit for them... What we call punishments are more like consequences of actions. The death penalty is a finality---if it cannot be distributed evenly, then it shouldn't be distributed at all, because we can't make up for that punishment.

Even if guilt was 100% possible, I still would not let be them executed: make them work. Somehow scrounge some sort of usefulness out of them for society.

Also, something has to be done about that health care system. My father, whom worked 16 hours a day at the same job on a fixed salary for 25 years, has a bum ticker. He has never done a damn thing wrong in his life... and he can't get that kind of health care prisoners receive? Shit, prisoners can receive state-paid hormone treatments... but my pops can't see a decent doctor for his heart? /rant

You can't possibly think that was a serious answer. Jesus.
"Would you support the death penalty under any circumstance?"
"By support, do you mean, 'Will I ever sentence someone to death'?"
"Well no, I can't actually ask that."


Will wins.

you'll be directed to give a yes or no answer will. prosecutors may not be geniuses, but they aren't stupid either. I'm pretty sure they've come across people with your ideology in the past and know how to get the answers they need to choose you or send you home.

will doesn't win.

I absolutely can ask for clarification on a question. Once I have the full question, I would give a yes or no answer, but that's only assuming they're allowed to ask the question. Lawyers are only as successful as the jury is stupid. They count on people not understanding the process in order to use them.

That is because you have used faulty logic. Why not think this through some more?

Just because you personally don't see discord, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Yay for ends justifying means. In order to combat what you believe to be an incorrect policy and judicial system, you commit perjury to get yourself on a jury when the attorneys may want to exclude you. Do you also do outside research when you're on a jury to see all of the evidence as opposed to the evidence that jurors are allowed to access?

Important safety tip: You're a juror. You have a specific and prescribed role in the judicial system. If you want to do anything else, get a JD or get elected and stop mucking around with the process in furtherance of your own personal crusade. Obviously the result isn't as extreme, but from a legal perspective it's no different than vigilantism-you're eliminating the legal process and replacing it with your own beliefs.

Hey USTWO - are you going to answer?

@ Frosstbyte:
willravel did just say, "You can't possibly think that was a serious answer. Jesus," and proceeded to mock the system where the lawyer avoids outright saying, "Yes you will be a juror for a trial where your determination can sentence someone to death."

I thought that is what he said but I never was good at making inferences---seriously I am not.

You may not be aware of this elusive fact, but asking for clarification for a question isn't exactly the same as perjury. I know. Crazy, right? What I'm actually doing (for those who care to read what I wrote) is preventing the lawyer from asking what amounts to an illegal question by purposefully being vague about it. I'm essentially saying "What you're actually asking is illegal". By asking for clarification, they either have to tell the truth and admit that their question was illegal or they have to change the question and thus make it something I can answer but that has nothing to do with me and the death penalty.
I'm fixing the mess that lazy people who don't know shit about the process make by their ignorance. Shame on me!

BTW, "vigilantism"? If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that was actually perfectly legal. Google "jury nullification". The google "I don't know anything about the legal system".

Well...I'm not sure that I'd have phrased it quite that way...but...yeah. :rolleyes:
A jury of my peers? :oogle: Exactly.

What I mean to say is the dishonest lawyer will never be successful so long as there's at least one juror who has an idea of what's really going on. If all 12 are there with no clue of what's going on, the dishonest lawyer is likely to get away with stuff, though.

I know very well what jury nullification is, thanks, but you misrepresenting your beliefs in order to get on a jury to "force" the jury to come to the resolution that you've decided BEFORE THE TRIAL is not jury nullification. That's you taking your outside thoughts and beliefs into the jury box, ignoring the attorneys and then convincing the rest of the jurors to agree with you, effectively trying to act as attorney, judge and juror which sounds remarkably like vigilantism to me.

