Capital punishment--for or against??

[Guest]

Capital Punishment: U.S. Ranks 5th On Global Execution Scale, Amnesty International Reports (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/capital-punishment_n_1381652.html)

It looks like the US ranks 5th in the world on criminal executions. I have very mixed feelings about this topic. My then high school teacher's daughter Michelle was murdered on my birthday in Reno, Nevada on 2-24-1976. The murder turned out to be a decoy so that a group of conspirators could collect on an insurance interest on a casino employee. They had also killed this other woman about the same time as Michelle in February 1976.

A number of my classmates were questioned about this murder specifically the ones who knew Michelle. I never met her.

So, I always have that case in the back of my mind when I think about capital punishment and what this group of conspirators did to Michelle and the casino employee as well as how it affected students at two Reno, NV high schools. Both parents of Michelle were high school English teachers.

On the other side, I hepled prisoners at various prisons in NV and MN before and in law school at the U of MN. Some the prisoners seemed rehabilitated, others not.

I also feel that people could be framed for crimes they did not commit due to incompetence in the investigation, political corruption, or any number of other reasons. Not that I actually met any prisoners in MN who I thought were innocent.

[Guest]

The question being posed for me has to begin with "it depends".
First when applying the death penalty it should be up to a judge/jury to make the final determination based on the evidence presented. Having said that commission of the following crimes should have the possibility of application the death penalty

A person who kills a law enforcement officer in a one on one confrontation i.e. shoots a cop.

A serial killer

A pedophile who has killed a child

An especially horrendous murder such as the black dahlia murder

A rapist who murders his victim

A terrorist whether foreign or domestic

A person who goes on a killing spree at a school, office mall, etc

Again while the death penalty has application it would be up to a judge/jury to decide.

[Guest]

The question being posed for me has to begin with "it depends".
First when applying the death penalty it should be up to a judge/jury to make the final determination based on the evidence presented. Having said that commission of the following crimes should have the possibility of application the death penalty

A person who kills a law enforcement officer in a one on one confrontation i.e. shoots a cop.

A serial killer

A pedophile who has killed a child

An especially horrendous murder such as the black dahlia murder

A rapist who murders his victim

A terrorist whether foreign or domestic

A person who goes on a killing spree at a school, office mall, etc

Again while the death penalty has application it would be up to a judge/jury to decide.


Great Post and if you have no objection, I would add if a person kills a handicapped or mentally challenged individual.

[Guest]

I'm against capital punishment for moral and practical reasons. The moral reasons are well understood so there is no need to post them.

Practically speaking, capital punishment costs too much. Appeals go on for years and payment to lawyers (always more than one) continues through the years in addition to the resources of the Court, Prosecutor’s office, expert witnesses, etc. Capital punishment is one more example of providing taxpayer money to lawyers. It is much less expensive to imprison these people without possibility of parole.

For truly heinous crimes such as those listed by rubicon, I would recommend a new prison located in the Aleutians. Attu Island, near the far end of the chain, housed a Coast Guard station until 2010. The island has both a functional dock with barracks and a 5,800 ft. airstrip. The island is large, 143 sq. miles and uninhabited. This would be Altatraz on steroids – truly escape proof. Lawyers and family could meet with the inmates through state-of-the-art telecommunication systems. No visitors would be allowed on the island. The state governments could pay for it with costs prorated for the number of prisoners to be housed.

This method would get most of the truly dangerous inmates out of the prison system and eliminate the heart of the prison gang movement as a bonus. Our prisons become safer and less a school for criminals.

[Guest]

A twenty-one year old man sneaks into a garage when the 85-year old woman owner was outside gardening. She returned to the garage and closed the door. The man could easily have escaped by running out the door or hidden in the storage area of the garage. Instead, he threw a blanket over the woman's head and smashed he head and torso against a brick wall. Her face was so badly beaten, she was unrecognizable. After she fell to the floor unconscious, the man first stomped on her head and body and then pulled her panties off. She was near death when she reached the hospital and died of brain injuries within hours.

The man was witnessed leaving the garage by three people who positively identified him. He left both DNA and fingerprint evidence, and finally he confessed to the crime.

The crime occurred in Illinois where crimes of violence against the elderly, children or the disabled are called 'Class X felonies', meaning there is no chance of parole. The sentence must be served in full.

