End Capital Punishment: A Government Has No Right to Execute Citizens

[member 5645]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
In my current mental state, If I was guilty of a crime which could either get me a life sentnce or death, I would think that I'd prefer the life sentence. I enjoy living too much I guess.

Also, if I knew I was innocent of the crime there's always the chance that I'll be freed eventually.

As a criminal you think like this... You also think you will be freed eventually (but most death penalty opponents use life in prison without parole as an alternative).

I personally would rather be dead than be born in a country where I do not have personal rights. Whatever happened to the crowd who believed the same?


Life without parole, or death? I'd take death.


Edit - thanks for answering my questions - one more thing, Are you against the death penalty? If so, why? I am trying to find out why people feel the government shouldn't be able to take life, but should be able to take freedom and rights.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by phatmonky
As a criminal you think like this... You also think you will be freed eventually (but most death penalty opponents use life in prison without parole as an alternative).

I personally would rather be dead than be born in a country where I do not have personal rights. Whatever happened to the crowd who believed the same?

I was saying in my current mental state, being someone who hasn't commited a crime worthy of death or life imprisonment. That was meant to show that I am a certain way now, and if I were to change so much that I would do something worthy of death/life in jail, my mental state would probabally change very much, and I don't know what I would prefer at that point.

You're born with rights, as well as responsibilities in america. You keep your rights if you follow the law, if you break the law and are convicted by due process of law, your rights can be taken form you, as the constitution prescribes.

Originally posted by phatmonky

Life without parole, or death? I'd take death.


Edit - thanks for answering my questions - one more thing, Are you against the death penalty? If so, why? I am trying to find out why people feel the government shouldn't be able to take life, but should be able to take freedom and rights.

If you read my other posts, I've been the only one defending the death penalty as opposed to life inprisonment in much length. However if prisoners were used for labor I'd be against the death penalty just to have more workers. Except of course, for psychotic violent people who might throw people into the machinery in the factories or something.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by Adam

The reason a state should not have the right to execute its citizens is that it gives the state an easy and permanent way to settle disputes with the citizens. In other words: 'Live by my rules or I use the ultimate force to end the discussion".

Yes, and the state having easy and permanent ways to do things is a horrible thing. We must fight for the state to only have difficult and temporary solutions for problems, otherwise the state might actually enforce its laws upon its citizens... It's not like the citizens voted on the laws, or voted for the people who voted on the laws or anything.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Why is death the ultimate force?
Why do you view death as a more heinous punishment than removal of your freedoms?

Why will no one answer this?

I will answer one. Everybody seems to ignore my messages so you are not alone phatmonky. The first one:

Death is the ultimate force, the ultimate punishment(if you prefer to call it a punishment), because it leaves the involved who have survived safety and the ability to reuptake their lvies from when the victim was killed. It leaves society safer as well. Though this can be discussed. If the offender is kept imprisoned for the rest of his life without ANY - ANY - chance of escape, then that is something else. Or otherwise, the decision to execute the offender is plainly revenge. And revenge is not always the solution(..??)...

The second: Deprivation of one's freedom is the worst punishment. That is the torment the offender is capable to feel over a long period. Death is just a second and then there is no more.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. In Texas, we're adding a nexpress lane

Forensic evidence and 3 eye witnesses means you will be dead within 6 months of judgement, thus cutting down on the cost of housing people for 18+ years and appeals.

Or one eyewitness, with a stranger-on-stranger ID, at night, from 20 feet away, for one second, whose description does not match the defendant, with no useful corroborating evidence will get you executed after a few years.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Thanks to those who have answered, but I'd still like to know...


WHY is it that the state should have the right to remove freedoms, but not life?
This has been said in this thread, and I don't follow the logic that you should have this sort of removal,but not death...unless you don't believe that removal of freedom and rights is worse than death(then we simply disagree on values).

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Njorl
Or one eyewitness, with a stranger-on-stranger ID, at night, from 20 feet away, for one second, whose description does not match the defendant, with no useful corroborating evidence will get you executed after a few years.

Njorl

sarcasm and no facts will get you everywhere.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Thanks to those who have answered, but I'd still like to know...


WHY is it that the state should have the right to remove freedoms, but not life?
This has been said in this thread, and I don't follow the logic that you should have this sort of removal,but not death...unless you don't believe that removal of freedom and rights is worse than death(then we simply disagree on values).