If you say so, but I didn't think you were serious in thinking a vasectomy would lower testosterone levels either ;)

You're misunderstanding the situation. Lawyers aren't allowed to ask "If you're on the jury, will you allow the death penalty?" In order to get around that rule, they make the question more vague. It's none of their fucking business what I believe in, as it's my right to bring my philosophy onto the jury. I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm just not going to tell them what they're not allowed to ask for. I'm not allowing them to cheat. Or do you think that people who are against the death penalty not be on a jury where it's a possibility? Isn't that kinda dishonest?
My beliefs aren't against the law, so they're allowed. It's not illegal for a juror to say the death penalty isn't the right punishment. If the person is guilty, then we all agree that life in prison would be the best way to go. Besides, I'm a pretty fair guy. Anyone would be lucky to get me on their jury instead of some idiot who doesn't understand that he's being toyed around with by the lawyers.

They can, just not nearly as often as I figured. Still, touche.

So many hours in the day, and this is my past time between patients. Now you have to wait extra time for being pushy and impatient, thats not polite.

Your beliefs are not illegal, but making decisions about any part of a case before you've heard the evidence or the arguments undermines the entire purpose of an adversarial legal system presented to an impartial jury of peers.

I want jurors to do their job in the case at hand and not be activists for causes in an improper venue. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that and hope we're never on one another's juries.

I'm not making a decision about the case, I'm just setting aside specifics when it comes to sentencing. There's a huge difference there. I'm still totally impartial about hearing the cases and making my decision (guilty or not guilty). That's what impartiality is all about.

What decision has he made? He has no preconceived notions pertaining to the guilt of the person to be on trail. The only thing he has brought is his legal belief that there is no reason to punish by death. If the lawyer refuses to specify whether or not the case warrants the death penalty, Will has every right to refuse to answering the lawyers question. As I noted about his previous comment before: he was joking.

As his multiple statements to the contrary evidence, while he may have been joking about that exact phraseology, he was in no way joking about the underlying principle.

As for what decision he's made, he has decided ahead of time that he would not give the death penalty no matter what the circumstances presented to him were. While that doesn't affect his impartiality in the guilty/not guilty part of the process, he has made a decision about sentencing, which is another part of the process in which we expect jury neutrality and impartiality. Where juries are allowed to make determinations of death sentences, they should be just as impartial about the sentence as they are about guilt. Going into the trial knowing that you won't give it under any circumstances makes you by definition not impartial.

I just became a fan again. :thumbsup:

Justice CAN come before the law. That, imho, is one of the most magnificent things, ever.

I answered it, as have others.

Given the "wrong" set of jurors as opposed to the "right" set of jurors, it is also one of the most terrifying things ever.

I pretty much agree, and I would not be opposed to a death penalty for guys with records of violent crimes...something like three strikes and you're dead.

EDIT: I would like to add that the thought of spending life in prison is far worse than the death penalty in my eyes.

You asked me a question and I patiently and politely answered. I would have hoped for the same consideration but I suppose that was a bit much to expect from you ...

There are a few reasons why I against the death penalty:

1. Human error
You can also file corruption under this one too if you'd like. But quite simply, to exact such a huge punishment on a person based on a procedure that is seriously flawed (jury of peers, biased participants, lawyers etc) is a miscarriage of justice. I have sat on a couple of jury pools and witnessed the most horrifying details of our justice system. I also, unfortunately, have an intimate knowledge of the penal system and can only be grateful that I am not a part of it.

2. Raising the Standard
As a conservative, patriotic American, I take great pride in our country and is founding principles. I have traveled the world and very culturally knowledgeable. I know we have our issues and our disasters in the international arena, but I still believe in our ideals. Thus, I believe, we have to take a stand and stand by what we believe in and espouse to others. Like host said and I think Roachboy alluded to in the other thread, we have to be better than this. We have to rise above what I believe to be a barbaric act (death penalty) as punishment.If we want to hold other countries accountable to things like human rights, then we should demonstrate it ourselves and set the bar. In the same way that we don't tolerate torture etc, the death penalty should also be a thing of the past and of liberal socialist states.

3. Death Penalty doesn't work
I don't get the sense that the death penalty is a successful deterrent. Countries that have a high rate of death penalty such as China and Saudi Arabia, still have those crimes occurring. I mean, in China, they execute their corrupt officials and white collar criminals. Could you imagine that here (in the US)? Think the criminals in DC and boardrooms would continue their corrupt ways, *chuckle*? But to me the biggest point is, despite the death penalty, murder and rapes still occur.