The man had a criminal record, multiple convictions for non-violent crimes. He was not a drug addict nor was he mentally impaired. The jury took only an hour to reach a guilty verdict. The prosecutors were seeking the death penalty and the man opted to have the judge declare his sentence, not the jury. The maximum penalty in Illinois for first degree murder is 60 years, although a jury or judge can reduce the sentence to any amount of time less than thre maximum.

The man was convicted of first degree murder, as well as burglary and breaking and entering. The maximum sentences for those crimes is 7 years each.

The elderly woman was my Mother. Were you in my shoes, what sentence would you feel provided you with justice?
------
Making a long story shorter, after the convicted murderer badly misbehaved at his sentencing hearing, the judge sentenced him to the maximum for all three crimes, to be served sequentially--a total sentence of 74 years, essentially life in prison with no chance of parole.

Would you be satisfied? If he was sentenced to substantially less time, would you be satisfied that justice had been served?

I was was not upset that the sentence was not the death penalty sought be the prosecutors. In fact, I probably would not have been distraught if the sentence was even less than the maximum. Why, you might ask?

While it took me some time, I finally resolved the situation by re-visiting what I had been taught by my Mother and Dad as a child...that we must forgive those who act against us. For that reason, I was satisfied with the sentence, as I would have been with whatever sentence was handed down by the judge and the Court. I concluded that the Illinois courts were simply not all that important in the grander scheme of things. I know and believe that unless the murderer confesses his crimes to God and seeks His redemption, he will be sentenced to a much longer and more terrible sentence at a higher, final Court. As we know from the Old Testament, God is not necessarily as kind and considerate as many here on Earth who mount various arguments on the fairness of humans judged by other humans.

A lot of the arguments for and against the death penalty that you hear set forth in forums or discussions like this one take on new meaning when you are personally involved. When that happens the victims must somehow reach whatever conclusion they are capable of regarding "justice" without consideration of issues like cost to the state or supposed "moral considerations". I should remind you that God's laws are quite clear, as are his penalties. He does not necessarily consider some of the common arguments against the death penalty, including some presented here.

[Guest]

The question being posed for me has to begin with "it depends".
First when applying the death penalty it should be up to a judge/jury to make the final determination based on the evidence presented. Having said that commission of the following crimes should have the possibility of application the death penalty

A person who kills a law enforcement officer in a one on one confrontation i.e. shoots a cop.

A serial killer

A pedophile who has killed a child

An especially horrendous murder such as the black dahlia murder

A rapist who murders his victim

A terrorist whether foreign or domestic

A person who goes on a killing spree at a school, office mall, etc

Again while the death penalty has application it would be up to a judge/jury to decide.

Why are any of your list more important than I am? You include police officers. Why? Why don't you include members of the military.

In the case of premedated murder of felony murder execute anyone who is guilty regardless of who they kill. The exception that I take is that nobody be executed based on circumstantial evidence.

There is no reason what so ever to think that a crime committed against one group is a worse crime than if it were committed against me.

Someday we will come up with a foolproof system but until then I think our current system is passable.

Just my opinion

[Guest]

I honestly believe that there are some crimes so heinous that, by committing them, you forfeit your right to life.

That being said, the burden of proof for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The burden for the death penalty should be akin to "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

Anyone who saw 60 minutes last Sunday watched prosecutorial misconduct in action. A man loses 25 years of his life because a prosecutor withholds evidence that would have exonerated him (DNA evidence finally freed him - but only after a years-long battle to even get it considered). While in prison, wrongly convicted of murdering his wife in front of their child, he lost everything. He said he bottomed out when, after 12 years, his son said he no longer wanted to be forced to see him.

The prosecutor belongs in jail for the remainder of the sentence that this man was given (life).

[Guest]

I honestly believe that there are some crimes so heinous that, by committing them, you forfeit your right to life.

That being said, the burden of proof for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The burden for the death penalty should be akin to "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

Anyone who saw 60 minutes last Sunday watched prosecutorial misconduct in action. A man loses 25 years of his life because a prosecutor withholds evidence that would have exonerated him (DNA evidence finally freed him - but only after a years-long battle to even get it considered). While in prison, wrongly convicted of murdering his wife in front of their child, he lost everything. He said he bottomed out when, after 12 years, his son said he no longer wanted to be forced to see him.

The prosecutor belongs in jail for the remainder of the sentence that this man was given (life).

You got the right.

[Guest]

I honestly believe that there are some crimes so heinous that, by committing them, you forfeit your right to life.

