# Back to back executions in Arkansas



## bostjan (Apr 24, 2017)

I was just reading this article:

Arkansas prepares for first double execution in US since 2000

This is a pretty heated topic.

But, in these two particular cases, there are specific concerns on both sides.
All of these inmates in the back to back to back to back to etc. executions scheduled this month were scheduled as such because the lethal injection drug is expiring and the prison cannot manage to obtain more. On its own, that's a bad reason to execute someone. 
The two inmates named in the article are in poor health. That's led to arguments that the executions will not likely work as planned, and it's also led to arguments that it'd be better for the inmates to die by lethal injection now than in the next few years of health complications in prison.

But, the thing that struck me most odd in the article...



Fox news said:


> Williams admitted responsibility to the state Parole Board last month.
> 
> "I wish I could take it back, but I can't," Williams told the board.



Wat?

Parole board?



Novice question, I guess, since I know nothing about parole, but, umm, how does a death row inmate end up in front of the parole board?! Do death row inmates get parole? Is there some other function of the parole board that has nothing to do with parole?

Me, personally...I'm not against the death penalty. I guess I might be in a small minority around here, but, well, if you murder people, then I'm okay with you being erased from life on Earth. I know that mistakes are made, but, to me, that's a topic that needs to be tackled either way.

Whatever personal beliefs I carry around, "this lethal injection drug is about to expire" being used as the premise for "execute everyone" is just as asinine as the military wanting to start a war because their bombs are about to expire. I mean, if I buy, say, some rat poison, and then never use, and it's about to expire, do I go down in the sewer to abduct sewer rats so I can use the poison before it expires? Obviously, no, that would be sick...


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 24, 2017)

I used to support the death penalty, but the more I realized how flawed the criminal justice system is the less I could stomach being complicit in state sanctioned murder of innocent or not-definitely-guilty people.


----------



## vilk (Apr 25, 2017)

I think the death penalty should be allowed and expediated for those who wish to die. Some sick mofos who are gonna get life would rather just pop out, and I feel that's their prerogative, should be their right. Life in prison is a sort of cruel and unusual punishment really, especially when considering what goes on here in the USA. I know some people might argue that they should be "rehabilitated", and by all means those who wish to be should be given that opportunity, but for those who don't... We could have some pysch evals to make it all kosher or something, but yeah.

Also, lethal injection needs to be done in. It is surely less expensive, problematic, lower potential to botch death by firing squad. 

Or perhaps allow the person on death row to make a choice. I mean, if you gotta die, maybe you should have some say in how you go. Maybe we could build a giant tower somewhere and let people throw themselves off it; I bet that would be popular.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Apr 25, 2017)

vilk said:


> Or perhaps allow the person on death row to make a choice. I mean, if you gotta die, maybe you should have some say in how you go. Maybe we could build a giant tower somewhere and let people throw themselves off it; I bet that would be popular.



I think no matter what they choose, a popular question would be "Can I do it on national television?"


----------



## bostjan (Apr 25, 2017)

3 executions so far, and it looks like one more scheduled for Thursday. From what I understand, the other four were stayed and there will be no chance of those stays lifting before the end of the month.

The fourth inmate scheduled for execution is Kenneth Williams (not to be confused with Marcel Williams, whom I mentioned in the OP and who was executed last night), who was convicted of murdering a cheerleader in 1998 and sentenced to life in prison. Then, in 1999, he escaped from prison, murdered Cecil Boren (57) by gunshot, stole his car, and then killed another person (I couldn't find the name) in an automobile collision before police apprehended him. He was convicted of several charges for the escapade, but for the murder of Cecil Boren, he was sentenced to death in 2000. 

I would argue than in Kenneth Williams's case, there was a mountain of evidence that he perpetrated all of the acts of which he was accused, particularly the murder. Mr. Boren's wife, Genie has expressed that she wants to see Williams's sentence carried out before she dies of old age. It's been 17 years since the sentencing in court, and the Supreme Court has already looked into his case and is allowing the execution to proceed. I don't see any reason to stop the execution short of banning all executions.

None of the other cases were as cut and dried as this one, but each of the eight men were convicted of murder, and in most of the cases, the murders were even more brutal than most. But also, in pretty much every case, the convict has appealed to the court over physical and/or mental health concerns.

Where I grew up, in Michigan, there is no death penalty. Where I live now, in Vermont, there is no death penalty. Are these people more dangerous in some states than others?

And to answer my own question from the OP, the parole board reviews execution cases before they are carried out, for whatever reason. The review does nothing, though, because the board has no say in the State's final decision to proceed or not.



vilk said:


> I think the death penalty should be allowed and expediated for those who wish to die. Some sick mofos who are gonna get life would rather just pop out, and I feel that's their prerogative, should be their right. Life in prison is a sort of cruel and unusual punishment really, especially when considering what goes on here in the USA. I know some people might argue that they should be "rehabilitated", and by all means those who wish to be should be given that opportunity, but for those who don't... We could have some pysch evals to make it all kosher or something, but yeah.
> 
> Also, lethal injection needs to be done in. It is surely less expensive, problematic, lower potential to botch death by firing squad.
> 
> Or perhaps allow the person on death row to make a choice. I mean, if you gotta die, maybe you should have some say in how you go. Maybe we could build a giant tower somewhere and let people throw themselves off it; I bet that would be popular.



I agree. I mentioned in another thread a while ago, though, that the volunteer-for-death scenario could easily be exploited by the state, or abused by prisoners. "I volunteer for death." *eat's last meal - surf and turf - fillet mignon and lobster tail. "Naw, it was just a prank the guards pulled on me, I didn't actually volunteer."

But yeah, hypothetically, if I were locked up in level 5 sodomy prison and given the option to check out with a needle of poison, guilty or not, unless I had a high level of confidence of an appeal working and getting out of there someday, I would opt for the needle.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 25, 2017)

You can trot out all the "perfect" cases you want. 

The fact of the matter is, the state has a less than 100% record of only killing the guilty. That's unacceptable. Over 140 have been officially exonerated since 1973, imagine how many more haven't but were still put to death.

Anyone who is cool with that is either an objectively terrible person or just trying to be an Internet tough guy. 

You can talk about "we should do this" or "we should do that", but it's just not how the world works in reality.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 25, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> You can trot out all the "perfect" cases you want.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, the state has a less than 100% record of only killing the guilty. That's unacceptable. Over 140 have been officially exonerated since 1973, imagine how many more haven't but were still put to death.
> 
> ...



You don't think that's an independent issue, though? Is it better to rot in prison for the rest of one's life than to be put to death?

We're talking about folks who sit on death row for 20+ years.

In my mind, the solution to miscarriage of justice isn't eliminating the death penalty, it's fixing the broken justice system. Once the justice system is fixed, then fix the penal system. If you want to remove the death penalty, then, to me, that's an elementary issue that's related, but not dependent on the other two things.

If you think the death penalty is just plain old morally wrong, there really isn't an argument against that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 25, 2017)

Yeah let's fix the justice system. That's easy. Should be able to get that done in an afternoon, especially in this political climate in such a forward thinking, respectful nation. 

Prisons should be better too, like in just about every other first world country. But we'll probably see peace in the Middle East before that happens.

The justice system is broken, no one is going to fix it, let's stop killing innocent people and writing it off as collateral damage. 

As for the choice between prison or death, why not ask the innocent people who spent years of their lives wrongly convicted.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 25, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah let's fix the justice system. That's easy. Should be able to get that done in an afternoon, especially in this political climate in such a forward thinking, respectful nation.
> 
> Prisons should be better too, like in just about every other first world country. But we'll probably see peace in the Middle East before that happens.
> 
> The justice system is broken, no one is going to fix it, let's stop killing innocent people and writing it off as collateral damage.



Hmm, I expected a little better than the "your point has complex ramifications, therefore it is invalid" argument from you. 

Either way, the justice system is broken, death penalty or not, and changing from one to the other is not going to arbitrarily serve the justice system better or worse, either way.



MaxOfMetal said:


> As for the choice between prison or death, why not ask the innocent people who spent years of their lives wrongly convicted.



We did ask convicts. Asking innocent people behind bars is kind of impossible, since, well, they are behind bars because they have not been proven innocent. But, then again, this comes back to my recurring point, that the justice system needs an overhaul, and nothing short of that is going to fix the situation. "Proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" means nothing anymore, other than that you are guilty unless you have money or can prove your innocence.



Kenneth E. Hartman said:


> I have often wondered if that 15 or 20 minutes of terror found to be cruel and unusual wouldn't be a better option.
> 
> There is more to it than the mere physical act of imprisonment, much more. The more than 3,000 life without parole prisoners in this state [California] also enter a rough justice kind of limbo existence. We are condemned to serve out our lives in the worst (maximum security) prisons, which otherwise are specifically designed to be punitive. This means, in practice, rehabilitative and restorative type programs, the kind of programs that can bring healing and meaning to a prisoner's life, are generally not available to us. The thinking goes that since we will never get out of prison there is no point in expending scarce resources on dead men walking&#8230;
> 
> I agree that state-sanctioned execution is morally repugnant. I do not agree that a life devoid of any possibility of restoration is a reasonable or humane alternative. It simply is not. A death penalty by any other name is as cruel, as violent, and as wrong... Both forms of the death penalty need to be discarded in a truly just society.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Apr 25, 2017)

The prison system is broken and hemorrhages money. We'd be better off repealing laws making it hard for convicts to get jobs so they at least have the chance to integrate back into society. If they keep causing problems then ship them to some hellhole blacksite in south america where they're never seen or heard from again. Everyone wins. The liberals get to crow that they got helped fix the prison system, criminals actually have a chance at going straight, and the streets get cleaned up of the truly deplorable ....bags. They'd have to build a lot of laws to make sure the system isn't abused like crazy, but for a hypothetical scenario I think it makes sense.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Apr 25, 2017)

I'm still not quite clear where I stand on death penalty, but here's a question. What do you do with all the mass murderers and child molesters if not prison or death? Let them back out and let them do it again? You say death penalty isn't the answer, and maybe it isn't, but do you have an appropriate alternative? Prison is cruel and unusual? So if not prison, then what? Free pass? Rape and kill whomever you want?


----------



## vilk (Apr 25, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> What do you do with all the mass murderers and child molesters if not prison or death?



