Witness Room

[C-7]

Here is a question specially for those who support the death penalty, but also for those who don't. Is the concept of the witness room - where the victims's families (and others) get to see the murderer executed before their very eyes - sick and perverse? Or is it normal?

I believe it is very, very morbid, and those who actually go to these things should be locked up themselves, or at least have their head examined by a professional. How can seeing the person who killed your son/sister/mother/etc. being killed bring you any pleasure is beyond me.

[redskin_rich]

I think that it is not pleasure that the witness' feels but closure, knowing that the perpetrator is dead.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think it is intended as a method by which state officials can document that the procedure has taken place. It has only been in the last 10 or 15 years that the witness room has been used as a method to provide closure for the families of the victim(s). I guess it provides a way for those people to physically see that the person who has haunted their minds and tormented their souls for so long is, in fact, gone and no longer a threat to anyone.

That said, I would be lying if I didn't think there wasn't at least a hint of vengeance going on there. I don't personally know why there is a witness room for families and I pray that none of us never have to.

[Spence]

If a society is going to engage in legal executions, people should be there to witness it. I have no desire to attend such a thing, but it should be attended by someone.

[C-7]

I understand and appreciate both your opinoins and explanations, but either way it is a very morbid act, and I don't see any way around it. They do not have to be there, but still they go. There is vengeance involved, and very sick type of pleasure as well.

[C-7]

If a society is going to engage in legal executions, people should be there to witness it.



Why exactly should people be there? Isn't it enough that the governor or some other authority be there? I really don't understand it. Personally I find it disturbing, and quite disgusting.

[BurgundyNGold]

Why exactly should people be there? Isn't it enough that the governor or some other authority be there? I really don't understand it. Personally I find it disturbing, and quite disgusting.
Public funds require oversight. Oversight for the manner in which the execution takes place and oversight that the job was completed.

[C-7]

Public funds require oversight. Oversight for the manner in which the execution takes place and oversight that the job was completed.



Like I said, Isn't it enough that the governor or some other authority be there?

[BurgundyNGold]

Like I said, Isn't it enough that the governor or some other authority be there?
If I'm not mistaken, that is who the witness room was originally constructed for. The families of the victim and the press only started being allowed in like 10 or 15 years ago.

[Spence]

Why exactly should people be there? Isn't it enough that the governor or some other authority be there? I really don't understand it. Personally I find it disturbing, and quite disgusting.Let me understand you: Do you find the death penalty disturbing and disgusting or do you find witnessing the death penalty disturbing and disgusting?

If the death penalty is just, people should be able to witness it. If the death penalty is unjust, it is even more important that people witness it.

[BurgundyNGold]

Let me understand you: Do you find the death penalty disturbing and disgusting or do you find witnessing the death penalty disturbing and disgusting?

If the death penalty is just, people should be able to witness it. If the death penalty is unjust, it is even more important that people witness it.
I think you can add this one to the growing list of folksy Spencisms. :D

[CNYSkinFan]

Like I said, Isn't it enough that the governor or some other authority be there?

I personally think that the Governor of a Death Penalty state be required to witness each and every execution.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I understand and appreciate both your opinoins and explanations, but either way it is a very morbid act, and I don't see any way around it. They do not have to be there, but still they go. There is vengeance involved, and very sick type of pleasure as well.


On that I think you are mistaken. There is no pleasure for these families that have had their loved ones murdered. They did not ask for this to happen. If someone killed my children, I would kill them if I had the chance. The death penalty is justice. Let the punishment fit the crime. If a person takes the lives of 3 people and then is allowed to live a long life in prison and experience pleasures like literature, television, friendships, sports, even sex-all the things he took away from others-that is injustice.

[C-7]

Let me understand you: Do you find the death penalty disturbing and disgusting or do you find witnessing the death penalty disturbing and disgusting?

If the death penalty is just, people should be able to witness it. If the death penalty is unjust, it is even more important that people witness it.



I am not sure where I stand on the Death Penalty. I think certain criminals should be killed, but there is something wrong in the entire process. I'm sure that no officer who works on Death Row can be for the death penalty, especially after working there for many years. I don't think the death penalty prevents future criminals from killing/raping. If someone is crazy enough to do that stuff, they usually don't care one way or another. Do they deserve to die? Yes. Does killing them bring the victims back? No. Does anybody really feel any better after their dead? I would have to say no. Something should be done in order to study the roots of these criminals, why they did what they did, in order to really prevent future crimes.


But to answer your question, I find the witnessing of the death penalty disturbing.

