Father murders child over Xbox

[Walsingham]

Human justice is inevitably going to be inaccurate, I accept.

 

I accept that the death penalty will therefore inevitably lead to wrongful deaths, and that these will suck.

 

However, many feel (myself included, some days) That because of te parole system and the nature of violent/serious offenders that they go on to commit more crimes. Some of these crimes are murders. Murders of innocent people. Thereore by not instituting the death penalty, or at least permanent life imprisonment, the State is responsible for innocent deaths in turn.

 

Did that hang together?

[alanschu]

However, many feel (myself included, some days) That because of te parole system and the nature of violent/serious offenders that they go on to commit more crimes. Some of these crimes are murders. Murders of innocent people. Thereore by not instituting the death penalty, or at least permanent life imprisonment, the State is responsible for innocent deaths in turn.

 

I'm not convinced recidivism rates are as high as we may think. These numbers are from Canada:

 

The National Parole Board's Performance Monitoring Report for 1999-2000 shows that the violent recidivism rate for offenders on full parole is down from 2.6 % in 1995/96 to 1.8 % in 1999/00. Violent recidivism refers to offenders who were released on day parole, full parole or statutory release and were subsequently convicted of a crime of violence such as murder, attempted murder, sexual assault, forcible confinement and armed robbery.

 

The media overrepresents things to sell its product. Just like how they overrepresent capital crimes, I think they also overrepresent recidivism, at least for capital crimes. The media is not stupid. People get shocked and all uppity if someone that committed a heinous crime commits another one.

 

Check this out as well. Going down to Table 2, the number of sex offenders that have not committed a Sex Offense crime (i.e. sexual recidivism) is 76% after 15 years. But I thought it was "Once a sex offender, always a sex offender!"

 

Granted, my numbers come from Canada, but I'd be quite surprised if the numbers in the United States where significantly different. And in Canada people still have the idea that our prisons have revolving doors as well.

 

Recidivism is more a problem for smaller scale crimes from what I can tell.

 

 

And since you mentioned it, if someone is considered a risk to be a repeat offender, life without parole still works. And ironically, it's cheaper than a 10 year stay on death row.

 

 

And since I missed this earlier:

 

That is why we need reformation in the justice system regarding the death penalty. It should be more cost effective in executing a convicted murderer.

 

You can't really make it more cost effective. The reason why it's so expensive is because there's those annoying habeas corpus and due process deals. The only way to make it more cost effective is to speed the process up, which I certainly am not comfortable in doing. Unfortunately, sometimes "open and shut" cases are determined, 20 years later, to not actually be an open and shut case. And that was the case with Derek Jamison.

[Walsingham]

Thanks for getting some stats on recidivism. Can you get any on the percentages of people wrongfully sent to the gallows? I'd look myself, but you seem more efficient.

[Hurlshort]

Check this out as well.  Going down to Table 2, the number of sex offenders that have not committed a Sex Offense crime (i.e. sexual recidivism) is 76% after 15 years.  But I thought it was "Once a sex offender, always a sex offender!"

 

I don't know, 24% is still a pretty crappy number. Castration seems like the healthiest alternative, and I'm not talking the pansy chemical kind either. Of course, that won't work for all sexual offenders, and obviously there are exceptions (example, the 18-year old boy who is accused of statuatory rape by the parents of his younger girlfriend.)

 

Even the extremely low 1.8% looks badly when you have thousands of prisoners going out on parole every year.

[Gfted1]

Check this out as well.  Going down to Table 2, the number of sex offenders that have not committed a Sex Offense crime (i.e. sexual recidivism) is 76% after 15 years.  But I thought it was "Once a sex offender, always a sex offender!"

 

Wow, Im shocked! I would have easily belived that those percentages could be reversed (76% recidivism). Quick question about Table 2 though, I think Im misreading it. The top category "All sexual offenders" states 24% recidivism at 15 years. Five categories down we have "Offenders with previous sexual convictions..." which shows 37% recidivism at 15 years. Where am I going wrong here?

Edited December 19, 2006 by Gfted1

[Sand]

The problem with Life without Parole is the fact the bugger is still alive and may have a chance to escape confinement, and thusly continuing his crime. It is best to execute such people so that society is assured that individual will not escape and/or commit further capital offenses.

