The Capital Punishment Debate
- Thread starter Michael Dorosh
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
More food for thought on this topic from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15sat1.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 15, 2007
Editorial
A Long Time Coming
It took 31 years, but the moral bankruptcy, social imbalance, legal impracticality and ultimate futility of the death penalty has finally penetrated the consciences of lawmakers in one of the 37 states that arrogates to itself the right to execute human beings.
This week, the New Jersey Assembly and Senate passed a law abolishing the death penalty, and Gov. Jon Corzine, a staunch opponent of execution, promised to sign the measure very soon. That will make New Jersey the first state to strike the death penalty from its books since the Supreme Court set guidelines for the nation’s system of capital punishment three decades ago.
Some lawmakers voted out of principled opposition to the death penalty. Others felt that having the law on the books without enforcing it (New Jersey has had a moratorium on executions since 2006) made a mockery of their argument that it has deterrent value. Whatever the motivation of individual legislators, by forsaking a barbaric practice that grievously hurts the global reputation of the United States without advancing public safety, New Jersey has set a worthy example for the federal government, and for other states that have yet to abandon the creaky, error-prone machinery of death.
New Jersey’s decision to replace the death penalty with a sentence of life without parole seems all the wiser coming in the middle of a month that has already seen the convictions of two people formerly on death row in other states repudiated. In one case, the defendant was found not guilty following a new trial.
The momentum to repeal capital punishment has been building in New Jersey since January, when a 13-member legislative commission recommended its abolition. The panel, which included two prosecutors, a police chief, members of the clergy and a man whose daughter was murdered in 2000, cited serious concerns about the imperfect nature of the justice system and the chance of making an irreversible mistake. The commission also concluded, quite correctly, that capital punishment is both a poor deterrent and “inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.”
By clinging to the death penalty, states keep themselves in the company of countries like Iran, North Korea and China — a disreputable pantheon of human mistreatment. Small wonder the gyrations of New Jersey’s Legislature have been watched intently by human rights activists around the world.
Spurred in large part by the large and growing body of DNA-based exonerations, there is increasing national unease about the death penalty. The Supreme Court is poised to consider whether lethal injections that torture prisoners in the process of killing them amount to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, an exercise bound to put fresh focus on some of the ugly details of implementing capital punishment.
In a sense, the practical impact of New Jersey’s action may be largely symbolic. Although there are eight people on New Jersey’s death row, the moratorium was in place, and the state has not put anyone to death since 1963. Nevertheless, it took political courage for lawmakers to join with Governor Corzine. Their renunciation of the death penalty could prick the conscience of elected officials in other states and inspire them to muster the courage to revisit their own laws on capital punishment.
At least that is our fervent hope.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15sat1.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 15, 2007
Editorial
A Long Time Coming
It took 31 years, but the moral bankruptcy, social imbalance, legal impracticality and ultimate futility of the death penalty has finally penetrated the consciences of lawmakers in one of the 37 states that arrogates to itself the right to execute human beings.
This week, the New Jersey Assembly and Senate passed a law abolishing the death penalty, and Gov. Jon Corzine, a staunch opponent of execution, promised to sign the measure very soon. That will make New Jersey the first state to strike the death penalty from its books since the Supreme Court set guidelines for the nation’s system of capital punishment three decades ago.
Some lawmakers voted out of principled opposition to the death penalty. Others felt that having the law on the books without enforcing it (New Jersey has had a moratorium on executions since 2006) made a mockery of their argument that it has deterrent value. Whatever the motivation of individual legislators, by forsaking a barbaric practice that grievously hurts the global reputation of the United States without advancing public safety, New Jersey has set a worthy example for the federal government, and for other states that have yet to abandon the creaky, error-prone machinery of death.
New Jersey’s decision to replace the death penalty with a sentence of life without parole seems all the wiser coming in the middle of a month that has already seen the convictions of two people formerly on death row in other states repudiated. In one case, the defendant was found not guilty following a new trial.
