Death Penalty In Us?

[internet.news]

ok,

that is a hot topic: I think criminals are also unfortunately just humans although I can understand If someone would attack me or hurt me physically or psychologically, my personal feelings would lead to be angry and sad... but I think
objectively they are also just humans and if the state decide to kill someone of murder, the state is not better then the criminal. But we /the state should show
these criminals that we are better humans... in some ways... That is one main reason why I think they should remove death penalty in United States.

Other reason is that many innocent people - about 3000 I think as I read - are
now waiting to be executed...

Yeah that is sad...

thanks anyway, david.

[blackhatknight]

Firstly there are degree of crime as there are degrees of punishment I don’t agree with chopping someone’s hand off for stealing some food, however I am talking about more serious crimes here. A few years ago this would have been a debate I would have relished, I now feel it’s somewhat of a circular argument:

Improper behaviour need punishment
Punishment needs to work
Death Plenty Works
Death Plenty betrays social values it upholds

Then,

How do we punish and educate if effective punishment is inherently barbaric??

My stance now is what about making live imprisonment that, i.e. life, that way if they are innocent the truth will out and if their not they certainly won’t ever get out

(as it will inevitably come up I see it as irrelevant whether or not the prisoner supports themselves from an economic point of view, see http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chinairu.htm if interested, for an economy to stay healthy with continued growth there must always be a level of unemployment, sometimes called the natural level of unemployment if this is composed of prisoners the economy is not harmed and live for a non-prisoner is not effected – though it still sounds good and emotive if you say, there living off my hard earned money I guess)

[james_bond_rulez]

there is no death panelty in Canada.

Our prisoners are treated like presidents. good food good life.

and guess who's paying it?

[blackhatknight]

I argee the punished should not have a better life than those that are supposedly free

[ilw]

Personally i'm against the death penalty, you can read the rest of my opinions in the other death penalty topic (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=50679&hl=) :-"
I personally don't mind a new topic on it, but I'll probably not be posting in it much.

[LeGoMyFnLeg]

Surely there must be some small event or injustice in your own countries that you could spend as much time and effort on.
The state of dental hygeine in britain for example?

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@4 October 2003 - 21:52

Our prisoners are treated like presidents. good food good life.

and guess who's paying it?
;) Yep.The same down here in the States.They get Heart Transplants and whatever Medical care they need.Yet working People Die waiting for their turn.

[ScotchGuy]

Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN+5 October 2003 - 01:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FuNkY CaPrIcOrN @ 5 October 2003 - 01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-james_bond_rulez@4 October 2003 - 21:52

Our prisoners are treated like presidents. good food good life.

and guess who&#39;s paying it?
;) Yep.The same down here in the States.They get Heart Transplants and whatever Medical care they need.Yet working People Die waiting for their turn. [/b][/quote]
There&#39;s few things I hate more than that. I really can&#39;t stand the fact that prisoners get treated like kings and queens while hard working citizens get screwed over.

When was the last time you heard of a normal U.S. citizen getting his sex change paid for with the people&#39;s tax dollars? Never. But wait, it seems as though that&#39;s perfectly acceptable if you&#39;ve committed a crime.

Seriously, a sex change? That&#39;s crossing the line from necessity to live to "Hey what the hell, I might as well change my sex. I&#39;ve got nothing better to do and I&#39;m sure my cell-mate will appreciate it."

And even if it is a necessity to live they should still have to pay for it. What does them being in jail have to do with anything.

From now on when I have a costly operation coming up I&#39;ll rob a bank.

[huuramis]

i think the only people that should get the death penalty are psycotic murderes.

you know the retarded ones that just snap after a while and start going crazy, like those retard kids that shoot up schools and end up killing some other kids.

but, for those who kill for a reason, as in if some guy killed your daughter or son or something, and then you went out and killed that guy then i think its ok.

geez if someone killed me and i had a chance to come back and kill him, i would.

im sure you would all want to.