I don't remember anyone posing anything contrary. So far in this thread we've only just said that prisons need to be fixed, probably so that they are no longer institutionalized rape facilities.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Apr 26, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Hmm, I expected a little better than the "your point has complex ramifications, therefore it is invalid" argument from you.



Coincidently I expected just this type of off handed semantic put down from you. 

So, way to go. 



> Either way, the justice system is broken, death penalty or not, and changing from one to the other is not going to arbitrarily serve the justice system better or worse, either way.


You can't see the forest for the trees. 

As I said, the system is broken. We agree there. I just don't think any form of serious, meaningful reform is possible, at least for the remainder of my natural life. 

Even if we rewrite law from square one we're not going to remove human bias, error and malice. 

Based on the human element we'll never have a completely foolproof system.

*I don't accept any level of failure in the case of the death penalty.* That means that I feel it needs to be removed from the table, even if that means the worst of the worst don't get put to death. I rather a million 100% guilty serial killers live so that one wrongly convicted death row inmate is not put to death. 

Saying we can "fix" this problem is naïve. We are the problem. Society is the problem.


----------



## russmuller (Apr 26, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> I'm still not quite clear where I stand on death penalty, but here's a question. What do you do with all the mass murderers and child molesters if not prison or death? Let them back out and let them do it again? You say death penalty isn't the answer, and maybe it isn't, but do you have an appropriate alternative? Prison is cruel and unusual? So if not prison, then what? Free pass? Rape and kill whomever you want?



Well, I think it's fair to say that the American system of punitive prisons is cruel and unusual. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are some people so evil and/or dangerous that the only reasonable way to protect everyone else is to kill them or sequester them away from society.

But the truth is that MOST people in prison are not there for violent conduct. According to last month's data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses" accounted for 3.1% of the prison population and "Sex Offenses" comprise 8.7% of prisoners. Even if people who fall into these categories are considered to be beyond rehabilitation, and if prison is supposed to be a horrible, punishing, soul-crushing experiences for them, you've still got the remaining 88.2% of prisoners to deal with.

And as it stands, the prison system is terrible at rehabilitating criminals. If the end goal is to return these people to society, prison should be a place where we prepare people for return to society once they are able to behave appropriately within it. Instead, it teaches them how to behave in isolated, corrupt, gang-riddled societies before releasing them back into the world where it's impossible for them to get decent jobs and housing (unless they happen to play sportsball really well *cough* *die in a fire, Vick* *cough*).

There's been quite a bit of research on the matter and there doesn't seem to be any quantifiable data supporting that the death penalty provides a strong deterrent. Most of the things I can find to support the claim that it DOES deter crime comes in the form of hypothetical reasoning. There really isn't a strong case for it.

So if the death penalty doesn't deter crime, we can simply stop doing it and spare us all the burden of endless appeals and stays (not to mention the moral 300 lb gorilla of state-sanctioned murder of the innocent).

And if the prison system doesn't help redeem convicts and successfully re-integrate them into society, then it needs to be reformed.


----------



## asfeir (Apr 26, 2017)

In Scandinavian countries, prisons look like hotels and the worst criminals are still treated very well. I think the strictest prison sentences over there is something like 20-30 year, yet the crime rates have been in decline over the years. 
I'm not very well informed about the USA prison system, but from where I stand (and I come from the middle east), it looks like a "civilized" version of middle age practices, where the prisons and the death penalties are used to scare people. 

Anyways I think the major problem in the USA lies deeper than that, and the solution could be a change of system which is a bit more to the center-left, where the government is actually interested in helping the society.


----------



## narad (Apr 26, 2017)

asfeir said:


> Anyways I think the major problem in the USA lies deeper than that, and the solution could be a change of system which is a bit more to the center-left, where the government is actually interested in helping the society.



C'mon, man - then how would we fund the mother-of-the-mother-of-all-bombs? 

But yea, the Scandinavian prison system is exemplary, but I would be less inclined to try something as radical in a country that has a far greater range of diverse socioeconomic niches, and a less homogenous population.

Still shouldn't be killing people though, especially if it winds up costing more to do it than life in prison.


----------



## asfeir (Apr 26, 2017)

narad said:


> C'mon, man - then how would we fund the mother-of-the-mother-of-all-bombs?
> 
> But yea, the Scandinavian prison system is exemplary, but I would be less inclined to try something as radical in a country that has a far greater range of diverse socioeconomic niches, and a less homogenous population.
> 
> Still shouldn't be killing people though, especially if it winds up costing more to do it than life in prison.



I wonder if they used that bomb using the same "use before expiry" logic. 

I do agree however that it's not possible to implement a system like that just because it worked in another (very different) country. Still, the system seems so rotten that it looks like it needs a complete overall..


----------



## cwhitey2 (Apr 26, 2017)

I feel like if you are a murderer or rapist you give up your freedom's. I don't think serving time in prison in general is cruel and unusual punishment. What is though, is locking up people in facilities not dedicated to one specific crime. 

When we lock people up for victim less crimes with murderers that's a huge freaking problem...I'll go as far as to say that make the problem/prisoner worse off in the long run.


For profit prisons need to go and get facked as well.


I could keep going but I won't 


Just my


----------



## bostjan (Apr 26, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Coincidently I expected just this type of off handed semantic put down from you.
> 
> So, way to go.



"Put down?" That was genuine disappointment.

Just the kind of person that I am, I don't want to say anything along the lines of "The justice system in the USA is broken, but it'd be too hard to fix it, so, oh well, ho-hum." In reality, that's not an unrealistic stance, by any stretch, but if we are going to have a discussion about the death penalty or the justice system, it just undermines the entire discussion. I mean, are you or I going to be able to single-handedly repeal the death penalty in Arkansas? Of course not. Does that mean we shouldn't discuss it? ...hmm, maybe we shouldn't discuss it. I don't know, - you're right, what good does it do? Nothing.



MaxOfMetal said:


> You can't see the forest for the trees.
> 
> As I said, the system is broken. We agree there. I just don't think any form of serious, meaningful reform is possible, at least for the remainder of my natural life.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty pessimistic myself, but, in my opinion, your stance might be a little overly defeatist. There have been little reforms in the justice system in the US here and there over the years. The world is slowly becoming a better place to live. I believe reform is possible. Do you think a 75 year old person would say that there has been no significant change in the US justice system over their life? In the 1940's, there were still executions in the US for military desertion. Hell, even in the 1960's, people were being executed for kidnapping, robbery, and assault. I can't say for sure that the next 60 years will be anything like the past 60 years in terms of rate of change, but there's really no way to say for sure one way or the other.

So your stance is that the death penalty should be off the table to save innocent lives. I respect that. I want innocent lives to be saved as well. However, we just see things differently, so we don't agree. My opinion is formed around cases like I pointed out above, in which two innocent people were killed by one escaped convict who had already murdered someone else. I place the lives of those two innocent people at a higher premium than the life of the escaped convicted murderer. I know you have the right to have the opinion that my opinion is stupid, but I feel like I've defended how my position is not illogical. 



russmuller said:


> Well, I think it's fair to say that the American system of punitive prisons is cruel and unusual. Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are some people so evil and/or dangerous that the only reasonable way to protect everyone else is to kill them or sequester them away from society.
> 
> But the truth is that MOST people in prison are not there for violent conduct. According to last month's data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, "Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses" accounted for 3.1% of the prison population and "Sex Offenses" comprise 8.7% of prisoners. Even if people who fall into these categories are considered to be beyond rehabilitation, and if prison is supposed to be a horrible, punishing, soul-crushing experiences for them, you've still got the remaining 88.2% of prisoners to deal with.
> 
> ...



See, I don't think it is really a psychological deterrent, either, and, to me, that's not the point.

So, what do they consider a sex offence? Is it someone peeing in public?

Anyway, I strongly believe that the people convicted of violent crime ought to be kept separate from others. I don't think the guy convicted of gambling or tax evasion should be thrown in with the guy convicted of killing and eating people. I also don't really care about prison being "punishment," because I don't see the point. Take the dangerous folks and get them away from the productive non-dangerous folks.



cwhitey2 said:


> I feel like if you are a murderer or rapist you give up your freedom's. I don't think serving time in prison in general is cruel and unusual punishment. What is though, is locking up people in facilities not dedicated to one specific crime.
> 
> When we lock people up for victim less crimes with murderers that's a huge freaking problem...I'll go as far as to say that make the problem/prisoner worse off in the long run.
> 
> ...



Yeah, but what about these eight _five_ death row inmates in Arkansas whom the state wanted to execute before the lethal drugs expired? 

Of course, maybe it's best not to comment - maybe this thread was a bad idea.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Apr 26, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Yeah, but what about these eight _five_ death row inmates in Arkansas whom the state wanted to execute before the lethal drugs expired?
> 
> Of course, maybe it's best not to comment - maybe this thread was a bad idea.



Entirely different situation and my comments weren't really about their situation, which I should have made clear...I was just speaking in general.


What Arkansas is doing is the definition of cruel and unusual IMO.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 26, 2017)

vilk said:


> Life in prison is a sort of cruel and unusual punishment really, especially when considering what goes on here in the USA.
> [...]
> Or perhaps allow the person on death row to make a choice. I mean, if you gotta die, maybe you should have some say in how you go. Maybe we could build a giant tower somewhere and let people throw themselves off it; I bet that would be popular.



I'm surprised this isn't talked about more. Even if I was to be wrongfully sentenced, I would still prefer a shot in the arm and peace compared to a lifetime surrounded by criminals. Hell, I'd probably do it for anything more than 10 years. And honestly, it's the best way to handle the issue. Overcrowding would be reduced, the resource drain would decrease, and things are still handled humanely and with dignity. 

It would also, however, expedite the process due to a more active system, which leads to this becoming more of a concern:



MaxOfMetal said:


> The fact of the matter is, the state has a less than 100% record of only killing the guilty. That's unacceptable.



Which is true. The ultimate sin is to execute an innocent man for the crimes of another, while the guilty roams free. 

However, I am still a firm believer in the death penalty.

The way I see, it should be an extension of the 'degree' system. You have 1st through 7th degree murder, now if we go further than 1st, if this was a clear cut MURDER of somebody, with mountains of proof, put that f***er in the dirt. 
That's not to say do away with the appeals process. Even restricting implementation to the 'foolproof' cases still leaves things open to the human element, again, as Max has said. I also believe that the victim's family should have _*significantly*_ more say than they do. You read about cases where even the family of the victim are fighting through the appeals process for the man that allegedly did the killing. That should be a clear indicator that something doesn't add up. 