I'm sorry, but I will channel DK here and suggest that having a well armed citizenry (lawful) serves as the best form of criminal deterrence in my opinion.

THIS JUST IN: Everybody not shot by John Smith Vigilantepants will be sentenced to life imprisonment in a cushy government resort.

Why again do we have government? To govern, perhaps?

Funny, here I thought the best forms of criminal deterrence were access to social programs and the elimination of poverty.

Yes it is funny you think that.

Anyways, my stance on the death penalty is that once you have taken an innocent life you have forfeited yours. Its not about a deterrent, we don't execute frequently enough for that. Its not about rehabilitation, I don't care if they are now sorry and can convince some social worker they are fit for society. Its about punishment and vengeance and justice for those who knew the victim.

Punishment? And how would one be punished by death?
Vengeance? You've got that right.
Justice for the victims? As I've said, the victims don't feel better after the execution. In fact, often times they feel worse. That's why vengeance is traditionally frowned upon: it's hollow for people of conscience. You commit the act of vengeance and... now you feel even worse.

Is your wish for vengeance really worth making the victims feel even worse? Haven't they been through enough?

Oh I dunno, something about it seems sort of harsh to me.


You rape and murder my wife, I'm not going to feel worse, sorry will, it doesn't work that way. Bunch of psychobabble there will, at least as it would pertain to me. I have to wonder why so many family members witness the executions, maybe just to feel bad eh?

Lets take a brief look at those who witnessed the execution of Timothy McVey...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../11/se.08.html

Whats hilarious is you can tell that they want them to say something bad about the execution.
So sorry Willy I don't buy that pyschobabble.

Oh so now being against the death penalty is for the victims eh? Give me a break, ask Mr. Howell there if he wants you to protect him from it.

I never pegged you as an essentialist....

....nor one whose values run parallel to the Old Testament and the Qur'an--though, I will point out that the latter takes a slightly more compassionate stance than you do.

How about another?

After reading the article, I'm even more convinced that not much good can come out of witnessing an execution. And remember that there are two sides to the show. This can't be healthy for anyone.

Shocking that a site dedicated to abolishing the death penalty would have anti-death penalty articles, I'll take my raw news feed of the witnesses instead, no time for manipulation in those.

Perhaps which makes this topic somewhat comical to me is the thread in sexuality about male rape. How many men there stated they would kill their rapist. Apparently sticking a dick in another mans ass is grounds for death yet not the murder of innocents.

Edit: Oh and it was the reporters they surveyed? Dear jebus.......those poor reporters.

Edit:Edit QUIT EDITING YOUR POST AS I RESPOND YOU HOSER. You neglected in your quote to point out it was the REPORTERS who had a hard time, not the victims families.

The punishment is the time before death. The death itself really isn't anything.
Psychobabble isn't a word that I recognize. Kinda like when people call police officers "pigs". You'll have to use something else if people are going to understand what you're communicating.

The people witness the deaths now being aware of what's to come, considering that having a looking glass into the future really is quite rare and all. The nice thing about being educated on a subject is that when I say something I know and that I've had extensive training with and someone without the benefit of that training simply says "Nope, not true," it just tells me that I was very fortunate to have that education. The reality, based on studies and precedence, is that most of the family and friends of victims in a case in which the accused is executed tend to have higher and more severe depression after the execution. Odds are if, in some bizarro alternate universe, I were to rape and kill your wife, be arrested and found guilty, and was sentenced to death, you'd end up worse off from a psychological standpoint after my execution.
I'm sure you'll notice that this interview was very soon after the execution. The day after, in fact. Had you been properly instructed and educated, you'd understand that depression rarely sets in after less than 24 hours. As a matter of fact, it can take months. So all that you've done here is demonstrated a state of mind called shock. Statistically speaking, Mr. Howell probably did go through some sort of serious depression some time after this interview. It's possible he didn't, just like it's possible that I can flip a coin and get heads a few dozen times in a row, but realistically speaking it's not unreasonable to guess.

I'm sure he did, really I'm sure, because you said so.

