State of Washington suspends Death Penalty (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Inslee-suspends-death-penalty-244925611.html

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Gov. Jay Inslee said Tuesday he was suspending the use of the death penalty in Washington state, announcing a move that he hopes will enable officials to "join a growing national conversation about capital punishment."

The Democrat said he came to the decision after months of review, meetings with family members of victims, prosecutors and law enforcement.

"There have been too many doubts raised about capital punishment, there are too many flaws in this system today," Inslee said at a news conference. "There is too much at stake to accept an imperfect system."

Inslee said that the use of the death penalty is inconsistent and unequal. The governor's staff briefed lawmakers about the move on Monday night and Tuesday morning.

Inslee's moratorium means that if a death penalty case comes to his desk, he will issue a reprieve, which isn't a pardon and doesn't commute the sentences of those condemned to death.

"Nobody is getting out of prison, period," Inslee said.

Last year, Maryland abolished the death penalty, the 18th state to do so and the sixth in the last six years.

Nine men await execution at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla. The state Supreme Court just last month rejected a petition for release from death row inmate Jonathan Lee Gentry, sentenced for the murder of a 12-year-old girl in 1988. Gentry could be the first execution in the state since September 2010, when Cal Coburn Brown died by lethal injection for the 1991 murder of a Seattle-area woman. A federal stay had recently been lifted in Gentry's case, and a remaining state stay on his execution was expected to be lifted this month.

The decision by the governor comes following a recent decision by the state Department of Corrections, which is in the process of changing its execution protocol to allow witnesses to executions to see the entire process, including the insertion of intravenous catheters during a lethal injection.

The new witness protocol, currently a draft that is in its final stages of approval, includes the use of television monitors to show the inmate entering the death chamber and being strapped down, as well as the insertion of the IVs, which had both previously been shielded from public view.

Through public disclosure requests, The Associated Press had sought information about any potential changes to the execution protocols. State corrections officials spoke with the AP about the new procedures late last month.

The change is in response to a 2012 federal appeals court ruling that said all parts of an execution must be fully open to public witnesses. That ruling was sparked by a case brought by The AP and other news organizations who challenged Idaho's policy to shield the insertion of IV catheters from public view, in spite of a 2002 ruling from the same court that said every aspect of an execution should be open to witnesses.

 

[timschochet]

Michael Medved, who lives in Seattle, is outraged by this. He thinks the governor is acting unilaterally, against the "will of the people."

 

[Koya]

Good.

It's not a deterrent.

It's too costly.

It kills innocent (and at best, "not guilty") people.

It does more damage to society than good as it provides no real closure, no real remedy but simply feeds into the human need for, at best "revenge" and at worst (but legitimately so), bloodlust.

 

[Fennis]

Good for Inslee. I don't know what that talk show host is all worked up about, there has been one execution in Washington in the last 13 years and only 9 people on death row.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

 

[krista4]

Good.

 

[Hipple II]

Good.

It's not a deterrent.

It's too costly.

It kills innocent (and at best, "not guilty") people.

It does more damage to society than good as it provides no real closure, no real remedy but simply feeds into the human need for, at best "revenge" and at worst (but legitimately so), bloodlust.

/thread

 

[Koya]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

 

[joffer]

It kills innocent (and at best, "not guilty") people.

This is all it takes for me. The rest is irrelevant. Seems like it's the Governor's reason too. Good for him.

 

[Koya]

It kills innocent (and at best, "not guilty") people.

This is all it takes for me. The rest is irrelevant. Seems like it's the Governor's reason too. Good for him.

This should be all it takes. Actually, any one of those points SHOULD be what it takes, but the knowledge that we have (and will continue) to kill innocent people sickens me. To know that we do that within the context that killing innocent people does not actually help in any other way makes it cold hearted and disgusting.

It's one thing to say that the good of the whole is important enough to kill a couple innocent people... but when it's actually bad in addition to that reality? Hard to understand how people can support this unless it's just the blood lust and revenge factor that makes us, as individuals, somehow feel better for watching a "bad person" suffer / die.

 

[NCCommish]

Right thing to do IMO.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

 

[lod01]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

The $ wasted keeping this loser alive could go to better use. Death penalty used correctly takes a few minutes to execute. You execute the obviously guilty. The Theater shooter in Colorado, the dude in Arizona, etc.

Another state goes wuss.