I'm also going to venture very far out into unpopular opinion territory and state that 'mentally unfit to stand trial,' 'insanity lol,' and 'mentally ill' are all bogus excuses. You still KILLED SOMEBODY. Really think about what it means to *kill somebody* and how that impacts everybody that has ever known that person. If you're "mentally unstable" to the point where you are _killing people_, society is *still* better off without you; sorry.

Maybe these views come from the fact that I grew up near a prison, and had my daily life affected by the BOATLOADS of convicts running around my town; I have *no* sympathy for the general population of the federal prison system. 

SSO's token conservative, signing off.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 26, 2017)

Totally off the main point why I created the topic, but to add to the discussion of where this seems to be going,

45 / 100k prison suicide rate is 4 times the national average. ...yet it is quite difficult to commit suicide in prison, since you don't get a razor blade, or shoelaces, or even a proper toothbrush, and you are watched all of the time.

I think this means two things:

#1 There are too many folks with mental health problems going to prison instead of being properly treated.
#2 A significant portion of people with first hand experience strongly believe that life in prison ranks higher on the cruelty scale than death.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 26, 2017)

bostjan said:


> My opinion is formed around cases like I pointed out above, in which two innocent people were killed by one escaped convict who had already murdered someone else. I place the lives of those two innocent people at a higher premium than the life of the escaped convicted murderer.



Max hasn't posted anything to the contrary (though I don't know where his beliefs lie on this issue).

His position stated in this thread is that if the convicted murderers were wrongly convicted, for whatever reason, and are actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, then their lives are every bit as valuable as those of the innocent victims you mentioned.

Therein lies the problem - how do you know who was wrongly convicted? You can't, so therefore the lives of the guilty must be saved in order to save the lives of those who are innocent, yet wrongly convicted.

So from reading both your and Max's posts, your disagreement appears to be the degree to which you care to save the innocent. You seem to be OK protecting unconvinced innocents, but not mind the occasional wrongly convicted person being executed whereas Max's position goes further to protect all the innocents, including those who were wrongly convicted (yet convicted, nonetheless) even if that also means not executing the guilty.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 26, 2017)

tedtan said:


> Max hasn't posted anything to the contrary (though I don't know where his beliefs lie on this issue).
> 
> His position stated in this thread is that if the convicted murderers were wrongly convicted, for whatever reason, and are actually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, then their lives are every bit as valuable as those of the innocent victims you mentioned.
> 
> ...



I am not okay with executing innocent people, nor is Max okay with people being murdered by an escaped convict.

The conflict between ideas happens when a convicted murderer escapes and kills more people.

In my opinion, bringing up that the legal system is broken and will never be fixed is just throwing a red herring into the argument, since it's a non-variable that is supposed to have some effect. How does life without possibility of parole sound good if the conviction is totally baseless?  It's not really something that goes in the pro- bracket, nor the con- bracket, you know?

There is a weird factor at play as well, if you want to bring up exonerations. Inmates on death row have way more opportunity for exoneration during their first ten years on death row than lifers. Why? No one cares about life sentences. People given life are exonerated less frequently and, on average over longer periods of time. Imagine doing 33 years of a life sentence without possibility of parole when you are innocent, and then, after all that time, being cleared and released. Because that has happened. What kind of life would you have lived for those 33 years? What kind of live would you be living after you were released? Now imagine, if instead, you had been sentenced to die, instead. Sucks either way, right? But here's the weird aspect of it: on death row, you'd have lawyers fighting to find ways to clear you, you'd have judges more careful about sentencing you, and juries more careful about convicting you. Everything is scrutinized more.

So there isn't enough scrutiny either way, but with a life sentence, there is less scrutiny involved in a life sentence, and the punishment factor of the life sentence is generally thought to be worse.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 26, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I am not okay with executing innocent people, nor is Max okay with people being murdered by an escaped convict.



My comments are based on your respective positions as I've read them in this thread. If what I've written is inaccurate, then either I've misread something or the posts could use a bit more clarity and brevity to increase their legibility.




bostjan said:


> The conflict between ideas happens when a convicted murderer escapes and kills more people.



As I read your posts, I would amend that to "The conflict between ideas happens when a convicted murderer escapes and kills more people*, so therefore we should continue executing convicted murderers even if a few innocents are killed in the process (acceptable collateral damage).*"

If that is not your position, please clarify so we know what we are actually responding to.




bostjan said:


> In my opinion, bringing up that the legal system is broken and will never be fixed is just throwing a red herring into the argument, since it's a non-variable that is supposed to have some effect. How does life without possibility of parole sound good if the conviction is totally baseless?  It's not really something that goes in the pro- bracket, nor the con- bracket, you know?
> 
> There is a weird factor at play as well, if you want to bring up exonerations. Inmates on death row have way more opportunity for exoneration during their first ten years on death row than lifers. Why? No one cares about life sentences. People given life are exonerated less frequently and, on average over longer periods of time. Imagine doing 33 years of a life sentence without possibility of parole when you are innocent, and then, after all that time, being cleared and released. Because that has happened. What kind of life would you have lived for those 33 years? What kind of live would you be living after you were released? Now imagine, if instead, you had been sentenced to die, instead. Sucks either way, right? But here's the weird aspect of it: on death row, you'd have lawyers fighting to find ways to clear you, you'd have judges more careful about sentencing you, and juries more careful about convicting you. Everything is scrutinized more.
> 
> So there isn't enough scrutiny either way, but with a life sentence, there is less scrutiny involved in a life sentence, and the punishment factor of the life sentence is generally thought to be worse.



The system is definitely broken and it won't be fixed in the short term (certainly not while Trump is in office). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss ways to improve it and attempt to implement them, but we do need to have realistic, practical expectations as concerns the results of that discussion.

For example, we know there are many things that will improve the system

- decriminalize marijuana,

- eliminate for profit prisons,

- focus on reforming and rehabilitating prisoners rather than punishing them for past crimes,

- Etc.

But what kind of time frame are we looking at, realistically, for implementing those types of changes?


----------



## TedEH (Apr 26, 2017)

tedtan said:


> "The conflict between ideas happens when a convicted murderer escapes and kills more people*, so therefore we should continue executing convicted murderers even if a few innocents are killed in the process (acceptable collateral damage).*"



Seems to me like the major issue there is that someone shouldn't have been able to escape prison in the first place- definitely not that we should be killing more prisoners regardless of how likely they are to be guilty.


----------



## narad (Apr 26, 2017)

Certainly. And just in terms of minimizing the number of innocents killed, I feel like that's probably an end better served by prohibiting executions and strengthening prison security (/stop making it a privatized industry where the need to turn a profit motivates cost-cutting on this stuff)


----------



## bostjan (Apr 26, 2017)

tedtan said:


> My comments are based on your respective positions as I've read them in this thread. If what I've written is inaccurate, then either I've misread something or the posts could use a bit more clarity and brevity to increase their legibility.
> 
> As I read your posts, I would amend that to "The conflict between ideas happens when a convicted murderer escapes and kills more people*, so therefore we should continue executing convicted murderers even if a few innocents are killed in the process (acceptable collateral damage).*"
> 
> If that is not your position, please clarify so we know what we are actually responding to.



My position is that a death sentence is not necessarily more humane than life in prison, given the current penal system, relatively less prone to error (although still unacceptably high at >1.6% error - versus around >4% error for life sentences), and that there is less probability for escapees causing more problems for society.

Is that a clear enough thesis statement?




tedtan said:


> The system is definitely broken and it won't be fixed in the short term (certainly not while Trump is in office). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss ways to improve it and attempt to implement them, but we do need to have realistic, practical expectations as concerns the results of that discussion.
> 
> For example, we know there are many things that will improve the system
> 
> ...



I agree. I would even go further than that and decriminalize drugs full stop. I would like to see crime classified into one of two major categories: violent crime and property crime. Anything that doesn't classify as one of those two or somewhere in between probably isn't really a crime in the way I see it, as I wouldn't believe someone smoking crack is going to pose a danger to my health, safety, nor property, unless he or she does something illegal whilst high.

Take people who are dangerous to other people, and segregate them from society. Take people who damage or steal other people's property and make them pay for their mistakes, either by monetary compensation or otherwise, if necessary, but don't throw those folks in a situation where their health and safety would be at a great risk.

It's pretty simple, conceptually, and I believe in that concept.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Apr 26, 2017)

Yeah but then even after all that, people will still bitch that you're incarcerating people with medieval conditions. The way I see it is, if you murder someone you don't deserve ....ing hotels and .... to live in. It's not supposed to be fun. It's not supposed to be a joy ride. I don't know how we has humans have come to this point where we're concerned more for prisoners than innocent people. You want to reform prison, fine. But how about we start improving life for the people who are staying out of trouble first? 

I've known quite a few people in prison, my family not really being a gang of model citizens and there are so many misconceptions about prison that Hollywood has instilled in people. It's not all butt sex and bad food. Rape does happen, but it's not a huge part of prison culture like what they would have you believe. Of course, I'm sure someone will chime in and say "well it shouldn't be happening at all" Well, it shouldn't be happening outside of prison either, but it does. Unless everyone is suggesting we go full tilt mind control, prevent future murders and all the scientific .... that would actually prevent all this, truth is, there is no answer. 

Innocent people shouldn't be killed on death row, no. But the alternative isn't much better. Someone will always find a way to escape and when they do, they sometimes kill more innocent people. So either way, innocent people will die so long as our justice system and the prisons it uses are fallible. The question is, whose innocent lives are worth more, the ones being executed by the justice system, or the ones being executed by those who thwart the justice system?

Put your personal price on those two and that should be your decision. As for me, there is no clear cut way.

As for drug use, decriminalize. The people are not the same people as murderers unless they kill over drug money or they perform a crime while under the influence. I will say this, though. I think drugs do cause people to perform lesser crimes like stealing and that shouldn't be tolerated either. I say, treat drug users as patients. They need help. The way some people look at a deity as a savior, these people look at drugs to get them through life. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. They need to be redirected.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 26, 2017)

It'd be interesting to see some stats on the number of people murdered by prison escapees vs the number of inmates exonerated for crimes they didn't commit.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Apr 26, 2017)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It'd be interesting to see some stats on the number of people murdered by prison escapees vs the number of inmates exonerated for crimes they didn't commit.



