PDA

View Full Version : Ohio to execute killer today the 18th at 10:00 a.m.



DGUtley
07-18-2018, 06:47 AM
Ohio’s first execution in 10 months set for Wednesday -- Inmate Robert Van Hook was sentenced to die for fatally strangling and stabbing David Self after picking him up in a bar in Cincinnati in 1985. Van Hook, 58, has no remaining appeals, and Republican Gov. John Kasich rejected his request for clemency without comment.

I am an opponent of the death penalty.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180717/ohios-first-execution-in-10-months-set-for-wednesday

23990

Docthehun
07-18-2018, 06:59 AM
Ohio’s first execution in 10 months set for Wednesday -- Inmate Robert Van Hook was sentenced to die for fatally strangling and stabbing David Self after picking him up in a bar in Cincinnati in 1985. Van Hook, 58, has no remaining appeals, and Republican Gov. John Kasich rejected his request for clemency without comment.

I am an opponent of the death penalty.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180717/ohios-first-execution-in-10-months-set-for-wednesday

23990

I'm with you on the death penalty. This is one troubled individual that needed help when he was young and surely someone noticed, but for whatever reason, turned a blind eye. I discount his prison record and I'm sure the threat of inmate abuse is part of his daily existence. This is really a tough one.

DGUtley
07-18-2018, 07:05 AM
There are some sick people out there. Yes, there are some evil people out there but there are more sick people, I think. Life in prison, without parole.

donttread
07-18-2018, 07:25 AM
Ohio’s first execution in 10 months set for Wednesday -- Inmate Robert Van Hook was sentenced to die for fatally strangling and stabbing David Self after picking him up in a bar in Cincinnati in 1985. Van Hook, 58, has no remaining appeals, and Republican Gov. John Kasich rejected his request for clemency without comment.

I am an opponent of the death penalty.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180717/ohios-first-execution-in-10-months-set-for-wednesday

23990


1985??? Good grief!

DGUtley
07-18-2018, 07:27 AM
1985??? Good grief!

Due process, my friend. Due process.

Docthehun
07-18-2018, 07:27 AM
I agree and recognize his prison life, excluding being caged for life, is as far from being cushy as one could get. Society may actually be doing this guy a favor, but personally, I couldn't carry out the sentence.

Lummy
07-18-2018, 07:34 AM
I used to oppose the death penalty on grounds that the trial might have been in error, albeit that rarely happens.

The movie Pierrepoint: The Last Hangman, about Britain's last executioner, Albert Pierrepoint, is a very good movie about that question.

DGUtley
07-18-2018, 07:42 AM
I've read a lot of the research on the death penalty. It serves no purpose, other than to rid society of the accused without financially supporting him/her. I think, though, that's not the purpose of our justice system. Also, the cost of 30 years of appeals dwarfs the 30 more years he'd sit in prison, I suspect. I'm against it on so many grounds.

Lummy
07-18-2018, 08:31 AM
Pierrepoint considered it from a completely different perspective based on the Bible. His view was that a great injustice like murder would certainly condemn the perpetrator to eternal hell unless he/she paid for it in kind, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth".

Just a movie, but until I watched it, I was not really aware of that argument, even though it probably has always been the basis for execution.

DLLS
07-18-2018, 09:36 AM
What does the Bible have to say on the subject?

In one part it advocates an eye for an eye, yet in another part it states thou shalt not kill.

Does anyone have accurate figures on the cost of life in prison vs execution? I know, deciding whether a person lives or dies should not be reduced to a matter of economics.

What about the cries that surface on occasion that our penal system should try to rehabilitate people? It would appear that by sentencing someone to death a government is basically stating "Oh we'll try and rehabilitate burglars and drug dealers but to hell with this person"

ODB
07-18-2018, 09:42 AM
There are some sick people out there. Yes, there are some evil people out there but there are more sick people, I think. Life in prison, without parole.
Where is the line that separates sick from evil?

So far, I'm a proponent of the death penalty.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 09:48 AM
Nope. The death penalty is a solution to the problem of a repeat. Life with no parole is nothing but a license for him to kill anyone he wants and can get to. What's to stop him?

Lummy
07-18-2018, 10:13 AM
Capital crimes in muslim countries are rare compared to the US and other Western countries. I suspect this is also true of totalitarian dictatorships. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/groups/Muslim-countries/Crime#-muslim%20average

Obviously, the trade-offs are severe.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 11:12 AM
Due process, my friend. Due process.
No. Due process isn't life in prison waiting for a death penalty. That is a lawyerly circus. Due process is a fair trial with one review.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 11:22 AM
I am not in favor of the death penalty. There are people who need to be removed from society and that is why we have prisons.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 11:25 AM
Nope. The death penalty is a solution to the problem of a repeat. Life with no parole is nothing but a license for him to kill anyone he wants and can get to. What's to stop him?

I certainly would not want to face life in prison with no possibility of parole. That would be worse than being put to death.

ODB
07-18-2018, 11:29 AM
I certainly would not want to face life in prison with no possibility of parole. That would be worse than being put to death.
At that point though, is it about you?

I see the death penalty more of a recompense to the victim/families. Although it won't make anything 'whole' again, it guarantees no recurrence of harm.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 11:33 AM
At that point though, is it about you?

I see the death penalty more of a recompense to the victim/families. Although it won't make anything 'whole' again, it guarantees no recurrence of harm.

Then you look at the death penalty as revenge.


I am reluctant to give government the ability to choose who lives and who dies.


The death penalty is administered in a very inconsistent and arbitrary manner.

pragmatic
07-18-2018, 11:34 AM
I've read a lot of the research on the death penalty. It serves no purpose, other than to rid society of the accused without financially supporting him/her. I think, though, that's not the purpose of our justice system. Also, the cost of 30 years of appeals dwarfs the 30 more years he'd sit in prison, I suspect. I'm against it on so many grounds.

Have a different opinion.

Believe the purpose of the death penalty is to satisfy society's desire for vengeance/retribution against those who commit particularly horrendous atrocities.


To which one can agree or disagree. But i don't think the motivations are anything as practical as prison costs or preventing future possibility of committing crimes.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 11:35 AM
Then you look at the death penalty as revenge.

I am reluctant to give government the ability to choose who lives and who dies.

The death penalty is administered in a very inconsistent and arbitrary manner.
So is all justice. Shall we do away with punishment because we are imperfect humans?

Or should we return justice to the people, to be meted out based on one's prowess with weapons or the ability to pay for a champion?

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 11:37 AM
So is all justice. Shall we do away with punishment because we are imperfect humans?

Or should we return justice to the people, to be meted out based on one's prowess with weapons or the ability to pay for a champion?


Opposing the death penalty can not be translated to mean one opposes punishment in total.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 11:39 AM
Opposing the death penalty can not be translated to mean one opposes punishment in total.
I know. However, the reason given applies to the entire justice system.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 11:56 AM
I know. However, the reason given applies to the entire justice system.


Also there people who were wrongly convicted and put to death. Those mistakes can’t be corrected.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 11:59 AM
Also there people who were wrongly convicted and put to death. Those mistakes can’t be corrected.
True. Every justice system will have its flaws. If we can no longer expect the justice system to mete out justice then the people have every right to form vigilante groups and mete out justice themselves.

Cletus
07-18-2018, 11:59 AM
I have been very vocal in my opposition to the death penalty in most cases. There are exception. Those would be public officials who violate their oath of office and the public trust. Certain major breaches of military discipline like desertion in the face of the enemy, willful killing of noncombatants, rape... maybe a couple of other military offenses.