 

We need however streamline the process of execution so it can take place within 5 years of sentence. I agree that due process needs to done but it goes at a snails pace and not very efficient.

[Walsingham]

I'd be worried that those recidivism rates for paedophilia reflect in part the difficulty of catching the swines in the first place. Bear in mind that is (as usual) the recorded rate.

 

Leaving aside the detailed figures for a second do you think this is the crux of the matter? Innocent lives saved versus innocent lives lost?

[Mortis Nai]

I have said everything that I believe is productive to my point of view on this topic and then some, so I am going to bow out gracefully at this point.

 

The reason that Capital Punishment is such a hotly debated topic, is that there is no "Right" answer.

 

Just like abortion and other controversial "hot Button" topics, Both sides for and against are equally right on the matter, but it depends solely upon the exact set of circumstances and the individual situation, so there will never be a blanket Law or Situation that will iron out all the kinks.

 

The Legal system does not work 100% all the time, Innocent people are punished from Crimes they did not commit, and Guilty people are let go more often than we would like, and yes, some of those innocent people have been on death row, which is not right at all.

 

But still, there are some people that in your heart of hearts you know the world would probably be better off without.

 

To some this justifies the Death penalty, to some it does not.

 

While the discussion itself can be enlightening and challenging, at the end of the day none of us will ever change the worlds view on the topic, because neither view is 100% right or wrong. That does not mean that the discussion itself cannot lead to some interesting individual changes in perspective and stance, but where I am debating from, I feel that I have been about as productive to the discussion as I can be, so as I said before, this is where I bow out.

 

I would like to thank alanschu and the rest, for making this such an enjoyable and impassioned debate, its been a great deal of fun.

 

~ Jay

Edited December 19, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Guard Dog]

Like Mortis, I've said all I have to say on this debate. One more observation though. I've always found it odd the same people who oppose the death penalty support abortion. So, there is no right to kill a person who has murdered other people, but there there is every right to kill a baby who has harmed no one.

 

I guess if you oppose the death penalty AND abortion you are at least logical and consistent.

[Hell Kitty]

I guess if you oppose the death penalty AND abortion you are at least logical and consistent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am against the death penalty and in favour of a woman's right to have an abortion.

 

Against the death penalty for the reason alanschu mentioned "The judicial system is not perfect, and can never be perfect. And unless it is perfect, I'd never support the death penalty." Pro-choice because I believe that until the child is born it is part of the mother and her choice on whether it is born or not.

 

Nothing illogical or inconsistent there.

[~Di]

Like Mortis, I've said all I have to say on this debate. One more observation though. I've always found it odd the same people who oppose the death penalty support abortion. So, there is no right to kill a person  who has murdered other people, but there there is every right to kill a baby who has harmed no one.

 

I guess if you oppose the death penalty AND abortion you are at least logical and consistent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are making the same mistake all too many people make when discussing the termination of a pregnancy; you are giving a 3-week old cluster of cells the same rights and consideration as a full-term or nearly full-term infant capable of survival outside the womb. A termination of pregnancy in the first trimester is not by any stretch of the imagination "killing a baby." It is terminating a zygote or a partially-formed fetus, which had the potential of becoming a baby in the future.

 

Please don't lose sight of the fact that pregnancy and childbirth is not equivalent to a common cold. It has been, and still is today, a leading cause of female death around the world. Even today hundreds of thousands of women die every year from complications of childbirth, and a substantial number of those deaths occur in so-called modern western societies. The potential for harm to the mother is even higher in high-risk pregancies of women over 40, young girls (in the 12-15 range) or women with certain physical problems, like diabetes.

 

My point is that pregnancy can be life-threatening and health-threatening. The only people qualified to make an educated determination on whether or not a pregancy can be or should be carried to term is the woman herself, hopefully in consultation with her family members, and her physician. You may want to consider that when you are tempted to impose your poltical views onto the body... and the life... of another.

 

/annoying lecture mode

 

Edited December 19, 2006 by ~Di

[alanschu]

Check this out as well.  Going down to Table 2, the number of sex offenders that have not committed a Sex Offense crime (i.e. sexual recidivism) is 76% after 15 years.  But I thought it was "Once a sex offender, always a sex offender!"