If the death penalty is just, people should witness it? If by people you mean the proper authorities, I agree. If by people you also mean those affected by the crimes commited, I consider that quite morbid.

[BurgundyNGold]

I personally think that the Governor of a Death Penalty state be required to witness each and every execution.
Agreed. If you're taking a man's (or woman's) life, the least you can do is be there for it.

[BurgundyNGold]

On that I think you are mistaken. There is no pleasure for these families that have had their loved ones murdered. They did not ask for this to happen. If someone killed my children, I would kill them if I had the chance. The death penalty is justice. Let the punishment fit the crime. If a person takes the lives of 3 people and then is allowed to live a long life in prison and experience pleasures like literature, television, friendships, sports, even sex-all the things he took away from others-that is injustice.
I'm more of a pragmatist.

Let's take a 25 year old man kills 3 people and assume that he gets life in prison. Using the numbers from California, it costs $35K per year to house, clothe and feed that inmate. This does not include health care, which can make the numbers increase quite a bit -- especially of the inmate has a drug habit (increased rate of internal organ failure) or is HIV positive. Assuming that he is relatively healthy for 30 years, that is more than $1M in basic costs to house this inmate who will never see the light of day. Add in that older inmates (older than 55) have much more in the way of health care costs and the numbers shoot up even more.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay $1M+ per lifer -- which BTW also adds to increased prison costs due to overcrowding -- when a $7 coctail will solve the problem just as permanently.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I personally think that the Governor of a Death Penalty state be required to witness each and every execution.


That's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure I agree as it almost seems like a punishment for the Governor. Also, what if Governors think about this selfishly? What if they grant a stay merely because they don't want to witness another execution or because of a scheduling conflict? Most of all, how could the Governor of Texas ever get anything done with a policy like that?

[C-7]

I'm more of a pragmatist.


As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay $1M+ per lifer -- which BTW also adds to increased prison costs due to overcrowding -- when a $7 coctail will solve the problem just as permanently.




How much does an execution cost? The entire process must cost much more than $7.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I'm more of a pragmatist.

Let's take a 25 year old man kills 3 people and assume that he gets life in prison. Using the numbers from California, it costs $35K per year to house, clothe and feed that inmate. This does not include health care, which can make the numbers increase quite a bit -- especially of the inmate has a drug habit (increased rate of internal organ failure) or is HIV positive. Assuming that he is relatively healthy for 30 years, that is more than $1M in basic costs to house this inmate who will never see the light of day. Add in that older inmates (older than 55) have much more in the way of health care costs and the numbers shoot up even more.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay $1M+ per lifer -- which BTW also adds to increased prison costs due to overcrowding -- when a $7 coctail will solve the problem just as permanently.


But as the anti-death penalty folks like to point out, the never-ending court proceedings would likely cost a similar amount. I assume you are like me and think we need to streamline the process.

[BurgundyNGold]

How much does an execution cost? The entire process must cost much more than $7.
Who knows. $15K maybe, including labor. I'm quite certain it doesn't cost more than $1M.

[BurgundyNGold]

But as the anti-death penalty folks like to point out, the never-ending court proceedings would likely cost a similar amount. I assume you are like me and think we need to streamline the process.
It will cost a similar amount to execute the convict as it does to exhaust all of the appeals in the court system? Or it costs the same to execute the convict as it does to house them? If the latter, that is a pretty weak argument since it's not a "either/or" scenario. It's additive. You have to house the guy while he goes through all of his appeals.

As for streamlining, I think that if you're convicted with DNA evidence, there is no reason to give the guy 4 appeals over 10 years. He should get expedited appeal priority so that he can hit the chair that much sooner. Maybe 6 months.

[CNYSkinFan]

Agreed. If you're taking a man's (or woman's) life, the least you can do is be there for it.

Or read the damn brief at least (you hear that Alberto Gonzalez.

[PGiddy18]

I think that it is not pleasure that the witness' feels but closure, knowing that the perpetrator is dead.

I agree Rich. If you take somebody's life, why should your own be spared? What makes your life so much more important then the one that you had taken that you should get life in prision rather then the death penalty? I don't think that I, personally, could be in the witness room, but if that is what a grieving person needs to bring closure to a horrible situation, then I think that they have the right.

[CNYSkinFan]

Ok I have been ignoring the varying Death Penalty threads in here in a spirit of Redskin unity, but I must say a few things.

I am a converted pro-death penalty advocate. Which is to say I used to support capitol punishment but after a long exhaustive and at many times eye opening journey of self awareness I have come to believe the Death Penalty is not just impractical, but amoral.