For civilian crimes, I favor neither execution nor long prison sentences. Personally, I prefer the idea of exile. Laws are the price we pay for living in society. If we choose not to obey those laws, we should be removed from society. Exile. It takes the power of life and death away from the state and also prevents society from having to pay to keep someone incarcerated for years and years.

If we decide to embrace the death penalty, I think the requirement should be that it must be carried out by a survivor of the deceased... husband, wife, son, daughter, sibling. Since it really serves no purpose other than vengeance, make those most aggrieved by the crime be the ones to carry it out. Don't make it clean and sanitary, either. Strap the criminal to a chair and give the executioner a Louisville Slugger and tell them to have at it. That way, you will know who really wants the death penalty and who is just going through the motions.

Among certain Puebloan tribes to day, there are two tracks of law... secular and traditional. The Cacique is the final authority in all things traditional and here at least, probably the worst sentence he can mete out is exile. when he exiles someone, that person ceases to exist. He no longer exists on the tribal rolls. He has no rights of inheritance. He becomes a ghost. For people as closely knit as Pueblo society, that is a fate worse than death.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 12:08 PM
True. Every justice system will have its flaws. If we can no longer expect the justice system to mete out justice then the people have every right to form vigilante groups and mete out justice themselves.


Executing someone who was wrongly convicted is a flaw which can’t be corrected.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 12:11 PM
Executing someone who was wrongly convicted is a flaw which can’t be corrected.
It does not matter. We do the best we can.

"The more-difficult question is how many innocent people have been put to death in the U.S. in that time. The data doesn't answer that question directly, but it does provide hints. If the same rate of people on death row as those put to death are innocent, then 4 percent of the people who have died in the last 35 years were innocent. That's about 50 people. That number is probably too high, the authors wrote -- because "our data and the experience of practitioners in the field both indicate that the criminal justice system goes to far greater lengths to avoid executing innocent defendants than to prevent them from remaining in prison indefinitely." Given the 4 percent error rate at trial, though, and the imperfections in the judgement system, "it is all but certain that several of the 1,320 defendants executed since 1977 were innocent.""

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethlopatto/2014/04/29/how-many-innocent-people-are-sentenced-to-death/#6236f0213b9e

ODB
07-18-2018, 12:15 PM
If we decide to embrace the death penalty, I think the requirement should be that it must be carried out by a survivor of the deceased... husband, wife, son, daughter, sibling. Since it really serves no purpose other than vengeance, make those most aggrieved by the crime be the ones to carry it out. Don't make it clean and sanitary, either. Strap the criminal to a chair and give the executioner a Louisville Slugger and tell them to have at it. That way, you will know who really wants the death penalty and who is just going through the motions.
^^ I really like this paragraph.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 12:18 PM
^^ I really like this paragraph.
I prefer giving the victim or family the option for how the perp will be killed. If the state takes that away then we are back to vigilante groups to mete out justice.

Politicians should always be dragged through the streets and beaten to death I am willing to make one exception. :grin:

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 12:18 PM
It does not matter.
yes it does.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 12:21 PM
Politicians should always be dragged through the streets and beaten to death I am willing to make one exception. :grin:

That’s what they do in Somalia anyway.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 12:25 PM
yes it does.
No. It doesn't.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 12:26 PM
That’s what they do in Somalia anyway.
Really? Can you link a news story showing a government politician dragged through the streets and beaten to death by the citizens?

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 12:27 PM
Executing someone who was wrongly convicted is a flaw which can’t be corrected.
It is not a flaw. We do the best we can.

Lummy
07-18-2018, 12:35 PM
I am reluctant to give government the ability to choose who lives and who dies.

Great point. Well known that governments can and do kill people a lot for political expedience.

Abby08
07-18-2018, 12:40 PM
What does the Bible have to say on the subject?

In one part it advocates an eye for an eye, yet in another part it states thou shalt not kill.

Does anyone have accurate figures on the cost of life in prison vs execution? I know, deciding whether a person lives or dies should not be reduced to a matter of economics.

What about the cries that surface on occasion that our penal system should try to rehabilitate people? It would appear that by sentencing someone to death a government is basically stating "Oh we'll try and rehabilitate burglars and drug dealers but to hell with this person"

Some people can't be rehabilitated like, paedophiles, yet, they do their time, then walk out, to re-offend.

Killers deserve to die, why overcrowd the prisons with people who have been tried and convicted of murder?

I used to be anti death penalty, years ago, before everything went screwy and, murderers were getting off on technicalities or, able to plea bargain.

I'm sick of murderers getting less time for killing, than a person gets for rape.

Empty out death row of the murderers who have been there for decades, set execution dates for all then, DO IT ALREADY!

ODB
07-18-2018, 12:43 PM
Great point.

It is.... except isn't it more on someone's peers what outcome is decided rather than the government?

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 12:45 PM
Great point. Well known that governments can and do kill people a lot for political expedience.
This charge should be easily proved. Go for it. Which defendants are being executed for political expediency?

Abby08
07-18-2018, 12:47 PM
I am not in favor of the death penalty. There are people who need to be removed from society and that is why we have prisons.

Until the prisons get too full of people who should have been put to death...more humanely, I might add, than the way the victims were probably killed.

Abby08
07-18-2018, 12:49 PM
Then you look at the death penalty as revenge.


I am reluctant to give government the ability to choose who lives and who dies.


The death penalty is administered in a very inconsistent and arbitrary manner.

The government doesn't choose, a jury of peers, chooses.

Admiral Ackbar
07-18-2018, 12:49 PM
I've read a lot of the research on the death penalty. It serves no purpose, other than to rid society of the accused without financially supporting him/her. I think, though, that's not the purpose of our justice system. Also, the cost of 30 years of appeals dwarfs the 30 more years he'd sit in prison, I suspect. I'm against it on so many grounds.

Correct DG! So the prison and by the death penalty are designed to protect society. It is a form of societal self defense. In the old days in places like colonial America or the old West society could never be sure that putting a murder in jail would protect society. That was because they could be easily broken out and the towns did not have the resources to build the right jails or hire enough security.

With that being the case they executed a lot of people. In that context it was ok. In our modern society we have the resources and the facilities to secure ourselves from these people. This means the moral paradigm of the death penalty has shifted.

Government takes enough of our money to protect us. Government has NO business nor is it capable of having the power of life or death.

That is why it is unacceptable at this point in history.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 01:02 PM
Correct DG! So the prison and by the death penalty are designed to protect society. It is a form of societal self defense. In the old days in places like colonial America or the old West society could never be sure that putting a murder in jail would protect society. That was because they could be easily broken out and the towns did not have the resources to build the right jails or hire enough security.

With that being the case they executed a lot of people. In that context it was ok. In our modern society we have the resources and the facilities to secure ourselves from these people. This means the moral paradigm of the death penalty has shifted.

Government takes enough of our money to protect us. Government has NO business nor is it capable of having the power of life or death.

That is why it is unacceptable at this point in history.
If you think you have the votes amend the Constitution to eliminate for all time the right of the federal government to execute people.

We can and should further reduce the amount of money the federal government and all levels of government take from its citizens. Being overtaxed is no reason to support ending the death penalty.

donttread
07-18-2018, 01:28 PM
Due process, my friend. Due process.


Speedy trial doesn't apply to the appeal process apparently?

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 01:28 PM
It is.... except isn't it more on someone's peers what outcome is decided rather than the government?
Government decides in which cases they will seek the death penalty.

The Xl
07-18-2018, 01:33 PM
Not a fan of the death penalty unless the crime was actually caught on film. Too many errors and other variables, like prosecutors withholding and manipulating evidence, dumb jurors, etc.

donttread
07-18-2018, 01:35 PM
I agree and recognize his prison life, excluding being caged for life, is as far from being cushy as one could get. Society may actually be doing this guy a favor, but personally, I couldn't carry out the sentence.

I believe in the death penalty for the worst crimes. Murdering more than one person, torture / murder, killing kids etc but only if an even higher burden of proof is met. Mostly because most Americans seem incapable of understanding the words "beyond a reasonable doubt". So I'm inclined to say that purely circumstantial cases should not be eligible for the death penalty.
As for pushing the button that would be hard but you'll likely find at least one of the victims family members willing to do so at no charge.

Admiral Ackbar
07-18-2018, 01:35 PM
If you think you have the votes amend the Constitution to eliminate for all time the right of the federal government to execute people.

We can and should further reduce the amount of money the federal government and all levels of government take from its citizens. Being overtaxed is no reason to support ending the death penalty.

So I don't think you need a Constitutional Amendment on the Death Penalty. I don't think there is any argument that the Government can execute people I am saying the issue is SHOULD they do that. To me the answer is No. Generally I have no problem when state laws expand rights. I don't think you need an amendment to expand rights. In this case right to life. What I have a problem with is when Government takes away rights that are in the Constitution. Property(via taxes), Guns (Via Gun Control), Due Process (via NSA and TSA ).

This is a very big difference.

DLLS
07-18-2018, 01:45 PM
What about states where killing a cop is automatically a capital offense? Are they saying that under our constitution where
...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. that cops are somehow more important than other victims.

Kind of reminds me of
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Admiral Ackbar
07-18-2018, 01:49 PM
What about states where killing a cop is automatically a capital offense? Are they saying that under our constitution where that cops are somehow more important than other victims.



Kind of reminds me of


Correct, so in this case the Death Penalty is being used for punishment or revenge. It can not morally be used that way. It can only be used a societal self defense. In a nation brimming with super max prisons it is hard to argue society cant protect itself from these people and has no other option outside of execution.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 02:17 PM
So I don't think you need a Constitutional Amendment on the Death Penalty. I don't think there is any argument that the Government can execute people I am saying the issue is SHOULD they do that. To me the answer is No. Generally I have no problem when state laws expand rights. I don't think you need an amendment to expand rights. In this case right to life. What I have a problem with is when Government takes away rights that are in the Constitution. Property(via taxes), Guns (Via Gun Control), Due Process (via NSA and TSA ).

This is a very big difference.
The Congress could pass a law to end federal capital punishment. A future Congress could reinstate it. The majority of executions occur at the state level. Here is a link to the list of federal laws with a death penalty: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty.

Here are the three people executed by the federal government recently:


Timothy McVeigh — White. McVeigh was sentenced to death in June 1997 for the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. The United States Supreme Court denied review on March 8, 1999. McVeigh was scheduled for execution on May 16, 2001 but was granted a 30-day stay of execution by Attorney General John Ashcroft after it was discovered that the FBI had failed to disclose more than 3,000 pages of document to McVeigh's defense team. McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. McVeigh's co-defendant, Terry Nichols, was capitally prosecuted by the federal government in a separate trial. He was convicted by the jury and sentenced to life without parole. Nichols was later capitally tried in Oklahoma state court for the murders of the 161 non-federal employees in Oklahoma City. He was convicted, and again the jury sentenced him to life in prison without parole.
Juan Raul Garza — Latino. Garza, a marijuana distributor, was sentenced to death in August 1993 in Texas for the murders of three other drug traffickers. Garza was denied review by the U.S. Supreme Court in late 1999 and was facing an execution date of August 5, 2000. The date was postponed until the Justice Department finished drafting guidelines for federal death row inmates seeking presidential clemency, which were issued in early August. Garza was offered the opportunity to apply for clemency under the new guidelines and a new execution date of Dec. 12, 2000 was set. In December, 2000, President Clinton again delayed Garza's execution for at least six months to allow further study of the fairness of the federal death penalty. Garza was executed on June 19, 2001.
Louis Jones — Black. Jones was sentenced to death in November 1995 in Texas for the kidnap/murder of a young white female soldier. The United States Supreme Court granted review of the case and heard arguments on February 22, 1999. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on June 21, 1999. Jones, a decorated Gulf War veteran who had no prior criminal record, claimed that his exposure to nerve gas in Iraq and post-traumatic stress from his combat tours contributed to his murder of Pvt. Tracie Joy McBride in Texas. President Bush refused Jones' clemency request. Jones was executed on March 18, 2003.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-death-penalty#Executions

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 02:18 PM
Correct, so in this case the Death Penalty is being used for punishment or revenge. It can not morally be used that way. It can only be used a societal self defense. In a nation brimming with super max prisons it is hard to argue society cant protect itself from these people and has no other option outside of execution.
This is a meaningless word salad.

Admiral Ackbar
07-18-2018, 02:20 PM
This is a meaningless word salad.

Not if you think about it. The fact is that we don't NEED to execute people. We just WANT to. So then you have to ask yourself is that right and just?

If it is about revenge and punishment then so be it. Lets not pretend it is anything otherwise.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 02:24 PM
Not if you think about it. The fact is that we don't NEED to execute people. We just WANT to. So then you have to ask yourself is that right and just?

If it is about revenge and punishment then so be it. Lets not pretend it is anything otherwise.
This is a bit better.

We don't NEED to punish people for breaking laws. We just WANT to. Is that right and just?

Retribution is essential. If the law loses retribution the people will take back their right to exact justice on the perps.

There is nothing wrong with a government killing people for the right reasons and with the right process.

Docthehun
07-18-2018, 02:25 PM
I believe in the death penalty for the worst crimes. Murdering more than one person, torture / murder, killing kids etc but only if an even higher burden of proof is met. Mostly because most Americans seem incapable of understanding the words "beyond a reasonable doubt". So I'm inclined to say that purely circumstantial cases should not be eligible for the death penalty.
As for pushing the button that would be hard but you'll likely find at least one of the victims family members willing to do so at no charge.

My sister was murdered in 1978 by a career criminal who was on parole at the time. I don't believe that anyone in my immediate family would have been willing to fry the guy. Friends of the family, perhaps so.

Admiral Ackbar
07-18-2018, 02:28 PM
This is a bit better.

We don't NEED to punish people for breaking laws. We just WANT to. Is that right and just?

Retribution is essential. If the law losses retribution the people will take back their right to exact justice on the perps.

There is nothing wrong with a government killing people for the right reasons and with the right process.

So we just disagree. I didn't say punishment isn't in order, only that death penalty as punishment is not just. Don't get me wrong. Governments are fantastic at killing. Millions dead over last 100 years at hands of governments. I just don't think it is moral.

gamewell45
07-18-2018, 02:33 PM
What does the Bible have to say on the subject?

In one part it advocates an eye for an eye, yet in another part it states thou shalt not kill.

The "eye for an eye" in my opinion is flawed as well. Consider this: you break my arm I get to break your arm, you rape my sister, I get to rape your sister. That wouldn't fly in modern society. Thank god the bible teachings aren't literally carried out in some circumstances.

nathanbforrest45
07-18-2018, 02:35 PM
This may have already been broached but one drawback to life in prison without parole is what additional punishment can be meted out if the prisoner kills other prisoners? We already know the prisoner has a total disregard for human life given the nature of his crime that landed him in prison in the first place. Also, would you want to spend the rest of your life behind bars with no hope of ever being free again?

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 02:37 PM
So we just disagree. I didn't say punishment isn't in order, only that death penalty as punishment is not just. Don't get me wrong. Governments are fantastic at killing. Millions dead over last 100 years at hands of governments. I just don't think it is moral.