The momentum to repeal capital punishment has been building in New Jersey since January, when a 13-member legislative commission recommended its abolition. The panel, which included two prosecutors, a police chief, members of the clergy and a man whose daughter was murdered in 2000, cited serious concerns about the imperfect nature of the justice system and the chance of making an irreversible mistake. The commission also concluded, quite correctly, that capital punishment is both a poor deterrent and “inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.”
By clinging to the death penalty, states keep themselves in the company of countries like Iran, North Korea and China — a disreputable pantheon of human mistreatment. Small wonder the gyrations of New Jersey’s Legislature have been watched intently by human rights activists around the world.
Spurred in large part by the large and growing body of DNA-based exonerations, there is increasing national unease about the death penalty. The Supreme Court is poised to consider whether lethal injections that torture prisoners in the process of killing them amount to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, an exercise bound to put fresh focus on some of the ugly details of implementing capital punishment.
In a sense, the practical impact of New Jersey’s action may be largely symbolic. Although there are eight people on New Jersey’s death row, the moratorium was in place, and the state has not put anyone to death since 1963. Nevertheless, it took political courage for lawmakers to join with Governor Corzine. Their renunciation of the death penalty could prick the conscience of elected officials in other states and inspire them to muster the courage to revisit their own laws on capital punishment.
At least that is our fervent hope.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Wow no bias in that piece eh?? :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
IN HOC SIGNO said:Wow no bias in that piece eh?? :
It's an editorial - designed to spark discussion.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Thanks I do understand the purpose of editorials and the purpose they serve.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
IN HOC SIGNO said:
Your original comment regarding bias, complete with rolling eyes, would indicate otherwise, Padre.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Roy Harding said:
I guess I'm trying to indicate that I disagree with the editorial and with words like this they are not very open to the views of probably 50% who would be reading the item
"...the moral bankruptcy, social imbalance, legal impracticality and ultimate futility of the death penalty..."
I'm quite an avid reader of newspapers and now that they are all available on line I'm in pig heaven....I am used to reading some pretty ignorant editorials...but this one just struck me as an extremely rigid stance without a lot of understanding or tolerance of the other side of the debate.
Personally I'm not an eye for an eye sort of guy and with the number of falsly accused that have come up I'm hesitant to agree to a full unrestricted use of this form of punishment. For clearly proven cases of murdering sickos like Bernardo, Pickton, Olsen I think we might be better off to consider this kind of an end for them.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
IN HOC SIGNO said:
OK now I feel better. I was afraid you were just throwing the editorial in it's entirety out. I thought that it did have a point on the :
"Spurred in large part by the large and growing body of DNA-based exonerations, there is increasing national unease about the death penalty. The Supreme Court is poised to consider whether lethal injections that torture prisoners in the process of killing them amount to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, an exercise bound to put fresh focus on some of the ugly details of implementing capital punishment."
And I also can't say never with the likes of "Bernardo, Pickton, Olsen " and such.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
IN HOC SIGNO said:
Sorry, Padre - upon looking at it again my post was sharper than I meant it to be.
I too am an inveterate consumer of newspapers. I subscribe to The National Post (which gives me access to the Victoria Times-Columnist, the Vancouver Sun, The Province, The Calgary Herald, The Edmonton Journal, The Regina Leader-Post, The Saskatoon Star Phoenix, The Windsor Star, The Ottawa Citizen, The Montreal Gazette, along with their more regional papers), The Globe and Mail, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, and of course much of the content of the SUN paper chain is available (without subscription) on-line.
To say that I read all these papers every day would be a "stretcher" - they all, of course, carry much of the same content - derived from the various wire services out there (Reuters, CP, etc, etc). But I DO always read the "Letters to the Editor" section of all of these. I think doing so gives me an insight into the concerns of the people. I don't always agree with the views expressed, and I very rarely send missives of my own to the various publications I subscribe to.