I find it hard to swallow that so many Death Penalty advocates are so cavalier in their belief that the state has a right to seek vengeance on behlf of the victims of a crime. Because the Death Penalty is not punishment as many would like to believe since the result of this punishment is not reform but elimination. It is not closure for the families as we would like to believe because in many cases the family of the victim is divided on whether to support the execution. And most importantly it is not a detterent as so many studies have shown.

But I could talk until I am blue in the face and those that are pro-death penalty just won't listen. I could offer up proof of the hundreds of innocent men women and children that were killed by the state and that would not change your mind just further your resolve to make sure only the guilty are punished. Then i will offer up the studies that show how the appeals process in place for the Capitol Punishment system (which is woefully inadequate and many times not based on innocence or guilt but whether the Criminal feels sorry before we kill him in a vain attempt at giving meaning to this barbaric practice) actually costs more then housing the prisoner in solitary confinement for the rest of their life. But then you would further your resolve to streamline the appeals process.

When I point out the logical inconsistency of making sure only the innocent are spared and streamlining the appelate system you will bring out DNA evidence as your new standard of guilkt or innocence. Of cours eyou will ignore that MOST of the death penalty cases were based on convictions where DNA evidence was not available. You will also ignor the fact tat DA's and judges across the country were and routinely denying appeals containing DNA evidence to prove innocence. And lastly you will ignore the very fact that DNA evidence is only the best science we have available, just like blood samples were before that, and eye witness testimony before that. The fact that this may be supplanted in the future means that it is not a Holy Grail of sciences.

What it comes down to for me is that the Death Penalty is a final and unrevocable reaction resulting from an imperfect system. IF you are rich, white, or a woman you are much less likely to receive a Death Penalty for the same exact crimes others will be put to death for. That is if you are guilty in the first place and a jury did not make a mistake or you were represented by an incompentent lawyer in the first place.

We are all human and therefore fallable and imperfect. We can not come up with a perfect system where the innocent are not punished. Everyday we here of prisoners being released because of new evidence of innocence. We HAVE killed innocent people in our bloodlust for vengeance. We WILL kill innocent people in our continued bloodlust for vengeance.

To me that is unacceptable. Life without parole is a very real and viable option. While the innocent will suffer if imprisoned, they will be alive. A grave injustice will ahve been done but it the possibility of restitution to that peson exists as long as there is life. The question remains. How many guilty men executed makes up for the life of one innocent man? In my mind you have to come up with the equation if you are going to justify the death penalty. If not you are just kidding yourself.

Of course I have not even touched on how using the Death Penalty reflects on us as a society nor how giving the state this right erodes many of our other civil liberties. These are valid arguments but immaterial to the fact that innocent people will die, and we can stop it. yet we choose not too.

For a false sense of vengeance at that.

[C-7]

I don't think that I, personally, could be in the witness room, but if that is what a grieving person needs to bring closure to a horrible situation, then I think that they have the right.


I know it is only my opinion, but I cannot stress this enough. If your "need" to see someone die (in fornt of you) in order to feel better (becuase that's what we're talking about here: relief, comfort, ease, closure to a situation) then there is something seriously wrong with you.

[BurgundyNGold]

Ok I have been ignoring the varying Death Penalty threads in here in a spirit of Redskin unity, but I must say a few things.

I am a converted pro-death penalty advocate. Which is to say I used to support capitol punishment but after a long exhaustive and at many times eye opening journey of self awareness I have come to believe the Death Penalty is not just impractical, but amoral.
If I gather what you're saying, I think you mean to say that it is immoral. I personally think it is amoral, which is to say that is exists outside of consideration of morality.

I find it hard to swallow that so many Death Penalty advocates are so cavalier in their belief that the state has a right to seek vengeance on behlf of the victims of a crime. Because the Death Penalty is not punishment as many would like to believe since the result of this punishment is not reform but elimination. It is not closure for the families as we would like to believe because in many cases the family of the victim is divided on whether to support the execution. And most importantly it is not a detterent as so many studies have shown.
Speaking for myself, I don't think that is about vengeage, or that it should be. It should be a means to and ends for dealing with the most despicable, heinous and unredemmable animals in our society. To me, a society that asks its citizenry to break their backs to pay the taxes that keep such crimials lush in food, shelter, books, cable tv and conjugal visits is in many ways a second violation of that society.

As for being a deterrent, I think you're right. But, understand that much like anything else government does, it is done halfway at best. I personally believe that if someone actually endeavored to use capital punishment as a deterrent that it could be done so quite effectively.