It's because I have the first clue about how it works and because it happens to most everyone. Do you have anything to back up your claim beyond how you'd imagine things might be in a hypothetical situation in which I (a pacifist, bleeding heart liberal, anti-death penalty, anti war flower child) rape and kill your wife? Is that the entire foundation of your argument? "I think I might react this way, you know, cause I'd be all pissed and shit".

I'm sorry will you do have an agenda here. You are looking for a secondary reason as its not your primary reason for opposing the death penalty.

Its witnessing an execution traumatic? Sure, but so what. You are trying to claim you oppose it for the victims which is just bullshit, I'll let them answer not some young psychologist who is fundamentally opposed to the entire concept.

So sure they were happy about it after, but we need to wait months and months and THEN see they were depressed they were thinking about their loved one and the execution, see its traumatic on them! I mean who would have thought that the murder of a loved one might come back to haunt someone even after an execution!

And yes I'm sure at times it does bring up old wounds, after all it takes so fucking long to execute someone. Perhaps speeding it up such as with McVey will help that part out too.

I have an idea will, lets let the next of kin decide and render your argument moot. Oh wait I forget, as a liberal, people don't know whats good for them and you need to get the government to decide for them, my bad ;)

So when someone gives evidence supporting their position, that automatically means you ignore the evidence?

Victim's welfare is one of many reasons I oppose the death penalty. I also oppose it because of it's inability to deter, the inability of the justice system to actually find guilty people guilty and innocent people innocent, the horrible methods by which we kill, the amount of time someone spends on death row, the idea that the state can just up and kill people, the fact that it has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with vengeance... the list goes on. The welfare of the victims is part of a much larger case, but you brought it up so I figured I'd address it. Primary? I dunno. It's there.
Again, you're talking about something you have absolutely no experience with or education for. The depression from the death is compounded by the execution, not alleviated by it as you would have people (including yourself) think. People who don't go through the experience of having the guilty or supposedly guilty party put to death don't have that.
Why are you so afraid of the learned and trained professionals who know exactly what's going on? I'll tell you what, let's compromise and have a licensed therapist speak to the next of kin to the victim who was killed by someone who was eventually put to death. Then we can have the therapist tell us how the death of the convicted criminal was wonderful for them, in the short term (months) and the long term (years).

no, not to govern. That is such a huge misconception that is taken entirely at face value now so as to make me sick. I did not elect a king, monarch, baron, or warlord. I elected someone to protect my rights, which is what governments under this countrys constitution were created for, to protect our rights. nothing else, nothing more.

um, how about 'non-sensical ramblings of strung together words that are related to psychiatric and psychological fields of medicine, which are designed to either intimidate or denigrate another person in to feeling that they aren't educated enough to understand what the person is really saying is bullshit'? :oogle:

*gameshow buzzer* Sorry, you'll have to submit your answer in the form of something that isn't akin to wishing on shooting stars or really hoping that unicorns exist because you want to ride one down a rainbow some day. The only thing that should make you sick here is that our fine republic-based society has developed into this bipartisan bullshitfest that means minimal progress for those who actually need it and that Botox'd stuffed shirts pretty much dictate / regulate just about every important (and some not) part of our lives from fuel prices for your oversized SUV to how much you pay to kill yourself with booze and alcohol to if you can still possess a privately civilian firearm (those "brutal tools from a by-gone age").

Middle school civics suggests that governments maintain order, establish standards, host civil services, and protect rights. Other stuff too, I'd imagine... the national debt has to be rocking into a squillion digits as I write this so there must be a few other things somewhere out there.

The thing that makes me sick? People who still think this country is "by the people, for the people" while crapping on their own Constitution. Not suggesting that you are... but let's get real about the America-Fuck-Yeah complex.

When was the last time someone you voted for actually did something for you and did it involve the chess club in high school?

1) These are excerpts; it's everyone's responsibility to read the article, 2) the article was published in the Washington Post, 3) reporters are human, so are victims. I think they share the similar physiology and psychology.... I'm not sure. I'll try to dig up some articles on that. 4) Did you read the article? 5) Would you comment on some of the key points? 6) Or would you rather continue paring everything down to fragments of meaning so they continue to support your view? 7) Do you know how to be comprehensive?