It would be, but the way some people are talking, NO innocent people should be killed. So what the hell are we supposed to do?


----------



## russmuller (Apr 27, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> It would be, but the way some people are talking, NO innocent people should be killed. So what the hell are we supposed to do?



I believe there is a difference between innocent people dying as a result of violent criminals and innocent people dying at the hands of the state. I don't think this is a particularly difficult or precarious moral dilemma.

Innocent people are killed in car crashes every day, but we accept that risk and do our best to minimize the impact because there is great utility in our society to having automobiles. But innocent people dying on death row are an unworthy risk because there is so little benefit to the death penalty.

If the death penalty disappeared tomorrow, how would the world change? Well, we'd know that we're not executing the innocent anymore, so that's good. And we can save on the burden of court costs in attempting to thwart appeals and please for a stay of execution. Would America be any less safe? I don't think it would.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Apr 27, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I agree. I would even go further than that and decriminalize drugs full stop. I would like to see crime classified into one of two major categories: violent crime and property crime. Anything that doesn't classify as one of those two or somewhere in between probably isn't really a crime in the way I see it, as I wouldn't believe someone smoking crack is going to pose a danger to my health, safety, nor property, unless he or she does something illegal whilst high.



The issue is that this is a _reactionary_ approach rather than a _prevantative_ approach. 

I don't think many people would argue that a person on drugs is not significantly more likely to hurt or rob another person. My hometown was one of the highest meth consumers in the US so I can attest to this, especially after working nights for so long; I've seen some really, really tweaked out people. The type of people that can easily turn into one of these murderers that we're talking about. One of them actually was. 

I used to think that drugs should be 'legal' as well, because it's my body, right? If I want to melt my own brain, I should be free to do so, right? But after spending a lot of time thinking about it, the current system for this is actually really intuitive. 

The issue with preventative policy is that it usually results in punishing people for things they haven't done yet. The drug case gets around this by restricting action only to those that possess or consume said drugs, which is a conscious action that they have to willingly undergo. So we can punish them for that, while still hopefully preventing future crime down the road that affects other people. And since no serious offence has been committed yet, the penalty is actually rather light. I have a coworker who took a kingpinning charge and she only got 7 years, got out in 4 with good behavior. 

As for the debate on the action of drug ownership / use itself, I'd borrow Russ' argument from the quote below and ask what benefit it provides. I did a lot of drugs in college and really, all it did was hurt me. I can't think of a good reason for them to be accessible. Sure, maybe the soft stuff...pot, shrooms, things that don't really mess with your psyche too much and are more comparable to alcohol and tobacco than heroin and meth, but that's not really what we're talking about. 



russmuller said:


> I believe there is a difference between innocent people dying as a result of violent criminals and innocent people dying at the hands of the state. I don't think this is a particularly difficult or precarious moral dilemma.
> 
> Innocent people are killed in car crashes every day, but we accept that risk and do our best to minimize the impact because there is great utility in our society to having automobiles. But innocent people dying on death row are an unworthy risk because there is so little benefit to the death penalty.
> 
> If the death penalty disappeared tomorrow, how would the world change? Well, we'd know that we're not executing the innocent anymore, so that's good. And we can save on the burden of court costs in attempting to thwart appeals and please for a stay of execution. Would America be any less safe? I don't think it would.



Let me pose this question to you, though-
Would you rather be killed by a murderer, or by the state? 

The solace in wrongful convictions is that if nothing else, it is at least a merciful end. Those people that were butchered by that prison escapee- they suffered. That's a fate I wouldn't wish on anyone. 

It's a tough question all around and I wouldn't pretend to know how to solve the whole thing. To be honest I don't think there even *is* a catch all answer without wading into morally questionable territory, I think it's really just a question of what you're okay with and where your personal line in the sand is.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 27, 2017)

^ Right, I refuse to accept that a person killed by lethal injection is as bad as a person who is kidnapped, tortured, abused, and strangled with an electrical cord.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 27, 2017)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It'd be interesting to see some stats on the number of people murdered by prison escapees vs the number of inmates exonerated for crimes they didn't commit.



Yeah...

No one knows, though.

For example, no one knows exactly how many people El Chapo murdered, but the number is estimated into the thousands. Just the number of people he's murdered alone since he escaped is undoubtedly higher than the number of people executed in a ten year period in the USA.


----------



## narad (Apr 27, 2017)

bostjan said:


> For example, no one knows exactly how many people El Chapo murdered, but the number is estimated into the thousands. Just the number of people he's murdered alone since he escaped is undoubtedly higher than the number of people executed in a ten year period in the USA.



You don't think El Chapo is a bit of an odd example in this case?


----------



## Rawkmann (Apr 27, 2017)

bostjan said:


> ^ Right, I refuse to accept that a person killed by lethal injection is as bad as a person who is kidnapped, tortured, abused, and strangled with an electrical cord.



For me personally, if I was one of the unfortunate innocent people on death row, I'd rather be killed my an actual murderer. Hard to think of anything worse than being marched to my death with the knowledge of my innocence, it would make my life seem completely meaningless.

I don't believe the death penalty has any place in a civilized society anyway. The benefits just aren't there to justify it. Even in a 'perfect' legal system (which, I hate to say, it never will be).


----------



## bostjan (Apr 27, 2017)

Rawkmann said:


> For me personally, if I was one of the unfortunate innocent people on death row, I'd rather be killed my an actual murderer. Hard to think of anything worse than being marched to my death with the knowledge of my innocence, it would make my life seem completely meaningless.
> 
> I don't believe the death penalty has any place in a civilized society anyway. The benefits just aren't there to justify it. Even in a 'perfect' legal system (which, I hate to say, it never will be).



I respect that position.

I guess the bone I have to pick with the statement, fully just based on opinion, is that I can't say that a death sentence is worse than a life sentence in the case of the innocent wrongfully convicted. How much more meaningful would a life be spent rotting behind bars with no chance to ever see the outside world again, just waiting for your health to fail you, or to get randomly shiv'd by some animal during meal time.

Is your qualm with the wrongful conviction part or the lethal injection part?

Most states do have a death penalty, even if they really don't actually execute people. So, the justification, in their minds, is going to be why they should get rid of it, not why they should have it. It's classic problem solving. First define the problem, then see what needs to change to try to solve it. Maybe this drug expiring will be the seed that gets the ball rolling, maybe not. If not, people who want the death penalty to go away might want to think of an argument to make to win the authorities over.

I don't think anyone is arguing for states that did away with the death penalty to bring it back.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 27, 2017)

TedEH said:


> Seems to me like the major issue there is that someone shouldn't have been able to escape prison in the first place- definitely not that we should be killing more prisoners regardless of how likely they are to be guilty.



On the surface, yes. But are you willing to execute those innocent people wrongly convicted in order to prevent the dangerous criminals from escaping?




bostjan said:


> My position is that a death sentence is not necessarily more humane than life in prison, given the current penal system, relatively less prone to error (although still unacceptably high at >1.6% error - versus around >4% error for life sentences), and that there is less probability for escapees causing more problems for society.



Do you mean that you believe the death penalty is not necessarily _less_ humane than a prison sentence or am I reading that wrong? If not, I'm not following you because what you've posted in the quote above, as written, seems to contradict the posts you've made elsewhere in the thread.

I do understand that you don't *want* innocent people to be executed. But I see that you 1) still support the death penalty even though innocents are being executed, and 2) provide statistics to support that position. That leads me to believe that your position is that while you don't _*want*_innocent people to be executed, you are willing to accept them being executed as acceptable collateral damage in order to keep the bad guys from escaping.




bostjan said:


> Is that a clear enough thesis statement?



You've yet to formally state whether or not having innocent people executed is acceptable to you, so you're still obfuscating your position.




bostjan said:


> I would even go further than that and decriminalize drugs full stop.



I wouldn't.

In a former life I worked in pawn shops in some shady areas while going to college, so I've seen people tweaking on meth/crystal/PCP first hand. They are not capable of thinking rationally, have superhuman strength and feel no pain while under the influence. I don't want this or other hard drugs on the streets (though obviously our current approach isn't working).




PunkBillCarson said:


> The question is, whose innocent lives are worth more, the ones being executed by the justice system, or the ones being executed by those who thwart the justice system?
> 
> Put your personal price on those two and that should be your decision. As for me, there is no clear cut way.



Why should either be more valuable than the other? That's a false dichotomy.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 27, 2017)

narad said:


> Certainly. And just in terms of minimizing the number of innocents killed, I feel like that's probably an end better served by prohibiting executions and strengthening prison security (/stop making it a privatized industry where the need to turn a profit motivates cost-cutting on this stuff)





russmuller said:


> I believe there is a difference between innocent people dying as a result of violent criminals and innocent people dying at the hands of the state. I don't think this is a particularly difficult or precarious moral dilemma.
> 
> Innocent people are killed in car crashes every day, but we accept that risk and do our best to minimize the impact because there is great utility in our society to having automobiles. But innocent people dying on death row are an unworthy risk because there is so little benefit to the death penalty.
> 
> If the death penalty disappeared tomorrow, how would the world change? Well, we'd know that we're not executing the innocent anymore, so that's good. And we can save on the burden of court costs in attempting to thwart appeals and please for a stay of execution. Would America be any less safe? I don't think it would.



These pretty much sum things up for me.

We undertake a degree of risk every day, including of dying at the hands of a murderer, simply by being a part of society. And while the state is intended to protect us from such a fate, it cannot reasonably be expected to be 100% successful in protecting us. That's simply not practical (though it would be ideal).

On the other hand, we should not undertake a risk of being executed for a crime we did not commit by the very state intended to protect us from such crimes.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 27, 2017)

tedtan said:


> On the surface, yes. But are you willing to execute those innocent people wrongly convicted in order to prevent the dangerous criminals from escaping?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, I suppose I typed out one thing and then changed what I was typing and didn't properly edit it.




tedtan said:


> I do understand that you don't *want* innocent people to be executed. But I see that you 1) still support the death penalty even though innocents are being executed, and 2) provide statistics to support that position. That leads me to believe that your position is that while you don't _*want*_innocent people to be executed, you are willing to accept them being executed as acceptable collateral damage in order to keep the bad guys from escaping.



I believe my statements should have made this clear already, I am not certain what you are wanting, other than perhaps for me to make a specific statement that supports your position.



tedtan said:


> You've yet to formally state whether or not having innocent people executed is acceptable to you, so you're still obfuscating your position.



Is having innocent people locked up for life without parole and dying in prison from the health complications associated with prison life acceptable to you?

Your statement here comes off as fishing around, to me. Maybe I read it wrong, but it really seems like you are trying to get me to say something that sounds like your perception of the position contrary to your own, rather than the actual position.



tedtan said:


> I wouldn't.
> 
> In a former life I worked in pawn shops in some shady areas while going to college, so I've seen people tweaking on meth/crystal/PCP first hand. They are not capable of thinking rationally, have superhuman strength and feel no pain while under the influence. I don't want this or other hard drugs on the streets (though obviously our current approach isn't working).



I'm not surprised that you disagree. But, my position is not to encourage or even condone drug use. It's to decriminalize it. What good ever came out of prison time for drug users?! Rhetorical question.

People addicted to drugs are suffering from a health problem. Why we stigmatize that makes sense - we want people not to do it. But - it doesn't work. These folks need help, not punishment. I don't believe in punishing people. As I said before, I don't think the death penalty is punishment. I think it's an easy way out for someone whose life would otherwise be far more miserable than death. I also don't believe in rehabilitation of murderers.



tedtan said:


> Why should either be more valuable than the other? That's a false dichotomy.



Mmm, well, it is, but there's a seed of truth in what he's getting at. When you fight to take away the death penalty, you are making a statement that the prisoner's life has some value. I would argue that after conviction, it really doesn't. I hate how dismissive that sounds, but, realistically, people in a supermax complex locked in a room 18 hours a day and denied visitation - well, they have a very marginal effect on the world outside of the prison. The victims murdered by such people, on average, have a more positive impact on society. But the false dichotomy is that one is already dead. There are other things people might value, though, which are more difficult to discuss: closure for the victim's families in some cases, the cost of three hots and a cot, the stress placed on prison guards who get spit on, assaulted regularly by inmates, etc...


----------



## domsch1988 (Apr 27, 2017)

Without having read every comment to the word, i feel like sharing my humble opinion on death penalty.

I come from a country where death penalty is not allowed as has not been for many years. My parents raised me in the believe, that every single person can change. Nothing you do know is indicative of what you do or are in 10 years.

With that out of the way, i feel strongly that the death penalty is not a solution. My believe is, that the death penalty is an excuse for the government not to deal with people who made poor decisions. I don't see a prison as a penalty for doing something wrong, but as an opportunity to get back on the right path. I agree that our prisons are lacking in that department. But none the less this is what they should do. Show people another way.

There are a few, and they are few, who do bad things because they have to, or want to. Those who can not be brought back to a life that's compliant with basic humanistic principals can stay in prison for the rest of their life. For them that's a much harder penalty then being killed.

Killing someone is a final act. There is no way back. After that decision is made, it's over. Since these decisions are made by humans, and humans are imperfect by design, this system is inherently flawed. Additionally, the judge making the final decision might have to live his whole life knowing he killed someone who was not guilty.
And finally, the fact that truly evil people kill others should never mean we should too. We should be the ones making better decision than them.

I accept that some of you might have a different view than me. Thats ok. I just feel out of all the imperfect options we have, we should choose the one where the least people die.


----------



## Rawkmann (Apr 27, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I respect that position.
> 
> I guess the bone I have to pick with the statement, fully just based on opinion, is that I can't say that a death sentence is worse than a life sentence in the case of the innocent wrongfully convicted. How much more meaningful would a life be spent rotting behind bars with no chance to ever see the outside world again, just waiting for your health to fail you, or to get randomly shiv'd by some animal during meal time.



I know plenty of people say if faced with life in prison or a death sentence they'd willingly choose death, but I think, until You are literally in that situation it's impossible to say for sure. Life is prison is still some kind of life, and look, I've never been to prison and I don't really know what it'd be like for the long haul, but I can't see myself willingly choosing to die. Depending on my ability to adapt or the conditions of the prison, maybe my stance would change, but as it stands I'd choose to live.



bostjan said:


> Is your qualm with the wrongful conviction part or the lethal injection part?



My qualm is the entire process. 



bostjan said:


> Most states do have a death penalty, even if they really don't actually execute people. So, the justification, in their minds, is going to be why they should get rid of it, not why they should have it. It's classic problem solving. First define the problem, then see what needs to change to try to solve it. Maybe this drug expiring will be the seed that gets the ball rolling, maybe not. If not, people who want the death penalty to go away might want to think of an argument to make to win the authorities over.
> 
> I don't think anyone is arguing for states that did away with the death penalty to bring it back.



Quite simply, the negatives outweigh the positives of keeping the death penalty if You want to look at in those terms, but frankly I don't really like arguing pragmatically about something like this. I hate to fall back on the 'It's just wrong' argument, but for me that's what it boils down to. Realistically I think we still have the death penalty because the public likes it and it makes them feel good when we 'kill the bad guy'.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 27, 2017)

domsch1988 said:


> Without having read every comment to the word, i feel like sharing my humble opinion on death penalty.
> 
> I come from a country where death penalty is not allowed as has not been for many years. My parents raised me in the believe, that every single person can change. Nothing you do know is indicative of what you do or are in 10 years.
> 
> ...



That's an interesting way to look at it. There are no bad people, just bad decisions. Maybe that's true in a society that firmly believe in that philosophy, but as someone who grew up in Detroit, during a time when there was a murder on the block every month or two, I just don't see how that philosophy ties to my observations of the world around me.

To me, some folks simply do not process the consequences of their actions before doing drastic things. Some might call that evil, others might call it desperation, ... I call it perpetual crisis. The deeper someone goes into it, whatever you call it, the more difficult it is to course correct. People who have murdered have been desensitized to the act to the point at which they didn't stop themselves from doing it.

It's a different perspective on humanity and society, I know. I think if I had grown up someplace quieter, like where I live now, I would likely have a vastly different outlook.



Rawkmann said:


> I know plenty of people say if faced with life in prison or a death sentence they'd willingly choose death, but I think, until You are literally in that situation it's impossible to say for sure. Life is prison is still some kind of life, and look, I've never been to prison and I don't really know what it'd be like for the long haul, but I can't see myself willingly choosing to die. Depending on my ability to adapt or the conditions of the prison, maybe my stance would change, but as it stands I'd choose to live.



Well, that's why I posted data earlier relating specifically to people interviewed on death row. 

No matter what, everybody's going to die. Not many people really want to. But, the fact of the matter is that folks sentenced to life without parole are going to die in prison, just like people sentenced to death are going to die in prison. Neither is really that likely to go peacefully, so really, the only difference is that one gets a timeline.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Apr 27, 2017)

tedtan said:


> On the surface, yes. But are you willing to execute those innocent people wrongly convicted in order to prevent the dangerous criminals from escaping?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly! That's the question I'm asking.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 27, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I believe my statements should have made this clear already, I am not certain what you are wanting, other than perhaps for me to make a specific statement that supports your position.



I initially asked for clarification simply to better understand your position. At this point, based on the conversation since my question, I have a better grasp on that.




bostjan said:


> Is having innocent people locked up for life without parole and dying in prison from the health complications associated with prison life acceptable to you?



I don't want to see innocent people locked up for life nor do I want to see them executed. But if they are locked up, at least we have the chance to exonerate them at a later date and make some form of recompense for the years spent locked up, so it is the lesser of the two evils here.




bostjan said:


> Your statement here comes off as fishing around, to me. Maybe I read it wrong, but it really seems like you are trying to get me to say something that sounds like your perception of the position contrary to your own, rather than the actual position.



I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, merely to understand how you deal with the issue of innocent people being executed in your penal model (yes, I said penal model, not penile model ).




bostjan said:


> I'm not surprised that you disagree. But, my position is not to encourage or even condone drug use. It's to decriminalize it. What good ever came out of prison time for drug users?! Rhetorical question.
> 
> People addicted to drugs are suffering from a health problem. Why we stigmatize that makes sense - we want people not to do it. But - it doesn't work. These folks need help, not punishment. I don't believe in punishing people.



I don't disagree that the people using the drugs, especially the hard drugs, need medical and psychological help, nor that our current system of discouraging drug use doesn't work. But people selling these destructive substances should still be locked up IMO, and I'm not sure how to accomplish that without mere possession being a key incriminating offense.




bostjan said:


> As I said before, I don't think the death penalty is punishment. I think it's an easy way out for someone whose life would otherwise be far more miserable than death.I also don't believe in rehabilitation of murderers.



Death itself is the easy part, and something we all have to face at some point. But sitting around knowing you'll be executed, seeing the inmates around you disappearing, grasping at straws via the legal system and pardons/stays, and all else that goes along with it is psychological torture.




bostjan said:


> Mmm, well, it is, but there's a seed of truth in what he's getting at. When you fight to take away the death penalty, you are making a statement that the prisoner's life has some value. I would argue that after conviction, it really doesn't. I hate how dismissive that sounds, but, realistically, people in a supermax complex locked in a room 18 hours a day and denied visitation - well, they have a very marginal effect on the world outside of the prison. The victims murdered by such people, on average, have a more positive impact on society. But the false dichotomy is that one is already dead.



While it's true that a person that is locked up is likely to have a very small impact on society outside the prison, the individual we're discussing here is the innocent individual who was wrongly convicted. And in that case, I have to believe that that individuals life has some inherent value even if it is merely "potential value" while s/he is in prison. Keep in mind, some of the folks in such situations are exonerated and able to once add value to society after their exoneration.




bostjan said:


> There are other things people might value, though, which are more difficult to discuss: closure for the victim's families in some cases, the cost of three hots and a cot, the stress placed on prison guards who get spit on, assaulted regularly by inmates, etc...



While that is true, closure is internal and needs to be about dealing with the loss of a loved one, not revenge.

The stress placed on a prison guard is something that comes along with he job and, as you well know, jobs are not assigned but rather chosen by the individual, so if the stress is too much for a given prison guard to handle, s/he is free to find other gainful employment.

As for the economic cost society bears, it sucks, but is necessary, and can be reduced by penal reform, though I don't see that happening any time soon.


----------



## russmuller (Apr 27, 2017)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> As for the debate on the action of drug ownership / use itself, I'd borrow Russ' argument from the quote below and ask what benefit it provides. I did a lot of drugs in college and really, all it did was hurt me. I can't think of a good reason for them to be accessible. Sure, maybe the soft stuff...pot, shrooms, things that don't really mess with your psyche too much and are more comparable to alcohol and tobacco than heroin and meth, but that's not really what we're talking about.


I completely disagree with how you've maladapted my argument. By this standard, what benefit does soda/pop/carbonated sugar water have? In retrospect, all it does is hurt people. You can see why this comes apart quickly.

There's a difference between regulating the availability of things that exist and having a policy of murdering people (some of whom are innocent) even though the rest of society is already safe from them. The argument doesn't apply to both.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Let me pose this question to you, though-
> Would you rather be killed by a murderer, or by the state?
> 
> The solace in wrongful convictions is that if nothing else, it is at least a merciful end. Those people that were butchered by that prison escapee- they suffered. That's a fate I wouldn't wish on anyone.
> ...



I have to agree with Rawkmann on this one. We should prevent the murders we can, and we can prevent the murder of the innocent on death row.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2017)

tedtan said:


> I initially asked for clarification simply to better understand your position. At this point, based on the conversation since my question, I have a better grasp on that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny how we can agree on 80-90% of things, and yet disagree so much on the conclusion.

Kudos for putting together an excellent argument, BTW.

In terms of death row as torture, I think I know what you are getting at, but, just to be clear "torture" is defined by intent to either extract information from someone or to derive pleasure from inflicting pain on someone. In this case, there is no literal torture. Again, I point to the sources I posted earlier suggesting that death is _more humane_ than life without parole.

I think that the potential value argument applies the same to the innocent as to the guilty, so long as the person is convicted the same.

The economic burden is something subject to a large amount of flux as administrations change and as the economic situation of the nation changes. As for keeping an individual around who has no value to society, I am fine with that. Making that individual comfortable for the rest of his or her life is not very high on my list of things I consider priority.


----------



## domsch1988 (Apr 28, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Funny how we can agree on 80-90% of things, and yet disagree so much on the conclusion.
> 
> Kudos for putting together an excellent argument, BTW.
> 
> ...


The question it comes down to is, does someone how did do bad things forfeit his human rights?
I strongly believe that every human on this planet has rights that can't be taken no matter what he does. The right to life is one of those. And after all, if death would be more humane than letting them life a life in prison, wouldn't this be the strongest argument against the death penalty?


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2017)

domsch1988 said:


> The question it comes down to is, does someone how did do bad things forfeit his human rights?
> I strongly believe that every human on this planet has rights that can't be taken no matter what he does. The right to life is one of those. And after all, if death would be more humane than letting them life a life in prison, wouldn't this be the strongest argument against the death penalty?



What about the rights taken from the victims? 

Here in the USA, convicted felons do not have any protected rights while in prison, and very restricted rights even after their time is fully served.

Say that every person has a right to freedom of movement. This is pretty widely assessed as a basic human right. Do convicted violent criminals where you live still have this basic right? 

If the answer is no, then some basic human rights are voided upon conviction of certain crimes.

I believe the above statement is simply an axiom of basic social theory. Otherwise, if no one loses any rights by limiting the rights of others, then government collapses to anarchy without any power of enforcement.


----------



## domsch1988 (Apr 28, 2017)

bostjan said:


> What about the rights taken from the victims?
> 
> Here in the USA, convicted felons do not have any protected rights while in prison, and very restricted rights even after their time is fully served.
> 
> ...



That's a really tough discussion.
In Germany, you still have some basic rights, even when in prison and found guilty. To a certain extend this includes the right to freedom of movement. Of course not in like "go where you want", but nearly every prisoner has the right to get out of his cell ones a day for a certain amount of time and has the right to get out in the open for that time.

Generally it is the case, that these rights only end, where other peoples basic rights are touched. So, if you kill someone the government has the right to take your right for freedom of movement from you.

Basically we differentiate three types of personal rights
- Rights that you inherit by beeing a human that can't be taken from you no matter what you do (the right to live)
- Rights that can only be taken from you when you trim other peoples rights
- All the other stuff like taxes and traffic and all the other laws


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2017)

domsch1988 said:


> That's a really tough discussion.
> In Germany, you still have some basic rights, even when in prison and found guilty. To a certain extend this includes the right to freedom of movement. Of course not in like "go where you want", but nearly every prisoner has the right to get out of his cell ones a day for a certain amount of time and has the right to get out in the open for that time.
> 
> Generally it is the case, that these rights only end, where other peoples basic rights are touched. So, if you kill someone the government has the right to take your right for freedom of movement from you.
> ...



So, which rights are in the first category, other than the right to not have the government/system take your life?

I could see why this would be a very sensitive issue in Germany. Not only do you have people who still remember the Nazis, but the death warrants in East Germany. But, on the other hand, there are cannibals like Armin Meiwes who murdered and ate another dude, was sentenced to 8 1/2 years in prison, but then public outrage was so much that he was retried and sentenced to life in prison, and a big part of his new sentence was that he was psychologically evaluated to be at a high risk to do it again and again.

If Herr Meiwes had lived in Arkansas, USA, then he would have been likely sentenced to lethal injection.


----------



## domsch1988 (Apr 28, 2017)

bostjan said:


> So, which rights are in the first category, other than the right to not have the government/system take your life?
> 
> I could see why this would be a very sensitive issue in Germany. Not only do you have people who still remember the Nazis, but the death warrants in East Germany. But, on the other hand, there are cannibals like Armin Meiwes who murdered and ate another dude, was sentenced to 8 1/2 years in prison, but then public outrage was so much that he was retried and sentenced to life in prison, and a big part of his new sentence was that he was psychologically evaluated to be at a high risk to do it again and again.
> 
> If Herr Meiwes had lived in Arkansas, USA, then he would have been likely sentenced to lethal injection.



I don't really want to get into legal specifics as i'm neither a lawyer nor do i consider myself really well versed in german laws on that subject.

Also "sentenced to life" in Germany isn't truly "for life". It's like 24 years maximum or such.
And yes, the Nazi Era and the following East German government play a big role in how we as a nation look upon certain things.

Look, i won't argue, that there are, have been and always will be people that are evil and that won't change. I could argue that there are people that by their very nature might deserve to die for what they did. But having laws that allow such practice is not a good thing. I'd rather let 10 people that deserve death live, than kill one single innocent person. Having a law that allows the death penalty makes it really easy to use as an excuse for not having a better plan.

I know very well, that this is a topic where some people can not come to the same conclusion. It's not a topic where a middle ground solution is acceptable for either side.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 28, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Funny how we can agree on 80-90% of things, and yet disagree so much on the conclusion.
> 
> Kudos for putting together an excellent argument, BTW.
> 
> ...



It's those differences that make for interesting discussion. 

For what it's worth, I think if I were wrongly convicted, or hell, even if I were actually guilty, I would prefer death to life in prison - that's a LONG time to be locked up. But I'm not in that situation, so I'm merely speculating at this point.

Regardless, the penal system needs reform, and I think we're better off focusing on preventing crime up front rather than punishing people after the fact (an area where we have a piss poor track record to date).


----------



## narad (Apr 28, 2017)

tedtan said:


> For what it's worth, I think if I were wrongly convicted, or hell, even if I were actually guilty, I would prefer death to life in prison - that's a LONG time to be locked up. But I'm not in that situation, so I'm merely speculating at this point.



I feel like if I'm wrongly convicted I wouldn't be able to give up hope of exonerating evidence eventually coming to light (in most cases). 

Though the system is such a mess that I'd be given a much better chance of finding/using that evidence with resources given to death row inmates than to just general population life without parole. That creates the weird situation where I'd like to abolish the death penalty but if I were an innocent man being sentenced I'd prefer death row (and ultimately death) over life in prison. Better living conditions, better lawyers, a guarantee of more eyes going over the case details, etc.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 29, 2017)

I think one aspect that I didn't see anyone bring up is that our legal system is classist/racist. Minorities often get heavier sentences and those that can't afford to bribe the governor or pay a top tier lawyer often face harsher sentencing. Most poor people plead out and take a deal, and I imagine the death penalty has been the metaphorical stick in many trials to get people to do just that, even if a good lawyer could get them off. Something like 99% of people on death row are dirt poor.

If a rich guy can avoid the death penalty it shouldn't exist (implying guilty people walk with a good lawyer or a good lawyer can properly exonerate their client). We certainly aren't any safer because of the practice.


----------



## bostjan (May 1, 2017)

flint757 said:


> I think one aspect that I didn't see anyone bring up is that our legal system is classist/racist. Minorities often get heavier sentences and those that can't afford to bribe the governor or pay a top tier lawyer often face harsher sentencing. Most poor people plead out and take a deal, and I imagine the death penalty has been the metaphorical stick in many trials to get people to do just that, even if a good lawyer could get them off. Something like 99% of people on death row are dirt poor.
> 
> If a rich guy can avoid the death penalty it shouldn't exist (implying guilty people walk with a good lawyer or a good lawyer can properly exonerate their client). We certainly aren't any safer because of the practice.



Well, you make a very good point.

I think it can work as a bit of a double-edged sword in most instances, though.

As I mentioned, death penalty cases get a lot more involvement from lawyers, and there are groups raising money for better lawyers for death row inmates, whereas there are not for life sentences.

So, if you're poor, you're more likely to get the death sentence, but, with the death sentence, you're more likely to get a good lawyer to get you exonerated than you would with a life sentence.

If you're rich, you're more likely to get that good lawyer in the first place, and therefore, you're more likely to be acquitted altogether.

To me, the most glaring unfairness in all of that isn't the death penalty, it's the gap in quality of legal representation. You could be the rich former football player who has a mound of physical evidence against him hiring seven of the most experienced lawyers to work full time on your case, or, you could be the 50-something year old disabled veteran who can only afford one lawyer, who happens to also be working on a dozen other cases simultaneously.

Maybe abolishing the death penalty is better, overall, for the nation. I don't know. At this point in my life, I don't see it.


----------



## LosingSleep (May 28, 2017)

Props to bosjan for making some fantastic points.

I stopped supporting the death penalty because I found giving government the power to kill its citizens particularly terrifying. No one minds the death penalty when it's Timothy McVeigh or Ted Bundy on trial, but when treason is still a crime punishable by death, I say no. Whistleblowing is framed as treason nowadays, even when it's justified. Edward Snowden could have been technically been sentenced to death if he was tried. (Which they said they wouldn't if he returned to the U.S.)

