Verdict - Death Penalty/Capital Punishment

[MrFood]

Just popping by to not get involved in debate because... just because...

But instead just to leave this memo:

If you think it's ok for your government to go killing other humans - that makes you a cunt. It really does.

[The Code is Almighty]

For anyone interested, Part II of a special on the West Memphis 3 is on Anderson Cooper tonight.

[HOUSTON_M]

The Code is Almighty,

I missed the West Memphis 3 specials but I am interested and thanks for telling us about it.

I am also interested in which law enforcement policies EA members support and which ones they don't.

For example I didn't support the so-called "Three Strikes law" as applied in California or most applications of zero-tolerance laws in the USA.
My main reasons are that they work against common sense and fairness and could provide unintended incentives for violent crime.

I don't support so-called "chemical castration" of sex offenders.

I support strict zero-tolerance laws on "DUI" as they apply in Finland and Sweden.

Although I'm sensitive to the civil liberties implications and potential for abuse I support DNA databases as a crime-solving resource.

As revealed on a previous post I made on this thread I support one-strike/first-offence LWOP for sexual assaults involving the following: e.g. home invasion + gunpoint or, e.g. abduction + binding as I believe such offenders if released have the potential to kill if not necessarily the potential to commit first-degree murder.

To this end I was heartened by the following news report:

http://stnonline.com/home/top-stories/2681-chelsea-law-child-sex-offenders

It is possible that such legislation will ruin lives but it is certain that it will save lives if properly applied.

Although it seems to represent a risk-risk tradeoff, I believe that governments are obliged to protect their citizens from those compulsive criminals which they have identified as dangerous.

[iembalm]

As revealed on a previous post I made on this thread I support one-strike/first-offence LWOP for sexual assaults involving the following: e.g. home invasion + gunpoint or, e.g. abduction + binding as I believe such offenders if released have the potential to kill if not necessarily the potential to commit first-degree murder.

How about the fifteen-year-old kid who was brought along on a home invasion as his gang inititation, first offense?

And anyone has the potential to commit first-degree murder.

[HOUSTON_M]

iembalm,

A fair question and a fair point.

I should have stated that I don't support LWOP for juvenile offenders.

For lessons from California, consider the following:

If a first-strike LWOP for the most dangerous sex offenders was in place and had been applied to William Bonin then he would not have been free to murder young males.

He was apparently not deterred by the Death Penalty but could have been stopped by LWOP.

William Bonin was executed in 1996.

It is unfortunate that a first-strike LWOP for the most dangerous sex offenders was not in place when Albert Greenwood Brown was a young man; In 1976 he broke into a house, choked a 14-year-old girl until she was unconscious and then raped her.

He was paroled in 1980 and in that same year he abducted, raped and strangled 15-year-old Susan Jordan.

He was apparently not deterred by the Death Penalty but could have been stopped by LWOP.

Albert Greenwood Brown was scheduled to be executed yesterday, 30 September 2010.

[HOUSTON_M]

A Letter to the Editor of the (Chicago) Daily Herald which I found here:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=411144&src=

I have the following reservations about this law:

- Mandatory sentencing gives too much power to politicians and reduces the discretionary powers of the judiciary;

- It might not be an effective deterrent;

- It might strengthen a "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mentality;

- There will be no "second chance" within society for these offenders;

- It seems like another "enough is enough" over-reaction that, like the "three strikes" law, will (a) give people who haven't murdered a sentence that is at least as long as a murder sentence and (b) possibly provide a motivation to "go out with a bang" and compound their offence with murder. This is my main reservation with laws of this kind;

- It will cost a lot of money to enforce this law;

- As an aside I don't like the practice of naming laws for victims, in this case "Chelsea's Law".

That said the fact is that had this law been in place from 1950 to the present day then the lives of scores of children would have been saved.

[Ernest]

What a fucking insane law.

[jimmy two hands]

- It might not be an effective deterrent;

I hate sentencing laws being described as a deterrent. No laws are an effective deterrent to violent crimes. People who commit these acts usually aren't thinking rationally. They're usually really pissed off or fucked in the head or something. Someone who is going to strangle and rape a child isn't going to make a pro/con list before doing it and consider the law, they're just going to do it and damn the consequences. Keeping them locked up for life would deter them from future crimes, but it's not going to deter them from the crime that puts them behind bars.

[Model Citizen]

That said the fact is that had this law been in place from 1950 to the present day then the lives of scores of children would have been saved.

I hate this kind of reasoning.

If we cut off the balls of suspected sex offenders it may save some children's lives in the future but it doesn't make it right.

Also, I love how people go around saying LWOP like it's no big thing. Does anyone actually think that the US needs to lock up more people? Y'know, since the existing draconian measures have worked so well up to now...

[HOUSTON_M]

California is a state where periods of laxity and leniency are followed by the imposition of severe sentencing requirements.

"Concerns about its potential costs, along with criticism that it emphasizes punishment over treatment and rehabilitation, have been raised by groups such as the California Coaltion Against Sexual Assault, American Civil Liberties Union and California Public Defenders Association."

Note that this quote doesn't state that CALCASA , ACLU and CPDA are against this law, merely that they have criticized it.

I support this law because it will provide - to the citizens of California - some protection from dangerous sex offenders. This rather than punishment is the reason such offenders need to be permanently separated from society. Treatment/rehabilitation and release back into society are not necessarily mutually inclusive.