In the U.S. system of law, ideally we seek a balance between personal liberties and a safe society. Ideally we use the minimum amount of force, and yield the minimum of power to agencies assigned to protect the welfare of the population. Personally, I would love to live in an ideal society free of laws, but this ideal does not exist. A lack of law or agencies to enforce that law results in domination by violence if not civil war. It is not possible to live "free" without the protections and therefore the constraints imposed by civil law.

At the same time, I feel that we have yielded far too many rights. For starters, it is not necessary to kill a convict in order to protect the innocent. For this and many other reasons I think the death penalty must go.

I have asked how many innocent people may be put to death each year in order to support a flawed justice system. I am still looking for the acceptable head count. This is probably a quantifiable percentage. This will determine how many deaths in total are acceptable each year.

 

[member 5645]

Who would support hard labor for convicts, rather than just jail time or death?? Make them do work for the rest of us.

Is this a system that both sides agree on? and if so, why did we move away from this system?

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Who would support hard labor for convicts, rather than just jail time or death?? Make them do work for the rest of us.

Is this a system that both sides agree on? and if so, why did we move away from this system?

I guess the conditions prisoners used to work in were equivalent or worse than those black slaves worked in, and people wanted to end that. I'm not looking for slave style labour really, only swear-shop style.

It's really wierd, I've asked extreme republicans, democrats, cynical independants along with communists and they've all agreed that prisoners should be forced to do labor. Can't see why GWB doesn't institute that.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
At the same time, I have known quite a few people who served in Vietnam. A lot of them went over feeling like you and I but they returned with a completely different opinion. It seems that a little killing goes a long way...like the gift that just keeps giving. It seems that killing at a distance is not so bad; you know what just happened, but it’s not like looking your victim in the eyes as you pull the trigger. This is the luxury of "the death penalty": It allows for killing at a distance. First and foremost, I think anyone who supports the death penalty should be willing to pull the switch them self. I you could do this then at least your position is consistent.

I understand completely and I don't mean to sound like Rambo or anything - having never been in a situation where I needed to pull a trigger or (throw a switch for that matter), I can't say that I'd have the cajones to do it. One of the goals of training is to make you not think about it, but training can never fully prepare you for combat. But anyway, that is what the job requires.

I'm of the "put up or shut up" school of thought, so I have to be willing to pull the trigger or throw the switch - and I am. Indeed, one of the reason I joined the military is I consider it a duty. But I won't say I actually could go through with it should the time come. I just don't know.

When I joined the military, the thought of killing and such really wasn't that important to me. I was far more interested in the traveling and other things. Eventually I realized what it was all about. Note I am no longer in the military.

Thats apparently not a unique situation, Adam, but that just makes it more mindboggling to me.

WHY is it that the state should have the right to remove freedoms, but not life?

Your wording makes that a little tough to answer, phat: I think the state DOES have the right to take your right to life - or rather, if you commit a crime where you take away another's right to life, you forfeit yours.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by russ_watters
. Your wording makes that a little tough to answer, phat: I think the state DOES have the right to take your right to life - or rather, if you commit a crime where you take away another's right to life, you forfeit yours.

My wording is only as odd as the statement it is in response to :)
The entire first page is full of people who say "A government has no business executing it's citizens".
I just can't fathom that, if this is the reasoning behind being against the death penalty, such people support jail time at all then.
The only explanation is that they value life more than freedom and personal rights [?]

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by phatmonky
sarcasm and no facts will get you everywhere.

Are you familiar with the case of Gary Lee Graham?

Six eyewitnesses of the shooting say he was not the killer.

The only witness to see the killer up close, in good light and for a prolonged period of time claims he was definitely not the killer.

Four people gave alibi evidence that he was elsewhere.

One eyewitness, who had the worst view of the shooting, testified at trial that he did it. She saw him for 2-3 seconds at most, from 30-40 feet in the dark. Her identification was also tainted by the procedure used by the police.

Even if untainted, stranger on stranger identification under those conditions is inaccurate over 2/3's of the time.

That was the entirety of the "proof " against him.

There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime.

His court appointed lawyer assumed he was guilty and mounted no defense, and has stated so.

His appeal on merits was denied because all of the exculpatory evidence not presented at trial was known, but not presented.

His appeal on the basis of his attorney's incompetence was rejected because his attorney was not incompetent in general, he just didn't do his job in this one case.

That's Texas justice. That's why there should be no death penalty.

He is dead now.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I have asked how many innocent people may be put to death each year in order to support a flawed justice system. I am still looking for the acceptable head count. This is probably a quantifiable percentage. This will determine how many deaths in total are acceptable each year.