[ilw]

I think the point about them being in jail is that they can earn no money, so they can&#39;t pay for health insurance / anything else.
What about mentally ill people, should they get free health care.

[huuramis]

Originally posted by ilw@5 October 2003 - 10:53
What about mentally ill people, should they get free health care.
if im not paying for it, then sure i dont care. but if its coming out of my pocket, no way&#33;

[ScotchGuy]

Originally posted by ilw@5 October 2003 - 01:53
I think the point about them being in jail is that they can earn no money, so they can&#39;t pay for health insurance / anything else.
What about mentally ill people, should they get free health care.
True, they can&#39;t make any money while in prison, but I say that&#39;s the price they pay for making a bad life decision.

[ScotchGuy]

Originally posted by huuramis+5 October 2003 - 01:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huuramis @ 5 October 2003 - 01:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@5 October 2003 - 10:53
What about mentally ill people, should they get free health care.
if im not paying for it, then sure i dont care. but if its coming out of my pocket, no way&#33; [/b][/quote]
Well you most likely would be paying for it. In the US operations for prisoners as of now comes from citizens tax dollars.

[ilw]

so what about their food and water, your paying for that too? What about if theres an outbreak of something? What about if someone falls and breaks his arm? Do you just leave it and permanently keep this person lame?
Surely the penalty your supposed to be paying is the time spent without freedom, not some kind of greatly increased chance of death or injury.

[AussieSheila]

Australia doesn’t have the death penalty, and there have been times when I have wished we did. As in the case of Robert Lowe who murdered 6 year old Sheree Beasley by suffocation while forcing her to perform oral sex on him. He then dumped her body in a drain where another little girl found her months later. I thought for a long time that he should be put in a room full of mothers, and see how long he’d last. No weapons needed. Now I’m glad that he has had years to think about what he did, and even if he never shows any real remorse, which to my knowledge he hasn’t, to kill him would have been the easy way out for him.

The Port Arthur massacarist, I don’t say his name because his whole thing was that he was after fame, I am glad that he is getting the non-recognition he deserves, and that he has many, many years to think about what he did as well. Why should he die and have it all over with, while the families of his victims suffer endlessly?

Amrozi is the one that really brought it home to me. If he is executed, he dies a martyr, if he gets life in prison, he gets to go on ranting and raving and pretty soon the whole world will know what we already do. The man is nothing but a dickhead.

The other thing that turned me against the death penalty was the fact that, no matter what, I could not push the button that ended their lives.

I don’t mind some of my hard earned taxpayer dollars going towards long term punishment of these dregs of humanity.

*runs off to the safe and cosy nightclub*

:D

[ScotchGuy]

Originally posted by ilw@5 October 2003 - 02:02
so what about their food and water, your paying for that too? What about if theres an outbreak of something? What about if someone falls and breaks his arm? Do you just leave it and permanently keep this person lame?
Surely the penalty your supposed to be paying is the time spent without freedom, not some kind of greatly increased chance of death or injury.
Food and water is ok with me as well as the things that are needed to keep them in good health. But when it gets to be something like a costly operation to help keep a person on death row alive or a sex change. Then I draw the line.

Both of those were actual events.

[ilw]

In the case of death row people, perhaps you should be attacking the appeals process instead of attacknig the right of people not to suffer cruel and unusual punishment(ie enforced lack of healthcare). I was told that its more expensive to sentence someone to death than life imprisonment and that because of the appeals process most people on death row don&#39;t get executed (i dunno if thats changed)

As always a line has to be drawn, what would you consider &#39;necessary to keep them in good health&#39;, does psychological health matter?
Should they be allowed a heart transplant (i saw this example earlier in the thread), or should they be left to die because they burgled people?

[Ella]

Originally posted by AussieSheila@5 October 2003 - 20:05
The Port Arthur massacarist, I don’t say his name because his whole thing was that he was after fame, I am glad that he is getting the non-recognition he deserves, and that he has many, many years to think about what he did as well. Why should he die and have it all over with, while the families of his victims suffer endlessly?


