Nice going, Nebraska.
May 27, 2015
"Nebraska on Wednesday became the first conservative state in more than 40 years to abolish the death penalty..."
"... with lawmakers defying their Republican governor, Pete Ricketts, a staunch supporter of capital punishment who had lobbied vigorously against banning it."
Nice going, Nebraska.
Nice going, Nebraska.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
115 comments:
"The vote capped a monthslong battle that pitted most lawmakers in the unicameral Legislature against the governor, many law enforcement officials and some family members of murder victims whose killers are on death row.
Nice going, Nebraska.
While I do believe that in theory there are people who deserve the death penalty for their crimes, I also have a problem with the idea that wrongly convicted people have been executed. I cannot support it for that reason alone.
Why oh why do those who support killing the most innocent of life possible oppose the death penalty?
While I do believe that in theory there are people who deserve the death penalty for their crimes, I also have a problem with the idea that wrongly convicted people have been executed. I cannot support it for that reason alone.
Do you support prescription drugs? Thousands of innocent people every year die to side effects of prescription drugs.
Do you support public transportation? Thousands of innocent people die every year driving cars.
Do you support abortion? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are killed intentionally every year.
yes it is a tragedy if an innocent person is executed. We don't allow tragedies to rule our world.
Why is this a good thing? At least with an executed criminal there is no chance of ever getting out of prison. Next will be the assault on life without parole.
Spare the guilty but constitutionally protect the killing of innocent babies?
Upside-down morality.
It must be a sign of the coming of the Great Liberal Majority. How is Hillary polling in NE by the way?
As a native Nebraskan I support this. However, with the change of police practices, the police are killing criminals (maybe 1,000 in 2014 if you include all deaths and not just shootings) in much larger numbers today than say 50-60 years ago (even with the incredibly improved medical care for gunshot wounds), and in some respects they may have replaced the function of the death penalty.
Charles Starkweather murdered 11 people, was arrested at the end of a 100 mph chase in the middle of nowhere (a single bullet caused him some bleeding), and was executed by the Great State of Nebraska within 18 months. Today, I have little doubt that the Nebraska State patrol would gladly save the Great State of Nebraska from even that fairly reasonable period of delay.
Whoops -- Starkweather was captured in Wyoming, just outside of Nebraska. Should have said Wyoming Highway Patrol!
Here's the rest of the story from Omaha. Yesterday a young female police officer, Kerrie Orozsco, was buried. She was murdered by a convicted felon who she was trying to arrest on a fugitive warrant. This week she was scheduled to bring home her preemie baby for the first time. Thankfully one of her co-workers killed the fugitive felon before he could cause more harm. The funeral at Creighton's St. John's was covered live by all three TV stations. The funeral procession took over an hour to travel seven miles; 450 cars.Thousands lined the route in two states. Maybe the biggest public event ever in Omaha.
If the murderer would have been captured instead of killed he would not have faced death.
Over seventy percent of NE voters favor the death penalty. There will be a ballot measure to put the death penalty in the NE constitution.
The vote was 30 - 19. All Dems voted to repeal. About 10 Republicans voted to override the Governor's veto. My high school classmate, Bob Krist, voted with the 30. He is term limited but his political career is finished.
The death penalty probably saves lives. This is open to argument, and certainly open to moral discussion. But the numbers are pretty clear.
Per David Begley's comment (with which I agree), I think the chances today of getting arrested rather than killed if you are a cop killer have gone way down.
Remember when Christopher Dorner was on the loose? The L.A. cops -- channeling Janet Reno -- set the cabin where he was hiding on fire!
I think cops realize today that if a cop killer gets to go to jail (instead of dying), there is too much of chance he/she will end up becoming a college professor when they get out. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/10/how-1960s-radicals-ended-up-teaching-your-kids.html
Ironically, without the death penalty hanging over them, some wrongly convicted individuals will not have the extensive appeals process nor top notch pro bono legal help that often comes with a death sentence and as a result will never be exonerated and will spend their lives in prison for a crime they didn't commit.
Do you support prescription drugs? Thousands of innocent people every year die to side effects of prescription drugs.