But I could talk until I am blue in the face and those that are pro-death penalty just won't listen. I could offer up proof of the hundreds of innocent men women and children that were killed by the state and that would not change your mind just further your resolve to make sure only the guilty are punished. Then i will offer up the studies that show how the appeals process in place for the Capitol Punishment system (which is woefully inadequate and many times not based on innocence or guilt but whether the Criminal feels sorry before we kill him in a vain attempt at giving meaning to this barbaric practice) actually costs more then housing the prisoner in solitary confinement for the rest of their life. But then you would further your resolve to streamline the appeals process.
This is a fringe position, CNY. Mistakes are made in every line of work and business. People die all the time with the best of societal intentions. Is it acceptable? No, but it's a cost of doing business; you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

As for the appeals process, you act like that criminal wouldn't exhaust all of their appeals just trying to get off. Lifers almost always use all of their appeals which costs the same from the state's side, so that argument is a red herring.

When I point out the logical inconsistency of making sure only the innocent are spared and streamlining the appelate system you will bring out DNA evidence as your new standard of guilkt or innocence. Of cours eyou will ignore that MOST of the death penalty cases were based on convictions where DNA evidence was not available. You will also ignor the fact tat DA's and judges across the country were and routinely denying appeals containing DNA evidence to prove innocence. And lastly you will ignore the very fact that DNA evidence is only the best science we have available, just like blood samples were before that, and eye witness testimony before that. The fact that this may be supplanted in the future means that it is not a Holy Grail of sciences.
Why should I even bother to respond when you're little imaginary dialog already has me answering your questions and you so thoroughly responding to them? You're just too awesome to debate.

What it comes down to for me is that the Death Penalty is a final and unrevocable reaction resulting from an imperfect system. IF you are rich, white, or a woman you are much less likely to receive a Death Penalty for the same exact crimes others will be put to death for. That is if you are guilty in the first place and a jury did not make a mistake or you were represented by an incompentent lawyer in the first place.
Yes, a human system is flawed. Perhaps it's better to keep that wrongfully accused person in prison getting gang raped daily? My point is that people do bad things. Someone has to punish them. The worst of those people (who are far, FAR less than 1%) get executed. I would estimate that our court system gets it right about 9 times out of 10. And that 10th time, the system is set up to let the guilty walk 9 out of 10 times. I really think you're making a bigger deal out of this than it is with this Dateline NBC approach.

We are all human and therefore fallable and imperfect. We can not come up with a perfect system where the innocent are not punished. Everyday we here of prisoners being released because of new evidence of innocence. We HAVE killed innocent people in our bloodlust for vengeance. We WILL kill innocent people in our continued bloodlust for vengeance.
Far more innocent people are killed by repeat offenders that have ever been incorrectly executed as part of a state sanctioned capital punishment program. So, I guess we should revoke the parole program too? But I guess that's OK. Well, it shouldn't be for you. More people killed = less people to pay taxes to pay for educating Charles Manson.

To me that is unacceptable. Life without parole is a very real and viable option. While the innocent will suffer if imprisoned, they will be alive. A grave injustice will ahve been done but it the possibility of restitution to that peson exists as long as there is life. The question remains. How many guilty men executed makes up for the life of one innocent man? In my mind you have to come up with the equation if you are going to justify the death penalty. If not you are just kidding yourself.
Not when the evidence is insurmountable. If the guy did it, he did it. And I'm not talking about circumstantial evidence either. If it is a flimsy case like that, I think the judge has the obligation to take the death penalty of fthe table. Otherwise, if the evidence is there, execute him. I don't think I should have to pay for keeping this guy around.

Of course I have not even touched on how using the Death Penalty reflects on us as a society nor how giving the state this right erodes many of our other civil liberties. These are valid arguments but immaterial to the fact that innocent people will die, and we can stop it. yet we choose not too.
I don't care what other people think about our society; they don't have to live here. As for whether innocent people will die or not, I think I've already addressed that. It is an imperfect system being made better every day by the likes of DNA -- without which you couldn't spout off about the 20 or so people on death row who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. Unless you can come up with something better, I suggest you keep your attitude in tow.

As for the French, Germans, Japanese or whatever other homogeneous culture you wish to drum up that looks down their noses at us, let me point out that 1) they will do so no matter what we do, and 2) they do not have the same social makeup that we do. We are a melting pot of all societies. These countries, for the most part, are not. It's a hell of a lot more difficult to apply one set of law and one way of thinking when there are so many different people from so many different social backgrounds who even speak different languages. There is a much larger disparity between right and wrong as you go from culture to culture.

For a false sense of vengeance at that.
It's not vengeance. If a dog attacks a person, it is put down -- nothing personal about it. If a person attacks another person, they MAY go to jail. If they kill someone, they may get 20 years to life. If they kill multiple people, they might get the death penalty. Personally, I think the dog is the one getting screwed.