I am rarely shocked at the bias expressed in "editorials". They are, after all, by definition "opinion pieces" - but they do give me a clue regarding which way the particular paper is inclined - which clue informs how I absorb their news reporting.
I AM an "eye for an eye" kind of guy - which of course informs my opinion regarding the various editorials I read, and I don't ascribe much credibility to the editorial which sparked this public conversation between you and I. I think the fool that wrote it is probably a refugee from the Sixties, and has killed too many brain cells to be able to string more than two sentences together to express a point of view.
All that said - I respect your opinion, and look forward to reading your posts here - I'm sure that you and I can disagree amicably.
Roy
Edited for grammar. RHH
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
A trek across the artic in the winter(without jackets 
), should they survive they may have their jail cell for life.
Should that prove ineffecient a bullet sure is cheap. Just not hanging, awful way to die, makes me cringe to think bout it.
), should they survive they may have their jail cell for life.Should that prove ineffecient a bullet sure is cheap. Just not hanging, awful way to die, makes me cringe to think bout it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Again, some very interesting posts to read and some very valid points... while I am still of the pro-DP side, a few of the nay-sayers have actually caused me to seriously consider their arguments. Not changing sides, just recognizing validity. That has not been successfully done on this subject since I was 12 or so. Congrats to you all.
I think the strongest argument against the DP is that if done humanely, it really just boils down to the dollar value of human life. Really. If it's not a deterrent to other criminals, then we're simply "freeing up a bed" for a lesser criminal and avoiding the annual cost of keeping the scum of the earth alive until their natural demise. So really, we're just trying to save a few bucks... and devaluing life to that level at a societal level causes me some concern.
Then I think... given lengthy appeals processes, legal costs, laboratory costs, "WHEEL OF DEATH" PPV production costs, and victim recovery costs, it really costs us more to execute the degenerate low-lifes. Well, my dilemma in para 2 is now solved, we haven't devalued human life to the almighty dollar. So I'm all good and will remain upon the DP bandwagon.
GOING OFF TOPIC FOR A RANT
I'd now like to issue a call-out to Karla Homolka's legal team. I believe you are degenerate liars. I do NOT BELIEVE FOR ONE SECOND that you made that deal in "good faith" with the Crown. I do believe you were fully aware of the content of the tapes, I'll bet you even viewed them. I believe you slapped your impotent wieners into submission salivating at the thought of your future bank as a result of rescuing one of Canada's most vile criminals from a life in prison. And while I do not subscribe to a specific faith, I believe that there is a higher power, and you will be judged. While it is your duty to provide a zealous defense, it is NOT YOUR DUTY to ensure psycopaths and sociopaths roam free. When she offends again, I hope you are tried as a co-conspirator.
/RANT
tlm.
I think the strongest argument against the DP is that if done humanely, it really just boils down to the dollar value of human life. Really. If it's not a deterrent to other criminals, then we're simply "freeing up a bed" for a lesser criminal and avoiding the annual cost of keeping the scum of the earth alive until their natural demise. So really, we're just trying to save a few bucks... and devaluing life to that level at a societal level causes me some concern.
Then I think... given lengthy appeals processes, legal costs, laboratory costs, "WHEEL OF DEATH" PPV production costs, and victim recovery costs, it really costs us more to execute the degenerate low-lifes. Well, my dilemma in para 2 is now solved, we haven't devalued human life to the almighty dollar. So I'm all good and will remain upon the DP bandwagon.
GOING OFF TOPIC FOR A RANT
I'd now like to issue a call-out to Karla Homolka's legal team. I believe you are degenerate liars. I do NOT BELIEVE FOR ONE SECOND that you made that deal in "good faith" with the Crown. I do believe you were fully aware of the content of the tapes, I'll bet you even viewed them. I believe you slapped your impotent wieners into submission salivating at the thought of your future bank as a result of rescuing one of Canada's most vile criminals from a life in prison. And while I do not subscribe to a specific faith, I believe that there is a higher power, and you will be judged. While it is your duty to provide a zealous defense, it is NOT YOUR DUTY to ensure psycopaths and sociopaths roam free. When she offends again, I hope you are tried as a co-conspirator.
