[Blackmirror]

You are angry and thats understandable
We cant understand this fecked up world no matter how we try

[katonca]

I'm really sorry to hear about your family's loss Mulder.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

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.



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.

I know better than to debate you when you are so sure about something. It is a losing proposition for all and in this instance would be inappropriate for me to continue. Lets just say that in my opinion my view was rational and definitely not based on emotion.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by valis

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.

Doesn't matter how much value it has its still simply an equation = "societal value vs. risk of unintended consequence vs. cost of unintended consequence.

Here--the risk of the unintended consequence is tiny--as pointed out before no one in New Jersey has yet to be executed--so to this point the risk is zero. The cost of the unintended consequence is a human life. The societal value is meeting the wishes and desires of what people want from a criminal justice sytem, the desires and wishes of victims of violent crimes, the cost and expense to the system.

the cited most compelling reason for New Jersey to abolish the death penalty was:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121301302.html

In the end, the most compelling case for New Jersey lawmakers was the economic one. Keeping inmates on death row costs the state $72,602 per year for each prisoner, according to the commission. Inmates kept in the general population cost $40,121 per year each to house. The corrections department estimates that repeal could save the state as much as $1.3 million per inmate over his lifetime -- and that figure does not include the millions spent by public defenders on inmates' appeals.

They did not consider the cost of the loss of the death penalty as a means to extract a guilty plea out of the accused!!! Point being that presumably if the economic cost of not having the death penalty is much higher (because now we have many more very long and costly trials where before a plea bargain would have occurred), then the New Jersey Legislature voted against the wishes of its constituents for an invalid reason.

That's the point of this thread. Again--if you are oppossed to the death penalty because of moral reasons, fine--but this particular legislation was pushed through and rationalized based on an alleged cost to the taxpayers when in fact it now may cost the taxpayers more and the decision was not what the general public wanted in the first place.

The point of this thread is that muc

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

...........................................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.

We certainly do agree on some things - I'm with you on this one. I've always been pro DP, even more so now than in my youth. Can't say whether it's emotion or logic, but it sure seems and feels to be the correct way to remove murderer's from society forever, and damn the cost.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

Doesn't matter how much value it has its still simply an equation = "societal value vs. risk of unintended consequence vs. cost of unintended consequence.

hmmm.....going to have to give that some thought.

value vs risk and cost.

definitely brain fodder in there.

The societal value is meeting the wishes and desires of what people want from a criminal justice sytem, the desires and wishes of victims of violent crimes, the cost and expense to the system.

Couldn't agree more. But all too frequently, the wishes and desires of victims fall on deaf ears.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Wino

We certainly do agree on some things - I'm with you on this one. I've always been pro DP, even more so now than in my youth. Can't say whether it's emotion or logic, but it sure seems and feels to be the correct way to remove murderer's from society forever, and damn the cost.

yup; you remove viable members from society, you have proven TO society that you are not a viable member of said society; ergo, society has NO use for you, and off you go.

straight to the front of the line.

that's my equation, at least.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by wacor

I know better than to debate you when you are so sure about something. It is a losing proposition for all and in this instance would be inappropriate for me to continue. Lets just say that in my opinion my view was rational and definitely not based on emotion.

I'm not sure at all about it because I don't know the answer to some of the variables that have not yet been studied. I am sure that advocating abolition of the death penalty based on the risk that an innocent person will die in and of itself is an emotional argument. There is no weighing of competing factors. Again--I am not criticizing you for holding a belief or an opinion based on an emotional response. I am simply pointing out to you how you arrived at your decision. If the decision is rational, you need to give me the other side of the equation. One side is "innocent man dies". I've already shown you that "innocent man dies" is a part of many of society's equations. If we decided all of those equations on the basis any time an innocent person dies, the price is too high, then many laws would be different. We would have speed limits not exceeding 10 to 20 mph. We would make alcohol illegal. We would make plastic surgery illegal (in fact, we would make all elective surgery illegal because a small percentage of people always dies from elective surgery).

Ok---so give me the other side of the equation. In other words how does the "innocent man dies" risk outweight the societal benefit of the death penalty in light of its effect on plea bargaining? If a murderer who would have plead guilty goes to trial, and is set free in a flawed trial, and then kills another person, does not the value of that innocent person become just as important as the innocent person who was put to death? And while there are no studies to prove it, I would bet my house that the risk is higher that a murderer who gets off at trial kills again, then the risk of an innocent man being convicted and put to death.

BTW--I am not making these arguments based on my personal experience. There is no death penalty in New Jersey--the issue is closed for my family's situation. I am simply attempting to illustrate that the economic rationale being used to sell the abolition of the death penalty is seriously flawed. This scumbag gets life without parole--that's the reality of it--nothing will change it--totally accept it--have no problem with it. In fact, life in prison may be worse--my guess is with the prisoner "code of ethics" this guy's going to get more than his share of abuse.

[Blackmirror]

Why not stick them neck deep in the ground and stone them to death
think of all the $ you will save

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Wino

We certainly do agree on some things - I'm with you on this one. I've always been pro DP, even more so now than in my youth. Can't say whether it's emotion or logic, but it sure seems and feels to be the correct way to remove murderer's from society forever, and damn the cost.

Sounds to me like its an emotional response, but perfectly understandable--how in the world can I criticize my brother for wanting to see this guy hung upside down by his balls, beaten, put on a cross, have his eyes stitched open, blinded, have birds and insects pick him apart until he dies a slow agonizing death. How could anyone criticize him for that? It a perfectly accpetable and understandable response.