Im not saying I disagree with you, Im just wondering if you could steer me in the write direction of statisitics that gave you this information.

Thanks

Interesting information, according to the information not only is the death penalty not a deterent- the murder rate is lower in states without capital punishment. (for anyone interested)

Or it could serve as notice that criminals won't kill their victims to remove witnesses to their crimes because a death sentence is no longer feared. Notice that it does nothing to deter crime, it only serves as providing no incentive to kill witnesses. Some people are ok with this, a high crime rate but less murders, still with no way to deter crime.

Would this mean that states holding onto the death penalty are those with deeper social problems? Is it worth noting that besides the U.S., those who still carry out the death penalty are (for the most part) most of Asia, the Middle East, and Africa?

Deterrence doesn't work. Prevention does. It is the one and only solution to crime.

Said deterrence would work a lot better if death row wasn't 15 years of Constitution-raping ritualistic appeals.

That and skull poles outside the White House.

...

Capital punishment needs to be revised to be effective.

We can't lock up the entire planet.

The idea isn't to lock everyone up, it's to prevent crime in the first place. Imagine almost empty prisons, no death row, and very low crime rates. Not a bad place, eh?

Preventing crime is preventing human nature. Our existence is a story of conflict over time. The variables may change, but the equation is the same.

...

We're so civilized in our stability. I like how the riots during Katrina proved it.

Somebody... somewhere... has to hold a big stick.

The question is: Who do you want holding said stick?

Stability?

How many times have you committed premeditated and unprovoked murder? Never? So does that mean you can actually behave in a way that's contrary to "human nature", or does that mean that killing someone isn't human nature?

@ Willravel:
While I find Crompsin's statement far fetched, when taken down a notch it has truth. Can you honestly say that you haven't contemplated murdering someone at some point in your life? If you haven't... wow...

The potential for heinous crimes is always there as at some point the thoughts of heinous crimes will appear. The difference always is what is innate to us (how the brain is wired), and what was imprinted to us (experiences that shaped our thinking). You being a psych major know that one is intricately connected to the other, however you cannot argue with me that sometimes there is just something wrong with one's brain that lets these heinous thoughts become actions.

The questions is: how do we work at that level to prevent crime? Describe other levels of crime prevention? More cops? More awareness? What?

Again, I am against the death penalty. However, what are countries with the death penalty (and have very high murder rates, like the USA) doing wrong compared to countries without the death penalty?

EDITS: let me amend this thought. We are arguing whether death penalty works as a deterrent. What other methods of deterrence are their? Do we have more cops? Institute some kind of social awareness? Bring in the Salvation Army? What? Countries with the death penalty have it because they feel that there is nothing left for them to try to stop the murder rate. What are these countries with the death penalty not trying?

CLARIFICATION: How many people have honestly not wanted the premature death of another person? Whether it was imagined at one's own hand or by that of a bus? In your mind you still wanted that person dead; part of being human. The potential to follow through such acts is based on then life experiences and the innate and uncontrollable wiring of one's brain. If someone has honestly never once thought, "I wish that person was dead," ... give that someone a medal.

There is a difference between: 1) we have the desire and capacity to commit murder as a part of our nature, and 2) we have the capacity to commit murder, and, under certain conditions, we do commit such an act.


A man who goes through his entire life without wanting to murder (or actually murdering) another is not denying his nature. What has been accomplished is that he has left out in his life certain human experiences that he deemed unsavoury, non-essential, or a combination thereof.

EDIT: The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent because of this: Few people avoid the act of murder out of fear of state-sanctioned executions. They avoid it simply because they don't want to get caught at all. They avoid it because of the danger involved, or, perhaps, because of the inconvenience of having to "lay low" for a while.

So why do people murder, then, if they know there are penalties or inconveniences? I doubt these factors play much a role when the decision is made. I'm sure murderers hope for the best in their actions. "I won't get caught; I'll leave no witnesses." But, realistically, I'm sure many acts of murder involve lapses in thought. Deterrents are useless when they don't factor in at all. Fear, anger, madness. That the idea of death row doesn't come into mind wouldn't surprise me.