Do you support public transportation? Thousands of innocent people die every year driving cars.
Do you support abortion? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are killed intentionally every year.
yes it is a tragedy if an innocent person is executed. We don't allow tragedies to rule our world.
I kind of expected this response from somebody on here. Here in Illinois, we had many convictions on capital offenses that were eventually overturned, so many that the governor at the time decided to end the practice. Would you just say hell with it, tragedies happen, justice is still being served most of the time, let it go, Gov. Ryan? Is there a point where you would question the practice at all, or does the percentage of wrongfully convicted matter at all?
Not sure any of your comparisons are apt here. The issue of abortion is far from settled. Prescription drugs constitute a (regulated) market. Use is voluntary (for the most part, anyway). An execution is performed by the state after a trial by the state. And I'm not sure I follow the public transportation example followed by thousands are killed driving cars.
The shootout was a split-second kill-or-be-killed deal. The felon had a drum magazine. The police all were wearing bullet-proof vests but the felon made a lucky shot.
I can't emphasize enough how big a deal the police woman's funeral was.
Nebraska sounds like one of the more boring states....at least to me.
I would vote Kansas most boring though.
tits.
Virgil Hilts said...
Remember when Christopher Dorner was on the loose?
I do. I also remember sympathetic words for him.
I'm not sure I follow the public transportation example followed by thousands are killed driving cars.
My point is that we, as individuals and the State, make choices and decisions every day that result in the death of innocent people. The statics clearly show that thousands of innocent people die because people make the choice to drive. Drugs are approved that we know will result in the accidental death of innocent individuals. We simply decide that the potential good is worth the risk to innocent life.
That is also true of the death penalty. Swift and appropriate use of the death penalty would save lives.
@Titus: What's the situation in MA regarding getting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev free somehow before his sentence is carried out? I know you thought he was cute and wanted to "do" him. Is that feeling widespread amongst gays?
Bricap @ 6:59: "Here in Illinois, we had many convictions on capital offenses that were eventually overturned..."
Some possibilities here:
1. The police in Illinois do an awfully bad job of investigating capital offenses
2. The system worked as it is supposed to -- the lengthy appeals process allowed questionable convictions to be overturned
In the modern era of capital "appellancy" (say, since 1970), what are the names of the executed who were provably and absolutely innocent? Not including uncorroborated testimony 20 years later from some guy, but absolute evidence that proves that the person was innocent.
So much for justice. I'm sure there is a Bible verse that talks about a reckoning when the streets are filled with injustice.
I wonder how twisted you have to be in your mind to think that giving the needle to a vicious killer is somehow 'barbaric'.
Yes I'm talking to you libs.
""Nebraska on Wednesday became the first conservative state in more than 40 years to abolish the death penalty…""
Formerly conservative.
Yeah I drive through there, sometimes at 60mph because my overdrive goes out 10 miles to the Iowa border on, what the Hell is it, 151?
Yeah, so they get smarter by hating the fuck's (in the) governments power structure (whilst of course giving much respect and admiration of the sincerest of sorts, for absolutely necessary reasons of eminent importance as breathing to those fulfilling duties I frankly can't imagine) and being evermore suspicious of government killing anyone (unless by Obama's drones and abortions and all the deaths from this POTUS inability to keep the fucking peace this fuck bragged about.
Legacy of shit death mass.
A lot of conservatives are concerned about the death penalty. In fact...
They have a nice page of quotes by conservatives, too.
Thousands of innocent people every year die to side effects of prescription drugs.
Do you support public transportation? Thousands of innocent people die every year driving cars.
Do you support abortion? Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are killed intentionally every year.
None upon official order of the state.
What kind of a social tyrant would even attempt such tortured analogies?
Thank you, Nebraska.
I am thankful,too, for CO's current stance on things.
Sheriff when the man pulls that switch sir and snaps my poor head back
You make sure my pretty baby is sittin' right there on my lap
They declared me unfit to live said into that great void my soul'd be hurled
They wanted to know why I did what I did
Well sir I guess there's just a meanness in this world
None upon official order of the state.
OK..the police and the military make decisions that result in the death of innocents all the time.