I agree, AS. The most suitable punishment for that creature is to rot in jail for the term of his natural life - he always said he would hate to be locked up and actually wanted to die after the massacre. And worse luck for him - he was captured alive. What a dumb prick asshole he was.

[Biggles]

I think the idea that prison is a holiday camp is something of an urban myth.

If it is so great why do criminals hire expensive lawyers to try and avoid going there? Why do they go through appeals processes once they are there?

Regardless of whether the beds may be relatively comfortable and the food ok, to my mind there would appear to be nothing but mind numbing boredom year after year.

The only people who actively seek imprisonment are those who cannot cope with uninstitutionalised life. Theirs is a mental health problem and they would happily go to hospital if allowed without commiting tedious acts of petty criminality and then hanging around to be caught.

I am curious as to why one or two people are comparing the cost of looking after the mentally ill and prisoners. Why not look at the cost of keeping everyone who is not working -i.e. the unemployed, the sick, the elderly, children. We could return to the early Victorian ethos of workhouses for the unemployed, cemetaries for the sick and old and the mines and factories for little children.

We live in a different world now - it is not possible to compartmentalise compassion. If you try to keep a segment of brutality it will inevitably leak across and poison other areas of social interaction. (At least that is my opinion :rolleyes: )

[internet.news]

in germany it is like this: if a person get a punishment for prison to stay
in prison whole life, i think there is something like a jury who take
care of this person and decides if after 20 years his or her behaviour is better.

But the person does not know how long the time in jail/prison would be, and
because the person do not know the exact time, he or she will think of what
he or she has done wrong and about the influence on the victims and so on...

thks.

thanks for sharing your thoughts openly :) nice dreams...

[vegasguy]

Hi,

Here are my views,

I fully support the Death Penalty, why because people who commit horrendus crimes should not be allowed to live, even if they are mentally unstable.

By taking another person life on purpose you should lose your life not your rights.

Right now, we are paying millions and millions of dollars in taxes to house and feed these inmates. I do believe that we should house criminals who do not commit murder, I will be willing to pay for that. But, to pay for a person who took another one on purpose should be fried, gased, shot, hung, etc.

Also, if you get conivicted and sentence to death, you should be excuted within a year. No waiting 10 - 15 years, this would save us a ton of money housing these people. IF they want to appeal their decision, then they get top priotiy in the courts systems, and they are allowed at Max 2 appeals. After that, you get fried, and if it was a mistake in the case and you get fried or gased, then tuff shitz, we will live and learn not to do it in the future.

These are just my opinions, I may, may not be right, but I usually am&#33;

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by vegasguy@7 October 2003 - 23:15
Hi,

Here are my views,

I fully support the Death Penalty, why because people who commit horrendus crimes should not be allowed to live, even if they are mentally unstable.

By taking another person life on purpose you should lose your life not your rights.

Right now, we are paying millions and millions of dollars in taxes to house and feed these inmates.&nbsp; I do believe that we should house criminals who do not commit murder, I will be willing to pay for that.&nbsp; But, to pay for a person who took another one on purpose should be fried, gased, shot, hung, etc.

Also, if you get conivicted and sentence to death, you should be excuted within a year.&nbsp; No waiting 10 - 15 years, this would save us a ton of money housing these people.&nbsp; IF they want to appeal their decision, then they get top priotiy in the courts systems, and they are allowed at Max 2 appeals.&nbsp; After that, you get fried, and if it was a mistake in the case and you get fried or gased, then tuff shitz, we will live and learn not to do it in the future.

These are just my opinions, I may, may not be right, but I usually am&#33;
Well let&#39;s hope they don&#39;t &#39;fry&#39; you by mistake... Your family would be very upset.

[vegasguy]

Hi,

If I get fried, then tuff shitz on me,

[thewizeard]

Well I think you missed the point, the point was about the families of the innocent.