[PyroGenic]

Why exactly should people be there? Isn't it enough that the governor or some other authority be there? I really don't understand it. Personally I find it disturbing, and quite disgusting.


if somebody killed my mom or dad I could see myself watching... just becuase he killed somebody I love dearly and I'd probably be pissed.

[VTBob]

I'll start by saying that I am pro-death penalty, but only in specific circumstances. I belive the penalty is immensely overused and handed down by our society, as it is in any society I can think of. I feel the death penalty should be saved for those guilty of the most heinous of crimes...but I digress, I'd like to speak about a couple of points BnG made...

Yes, a human system is flawed. Perhaps it's better to keep that wrongfully accused person in prison getting gang raped daily? My point is that people do bad things. Someone has to punish them. The worst of those people (who are far, FAR less than 1%) get executed. I would estimate that our court system gets it right about 9 times out of 10. And that 10th time, the system is set up to let the guilty walk 9 out of 10 times. I really think you're making a bigger deal out of this than it is with this Dateline NBC approach.

I disagree on the 9 out of 10 times stance you take; I don't think its possible to figure how many people have been executed due to hazy memories of a sworn in witness, or refused DNA evidence.


Not when the evidence is insurmountable. If the guy did it, he did it. And I'm not talking about circumstantial evidence either. If it is a flimsy case like that, I think the judge has the obligation to take the death penalty of fthe table. Otherwise, if the evidence is there, execute him. I don't think I should have to pay for keeping this guy around.

This I do agree with.

Along those lines, I feel judges should more often remove the death penalty from the table if it is in consideration and the criminal in certain cases would be better punished by life imprisonment to dwell upon their lost freedom and crimes...

As for the French, Germans, Japanese or whatever other homogeneous culture you wish to drum up that looks down their noses at us, let me point out that 1) they will do so no matter what we do, and 2) they do not have the same social makeup that we do. We are a melting pot of all societies. These countries, for the most part, are not.

Not to be rude, but I don't think you know how many immigrants Germany takes in from Turkey, or France from Morocco, etc - both countires have plenty of cultural diversity, sure they are not as well known as a "melting pot" as our nation has come to be, but there is still plenty of diversity amongst their ranks...

[BurgundyNGold]

I'll start by saying that I am pro-death penalty, but only in specific circumstances. I belive the penalty is immensely overused and handed down by our society, as it is in any society I can think of. I feel the death penalty should be saved for those guilty of the most heinous of crimes...but I digress, I'd like to speak about a couple of points BnG made...
In 1999, only 98 people were executed in this country. Of all the people of all the crimes that were prosecuted in that given year, only 98 people were executed. That is 0.000049% of the incarcerated population in the US. Not exactly a liberal application of capital punishment if you think about it.

I disagree on the 9 out of 10 times stance you take; I don't think its possible to figure how many people have been executed due to hazy memories of a sworn in witness, or refused DNA evidence.
I said that 9/10 times our court system gets it right. That is that 9/10 times it's a slam dunk. The 10th time is where things get sticky.

Not to be rude, but I don't think you know how many immigrants Germany takes in from Turkey, or France from Morocco, etc - both countires have plenty of cultural diversity, sure they are not as well known as a "melting pot" as our nation has come to be, but there is still plenty of diversity amongst their ranks...
There are 1.9M Turkish immigrants in Germany and a total of 7.3M foreign immigrants. The Turkish population is about 2.3% of the total German population of 82M. The total immigrant population is less than 9%. So, basically 91% of Germans are people of the same race and the same primary religion, give or take a shade or two of sect. Now, it's not Japan, but that is comparatively a homogeneous population.

EDIT [Germany might be its way to being a melting pot, but it's not. They're still primarily a country of the same type of people with a common culture who all know the way things are done. The US has folks from all over the world and is the original melting pot. With that distinction comes the increased challenge of indoctrinating these folks to oour culture as we expand our culture to incorprate the distinctiveness of the new people. That's not always an easy task.]

[redskin_rich]

I believe the death penalty should only be used on those that are deemed a threat to society. Basically, anyone that has killed at random.
Prisoners escape frequently and I wouldn't want an incarcerated maniac able to get free and kill again.
If death seems to harsh for said criminals, then I would be just as happy with 'hobbling' them, like what Kathy Bates did to James Caan in Misery.

http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/1805/villainwilkes3yn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Ibleedburgundy]

Ok I have been ignoring the varying Death Penalty threads in here in a spirit of Redskin unity, but I must say a few things.