Is telling American citizens about their government violating their constitutionally protected rights a crime that someone should be murdered for? 

This may or may not be true, but apparently it's on the books that high level drug traffickers convicted are eligible for the death penalty. Again, haven't fact checked that yet.


----------



## bostjan (May 30, 2017)

LosingSleep said:


> Props to bosjan for making some fantastic points.
> 
> I stopped supporting the death penalty because I found giving government the power to kill its citizens particularly terrifying. No one minds the death penalty when it's Timothy McVeigh or Ted Bundy on trial, but when treason is still a crime punishable by death, I say no. Whistleblowing is framed as treason nowadays, even when it's justified. Edward Snowden could have been technically been sentenced to death if he was tried. (Which they said they wouldn't if he returned to the U.S.)
> 
> ...



No one has been executed in the USA for treason for a number of decades, but that's a quite good point.

But then again, if Snowden made it back to US soil, and he was not slated to be executed (or, in practice, even if he was), he would likely spend the rest of his life behind bars. I fail to see the justice in that either. So, in my eyes, it's just a way of distracting from the real problem: the justice system in the USA.

Also, the government definitely has the machinery in place to murder its own people, if it desires to do so. I'd rather face a jury of my own peers to decide my fate than to have my fate decided by a dirty cop in a back alley or in the back of a police van.

I guess I'm fairly conflicted about my own feelings on the death penalty. There is some inconsistency with either position held under the circumstances currently at play in the US justice system. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter, but in this imperfect world, it matters a lot, yet there is essentially no evidence-based argument that places one position ahead of another.

Honing in particulary on McVeigh, what makes his execution more just than any of these Arkansas inmates who were up for execution?


----------



## LosingSleep (May 30, 2017)

bostjan said:


> No one has been executed in the USA for treason for a number of decades, but that's a quite good point.
> 
> But then again, if Snowden made it back to US soil, and he was not slated to be executed (or, in practice, even if he was), he would likely spend the rest of his life behind bars. I fail to see the justice in that either. So, in my eyes, it's just a way of distracting from the real problem: the justice system in the USA.
> 
> ...



He killed 168 people


----------



## bostjan (May 30, 2017)

What is the magic number of people someone has killed to warrant no one minding the death penalty, though?


----------



## narad (Jun 1, 2017)

LosingSleep said:


> Whistleblowing is framed as treason nowadays, even when it's justified. Edward Snowden could have been technically been sentenced to death if he was tried. (Which they said they wouldn't if he returned to the U.S.)
> 
> Is telling American citizens about their government violating their constitutionally protected rights a crime that someone should be murdered for?



Revealing the method and scope of the American government's foreign espionage programs to the governments and leaders the US was spying on is probably murderable, at least in the sense that it will likely cost the lives of other American citizens. Do I have to harp on how ridiculous is to treat him like a good-doer whistleblower when he escaped with hundreds of thousands of classified US military documents to wind up housed by the Russian government of all people/places?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 1, 2017)

LosingSleep said:


> He killed 168 people



Expanding on that, the body of evidence is so overwhelming regarding his guilt that it's an undeniable fact. 

Even if you believe the conspiracy theories that he had more help or was merely the trigger man, he committed the act. 

While I'm an opponent of the death penalty, in cases such as this it's pretty hard to argue against unless we get to some of the more mundane points, like cost/benefit.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 1, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Expanding on that, the body of evidence is so overwhelming regarding his guilt that it's an undeniable fact.
> 
> Even if you believe the conspiracy theories that he had more help or was merely the trigger man, he committed the act.
> 
> While I'm an opponent of the death penalty, in cases such as this it's pretty hard to argue against unless we get to some of the more mundane points, like cost/benefit.



What is the threshold of deniability necessary to trigger the death penalty, though?

In the case of the Arkansas inmate who had been convicted of raping and murdering a cheerleader, receiving a life sentence, escaping, and then murdering two more people in broad daylight, was there significantly more deniability as to his guilt? Would he be more, less, or the same amount of likely to murder again than McVeigh? Does it matter?

In the case of McVeigh, what about several eyewitness testimonies that there was another triggerman? Should he not have also received the death penalty?! I guess it's a silly question since he was never arrested and is still at large. Oh well, I guess that's just kind of weird, knowing McVeigh was executed and no one was even bothering to look for the second guy just weeks after the crime was committed.

It sounds like we agree on an ideological level, but I bet there are some semantics at play. For example, if I were to stand behind certain executions, I would have a difficult time telling people that I was opposed to the death penalty. Instead, I would consider myself a proponent of justice system reform.

As much as I hate the thought of defending McVeigh, I think that a string of individual murders reflects on a deeper seated evil than a single incident that resulted in a large number of murders. On the other hand, the impact on society is worse with the single large event than a long string of individual events. To stand behind the death penalty, I think one either focuses on the impact on society or the psychology of the individual, even if both are taken into consideration.

I suppose it's related to whether you see the justice system as something that should punish people or something that should protect people.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 1, 2017)

bostjan said:


> What is the threshold of deniability necessary to trigger the death penalty, though?



If I supported the death penalty, which I still don't in its current form, I would say the threshold would be undeniable proof substantiated by even more undeniable proof and tangible unambiguous evidence.



> In the case of the Arkansas inmate who had been convicted of raping and murdering a cheerleader, receiving a life sentence, escaping, and then murdering two more people in broad daylight, was there significantly more deniability as to his guilt? Would he be more, less, or the same amount of likely to murder again than McVeigh? Does it matter?



Honestly, I don't know the specifics of the case well enough to say. If there is a stack of DNA and recorded evidence, then I'd say it's on the same level as McVeigh from a "proof of guilt" standpoint. 



> In the case of McVeigh, what about several eyewitness testimonies that there was another triggerman? Should he not have also received the death penalty?! I guess it's a silly question since he was never arrested and is still at large. Oh well, I guess that's just kind of weird, knowing McVeigh was executed and no one was even bothering to look for the second guy just weeks after the crime was committed.



I don't really want to go down this rabbit hole, but everything I've read from legitimate sources has pretty much said that most of the evidence surrounding the "second guy" scenario is not reliable, see the history of eyewitness testimony. 

He did have accomplices, that's a fact, they turned state's evidence and testified against him. He received a life sentence for cooperating.



> It sounds like we agree on an ideological level, but I bet there are some semantics at play. For example, if I were to stand behind certain executions, I would have a difficult time telling people that I was opposed to the death penalty. Instead, I would consider myself a proponent of justice system reform.



I'm still opposed to the death penalty, even McVeighs, but as I said it's not because I think he's innocent, which he's not, or that he deserves reform, which again, I don't think he does. 

It's just for different reasons here. 

I completely empathize with those who want him dead. I get it. I'm not a machine. I know he was a monster. I will never defend him. 

I'm not against monsters being destroyed, I'm against the state dishing out death like it ain't no thing, which is what they've been doing for well over a century. 



> As much as I hate the thought of defending McVeigh, I think that a string of individual murders reflects on a deeper seated evil than a single incident that resulted in a large number of murders. On the other hand, the impact on society is worse with the single large event than a long string of individual events. To stand behind the death penalty, I think one either focuses on the impact on society or the psychology of the individual, even if both are taken into consideration.



I don't think any murder is "better" than enough, even if the state does it, hence my position. 

My position isn't about revenge vs. reform, but how poorly constructed our justice system is.



> I suppose it's related to whether you see the justice system as something that should punish people or something that should protect people.



Why not both? There are situations that demand one over the other. The idea that we can only have it one way is asinine.


----------



## Petar Bogdanov (Jun 1, 2017)

You can't hold someone accountable for murder without being able to prove intent. And certainly not if other people, who he never communicated with, did the murdering, on their own free will, by their own means. Indirectly causing death is not OK, but it's not murder either.

Not that I think the guy is any sort of clean, but you can't be held accountable for other people's actions. Especially, if they are purely hypothetical at the time of The Choice. Otherwise, any president that declared a war (all of them) would have to be sentenced to death, after the end of their term.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 1, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> If I supported the death penalty, which I still don't in its current form, I would say the threshold would be undeniable proof substantiated by even more undeniable proof and tangible unambiguous evidence.


I'd be worried that such a set of rules is too circular. How much undeniable proof before the prosecutor seeks out the death penalty? A: Undeniable proof substantiated by more undeniable proof. 

If you are against the death penalty (I know you are, Max, but I mean the general "you"), then the position of "Never" is nothing if not consistent. The current laws in place are arbitrary, which is spooky. Basically, the judge can sentence a person to death if 1) they are guilty of murder or crimes against the state, 2) the prosecution team is actively seeking the death penalty, and 3) a number of aggravating factors are proven. What those factors are and what the magic number of them is is determined by the state and varies wildly from one state to the next. This is ridiculous, at best. Take two people who commit exactly the same offence, just in two different geographic locations; one is executed and the other serves 20 years.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Honestly, I don't know the specifics of the case well enough to say. If there is a stack of DNA and recorded evidence, then I'd say it's on the same level as McVeigh from a "proof of guilt" standpoint.



Well, I mean, things like fingerprints and DNA tie a person to a place, but not a time. It *is* possible for a person to have his or her DNA at a crime scene without meaning that they are guilty of the crime. For example, if someone gets stabbed in a gas station restroom 24 hours after I happened to use that restroom, it'd be no surprise that CSI would find hair follicles matching my DNA somewhere in that restroom. If I cut myself volunteering to move scrap metal out of a church parking lot and into a recycling bin, then a dead body turns up in that recycling bin some days later, CSI would likely find blood matching my DNA at the crime scene. While it would absolutely make me a person of interest to question, it does not prove guilt.

Now, I am not going to say that McVeigh was innocent, but there is a finite chance, however small, that they got the wrong guy. I know McVeigh admitted that he did it, but he was crazy. I know three witnesses said he was the guy, but those witnesses also were facing the death penalty if they didn't testify for the prosecution in McVeigh's case. Note that not a single piece of physical evidence mentioned in those witness testimonies was found. I know there were six pieces of evidence found on McVeigh that contained explosive residue, but the explosive used was fertilizer and fuel oil, two common substances. Now, was there overwhelming evidence McVeigh did it? I think so, but there _have been other cases with similar amounts of evidence where the accused was later exonerated._ How sure can you be? 99%?