[Biggles]

Vegasguy

When it comes to "maybe being right or maybe being wrong", I think you will find most people usually are. :rolleyes:

[bigboab]

Would it not be a good idea after all the appeals have failed give Lie Detector, Truth Drug and Hypnosis tests and if any of these fail the criteria required then convert the sentence to life imprisonment?

[Rat Faced]

Im against the Death Penalty unless there is no doubt: ie they were caught Red Handed.

There have been too many miscarriages of justice to rely on "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"........how many times have people been found innocent years after the event? inc Police fiddling the evidence?

However, if your going to abuse their Human Rights by killing them, then yeh...fill &#39;em full of Sodium Pentathol 1st.

That way if it turns out they were innocent, the State can look after a cabbage for the rest of their lives................NOT




If im fitted up like that, id rather take the Death Penalty thanks......

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 October 2003 - 23:52
Im against the Death Penalty unless there is no doubt: ie they were caught Red Handed.

There have been too many miscarriages of justice to rely on "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"........how many times have people been found innocent years after the event? inc Police fiddling the evidence?

However, if your going to abuse their Human Rights by killing them, then yeh...fill &#39;em full of Sodium Pentathol 1st.

That way if it turns out they were innocent, the State can look after a cabbage for the rest of their lives................NOT




If im fitted up like that, id rather take the Death Penalty thanks......
Totally agree

[j2k4]

Here is an addendum to the idea the death penalty as practiced in the U.S. is a scatter-shot proposition relative to guilt/innocence:

Of the 875 executions which have taken place in modern times, (dating from the early 1900&#39;s) the number of incidents where innocence was proved after the fact is precisely zero.

If an innocent person had ever been demonstrably wrongly executed, believe me, you would not have to google the name; the media would place it on the very tip of your tongue for you.

The fact (yes, fact) of some innocents on death row waiting to be set free due to the discovery of contrary evidence is no more-or-less than the best proof we have the system works; as far as can be adequately discerned, no mistakes have been made, and those (myself included) who could be said to be pro-death-penalty should thus be satisfied.

Such facts, owing to their "inconvenience", will never convince those who believe otherwise.

[Billy_Dean]

What worries me J2 is the fact that people being found innocent now, is down mainly to DNA evidence. This is a fairly new phenomenom, are you claiming that innocents being wrongly convicted is also new, about the same as DNA proof maybe?


:)

EDIT:

It is prohibited under several human rights treaties to execute a criminal who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime - the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child include provisions to this effect. Since 1990, seven countries are known to have violated these treaty provisions - the USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Congo, Nigeria and Pakistan. The country which has executed the most people who were under the age of 18 at the time they committed the crime is the USA.

Source (http://www.reynir.co.uk/hr/hrcap.html)

[Billy_Dean]

From the same source ...

One of the greatest dangers of capital punishment is the risk of executing the innocent. According to a 1987 study some 350 of the people convicted in the USA of a capital crime between 1900 and 1985 were innocent. 23 of these people were actually executed. Since 1973, 99 people have been released from Death Row after their innocence has been proven. The US state of Illinois declared a moratorium on executions in January 2000, following the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA reinstated the death penalty in 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed.


:huh:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@9 October 2003 - 10:28
What worries me J2 is the fact that people being found innocent now, is down mainly to DNA evidence.&nbsp; This is a fairly new phenomenom, are you claiming that innocents being wrongly convicted is also new, about the same as DNA proof maybe?



Not at all; just that the appeals process is so exhaustive (and exhausting) that the likelihood of someone being wrongfully executed is statistically unmeasurable (DNA evidence aside, admittedly).

We can assume that any and all executions (historically) have been thoroughly vetted by the anti-death-penalty lobby.

Likewise, with the advent of DNA testing, you can be sure no one currently on death row will be executed absent an applicable DNA test.

I think if you want to debate the execution of "underage" individuals, you might start another thread, another time. ;)


My participation in this thread will be "spotty", as I have a rather large "honey-do" list today.

