My country ... uh ... 'tis of ... yeah. Whatever. (Bring on the dead!)

[Tiassa]

Washington 'seeks more executions' (BBC)

There are currently 12 cases - 10 in New York and two in Connecticut - where US attorneys have either advised against the death penalty, or not pursued it.

The New York Times said that they have now been overruled by Mr Ashcroft.

The US Justice Department said that the death penalty was the law of the land, and that the review process was designed to ensure consistency and fairness across the country.

But here in New York City, no federal jury has returned a verdict for the death penalty since the laws were revised a decade ago.

Defence lawyers have criticised Mr Ashcroft's approach, arguing that the best way to eliminate disparities was not to increase the use of capital punishment, but to reduce it.

Bring on the dead! There's nothing to help morale like a few more homicides.

Having gotten that from my system, I am no more inclined to be polite about it, anyway. It's a great feel-good idea, if you're a bloodlusting bandwagoner, but doesn't it seem like we should undertake the reduction of crime a little more seriously before we resort to just killing more people?

I know, I know. I'm crazy. I must be smoking the funny stuff. I mean, come on! It's an execution, man! How can I possibly argue? You get to watch some poor bastard die and then you get to pretend that we as a society really are "good enough" to commit homicide.

Question #1: How do you get crappy prosecutors?

Hire good prosecutors and then refuse to let them do their jobs. Or, just hire crappy prosecutors. Either way.

Question #2: Does the death penalty affect the crime rate?

Doesn't seem to. Study after study shows no deterrent effect. A 1999 paper examining the murder rate in California before and after the state reintroduced the death penalty found slight increases in homicides during the eight months following the execution.

Question #3: Is the death penalty "efficient"?

Only in wisecracks. The State of New York found that executions cost more money than life imprisonment. Several other states have found the same. Furthermore, the death penalty cannot afford to be time-efficient. Erroneous convictions, sentencing-structure problems, and other troubles have motivated the current backlash against the death penalty which culminated in outgoing Illinois' Governor George Ryan clearing the state's death row with mass commutations.

Question #4: What is the purpose of the death penalty, especially in light of Ashcroft's interference in various cases?

Haven't got a clue. Let us all know if you do.

:m:,
Tiassa

 

[spacemanspiff]

eye for an eye.

not that i agree. but people don't see jail as a deterent, so the death pentalty seems like the next logical step.

i hope the entire US doesn't turn into Texas.

 

[Tyler]

"but people don't see jail as a deterent, so the death pentalty seems like the next logical step."

Sadly it's a trend among humans to not believe facts. An intersting, but sad trend.

 

[Slacker47]

First of all... GREATEST TITLE EVER.

I liked the earlier proposal of the No2 inhalation instead of the current methods of execution. If we must have the death penalty, then we need more humane methods.

What I dont understand is: why keep inmates in jail for thier entire life if they are just going to die anyway? I dont care to make a change in the legal system. I think the media plays the biggest role in our crime problems.

 

[Tiassa]

A few paltry reasons

why keep inmates in jail for thier entire life if they are just going to die anyway?

- Money: Time and again, studies are showing it less expensive to keep a prisoner for life than to legally execute him.
- Dignity: One of the things we demonstrate with executions is that we, the good and peaceable people, can kill, too; we are no better than other killers despite having made a mountain of paperwork to "license" a homicide.
- Conscience: Even in prison, a man still has his conscience. This has potential value to be harvested. If you kill him, his conscience can never flower.
- Information: If we view crime and punishment differently, we might be able to reap some benefits from even the most abject criminals. Defense attorneys have helped malign social sciences by exploiting them toward the acquittal of guilty defendants. If we are ever going to defeat crime, we must understand crime. Imagine what the social sciences can capture with a concerted effort to understand the criminals.
- Integrity: I would rather spare the immediate lives of a thousand guilty men than execute a single innocent person. Innocent blood is not a fair wage for Justice. Former Governor Ryan, of Illinois, understood that.

Those are the reasons that strike me immediately.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Slacker47]

- Money: Time and again, studies are showing it less expensive to keep a prisoner for life than to legally execute him.

Did you read Pumpkin's thread that talks about NO2? VERY cheap.

- Dignity: One of the things we demonstrate with executions is that we, the good and peaceable people, can kill, too; we are no better than other killers despite having made a mountain of paperwork to "license" a homicide.

Ok... should we just let Charles Manson back into society? Hes still alive in a jail in California.

- Conscience: Even in prison, a man still has his conscience. This has potential value to be harvested. If you kill him, his conscience can never flower.