Our government has not executed millions of people.

You do not believe executing some criminals for some crimes is just or moral. Is it the crimes? Or is it ending a life?
What would be just for the families of the victims? What is a moral outcome for the families?

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 02:38 PM
The "eye for an eye" in my opinion is flawed as well. Consider this: you break my arm I get to break your arm, you rape my sister, I get to rape your sister. That wouldn't fly in modern society. Thank god the bible teachings aren't literally carried out in some circumstances.
"An eye for an eye" was a large step forward. It limited the retribution to something reasonable.

nathanbforrest45
07-18-2018, 02:39 PM
Also there people who were wrongly convicted and put to death. Those mistakes can’t be corrected.
We know, we know. Tis better than 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. That's ok when the crimes are stealing from the poor box or breaking into a house. It isn't such a good idea when the 10 guilty are serial killers

roadmaster
07-18-2018, 02:49 PM
What does the Bible have to say on the subject?

In one part it advocates an eye for an eye, yet in another part it states thou shalt not kill.

Does anyone have accurate figures on the cost of life in prison vs execution? I know, deciding whether a person lives or dies should not be reduced to a matter of economics.

What about the cries that surface on occasion that our penal system should try to rehabilitate people? It would appear that by sentencing someone to death a government is basically stating "Oh we'll try and rehabilitate burglars and drug dealers but to hell with this person"
It's clear in the OT and NT, murders, the government should put them to death and it is just. But has to be clear evidence the person did it, and they didn't kill in self defense.

exotix
07-18-2018, 03:51 PM
Today


Killer in ‘homosexual panic’ case is executed, singing until the drugs kick in


https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/18/robert-van-hook-homosexual-panic-killer-executed/

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=madPW7SBNo-RggeYkqrABw&q=Robert+Van+Hook&oq=Robert+Van+Hook&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1j0l2.2799.2799.0.4898.3.2.0.0.0.0.88. 88.1.2.0....0...1c.2.64.psy-ab..1.2.166.6...78.v-5E1bsytjA


Van Hook, weeping, told his victim’s brother, sister and brother-in-law he was “very sorry for taking your brother away from you.”

He then recited a poem and began singing.


The song stopped after two minutes when the drugs took effect.





https://mediaassets.wcpo.com/photo/2018/05/24/wcpo_robert_van_hook_1527186002070_87923955_ver1.0 _640_480.jpg

Admiral Ackbar
07-18-2018, 04:02 PM
Our government has not executed millions of people.

You do not believe executing some criminals for some crimes is just or moral. Is it the crimes? Or is it ending a life?
What would be just for the families of the victims? What is a moral outcome for the families?

Our government has not executed millions, but others have. Imagine a scenario where the Spunkloafs, Exotics and Strange Gloves of the world have the government they want. That would be a government willing to execute for the "crimes" of being say a Constitutionalist. So we are always in danger when we decide what "crimes" warrant death at the hands of government.

To be clear killing when other options are there is immoral. That is the main point. While I have all the sympathy in the world for the victims of violent crimes and their families, application of the death penalty is not meant to give them justice or revenge. That is a nice construct put out by prosecutors etc.. but it is a false reasoning and immoral when there are alternatives such as prison.

I should state again that not all killing is immoral. For example, when there is just war of self defense, or in cases of personal self defense killing may be considered moral and just.

To me there is a long way to go to suggest that the all powerful state, with it many options to protect itself and citizens from dangerous people is just in taking the quick route to killing. Remember, in a just war and personal self defense that same standard of exhausting other options is routinely applied.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 04:16 PM
Our government has not executed millions, but others have. Imagine a scenario where the Spunkloafs, Exotics and Strange Gloves of the world have the government they want. That would be a government willing to execute for the "crimes" of being say a Constitutionalist. So we are always in danger when we decide what "crimes" warrant death at the hands of government.

To be clear killing when other options are there is immoral. That is the main point. While I have all the sympathy in the world for the victims of violent crimes and their families, application of the death penalty is not meant to give them justice or revenge. That is a nice construct put out by prosecutors etc.. but it is a false reasoning and immoral when there are alternatives such as prison.

I should state again that not all killing is immoral. For example, when there is just war of self defense, or in cases of personal self defense killing may be considered moral and just.

To me there is a long way to go to suggest that the all powerful state, with it many options to protect itself and citizens from dangerous people is just in taking the quick route to killing. Remember, in a just war and personal self defense that same standard of exhausting other options is routinely applied.
This is simply goofy. If you want to stick with your feeling just say so.

Admiral Ackbar
07-18-2018, 04:35 PM
This is simply goofy. If you want to stick with your feeling just say so.

I just cant be down with the government killing people. It is a bad idea

donttread
07-18-2018, 05:06 PM
So I don't think you need a Constitutional Amendment on the Death Penalty. I don't think there is any argument that the Government can execute people I am saying the issue is SHOULD they do that. To me the answer is No. Generally I have no problem when state laws expand rights. I don't think you need an amendment to expand rights. In this case right to life. What I have a problem with is when Government takes away rights that are in the Constitution. Property(via taxes), Guns (Via Gun Control), Due Process (via NSA and TSA ).

This is a very big difference.

You mean when they trample the BOR including, in fact especially state's rights and the general public doesn't even get it?

donttread
07-18-2018, 05:13 PM
Correct, so in this case the Death Penalty is being used for punishment or revenge. It can not morally be used that way. It can only be used a societal self defense. In a nation brimming with super max prisons it is hard to argue society cant protect itself from these people and has no other option outside of execution.

I did not know that punishment ( vs, cruel and unusual punishment) was not a viable reason to have the death penalty. but if it is it's also hard to argue that it was your only self defense when you successfully caged the guy for 33 years. I do think an effective death penalty set up with a high level of proof for truly awful crimes carried out within a couple of years could save states money they sorely need to direct into rehabilitation and act as a deterrent for some. 33 years from sentence to injection is not a deterent.

Admiral Ackbar
07-18-2018, 05:22 PM
I did not know that punishment ( vs, cruel and unusual punishment) was not a viable reason to have the death penalty. but if it is it's also hard to argue that it was your only self defense when you successfully caged the guy for 33 years. I do think an effective death penalty set up with a high level of proof for truly awful crimes carried out within a couple of years could save states money they sorely need to direct into rehabilitation and act as a deterrent for some. 33 years from sentence to injection is not a deterent.

The problem is the definition of awful crimes has a way of being interpreted. In China it is considered an awful crime to say Tibet is not a part of China.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 05:46 PM
Then you look at the death penalty as revenge.


I am reluctant to give government the ability to choose who lives and who dies.


The death penalty is administered in a very inconsistent and arbitrary manner.

Of course it's revenge. That's what it always has been.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 05:50 PM
Also there people who were wrongly convicted and put to death. Those mistakes can’t be corrected.

No problem can always be corrected. Life is not fair. There is no legitimate argument to what you said. But Manson lived 49 years longer than he should have. No justice there, either.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 05:52 PM
I have been very vocal in my opposition to the death penalty in most cases. There are exception. Those would be public officials who violate their oath of office and the public trust. Certain major breaches of military discipline like desertion in the face of the enemy, willful killing of noncombatants, rape... maybe a couple of other military offenses.

For civilian crimes, I favor neither execution nor long prison sentences. Personally, I prefer the idea of exile. Laws are the price we pay for living in society. If we choose not to obey those laws, we should be removed from society. Exile. It takes the power of life and death away from the state and also prevents society from having to pay to keep someone incarcerated for years and years.