 

Wow, Im shocked! I would have easily belived that those percentages could be reversed (76% recidivism). Quick question about Table 2 though, I think Im misreading it. The top category "All sexual offenders" states 24% recidivism at 15 years. Five categories down we have "Offenders with previous sexual convictions..." which shows 37% recidivism at 15 years. Where am I going wrong here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think the "previous sexual convictions" means that that person was already in for committing sexual recidivism (i.e. they are currently in for at least their second, if not more, sexual crime). Not surprisingly that these people would be a higher percentage of being a repeat offender, since they already were at the 0 year time point of that study. I find it kind of interesting though, that people with a history of multiple sexual convictions at the starting point, weren't actually higher.

 

I don't know, 24% is still a pretty crappy number.....Even the extremely low 1.8% looks badly when you have thousands of prisoners going out on parole every year.

 

Well, when the popular opinion is once a sex offender, always a sex offender. You say that that number still looks bad, even the 1.8% number, and justify castration. Look at it from the other side. You just castrated 98.2% of the thousands of prisoners going out on parole that will not commit another sexual crime, "just to be safe."

 

Furthermore, analyzing the 24% (or 1.8%) helps with profiling to help determine if people should be let out on parole.

 

The problem with Life without Parole is the fact the bugger is still alive and may have a chance to escape confinement, and thusly continuing his crime. It is best to execute such people so that society is assured that individual will not escape and/or commit further capital offenses.

 

Uh, how often to people typically escape from prison? Furthermore, what's to stop this same person from trying to escape from Death Row? This type of fatuity just astounds me. I mean, once recidivism is shown to perhaps not be as high as the media portrays it (and being solved with life without parole anyways), you want to start killing people (most of which will not kill again) because of a possibility that the "bugger may escape and continue his crime?" I have to ask for some sort of statistic about the likelihood of escaping from prison, because I can't find anything.

 

We need however streamline the process of execution so it can take place within 5 years of sentence. I agree that due process needs to done but it goes at a snails pace and not very efficient.

 

How exactly do you speed the process up? In what ways is it not very efficient? I mean, you already have people having their appeal process cut short because of defense attorneys failing to file the paperwork in time. You can't just magically make things go faster, unless you want to start glossing over the information with the intent to make things as quick as possible. The only real way to make it more efficient that I can think of would be to hire more people, but then you're just condensing the cost over a smaller time frame, not reducing it. Don't just say "that's not for me to know." You state unequivicolly that the process is not very efficient. How so? For all we know, it's as efficient as it possibly can be. Unless you consider those annoying things like appeals as hindrances to efficiency.

 

 

I'd be worried that those recidivism rates for paedophilia reflect in part the difficulty of catching the swines in the first place. Bear in mind that is (as usual) the recorded rate.

 

Leaving aside the detailed figures for a second do you think this is the crux of the matter? Innocent lives saved versus innocent lives lost?

 

Yes, the numbers are always underestimates.

 

As for the innocent lives saved versus lives lost, I can show you a list of people exonerated after receiving the death penalty (and will in a bit). A problem with finding innocent people that have been executed is that there's a bit less motivation to continue investigating someone that has already been executed (since they're dead!).

 

Also, when discussing innocent lives lost to repeat offenders, you have to also make sure you take an appropriate subsample of that list, because you can only use the innocent lives lost to a repeat offender that would have been executed. I have no idea how I can figure that information out.

 

Go here to find a list of people exonerated. One thing to note is that the average number of years between being sentenced to death and exoneration is 9.2 years. That's 123 people, which might not seem like a lot, but there has only been 1057 executions since 1976. So that's more than 10%.

 

You can go here for a small list of people executed despite doubts about guilt. I know the list isn't complete, because it excludes people like Caryl Chessman and the like.

 

Furthermore, I don't feel as though the crux is the innocent lives saved compared to the innocent lives lost. You can effectively eliminate the potential innocent lives lost by putting them in for life without parole. Barring extreme situations such as escaping from prison, this has the same effect as executing the prisoners. No one (outside of prison at least).