That being said, the burden of proof for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The burden for the death penalty should be akin to "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

Anyone who saw 60 minutes last Sunday watched prosecutorial misconduct in action. A man loses 25 years of his life because a prosecutor withholds evidence that would have exonerated him (DNA evidence finally freed him - but only after a years-long battle to even get it considered). While in prison, wrongly convicted of murdering his wife in front of their child, he lost everything. He said he bottomed out when, after 12 years, his son said he no longer wanted to be forced to see him.

The prosecutor belongs in jail for the remainder of the sentence that this man was given (life).


I will have to see that 60 Minutes segment. Sorry I missed it. Why did the prosecutor do this? Ambition like running for office at a later date? Protecting his/her record?? In law school it did bug me that so many people seemed to look at the law as theater as well as a game to be played.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;472440]A twenty-one year old man sneaks into a garage when the 85-year old woman owner was outside gardening. She returned to the garage and closed the door. The man could easily have escaped by running out the door or hidden in the storage area of the garage. Instead, he threw a blanket over the woman's head and smashed he head and torso against a brick wall. Her face was so badly beaten, she was unrecognizable. After she fell to the floor unconscious, the man first stomped on her head and body and then pulled her panties off. She was near death when she reached the hospital and died of brain injuries within hours.

The man was witnessed leaving the garage by three people who positively identified him. He left both DNA and fingerprint evidence, and finally he confessed to the crime.

The crime occurred in Illinois where crimes of violence against the elderly, children or the disabled are called 'Class X felonies', meaning there is no chance of parole. The sentence must be served in full.

The man had a criminal record, multiple convictions for non-violent crimes. He was not a drug addict nor was he mentally impaired. The jury took only an hour to reach a guilty verdict. The prosecutors were seeking the death penalty and the man opted to have the judge declare his sentence, not the jury. The maximum penalty in Illinois for first degree murder is 60 years, although a jury or judge can reduce the sentence to any amount of time less than thre maximum.

The man was convicted of first degree murder, as well as burglary and breaking and entering. The maximum sentences for those crimes is 7 years each.

The elderly woman was my Mother. Were you in my shoes, what sentence would you feel provided you with justice?
------
VK...I am so sorry about what happened to your mom.

Only a horrible monster could do the things that you described. I hope to God he rots in prison.

[Guest]

For and they should be in the public square for all to see.

[Guest]

I honestly believe that there are some crimes so heinous that, by committing them, you forfeit your right to life.

That being said, the burden of proof for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The burden for the death penalty should be akin to "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

Anyone who saw 60 minutes last Sunday watched prosecutorial misconduct in action. A man loses 25 years of his life because a prosecutor withholds evidence that would have exonerated him (DNA evidence finally freed him - but only after a years-long battle to even get it considered). While in prison, wrongly convicted of murdering his wife in front of their child, he lost everything. He said he bottomed out when, after 12 years, his son said he no longer wanted to be forced to see him.

The prosecutor belongs in jail for the remainder of the sentence that this man was given (life).

You can read the transcript of the 60 Minutes report on this Michael Morton matter here-- Evidence of Innocence: The case of Michael Morton - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57403923/evidence-of-innocence-the-case-of-michael-morton/?pageNum=4&tag=contentMain;contentBody)

[Guest]

Why are any of your list more important than I am? You include police officers. Why? Why don't you include members of the military.

In the case of premedated murder of felony murder execute anyone who is guilty regardless of who they kill. The exception that I take is that nobody be executed based on circumstantial evidence.

There is no reason what so ever to think that a crime committed against one group is a worse crime than if it were committed against me.

Someday we will come up with a foolproof system but until then I think our current system is passable.

Just my opinion

Hi CMANN: My list was not intended to be a complete and exhaustive list. It is why I prefaced it with determination to be made by judge and jury.
I only listed the most obvious examples.

I posted this way because throughout the states the laws vary and so answered in a general sense.

Perhaps I should have simply said that in many cases my default position would be in favor of capital punishment.


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I will have to see that 60 Minutes segment. Sorry I missed it. Why did the prosecutor do this? Ambition like running for office at a later date? Protecting his/her record?? In law school it did bug me that so many people seemed to look at the law as theater as well as a game to be played.

They tried to ask him that. What basically came out of his mouth was that he didn't withhold anything. He deflected and double-talked. At one point it almost looked like he was going to say "I forgot".