Edit: attendance excuse

[Billy_Dean]

Just a point of view .... not mine. (necessarily)

* After the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 the number of executions increased dramatically from one in 1977, peaking at 98 executions in 1999. The execution rate has since fallen, with only 66 executions in 2001 and 71 in 2002. But there is mounting evidence that this system is failing. Between 1973 and 2003, 111 death row inmates in 25 states were found to be innocent and released from death row, more than a third of them in the last seven years.

For more information on Innocence, click here (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9316&c=65)
For information on DNA testing, click here (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9315&c=65)

There is also irrefutable evidence that the way in which the death penalty is applied is unfair and unjustifiable:

* There is a double standard for rich and poor. The quality of legal representation is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime. The quality of legal representation depends on whether or not you can hire a lawyer. Almost all people on death row could not afford to hire a qualified attorney.

To read more about Inadequate Represenation, click here (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9313&c=62)

* Where a death sentence is sought determines whether a defendant is sentenced to death, more than the circumstances of the crime.

To read more about Geographic Bias, click here (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9860&c=62)

* The race of the victim is often a decisive factor in capital sentencing decisions. Almost all death sentences in this country – 81 percent – involve white victims. 178 black people have been executed for killing a white person, but only 12 white people have been executed for killing a black person.

To read more about Racial Bias, click here (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9312&c=62)

* On June 20, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3, in Atkins v Virginia (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZS.html), that executing the mentally retarded was a violation of the 6th Amendment ruling such an execution a "cruel and unusual punishment."

To read more about Mental Retardation, click here (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9314&c=63)



Source: American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/)


:)

[J'Pol]

Re the main point of the thread, I do not agree with capital punishment. I think it is wrong. However I do think that there are situations when life sentence should mean just that.

Re the cushy prisons thing. There are of course different category of prison. In the UK, A to C I think. For people who would even be considered for the death penalty the crime would be a Cat A offence. I would invite you to spend a couple of days in Peterhead Prison before you decide that prison is some sort of cushy option.

For someone who has been convicted of a "white collar" crime, say tax fraud, would you really suggest that they should be punished in a Dickensian Gaol. Surely there must be degrees here.

[vegasguy]

Hi,

I will state my views again, the death penalty should be for people who cause death to another human being. If someone kills somebody then they should lose their own life, simple as that. Why have life sentences for these people wasting space and money in the prision system?

For the "White Collar" crimes they do not need to get the death penalty, I will be willing to pay taxes for their asses to be in jail. Other violenet crimes that do not result in death should not be fried, so if someone shoots somebody and that person lives, then bam that person who shot the person gets life in prision, he escapes the death penalty.

And, if a person gets convicted of murder, then they should get excuted in 1 year, they have 2 appeals to save their asses, if they fail both apeeals, they should of hired OJ&#39;s lawyer,

Millions and Millions of dollars are being wasted to house these people who have life sentences for murder.

[J'Pol]

So it&#39;s OK for you (through the state) to take a life.

[j2k4]

Quote:Billy_Dean (in black type)

Just a point of view .... not mine. (necessarily)

* After the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 the number of executions increased dramatically from one in 1977, peaking at 98 executions in 1999. The execution rate has since fallen, with only 66 executions in 2001 and 71 in 2002. But there is mounting evidence that this system is failing. Between 1973 and 2003, 111 death row inmates in 25 states were found to be innocent and released from death row, more than a third of them in the last seven years.

Key: RELEASED FROM DEATH ROW--the appeals system works; no "innocents" were executed.

There is also irrefutable evidence that the way in which the death penalty is applied is unfair and unjustifiable:

* There is a double standard for rich and poor. The quality of legal representation is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime. The quality of legal representation depends on whether or not you can hire a lawyer. Almost all people on death row could not afford to hire a qualified attorney.

This is indeed an unfortunate fact of life; while it would be slanderous to term ANY attorney "unqualified", it only stands to reason more money buys more/better representation. In any case, those who are deemed "under-represented" avail themselves of the appeals process to address this issue, and routinely win new trials, which either vindicate or re-convict the the complainant.