I am curious where you got your information from? Do you not consider China or the Russian Federation as an "industrialized" nation? Both of these countries support and use the death penalty. Also, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, has anyone considered that in those contries as well, their crime rate is lower than in the U.S. BECAUSE their death penaties are actually LESS strict than here in the U.S.?


Will, while I support your rights to oppose the death penalty, I would prefer that you used the media, and public voice to fight against it, than try to, in my opinion, sneak in the back door.


Also, earlier in this thread it was mentioned I believe that Texas has the highest criminal population, as well as the highest execution rate than any other state.... Um.... HELLO! Texas has the largest POPULATION as well...I think that MIGHT have something to do with it.

Interesting article, however I am curious how the individual states break down based on poulation DENSITY as well as overall population. (This leading to the thought of is the murder rate higher in relation to the DENSITY of the population, compared to the overall population fo the individual states) Also, I do not see that there is any PROOF that the death penalty is not a deterent. This page is a factual breakdown of the numbers. Only by interviewing each and every criminal that commited a murder could one TRULY find out if that states death penalty, or lack therof had any input in their decision. Remember that a large number of murders are "crimes of passion" where there was no premeditation, or opportunity to CONSIDER the ramifications of their actions. I find that this article, while informative, does not properly calculate the true reasons behind "do i commit murder or not based on this state's capital punishment laws?"

The numbers in Texas are also higher when you consider the rate expressed as a percentage or as per 100,000 people, which is a fairer comparison. The real population number is highest likely because of the total population of Texas, but even so, the rate of incarceration and execution is disproportionate as compared to most other states.

Well look at it this way: should there be only people who support the death penalty on juries where the death penalty may be an option? Does that seem fair?
Texas does not have the largest population. We do here in California. 22m in Tex, and 36m in Cal.

@ Baraka_Buru:
I will clarify so that there is no case 1 and 2. How many people have honestly not wanted the premature death of another person? Whether it was imagined at one's own hand or by that of a bus? In your mind you still wanted that person dead; part of being human. The potential to follow through such acts is based on then life experiences and innate uncontrolled wiring of one's brain. If someone has honestly never once thought, "I wish that person was dead," ... give that someone a medal.

Also, It is not a fair compromise to use numbers based on per 100,000 people, because we'd be assuming that there is a linear correlation between criminal population and population density. I have no numbers and do not know where to begin to back up this analogy. Look at a concert: if there are few people, there there is a less chance of a mosh happening. Many people, mosh pit. When adding more people, do you think that a proportionate amount of people are not going to be moshing? For instance, every 4 people you send into a moshing crowd, will 2 always not participate in the fight? Remember more people more and more likely chance to start bumping around. It is comparable to a mob mentality, in this example. Due note, I am not suggesting that a high murder rate in a region is self-propagating.

Again, I am all for those other ways to deter and prevent murders, WILL! [kidding, but any reading material on the subject would nice. even sits on the back of the pot reading material]

On statement 1: I am NOT in any way suggesting that. but by having someone deceive the court knowingly, whether directly or indirectly makes me concerned. Of course I guess with the imperfect system we have already there isn't that much of a difference.

On statement 2: Sorry, I forgot that California has a larger population.


If the numbers are as you say, why does the website not show this? I would like to see your research that proves this data.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a jury must be unanimous in its decision. By placing people who disagree on a jury... you get a hung jury every time.

1: As long as there are humans... there is human error. What about the poor sucker who gets imprisoned for 25-to-life in error? Which is worse? Death or life in a concrete matchbox? Keeping people alive for 25 years in prison is expensive. As it has been said many times before, I'd rather not pay for a convicted murdering rapist to enjoy a boring but cushy prison stay. Right, wrong... relative... but money isn't. Money just keeps on going in the toilet.

2: If a sterile, quick-n-painless death is the most barbaric act you've witnessed, you need to travel more... check out what my favorite band refers to as "The Violent World."

3: Despite having DUI laws... people still DUI. Oh well, too bad, right?