I am a converted pro-death penalty advocate. Which is to say I used to support capitol punishment but after a long exhaustive and at many times eye opening journey of self awareness I have come to believe the Death Penalty is not just impractical, but amoral.

I find it hard to swallow that so many Death Penalty advocates are so cavalier in their belief that the state has a right to seek vengeance on behlf of the victims of a crime. Because the Death Penalty is not punishment as many would like to believe since the result of this punishment is not reform but elimination. It is not closure for the families as we would like to believe because in many cases the family of the victim is divided on whether to support the execution. And most importantly it is not a detterent as so many studies have shown.

But I could talk until I am blue in the face and those that are pro-death penalty just won't listen. I could offer up proof of the hundreds of innocent men women and children that were killed by the state and that would not change your mind just further your resolve to make sure only the guilty are punished. Then i will offer up the studies that show how the appeals process in place for the Capitol Punishment system (which is woefully inadequate and many times not based on innocence or guilt but whether the Criminal feels sorry before we kill him in a vain attempt at giving meaning to this barbaric practice) actually costs more then housing the prisoner in solitary confinement for the rest of their life. But then you would further your resolve to streamline the appeals process.

When I point out the logical inconsistency of making sure only the innocent are spared and streamlining the appelate system you will bring out DNA evidence as your new standard of guilkt or innocence. Of cours eyou will ignore that MOST of the death penalty cases were based on convictions where DNA evidence was not available. You will also ignor the fact tat DA's and judges across the country were and routinely denying appeals containing DNA evidence to prove innocence. And lastly you will ignore the very fact that DNA evidence is only the best science we have available, just like blood samples were before that, and eye witness testimony before that. The fact that this may be supplanted in the future means that it is not a Holy Grail of sciences.

What it comes down to for me is that the Death Penalty is a final and unrevocable reaction resulting from an imperfect system. IF you are rich, white, or a woman you are much less likely to receive a Death Penalty for the same exact crimes others will be put to death for. That is if you are guilty in the first place and a jury did not make a mistake or you were represented by an incompentent lawyer in the first place.

We are all human and therefore fallable and imperfect. We can not come up with a perfect system where the innocent are not punished. Everyday we here of prisoners being released because of new evidence of innocence. We HAVE killed innocent people in our bloodlust for vengeance. We WILL kill innocent people in our continued bloodlust for vengeance.
To me that is unacceptable. Life without parole is a very real and viable option. While the innocent will suffer if imprisoned, they will be alive. A grave injustice will ahve been done but it the possibility of restitution to that peson exists as long as there is life. The question remains. How many guilty men executed makes up for the life of one innocent man? In my mind you have to come up with the equation if you are going to justify the death penalty. If not you are just kidding yourself.

Of course I have not even touched on how using the Death Penalty reflects on us as a society nor how giving the state this right erodes many of our other civil liberties. These are valid arguments but immaterial to the fact that innocent people will die, and we can stop it. yet we choose not too.

For a false sense of vengeance at that.




That was a well thought out position and I read it carefully and thought about it.

What you call vengeance, I call justice. The BTK killer deserved worse than death. We know he is guilty so all the arguments about uncertainty of guilt go out the window for that guy. What can you say against the death penalty for scum like that in a clear-cut case?

Of course I can't advocate the death penalty in a case where the evidence is not 100%. Killing someone when they are really innocent is bad but so is ruining their entire life by putting them in a room and throwing away the key. Either way, it sounds like your problem could be applied to any kind of false conviction, not just those where the death penalty is involved.

You made a point about how rich white people and women are spared when they commit the exact same crime as a poor minority. To me, that is the biggest flaw in our system-that money can almost always buy you a leniant punishment. But this problem is not exclusive to death penalty cases.

I've never really cared if the death penalty is a deterrant. That, to me, is irrelevent. You don't use the justice system to "make an example" out of someone, you don't dish out punishments to send a message to the public, you don't let outside forces affect the trial. To do so would negatively affect ones ability to derive the appropriate punishment for a crime. The job of the criminal justice system is to exact justice, not to prevent crime.

[RedskinsDave]

I know it is only my opinion, but I cannot stress this enough. If your "need" to see someone die (in fornt of you) in order to feel better (becuase that's what we're talking about here: relief, comfort, ease, closure to a situation) then there is something seriously wrong with you.

You are way off here. You have obviously never lost someone at the hands of another or even met someone who has. Even though people are locked behind bars, often the victims families and friends always fear that the person who killed their loved one will somehow come after them. Often they need to see that evil that haunts them done away with. If you think that is wrong then you also know nothing about closure.