* Where a death sentence is sought determines whether a defendant is sentenced to death, more than the circumstances of the crime.

This is not clear; is this a question of individual circumstance and locale, or continental geography? A clarification is required.

* The race of the victim is often a decisive factor in capital sentencing decisions. Almost all death sentences in this country – 81 percent – involve white victims. 178 black people have been executed for killing a white person, but only 12 white people have been executed for killing a black person.

The fact is, blacks commit many more crimes in general, and murders in particular, than whites do. The numbers support the perceived "bias" in application of the death-penalty. All legitimate regular crime reporting, the F.B.I.&#39;s UCR (Uniform Crime Report), NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System), and the Bureau of Justice&#39;s NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) indicate that the crime rate among blacks is several times that of whites.

The reasons for this, be they cultural, societal, economic, or geographic, are subjects for another thread.


* On June 20, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3, in Atkins v Virginia, that executing the mentally retarded was a violation of the 6th Amendment ruling such an execution a "cruel and unusual punishment."

This is all well and good; however, the line at which someone is defined as mentally retarded (as a "pure" definition) cannot be said to coincide with the line at which a mentally-deficient person might legitimately be counted upon to correctly discern between right and wrong; finding THAT line, as opposed to a blanket assignation of the status of mental-retardation, might be more useful.

More to the point, if someone is not the "sharpest knife in the drawer", but knows right from wrong, should that person be spared the death penalty if all other "death-penalty" conditions are met?

[Billy_Dean]

[j2k4] RELEASED FROM DEATH ROW--the appeals system works; no "innocents" were executed.

[ACLU] According to a 1987 study some 350 of the people convicted in the USA of a capital crime between 1900 and 1985 were innocent. 23 of these people were actually executed

[Billy=cool] A bit of selective copy&#092;paste there j2?

[ACLU] Where a death sentence is sought determines whether a defendant is sentenced to death, more than the circumstances of the crime.

[j2k4] This is not clear; is this a question of individual circumstance and locale, or continental geography? A clarification is required.

[Info] See here... the answer to your query. (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9860&c=62)

[Billy=cool] I find it hard to believe that you can claim that NO innocent person has been executed.


:)

[ilw]

Would any of you be willing to throw the switch yourself and watch a man struggle and die?

[AussieSheila]

No, I would not&#33; Just because a death is deemed &#39;legal&#39; doesn&#39;t change the fact that it is taking a life. Besides, which, as I said earlier, killing them (convicted murderers) is letting them off easily. A life sentence should be a life sentence, it certainly isn&#39;t in Australia unless it was a particularly hideous crime, (or a crime against police, why is that?) but then any murder is hideous to my way of thinking.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 October 2003 - 03:12
[j2k4] &nbsp; RELEASED FROM DEATH ROW--the appeals system works; no "innocents" were executed.

[ACLU]&nbsp; According to a 1987 study some 350 of the people convicted in the USA of a capital crime between 1900 and 1985 were innocent. 23 of these people were actually executed

[Billy=cool]&nbsp; A bit of selective copy&#092;paste there j2?

[ACLU]&nbsp; Where a death sentence is sought determines whether a defendant is sentenced to death, more than the circumstances of the crime.

[j2k4] &nbsp; This is not clear; is this a question of individual circumstance and locale, or continental geography? A clarification is required.

[Info]&nbsp; See here... the answer to your query. (http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9860&c=62)

[Billy=cool]&nbsp; I find it hard to believe that you can claim that NO innocent person has been executed.


:)
No cutting or pasting involved, Billy.

I think I&#39;m making a judgement call here, and it is this:

There are "studies" and there are "studies"; likewise with statistics.

First of all, my point is/was that none of these cases has been proven, that is to say, to any extent greater than the ACLU saying, "We are not satisfied that justice was done in this case". One of the ACLU&#39;s favorite tactics is to call something into question, then make the opposition spend their money proving the ACLU wrong.