While I concur with the well-armed citizenry being an important aspect to crime deterrence... it can't be our social / legal safety net. God still needs some lightning bolts up his sleeve if he is to be a god that is to be respected.

human error occurs yes, but we shouldn't be resigned to it. why throw the baby out with the bath water? i don't think killing innocent people is a justifiable cost of human error.

i am very well traveled, thank you. not sure what that has to do with having high standards though.

not sure what dui has to do with death penalty.

I don't believe the option of the death penalty is extreme at all. I believe the lack of the option, however, is foolish given certain offenders' 99% recidivism regardless of therapy or whatever other touchy-feely crap that disease-coddlers would have you believe. Don't confuse my responses in this thread as "Man, we should put everybody in the gas chamber!" I am referring to exercising the option when the option makes sense.

Unanimous in guilt. Then unanimous in death. Even one in the other direction and things change.

for guilt or innocence, a unanimous decision is required. For sentencing, if death penalty is on the table and depending on the state, a non-unanimous decision usually reverts to life without parole. I believe some states do provide for a 3/4ths majority to exact a death sentence, but don't hold me to that.

This is precisely why I, a former advocate of the death penalty, am now against it.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pag...u_sid=10222619

I'm glad he's being freed.

As pig said earlier in this thread:

I don't believe that tit for tat solves the problem. I don't believe death is a penalty. These personalities that often crave capture would like nothing better than to die. I don't want think it's right to give them what they want.

I was born Jewish and lost large portions of family in Europe during the war but would not have wanted to see Hitler executed.

I do not believe child molesters, even when prosecuted beyond a reasonable doubt, should have the luxury of being laid to rest.

Put them behind bars WITH the general population and when the nature of the crime is known, nature will take its course.

If a person is truly guilty, and is truly beyond reform, I have no problem with the death penalty. However, we can't figure out either of those with 100% certainty, and therefore I am against the death penalty.

If someone is 100% guilty, I still don't want my government murdering them. It's a monumental failure of society and government every time an innocent or guilty person is murdered by the state.

So does this mean you blame society and the government if someone becomes a murderer?

There's plenty of blame to be assigned, and there are no absolutes outside of maths. First and most importantly the blame lies with the killer. This person is directly responsible for his or her actions, and there's no denying that. The problem, though, is that the blame does not lie 100% with this person. I'd say 70%, but that's just a random number intended to suggest that while the killer has the majority of blame, he or she does not have all of it. What caused this behavior? Why does this person think it's acceptable to take someone else's life? Why was his or her behavior not curbed before becoming so severe?

These are all questions to ask in order to prevent this from happening again.

Would you consider murder to be an innate human trait or a learned behavior?

Statistically, it's more likely to be a learned behavior, but not always. Either a learned behavioral trait or innate trait can often be detected in some anti-social behavior as a child. You know when some idiot quotes CSI and says something like, "Torturing animals is a sign of being a sociopath"? Well they're on the right track, even though they're just trying to sound smart. Many of the warning signs that someone may be capable of murder can be detected earlier in life and steps can be taken to curb said behavior before it even becomes violent.

Even behavior that stems from neuro-chemical issues can often be curbed.

How do you reconcile this with the same belief that you hold that says taking the life of someone else in self defense is still murder?

No reconciliation is necessary as the ideals are compatible. Are you referring to the defender position or aggressor position in your home defense scenario in relation to the party that needs their behavior curbed?

which side is irrelevant to the question I was asking.

You said "Many of the warning signs that someone may be capable of murder can be detected earlier in life and steps can be taken to curb said behavior before it even becomes violent." but you also say that even if one kills in self defense, that's murder, so what I see you saying is that you can 'cure' the desire to commit murder, even self defense killings. Do I have that right?

I see it more as removing the temptation. Those that invade the home or commit whatever crime one believes warrants murderous protection are the initial problem. If, by some miracle, the right combination of social programs are developed in order to identify and assist children who display patterns that could lead to destructive behavior, and thus criminals become a rarity... then there's really no one to shoot. The excuse of "well what if a criminal breaks in" goes from extreme to insane. Let's say hypothetically that somehow just the right programs are put in to place. Criminality begins to drop off in a few years and continues until it's at record lows. The US suddenly has the lowest crime rates in the Western world. Let's say there are maybe a dozen murders a year in the whole country for several years, home invasions are almost as rare. Shootings are almost unheard of aside from accidents. How often will a homeowner need to shoot a home invader?

