Conservatives and the Death Penalty

[madanthonywayne]

During the cold war not one anti-abortion group came out and said, we cannot morally sanction the deployment of nuclear weapons aimed at cities in Russia.

You're really reaching here. Did you forget the Russians had nukes pointed at us? And that the only thing that kept the godless commies from launching was the fact that we would instantly retaliate and incinerate their entire country? Or don't you believe in self defense?

I know of no environmentally conscious anti-abortion groups who worry about toxins causing miscarriages coming from this or that corporation.

This is because at root this is not about innocent fetuses, it is about controlling women with a dash of hatred of sex.

What the hell are you talking about? If some company were releasing toxins that killed fetuses, they'd be sued to within an inch of their lives.

People who are against abortion are against it because they believe in protecting innocent life. It has nothing to do with controling women or hating sex.

[Michael]

Pretty simple, really. I'm a conservative and I support it. It's because I see no reason why I should pay to feed, clothe and provide medical attention (not to mention TV and exercise rooms/equipment) for some low-life. Shoot him, hang him, stick a needle in his arm - whatever. Just get him off my payroll!

So if it's cheaper to keep him alive then you support that instead?

[Tiassa]

No more haughty than judging all people who believe in the death penalty as having blood-lust.

String, I'm the one who said there's nothing to be ashamed about, remember? Here, I'll quote myself, even though you've already quoted it. Oh, wait, I'll quote you quoting me:

“
Originally Posted by Tiassa
Look, dude, you're bloodthirsty. Just admit it. Welcome to America. In this country, there ain't nothing' wrong with being bloodthirsty.
”
You're broad-stroking, Tiassa.

I'm not passionately either way.

In the first place, I long ago stopped trying to excuse myself like you do: "I'm not passionate either way." (But I'm going to argue passionately and irrationally for one outcome, anyway, just to show that I'm not passionate either way!)

Really, if I don't buy it coming from you, it's because I don't like selling it, either.

In the U.S., there's nothing wrong with being bloodthirsty. I think it's a tragic aspect of our cultural outlook, but the mere existence of bloodlust in the cultural definition does not bother me. It's what we do with it that bothers me, but that's actually beside the point.

So, yeah. I'm being haughty. I'm being as haughty and presumptuous as the people who set criteria for who and what "deserve" to live or die.

Like I noted before: "... you already are aware of the realities because you include them in your post".

This is a constant game we play in debates on this forum. People state and opinion, and in this case, you ascribe a less-than-friendly label to someone who dares have a worldview that doesn't mesh with your own.

The less-than-friendly label is an interesting point, String. Perhaps that's how you play, but there's more than just the opinion that goes into the label. In the first place, the only reason you object to the idea of being bloodthirsty is that you choose to find bloodthirst a bad thing.

Like I said, dude: It's about more than just the opinion.

I think that a person can lose the right to live by their despicable behavior, simple as that.

And that's all it's about, isn't it? Because you acknowledge the realities, but still want to make that judgment.

I find it offensive that you should be offended at me over your inability to look yourself in the mirror. You want to believe that you have the right to decide who or what deserves to live, you can believe it all you want. But if I have to pretend its something good in order that you don't feel badly about yourself, you might want to think about that. This isn't about who you sleep with, or whether you think cussing should be allowed on television, or even whether automatic rifles are hunting devices. This is about claiming the right to kill someone in order to pretend to feel better. It doesn't do anything but bring you satisfaction.

If you want to believe that, fine. If I want to believe such things are savage, fine. I don't even have to go out of my way to call you evil in order to unsettle your precarious outlook, though. I just have to call it what it is: bloodlust.

People who want to kill for no other reason than self-satisfaction are, indeed, people who want to kill for no other reason than self-satisfaction. You're not the executioner, you say? Fine. But you still claim the knowledge and right to make those judgments. If for no other reason than the symbolism.

And you still try to pretend you're doing the condemned a favor: "Again, if I wanted to make sport of their life ...."

It's a curious transference of the value and ownership of their lives. In sending Sisyphus to prison, as miserable an existence as it might be, fate resides within his grasp. The usurpation of fate, which is exactly what the execution would be, is precisely the objection against any homicide. One would think what overrides that objection would be something substantial, but apparently it doesn't need to be. How do you get around that quandary? Easy, transfer the ownership of fate away from homicide: "If I wanted to make sport ...."