Besides, we are the the State, collectively and individually.
One of the few things that I garnered from a guy doing Pro Bono stuff for Parole hearings in my current state: "DAs need to keep in power. The best way to stay in power is to not allow victims' families a possibility to heal."
How about a compromise?
If you know the word, you'll know of which I speak.
Have the condemned eat such shitty food, Litterally Healthy but absolutely not good, compared my diet, of Safeway steak dinner, and crab cakes with Ranch dressing.
Meh.
Now that we've, apparently, got a federal death penalty for especially heinous murders, there's not much downside to letting the feds handle the massive litigation expenses of the appeals.
Incorporated in my Current Position:
Dad: "Lawyers called. They said they were from the DA."
Bev: "Oh. What did you do?"
Dad: "Talked to them. They want to know more about your relationship with your brother. Would you talk with them?"
Bev: "What Lawyers? What do they want to know?"
Dad: "Talk to them; they just want to help."
(Ah bon.)
Dad: "Someone from The DA's Office. Maybe they can help."
Nice going, Nebraska.
Althouse is not referring to the children in the womb of Nebraska women.
Sadly.
When do we ban war? These little hits of ecstasy no longer have any effect on me.
@Chicklit...Hillary couldn't be elected dog catcher in Nebraska. We are the state that booed Sen. Nelson out of a pizza parlor after he was the 60th vote for Obummercare. There are lots of legislators here that will NEVER win another election.
Okay I finished the song: TEN MINUTES OF FAITH.
By God.
"Now the tables turn, like poker Turn and Burn."
"Earn one last call, and be standing tall."
"Wish I woulda started over, thanked Him for getting older."
Well, if you're not going to do it right, you ought not do it at all.
The death penalty is very, very meaningful in Texas. In many other states that have it on the books, but that lack the will and political consensus to enforce it, it's still random and arbitrary. California is the poster child for this sort of death-penalty hypocrisy.
If your "nice going" evaluation is a comment on Nebraska's failure to enforce its death penalty consistently and within the constitutional guidelines of Gregg v. Georgia and its companion cases, Prof. Althouse, then I can't comment, because I don't know how Nebraska has actually applied its death penalty laws in the last few decades.
If, instead, your evaluation means you're in the "unconstitutional in all circumstances" camp (like Justices Brennan and Marshall), then I respectfully disagree.
Beldar:
John Joubert killed young boys with ropes and he got the chair.
Harold "Walking Willy" Otey brutally murdered a young woman with a hammer at a horse racing track and he got the chair within the past ten years.
There are 10 people on death row now. I am proud to say my law school classmate Judge Sandra Dougherty put about three of them there for a bank robbery-murder in Madison County. Sandy's decision is unassailable on appeal in state and federal court.
Beldar: The Death Penalty is Very, Very Meaningful elsewhere, too, which is why, in many cases, it's not even on the menu.
In my brother's case, folks from the DA's office (in CO) were "reporting" on things to the local news.
UW Law.
That's the scene. To me that means circular steel.
Perfect.
Stay within that steel-fortified structure, literally, and those whom paid have taken care of the output therein.
"Wish I would've started over,
Thanked Him for getting older,
Not made promises unsober.
Dusty pictures on the wall,
Frameless memories all,
Surely soon some will fall,
And no more standing tall."
"Over seventy percent of NE voters favor the death penalty. There will be a ballot measure to put the death penalty in the NE constitution."
Assuming this is true, then what the hell is wrong with the NE legislature?
There seems to be an ever active, small, minority that is working constantly to thwart the will of the American people and ban the death penalty by hook or by crook. Weirdly, many of these same people (read Liberals) are OK with killing the unborn but executing some serial killer who tortured people to death causes them weep tears of sadness.
IMO, anyone who commits 1st degree murder should be executed, unless there's a good reason to show mercy.
>When do we ban war?<
same time "you ban inner city youths from committing crime"
It was once said "no man can kill another man unless he himself is willing to die."
"D. said...
>When do we ban war?<
same time "you ban inner city youths from committing crime""
This is my confused face.
Are there any actions which simultaneously qualify as "committing crime" and "not banned"?
All I can think of is illegal immigration, which isn't something I associate with inner city youths.
"There will be a ballot measure to put the death penalty in the NE constitution. "
I hope so, and I hope it passes overwhelmingly. I also hope the voters make each legislator who voted to repeal CP pay. But, if not, then I guess the state will have what the voters wish. What it's all about.
Capital punishment is a reasonable and logical response by society to heinous acts by members who have proven their incapacity for peaceful human interaction. Scratch anyone who has dealt with the nuts and bolts of violent homicide and you will find someone who agrees with the death penalty for some crimes.
"I also have a problem with the idea that wrongly convicted people have been executed."
The numbers of such people is vanishingly small. Something like 0.18% of those executed.
What do you say to the families of prison guards murdered by prisoners serving life terms?
I don't know when it happened, but, at some point, representatives learned they didn't have to represent.
@Michael K, I agree with your last point. It is a clearcut mistake to leave a man alive with nothing left to lose, but if the criminal is already serving a life sentence then there has to be some further way to punish him.
The 'wrongly accused' is an indictment on the men and women charged with administering justice, not the justice system.
If you don't have the death penalty, you shouldn't call it the "justice system." You should call it the "punishment system." There are plenty of crimes so heinous and with evidence so overwhelming that there can be no justice without the death penalty.
But then, I was much more adamantly in favor of the death penalty when I was an atheist.
I remember a small class on something do with the government in college. The professor, an Englishman, asked if any of us supported the death penalty. Two of us raised our hands. He said something like, "I assume you're both Christians." "No, I'm an atheist." "So am I." He was unduly surprised.
What makes the death penalty so hard is that no one alive is the victim.
I couldn't agree more, Ann... Good job, Nebraska!!!
Vicki from Pasadena
So if a white cop kills a black unarmed teenager... Nebraska will go easy on that cop?
Nice going Nebraska!
Unbelievable.
Dennis Prager: the death penalty for murder is the only law mentioned in all five Books of Moses.
Nebraska will now be a safe heaven for Same Sex Marriage deniers.
Nice going Nebraska!
@Be: Do you believe your brother is innocent or are you against the death penalty or both?
I would add the death penalty back in for slave trading.
"Nice going, Nebraska."
Is this what you couldn't find a place to say about Norway in your Anders Breivik post (5/21/15)?
"None upon official order of the state.
What kind of a social tyrant would even attempt such tortured analogies?"
Those were not analogies. Where are you coming from that you think that it makes a difference how those people got dead? Let them die, as long as the state didn't do it?
And you have it upside down. Someone killed in an auto accident or from a prescription drug is a tragedy. Someone executed for murder is not a tragedy, it's a good thing. That is the moral response to a murder.
Any other response reveals a society that isn't horrified by murder.
According to statistics, the death penalty probably saves lives. It is a kindness to the families of the victims. It is probably an effective deterrent. But the real reason to support the death penalty is that it is the right thing to do.
Now, where do you think all the top polluting CEOs, the "biggest threat facing our country"... are going to go?
Nice going, Nebraska
Does Ann or anyone else think the Boston Marathon Bomber deserves mercy, or something less than the death penalty?
I think that little punk should be fried, regardless of what Nebraska does or doesn't do.
ObeliskToucher said...
Bricap @ 6:59: "Here in Illinois, we had many convictions on capital offenses that were eventually overturned..."
Some possibilities here:
1. The police in Illinois do an awfully bad job of investigating capital offenses
2. The system worked as it is supposed to -- the lengthy appeals process allowed questionable convictions to be overturned
In the modern era of capital "appellancy" (say, since 1970), what are the names of the executed who were provably and absolutely innocent? Not including uncorroborated testimony 20 years later from some guy, but absolute evidence that proves that the person was innocent.
Point 1 is hard to argue against. A longtime CPD detective was convicted of torturing suspects and getting forced confessions out of them not too long ago, for instance. The city paid out millions on this. I can assure you that this problem is not easily reformed (as nothing is easily reformed in Chicago). Given that, I sure don't want anybody being executed here. A wrongful execution cannot be reversed. It is final.
Michael K. suggested that 0.18% of all those executed were wrongfully convicted. I don't know where he gets that number. I'm sure there are plenty of studies out there with a range of conclusions on what the number really is. We can all pick a number that best suits our own positions, I suppose. One can easily google and find names of people deemed to be wrongly executed, but I'm sure some will find issue with the list(s) offered. And speaking of 20 year periods, a lot can be forgotten and misremembered over that period, and witnesses might not be around to revisit the case after that much time has transpired. To Michael's last point, since you want to bring in families of victims, what about the families of the wrongfully executed? That cuts both ways, too.
I am glad you at least indicate support for the lengthy appeals process, OT. If that didn't exist, the number of wrongfully executed would undoubtedly be higher. I wish there was a way for the death penalty to be carried out with a 100% success rate, and also in a way where one's odds of receiving the death penalty for a given capital offense do not correlate with race. The punishment should be meted consistently, not capriciously, if it is to exist.
Nebraska a Kochtopia
Bricap, I was not showing concern for the suffering families. We all have concern for the families of anyone who dies. This is a separate issue: the family of someone murdered has rights. They have a claim on the person who took away their relative, and everything I've seen shows that they suffer tremendously from that murderer still being alive. His execution, among other things, is a payment to them that helps with their suffering.
While I can understand the issue of wrongful executions, it seems like a distraction to me. Nebraska isn't stopping wrongful executions, they're stopping all executions. What do you think about the ones where you yourself are quite convinced that their guilt is in no doubt?
MikeR, as I said earlier, I support the death penalty in theory. Your suggestion that it provides closure is a valid one, for sure. I just can't support it in its current form.
Obama got one NE electoral vote in 2008. HRC could match that. Might even do better if the GOP candidate is very weak. The Congressional delegation is all Republican but the Eastern part of the state is not red-red.
Human rights for the wholly innocent? They have banned elective abortion/planning?
Probably not. Human life has variable value throughout its evolution. The continuity of human life from conception is not even recognized in liberal societies, in contradiction to scientific evidence and, more so, self-evident knowledge. The "secular" Church has a notably pro-choice or selective religion.
It's telling that greater compassion is afforded to murderers following due process to establish their responsibility than to human life when he/she/we are uniquely vulnerable to suffer loss of life with external coercion. The cost of anthropogenic gender equivalence forcing has been catastrophic.
Gahrie:
Abortion was legalized with consideration for the sincerely held faith of each woman to independently establish when a human life acquires value. It was normalized or promoted on the quasi-scientific principle of spontaneous conception (euphemistically described as "viability"). That is, a denial of the scientific evidence and self-evident knowledge that human life is an evolutionary process from conception.
The moral hazards created by this wicked solution (i.e. pro-choice or selective-child policy) to a "wicked problem" are not limited by the privacy veil hanging over clinics, popular culture, and schools to obfuscate the regressive character of this liberal incarnation/revival of sacrificial rites. Pro-choice or selective inclusion/exclusion is a hazardous principle to establish a religious or moral consensus.
The rejection of intrinsic value implies ulterior motives for related issues, including empathy for murderers convicted through due process. This is not to say that due process is infallible, but that the lack of empathy for human life when it is uniquely vulnerable, and wholly innocent, logically undermines the credibility of other responses with this justification (i.e. intrinsic value). For example, the juxtaposition of "make love, not war" and "make abortion, not life". Perhaps a future generation will have better success to reconcile these logical, scientific, legal (The Constitution names two parties: We the People and Posterity), and moral incongruities. Unfortunately, today, pro-choice or selectivity is the principle of the State-established "secular" Church.
It took me a long time to make peace with the death penalty, but I came to feel that societal vengeance can be justified. And there is no denying the allure a 0% recidivism rate.
Where I will now compromise (in light of better forensics, videos etc.) is that in the case of a penalty phase of a capital crime, x years or a sentence of life has the same barrier (beyond a reasonable doubt) but death would require beyond a shadow of a doubt.
And with today's tools, that is doable.
Blogger Freeman Hunt said...