The problem would fix itself. Not only that, but I see these, aggressive murderers and defensive murderers, as different problems with different causes.

What about those who resort to crime at a later stage in life with no previous sign of violence growing up?

Crime from desperation usually also has roots in childhood. Crime is almost never the only choice. Most people who are poor and desperate enough to commit crime are 1) deterred by punishment and 2) sympathy and empathy for the possible victims. Both of those reactions represent a healthy mental state.

But you can never be 100% sure of that they are guilty.

Some people that are pro-capital punishment often says something like "Okay, you can't be 100% sure but lets say 99.9%."

Okay, so one in thousand should be able to be put to death innocent? That's pretty facsist I think. Not that I would support it even though it was 100%...

Yep even Saddam and Hitler
 

Two wrongs never make a right. Killing people is wrong, IMHO. The fact that someone else behaves immorally or engages in atrocities it doesn't give anyone else the right to follow suite. I'm certainly not in favor of having my taxes go to engage in killing people.

I also do not believe in locking people away in "hell hole" prisons is the answer to anything. Someone once said you can judge a society by the way they treat their convicts. That quote, I'm sure, is bastardized. But you get the point.

When it comes to people who have been convicted of "capital crimes" I favor a life without parole system. One possibly managed federally. In 2005 the death row population was around 3500. I say we build one or two prisons to house these inmates. Privileges and fellow inmate contact would be extremely limited. Family visits and phone calls? Sure, as soon as your victim(s) phones home you can do the same. I see no reason why we couldn't declare someone legally dead without doing so physically.

As for all other inmates I think we should be doing more to ensure they're treated humanly and live in a safe secure environment. Locking people up in institutions where everyday life is often a violent struggle for survival is short sighted. The vast majority of these inmates will be released someday. Do you really want someone who's been living like an animal for the past 20-30 years walking the streets in your neighborhood?

Which is why the correct answer to Ustwo's question is:
"My personal beliefs on the topic of capital punishment are irrelevent in regards to whether I'd do my civic duty to remain in this courtroom without a predetermination of guilt based on any ideological positions one may hold about any particular punishments."

It's late, and I haven't been around for a while, so it'd probably be best to work on how to word that rather than attempt any amount of trickery to wedge oneself into a potential jury pool.

Some similar variation of the answers given to Congress' questions about abortion to potential supreme court justices would suffice. The gist is the same: it's simply not appropriate to head into court with any set of preconceived notions of how things should be decided before the evidence phase is concluded. In practice, we know this to be bullshit, just about everyone I know has some idea about the big topics in the world. It's perfectly legitimate to tell the court that despite any strong beliefs you have about this complex topic, you're going to do your best to address the evidence in front of you without a bias one way or the other. Oh hey, that's a valid and straightforward response to Ustwo's question, as well.

The whole questioning of willravel about how he'd answer this question is a "gotcha" anyway, because in a real court of law, capital crimes are addressed by two distinct phases: the trial (evidence) phase and the penalty phase. Your judgement of guilt or innocence isn't supposed to be predicated upon your belief of whether a particular punishment is appropriate for the crime the accused is on trial for--and that goes both ways.

If questions like that were allowed, it'd be the same as allowing the prosecution to stack the jury of all pro-death penalty citizens...which would obviously present a problem if you're trying to approximate anything like justice.

And given that's the whole premise of this debate, I don't know why anyone would want prosecuters to go down that road.


EDIT: I should also mention that I am personally opposed to the death penalty for the reasons already listed by a few people. I have personally experienced the tragedy of crime *as well* as the been on the receiving end of a broken criminal justice system.

I don't think either of those unique experiences grant any more legitimacy of my views on the subject. Without them, and without the rampant errors infused in our legal system, I would still be morally and fundamentally opposed to state sanctioned murder.