Whatever satisfaction you take over whatever beatings, rapes, or other miseries that person endures in prison is your own. And that's all that is your own. Because you aren't making sport of his life, even if you're the judge who sentenced him. Even if that's what you believed at the time, and that's why you sentenced him to prison--to make sport of his life--you are not making sport of his life. You would, in fact, be leaving him to the one thing in the Universe that is his own. And that one thing makes him, no matter what else he is, equal to you in the most fundamental manner of existence. And it seems to me that this is what disappeared from my outlook as I shed my justifications for homicide. And I do find it interesting that it resembles so strongly what the passionate supporters of the symbolic value of homicide (such as yourself) put forth to support their bloodlust.

So just to remind you:

Again, it's just possible that a person can have an idea that is totally contrasting with your own and NOT be some bloodthirsty monster.

You're making the bloodlust monstrous. I find it tragic. What I find monstrous is how determined people like you are to separate themselves from it. You find it undignified, yet you still want to be it, so we should all pretend that makes sense. No, I just don't buy it.

In politics, String, when people "put down the sword" and walk away, it's over. Because I'd rather be happy that there's one less battle to fight than take pleasure that "someone else was wrong".

You acknowledge the realities, and then, despite those realities, defend the position anyway. Fine. Yet you also attempt to transform that position into something that is merciful, and only to reveal how you construct your philosophical relationship to the condemned.

I just want the people to put down the killing instrument and walk away. When we get up tomorrow, there will still be criminals and murderers and all sorts of things to figure out, and they probably should have had our attention a while ago, except that we must continually pretend that letting someone live out their days according to the deeds by which they have fashioned them is somehow stripping them of their fate. If it's so bad to strip people of fate, why is that an argument in favor of stripping people of fate?

Of course, it's very empowering to feel as if one is fate itself, so maybe it goes deeper than mere symbolism. Maybe it's an addiction. See? You're not monsters. You just need help.

Er ... something. Believe what you want, dude. You're the one who finds bloodlust monstrous.

[Echo3Romeo]

I actually DID read it for content. And what I saw VERY clearly in every example/state cited was that the VAST amount of expenses "charged" to executions was the costs of trials. And my point is that most of that expense would have been incurred anyway!!

Did you read the New Jersey study? It disagrees with one of your original assertions that trial expenses of capital cases are commensurate with non-capital ones. As do the others.

As for which is cheaper; keeping convicts alive for ~50 years or executing them; many economists have looked into this and found that it costs two to five times more to execute somebody than it does to keep them imprisoned for life without parole. This paper argues that point pretty well.

What I'm talking about is the difference in costs of an execution vs keeping some bum in jail for 20 years or more. And I still say the latter - including his healthcare expenses is FAR greater than simply eliminating him. Can you possibly deny that? If so, then provide some hard numbers!!!!

But, I already have. If you have evidence to the contrary please enlighten all of us accordingly. The burden of proof is on your shoulders now.

[Grantywanty]

You're really reaching here. Did you forget the Russians had nukes pointed at us? And that the only thing that kept the godless commies from launching was the fact that we would instantly retaliate and incinerate their entire country? Or don't you believe in self defense?

I am not reaching here at all. I am saying that if abortion a no-no period, a rule from God, not subject to debate or peeking at circumstances, than anti abortion stances should include of for god's sake at least be concerned about the innocent fetuses. I am not making a case against aiming the weapons. I am saying that conservatives (especially religious ones) have always been hypocrites around this issue.

What the hell are you talking about? If some company were releasing toxins that killed fetuses, they'd be sued to within an inch of their lives.

You are being naive. 1) in the US, for example, they would amass a defense of PR, lawyers and 'experts' to quash the issue. 2) in other countries this has happened over and over and I have yet to hear an outcry from anti-abortionists.

People who are against abortion are against it because they believe in protecting innocent life. It has nothing to do with controling women or hating sex.

So you really think Rush Limbaugh and George Bush, if they got pregnant at an inconvenient point in their careers wouldn't have that abortion? Come on.

[Baron Max]

As for which is cheaper; keeping convicts alive for ~50 years or executing them; many economists have looked into this and found that it costs two to five times more to execute somebody than it does to keep them imprisoned for life without parole.

But that's ONLY because of the liberals demanding more appeals, more court time, more attorneys, and continued jail time awaiting all of those useless appeals and courts costs!

If the person was executed when he was found guilty, then how could the execution cost more than 50 years in prison?!

Baron Max

[Echo3Romeo]

But that's ONLY because of the liberals demanding more appeals, more court time, more attorneys, and continued jail time awaiting all of those useless appeals and courts costs!

If the person was executed when he was found guilty, then how could the execution cost more than 50 years in prison?!

