DD Social Thread (v1)

[bernie1227]

then you get the joke?

[molendijk]

then you get the joke?

Sure, it's a very good one.
Arie.

[bernie1227]

thanks, it's a bernie original

[bernie1227]

seeing how off topic this thread already is, I just thought you guys might appreciate this:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/htt...ive.com/forums
it's dynamic drive forums back in time (click in the dates to see)

[jscheuer1]

Some of this talk on the death penalty is more speculative than it may seem. There just aren't that many serial killers, and all of those are insane. But perhaps not legally insane, there's a big difference. And the insanity defense itself is rarely tried unless there's nothing else, and it's track record is very poor, less than 30% successful I believe. It's brought up in the news a lot because it captures the public's imagination. In actual practice it's more often used as a bargaining chip by defense lawyers looking to cop their client to a lesser charge, even then any decent prosecutor will know right away that it's usually a red herring. But they have to investigate it. It slows things down - almost always a good thing from the accused's lawyer's point of view. The longer things are drawn out, the harder it is to retain witnesses to the crime and the easier it is to question the veracity of their testimony. Even evidence can be lost or contaminated the longer things get drawn out. And in the meantime the accused is often free on bail, or at the very least, still alive.

But none of that changes the fundamental unfairness with which the death penalty is applied. That alone is reason to at least suspend it, and in fact is the reason often cited by state governors who do so, even conservative governors have done this.

[djr33]

I'm not being speculative. I'm talking about serial killers to the extent that they exist. I'm not claiming anything about frequency or how many people should/would be executed-- just that saying "well some of them aren't that bad" (eg crimes of passion) isn't a good reason to also eliminate the death penalty for other offenders.
That's one definition of insane. I am not convinced by it-- I don't think someone must be insane to kill a lot of people. (Technically they may not be a "serial killer" then, just a mass murderer.) It's a tricky issue, but to the extent that there are people out there like that, I don't see the problem in executing them-- in fact, aside from self preservation, it seems like it would make sense to them.

Again, this is nothing about frequency, what I said earlier. But on that same note, it is central to this discussion to mention something: very very few people are actually executed. It's always publicized and a big deal so it seems like it's more frequent than it is. I'm not sure on any numbers, but a large percentage of potential executions are also stopped somewhere along the way-- a plea bargain, a judge overruling it, a legal defense/excuse (cruel and unusual punishment? insanity? remorse? old age?), or a last minute decision by the governor. So after 10 or 12 years of waiting, it's very rare. I think last time I saw any numbers it was significantly fewer than one person per year (I think this was just for California).

Right, the insanity defense issue is complicated.

I agree on a practical level that it should be applied fairly. But that doesn't convince me that the death penalty itself is wrong; it's just being used badly. The same could be said about something like money in the current economic situation.
Again, I'm not attached to it in any way-- if they're doing a bad job of using it, then suspend/remove it. But I stand by it being, in theory, something that doesn't seem inherently wrong just because of what it is.

[jscheuer1]

Yep, it's CA only. CA is one of the more enlightened states in this regard. They go through a lot more in places like TX, MS and AL:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/numb...nd-region-1976

That's since 1976, and they break down the more recent years as well.

[djr33]

There's also the question of population. So executions based on population might be equivalent for Idaho and California, for example.

But... wow... Texas.... crazy Texas. That's just unbelievable, either in how many people are being executed or in how many people are doing things that result in death penalty sentences.

I don't see those numbers as necessarily suggesting that the death penalty is wrong, although it's good to know them. They're relevant. (It might be nice to have some statistics on the crimes that resulted in the sentences though.)

But if we take one of the middle states. Let's say Arizona, with just below 1 execution per year. Is that really so bad, in what you wanted to claim? Perhaps if Arizona (or Idaho or Pennsylvania?) were the model for the death penalty, would that improve it in your mind?

It wouldn't take much to convince me that Texas (and maybe the states in the low 100s) are doing something wrong. But does that still mean to you that the death penalty itself is wrong?

My perspective is from California, so that changes things a bit for me (just the facts, not really my position). But let's do that thought experiment-- is California reasonable? Or just less terrible and still terrible?

[bernie1227]

For me, the crux of the issue is more about people who should have received the death sentence, if having dodged it by good lawyers, or simply living in a country with no death sentence. A good example of this is Anders Breivik, for those who don't know, he committed a massacre in Norway, killing 77 people, and then confessing to it, specifically saying that he was sane, saying that being classed as nine would be as bad as death. Anders Bevik got away with a life sentence (22 years I believe), which means he may be out of jail before he dies. This man should have gotten a death sentence, and there is no possible defence which could save him.

There aren't a lot of criminals proportionally that receive the death sentence, but some criminals should not be excused from it. Sure, Texas may be a little trigger-happy on the death sentence, but that doesn't mean the death sentence shouldn't be given.

[jscheuer1]

Your buddy Anders sounds like a good candidate for life without possibility of parole. How old would he be in 22 years though?

Still, he doesn't sound to me like someone I would want let out at all, but killing him seems hardly necessary. Who knows? he might make a significant contribution of some sort.

And there just aren't many folks like Anders. I would guess that most people that are put to death allegedly killed just one person, and that there probably were extenuating circumstances not allowed in the sentencing phase.

I say allegedly because even after conviction there's no 100% certainty you have the right person. I say extenuating circumstances because killing is so extreme that almost anyone who resorts to it must have been under extraordinary internal and/or external stress. Life is precious. A human life can yield so much richness not just to the individual living it, but to civilization as a whole. Snuffing one out without ever knowing, and one never can, if that life might make a valuable contribution is at least as insane as the murder the person is accused of in the first place.