 

[LinusMarr]

Michael Medved, who lives in Seattle, is outraged by this. He thinks the governor is acting unilaterally, against the "will of the people."

This is washington? Considering how most up there are flower sniffing hippies i would think the governor is doing exactly the will of the people. So he is doing his job imo...

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Michael Medved, who lives in Seattle, is outraged by this. He thinks the governor is acting unilaterally, against the "will of the people."

I listened for a bit in SoCal, he irked me so I stopped. Still enjoy Dennis Prager when I can catch him.

 

[Koya]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Some people can't be rehabilited and should never see the light of day.

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that I'd wager most people who are pro-death penalty are "so-called" small government people. But yeah, we should empower our gov't of all things to kill its citizens legally. Heck, we can't even run a website. And at least those who run for prosecutor ad other elected offices don't ever consider politics rather than what's best for society when they make the decision for gov't sponsored killing of its own citizens.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Some people can't be rehabilited and should never see the light of day.

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that I'd wager most people who are pro-death penalty are "so-called" small government people. But yeah, we should empower our gov't of all things to kill its citizens legally. Heck, we can't even run a website. And at least those who run for prosecutor ad other elected offices don't ever consider politics rather than what's best for society when they make the decision for gov't sponsored killing of its own citizens.

I'm not going to argue with you because I try and stay out of such arguments. But I will say that I understand your point and your arguments. But you should keep in mind that just because you believe strongly in them, doesn't mean that they are right. That doesn't mean that mine are right, either. What it means is that we both have different opinions.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm opposed. Although I wasn't always. And while my faith probably requires me to not support it, I'm not sure that it is a deal breaker.

No, the first line of my disapproval for the death penalty is the political and economic cost of the system. The current justice system simply can't sustain the necessary blind power accurately for the ultimate punishment that can never be reversed. Death penalty cases are far too politically motivated, far too emotionally driven, and far too prone to costly errors to be something that anyone democrat (small d) or republican (small r) should support. It's bloodthirsty vengence filled demand of a populace that has too narrow a tunnel vision for the end they seek in that moment without care for the damage it does to the system as a whole. Frankly, any society that values reality television as much as ours does doesn't deserve, nor should it be given, the power to kill its fellow citizens because that particular case is just too gruesome.

Yup, still feel the same. So good on Washington.

 

[Parrothead]

good.. do we really want to entrust our government with the power to authorize the killing of (potentially) innocent people? oh wait, there goes another drone

 

[Koya]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Some people can't be rehabilited and should never see the light of day.

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that I'd wager most people who are pro-death penalty are "so-called" small government people. But yeah, we should empower our gov't of all things to kill its citizens legally. Heck, we can't even run a website. And at least those who run for prosecutor ad other elected offices don't ever consider politics rather than what's best for society when they make the decision for gov't sponsored killing of its own citizens.

I'm not going to argue with you because I try and stay out of such arguments. But I will say that I understand your point and your arguments. But you should keep in mind that just because you believe strongly in them, doesn't mean that they are right. That doesn't mean that mine are right, either. What it means is that we both have different opinions.

Fair enough response, but my opinion has been formed from reading a good amount of fact. So while we can argue opinions, certain facts (i.e. it is more costly to execute than to imprison for life and the fact that we kill innocents) can not be argued.

FWIW, I used to be a strong supporter of capital punishment, but after recognizing both the weaknesses in our system and, at the time even more importantly, the concept of blood lust / revenge and the human need to "feel better" about ourselves from the pain/suffering of others was too much for me to accept. The latter is certainly more on the opinion side, the former is far more fact, as stated above.

 

[Koya]

good.. do we really want to entrust our government with the power to authorize the killing of (potentially) innocent people? oh wait, there goes another drone

Only conservatives who believe in small/limited gov't want to give gov't such an immense power. (And in fact, that got me to start a thread on the very subject)

 

[StrikeS2k]

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

Care to prove this?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I still think they should go to this plan:

On the day of your "execution", they walk you out to the field, have you kneel down and then have a guy come out with a case, wearing a tux and white gloves. He'd put the case on a table and slowly open it to reveal a six shooter. He'd then clean the weapon while you waited, taking his time to make sure it was shiny clean. Then he would pull one hollow point bullet from the case, present it to the crowd, then place it into the gun. He would spin the revolver and when it stopped, he would place the gun against your temple and declare that now was the time for the execution to take place. Then he would pull the trigger. If the gun fired, end of the story. If the gun did not fire, they packed up the gun and took you back to your cell. This process would repeat each day until the gun fired.