[Spence]

People react to terrible loss and extreme grief in different ways. Assuming they don't resort to violence* or other lawbreaking, I find it best not to pass judgement.

* Exception for Batman, of course, who makes vigilantism cool.

[CNYSkinFan]

* Exception for Batman, of course, who makes vigilantism cool.

On that we agree...but only the Michael Keaton Batman and the Christian Bale Batman. The Adam West Batman made it corny and the Val Kilmer Batman made it boring and the Geroge Clooney Batman just made it so so sad.

[C-7]

You are way off here. You have obviously never lost someone at the hands of another or even met someone who has. Even though people are locked behind bars, often the victims families and friends always fear that the person who killed their loved one will somehow come after them. Often they need to see that evil that haunts them done away with. If you think that is wrong then you also know nothing about closure.



You think that if you see someone die they will not haunt you ever again? Think about the nightmares and even guilt you might feel after seeing somebody executed. Death is not closure.

[RedskinsDave]

You think that if you see someone die they will not haunt you ever again? Think about the nightmares and even guilt you might feel after seeing somebody executed. Death is not closure.

Apparently it is for some people. You asked a question and appear unwilling to accept ANY answer that doesn't simply agree with you. Why bother asking the question?

[C-7]

if somebody killed my mom or dad I could see myself watching... just becuase he killed somebody I love dearly and I'd probably be pissed.


See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. But other members here believe that the "witness room" has nothing to do revenge or the pleasure of seeing that person killed.


Keep in mind that I too feel the same way. If my mother were killed I would not only want to see that person die, but I would love to see him or her tortured slowly.

So I cannot judge anyone for wanting to be in the witness room, but as a society we must admit that there is definitely someting wrong with this.

[C-7]

Apparently it is for some people. You asked a question and appear unwilling to accept ANY answer that doesn't simply agree with you. Why bother asking the question?


This is a discussion, is it not? I stand by my opinion and defend it, as you do yours.

[RedskinsDave]

This is a discussion, is it not? I stand by my opinion and defend it, as you do yours.

Yeah but I accept that others disagree and don't try to keep telling them they're wrong.

[C-7]

Yeah but I accept that others disagree and don't try to keep telling them they're wrong.



No, you would never do that. :rolleyes:

[CNYSkinFan]

Yeah but I accept that others disagree and don't try to keep telling them they're wrong.

:readme: I nominate this for post most likely to haunt RedskinsDave in the Potomac for a while.

[RedskinsDave]

You guys let me know when I ask a question of everyone and then continue to not accept any answer. I post my opinions and then debate, not ask a question and do so.

[RedskinsDave]

Here is a question specially for those who support the death penalty, but also for those who don't. Is the concept of the witness room - where the victims's families (and others) get to see the murderer executed before their very eyes - sick and perverse? Or is it normal?

There you have it. Why bother asking?

[CNYSkinFan]

You guys let me know when I ask a question of everyone and then continue to not accept any answer. I post my opinions and then debate, not ask a question and do so.

BTW I was just joking. I posted my opinion on the Death Penalty earlier. Until someone can give me a formula where so many guilty men are executed makes up for one innocent man's life taken I will not even pretend to be open to the other side of this debate. The old "it aint perfect but it is the best we got" just doesn't cut it when we are talking about taking a life, expescially when a viable and cheaper alternative (life in solitary confinement without the possibility of Parole) is open to us and we refuse to take it to satisfy a need for vengeance.

Howeve I will offer one thing. That if you state that one of the main reasons for execution is to give the victim's family closure then you must also offer the logical opposite of that argument. That if the victim's family wishes for the commutation of the the death sentence then you must accept that as a main argument against execution. I for one think both statements are ridiculous, but then again I am not arguing either position.

[BurgundyNGold]

That was a well thought out position and I read it carefully and thought about it.

What you call vengeance, I call justice. The BTK killer deserved worse than death. We know he is guilty so all the arguments about uncertainty of guilt go out the window for that guy. What can you say against the death penalty for scum like that in a clear-cut case?

Of course I can't advocate the death penalty in a case where the evidence is not 100%. Killing someone when they are really innocent is bad but so is ruining their entire life by putting them in a room and throwing away the key. Either way, it sounds like your problem could be applied to any kind of false conviction, not just those where the death penalty is involved.

You made a point about how rich white people and women are spared when they commit the exact same crime as a poor minority. To me, that is the biggest flaw in our system-that money can almost always buy you a leniant punishment. But this problem is not exclusive to death penalty cases.