If you don't have the death penalty, you shouldn't call it the "justice system." You should call it the "punishment system." There are plenty of crimes so heinous and with evidence so overwhelming that there can be no justice without the death penalty.
But then, I was much more adamantly in favor of the death penalty when I was an atheist.
As a matter of fact, if you oppose the death penalty, you don't value human life.
Which makes sense for someone who is pro abortion to be against the death penalty.
The Governor vetoed the bill.
Since the death penalty reduces the murder rate, those of you who are about to die so that liberals can have a clean conscious, we salute you.
The Govenor already vetoed the bill. Yesterday was the override. It becomes law later this year.
Why oh why do those who support killing the most innocent of life possible oppose the death penalty?
That's baffled me forever.
I NOW oppose the death penalty because the government has shown no capacity to do much of anything competently. I don't know why I once thought they could punish in such a manner competently either. My opposition isn't that it is cruel or what have you. It is that the government is incompetent.
I have been trying to prepare myself for death. I don't want to die. I don't approve of suicide. I am not so old that death seems imminent. But I have had a few close calls.
Most religions prepare people for death. It's the opiate of the masses, for sure.
"damikesc said...
Why oh why do those who support killing the most innocent of life possible oppose the death penalty? That's baffled me forever."
Abortion is murder. Unless the mother doesn't think so. Then it's okey dokey. At least to Althouse.
That clear it up to you?
Me neither.
The numbers of such people is vanishingly small. Something like 0.18% of those executed.
We're sorry we mistakenly killed your relative. But at least it's a rare mistake!
Abortion is murder. Unless the mother doesn't think so. Then it's okey dokey. At least to Althouse.
That clear it up to you?
Me neither.
Hell, I could EASILY justify my former support of the death penalty and opposition to abortion (guilt vs innocence, the death row inmate is most likely guilty, the aborted is undeniably innocent). I've never seen anybody even attempt to justify vice versa.
Bri @6:59.
Yeah. And the Northwestern University "Innocence Project" or whatever it was called also managed to release a couple of real honest to goodness murders back into society.
Illinois has a history of prosecutors railroading innocent accused to promote their own political careers.
There is a place for a death penalty.
When a inmate ,already in prison for murder, kills another inmate or guard, do you give him life plus an extra day?
We're sorry we mistakenly killed your relative. But at least it's a rare mistake!
Just like when your relative dies from a drug reaction, from a traffic accident, from a botched operation, in a plane crash, from friendly fire in the military, etc.
People die from mistakes all the time.
Doctors and pharmacists kill thousands every year. Is Nebraska going to ban doctors and pharmacists?
Freedom is another word for having nothing left to lose. The criminal profession that executes witnesses has been set free because the have nothing to lose now.
Nebraska loves killers so much they want to lay down innocent lives in their place...that is so wonderfully loving.
I guess it's a sad comment on the state of affairs I've come to expect generally, but it is nice to see a political question answered by a state legislature after open debate. Even if you don't like the answer I think you've got to cheer the way the question was decided, right?
@HoodlumDoodlum:
"...it is nice to see a political question answered by a state legislature after open debate. Even if you don't like the answer I think you've got to cheer the way the question was decided, right?"
Right. And well stated on your part.
I like having a death penalty option on the books and available to prosecutors. Prosecutors whom I hope would be very, very selective in using that option. But if someone wants to say, "It's not worth the money for all of the state and federal appeals to put this particular bastard to death and he can rot in prison for life without parole..." I am okay with that, too.
It's just nice to not have a state law determined by a U.S. District Judge for a change.
This seems an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. As Gahrie points out, there are many things society does and allows that are certain to result in innocent deaths. I can't show that a demonstrably innocent person has been executed, but I acknowledge that no matter how improbable that may be, it is a possibility. We are a nation of over 300 million people, and we can't let general public policy be determined by extremities. It's "possible" that a meteorite could crash through the roof of my office before I finish typing this, but that scant possibility does not send me running for cover.
Don't gloat yet, Ann: just wait until the other house of the Nebraska legislature takes this up. Wait, what? Oh. Never mind.