If we decide to embrace the death penalty, I think the requirement should be that it must be carried out by a survivor of the deceased... husband, wife, son, daughter, sibling. Since it really serves no purpose other than vengeance, make those most aggrieved by the crime be the ones to carry it out. Don't make it clean and sanitary, either. Strap the criminal to a chair and give the executioner a Louisville Slugger and tell them to have at it. That way, you will know who really wants the death penalty and who is just going through the motions.

Among certain Puebloan tribes to day, there are two tracks of law... secular and traditional. The Cacique is the final authority in all things traditional and here at least, probably the worst sentence he can mete out is exile. when he exiles someone, that person ceases to exist. He no longer exists on the tribal rolls. He has no rights of inheritance. He becomes a ghost. For people as closely knit as Pueblo society, that is a fate worse than death.

Exile isn't even punishment. You must be having a bad moment.

Having the execution be brutal is a way out of doing it. Why a bat? Pushing a button does the same thing. Making it bloody and gory is just a cop out.

CCitizen
07-18-2018, 05:55 PM
I am an opponent of the death penalty.
Probably I agree.

In my opinion, Supermax Prison is a much worse penalty and must be abolished. USA has the most inhumane penal system in the World.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson passed the Bill of Rights. Death Penalty was greatly reduced. Breaking on the wheel and hanging in chains were abolished.

CCitizen
07-18-2018, 05:59 PM
There are some sick people out there. Yes, there are some evil people out there but there are more sick people, I think.
I agree 100%. In the XVIIIth centuries, many people in Europe were broken on the wheel. Their limbs were broken and they were tied to a wheel and left on a public display. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson abolished torture, since they believed every human has innate rights and value. Even the worst of the worst.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 05:59 PM
Great point. Well known that governments can and do kill people a lot for political expedience.

Not here. You can't point to one political execution here.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:02 PM
Correct DG! So the prison and by the death penalty are designed to protect society. It is a form of societal self defense. In the old days in places like colonial America or the old West society could never be sure that putting a murder in jail would protect society. That was because they could be easily broken out and the towns did not have the resources to build the right jails or hire enough security.

With that being the case they executed a lot of people. In that context it was ok. In our modern society we have the resources and the facilities to secure ourselves from these people. This means the moral paradigm of the death penalty has shifted.

Government takes enough of our money to protect us. Government has NO business nor is it capable of having the power of life or death.

That is why it is unacceptable at this point in history.

It has already been pointed out- a jury of peers decide, not the government.


Our ability to keep them in prison has nothing to do with the morality of the death penalty. We could give them lobotomies and put them out on the streets too. There, no muss, no fuss.

CCitizen
07-18-2018, 06:02 PM
I've read a lot of the research on the death penalty. It serves no purpose, other than to rid society of the accused without financially supporting him/her. I think, though, that's not the purpose of our justice system. Also, the cost of 30 years of appeals dwarfs the 30 more years he'd sit in prison, I suspect. I'm against it on so many grounds.

Even murderers must have rights.

Unfortunately many people argue that even law abiding citizens who can not support themselves should not be supported by the State.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:07 PM
Speedy trial doesn't apply to the appeal process apparently?

Lawyers can stretch the appeals process for 30 years. That's a disgrace. If something is wrong in a trial a lawyer should know it right then and appeals should be consolidated. As is, if one appeal fails a second is filed. That's absurd in almost ever case. it might be every case but I want to be a little open.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:08 PM
Government decides in which cases they will seek the death penalty.

A jury still decides the penalty.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:12 PM
What about states where killing a cop is automatically a capital offense? Are they saying that under our constitution where that cops are somehow more important than other victims.

Kind of reminds me of

No such law exists and SCOTUS won't allow automatic death penalties.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:14 PM
Correct, so in this case the Death Penalty is being used for punishment or revenge. It can not morally be used that way. It can only be used a societal self defense. In a nation brimming with super max prisons it is hard to argue society cant protect itself from these people and has no other option outside of execution.

Doesn't need an option of no death penalty for capital offenses.

jimmyz
07-18-2018, 06:21 PM
I'm always interested in what a condemned man chooses as his last meal.

IMO there should be two types of death penalty.

One for obviously murderous people caught red-handed like that KKK kid who killed all those people at a bible class. Those type of people should tried and executed within 1 week.

And another for a guy/gal caught and convicted for a capital offense based on evidence after the fact. Those types can have the current lengthy appeals process.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:22 PM
Correct, so in this case the Death Penalty is being used for punishment or revenge. It can not morally be used that way. It can only be used a societal self defense. In a nation brimming with super max prisons it is hard to argue society cant protect itself from these people and has no other option outside of execution.

It certainly can be used for punishment and/or revenge. Where does it say it is the protection of anything?

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:23 PM
Not if you think about it. The fact is that we don't NEED to execute people. We just WANT to. So then you have to ask yourself is that right and just?

If it is about revenge and punishment then so be it. Lets not pretend it is anything otherwise.

Who is pretending otherwise. Yes, I thought about it. It is right and just.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:29 PM
Our government has not executed millions, but others have. Imagine a scenario where the Spunkloafs, Exotics and Strange Gloves of the world have the government they want. That would be a government willing to execute for the "crimes" of being say a Constitutionalist. So we are always in danger when we decide what "crimes" warrant death at the hands of government.

To be clear killing when other options are there is immoral. That is the main point. While I have all the sympathy in the world for the victims of violent crimes and their families, application of the death penalty is not meant to give them justice or revenge. That is a nice construct put out by prosecutors etc.. but it is a false reasoning and immoral when there are alternatives such as prison.

I should state again that not all killing is immoral. For example, when there is just war of self defense, or in cases of personal self defense killing may be considered moral and just.

To me there is a long way to go to suggest that the all powerful state, with it many options to protect itself and citizens from dangerous people is just in taking the quick route to killing. Remember, in a just war and personal self defense that same standard of exhausting other options is routinely applied.

The problem with your post is that you don't get to set the moral bar. You certainly don't get to set mine.

If a jury agrees to the death penalty then it was a citizen decision not a government decision.

Cletus
07-18-2018, 06:31 PM
Exile isn't even punishment. You must be having a bad moment.

Of course it is punishment. It is among the most severe punishments imaginable. It strips you of everything you have. It strips you of everything and everyone you are. It removes you from everything dear to you. You become no one.


Having the execution be brutal is a way out of doing it. Why a bat? Pushing a button does the same thing. Making it bloody and gory is just a cop out.

Not at all. Killing another person should never be easy. If you want someone dead, you should have to kill him yourself, not hire some nameless, faceless executioner to carry the guilt for you. Using a bat or an axe or a ball pein hammer makes it personal. It makes you get your hands bloody. If you aren't willing to do that, you obviously don't really want the guy dead and maybe other options should be considered.

Robert E. Lee is reputed to have once said to James Longstreet " It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it." The same should be true of state sanctioned executions.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:32 PM
The "eye for an eye" in my opinion is flawed as well. Consider this: you break my arm I get to break your arm, you rape my sister, I get to rape your sister. That wouldn't fly in modern society. Thank god the bible teachings aren't literally carried out in some circumstances.

That was never in the OT or the NT. Rape my sister and I get to whack willie off. I don't get to rape your sister.

donttread
07-18-2018, 06:36 PM
Exile isn't even punishment. You must be having a bad moment.

Having the execution be brutal is a way out of doing it. Why a bat? Pushing a button does the same thing. Making it bloody and gory is just a cop out.

An unconstitutional as all hell. Besides done correctly the death penalty about more than vengence

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:37 PM
Our government has not executed millions, but others have. Imagine a scenario where the Spunkloafs, Exotics and Strange Gloves of the world have the government they want. That would be a government willing to execute for the "crimes" of being say a Constitutionalist. So we are always in danger when we decide what "crimes" warrant death at the hands of government.

