eventually death penality abolished

[sanctus]

I just read somewhere (and I guess that's long after the decision) that death penalty has eventually been abolished in the US, at least for the peopkle under 18.
What I also heard is that this raised many critics, is this true? What do they critic?

And also what does under 18 mean? Does it mean that if I'm sixteen I will get executed only on my 18th birthday or that if I'm 16 £I will at the maximum ge lifelong while it would be death for an over 18?

[CraigD]

A quick, imprecise summary of US policy of capital punishment (Many web sources, such as the wikipedia article “Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States” are available for greater detail and precision):

• Nearly all capital crimes are tried under the laws of individual states (California, Texas, etc), rather than the laws of the United States (federal law).
• Some states (38) currently have the death penalty, some (12) don’t. This number fluctuates historically, as states ban, then reinstate the death penalty.
• Since 1977, only one crime, murder, has resulted in executions, although several other crimes. In particular, the Supreme Court of the US prohibited execution as a penalty for rape in all the states in 1977.

So, understanding execution in the US is complicated by the fact that the US, from a judicial perspective, is neither a federation of sovereign states, not a single, centrally ruled state, but a kind of combination of the two.

To answer some of sanctus’s specific questions:

Originally Posted by sanctus

I just read somewhere (and I guess that's long after the decision) that death penalty has eventually been abolished in the US, at least for the peopkle under 18.

True, but only since March 1 2005! When the SCOTUS prohibited executions of people under 18 (see “Roper vs. Simmons”).

In general, people under 18 convicted of crimes in the US can only be charged as juveniles, and imprisoned in special jails until their 25th birthday. Exceptions can be made, however, to try juveniles as adults. Mentally handicapped people are subject to similar laws.

What I also heard is that this raised many critics, is this true? What do they critic?

Many people in the US take a “hard line” approach in which they believe that even very young people should be held to adult standards for very serious crimes, such as murder. Recently, an elementary school child (about 8 years old) intentionally killed a classmate, igniting much heated debate of this kind.

I believe that some awareness of a theo-political movement known as Dominionism (or, more descriptively, I think, Christian Reconstructionism) is helpful in understanding this sort of thinking. Some people believe that the Old Testament of the Holy Bible should become the basis of the law of the US. This document contains some very severe and explicit language regarding capital punishment. In particular,

Deuteronomy 21 (King James Version)
18: If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21: And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I believe that most people, and most Americans, don’t believe this is a good policy.

And also what does under 18 mean? Does it mean that if I'm sixteen I will get executed only on my 18th birthday or that if I'm 16 £I will at the maximum ge lifelong while it would be death for an over 18?

It means you must be 18 at the time you commit the crime of which you are found guilty. A 16 year-old might get life in prison without parole, or only be held until his 25th birthday.

A cople of closing notes:

• Although the US does continue to execute people for crimes, I believe that there is great reluctance and ambivalence about this policy, even from Americans who support it. The strongest reservations, I believe, is due to its potential for executing people who have been convicted of crimes they have not actually committed. There is compelling, but not irrefutable, evidence that this has actually happened as many as 25 times since 1977, and over 100 cases where people awaiting execution (“on death row”) were released when later evidence emerged showing them to have not committed the crime of which they had been convicted.
• I personally do not believe that the state should, for any crime, proven to any degree of certainty, execute people. I believe that life in prison should be the maximum penalty for any crime.

[Fishteacher73]

Great reply, Craig.

Texas and Bush have still been very vocal and active advocated of the death penalty. Bush refused many stays of execution for juveniles while gov, and even went on TV mocking Carla Faye Tucker prior to her execution. Bush also likes to kill the retards too.

[Buffy]

Another one of those "yeah he definitely deserves it, but he was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his books" story:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/25/wi....ap/index.html

Like I always say, if you're sure about your position on the death penalty or any severe punishment, read Melville, preferably "Billy Budd"...

Ambivalently Certain,
Buffy

[questor]

the death penalty acts as a certain deterrent to those to whom it is administered. i would assume that those against the penalty would not invoke it against undeniably guilty persons such as Speck, Gacy, Manson, Dahmer and others who aknowledge committing unbelievably horrific crimes. it is one thing to be a distant spectator of an event, and quite another to be a family member of the victim. this shows a total lack of empathy to the victim and compels society to support another sadistic animal for the rest of his life.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by questor

i would assume that those against the penalty would not invoke it against undeniably guilty persons such as Speck, Gacy, Manson, Dahmer and others who aknowledge committing unbelievably horrific crimes.