Also, it would be Pay Per View.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Some people can't be rehabilited and should never see the light of day.

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that I'd wager most people who are pro-death penalty are "so-called" small government people. But yeah, we should empower our gov't of all things to kill its citizens legally. Heck, we can't even run a website. And at least those who run for prosecutor ad other elected offices don't ever consider politics rather than what's best for society when they make the decision for gov't sponsored killing of its own citizens.

I'm not going to argue with you because I try and stay out of such arguments. But I will say that I understand your point and your arguments. But you should keep in mind that just because you believe strongly in them, doesn't mean that they are right. That doesn't mean that mine are right, either. What it means is that we both have different opinions.

Fair enough response, but my opinion has been formed from reading a good amount of fact. So while we can argue opinions, certain facts (i.e. it is more costly to execute than to imprison for life and the fact that we kill innocents) can not be argued.

FWIW, I used to be a strong supporter of capital punishment, but after recognizing both the weaknesses in our system and, at the time even more importantly, the concept of blood lust / revenge and the human need to "feel better" about ourselves from the pain/suffering of others was too much for me to accept. The latter is certainly more on the opinion side, the former is far more fact, as stated above.

The top two can be adjusted or fixed. And as for cost, I'm not that concerned about it. This country spends a lot of money on stupid things. Putting a mass murderer to death is not one of those things, IMO.

 

[Koya]

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

Care to prove this?

I suppose we would have to agree first on what WAY means.

From my perspective, if there is a LOT of benefit to society from capital punishment than at least logically I could understand (if not accept fully) the idea that, hey, sometimes bad things happen to good people (or not really bad people) but the overall good outweighs the death of a few.

However, considering the other issues, namely that it costs more and doesn't deter, then even ONE innocent death has no excuse.

That said, I'd have to dig up some of the stats / articles, but I know they've been discussed on these boards. With DNA testing, its becoming more and more apparent that we have convicted people who are not guilty and in many cases it means they are exonerated after years / decades in jail... something that is not possible if that person was executed.

Maybe someone else has easy access to the stats?

 

[NCCommish]

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

Care to prove this?

Too many people have been proven innocent of the crime they were sitting on death row for by use of DNA evidence. Before DNA they would just be dead. It doesn't take Stephen Hawking to do that math. Further the obvious racial disparities in sentencing almost assure we have killed more innocent minorities than innocent white folks.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Boo.

 

[Koya]

I still think they should go to this plan:

On the day of your "execution", they walk you out to the field, have you kneel down and then have a guy come out with a case, wearing a tux and white gloves. He'd put the case on a table and slowly open it to reveal a six shooter. He'd then clean the weapon while you waited, taking his time to make sure it was shiny clean. Then he would pull one hollow point bullet from the case, present it to the crowd, then place it into the gun. He would spin the revolver and when it stopped, he would place the gun against your temple and declare that now was the time for the execution to take place. Then he would pull the trigger. If the gun fired, end of the story. If the gun did not fire, they packed up the gun and took you back to your cell. This process would repeat each day until the gun fired.

Also, it would be Pay Per View.

Yeah, Nietzsche sorta wrote about this. It was the turning point when I realized that human blood lust is a dangerous thing, and having state sponsored executions (and sometimes murder) just ain't good overall.

 

[whoknew]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Were is rehabilitation going on?

 

[Bamboo Bill]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Some people can't be rehabilited and should never see the light of day.

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that I'd wager most people who are pro-death penalty are "so-called" small government people. But yeah, we should empower our gov't of all things to kill its citizens legally. Heck, we can't even run a website. And at least those who run for prosecutor ad other elected offices don't ever consider politics rather than what's best for society when they make the decision for gov't sponsored killing of its own citizens.

I'm not going to argue with you because I try and stay out of such arguments.

Yes..you poke people with a stick and then bow out when someone calls you out.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Some people can't be rehabilited and should never see the light of day.

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that I'd wager most people who are pro-death penalty are "so-called" small government people. But yeah, we should empower our gov't of all things to kill its citizens legally. Heck, we can't even run a website. And at least those who run for prosecutor ad other elected offices don't ever consider politics rather than what's best for society when they make the decision for gov't sponsored killing of its own citizens.

