[valis]

Jesus, Chris, I'm very sorry to hear about that. My condolences and thoughts and prayers with you and yours.

And you already know where I stand on capital punishment.

[WarC]

I'm sorry for your family's loss Mulder. Thats an atrocity no one should have to bear. I am not a religious man but my thoughts are with you and yours today. I hope there is justice for you and your family....In the event that you needed it I would be more than willing to be a place to deposit your thoughts in private. If you are any indication of your family's strength and unity of vision, you will all secure justice and find some peace in their memories.

[Wino]

Mulder, I'm deeply saddened and sorry for this tragedy that has befallen your family. I extend my heart felt condolences and warmest regards to you and your entire family.

[lotuseclat79]

Great post about the issues involved Mulder. I am deeply sorry to hear the tragic news. My deepest condolences to you and your family.

-- Tom

[Mulderator]

Thanks for all the kind words--it means a lot. I hope people take this opportunity to consider carefully the issues, financial, strategic, moral, and emotional when it comes to drastic policy changes such as abolition of the death penalty given the perspective of all involved.

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

Thanks for all the kind words--it means a lot. I hope people take this opportunity to consider carefully the issues, financial, strategic, moral, and emotional when it comes to drastic policy changes such as abolition of the death penalty given the perspective of all involved.

Mulder, this has occupied my thoughts since I read about it. As the others have said, you always have an ear if you need it.

I have, am, and always will be for the Death Penalty. I started a thread here a few weeks back related to the Death Penalty, but not much came of it.

[Blackmirror]

Come here and have a hug
Im so sorry

[SlackAli]

I don't want to take this thread away from Chris's grief, and the real empathy expressed here, but I always find it interesting when avowed Christians advocate the death penalty. For non-believers like myself there is no problem, as I don't believe in the concept of redemption, nor, for different reasons, in the lesser concept of rehabilitation. That's before you even get into any utilitarian debates or concerns about the economic cost of keeping a useless piece of meat alive.

I would want the most painful form of retribution, although whether that is years of drawn out appeal following a death sentence or an initial sentence of life I remain unconvinced.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

But I want you to ponder 2 possibilities that you may not have considered. I did not visit your links, so there may be details of which I am unaware. So please don't jump me if I got something wrong.

You need to consider the issue of death penalty as a means to obtain a plea.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

1. What if the wrong person is convicted of the crime?
It truly HAS happened. Is there video evidence or at least 3 credible witnesses who saw the crime committed?
Would there be any more closure obtained if the wrong person was put to death?

2. What if the killer turns out to be your Brother? I know it is not something that you would wish to ponder, but it happens more often than you might know. Could you support the DP for a brother? Even if he were guilty?

With regard to forgiveness of the death penalty, I believe that only the family of the victim can make such a call. But for the sake of the community, people convicted of heinous murder should spend the rest of their life in jail without any possibility of parole. That way, if it turns out down the road that evidence surfaces of someone else responsible for the crime, then at least you haven't killed the wrong person.

I understand the argument of an innoncent person put to death and frankly it carries little weight for me and should carry little weight for you or anyone else. I understand moral opposition to the death penalty on the grounds that society should not decide who lives or dies. As to the wrong person convicted, the studies you point out all relate to incidents that occurred many years ago (find me a proven case of an innoncent man executed in the past 40 years)--today the chances of putting an innocent person to death are virtually non-existent. For example, in New Jersey, they've never used the death penaly since brining it back! So no one in New Jersey has been executed at all let alone an innocent person. One of the people on New Jersey's death row is the the guy that raped and murdered a child, Megan Kanka, which spawned the now famous "Megan's Law." Her family's pleas to the New Jersey Legislature were not enough to stop the legislation. I would have at least waited until he fried before abolishing it or made it prospective such that anyone already sentenced to death should be put to death.

However, let's consider that an innocent man could be put to death. You certainly would agree the probability of putting an innocent man to death is very very small, correct? Well thousands of people every year are killed by drunk drivers. Very easy to reduce that number substantially--save thousands of innocent people from being put to death--just bring back prohibition--make alcohol consumption unlawful. Point is society makes a value judgment--that is the loss of thousands of innocent lives--many in the prime of their life--many children--that society is willing to trade lives for the enjoyment that society obtains from drinking alcohol. There are many other examples of societal decisions that result in innocent people losing their lives.

So the point being is that the focus on a few innocent men being put to death (which frankly I don't believe can happen with today's evidence and processes) is disengenuous--its slight of hand analysis that appeals to people's emotions by focusing on the rare exception rather than the social utility. So that argument carries zero weight for me just like an argument that alcohol should be abolished to save lives carries zero weight. All life has only so much societal value. It always has been that way and always will be because anything else would result in chaos.

In New Jersey, the popular opinion was in support of the death penalty--the Legislature ignored what the people wanted and did what they wanted--not unusual.

But the bottom line here is the social utility of the death penalty vs. the unintended consequences just like any other social utility decision. A focus completely on the morality or "unjustness" of the unintended consequence to the complete exclusion of the social utility regardless of the probability of the unintended consequence is a poor analysis--that's the analysis you are asking me to make--its not an analysis I would ever make or that you should ever make.

So again--getting back to the social utility with a focus on the death penalty as a means to obtain a guilty plea. Remember that guilty people are set free fairly often for many reasons--procedural problems, legal arguments,stupid jury, etc, etc. Point is take this situation. If New Jersey had the death penalty, there is an excellent chance this scumbag pleads guilty to life without parole. There is almost zero chance now. He may be set free even though he confessed whereas with the death penalty, he would have plead guilty thereby eliminating the risk he goes free. That's the point I'm making that I don't think is receiving sufficient consideration. The plea bargain saves billions of dollars every year for the criminal justice system accross the country. Its an effective means to efficiently administer justice--without it the system would collapse--how much of an effect will the abolition of the death penalty have on the criminal justice system??? That's the issue.