To be clear killing when other options are there is immoral. That is the main point. While I have all the sympathy in the world for the victims of violent crimes and their families, application of the death penalty is not meant to give them justice or revenge. That is a nice construct put out by prosecutors etc.. but it is a false reasoning and immoral when there are alternatives such as prison.

I should state again that not all killing is immoral. For example, when there is just war of self defense, or in cases of personal self defense killing may be considered moral and just.

To me there is a long way to go to suggest that the all powerful state, with it many options to protect itself and citizens from dangerous people is just in taking the quick route to killing. Remember, in a just war and personal self defense that same standard of exhausting other options is routinely applied.

An all powerful government would do as it pleases. There's no morality or law that would stop them. What has this to do with what we're talking about?

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:41 PM
I did not know that punishment ( vs, cruel and unusual punishment) was not a viable reason to have the death penalty. but if it is it's also hard to argue that it was your only self defense when you successfully caged the guy for 33 years. I do think an effective death penalty set up with a high level of proof for truly awful crimes carried out within a couple of years could save states money they sorely need to direct into rehabilitation and act as a deterrent for some. 33 years from sentence to injection is not a deterent.

It can't be cruel or unusual punishment if the method is equal or less than hanging. That's Scalia, not me. Capital crime is right in the Constitution so there it is.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:43 PM
The problem is the definition of awful crimes has a way of being interpreted. In China it is considered an awful crime to say Tibet is not a part of China.

We only execute for murder today. We aren't China so what does that matter?

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:45 PM
Probably I agree.

In my opinion, Supermax Prison is a much worse penalty and must be abolished. USA has the most inhumane penal system in the World.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson passed the Bill of Rights. Death Penalty was greatly reduced. Breaking on the wheel and hanging in chains were abolished.

Washington had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. Jefferson didn't either. It was Madison and Hamilton. Not the same thing.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 06:46 PM
A jury still decides the penalty.
And half the people who sit on a jury believe that if someone was arrested, they are always guilty.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:46 PM
I agree 100%. In the XVIIIth centuries, many people in Europe were broken on the wheel. Their limbs were broken and they were tied to a wheel and left on a public display. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson abolished torture, since they believed every human has innate rights and value. Even the worst of the worst.

You shouldn't post about America. You don't know enough.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:49 PM
I'm always interested in what a condemned man chooses as his last meal.

IMO there should be two types of death penalty.

One for obviously murderous people caught red-handed like that KKK kid who killed all those people at a bible class. Those type of people should tried and executed within 1 week.

And another for a guy/gal caught and convicted for a capital offense based on evidence after the fact. Those types can have the current lengthy appeals process.

This makes no sense. After the fact? It's always after the fact. It has to be after the fact.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 06:49 PM
No problem can always be corrected. Life is not fair. There is no legitimate argument to what you said. But Manson lived 49 years longer than he should have. No justice there, either.

Executing an innocent man is not just a simple mistake.

I dont believe man has the right to judge whether another person should live or die.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:52 PM
Of course it is punishment. It is among the most severe punishments imaginable. It strips you of everything you have. It strips you of everything and everyone you are. It removes you from everything dear to you. You become no one.



Not at all. Killing another person should never be easy. If you want someone dead, you should have to kill him yourself, not hire some nameless, faceless executioner to carry the guilt for you. Using a bat or an axe or a ball pein hammer makes it personal. It makes you get your hands bloody. If you aren't willing to do that, you obviously don't really want the guy dead and maybe other options should be considered.

Robert E. Lee is reputed to have once said to James Longstreet " It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it." The same should be true of state sanctioned executions.

I don't agree with any of this. No reason to make the family brutal just to stop executions. Exile to where? Who's going to take in a murderer?

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:55 PM
And half the people who sit on a jury believe that if someone was arrested, they are always guilty.

Another cop out. They all have to find a defendant guilty and they all have to decide to use the death penalty. What was your point?

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 06:55 PM
I just cant be down with the government killing people. It is a bad idea
Right.

It is not a bad idea. It is essential to justice. Not having a death penalty means real justice reverts to the people. Then it gets very messy.

Captdon
07-18-2018, 06:57 PM
Executing an innocent man is not just a simple mistake.

I dont believe man has the right to judge whether another person should live or die.

Now, I didn't say it was simple.

I disagree with your position, that's all.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 06:58 PM
The problem is the definition of awful crimes has a way of being interpreted. In China it is considered an awful crime to say Tibet is not a part of China.
Are you a Chinese citizen? Were we discussing the death penalty in China?

I thought we were discussing the American justice system and the American death penalty.

Cletus
07-18-2018, 06:58 PM
A jury still decides the penalty.

From choices given by the state.

Cletus
07-18-2018, 07:01 PM
An unconstitutional as all hell. Besides done correctly the death penalty about more than vengence
What more is it about?

Restitution? Does it bring the dead back to life?

Deterrence? That has been debunked so thoroughly it isn't even discussed any more.

What more is it about?

donttread
07-18-2018, 07:01 PM
It can't be cruel or unusual punishment if the method is equal or less than hanging. That's Scalia, not me. Capital crime is right in the Constitution so there it is.

I don't think getting beat to death would pass that test

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 07:03 PM
Of course it is punishment. It is among the most severe punishments imaginable. It strips you of everything you have. It strips you of everything and everyone you are. It removes you from everything dear to you. You become no one.



Not at all. Killing another person should never be easy. If you want someone dead, you should have to kill him yourself, not hire some nameless, faceless executioner to carry the guilt for you. Using a bat or an axe or a ball pein hammer makes it personal. It makes you get your hands bloody. If you aren't willing to do that, you obviously don't really want the guy dead and maybe other options should be considered.

Robert E. Lee is reputed to have once said to James Longstreet " It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it." The same should be true of state sanctioned executions.
About 1300 people have been executed in the States over the last 20 years.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 07:04 PM
And half the people who sit on a jury believe that if someone was arrested, they are always guilty.
If true it is good we have a second half.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 07:06 PM
Executing an innocent man is not just a simple mistake.

I dont believe man has the right to judge whether another person should live or die.
Okay. We, as communities certainly do.

jimmyz
07-18-2018, 07:06 PM
This makes no sense. After the fact? It's always after the fact. It has to be after the fact.

Poorly worded by me. I mean someone that is caught on scene, bodies still warm with no doubt in his guilt should be tried and executed swiftly. But the guy convicted by DNA evidence or someones testimony "after the fact" should have the appeals and time before facing execution.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 07:56 PM
From choices given by the state.
Finding the defendant not guilty is always an option.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 07:59 PM
Not at all. Killing another person should never be easy. If you want someone dead, you should have to kill him yourself, not hire some nameless, faceless executioner to carry the guilt for you. Using a bat or an axe or a ball pein hammer makes it personal. It makes you get your hands bloody. If you aren't willing to do that, you obviously don't really want the guy dead and maybe other options should be considered.

Robert E. Lee is reputed to have once said to James Longstreet " It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it." The same should be true of state sanctioned executions.


I don't agree with any of this. No reason to make the family brutal just to stop executions. Exile to where? Who's going to take in a murderer?


I agree with most of it.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 08:01 PM
About 1300 people have been executed in the States over the last 20 years.

I wonder how many of them were wrongly convicted?

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 08:03 PM
Okay. We, as communities certainly do.
We shouldn't.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 08:06 PM
We know, we know. Tis better than 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. That's ok when the crimes are stealing from the poor box or breaking into a house. It isn't such a good idea when the 10 guilty are serial killers

C'mon. Get real.