I'm not going to argue with you because I try and stay out of such arguments. But I will say that I understand your point and your arguments. But you should keep in mind that just because you believe strongly in them, doesn't mean that they are right. That doesn't mean that mine are right, either. What it means is that we both have different opinions.

This is the worst kind of cop out. Koya's argument was based on substantially more than "opinion". Arguments can be supported such that one is considered to be stronger than another. All "opinions" are not created equal.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Some people can't be rehabilited and should never see the light of day.

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that I'd wager most people who are pro-death penalty are "so-called" small government people. But yeah, we should empower our gov't of all things to kill its citizens legally. Heck, we can't even run a website. And at least those who run for prosecutor ad other elected offices don't ever consider politics rather than what's best for society when they make the decision for gov't sponsored killing of its own citizens.

I'm not going to argue with you because I try and stay out of such arguments.

Yes..you poke people with a stick and then bow out when someone calls you out.

Yup, he does this all the time.

 

[StrikeS2k]

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

Care to prove this?

I suppose we would have to agree first on what WAY means.

From my perspective, if there is a LOT of benefit to society from capital punishment than at least logically I could understand (if not accept fully) the idea that, hey, sometimes bad things happen to good people (or not really bad people) but the overall good outweighs the death of a few.

However, considering the other issues, namely that it costs more and doesn't deter, then even ONE innocent death has no excuse.

That said, I'd have to dig up some of the stats / articles, but I know they've been discussed on these boards. With DNA testing, its becoming more and more apparent that we have convicted people who are not guilty and in many cases it means they are exonerated after years / decades in jail... something that is not possible if that person was executed.

Maybe someone else has easy access to the stats?

I'll help you out. There has NEVER been a proven case where an innocent person was executed. There was a guy in Texas that many people believe was innocently executed, but even his case hasn't been proven and he's the best example there is.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Some people can't be rehabilited and should never see the light of day.

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that I'd wager most people who are pro-death penalty are "so-called" small government people. But yeah, we should empower our gov't of all things to kill its citizens legally. Heck, we can't even run a website. And at least those who run for prosecutor ad other elected offices don't ever consider politics rather than what's best for society when they make the decision for gov't sponsored killing of its own citizens.

I'm not going to argue with you because I try and stay out of such arguments. But I will say that I understand your point and your arguments. But you should keep in mind that just because you believe strongly in them, doesn't mean that they are right. That doesn't mean that mine are right, either. What it means is that we both have different opinions.

This is the worst kind of cop out. Koya's argument was based on substantially more than "opinion". Arguments can be supported such that one is considered to be stronger than another. All "opinions" are not created equal.

I've been on here long enough and know Koya well enough to know he knows that I try and stay out of any arguments like this. It's not like I did it just in this thread.

I'm fairly sure Koya knows I was not trying to be insulting in any way possible. But if you've been on this board long enough, you know that I try to stay out of these threads. That said, I was just adding my two cents. But I was not saying he was wrong.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Were is rehabilitation going on?

English down?

 

[Koya]

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

Care to prove this?

I suppose we would have to agree first on what WAY means.

From my perspective, if there is a LOT of benefit to society from capital punishment than at least logically I could understand (if not accept fully) the idea that, hey, sometimes bad things happen to good people (or not really bad people) but the overall good outweighs the death of a few.

However, considering the other issues, namely that it costs more and doesn't deter, then even ONE innocent death has no excuse.

That said, I'd have to dig up some of the stats / articles, but I know they've been discussed on these boards. With DNA testing, its becoming more and more apparent that we have convicted people who are not guilty and in many cases it means they are exonerated after years / decades in jail... something that is not possible if that person was executed.

Maybe someone else has easy access to the stats?

I'll help you out. There has NEVER been a proven case where an innocent person was executed. There was a guy in Texas that many people believe was innocently executed, but even his case hasn't been proven and he's the best example there is.

This would be news to me as I have read a number of cases, both capital and otherwise, where innocent people were exonerated. In the case of capital, well, that's dealing directly with this issue. In regard to the others, it would seem completely logical that if enough people are cleared of murder etc. in cases where they got life in prison (because capital punishment was not an option, for example), that the numbers game not just suggests, but all but proves that innocents have been executed.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Koya - If I said anything wrong, I just want to publicly apologize. I was not implying that you were wrong with anything you said. If I came across that way, it was not my intention and I am sorry for that. I think you realize this, but I want to make it known to everyone since "I do this all of the time."