/RANT
tlm.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I always took "an eye for an eye" as a mitigation. Take an eye rather than raze
a village or take a guys flock.
Capital punishment has a political tone and can have political purposes.
We can never be sure there is no political interference or influence.
We can never be sure of justice.
Perhaps the death penalty is not "punishment" at all.
Sorry, this debate always takes me to the "Easter story" and
how easily influenced the authorities of the day were.
Are todays' authorities any wiser? ;D
Just what's on my mind is all.........
- Reaction score
- 8,201
- Points
- 1,160
Flip said:
.....How much of a penalty is Death for a true believer that seeks martyrdom for the cause, or for his/her virgins or even because he/she heard voice?
I am reminded of the joke about the sadist and the masochist hooking up with expectations that each is going to get what they want from the other guilt free. The masochist begs the sadist to beat him. The sadist says no.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Flip said:
It was God's will that Jesus died for our sins. So you are saying your left leaning sensitivities should supercede that of the Lord's? :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ouch! Zipperhead! left-leaning? That smarts!
Yes, I'll agree that it was God's will that Jesus died for our sins.
That this was necessary, was not God's will.
That is, if Pontius Pilate felt compelled to call for water and
symbolically wash his hands - was this a good and proper legal process?
It appears that he didn't think so.
Just because God's will was done - We (humanity) have nothing we can
take credit for. Anyway, that's the heart of my moral objection.
Given circumstances of insurrection or insurgency, in Canada
I have no problem with it. The state is at risk. No choice.
I agree we have to separate the Picktons and Bernardoes
from society. We don't have to kill to accomplish this.
Perhaps a few hundred years ago we didn't have the means
to keep monsters like that locked up, we do now.
I don't see any harm in simply "throwing away the key" so to speak.
It's humane, reversable and might actually be more of a punishment
than turning the guy off. Perhaps the pathology of these guys can
be studied and prevention might be found?
I don't think my point is all that "leftie". Stalin executed prodigiously.
I think I'm just being sensible.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
At such time as Canadians rally to justice for something other than liberal idiocy I'll believe that "mob rule" has half a chance of making a difference.
However, it is just that situation that makes the judges feel so very much more superior and keeps the law from reflecting the wishes of what the people want (and I reiterate the need to vote for judges).
I guess I'm just not really hung up on the idea of rehabilitation or morality or deterrence or potential cost saving. Killing people who suck is just the right thing to do. It's a simple choice in my mind.
However, it is just that situation that makes the judges feel so very much more superior and keeps the law from reflecting the wishes of what the people want (and I reiterate the need to vote for judges).
I guess I'm just not really hung up on the idea of rehabilitation or morality or deterrence or potential cost saving. Killing people who suck is just the right thing to do. It's a simple choice in my mind.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
On rehabilitation and deterrence I believe I agree with you.
On the length of sentences(being way too short) We probabaly agree.
As for who we kill and who we don't - I think there is a simple and reasonable test.
Do we have to?
In military circles (from what I understand) you don't contemplate killing
anyone because you feel like it. You kill out of operational necessity.
I think everyone who reads this thread would agree that to kill Osama
or Saddam would be justifiable. And ultimately necessary.
The guy in the act of robbing a liquorstore - he points his weapon at a police officer
Yep - necessary.
Say a decade from now a Canadian ship depth charges a Russian sub at OUR
north pole. Do we stick around for survivours? Probably. It's who we are.
( the analogy was deliberately goofy - don't overwork it )
Yes, some people suck - some aren't even criminals.- some are even judges!
Not killing when we don't need to is the right thing to do.