 

As for innocents executed, the big issue I have is that it's possible for people to use the death penalty for their own personal gains. Check out this article for an interesting take on the death penalty. It's from The Nation, which I've been told is less than unbiased (who isn't though, especially in the case of the death penalty). I still strongly recommend reading it, and making your own opinion. While not utilizing proper citations, they do talk about various analyses done by 3rd parties, as well as cite case studies. As a result, it's easier to corroborate the stories from other sources. I'm also not big on the casual dismissal of articles by just stating "Oh, it's <blank> and therefore biased." If someone can show me some articles and studies demonstrating the awesomeness of the death penalty, I'll be more than happy to read up on them.

 

 

The article talks about a lot of fun stuff that I never considered, such as the fact that most death penalty states have their judges elected, and overturning death sentences can lead to their political opponents campaigning against them with the "favoring the rights of criminals over the rights of victims" position. So it's political suicide to do so.

 

Death Penalty cases also create great opportunities for district attorneys, and at times they have built cases around hiding evidence, or using a snitch in prison who lies in exchange for a reduced sentence.

 

There's also issues with juries, who are made up of people just like you and me. The same people exposed to the overrepresentation of capital crimes, and recidivism, in the media. The same people that feel if they don't go for the death penalty, then the revolving door that is prison will let them out in short time, and will have them kill again. There is also issues as to how well the juries understand their own state laws, and whether they recognize whether there are alternatives to the death penalty (such as life without parole). There's also the idea that prosecutors intentionally try to keep juries ignorant of this sort of stuff, which J. Mark Lane (an attorney) published in Is there life without parole? A capital defendant's right to a meaningful alternative sentence (1993).

 

 

Not to mention that murders typically aren't rich, and typically get crappy public defenders. One black defendant was represented by a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Not to mention black people being judged by all white juries. And you better hope your public defenders aren't overworked and miss the deadline for your appeal, or your execution's efficiency may have just been bumped up a few notches.

 

 

Mortis Nai gave us a big discussion about Good and Evil Bad, Right and Wrong, and used it to justify his position on the death penalty. In addition to attacking my character and calling me a hypocrite (while unfortunately not really responding to anything I had to say to him), I found it strange that while he acknowledges that there will always be bad people, he didn't seem to overtly consider that these same bad people could in fact be the ones issuing the death penalty itself. (He was also incorrect about the average stay on death row being a death sentence, and how many people die waiting to be executed. According to The nation, the average stay is 11 years, and if you don't like that source, Texas is 10.43 years, and Florida is 12.19 years.

 

But still, there are some people that in your heart of hearts you know the world would probably be better off without.

 

I think that this is where part of problem comes in...is when people start using their hearts (and hence, emotion). Since the protection of people (as apparently the financial investment required for death row) can satisfied with life without parole, what point is there to killing someone? The two big arguments seem to be to prevent them from killing again, and to keep the costs of the penal system down. And both of these seem to be satisfied with a life without parole. And given prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not make up a large chunk of the prison populace, they don't really contribute to prison overpopulation.

Edited December 19, 2006 by alanschu

[Sionn]

That's sick.

 

 

 

 

Lalwz Krookie. :joy:

[Colrom]

But still, there are some people that in your heart of hearts you know the world would probably be better off without.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Having delusions of power are we?!

[thepixiesrock]

You're reaching there Colrom.

[Colrom]

You're reaching there Colrom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not at all.

 

Suggesting that you or I or anyone can judge that the world/universe would be "better off" with someone killed is delusional in a number of ways.

 

I don't have the ability to do that calculation/evaluation.

 

Do you?

[Sand]

Would the world be better off without a murderer killing people? Yes, it would.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Sand

[Colrom]

Would the world be better off without a murderer killing people?  Yes, it would.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes.

 

Are you talking about you planning to be a murderer or someone else?

 

All these people with God like abilities to tell the future and judge who should live and who should die and they can even say why. :crazy:

 

Many who deserved to live have been killed - resurrect them first, before you decide to kill others because you think they deserve to die. :angry:

[Sand]

It has nothing to do with telling the future or being godlike. It is about justice. There is only one punishment that is just in a case involving murder and that is execution. You kill someone therefore your own life is forfeit.