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I have no idea of the numbers, but I would be interested in how many people are wrongly killed by the death penalty compared to how many people are killed or who's lives are ruined via "rehabilitated" ex-murderers or rapists that were released. People like to harp on the few "innocent" people that are harmed by a punishment being too strict but nobody cares about the innocent people that are harmed by a punishment being too lenient, of which my best guess would be that there are FAR more.

You look at a guy like Alan Weston, who kidnapped, tied up, and violently and repeatedly raped a 15 year old girl who only survived because she eventually managed to escape. The guy had already been released from prison 8 years after breaking into a house, tying up a guy, and forcing him to watch him violently rape the guy's wife. Why the heck does someone that does that ever get another chance? But he does, because giving people another chance is considered the altruistic thing to do. How altruistic does the 15 year old girl that later had her life completely ruined feel that is now?

Sure, if there's any kind of reasonable doubt around a trial then take the death penalty off the table. I have no problem with that. But as others have said, when you have a patently obvious and terrible crime like the Colorado theater shooting the only problem with the death penalty is that we're going to have to wait 15 years for this guy to being gone. I can agree that it's a poor deterrent, but isn't a major part of that because being peacefully executed without pain 15 years down the line doesn't really sound that bad to someone that wants to go kill/rape an innocent person?

 

[NCCommish]

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

Care to prove this?

I suppose we would have to agree first on what WAY means.

From my perspective, if there is a LOT of benefit to society from capital punishment than at least logically I could understand (if not accept fully) the idea that, hey, sometimes bad things happen to good people (or not really bad people) but the overall good outweighs the death of a few.

However, considering the other issues, namely that it costs more and doesn't deter, then even ONE innocent death has no excuse.

That said, I'd have to dig up some of the stats / articles, but I know they've been discussed on these boards. With DNA testing, its becoming more and more apparent that we have convicted people who are not guilty and in many cases it means they are exonerated after years / decades in jail... something that is not possible if that person was executed.

Maybe someone else has easy access to the stats?

I'll help you out. There has NEVER been a proven case where an innocent person was executed. There was a guy in Texas that many people believe was innocently executed, but even his case hasn't been proven and he's the best example there is.

How many innocent men have to come off death row based on a tech that has only been relevant for 20ish years for you to admit we have killed innocent people before this technology existed and likely since? I say since because prosecutors, courts and legislatures make it as hard as possible to introduce new evidence regardless. Personally I think you are way too smart to not realize it. If you just want to execute people run with it. But don't be dumb about it at least. Own it if you are good with it.

 

[Fennis]

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

Care to prove this?

I suppose we would have to agree first on what WAY means.

From my perspective, if there is a LOT of benefit to society from capital punishment than at least logically I could understand (if not accept fully) the idea that, hey, sometimes bad things happen to good people (or not really bad people) but the overall good outweighs the death of a few.

However, considering the other issues, namely that it costs more and doesn't deter, then even ONE innocent death has no excuse.

That said, I'd have to dig up some of the stats / articles, but I know they've been discussed on these boards. With DNA testing, its becoming more and more apparent that we have convicted people who are not guilty and in many cases it means they are exonerated after years / decades in jail... something that is not possible if that person was executed.

Maybe someone else has easy access to the stats?

I'll help you out. There has NEVER been a proven case where an innocent person was executed. There was a guy in Texas that many people believe was innocently executed, but even his case hasn't been proven and he's the best example there is.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent#also

There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. Some cases with strong evidence of innocence include:

Carlos DeLuna Texas Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993

Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995

Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997

David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997

Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998

Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000,

Claude Jones Texas Convicted 1989, Executed 2000

Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004
Troy Davis Georgia Convicted 1991 Executed 2011
Also Noted - Post-humous pardons and new information about people who may have been wrongfully executed prior to 1976.

 

[Koya]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Some people can't be rehabilited and should never see the light of day.

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that I'd wager most people who are pro-death penalty are "so-called" small government people. But yeah, we should empower our gov't of all things to kill its citizens legally. Heck, we can't even run a website. And at least those who run for prosecutor ad other elected offices don't ever consider politics rather than what's best for society when they make the decision for gov't sponsored killing of its own citizens.

I'm not going to argue with you because I try and stay out of such arguments. But I will say that I understand your point and your arguments. But you should keep in mind that just because you believe strongly in them, doesn't mean that they are right. That doesn't mean that mine are right, either. What it means is that we both have different opinions.