Bob Ellison:
If you think that religion, particularly the Judaeo-Christian philosophy, is an opiate (i.e. suppressant) for the masses, then you should limit it to one point: morality. The Judaeo-Christian religion should not offer you comfort in old age unless you have followed the philosopher's dictates. For many, perhaps most people, oblivion would be the preferred alternative to judgment for an unrepentant life.
That said, the opiate of the masses is redistribution of secular incentives and promises for dissociation of risk. Morality or self-moderating, responsible behavior is a burden for most people and functions to suppress their ability to enjoy a libertine life to its fullest. Liberal doses of secular opiates serve to suppress integrity and conscience, which serves the amoral, and opportunistic interests of narcissistic elites to act without accountability far better.
My opposition isn't that it is cruel or what have you. It is that the government is incompetent.
That is a reasonable argument to oppose the administration of capital punishment, even following the carrying out of due process, other than in cases where responsibility for the action is clearly unambiguous. The same standard should apply to investigation and remediation of other crimes, but our society has lapsed into an excessive reliance on sufficient evidence (e.g. correlation), implied or inferred evidence, extrapolation and generalization, and amorality/immorality for selective causes of personal welfare.
Am I the only person who believes that it is as cruel or crueler to lock up an innocent person for life as opposed to executing the person? I would much prefer that latter. Of course, neither should be done prior to the running of all appeals and possible avenues of exoneration, including analysis of DNA evidence (which I presume would be done at the time of trial now).
The same standard should apply to investigation and remediation of other crimes, but our society has lapsed into an excessive reliance on sufficient evidence (e.g. correlation), implied or inferred evidence, extrapolation and generalization, and amorality/immorality for selective causes of personal welfare.
We should be repealing laws by the truckload. Hell, have a President move to try and remove 10 laws a day, every day, from the books. Won't make much of a dent at all, but it would be nice symbolically.
Am I the only person who believes that it is as cruel or crueler to lock up an innocent person for life as opposed to executing the person? I would much prefer that latter. Of course, neither should be done prior to the running of all appeals and possible avenues of exoneration, including analysis of DNA evidence (which I presume would be done at the time of trial now).
It's not and it can be proven that it's not:
The death row inmates desperately want life imprisonment.
If it was worse, they'd ask for the death more quickly and do away with all appeals.
Damikesc - you make a fair argument, but I don't believe it is conclusive. First, I suspect there are plenty of death row inmates who would would prefer the death penalty once they have accepted the fact that their appeals have run. Second, I haven't seen any statistics on how many prefer one or the other. I assume there are some that don't put up a fight in the penalty phase of the trial? Also, how many are letting their attorney steer the ship when it comes to fighting the death penalty? How may fight it to spare their loved ones the pain of seeing them die?
But, I know very little about criminal law, have not worked with death row defendants, and I am just speculating. So I concede you may be right. I only know that in my case, a quick death is far superior than a life behind bars.
First, I suspect there are plenty of death row inmates who would would prefer the death penalty once they have accepted the fact that their appeals have run.
I, personally, doubt that. When no options remain, you have to deal with the situation. If a woman is gang raped, she has to accept the fact that she cannot really fight it. It doesn't mean that the act is preferred.
Second, I haven't seen any statistics on how many prefer one or the other. I assume there are some that don't put up a fight in the penalty phase of the trial? Also, how many are letting their attorney steer the ship when it comes to fighting the death penalty? How may fight it to spare their loved ones the pain of seeing them die?
The inmate has the option to stop all appeals. They exceptionally rarely do so. And as far as how many prefer one or the other: There is a reason why the death penalty is never mentioned in deals for leniency. Life is.
But, I know very little about criminal law, have not worked with death row defendants, and I am just speculating. So I concede you may be right. I only know that in my case, a quick death is far superior than a life behind bars.
The quick death takes multiple decades.