[Colrom]

You said "the world would be better off" which is a judgement about the quality of the future.

 

If you wish to claim that it is "the law" ("an eye for an eye") that is a different argument - which makes absolutely no call upon a judgement that "the world would be better off" just a judgement about guilt.

 

I would still disagree since I believe differently - but I wouldn't argue that you are claiming to be God like.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Colrom

[Volourn]

"Pro-choice because I believe that until the child is born it is part of the mother and her choice on whether it is born or not."

 

I bet youa r eone of those who favor forcing fathers to pay for children even they didn't want said child yet give them absolutely no say in whether said child is born or not.

 

Tsk, tsk.

 

The problem with a 'woman's right to choose' is that people forget that it takes two to make the choice in the first place + a third being gets no say.

 

I'm all for a choice or not as long as both parents have a say in it. And, no, don't give me this femanzi crap about how only the female opinion matters when it comes to pregnancy just because they drew the short straw in order to get the privledge of child birth. They chose to spread their legs, the man chose to put it in; they both get to choose whether their prodigy gets to live or die, and they both get to deal with the consequences of their choices.

 

 

Back on topic: The death penalty should not be used lightly; but I feel it should be sued in certain circumstances. As vile as this particular situation is and the man in question deserves some sort of suitable punishment; I don't think the death penalty should be sued in this case nor do none of the many other 'creative' ( ) ideas in this thread. A long prison sentence should suffice so he can sit in think to himself was a video game worth murdering my child and spending years in prison? Hopefully, by the end of it, he'll realize, NO it wans't.

[alanschu]

It has nothing to do with telling the future or being godlike.  It is about justice.  There is only one punishment that is just in a case involving murder and that is execution.  You kill someone therefore your own life is forfeit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I was hoping for a response to my post. That's too bad.

 

 

 

In any case, what is a good reason for killing someone. It can't be to protect others, since life without parole effectively does the same thing. It can't be cost, since it's much cheaper than death row (for good reason too).

 

You spout off fatuity about how it should be made more efficient and should only take 5 years. Why five years? Why the short time span for an innocent person to prove his guilt?

 

What good reason is there for executing someone, outside of a your concept of "justice?" How is "justice" not served in a lifetime without parole, but is served if you decide to execute someone?

[Sand]

Even life without parole is still a life that the victim did not get.

[Hell Kitty]

I bet youa r eone of those who favor forcing fathers to pay for children even they didn't want said child yet give them absolutely no say in whether said child is born or not.

 

Why would you assume that? You really ought to know someone's view before you argue against it. Anyway, that's a whole other issue for another thread.

 

In any case, what is a good reason for killing someone. It can't be to protect others, since life without parole effectively does the same thing. It can't be cost, since it's much cheaper than death row (for good reason too).

 

I've never understood the whole "you just know in your heart that x deserves to die" argument. What if I just know in my heart that every human deserves to die?

 

It seems to me to be more about maintaining an illusion of safety. Feeling better that there is one less "bad person" in the world, regardless of whether it changes anything or not.

[alanschu]

It seems to me to be more about maintaining an illusion of safety. Feeling better that there is one less "bad person" in the world, regardless of whether it changes anything or not.

 

That makes sense to me. I can understand that. I used to be in favour of the death penalty because I used to think that prisons were ineffective and murderers didn't deserve to live.

 

Even now, if we could have 100% guarantee that only the most vile of murderers would be executed, I'd probably be in favour of it. Or at least not mind.

 

But when people can be awarded public defenders that refer to their defendants as a "niggerman" and fall asleep during their trials, I'm a bit skeptical about the whole ordeal.

 

According to that Nation article I posted earlier, funding was granted for Death Penalty Resource Centers, which meant that they were able to afford quality lawyers. Much of the work done by the lawyers from these centers focused on corrupt cases that the prosecution was presenting.

 

Heck, there was a guy on Penn & Teller's Bull**** who's public defender didn't bother notifying the court that his client was in prison for a different crime when the murders occurred, and hence could not have committed the murders. Now I don't think that the defense attorney necessarily withheld that information, but rather that he was just a subpar attorney and didn't bother investigating little details like that.