This is the worst kind of cop out. Koya's argument was based on substantially more than "opinion". Arguments can be supported such that one is considered to be stronger than another. All "opinions" are not created equal.

I've been on here long enough and know Koya well enough to know he knows that I try and stay out of any arguments like this. It's not like I did it just in this thread.

I'm fairly sure Koya knows I was not trying to be insulting in any way possible. But if you've been on this board long enough, you know that I try to stay out of these threads. That said, I was just adding my two cents. But I was not saying he was wrong.

I still have PM from Sheik from 2005... and don't think I got an answer as to weather he still has his website up.



Since then a lot's happened. I've lost a good amount of my hair, married a chick who is younger now than when I started on these boards (well, maybe about the same age by this point) and have witnessed GAY PEOPLE MARRY. Thankfully neither Sheik nor I have been unfairly executed, though for a while we wondered about Sheik.

 

[Koya]

I have no idea of the numbers, but I would be interested in how many people are wrongly killed by the death penalty compared to how many people are killed or who's lives are ruined via "rehabilitated" ex-murderers or rapists that were released. People like to harp on the few "innocent" people that are harmed by a punishment being too strict but nobody cares about the innocent people that are harmed by a punishment being too lenient, of which my best guess would be that there are FAR more.

You look at a guy like Alan Weston, who kidnapped, tied up, and violently and repeatedly raped a 15 year old girl who only survived because she eventually managed to escape. The guy had already been released from prison 8 years after breaking into a house, tying up a guy, and forcing him to watch him violently rape the guy's wife. Why the heck does someone that does that ever get another chance? But he does, because giving people another chance is considered the altruistic thing to do. How altruistic does the 15 year old girl that later had her life completely ruined feel that is now?

Sure, if there's any kind of reasonable doubt around a trial then take the death penalty off the table. I have no problem with that. But as others have said, when you have a patently obvious and terrible crime like the Colorado theater shooting the only problem with the death penalty is that we're going to have to wait 15 years for this guy to being gone. I can agree that it's a poor deterrent, but isn't a major part of that because being peacefully executed without pain 15 years down the line doesn't really sound that bad to someone that wants to go kill/rape an innocent person?

I am not suggesting that we don't overhaul our entire criminal justice system in this respect... but there is too much evidence (hard and otherwise) for me to accept that state sponsored killings of its citizens is, overall, a positive for our society.

Now, that doesn't mean everyone can be rehabbed. It doesn't mean a lot of people should never see the light of a free day. But, imo at least, it does mean that capital punishment is more bad, than good in regard to society's well being as a whole.

 

[NCCommish]

I have no idea of the numbers, but I would be interested in how many people are wrongly killed by the death penalty compared to how many people are killed or who's lives are ruined via "rehabilitated" ex-murderers or rapists that were released. People like to harp on the few "innocent" people that are harmed by a punishment being too strict but nobody cares about the innocent people that are harmed by a punishment being too lenient, of which my best guess would be that there are FAR more.

You look at a guy like Alan Weston, who kidnapped, tied up, and violently and repeatedly raped a 15 year old girl who only survived because she eventually managed to escape. The guy had already been released from prison 8 years after breaking into a house, tying up a guy, and forcing him to watch him violently rape the guy's wife. Why the heck does someone that does that ever get another chance? But he does, because giving people another chance is considered the altruistic thing to do. How altruistic does the 15 year old girl that later had her life completely ruined feel that is now?

Sure, if there's any kind of reasonable doubt around a trial then take the death penalty off the table. I have no problem with that. But as others have said, when you have a patently obvious and terrible crime like the Colorado theater shooting the only problem with the death penalty is that we're going to have to wait 15 years for this guy to being gone. I can agree that it's a poor deterrent, but isn't a major part of that because being peacefully executed without pain 15 years down the line doesn't really sound that bad to someone that wants to go kill/rape an innocent person?

I am not suggesting that we don't overhaul our entire criminal justice system in this respect... but there is too much evidence (hard and otherwise) for me to accept that state sponsored killings of its citizens is, overall, a positive for our society.

Now, that doesn't mean everyone can be rehabbed. It doesn't mean a lot of people should never see the light of a free day. But, imo at least, it does mean that capital punishment is more bad, than good in regard to society's well being as a whole.