Agreed.

it is one thing to be a distant spectator of an event, and quite another to be a family member of the victim. this shows a total lack of empathy to the victim and compels society to support another sadistic animal for the rest of his life.

I am opposed to the death penalty. I do not totally lack empathy for victims of crimes currently punishable by death in the several states of the United States.

In 1985, my 5th closest friend (if it possible to count such things) was senselessly killed by 7 .22 caliber bullets, 3 in the back, 4 in the head. His killer, an anguished and disturbed individual, and also a friend of ours, was quickly arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and is currently serving a 35 year sentence in a state penitentiary.

The empathy I feel for the victim, his family, and his large community of friends, is more than I can begin to put into words. Although reaction varied – I’m reasonably sure that, if not for the protection afforded by his arrest, the killer would have been killed by one of several people in angry, grief-stricken retaliation – his immediate family, including his father, a Baptist minister, held to their moral principles, and at no time publicly called for the execution of their son’s killer.

Neither opponents nor proponents of the death penalty are without natural human empathy and compassion. The debate is one of moral principle, and practical jurisprudence.

[Boerseun]

I don't support the death sentence.

But I think we can come up with better reasons than "maybe he's not guilty".

In my opinion, whenever the harshest possible sentence is passed, in this case the death sentence, it is passed because the individual broke a law that was passed by the government. So, in other words, the government tells you "if you do this and that, fine, but do this, and we'll hang/electrocute/etc. you. And the government is a collection of people, fallible, as we all are. They should not have the power to decide on whether any one individual deserves the right to breathe, or not, as the case might be.

Whenever the death sentence comes under discussion, people usually don't bring up martial law. And that's even worse. A firing squad for espionage? Come on!

Whilst I have all the sympathy possible for the family members and friends of victims in capital crimes, I simply cannot condone the government having the power to snuff someone out for breaking human-made laws.

If the US decides to can the death sentence, all I can say is "Whoohoo! One step closer to civilization! We will not lower ourselves to the level of killers by killing them!"

If they end up rotting in jail, so be it. But don't take away their shoelaces - maybe they end up hanging themselves, thereby saving the taxpayer another 40 to 50 years of dinners.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

... thereby saving the taxpayer another 40 to 50 years of dinners.

Actually, there's not much difference between locking 'em up and sending them to ol' sparky: the two sides on this issue each come up with estimates that say the other method is twice as expensive as what they propose. We lazy skeptics just split the difference and conclude that on the average there's no difference.

My thinking has more to do with effective punishment though: it seems like while some criminals want to avoid the death penalty, making them be some gang leader's bitch for 40 or 50 years is much worse punishment than putting them out of their misery quickly. There are also the "martyrs" who want to die, who won't be punished by death, so making them live and torturing them (well, not *actively*, but, you know, let the CIA visit them for training every so often...) is the *only* way to punish them!

Cheers,
Buffy

[IrishEyes]

4 8 15 16 23 42....Repeat every 108 minutes...or *else*!

Are those your lottery numbers?

[Fishteacher73]

Originally Posted by questor

the death penalty acts as a certain deterrent to those to whom it is administered.

Actually most research shows no deterrent factor, and actually there tends to be a spike of violent crime in an area following an exectution.

i would assume that those against the penalty would not invoke it against undeniably guilty persons such as Speck, Gacy, Manson, Dahmer and others who aknowledge committing unbelievably horrific crimes.

Only one of these individuals (Gacey) got the death penalty.

it is one thing to be a distant spectator of an event, and quite another to be a family member of the victim. this shows a total lack of empathy to the victim and compels society to support another sadistic animal for the rest of his life.

There is some debate about the fiscal issues involving DP Vs. Life sentences (as Buffy has pointed out). Her stance is reasonable and really affords less to the DP side as it has equal if not more cost than life.
There is much talk about closure for the victims family. This really does not happen. There are some that find solace for their loved one's death by blood in return, but not many. Most find that it gives nothing more than another corpse. That corpse also have a family that must now cope with the loss of one of their loved ones. The emotional cost of the death penalty far out weighs the returns.