Originally Posted by LANMaster

It was suggested that this thread be moved to either announcements or CD, but I think I will just leave it here for now, or let another Mod make that decision. Mulder put it here, so this is where it should stay, at least for now, IMO.

I didn't put it here as an announcement, I put it here for consideration and debate regarding an aspect of the death penalty that I don't think most people ever considered. I thought I was in a unique position to state an opinion since I now am one of the unfortunate family members that must deal with the question of what sort of justice should be dealt out to an animal that blows two peoples heads off to satisfy his own rage. There's that aspect of the issue as well as the pro/cons to the death penalty. If I as a lawyer have never considered the loss of the plea bargain (or at least its being severely restricted) with the abolition of the death penalty, then I am fairly sure not many other people have considered it--its a HUGE FACTOR.

[wacor]

I used to be a staunch death penalty advocate. No more.

I don't buy the claim that nobody innocent in the last 40 years has been put to death.

We do not have that perfect of a judicial system. It would never fly but with certain cases I could easily justify it if there was evidence that was irrefutable. Problem then is who determines which case has that and which one not so it is not workable.

Also justice is not even. You can bet there are people with no money that got convicted that were innocent because they did not have a good lawyer. Justice is more about who has money than whether you are innocent in SOME instances.

Nah for now I don't want to see anybody possibly being put to death that could be innocent. Not worth it. Lock em up. If there is a good case then plea bargaining is not gonna be an issue. Besides that one person could be somebody you know and care about.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

So the point being is that the focus on a few innocent men being put to death (which frankly I don't believe can happen with today's evidence and processes) is disengenuous--its slight of hand analysis that appeals to people's emotions by focusing on the rare exception rather than the social utility.

I'm quite certain that innocent people HAVE been put to death. I read somewhere that of all the granted dna re-tests, something over 20% came back as innocent. Now, obviously there had to be a very valid reason for them to go back and retest using the dna testing (as it wasn't used in the original trial), so that will completely skew the numbers to make it look like a quarter of all death row inmates are innocent, when it fact it has only been used in extraordinary cases. And in something like a quarter of those case the penalty was in fact overturned.

this is why I have such a huge problem with the so called 'death row'. In your state alone, Mulder, the average time spent on death row is what, 25 years? 30? I say give them unlimited appeals and access to whatever they want, and 2 years to prove it. After that, see ya.

As comedian Ron White puts it, wrt to capital punishment in Texas:

Originally Posted by Ron White

"If you commit a heinous crime, usually meaning murder in any degree, and more than three people saw you do it; you don't sit for years on death row; you go straight to the front of the line."

I like that idea. You remove someone viable from society, you get yourself removed from society. Not to make this personal, but your relatives were obviously viable contributors to society; the perpetrator, once convicted, should go the front of the line.

So that argument carries zero weight for me just like an argument that alcohol should be abolished to save lives carries zero weight. All life has only so much societal value. It always has been that way and always will be because anything else would result in chaos.

True. But that value is NOT static. Life, these days, carries far more societal value than it did even 100 years ago. Jeez, look at the 'interrogation' methods of the medieval ages.

In New Jersey, the popular opinion was in support of the death penalty--the Legislature ignored what the people wanted and did what they wanted--not unusual.

and how many times has it been used?


again, chris, my condolences. And thanks for leaving this in here; it's an excellent debate topic, although I imagine it cannot be easy on you to read it every day.

[bp936]

My condolences, Mulder, this shouldn't happen to anyone. It is terrible news.

Yes, it takes a while to realize, what really happened, you become numb, wonder how the rest of the world around you just goes on.

I always believed ""an eye for an eye" - if a case can be proven 100 %, there should be a death penalty. The pain of the family and friends should always be remembered.

[poochee]

Sorry to hear of this tragedy. My condolences to you and your family.

[Blackmirror]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by wacor

If there is a good case then plea bargaining is not gonna be an issue.

Obviously you have completely missed the point I was making about the effect of abolition fo the death penalty on plea bargaining. This case right here is about as good as it gets--a confession, motive (and I am sure there will be plenty of other evidence--blood spatter etc.). Regardless of how much evidence there is, its hihgly unlikely he's ever going to plea to life without parole because he faces nothing worse. So plea bargaining is always going to be an issue with the abolition of the death penalty--that's the whole point of this thread. You need to think it through again.

Originally Posted by wacor

Besides that one person could be somebody you know and care about.

Competely irrelevant--the one person killed by a drunk driver could be somebody you know and care about. We aren't going to outlaw alcohol no matter how many people are killed in alcohol related deaths (some murders and many accidental deaths are the result of alcohol).

You again are focusing on the adverse consequence without consideration of the social utility--you are rationalizing from only one side of the equation. The fact that an innocent man can be put to death is NOT enough by itself to abolish the death penalty. You've got a fair amount of people who die every year during routine plastic surgery--many because the quack doctor is incompetent. With your reasoning--we should outlaw plastic surgery because of the chance that even one person may die at the hands of an imperfect system of medical treatment and worse that one person may be a person you care about.

Again--I'm not trying to dissuade your from your position--just pointing out that the reasoning you are using to come to your position is seriously flawed--that is you are making it based on an emotional response rather than a reasoned approach. Now if that's how you want to make the decision, that's fine--just understand there is no sound logic behind it.

I'd like to see this guy tortured before they kill him. There is no sound logic behind that thinking--its simply what I'd like to see done. But I won't pretend there's any logic to that thinking.