There is plenty of statistical evidence that states with the death penalty have more of the crimes the death penalty is supposed to deter. And yes it is sold as a deterrent.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not a deterrent.

It's not meant to be a deterrent. It's meant to be a penalty.

Which goes to my final point. Ok, so you penalize... and tell me how that benefits society again? Especially when you kill innocent people and feed into revenge / bloodlust? Great one killer is dead (if you got the right person, at greater expense than lifetime incarceration.

There are better ways to punish, and I am more interested in remedying the causes / making society a better place than "punishing" someone.

Rehabilitating doesn't seem to be working that well either.

Some people can't be rehabilited and should never see the light of day.

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

And perhaps the greatest irony is that I'd wager most people who are pro-death penalty are "so-called" small government people. But yeah, we should empower our gov't of all things to kill its citizens legally. Heck, we can't even run a website. And at least those who run for prosecutor ad other elected offices don't ever consider politics rather than what's best for society when they make the decision for gov't sponsored killing of its own citizens.

I'm not going to argue with you because I try and stay out of such arguments. But I will say that I understand your point and your arguments. But you should keep in mind that just because you believe strongly in them, doesn't mean that they are right. That doesn't mean that mine are right, either. What it means is that we both have different opinions.

This is the worst kind of cop out. Koya's argument was based on substantially more than "opinion". Arguments can be supported such that one is considered to be stronger than another. All "opinions" are not created equal.

I've been on here long enough and know Koya well enough to know he knows that I try and stay out of any arguments like this. It's not like I did it just in this thread.

I'm fairly sure Koya knows I was not trying to be insulting in any way possible. But if you've been on this board long enough, you know that I try to stay out of these threads. That said, I was just adding my two cents. But I was not saying he was wrong.

I still have PM from Sheik from 2005... and don't think I got an answer as to weather he still has his website up.



Since then a lot's happened. I've lost a good amount of my hair, married a chick who is younger now than when I started on these boards (well, maybe about the same age by this point) and have witnessed GAY PEOPLE MARRY. Thankfully neither Sheik nor I have been unfairly executed, though for a while we wondered about Sheik.

Webpage died a long time ago, rest its soul. I, still have all my hair. Am with a girl my same age. And have never seen gay people marry, but I've heard that it's happened. The reports of my death were greatly exaggerated, GB.

 

[jonessed]

We should ship these guys overseas and kill them with drones.

 

[ffldrew]

Governor Hickenlooper did that here in Colorado after delaying the scheduled execution of Nathan Dunlap - a kid at the time who murdered several people at a Chuck E Cheese here in Colorado - no one is doubting he did the crime. But the Governor is/was Quaker raised and decided that he would delay this in hopes of having a "conversation" about it - and really let the next guy do it as it is against his conscious . He is getting raked over the coals pretty bad by this one and it is a shame we can't have a conversation from the mouth breathers, it does need to happen - of course it's the eye for an eye crowd out for this one. He is going to be in a dogfight for reelection because of this and some gun legislation passed.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I have no idea of the numbers, but I would be interested in how many people are wrongly killed by the death penalty compared to how many people are killed or who's lives are ruined via "rehabilitated" ex-murderers or rapists that were released. People like to harp on the few "innocent" people that are harmed by a punishment being too strict but nobody cares about the innocent people that are harmed by a punishment being too lenient, of which my best guess would be that there are FAR more.

You look at a guy like Alan Weston, who kidnapped, tied up, and violently and repeatedly raped a 15 year old girl who only survived because she eventually managed to escape. The guy had already been released from prison 8 years after breaking into a house, tying up a guy, and forcing him to watch him violently rape the guy's wife. Why the heck does someone that does that ever get another chance? But he does, because giving people another chance is considered the altruistic thing to do. How altruistic does the 15 year old girl that later had her life completely ruined feel that is now?

Sure, if there's any kind of reasonable doubt around a trial then take the death penalty off the table. I have no problem with that. But as others have said, when you have a patently obvious and terrible crime like the Colorado theater shooting the only problem with the death penalty is that we're going to have to wait 15 years for this guy to being gone. I can agree that it's a poor deterrent, but isn't a major part of that because being peacefully executed without pain 15 years down the line doesn't really sound that bad to someone that wants to go kill/rape an innocent person?

I am not suggesting that we don't overhaul our entire criminal justice system in this respect... but there is too much evidence (hard and otherwise) for me to accept that state sponsored killings of its citizens is, overall, a positive for our society.