DGUtley
07-18-2018, 08:06 PM
Van Hook was pronounced at 10:44.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ohio-execution/ohio-to-execute-man-convicted-of-1985-murder-mutilation-idUSKBN1K813P

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 08:14 PM
I wonder how many of them were wrongly convicted?
Did you fail to read my post? Less than 4%. Roughly 50 people who may or may not have deserved to die.

Were they innocent? Probably not.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 08:16 PM
We, as communities certainly do.

We shouldn't.
Why not?

I believe the opposite. A community should be able to set the laws everyone agrees to live under. Some crimes deserve nothing less than death.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 08:24 PM
You can support execution even when you acknowledge than innocent people have been convicted and executed.

I'll support locking murderers behind bars for the rest of their life. You can call for vengeance.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 08:25 PM
Did you fail to read my post? Less than 4%. Roughly 50 people who may or may not have deserved to die.

Were they innocent? Probably not.


Im not willing to wrongly convict and execute even one person.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 08:27 PM
You can support execution even when you acknowledge than innocent people have been convicted and executed.

I'll support locking murderers behind bars for the rest of their life. You can call for vengeance.
It may be a tough break for some perps who are killed when they shouldn't have been. That does not negate the value of the death penalty. It does mean we should do all we can to ensure we get it right as often as we can.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 08:27 PM
Im not willing to wrongly convict and execute even one person.
Fortunately, it is not up to you.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 08:32 PM
It may be a tough break for some perps who are killed when they shouldn't have been...

Yep, it's a "tough break" when an innocent person is wrongly convicted and executed. In those cases, he or she wasnt a "perp".


BTW real cops don't use that term.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 08:36 PM
Yep, it's a "tough break" when an innocent person is wrongly convicted and executed. In those cases, he or she wasnt a "perp".


BTW real cops don't use that term.
He may have still been a perp and probably was.

I don't actually care what "real cops" say. I like the term "perp' and will continue to use it.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 08:49 PM
He may have still been a perp and probably was.

I don't actually care what "real cops" say. I like the term "perp' and will continue to use it.

Because if someone was arrested, charged and tried, he is obviously guilty.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 09:03 PM
Because if someone was arrested, charged and tried, he is obviously guilty.
Is that your story? Are you sticking to it?

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 09:06 PM
Because if someone was arrested, charged and tried, he is obviously guilty.


Is that your story? Are you sticking to it? Isn't that your stance? You are the one willing to accept a number of innocent people being wrongly convicted and executed.

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 09:10 PM
Isn't that your stance? You are the one willing to accept a number of innocent people being wrongly convicted and executed.
Perhaps you are confusing things. I don't care if one perp is executed. No one is claiming innocent people are executed. People who do not deserve to be killed occasionally are. Do you understand the difference?

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 09:31 PM
Perhaps you are confusing things. I don't care if one perp is executed. No one is claiming innocent people are executed. People who do not deserve to be killed occasionally are. Do you understand the difference?

You are quite willing to allow a number of innocent people be convicted and executed. What's the acceptable number? Five, ten, twenty?

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 09:33 PM
You are quite willing to allow a number of innocent people be convicted and executed. What's the acceptable number? Five, ten, twenty?
You claim innocent people. I claim people who did not deserve to be executed. There is a vast difference between the two. The best estimate is less than 50 people have been executed who did not deserve to be. Let's see if we can get that number lower. But I do not care if it stays where it is.

gamewell45
07-18-2018, 09:35 PM
That was never in the OT or the NT. Rape my sister and I get to whack willie off. I don't get to rape your sister.

What does an "eye for an eye" mean in your opinion?

MisterVeritis
07-18-2018, 09:36 PM
What does an "eye for an eye" mean in your opinion?
Perhaps you should quote the old testament chapters where it is discussed.

Tahuyaman
07-18-2018, 10:13 PM
You claim innocent people. I claim people who did not deserve to be executed. There is a vast difference between the two. The best estimate is less than 50 people have been executed who did not deserve to be. Let's see if we can get that number lower. But I do not care if it stays where it is.


Are you denying that there have been people executed for a crime they did not commit?

Captdon
07-19-2018, 10:14 AM
From choices given by the state.

?
If one of the choices is life without parole what's the problem?

Captdon
07-19-2018, 10:17 AM
Poorly worded by me. I mean someone that is caught on scene, bodies still warm with no doubt in his guilt should be tried and executed swiftly. But the guy convicted by DNA evidence or someones testimony "after the fact" should have the appeals and time before facing execution.


I don't want the appeals taken away. I just don't see why it's one appeal after another. Whatever was wrong should be known to the attorney and all wrapped into one appeal. It shouldn't take 30 years to execute someone.

Captdon
07-19-2018, 10:22 AM
What does an "eye for an eye" mean in your opinion?

It's not my opinion. It's what the Bible says. I don't get to rape for a rape as you said. I was correcting what you said the Bible says.


Exodus 21:24 (http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-24.htm)
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


I'm satisfied with the justice system as is. If I think someone had gotten away with something concerning me or mine I might do something.

Captdon
07-19-2018, 10:27 AM
Because if someone was arrested, charged and tried, he is obviously guilty.

That's the only way a justice system can work unless you want to go back to torture.If guilty of a capital offense they should be executed. That's the way a justice system works. You can't be executed if you're found not guilty.

Tahuyaman
07-19-2018, 10:41 AM
That's the only way a justice system can work unless you want to go back to torture.If guilty of a capital offense they should be executed. That's the way a justice system works. You can't be executed if you're found not guilty.I believe the death penalty is wrong for several reasons. If you think I’m wrong on that, I have no problem anyone thinking I’m wrong on this.

donttread
07-19-2018, 10:51 AM
Executing an innocent man is not just a simple mistake.

I dont believe man has the right to judge whether another person should live or die.


i used to feel that way Tally. But I changed my mind for two reasons

1) There are some people out there who are just too broken to ever be useful in any way, even in prison.
2) The money and over crowding we COULD save with the death penalty could help us become better than dismal at rehabilitation of those with a chance to get better.

However, the current way the death penalty is utilized is horrible. Sometimes crimes of passion can be eligible . There is no higher burden of proof for this sentence among a population that can't understand what "beyond a reasonable doubt " means. And the length of time it takes to carry out the sentence COST rather than saves money that could help the fixable. Look at this case. 33 damned years! I wonder what percentage of death row inmates die from old age or other causes?
It's a broken system but IMO it has it's place if administered with the common sense government lacks

Cletus
07-19-2018, 11:32 AM
?
If one of the choices is life without parole what's the problem?

You keep pretending it is the jury who actually decides the sentence. If all you can do is choose A or B, it really isn't a choice. The state says "You get to make the choice... as long as it is this or this". What if the jury collectively wanted to sentence him to 2 weeks in his room with no internet privileges? That is not a choice they have.

The state makes the choice by limiting the choices available.

gamewell45
07-19-2018, 11:37 AM
It's not my opinion. It's what the Bible says. I don't get to rape for a rape as you said. I was correcting what you said the Bible says.


Exodus 21:24 (http://biblehub.com/exodus/21-24.htm)
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,


I'm satisfied with the justice system as is. If I think someone had gotten away with something concerning me or mine I might do something.

Okay i realize the bible does not say anything about rape; I was using that as an example in general. I agree btw on the justice system used in our country; it works rather well.

Captdon
07-19-2018, 11:47 AM
You keep pretending it is the jury who actually decides the sentence. If all you can do is choose A or B, it really isn't a choice. The state says "You get to make the choice... as long as it is this or this". What if the jury collectively wanted to sentence him to 2 weeks in his room with no internet privileges? That is not a choice they have.