This will be hard to determine. In Virginia, the state supreme court ruled that protecting the state's reputation is grounds for destroying DNA evidence after a convict has been executed (the case of Joseph Roger O'Dell III). This is the same court that ruled that proof of innocence is not grounds for staying an execution (Roger Keith Coleman).

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Njorl
Are you familiar with the case of Gary Lee Graham?

Six eyewitnesses of the shooting say he was not the killer.

The only witness to see the killer up close, in good light and for a prolonged period of time claims he was definitely not the killer.

Four people gave alibi evidence that he was elsewhere.

One eyewitness, who had the worst view of the shooting, testified at trial that he did it. She saw him for 2-3 seconds at most, from 30-40 feet in the dark. Her identification was also tainted by the procedure used by the police.

Even if untainted, stranger on stranger identification under those conditions is inaccurate over 2/3's of the time.

That was the entirety of the "proof " against him.

There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime.

His court appointed lawyer assumed he was guilty and mounted no defense, and has stated so.

His appeal on merits was denied because all of the exculpatory evidence not presented at trial was known, but not presented.

His appeal on the basis of his attorney's incompetence was rejected because his attorney was not incompetent in general, he just didn't do his job in this one case.

That's Texas justice. That's why there should be no death penalty.

He is dead now.

Njorl

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/graham.htm

 

[Njorl]

'"I've killed six people already; if you want to be number seven, do something stupid." ~ Gary Graham '

That was from a prison snitch. He probably traded it for a carton of cigarettes.

Nothing in that site alters that he was convicted soley on the testimony of a single eyewitness under adverse circumstances. Stranger on stranger ID in ordinary crime circumstances is terribly inaccurate.

The site makes much of changing eyewitness testimony about the height of the killer. First they say he was tall and thin, then about 5'5" then 5'6" to 5'9". The site is being intentionally misleading.

Five eyewitnesses stated initially to police that the shooter was tall and thin, but shorter than the victim. They were then told that the victim was only 5'6". You can not judge absolute height from a distance, only relative height. Some said the killer must have been below 5'6" then. Later, these witnesses were told the victim was 5'9". The witnesses then alterred their description to say the killer could have been up to 5'9". This garbage was used to dismiss these witnesses as unreliable. The witnesses were consistent in saying he was shorter than the victim. It was the police and the coroner who were inconsistent.

There is no doubt Graham was a thug. He might very well have killed people. But there was no credible evidence presented at trial that he committed this crime.

Just a little thing about judging heights from a distance without reference. I am husky, with short arms and legs - built like a short person. While standing at centercourt alone on a basketball court, an assistant coach on a friends team thought I was about 5'10". This is a man who looks at people and immediately thinks height. He was off by seven and a half inches. I'm 6'5 1/2". When you look at a person without reference and guess their height, you don't look at where their head is, subconciously, you look at their build, and the length of their arms and legs compared to their torso.

Njorl

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Thanks to those who have answered, but I'd still like to know...


WHY is it that the state should have the right to remove freedoms, but not life?
This has been said in this thread, and I don't follow the logic that you should have this sort of removal,but not death...unless you don't believe that removal of freedom and rights is worse than death(then we simply disagree on values).

Yes we do. Your values dictate that it is okay to just terminate someone to remove them from society because being kept in a cage is a kind of death anyway. My values dictate that it is only ok to terminate someone in self defense and that keeping someone in a cage in a civilized state means they aren't treated with cruel and unusual punishment (and someday this will happen) and that there is hope of rescuing those who are actually innocent etc. etc. etc.

I think my values are more conducive to civilization. It helps if you don't just parrot a reactionary talk show host or pastor. Actually think about it objectively, honestly, outside of labels like consoivative or libruhl.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Njorl
'"I've killed six people already; if you want to be number seven, do something stupid." ~ Gary Graham '

That was from a prison snitch. He probably traded it for a carton of cigarettes.

Nothing in that site alters that he was convicted soley on the testimony of a single eyewitness under adverse circumstances. Stranger on stranger ID in ordinary crime circumstances is terribly inaccurate.

The site makes much of changing eyewitness testimony about the height of the killer. First they say he was tall and thin, then about 5'5" then 5'6" to 5'9". The site is being intentionally misleading.

Five eyewitnesses stated initially to police that the shooter was tall and thin, but shorter than the victim. They were then told that the victim was only 5'6". You can not judge absolute height from a distance, only relative height. Some said the killer must have been below 5'6" then. Later, these witnesses were told the victim was 5'9". The witnesses then alterred their description to say the killer could have been up to 5'9". This garbage was used to dismiss these witnesses as unreliable. The witnesses were consistent in saying he was shorter than the victim. It was the police and the coroner who were inconsistent.