Now, that doesn't mean everyone can be rehabbed. It doesn't mean a lot of people should never see the light of a free day. But, imo at least, it does mean that capital punishment is more bad, than good in regard to society's well being as a whole.

It's just interesting to me that people are more concerned with criminals being punished too harshly when it seems to me that the bigger problem is innocent people being affected by criminals that are punished too leniently. The number of people who's lives have been ruined by repeat offenders likely DWARFS the number of innocent people who's lives were affected by punishments that are too harsh.

 

[StrikeS2k]

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

Care to prove this?

I suppose we would have to agree first on what WAY means.

From my perspective, if there is a LOT of benefit to society from capital punishment than at least logically I could understand (if not accept fully) the idea that, hey, sometimes bad things happen to good people (or not really bad people) but the overall good outweighs the death of a few.

However, considering the other issues, namely that it costs more and doesn't deter, then even ONE innocent death has no excuse.

That said, I'd have to dig up some of the stats / articles, but I know they've been discussed on these boards. With DNA testing, its becoming more and more apparent that we have convicted people who are not guilty and in many cases it means they are exonerated after years / decades in jail... something that is not possible if that person was executed.

Maybe someone else has easy access to the stats?

I'll help you out. There has NEVER been a proven case where an innocent person was executed. There was a guy in Texas that many people believe was innocently executed, but even his case hasn't been proven and he's the best example there is.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent#also

There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. Some cases with strong evidence of innocence include:

Carlos DeLuna Texas Conviction: 1983, Executed: 1989Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993

Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995

Joseph O'Dell Virginia Conviction: 1986, Executed: 1997

David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997

Leo Jones Florida Convicted: 1981, Executed: 1998

Gary Graham Texas Convicted: 1981, Executed: 2000,

Claude Jones Texas Convicted 1989, Executed 2000

Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004
Troy Davis Georgia Convicted 1991 Executed 2011
Also Noted - Post-humous pardons and new information about people who may have been wrongfully executed prior to 1976.

Executed But Possibly Innocent

 

[StrikeS2k]

Governor Hickenlooper did that here in Colorado after delaying the scheduled execution of Nathan Dunlap - a kid at the time who murdered several people at a Chuck E Cheese here in Colorado - no one is doubting he did the crime. But the Governor is/was Quaker raised and decided that he would delay this in hopes of having a "conversation" about it - and really let the next guy do it as it is against his conscious . He is getting raked over the coals pretty bad by this one and it is a shame we can't have a conversation from the mouth breathers, it does need to happen - of course it's the eye for an eye crowd out for this one. He is going to be in a dogfight for reelection because of this and some gun legislation passed.

He's getting raked over the coals because he punted to the next administration. He doesn't want to have a conversation about it. He just doesn't want to deal with it.

 

[StrikeS2k]

That does not change the fact that the death penalty does more harm to society than good, as I discussed above - even without the killing of innocents, which can't be "taken back" and, by the way, happens WAY to often. So much so it's appalling that a free nation would be so ok with it.

Care to prove this?

I suppose we would have to agree first on what WAY means.

From my perspective, if there is a LOT of benefit to society from capital punishment than at least logically I could understand (if not accept fully) the idea that, hey, sometimes bad things happen to good people (or not really bad people) but the overall good outweighs the death of a few.

However, considering the other issues, namely that it costs more and doesn't deter, then even ONE innocent death has no excuse.

That said, I'd have to dig up some of the stats / articles, but I know they've been discussed on these boards. With DNA testing, its becoming more and more apparent that we have convicted people who are not guilty and in many cases it means they are exonerated after years / decades in jail... something that is not possible if that person was executed.

Maybe someone else has easy access to the stats?

I'll help you out. There has NEVER been a proven case where an innocent person was executed. There was a guy in Texas that many people believe was innocently executed, but even his case hasn't been proven and he's the best example there is.

How many innocent men have to come off death row based on a tech that has only been relevant for 20ish years for you to admit we have killed innocent people before this technology existed and likely since? I say since because prosecutors, courts and legislatures make it as hard as possible to introduce new evidence regardless. Personally I think you are way too smart to not realize it. If you just want to execute people run with it. But don't be dumb about it at least. Own it if you are good with it.

Go back and reread my stance in numerous DP threads about what I would do to reform the system. Then get back to me.