The state makes the choice by limiting the choices available.

They get the choice unless you really believe a murderer should be allowed on the streets. I don't.

Tahuyaman
07-19-2018, 02:53 PM
i used to feel that way Tally. But I changed my mind for two reasons

1) There are some people out there who are just too broken to ever be useful in any way, even in prison.
2) The money and over crowding we COULD save with the death penalty could help us become better than dismal at rehabilitation of those with a chance to get better.

However, the current way the death penalty is utilized is horrible. Sometimes crimes of passion can be eligible . There is no higher burden of proof for this sentence among a population that can't understand what "beyond a reasonable doubt " means. And the length of time it takes to carry out the sentence COST rather than saves money that could help the fixable. Look at this case. 33 damned years! I wonder what percentage of death row inmates die from old age or other causes?
It's a broken system but IMO it has it's place if administered with the common sense government lacks
It costs more to impose a death penalty than it does to incarcerate them for life. The solution tor overcrowding is to stop putting people in prison for non violent crimes.

ODB
07-19-2018, 04:38 PM
It costs more to impose a death penalty than it does to incarcerate them for life.

Really?

That sounds like common core math right there.

Tahuyaman
07-19-2018, 06:57 PM
It costs more to impose a death penalty than it does to incarcerate them for life. The solution tor overcrowding is to stop putting people in prison for non violent crimes.


Really?

That sounds like common core math right there.


No, it is a fact.

Tahuyaman
07-19-2018, 07:03 PM
i used to feel that way Tally. But I changed my mind for two reasons

1) There are some people out there who are just too broken to ever be useful in any way, even in prison.
2) The money and over crowding we COULD save with the death penalty could help us become better than dismal at rehabilitation of those with a chance to get better.


keep them in prison with others who will never be useful in any way. As long as they are segregated from society, who cares?

A better way to save money and relieve overcrowding is to quit incarcerating people for non violent crimes.

ODB
07-19-2018, 09:03 PM
No, it is a fact.

Maybe someone is padding the costs of what it entails to complete a death penalty. Putting things down is and can be a simple and inexpensive procedure.

Tahuyaman
07-19-2018, 09:26 PM
Maybe someone is padding the costs of what it entails to complete a death penalty. Putting things down is and can be a simple and inexpensive procedure.

Maybe you should do some research on the subject?

ODB
07-19-2018, 09:39 PM
Maybe you should do some research on the subject?

Maybe?

Tahuyaman
07-19-2018, 09:50 PM
Maybe?

I think you should. You might see things in a different way.

Tahuyaman
07-19-2018, 10:53 PM
I would hope everyone can come to oppose the death penalty.

ODB
07-19-2018, 11:00 PM
I would hope everyone can come to oppose the death penalty.
I don't see that happening. :dontknow:

Tahuyaman
07-20-2018, 10:10 AM
I don't see that happening. :dontknow:
I don’t either. Too many look at us as revenge and they approve of seeking vengeance.

DGUtley
07-20-2018, 10:36 AM
It is true. I have read research that indicates clearly that a death sentence costs more than incarceration. The appeals, death row, etc, cost a fortune and it serves no purpose that cannot be achieved cheaper and with less moral cost to society and the individuals involved.

I would abolish the the death penalty.

MisterVeritis
07-20-2018, 11:01 AM
I would hope everyone can come to oppose the death penalty.
I would hope everyone can come to accept the death penalty. However, it should be as rare as abortion.

MisterVeritis
07-20-2018, 11:01 AM
It is true. I have read research that indicates clearly that a death sentence costs more than incarceration. The appeals, death row, etc, cost a fortune and it serves no purpose that cannot be achieved cheaper and with less moral cost to society and the individuals involved.

I would abolish the the death penalty.
It does. But that is because we allow endless appeals.

Captdon
07-20-2018, 11:06 AM
It is true. I have read research that indicates clearly that a death sentence costs more than incarceration. The appeals, death row, etc, cost a fortune and it serves no purpose that cannot be achieved cheaper and with less moral cost to society and the individuals involved.

I would abolish the the death penalty.

How can the appeals process take 30 years? Lawyers are gaming the system. All appeals should be rolled into one. Why the merry-go-round?

DGUtley
07-20-2018, 11:20 AM
How can the appeals process take 30 years? Lawyers are gaming the system. All appeals should be rolled into one. Why the merry-go-round?

Because due process rights require time.

MisterVeritis
07-20-2018, 11:29 AM
Because due process rights require time.
Due process should require no more time than the original trial.

Tahuyaman
07-20-2018, 12:24 PM
I would hope everyone can come to accept the death penalty...

Not going to happen.

Captdon
07-20-2018, 01:02 PM
Because due process rights require time.

30 years? You really saying that?

ODB
07-20-2018, 02:55 PM
Too many look at us as revenge and they approve of seeking vengeance.

How is that an all-encompassing bad thing?

Tahuyaman
07-20-2018, 04:24 PM
How is that an all-encompassing bad thing?Yes, it is. Revenge isn’t justice.

Helena
07-20-2018, 04:40 PM
What is justice? What does the often used phrase "He's paid his debt to society." really mean?

Research shows... research shows or points to a lot of things, depending on the desired outcome.

I believe the death penalty is necessary.

I also believe the system is dirty.

ODB
07-20-2018, 04:52 PM
Yes, it is. Revenge isn’t justice.
I'll admit that revenge is a part of it. But that isn't all of it. Only a small amount of people feel truly vengeful in any given situation.

While vengeful feelings are understandable; there are additional reasons for extremes in punishment. Basic concept of 'actions and consequences' covers it. Crime warrants punishment, elevated crimes warrant elevated punishment up to and including death.

Tahuyaman
07-20-2018, 05:06 PM
I'll admit that revenge is a part of it. But that isn't all of it. Only a small amount of people feel truly vengeful in any given situation.

While vengeful feelings are understandable; there are additional reasons for extremes in punishment. Basic concept of 'actions and consequences' covers it. Crime warrants punishment, elevated crimes warrant elevated punishment up to and including death.
Revenge is not an element of justice. Crime does warrant punishment, not revenge.

ODB
07-20-2018, 05:23 PM
Revenge is not an element of justice. Crime does warrant punishment, not revenge.

You can't invalidate someone's feelings of revenge. They're allowed to have them. The balance is that while revenge is there, justice requires multiple people to come together and determine the appropriate level of punishment. Generally, those people don't include those closest to the crime - justifiably so (it goes along with your point).

MisterVeritis
07-20-2018, 06:03 PM
Revenge is not an element of justice. Crime does warrant punishment, not revenge.
If there is no vengeance then the people must restore their control over justice.

One might coin a phrase. No justice. No peace.

Captdon
07-20-2018, 06:04 PM
Yes, it is. Revenge isn’t justice.


Sure it is. Kill and be killed is justice.

Tahuyaman
07-20-2018, 06:58 PM
Sure it is. Kill and be killed is justice.No. it’s revenge.

Tahuyaman
07-20-2018, 07:01 PM
You can't invalidate someone's feelings of revenge. They're allowed to have them. The balance is that while revenge is there, justice requires multiple people to come together and determine the appropriate level of punishment. Generally, those people don't include those closest to the crime - justifiably so (it goes along with your point).


I don’t believe the death penalty is something a civilized society should impose. There’s nothing you can say which will change my mind.

ODB
07-20-2018, 07:02 PM
I don’t believe the death penalty is something a civilized society should impose. There’s nothing you can say which will change my mind.
I don't doubt you. :)