There is no doubt Graham was a thug. He might very well have killed people. But there was no credible evidence presented at trial that he committed this crime.

Just a little thing about judging heights from a distance without reference. I am husky, with short arms and legs - built like a short person. While standing at centercourt alone on a basketball court, an assistant coach on a friends team thought I was about 5'10". This is a man who looks at people and immediately thinks height. He was off by seven and a half inches. I'm 6'5 1/2". When you look at a person without reference and guess their height, you don't look at where their head is, subconciously, you look at their build, and the length of their arms and legs compared to their torso.

Njorl

Wasn't trying to change your mind - Just show you that there are two sides to every story :)
BTW- your stat about 4 alibi's? only 2 were put in court, and both deemed unreliable. :)

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Vosh
Yes we do. Your values dictate that it is okay to just terminate someone to remove them from society because being kept in a cage is a kind of death anyway. My values dictate that it is only ok to terminate someone in self defense and that keeping someone in a cage in a civilized state means they aren't treated with cruel and unusual punishment (and someday this will happen) and that there is hope of rescuing those who are actually innocent etc. etc. etc.

I think my values are more conducive to civilization. It helps if you don't just parrot a reactionary talk show host or pastor. Actually think about it objectively, honestly, outside of labels like consoivative or libruhl.

That's fine, I simply was looking for that as an answer.


just parrot a reactionary talk show host? give me a ****ing break. I was asking a legit question, and I was going to thank you for answering, but apparently that's not needed.

So my question now is, do you feel the same way about your rights, as you do a prisoners- simply, would you rather be dead, or live in a place where you have no rights? I'd personally prefer death.

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by phatmonky
That's fine, I simply was looking for that as an answer.


just parrot a reactionary talk show host? give me a ****ing break. I was asking a legit question, and I was going to thank you for answering, but apparently that's not needed.

So my question now is, do you feel the same way about your rights, as you do a prisoners- simply, would you rather be dead, or live in a place where you have no rights? I'd personally prefer death.

Ppl. who take things personally and cry hot tears over it and feel the need to hit back like a baby have not reached adulthood yet. There should be a separate forum (planet) for you folks. Call me when you're grown up.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by Vosh
Ppl. who take things personally and cry hot tears over it and feel the need to hit back like a baby have not reached adulthood yet. There should be a separate forum (planet) for you folks. Call me when you're grown up.

I should not interfere, but that comment did not make you any better. Be humble and try to understand instead of throwing the same pie back.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Vosh
Ppl. who take things personally and cry hot tears over it and feel the need to hit back like a baby have not reached adulthood yet. There should be a separate forum (planet) for you folks.

Call me when you're grown up.

What is your problem? Legitimate questions were asked, but you feel the need to begin personal attacks.

Reap what you sow, sir.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Why is it that the government doesn't have the right to kill it's citizens, but it has the right to imprison them (remove their freedoms)?

Because 'removing there freedoms' is a reversable event, removing their lives, isn't.

 

[timejim]

Originally posted by Thallium
I will answer one. Everybody seems to ignore my messages so you are not alone phatmonky. The first one:

Death is the ultimate force, the ultimate punishment(if you prefer to call it a punishment), because it leaves the involved who have survived safety and the ability to reuptake their lvies from when the victim was killed. It leaves society safer as well. Though this can be discussed. If the offender is kept imprisoned for the rest of his life without ANY - ANY - chance of escape, then that is something else. Or otherwise, the decision to execute the offender is plainly revenge. And revenge is not always the solution(..??)...

The second: Deprivation of one's freedom is the worst punishment. That is the torment the offender is capable to feel over a long period. Death is just a second and then there is no more.

I agree.

 

[timejim]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Wasn't trying to change your mind - Just show you that there are two sides to every story :)
BTW- your stat about 4 alibi's? only 2 were put in court, and both deemed unreliable. :)

Yes, eyewitness testimony can be very erroneous.

 

[Julian Solos]

Originally posted by timejim
And we call ourselves "civilized". I say get rid of all of them. A Government has no business executing its' Citizens, for any reason.

If we were "civilized," what the heck are we doing in Iraq?


"Reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq

As of Thursday, 22nd January 2004

Reported Minimum
8037

Reported Maximum
9874 "

From: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Julian Solos
If we were "civilized," what the heck are we doing in Iraq?


"Reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq

As of Thursday, 22nd January 2004

Reported Minimum
8037

Reported Maximum
9874 "

From: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

That's war sir. Try not to use this thread for your soapbox on a different issue