Supremes

Member

I admit to being somewhat of a fence sitter when it comes to the capital punishment debate. My instinct says no, that killing anyone is wrong, but then I'm not so opposed to it that it makes a difference in how I vote etc...

As far as the juvie issue goes, if we have the death penalty, then I don't see why 16 and 17 year olds aren't included. The states that have the death penalty don't just have it for simple (if there is such a thing) murder. There have to be qualifying conditions such as multiple homicides, killing a child under 6, killing someone during a sexaul assault or other felony... (those are a few of the TX laws)

If a 17 year old rapes someone then kills them, the jury shoud have the same choice they have if a 20 year old does it. Keep in mind that not all prosecutors choose to try someone for a capital crime, and juries get to decide sentences.

I do think the line has to be drawn somewhere. We'd be better off dealing with the disparities in the system between the haves and have nots and then much of the capital punishment debate would seem much fairer.

Hipster Doofus

If this is declared unconstitutional, what would prevent your typical (?) gang-banger/drug dealer with a grudge/someone wanting to hire a hit man from hiring someone that age to do the deed. "Hey, nothing will happen. You won't get the chair; you aren't 18, so you won't get life. When you get out, the money will be waiting for you."

I realize this may well be exaggerated, but if someone that age can be tried, and sentenced, as an adult for rape, arson, assault, etc., why not murder? It doesn't matter if the person convicted is 16 or 60 - there is still a dead person. And at that age, flawed as our educational and societal sysytem may be, there is still an instinct, at the very least, of knowing right from wrong.

Member

A former believer in capital punishment that has had a change of heart. I am not really comfortable extending to the state the right to away life.

We have proven we can construct life-without-parole statues. I do not believe anyone guilty of capital murder is deserving of rehabilitation, regardless of their abilty to be rehabilitated. They have crossed the ultimate line witin society. However, that doesn't mean we need to retaliate, and in my mind there is the real crux of matter; capital punishment is retribution and in my mind retribution is as corrosive force to the individual, as well as to a society of people.

Once my thinking became clear on the nature of a safe soceity and nature of retribution, it was easy for me to come to the conclusion that capital punishment is wrong.

Hipster Doofus

As laws regarding enforcement, etc., of the dp have changed over the year, statutes on life without parole can be changed as well. And unless it is specifically written into a State's constitution, the governor always has the right to grant pardons, etc., which would trump any statutes on the books.

I don't see the dp as a case of retribution. If so, the same argument could be made that confinement for any offense, from disorderly conduct to child molestation, is retribution (albeit not as drastic as the 'eye-for-an-eye' concept behind capital punishment). If it is seen as determent by some, others see it as an expense the society (including victim/s of the murdered) must pay the cost of. The dp will only ensure that the murderer in question will no longer present an opportunity to further harm society.

I do understand that this does lead into other issues - bias in sentencing, validity of evidence, validity of confessions, etc. But if none of these are an issue in a given situation, I believe the dp should be an option.

Member

That is right. Laws change, they are simply products of the people who are citizens at any given time. Just like if the people come to the conclusion capital punishment no longer serves their higher and better interests. And no, the ability to limit a Governor's power does not need be written into a state's constitution. Texas is a perfect example; the Governor may only grant a one-time 30 day reprieve, and can only grant a pardon or parole to any prisioner if a 17-member body first recommends the action.

Anyway, it has clearly been proven the people's representatives can and have constructed legal and constitutional statutes the insure a capital murder can be held in custody for the rest of their days on Earth. Other countries have proven the same ability. So, I operate on the assumption that we can enforce life without parole. Clearly, experience shows we can.

The driving concept behind our criminal justice system and confinement is rehablitation and loss of liberty. However, as I said, I do not believe the capital murder can be rehabilitated, nor offered the opportunity to do so. What soceity is deciding is these are people who need to be seperated from the rest of us for our own saftey.
So that leaves us with two choices; kill them or keep them in custody for the rest of their life.

Killing them might be more efficicent (though the actual cost of finally getting someone on the gurney is Exhibit A against this suppositon) I do not think we really want a state that begins to decide if anyone lives or dies based on efficiency. So then it comes down to...what?

We ought to kill them because they deserve it. Eye for an eye. They killed, they should die, too. It's only right!

That is retirbution. It is revenge killing. You can call it justice, but I do not. I call it wrong. I used to think very differently when I was a younger man. But age, introspection and enough time in the policy areana has led me to this conclusion.

Hipster Doofus

Unfortunately I do not see it as you do. I do not consider it retribution or revenge. I see it as removing a person who has done the worst thing possible from being able to do it again. Even if in prison for life with no chance for release, the killer can kill again (in prison).

And I could not think of a way to comfort the victim's family. Even though the killer is behind bars for life, the fact remains s/he lives (granted not in the ideal condition), while their loved one is gone; and their tax dollars will go in part to keep that person fed, and given free opportunity to certain opportunites (furthering education, e.g).

Sorry, Alan, but we will have to agree to disagree. You could well change your mind again, or I could, or neither. Only time will tell.

Member

Hipster Doofus

Member

I take a very consevative view when it comes to the death penalty. I am against it in all cases and circumstances.

To me it is an eye for an eye mentality; it isn't administrated equally; it is not proven to be a deterrent.

I do not want the state in the business of deciding who are the most hideous among us. Giving the state the moral authority to decide if one should live or die, sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion and we as a concerned and informed populous should never allow it to happen.

---
megawill

Adjunct

Alan you made some excellent insights.
Sorry it is the law and order in me. Some people though just need to be off this earth. Whether they be children killing terrorists or extremist dictators. Sometimes, we need to just cut our loses.

Member

Member

I have to admit that I am on the fence here too. On a fudamental note, it seems wrong to kill and take away somebody's life without giving them a chance to defend or mend it. The reason I say this is because, the accussed is already a pariah and in most cases mentally deranged to some degree. How can the action of such people be explained...

But on the other hand whenever I hear about hineous crimes like ones involving children, rapes etc... it makes my blood boil. I think that such scum has no place in society and the good earth

Life in Prison seems to be worse hell than capital punishment. God forbid it happens to any of us, I think people go insane... the abuse, solitude and hopelesness of the situation. I think we need to take a deep look into life sentences as well.

Member

Member

Supremes

LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK