[twinofangelize56]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Hi there Darlene.

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

Hi, Mike.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

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

He confessed.

[BlackSpike]

So sorry to hear this, Mulder.

[franca]

Chris you have my sincere condolences. I know what this is like. My wife's niece was murdered just a couple of years ago......

[Guyzer]

Cris I can only imagine how you and your family are feeling right now and truly hope you all find the strength to make it through this terrible time. My sincere condolences and sympathy to you and your family is what I can and do offer.

[cybertech]

I'm very sorry to hear about your loss, Chris. My condolences to you and your family.



I've had a similar family loss as well....

[buffoon]

Seems to me N.J. lawmakers got themselves into a Catch 22 situation.
"inconsistence with evolving standards of decency" eh? Sounds beautiful but then they moved on to the real (more persuasive) issue, money. Which is perfectly valid IMO and it would have been more "consistent with evolving standards of honesty" to address only this and leave the decency crap out of it.

I reckon it's impossible to make any sensible forecast as to how much money saved on bringing death row inmates to zero (no pun intended) will be eaten up by the cost of lengthy trials that plea bargaining would avoid. Which it won't since it won't exist, the incentive of avoiding a death penalty by plea having been removed together with the same.

Looks like they're gonna have to make up,.... no they should have made up their minds on whether the prime issue was "decency" or savings.

But I admittedly never thought of it this way before either since opposing DP as I do the issue didn't present itself.

I thought.

Until now.

Since this is not a classical pro and con DP thread (heck, the NJ conundrum doesn't lend itself to that purpose) I won't go into the reasons for my opposition, nor address the possible innocents issue.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

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.

Do you not see how that is irrational though? (and I am not using that word in a derrogatory sense--many very intelligent people come to irrational conclusions--I certainly do it myself). You say its a great idea, but you are unwilling to consider any undesirable results to achieve it no matter how small the risk. That is that there is no social utility worth the life of one person and its BS. Airlines calculate the amount of money they can spend to protect lives of their passengers--they can't afford to make it perfect--some innocent people will die in plane crashes. I gave you examples of how we as a society make many decisions resulting in the neligent deaths of thousands of innocent people. Putting an innocent man to death is a death caused by an erroneous act of society.

In order to oppose the death penalty rationally and logically, you must either:

A. Be oppossed to society putting people to death intentionally on moral grounds--that is you don't believe society has the right to do that no matter what the perpetrator has done (totally logical and consistent position).

B. Weigh the social utility against the risk and decide the social utility is not worth the risk (for example, the economic cost of the death penalty is too high to justify any benefit it has). In stating your position, you have stated that no social utility is worth the risk no matter how great the utility and no matter how small the risk. I am sorry, but that is an irrational position. That is the position is based on something other than a reasoned approach to an issue. To be consistent, you would need to opposse every social policy that causes innocent people to lose their life no matter how great the social benefit and no matter how small the risk.

Does that make sense? If it doesn't explain to me why.

[valis]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Since this is not a classical pro and con DP thread (heck, the NJ conundrum doesn't lend itself to that purpose) I won't go into the reasons for my opposition, nor address the possible innocents issue.

Let me ask you this; are you still con? Or wavering a bit?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by buffoon

But I admittedly never thought of it this way before either since opposing DP as I do the issue didn't present itself.

I thought.

Until now.

New Jersey didn't consider it either--which pretty much blows out of the water their argument about the cost savings.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

Do you not see how that is irrational though? (and I am not using that word in a derrogatory sense--many very intelligent people come to irrational conclusions--I certainly do it myself). You say its a great idea, but you are unwilling to consider any undesirable results to achieve it no matter how small the risk. That is that there is no social utility worth the life of one person and its BS. Airlines calculate the amount of money they can spend to protect lives of their passengers--they can't afford to make it perfect--some innocent people will die in plane crashes. I gave you examples of how we as a society make many decisions resulting in the neligent deaths of thousands of innocent people. Putting an innocent man to death is a death caused by an erroneous act of society.

bingo. Give the hippie lawyer a kewpie doll.