Have you heard about murders inside of prisons and gang wars in prisons and the countless weapons made from utensils?

- Information: If we view crime and punishment differently, we might be able to reap some benefits from even the most abject criminals. Defense attorneys have helped malign social sciences by exploiting them toward the acquittal of guilty defendants. If we are ever going to defeat crime, we must understand crime. Imagine what the social sciences can capture with a concerted effort to understand the criminals.

True, but how many prisons conduct experiments on thier inmates? And of these prisons, what is the percentages of inmates tested?

- Integrity: I would rather spare the immediate lives of a thousand guilty men than execute a single innocent person. Innocent blood is not a fair wage for Justice. Former Governor Ryan, of Illinois, understood that.

Cant argue that one.

 

[pumpkinsaren'torange]

yep, Nitrogen gas is quite inexpensive and easily contained. it is the most "humane" way to execute the proven (key word here) guilty.

 

[Persol]

But as we all show time and again... 'proving' something is very difficult, and it doesn't really mean that you were right. It just means you have better lawyers.

 

[spacemanspiff]

I thought that the big part of the cost of execution was that everyone always appeals the sentence as much as they can. and all that time in court just to get denied over and over again cost the taxpayers money.

 

[Tiassa]

Don't matter how ye kill 'em

Did you read Pumpkin's thread that talks about NO2? VERY cheap.

Beside the point. The expense comes in making absolutely sure you have the right person and the right reason and, in the end, the very right to commit murder for revenge. Did you happen to read the link I provided earlier on the expenses?

Ok... should we just let Charles Manson back into society? Hes still alive in a jail in California.

What?

Or, let me put it this way ... What?!

More reasonably expressed: Who says we have to let him out? He regularly expresses that he is dangerous to society. I believe him. I know parole boards seem to go stupid from time to time, but I don't see this time what the heads has to do with the tails.

Have you heard about murders inside of prisons and gang wars in prisons and the countless weapons made from utensils?

Side note: And we wonder why prisons are not houses of rehabilitation.

I suppose that the death penalty makes much sense to one who figures prisoners are better off dead, anyway, or else why would we bother letting them out? But we do let them out, some of them. And people often forget to consider the fact these convicts are people, and some of these people will eventually reenter society. That leads to a separate debate, however, about prisons in general. I suppose we could always let the prison system decay to the point where executing anyone sent to prison is a merciful route.

True, but how many prisons conduct experiments on thier inmates? And of these prisons, what is the percentages of inmates tested?

Well, it seems to me it's a matter of funding. I would rather fund education first, in order to reduce the number of future inmates. But why not treat the issue of crime and punishment seriously? Having to lock a person away from society for life is a testament to the inadequacy of our understanding of crime. The "necessity" of state-sponsored homicide is a testament to our barbaric lack of understanding of crime.

One of the difficulties of being me is that any problem that has a possible solution most likely involves a broad paradigm shift for entire societies, if not all of humanity.

The greatest costs of the death penalty are incurred prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings were abolished, the death penalty system would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.
- Under a death penalty system, trials have two separate phases (conviction and sentencing); they are typically preceded by special motions and extra jury selection questioning.
- More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
- When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, the taxpayer first incurs all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence). (Amnesty International)

I always thought maybe a bullet to the head, or better yet, a claw hammer to the back of the skull, or perhaps a razor blade across the throat would be relatively inexpensive ways of murdering someone, especially compared with electrocuting or poisoning with chemicals. But it doesn't matter how cheap the actual execution is, a state seeking to execute a prisoner is going to pile up its costs proving its case.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Ouch! That's gotta hoit!

Texas Judges Blast Court for Execution (KING TV/AP)

02/13/2003

By APRIL CASTRO /_Associated Press

Three judges criticized their own court ? the state's highest criminal appeals body ? for allowing the execution of an inmate whose attorney was found incompetent by a death-row watchdog.

In an opinion issued Wednesday, the judges on the Court of Criminal Appeals said Leonard Rojas, who was convicted of killing his common-law wife and his brother, should not have been executed on Dec. 4.

A study by the Texas Defender Service showed the attorney who first handled Rojas' appeal had never represented a death row inmate. The report, issued in December, also found the attorney was diagnosed with a mental disorder that affected his legal work and three times had his license suspended.

Yet on the one hand you have confessions (note plural) and to the other, the convicted killer's last attorney pointing out that the incompetent attorney did not even explore the insanity defense. That suggests that Texas executed a mentally incompetent man for the specific crime of having a mentally incompetent lawyer.

Only in Texas ....

But if the court says, "Whoops, our bad ..."?

:m:,
Tiassa