It may be that you don&#39;t live in the U.S. and have the ACLU under your critical microscope, as I do, but I would abjure you from quoting any of their rhetoric or "studies, as they have a very definite liberal/activist agenda.

For instance, they are currently bringing their legal weight and expertise to bear on the question of whether grown men should be able to have "consensual" sex with little boys-the ACLU is shilling for NAMBLA (National Man/Boy Love Association) on the pro side of the argument.

So, if you want to forward the notion that such an organization has no similarly wacky slant on their view of the death-penalty, feel free.

As to my sources (ref: my post), they are the work product of those who are "in the business", so to speak, and consist pretty much of pure numbers, assembled for no reason other than to discover the "who, what, why, when and where" of crime.

The question at the top of the thread, I think, had to do with the death-penalty.

I assumed the concern was the potential for executing innocent people.

The point that people are more or less likely to be convicted according to where they commit their crime is null, I think, as none of this precludes their access to the appeals system which has proven the saving grace; if they aren&#39;t guilty, the appeals system has proven reliable in revealing this.

As to your last, my supposition that no "innocent" has been executed is as legitimate as the ACLU&#39;s, without the liability of serving an "agenda".

[Billy_Dean]

Firstly, let me point out that I am playing devil&#39;s advocate here, I chose ACLU because their views opposed yours. As you say, I don&#39;t live in the States, never been there, so would hardly be able to debate from personal knowledge.

One point you do seem to have overlooked is the failure rate in court cases where someone&#39;s life is on the line. If the court system is so bad in the first place, what comfort can you gain from the appeals courts? If they are watertight, why isn&#39;t the rest of the justice system? However good the appeals procedure is, it still takes decades, in some cases, to come good. Cold comfort for the innocent, who were entitled to a fair trial in the first place.


:)

[hooked]

keep the death penalty

the less americans the more joy ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 October 2003 - 10:44
Firstly, let me point out that I am playing devil&#39;s advocate here, I chose ACLU because their views opposed yours. As you say, I don&#39;t live in the States, never been there, so would hardly be able to debate from personal knowledge.

One point you do seem to have overlooked is the failure rate in court cases where someone&#39;s life is on the line.&nbsp; If the court system is so bad in the first place, what comfort can you gain from the appeals courts?&nbsp; If they are watertight, why isn&#39;t the rest of the justice system?&nbsp; However good the appeals procedure is, it still takes decades, in some cases, to come good.&nbsp; Cold comfort for the innocent, who were entitled to a fair trial in the first place.


:)
You have hit directly upon the reason an appeals process is necessary, Billy.

Were the judicial system perfect, there would be no need for an appeal, would there?

It is precisely because of the flaws in the system the appeals process exists in the first place.

The fact of mistaken conviction is unfortunate, but also unavoidable; the system assumes mistakes will occasionally be made, and "safeguards" the second (and third, fourth, fifth, ad nauseum) chances that ultimately keep the system honest.

I make no excuses for the faults of the system; sometimes "cold comfort" is all there is; such is the inherent unfairness of life.

[J'Pol]

Off topic, but in reply to j2

The fact that a higher proportion of any ethnic, or socio-economic group are arrested and/or convicted of criminal conduct does not necessarily mean that they commit that crime more often than others.

Or at least not necessarily by the same factor. I do not just accept that because Group A is convicted of 7 times the number of crimes as Group B, this means that they commit 7 times as many crimes.

Sorry, I think there are other factors. Primarily involving the law enforcement and judicial systems. Using your own argument, a less well off person can afford a cheaper (or state appointed) lawyer. This surely means their chance of winning their case is reduced.

Remember mate, you can&#39;t even afford a shed or a lobby. So think on.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JPaul@10 October 2003 - 14:17
Off topic, but in reply to j2

The fact that a higher proportion of any ethnic, or socio-economic group are arrested and/or convicted of criminal conduct does not necessarily mean that they commit that crime more often than others.