Baron Max

There is definitely an argument to be made that capital punishment is administered poorly, and would be more effective in its stated goals (especially deterrence of similar crime) were it delivered more expeditiously and decisively. I would agree with that. But as it stands right now, in the US, it isn't effective from the utilitarian aspect of fighting crime and fiscal prudence.

[Pandaemoni]

But that's ONLY because of the liberals demanding more appeals, more court time, more attorneys, and continued jail time awaiting all of those useless appeals and courts costs!

If the person was executed when he was found guilty, then how could the execution cost more than 50 years in prison?!

Baron Max

The problem then is that you vastly increase the number of actually innocent men executed if you summarily execute everyone convicted at trial. Groups like the Innocence Project have had a remarkable track record in proving that a number of people on Death Row don't deserve to be there.

The error rates in capital cases is shockingly high (see for example, this study). It's not necessarily to say that the death penalty is morally wrong, but applying the death penalty at the end of an error prone and only partially self-correcting system may well be wrong.

Your solution seems to be to stop correcting errors at all, and go right to the killing.

[cosmictraveler]

We really don't know how many peoples lives have been saved by having the death penalty in force. We only hear that it doesn't deter those that murder but I'd say that it does but cannot back up my statement easily for there's no way to tell who stopped themselves before they killed someone because of the thought of being killed themselves.

[Baron Max]

But as it stands right now, in the US, it isn't effective from the utilitarian aspect of fighting crime and fiscal prudence.

Of course it isn't effective. A murderer or rapist knows that even if he gets caught and imprisoned, he'll get out in a short time ....so he can do it all over again! And remember, less than half of the murderers, and only about a quarter of rapists are ever caught and tried.

And that's all due to the liberal doo-gooders in the country tying the hands of law enforcement at every turn possible! They give the criminals every legal loophole possible, while forcing the cops to follow nitpickin' legal roadblocks at every turn.

Baron Max

[Baron Max]

The problem then is that you vastly increase the number of actually innocent men executed if you summarily execute everyone convicted at trial.

Guilt or innocence is determined by the trial. If they're found guilty, then they ARE guilty!! That's the very definition of "guilt".

I think the courts and the evidence should be scrutinized all the time, and with great diligence. But to put a convicted murderer on death row and leave him there for the remainder of his life is .....idiocy!

Baron Max

[iceaura]

What should be the penalty for executing someone later shown innocent?

Isn't that manslaughter, at a minimum?

The very crimes most likely to receive the death penalty are the ones most likely to yield the conviction of an innocent: the emotional nature of the crime, the political pressure on the legal establishment and law enforcement personnel, the lack of resources of the accused, all max out in typical capital crimes. How many dozens of convicted murderers and rapists have been released on DNA evidence over the past ten years ? Do you imagine that in the many cases where DNA evidence is not available for checking, justice was done infallibly?

Capital punishment has always been abused for power, by any government allowed to so kill its citizens in cold blood. From the Haymarket riots to the Rosenbergs to the quick execution of Tim McVeigh, executions have been leaving bad smells behind them.

Conservatives properly so called would be very reluctant to allow government officials, like bad doctors, to bury their malpractice and wash their hands of inconvenient lives.

It isn't safe.

[Baron Max]

What should be the penalty for executing someone later shown innocent?

Nothing. The court did what courts do ...make declarations of guilt or innocence. If something later comes up that was not in the trial, it wasn't the trials fault, it wasn't the jury's fault, it wasn't the prosecutors fault, it wasn't the defense's fault, it wasn't the cops' fault, .......... So who are you goiiing to charge with the "crime"???

Capital punishment has always been abused for power, by any government ....

Now you're just starting the bullshit rhetoric and foolish accusations. The "government" usually has no bearing in a trial ...and certainly not in the USA.

Baron Max

[spidergoat]

Guilt or innocence is determined by the trial. If they're found guilty, then they ARE guilty!! That's the very definition of "guilt".



Baron Max

No, a judgement on guilt or innocence is determined, sometimes based on incomplete information. It is not absolute, as evidenced by the fact that some decisions are later reversed. Reality is reality, not what we say it is.

[Baron Max]

No, a judgement on guilt or innocence is determined, sometimes based on incomplete information. It is not absolute, as evidenced by the fact that some decisions are later reversed. Reality is reality, not what we say it is.

Basically all you're saying is that you'll believe the verdict of trials only if they don't give out the death penalty. You believe re-trials when the person is found innocent, though, don't you???? Why??? You're biased?? ...LOL!

Baron Max

[mikenostic]

No, a judgement on guilt or innocence is determined, sometimes based on incomplete information. It is not absolute, as evidenced by the fact that some decisions are later reversed. Reality is reality, not what we say it is.