Much of society's laws are based on the desires of society--some of them not very rational, but society deserves to decide how it wants to govern itself--if society wants a death penalty, society should have a death penalty. If you are oppossed to a death penalty because of the risk an innocent person is convicted, you have the right to that opinion--but don't tell me its logical because it isn't any more than me wanting to see this guy die a horrible death. I know there is no logical reason for that--but I don't need one for this particular opinion!!!!

[Mulderator]

BTW--I don't want anyone to think you will hurt my feelings if you express an opinion in opposition to the death penalty. I myself am not sure whether it serves society or not--I look at these things most often from an economic standpoint--if the cost of not having the death penalty is far more trials and expenses of trials and families going through trials, then I would be far more inclined to support it. Again I am stressing that in making your decision you should consider how much the lack of a death penalty handicaps the prosecutor in obtaing a swift and efficient conviction. So--in this case--perhaps as soon as a few weeks, this guy may have plead guilty to avoid the death penalty and the whole thing would be over and my brother could move on with his life. As it stands, I really think he will have to spend two months in a courthouse watching this trial and having to see this guy and his piece of crap father (who stared my brother down in court and made some comments as though it was my brother's fault his son was going to spend his life in prison! ) every day.

I frankly think actually going for the death penalty would be worse--because that would be years of anguish. But the possibility of it I believe would put a swift end to this particular case. With some luck maybe it will happen anyway. Maybe this guy will realize what he did was wrong, will realize that putting people through a trial is even worse and he'll just plead out and end it.

[twinofangelize56]

Mulder ~ You have my deepest sympathy. What a horrible thing to imagine and an even worse thing to bear.

I can totally understand your wanting to see this monster tortured and killed. No different from my own feelings of the man behind the M.D. plate who killed my mother through thoughtless neglect and misuse of trust and power. For months I could think of nothing else but revenge (i.e. seeing him die). I never knew how cold and calculating one could become. I can also tell you it is not the way to go. It will age you. It will be a wall at times that you cannot climb, knock down, or go around.

Let the thoughts swirl awhile in your head and pass your lips to all those willing to listen if necessary. This is still so fresh and ugly and unbelievable that no one will blame you.

But now is the time to grab hold of your family and friends and grieve together and comfort one another. You'll face the process of your grief for some time and one day you'll have a day where it doesn't invade your head and your heart and soul as hard. I pray you find that day sooner than later.

*hugs*

Oh.... and just so you know. I'm all for the Death Penalty. I'd like to say but only if proven 100% guilty of the crime. But I just don't know about that anymore.

[LANMaster]

Understood, Chris.

Your argument for the DP is compelling. And I cannot say that I disagree with you on a single point of your argument, excepting one.

If the DP were only used if the guilt was beyond ANY doubt, rather than what they call "reasonable" doubt, I would support the DP. As I stated before, I have absolutely no problem putting murderers to death. But I would rather lock up 999,999 murderers and one innocent for the rest of their lives than kill 1,000,000.
A single innocent life put to death is too many lives to sacrifice for the sake of what is arguably a great idea (putting murderers to death.

The DP is the greatest deterrent ever, because that murderer will be deterred from ever killing anyone again when they arer dead.

I'm sure there are better examples, but look at the Scott Peterson case out in my home state of California. There's very little doubt in my mind that the scumbag killed Lacy and her unborn child. I was not on the Jury, but I am sure there is even more evidence of his guilt than was reported.
However, there is a sliver of possibility that someone else did the crime. There were no witnesses, and no video evidence showing Scott killing his wife. Yet he was sentenced to death.
In tyhat case, I would have gone with life with no parole.

In Texas, they have a speedy execution law that basically says if there are 3 credible witnesses or compelling video evidence, you don't sit around for a decade appealing the sentence, they waste the guy quick.
I haven't any provlem with that, so long as the guilt is beyond any doubt.

But since there is sentencing of the DP when there still is some doubt (face it, people are fallible, and evidence is often circumstancial) I cannot support the DP as a blanket rule. There simply is too much chance that even one innocent might be executed.
For me, that is too many, no matter how small the chance happens to be.

We respect your wishes, and did not move this thread.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by twinofangelize56

Oh.... and just so you know. I'm all for the Death Penalty. I'd like to say but only if proven 100% guilty of the crime. But I just don't know about that anymore.

Hi there Darlene.

You captured all that I wrote in a single sentence. How's that for a switch!

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

BTW--I don't want anyone to think you will hurt my feelings if you express an opinion in opposition to the death penalty. I myself am not sure whether it serves society or not--I look at these things most often from an economic standpoint--if the cost of not having the death penalty is far more trials and expenses of trials and families going through trials, then I would be far more inclined to support it. Again I am stressing that in making your decision you should consider how much the lack of a death penalty handicaps the prosecutor in obtaing a swift and efficient conviction. So--in this case--perhaps as soon as a few weeks, this guy may have plead guilty to avoid the death penalty and the whole thing would be over and my brother could move on with his life. As it stands, I really think he will have to spend two months in a courthouse watching this trial and having to see this guy and his piece of crap father (who stared my brother down in court and made some comments as though it was my brother's fault his son was going to spend his life in prison! ) every day.

I frankly think actually going for the death penalty would be worse--because that would be years of anguish. But the possibility of it I believe would put a swift end to this particular case. With some luck maybe it will happen anyway. Maybe this guy will realize what he did was wrong, will realize that putting people through a trial is even worse and he'll just plead out and end it.

How sure are we that this guy is the killer?
Is it too early to tell?