Or at least not necessarily by the same factor. I do not just accept that because Group A is convicted of 7 times the number of crimes as Group B, this means that they commit 7 times as many crimes.

Sorry, I think there are other factors. Primarily involving the law enforcement and judicial systems. Using your own argument, a less well off person can afford a cheaper (or state appointed) lawyer. This surely means their chance of winning their case is reduced.

Remember mate, you can&#39;t even afford a shed or a lobby. So think on.
It is just as you say, JPaul-the system is rife with unfairness, at least as pertains to relative wealth.

When I say, though, that blacks commit more crimes than whites, and the percentage is within spitting distance of reflecting the relative difference in the rate of conviction, I am not being racist.

Blacks (as I said, for whatever reason, which reason is the subject of another thread) commit that many more crimes; it is a fact.

I will dig up the numbers if you wish (that will take a while), but this very subject was an extended part of some of my recent studies in criminology-I am not wrong.

I was myself surprised to learn of the magnitude of the numbers.

[Billy_Dean]

A good example of ones ability to buy a not guilty verdict was ably demonstrated by OJ Simpson. This arsehole murdered two people in cold blood and got away with it. He&#39;d be on death row now if he weren&#39;t a famous footballer. The prosecution didn&#39;t even ask for the death penalty, because they feared a jury would be loathe to commit him to death.


:)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 October 2003 - 02:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 October 2003 - 02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@10 October 2003 - 14:17
Off topic, but in reply to j2

The fact that a higher proportion of any ethnic, or socio-economic group are arrested and/or convicted of criminal conduct does not necessarily mean that they commit that crime more often than others.

Or at least not necessarily by the same factor. I do not just accept that because Group A is convicted of 7 times the number of crimes as Group B, this means that they commit 7 times as many crimes.

Sorry, I think there are other factors. Primarily involving the law enforcement and judicial systems. Using your own argument, a less well off person can afford a cheaper (or state appointed) lawyer. This surely means their chance of winning their case is reduced.

Remember mate, you can&#39;t even afford a shed or a lobby. So think on.
It is just as you say, JPaul-the system is rife with unfairness, at least as pertains to relative wealth.

When I say, though, that blacks commit more crimes than whites, and the percentage is within spitting distance of reflecting the relative difference in the rate of conviction, I am not being racist.

Blacks (as I said, for whatever reason, which reason is the subject of another thread) commit that many more crimes; it is a fact.

I will dig up the numbers if you wish (that will take a while), but this very subject was an extended part of some of my recent studies in criminology-I am not wrong.

I was myself surprised to learn of the magnitude of the numbers. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t doubt your figures and wouldn&#39;t insult you by asking you to provide them I know you wouldn&#39;t post such a thing if you couldn&#39;t back it up.

I am just asking if it is the number of arrests / convictions you are speaking of. Since un-recorded criminal conduct is just that, un-recorded. As such is difficult to quantify.

So if a group of people were to be watched more closely, or prosecuted more vigorously, or defended less eloquently, one would naturally expect their crime rate figure to be higher.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JPaul@11 October 2003 - 04:51

I am just asking if it is the number of arrests / convictions you are speaking of. Since un-recorded criminal conduct is just that, un-recorded. As such is difficult to quantify.

So if a group of people were to be watched more closely, or prosecuted more vigorously, or defended less eloquently, one would naturally expect their crime rate figure to be higher.
There is still an unreported amount of crime, but much less than previously due to the institution of the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey), one of the purposes of which was to address this trend, specifically relative to the crime of rape.

Crime information is gathered from crime victims for this survey.

It has been a resounding success, and is continually being refined as to crime "type" so as to enhance compatibility with computor-aided classification.

The quandary of lesser (I hesitate to say "inferior") legal representation in the case(s) of the "less-than-wealthy" is troubling, though, as I said earlier, the appeals process offers some (as Billy_Dean said) "cold comfort".