Well, if that's the case, then we should just fuckin' let everyone go free; because after all, our legal system is too fucked up and doesn't work anymore.
I don't see much difference in someone wrongly going to jail for life (with no parole) because of 'imcomplete information', and someone wrongly being put to death because of incomplete information.
We either trust the legal system to do its job, or we dismantle and revamp it altogether.
Some moron made the argument about incarceration costing less than execution. Of fucking course it will if the death row inmate stays in jail for 20 fuckin years. Like I said in the other thread about this, stop allowing appeals for death row convicts. It costs all kinds of money for the tax payers. There is no reason to allow a death row inmate to keep appealing his/her sentence.

[spidergoat]

Basically all you're saying is that you'll believe the verdict of trials only if they don't give out the death penalty. You believe re-trials when the person is found innocent, though, don't you???? Why??? You're biased?? ...LOL!

Baron Max

My belief has nothing to do with it. I don't believe that OJ was innocent, but I will accept that he recieved a fair trial, until proven otherwise. I can accept that in most cases, a judgement of guilty in a murder or other serious case is correct, but my objection to the death penalty comes from the fact that in a few cases, those judgements are later found to be innaccurate, or the accused has failed to recieve a fair trial.

Well, if that's the case, then we should just fuckin' let everyone go free; because after all, our legal system is too fucked up and doesn't work anymore.
I don't see much difference in someone wrongly going to jail for life (with no parole) because of 'imcomplete information', and someone wrongly being put to death because of incomplete information.
We either trust the legal system to do its job, or we dismantle and revamp it altogether.
Some moron made the argument about incarceration costing less than execution. Of fucking course it will if the death row inmate stays in jail for 20 fuckin years. Like I said in the other thread about this, stop allowing appeals for death row convicts. It costs all kinds of money for the tax payers. There is no reason to allow a death row inmate to keep appealing his/her sentence.

I'm not saying the legal system doesn't work, only that it isn't perfect.

I see a huge difference between being wrongly put in jail for life and being wrongly executed. One can be reversed, the other not.

There is no reason to allow a death row inmate to keep appealing his/her sentence.

They are called rights. You have it, they have it, and no one is giving that up any time soon.

[iceaura]

If something later comes up that was not in the trial, it wasn't the trials fault, it wasn't the jury's fault, it wasn't the prosecutors fault, it wasn't the defense's fault, it wasn't the cops' fault, .......... So who are you goiiing to charge with the "crime"??

Why wasn't it somebody's fault? Normally speaking, if you kill somebody on purpose you are accountable for getting your reasons straight. They can't really claim they didn't have enough time or resources to make a correct decision, can they?

Most of the innocent people released under the DNA projects have had incompetent defense attorneys appointed by the court, evidence lost or withheld or planted, faulty eyewitness identification, a charismatic prosecutor and a biased jury, something like that.

I don't see much difference in someone wrongly going to jail for life (with no parole) because of 'imcomplete information', and someone wrongly being put to death because of incomplete information.

You will accept that the convicted themselves might see a difference, though, right? And so might the officials whose malpractice led to the miscarriage of justice? Or any other officials who have some interest in seeing the matter settled and buried ?

One difference is that there is very limited recourse for challenging a court verdict without a plaintiff - once the convicted is dead, it's a lot harder to reopen the case even than it is normally.

Now you're just starting the bullshit rhetoric and foolish accusations. The "government" usually has no bearing in a trial ...and certainly not in the USA.

? I blame the high schools.

[Baron Max]

...but my objection to the death penalty comes from the fact that in a few cases, those judgements are later found to be innaccurate, or the accused has failed to recieve a fair trial.

But such a judgement can only be found in a court of law. So, like I said, you believe one court's judgement, yet you refuse to belief the others. See? You're simply prejudiced against the death penalty, and nothing but a sentence of less than death would satisfy you.

My belief has nothing to do with it.

Nope, as noted above, it has everything to do with it. As soon as a death sentence is passed, you immediately begin to disbelief that court. And you won't be satisfied until another court finds a different verdict or sentence.

I see a huge difference between being wrongly put in jail for life and being wrongly executed. One can be reversed, the other not.

So you're perfectly okay with a man rotting in prison for 50 or 60 years, but it really bothers you that we execute another man?

Given the choice, which would you prefer? ...to be locked up for life, where the inmates can fuck you every day, or be executed and forego all that endless torture and pain?

Rights? No, as soon as that jury finds the man guilty, then his rights are taken from him and the only "rights" he has left is what the guards and the warden let him have. And rightly so!

Baron Max