From my perspective, McVeigh admitted that he did it. He wanted to enter the defense that the government was conspiring to kill him, so he had to blow up innocent people as an act of self defense. That's all fucking crazy talk and his execution was justified. But I'm not going to say that we know exactly what happened or that I'm 100% certain he did it. So, if 99% certainty is good enough for me, and it's good enough for you, then there has got to be some magic number of % certain that is "enough."

God, that was a wall of text.



MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm not against monsters being destroyed, I'm against the state dishing out death like it ain't no thing, which is what they've been doing for well over a century.



I mean, I'm just sort of confused. Almost everywhere that has the death penalty in the USA, it has to be unanimously reached by a jury. Meanwhile, cops and robbers are shooting each other out on the streets. In 2015, more than 30x as many people were shot and killed by police than executed.



MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think any murder is "better" than enough, even if the state does it, hence my position.



That's a noble and logical position. I just think that there are other ways to look at it which are equally logical. So, I will not say that you are wrong, even if I disagree with a couple of little things here and there.



MaxOfMetal said:


> My position isn't about revenge vs. reform, but how poorly constructed our justice system is.
> 
> Why not both? There are situations that demand one over the other. The idea that we can only have it one way is asinine.



I think the idea of prison as a place for violent people to go so that they are not integrated into a society of nonviolent people is a pretty consistent position. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying in the above quote.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 2, 2017)

If anyone is still reading this thread, I thought to look into the next execution scheduled in the US, just to see what was up. I'm not cherry picking here, this is the next execution scheduled in the USA, and I was unaware of it completely until I had the idea to look up whatever the next execution is...

Bryant Archer is a 40-ish year old father. He can't keep a regular job because he has psychological issues and a lot of physical problems. I don't personally know him, but I read a lot about him recently. He used to be a jovial kid with a bright future - at 17, a class clown in high school with a part time job at a fast food joint. His buddy Nathaniel worked with him, along with Tamika Collina, an 18 year old college student, Cuhautsemoc Hinricky Peraita, 17 years old with a crazy hairstyle, and Darrell Collier, a 23 year old manager and new father. 

On April 16th, 1994, Bryant was working at Popeye's chicken shack. Around midnight, two men wearing green bandannas over their faces came into the back door of the store, and ordered the money from the safe. Collier gave them the money and asked for them not to hurt anyone. The robbers ordered the employees into the restaurant's walk-in freezer and they complied. The robbers then shut the employees in the freezer, locked the freezer from the outside, and proceeded to leave, except one of the robbers turned around and opened the door to the freezer and opened fire with a .45 caliber handgun, striking all four employees inside several times. The robbers then stacked the bodies of the victims in a corner of the freezer and left the store. Archer, who was struck with three bullets in the chest and seriously injured, regained consciousness, dragged himself out of the freezer, and managed to reach the restaurant's telephone to call 911. He reported that he recognized one of the two robbers as Peraita from his unique hairstyle, but that it was the accomplice who fired the shots, and described the getaway vehicle as a Black Monte Carlo. Police responded to the restaurant, where they found Archer still alive and the other three already expired in the freezer. They then immediately proceeded to Peraita's residence, when they found him with another man named Robert Bryon Melson, 22, and $2000 in cash in a Black Monte Carlo driving near the house. Peraita confessed to the robbery, but claimed that Melson was the one who did the shooting. Police found a .45 caliber handgun shortly afterward with ballistics matching the murder weapon in a river nearby.

Archer spent the following days recovering in the hospital under police protection, because he received multiple death threats from the families of the other victims.

Melson's girlfriend said he left her company around 11 PM that evening and did not return. Melson's girlfriend testified that Melson had tried to coerce her into telling police that Melson was with her at the time of the murders. Melson's girlfriend also was able to describe the clothing he wore when she last saw him, which matched Archer's testimony of what the shooter was wearing, and matched with a set of clothing found at Peraita's residence. There, police also found shell casings positively matching the murder weapon and also green bandannas. The police were able to identify shoeprints in the mud by the rear entrance of the Popeye's chicken shack that matched Melson's shoes, including two pebbles embedded in the tread of the shoe.

Melson was sentenced to death for the aggravated murder of a minor by 10 out of 12 jurors. He was also sentenced to life imprisonment for the other murders. Peraita was charged with robbery, but was later charged with an unrelated murder, years later, for which he is now on death row.

Melson is scheduled to be executed on the eight of this month. Archer has said he will not attend the execution, because he has other obligations.


----------



## Dredg (Jun 6, 2017)

If a state is going to execute people, stop wasting the tax dollars of its people by subjecting these people to decades on death row. Convict, Appeal, Uphold, Execute. 2 years tops.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 6, 2017)

Robert Melson's execution was stayed on the basis of an appeal that the lethal injection drugs are cruel and unusual, which the court acknowledged as likely to succeed.

If he wins his appeal, it will possibly be the end of lethal injection.


----------



## Dredg (Jun 6, 2017)

So let's just put my cultural bias out there: I live in a state where I'm legally allowed to kill someone if I find them trespassing and my life or property threatened.

That being said, I'm neither pro or anti execution. Never have I understood why lawsuits alleging that execution methods are cruel/unusual are allowed to move forward.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 6, 2017)

Dredg said:


> If a state is going to execute people, stop wasting the tax dollars of its people by subjecting these people to decades on death row. Convict, Appeal, Uphold, Execute. 2 years tops.



They kill too many innocent people to expedite the process.


----------



## Dredg (Jun 6, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> They kill too many innocent people to expedite the process.


Innocent people are dying whether they wait 2 weeks or 20 years, why does the timeline matter if the system is indifferent to the corruption at a prosecutorial level?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 6, 2017)

Dredg said:


> Innocent people are dying whether they wait 2 weeks or 20 years, why does the timeline matter if the system is indifferent to the corruption at a prosecutorial level?



Because some have been saved due to having more time.


----------



## russmuller (Jun 6, 2017)

Dredg said:


> Never have I understood why lawsuits alleging that execution methods are cruel/unusual are allowed to move forward.


Because we have the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.


----------



## Insomnia (Jun 7, 2017)

If you're against the death penalty, why would you not be against killing them all quickly?

I'm personally against it for murder (mass murder/genocide/serial killings/paedophilia is another matter...), so IMO, it depends what they've done.


----------



## Dredg (Jun 7, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because some have been saved due to having more time.



Yes, and in the majority of cases, the reason they're saved is because of judicial corruption from the start. The problem does not lie within the act of execution, it lies within the fact that state prosecutors and judges want to get re-elected, so they lock up as many "bad people" as they can and close cases with bad evidence.



russmuller said:


> Because we have the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights.



I'm well aware of our Constitution and specifically Amendment VIII, yet my point is that if execution via sedation then lethal injection is to be found cruel or unusual, that leaves Arkansas with electrocution. Would anyone like to say that electrocuting someone to death is less cruel than putting them to sleep?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 7, 2017)

Dredg said:


> Yes, and in the majority of cases, the reason they're saved is because of judicial corruption from the start. The problem does not lie within the act of execution, it lies within the fact that state prosecutors and judges want to get re-elected, so they lock up as many "bad people" as they can and close cases with bad evidence.



DNA evidence plays a large part as well. There are also cases where video/photographic evidence has come to light.

These men aren't just getting off on technicalities. 



> I'm well aware of our Constitution and specifically Amendment VIII, yet my point is that if execution via sedation then lethal injection is to be found cruel or unusual, that leaves Arkansas with electrocution. Would anyone like to say that electrocuting someone to death is less cruel than putting them to sleep?



Calling lethal injection "sedation" is a stretch. It's much closer to suffocation.


----------



## Dredg (Jun 7, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> DNA evidence plays a large part as well. There are also cases where video/photographic evidence has come to light.
> 
> These men aren't just getting off on technicalities.
> 
> ...



Absolutely, however the era of retroactive DNA testing will end (because legacy cases are fewer and fewer as time goes on) and with cameras becoming more commonplace in America (especially now that the general public is starting to realize the value of smartphones as recording devices), those gaps will narrow.

The typical LI process is three drugs in three stages: induce unconciousness, induce respiratory and muscular arrest, stop the heart. I don't care to split hairs on whether or not step one is sedation, though the drug at the epicenter of the Arkansas LI debate is categorized as a sedative. The argument is whether or not it is the proper drug for its purpose, and whether or not it works. The biggest problem with the botched executions isn't the selective morals of big pharma, it's the fact that the drugs aren't selected and administered by doctors, or anyone who values the words of the Hippocratic Oath. an untested cocktail that was sloppily administered is why Clayton Lockett died horribly in 2014. This brings us back to the Arkansas cocktail, specifically midazolam, and the effectiveness of its purpose. While I do agree that we must stand true to our laws prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, I absolutely don't care if people like Clayton Lockett die a horrible death.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 7, 2017)

It just comes down to how one feels about the margins, and I happen to feel that anything greater than zero is unacceptable when dealing with something so serious. 

I don't care how many monsters were painlessly destroyed if a single, innocent person was killed too. It's not at all worth it.


----------



## Dredg (Jun 7, 2017)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It just comes down to how one feels about the margins, and I happen to feel that anything greater than zero is unacceptable when dealing with something so serious.
> 
> I don't care how many monsters were painlessly destroyed if a single, innocent person was killed too. It's not at all worth it.


I completely agree with you, though I'm neither for or against capital punishment. My concerns are with the way our local and state governments view criminal trials, and how they manipulate them.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 7, 2017)

The next scheduled execution is William Morva, who is well known for his activities in the mid 2000's. He fled police during a botched break-in at a Burger Kind restaurant, only to try again at a Deli a couple of days later armed with loaded weapons. He attempted to flee the armed robbery and was apprehended while trying to retrieve more weapons and ammo to use in his confrontation with police. During his attempt to flee, he became injured and was taken to a hospital, where he ambushed a police officer, knocking him out and taking his weapon. Morva then murdered a hospital employee and fled. He was later approached by a Sheriff's Deputy in the woods near Virginia Tech, and killed the deputy, according to court documents. Once he was apprehended again, he was held without bail, and eventually convicted of capital murder (for the deputy), murder (the hospital employee), attempted murder, armed robber, and attempted breaking and entering, being sentenced to death plus 73 years.


----------