Mulder, just out of curiosity, how bad do you think my argument is for two years of unlimited testing, with basically (within reason, of course) any resource the inmate desires at their fingertips to prove their innocence? I think (IMO, of course), that were we to make that offer to all death row inmates with the caveat that if they COULDN'T prove themselves innocent after two years, it's off you go, that not that many would take the chance.

Regardless, curious to see if you think that would be spurious spending or not.

v

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by buffoon

Since this is not a classical pro and con DP thread (heck, the NJ conundrum doesn't lend itself to that purpose) I won't go into the reasons for my opposition, nor address the possible innocents issue.

I have not limited this thread to the issue of the effect of the abolition on the cost due to no more incentive to plea. If you want to discuss your views for being against the death penalty, please feel free. I myself was against it also--not for moral reasons or for issues relating innocents put to death--but because of its impracticability--its social uselessness--that is it takes so damn long to kill someone and the cost is so high and the families languish for years with no closure that I did see much social utility in it.

However, I had never considered the issue of the effect of its being an option giving the prosecutor a "trump card" to extract a conviction by way of plea. It has great social utility when thought of in that manner.

Here's a perfect example--came up with a Google (and there are many more):

http://prisonmovement.wordpress.com/...ife-in-prison/

A condemned Texas inmate who won a new punishment trial from an appeals court has agreed to a plea bargain that takes him off death row but likely keeps him imprisoned for the rest of his life.

I am surprised Texas would allow a prisoner to plead out of the death penalty!!!

But would this guy EVER take a plea if that was the worse he could get anyway at trial? Without the DP, the only time a prosecutor can work a plea is if they are willing to allow a person the right to parole. That simply is not an option in many cases--such as this one--no way you can give this animal a right to parole. They won't consider that plea (at least I hope they won't consider it).

And this makes me think of another issue. Would the lack of a death penalty cause a prosecutor to take a plea bargain with the possibility of parole to reduce the numbers of trials the prosecutor's office has or to avoid risk of losing a trial? They are under intense pressure to convict in murder cases. You can only imagine the pressure the prosecutor in this case will be under to get justice for my family--how he/she would feel if he/she loses the case? So does the lack of death penalty mean that ultimately murderers will be released back into society when with a death penalty, they would have plead to life without parole???

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by valis

bingo. Give the hippie lawyer a kewpie doll.

Mulder, just out of curiosity, how bad do you think my argument is for two years of unlimited testing, with basically (within reason, of course) any resource the inmate desires at their fingertips to prove their innocence? I think (IMO, of course), that were we to make that offer to all death row inmates with the caveat that if they COULDN'T prove themselves innocent after two years, it's off you go, that not that many would take the chance.

Regardless, curious to see if you think that would be spurious spending or not.

v

Not sure I understand what you are proposing?

[LuckyStrike]

Sorry to hear about your family's loss. If I were in your brother's shoes, I suspect that I would be having all sorts of thoughts about taking the law into my own hands and not caring about the consequences.

[valley]

Originally Posted by Blackmirror

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

Death by lethal injection is far more humane. The idea is to simply remove them from the world, not to inflict torture on them.

I dont like the whole talk of cost effectiveness when it comes to the death penalty. Money should never be put before justice. The government always seems to find the money they need when they deem its important enough so I dont see why it should be such a huge issue when it comes to the death penalty. I mean seriously...like Valis said....send the obviously guilty people (people caught on surveillance tape, people who confess, people who are seen to murder by a certain number of credible witnesses etc) to the front of the line and put them to death within 30 days. The families will have justice and can move on with the healing process instead of stewing on the fact that the killer sits in prison with 3 square meals a day, exercise, books, tv, a bed to sleep on, heat..the ability to taste a piece of bread, smell the scent of shampoo, touch a clean cotton shirt..write and receive letters, visits from family members.....all seemingly mundane things. But his victim will never experience them again. Is that fair?

IMO, justice is better served with the death penalty in cases such as this one. But...thats not gonna happen so its a moot point. Its just too bad that the reason for abolishing it in New Jersey is more about money than justice for the families of the victims.