I don't care what the perp "prefers". I'm sure their victim "preferred" not to be murdered, tortured, or whatever. I just want the perp dead. And ya know, I really feel that a lot of these "wrongful conviction" exonerations are baloney. Years after the crime, DNA evidence degrades or is lost (the reliability factor drops), witnesses may die, or change their story due to SJW pressure, or simply have some incentive to cooperate in freeing the perp, and original testimony might not be re-heard in the appeal, giving undue weight to new information. Personally, my gut tells me that if you were convicted for a capital crime, and the evidence was strong enough to sentence you to death, you either did it or helped do it. Maybe I'm wrong. Can anyone cite a slam-dunk, totally 100% certain wrongful conviction that was due to be executed and then released?
"I don't care what the perp "prefers"."
Neither do it; that is why our discussion was in the context of innocently convicted death row inmates.
So your 1:05PM post was entirely in the context of innocent inmates, to the exclusion of everyone else on death row?
Let's re-read that comment, eh?
"Damikesc - you make a fair argument, but I don't believe it is conclusive. First, I suspect there are plenty of death row inmates who would would prefer the death penalty once they have accepted the fact that their appeals have run. Second, I haven't seen any statistics on how many prefer one or the other. I assume there are some that don't put up a fight in the penalty phase of the trial? Also, how many are letting their attorney steer the ship when it comes to fighting the death penalty? How may fight it to spare their loved ones the pain of seeing them die?
But, I know very little about criminal law, have not worked with death row defendants, and I am just speculating. So I concede you may be right. I only know that in my case, a quick death is far superior than a life behind bars."
Gee. Sounds to me like you're talking about all death row inmates here. Is that not the case?
Now let's re-examine my comment. We're in luck, since the portion I'd like to examine is just the last bit. I'll even quote it here:
"Personally, my gut tells me that if you were convicted for a capital crime, and the evidence was strong enough to sentence you to death, you either did it or helped do it. Maybe I'm wrong. Can anyone cite a slam-dunk, totally 100% certain wrongful conviction that was due to be executed and then released?"
Anyone? Anyone?
Kyzernick, yes, it was. You jumped into the argument without reading my first post at 11:49. I don't expect you to have read every conversation and have followed the thread of each author; I was just clarifying. I have no sympathy for the feelings' of the guilty on death row.
Okay, fair enough. I might have missed that one - my bad on that. I was responding to the more recent comments in the thread.
The death penalty should be safe, legal, and rare.
Rereading the conversation, I guess I was referring to all death row inmates on the post you were responding to. But only in the context of trying to rebut the argument that life in prison for the wrongfully convicted is less cruel than death because defendants tried to get life in prison. So yes, we did move it to the discussion of all death row inmates, but only to argue about a point affecting the wrongfully convicted. So your comment about the guilty inmate's feelings wasn't really relevant because neither of us were discussing their feelings because we cared about their feelings.
Eh, it's all good. In that context, I can see both sides of the argument. Seems to me that most would prefer life in prison, because unless you're in solitary, at least you have company and a social group. People adapt over time to remarkable circumstances - inmates are no different. However, I can also easily imagine that some souls might wish to just get it all over with and have their dinner date with ol Sparky. I cannot imagine, however, a TRULY innocent man preferring death over life in prison. The TRULY innocent will likely hold out endless hope that someday, somehow, they'll be exonerated. I just have trouble believing there are any TRULY innocent inmates on death row.
Fair enough. I think I might be assuming too much from what I would prefer. It is also easy for me to say I would prefer death when I am not actually in that situation.
I also share your suspicion about whether truly innocent people are on death row. I do believe I recall cases that were clearly proven wrong after the fact. But I don't have time to search for them now. It does seem like many of the cases that are overturned later have more to do with bad trials, witnesses changing stories, bad handling of evidence, or other items that made the conviction unconstitutional but didn't' necessarily prove innocence. Not being a criminal law attorney, I have a hard time imagining cases where truly innocent people could be so mixed up in a situation as to be found guilty without at least some level of culpability. But I am sure it does happen on very rare occasion.
The death penalty deters vigilante justice. If legitimate authority gives up the right to use it, it does not go away. It devolves to the next level willing to use it. For example, If I know the worse thing that can happen to me is a long prison sentence, I will carry out the death penalty myself on anyone who harms or threatens my family.
If the Death Penalty deters only one potential Homicide its worth it.
Post a Comment