I've never really cared if the death penalty is a deterrant. That, to me, is irrelevent. You don't use the justice system to "make an example" out of someone, you don't dish out punishments to send a message to the public, you don't let outside forces affect the trial. To do so would negatively affect ones ability to derive the appropriate punishment for a crime. The job of the criminal justice system is to exact justice, not to prevent crime.
I think this is the best post I have ever read by you.

I agree that justice in our legal system is disproportionately applied based on economics. I can also see how race has played a factor in the past, although I think that socio-economic factors play the larger role today.

Where I might disagree is that I think the death penalty can be a deterrent. The penal system in and of itself is a big fat deterrent. I mean, why don't folks just go and knock off a bank if they need money? Because they don't want to go to jail.

Now, the death penalty sure isn't a deterrent its present form, but if effectively marketed -- as morbid as that is -- it could be. Just look what Reefer Madness did to a whole generation, lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

BTW I was just joking. I posted my opinion on the Death Penalty earlier. Until someone can give me a formula where so many guilty men are executed makes up for one innocent man's life taken I will not even pretend to be open to the other side of this debate. The old "it aint perfect but it is the best we got" just doesn't cut it when we are talking about taking a life, expescially when a viable and cheaper alternative (life in solitary confinement without the possibility of Parole) is open to us and we refuse to take it to satisfy a need for vengeance.
A few things here:

First, part of executive leadership is knowing that you will never have 100% on anything. That's a governor's burden. All in all, there are innocent people who go to jail and who get executed. Not in large numbers mind you, but an argument can be made that if a single person went to jail or was executed unjustly that it is a tragedy. I personally agree with that point, but I also know that the alternative of letting criminals run around loose would be a bigger tragedy for far more people.

As for the viability of solitary confinement, I don't know what math you're using that shows how keeping a man locked up for 30+ years, paying for his food, shelter and medical care PLUS his completment of appeals could possibly be cheaper than the complement of appeals alone.

Finally, we both know that if solitary confinement became law of the land, the same folks who argue agains the death penalty now would then argue that solitary confinement is a form of sensory depravation and, as such, is inhumane punishment.

Howeve I will offer one thing. That if you state that one of the main reasons for execution is to give the victim's family closure then you must also offer the logical opposite of that argument. That if the victim's family wishes for the commutation of the the death sentence then you must accept that as a main argument against execution. I for one think both statements are ridiculous, but then again I am not arguing either position.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, at sentencing the victim's family has the right to speak to the jury and to confront the convicted in many states. At that time, the family, if they so chose, could plead with the jury to return a verdict of life in prison as opposed to the death penalty. So a method of what you advocate already exists.

If after sentencing the victims change their minds, well, I don't know that I would allow them to commute the sentence. They could be under many forms of duress, including the coerced. In fact, I would think that coercing the family of the victims to change their stance would become the game plan for associates of the convicted. Plus, in the end, the conviction and the process is not ultimately about providing closure for the families of the victims; it's about providing justice for the victims themselves.

Personally, I think there is an aspect of vengeance in the witness room as much as there is closure. Perhaps the two are inexorably tied, as in the fulfillment of the a of vengeance provides definitive closure. I don't know and I hope that I should never have to.

[Agrawog]

The Death Penalty discussion is always an interesting one. My argument to Pro-death penalty advocates has always been based on principle versus pragmatism. Most DP activists argue something like 'breaking eggs' or 'costs too much' or 'life imprisonment is not justice'.

Yet you never take the intellectual challenge of the basic point - Are you willing to execute an innocent person as part of the system? You MUST be willing to accept that or you should not bother with any other part of the argument.

The previous post is interesting:

but an argument can be made that if a single person went to jail or was executed unjustly that it is a tragedy. I personally agree with that point, but I also know that the alternative of letting criminals run around loose would be a bigger tragedy for far more people

This may be one of the most specious arguments in the history of man kind. So the alternatives are death or release? The fact that you ignore the most likely life in prison is really a head scratcher.

My favorite argument was the one where we are going to weigh the number of innocents killed by the state versus the number of innocents killed by murderers paroled who kill again. Let me ask you this: If the prisoner mistakenly killed were your daughter/son/brother - would that placate you?

We are talking about life and death. I will not accept a system that will kill ONE innocent person so I can not be for the institutionalized death penalty EVEN THOUGH I do believe that you can commit a crime so heinous that you abrogate your right to life within our society.

Let me hear from the DP advocates that they are willing to kill some innocents and at least that is intellectually sound, if not just be quiet because you are not being rational.

As to the original point of the post - I can certainly understand the need to see the person die. Call it vengeance or closure, I would love to be there. I can't remember - does Uruguay have the death penalty?