The state voted unanimously to approve this bill and Governor Schwarzenegger has signed it.

[HOUSTON_M]

Model Citizen,

I oppose surgical and "chemical" castration of sex offenders as being both cruel and ineffective.

Those sex offenders who kidnap, torture, bind, drug, use weapons against a victim have risked the life of that victim - this indicates that they are particularly dangerous.

If such offenders are paroled some of them will kill. Lives will be lost.

Life Without Parole is a big thing. It is an extremely punitive measure to take. It isn't right but it is the only way of ensuring that these offenders don't rape and kill children. If such persons are locked up then extra protection is provided to the public.

[Model Citizen]

Life Without Parole is a big thing. It is an extremely punitive measure to take. It isn't right but it is the only way of ensuring that these offenders don't rape and kill

Life without parole is not the only way of ensuring that these offenders don't rape and kill. That's just crap that's been fed to people to make them think that such things are necessary.

You already gave power to the state to enable them to murder prisoners and call it 'justice', now you think it's a good idea to lock people up and throw away the key also - you must have a hell of a lot of faith in the US justice system if you're going to give them that power happily.

Treatment, rehabilitation, medication - many things can work and there are far more humane ways of dealing with offenders.

Hell, I'm not saying that you should be letting these guys walk the streets but you should never have a situation where there's life without parole. Parole should always be considered and considered carefully as the very least you can offer an offender is a chance, however small, to be rehabilitated and released.

[Model Citizen]

Look, even if you don't give a shit what happens to criminals or the mentally ill who commit crimes then just think of it from an angle of self-preservation.

Don't give the state the right to lock up anyone forever or kill them, because the current US (and UK) justice system and politicians cannot be trusted with that kind of power.

[Go, Dog. Go!]

Parole should always be considered

I disagree with this, although I share your distrust of state power.

I support rehabilitative policies, and the 3 strikes laws are inhumane and unjust. In spite of popular opinion, here in the US, we are way too draconian in our criminal justice system. There is a real lust for punishment and blood somehow deeply rooted in our culture. But it does not follow that LWOP is always inappropriate. Rather, it should be reserved for the worst offenders.

What is truly disturbing are the well-documented flaws in the system leading to often irreversible consequences: reliance on eye-witness testimony at trial, the plea-bargaining process, flawed police interrogation techniques, prosecutorial misconduct, an elected judiciary, etc. Innocent people go to jail here. A lot.

So one of the biggest problems are the obstacles in using post-conviction exculpatory evidence to prove innocence. Such exculpatory evidence may be available after conviction to prove either actual innocence, or innocence of any number of aggravating circumstances contributing to the severity of the sentence. Given the other known flaws in the system, if exculpatory facts come to light that were unavailable at trial after a person has been sentenced to LWOP, a just society should have appropriate mechanisms in place to re-examine the sentence and even the conviction.
_________

and the death penalty is crap, of course.

[Model Citizen]

Parole should always be considered

I disagree with this, although I share your distrust of state power.

I support rehabilitative policies, and the 3 strikes laws are inhumane and unjust. In spite of popular opinion, here in the US, we are way too draconian in our criminal justice system. There is a real lust for punishment and blood somehow deeply rooted in our culture. But it does not follow that LWOP is always inappropriate. Rather, it should be reserved for the worst offenders.

What is truly disturbing are the well-documented flaws in the system leading to often irreversible consequences: reliance on eye-witness testimony at trial, the plea-bargaining process, flawed police interrogation techniques, prosecutorial misconduct, an elected judiciary, etc. Innocent people go to jail here. A lot.

So one of the biggest problems are the obstacles in using post-conviction exculpatory evidence to prove innocence. Such exculpatory evidence may be available after conviction to prove either actual innocence, or innocence of any number of aggravating circumstances contributing to the severity of the sentence. Given the other known flaws in the system, if exculpatory facts come to light that were unavailable at trial after a person has been sentenced to LWOP, a just society should have appropriate mechanisms in place to re-examine the sentence and even the conviction.
_________

and the death penalty is crap, of course.

Yeah I get where you're coming from, perhaps it's just a matter of us having similar principles but coming at it from a different angle.

I personally don't believe they should ever 'throw away the key' as it were. That is, any human who's going to spend the rest of their lives in prison should at least have the opportunity for their case to be carefully and periodically reviewed, just as a matter of principle and duty on the part of the state. Human life is too valuable to just throw away.

If any new evidence comes to light, if the prisoner conducts themselves impeccably, or if a long-term psychological profile of the prisoner can prove they have had a condition which they have then recovered from, then I think parole may be worth considering. Albeit very carefully.

[Marsupialized]

Why'd they get rid of the guillotine? The guillotine was awesome. FOOMP, done. Painless, quick, messy, everything you are looking for in a death penalty.

[kerble]

Why'd they get rid of the guillotine? The guillotine was awesome. FOOMP, done. Painless, quick, messy, everything you are looking for in a death penalty.

no kidding. then they could spend money developing the two-bladed guillotine. first blade lifts the head up and the second one shears it off, much closer to the shoulders than a traditional guillotine.

get gillette on the horn.

[iembalm]

A staggered, five-bladed model would be the envy of your neighboring states.

[kerble]

Yeah. I wonder if there's a whole untapped market for Braun Electric Guillotines what, with the triple rotating wheels and the pivoting head.

[big_dave]

Fuck Everything! We're doing 25 - Life