Capital Punishment: Is it right?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Can you provide any support for the claim that actual "death row" inmates have escaped, been released due to over crowding and clerical errors? Without factual proof of these your argument is a strawman. BTW, early releases of sex offenders and convicts turned murderers after the fact is not evidence of actual "death row" inmates returning to threaten the public by the means you've claimed to occur.

Glad you asked!

Heres one from last november:
http://www.canada.com/news/world/sto...0-87e57b7404d4

Heres another which implys there were previous ones (from death row)

Brothers Linwood and James Briley were executed in Virginia on October 12, 1984 and April 18, 1985, respectively. Linwood had murdered a disc jockey in 1979 during a crime spree. During the same spree, James raped and killed a woman (who was eight months pregnant) and killed her five-year-old son. On May 31, 1984, the Briley brothers organized and led an escape of five death-row inmates (the largest death-row breakout in U.S. history). They were at large for 19 days.

Is this name familiar?
On June 10, 1977, James Earl Ray, who was serving a 99-year term for killing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., escaped with six other inmates from the Brushy Mountain State Prison in Tennessee (he was captured three days later).

Life without parole means more time to plot an escape:
On April 3, 1988 three murderers serving life sentences without the chance of parole escaped from the maximum-security West Virginia Penitentiary. One, Bobby Stacy, had killed a Huntington police officer in 1981. At the time, he had been free on bail after having been arrested for shooting an Ohio patrolman. (meaning at the time he killed the policeman he was on bail)

And my personal favorite, only because of the reputation Joliet (max security) has:
On February 11, 1990 six convicts, including three murderers, escaped from their segregation cells in the maximum security Joliet Correctional Center in Illinois by cutting through bars on their cells, breaking a window, and crossing a fence. In what may be the understatement of the year, a prison spokesman told reporters: "Obviously, this is a breach of security."

Yesterday I read a post of yours and asked for some clarification. Maybe you missed it so I will repost it here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by C1ay
There's a few but the vast majority of would be killers are not vividly aware of the consequences of their actions.... /Quote

Cedars replied:
And you know this because ...?

[ronthepon]

One can argue against DP by saying that to killing them is a method of removing them from society, a result that could be achieved by life imprisonment (unbreakable jails).

Naturally, keeping them alive will cost more than having them buried, and the whole matter of having them snuff it will get a load off the society's back... and there's nothing that can be said about what the person feels other than a number of days of fear, followed by realisation, acceptance and then unbreakable slumber. (something that would happen sometime or other)

But still, what right does anybody have to end it for another person? I refuse to acnowledge the self given right to kill that 'society' gets itself to have.

The best bet would be to give the criminals the choice to wether they want to die all at once or to die by degrees (i.e. life imprisonment).

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Quote:
Originally Posted by C1ay
There's a few but the vast majority of would be killers are not vividly aware of the consequences of their actions.... /Quote

Cedars replied:
And you know this because ...?

Because executions are no longer public. I chose the term "vivid" to imply the viewing of the execution and no one but a select few are chosen. Of those I'm not aware that any are thugs that someone is trying to deter but instead they are family members of the victim and witnesses.

[Qfwfq]

Supplying examples of robbers that avoided killing people doesn't prove much about deterrence, it happens often when they know the sentence can be a lot worse, even without DP.

As for the costs that have been discussed, the sad irony is that the comparison of these include the fact that in the US the prisoner's constitutional rights must be guaranteed and protected... up until the person is executed! Such a constitution, sanctifying these rights while allowing DP, doesn't quite match up to me.

Originally Posted by Freddy

Again the Supreme Court of the US decided that the jury that convicted the murderer will decide the death penalty. Judges have no say except in rulings and instructions to the jury. It is ordinary citizens who decide the murderer's fate.

Again, you and Sebbysteiny just miss my points.

Shifting it from the judge to the jury has no relevance. If your judges don't have some kind of a crystal ball, neither do your juries. In any case my point to which he Sebbysteiny responded had been a reply to Bill, about alternatives. There have been cases of successful reformation, even of the most vile criminals, it is largely a matter of someone being capable of doing it.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Glad you asked!

Heres one from last november:
http://www.canada.com/news/world/sto...0-87e57b7404d4

Heres another which implys there were previous ones (from death row)...?

It sounds like the system failed to lock these guys up well enough. Which do you think would be cheaper? Another $1,000,000 plus each to kill these guys or a lifetime at Supermax? Note, I'm not asking if they deserve to die, just what is cheaper for society?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by C1ay

It sounds like the system failed to lock these guys up well enough. Which do you think would be cheaper? Another $1,000,000 plus each to kill these guys or a lifetime at Supermax? Note, I'm not asking if they deserve to die, just what is cheaper for society?

I dont know that we should use the cost factor as a reason to dismantle the dp. It seems to me that it should be more expensive to take a dp case to trial and conclusion as a result of a higher burden of proof and an effort by the state to ensure that only guilty parties are sentenced to this. We could change the rules and make it less expensive, but personally I dont want to see that.

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by C1ay

The "on topic" discussion is about the death penalty though. These other convicts are just that, non-death-row inmates. It's unfortunate that they were not properly secured but that is not the fault of the death penalty, or the lack thereof, but a fault of their jailers.

This to me is a synical post if I've ever heard one. Are we not missing the possibility that those prisoners realeased on parole might, just might, have been reformed and that the parole system might, and again just might, work sometimes?

Originally Posted by Ceders

On May 31, 1984, the Briley brothers organized and led an escape of five death-row inmates (the largest death-row breakout in U.S. history). They were at large for 19 days.
[followed by other good examples of break outs in dp and non-dp penalties all tied together with]
Life without parole means more time to plot an escape

I'm not convinced about Ronthaporn's "unbreakable jails" to attack the chance of a break out. I was very close to suggesting it myself, but I think that although one can minimise the probability of a break out, one can't reduce the chance to zero altogether.

Is the probability of break out when awarded the dp much lower than the probability of break out in a life sentence? Only if it is can I see any advantage for the dp owing to the 'break out' factor.

But even if there is, what are the consequences of these rare breakouts? Have many people been harmed? Is the 'break out' factor just a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of crime that might be cut by investing the savings of scrapping the dp in new policemen (or other police resources)? I'm really not convinced this 'break out' factor has much impact on the protection of society and therefore this debate.

Originally Posted by C1ay

Because executions are no longer public. I chose the term "vivid" to imply the viewing of the execution and no one but a select few are chosen. Of those I'm not aware that any are thugs that someone is trying to deter but instead they are family members of the victim and witnesses.

I agree to a certain extent. There is something about seeing a rotting carcass hanging in the streets with its body parts and organs disembowled that might make people doublethink their actions.

But just because deterence is not what it used to be in 'the good old days', does this mean that deterence is all but irrelivent today? I'm not convinced. Surely the knowledge that you might die counts for something even if you can't physically see the consequences in your day to day life?

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Shifting it from the judge to the jury has no relevance. If your judges don't have some kind of a crystal ball, neither do your juries. In any case my point to which he Sebbysteiny responded had been a reply to Bill, about alternatives. There have been cases of successful reformation, even of the most vile criminals, it is largely a matter of someone being capable of doing it.

Your argument as far as I can see is based on the assumption that a serial murderer has an absolute right to reform and 'accomplish great things' if he is capable of doing so. That assumption is in my opinion highly questionable. Just because he can pick up a few self help books does not give him an instant pardon for what he has done. It is, at best, litigating circumstances that the Jury may or may not consider when choosing the appropriate sentence.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Cedars

I dont know that we should use the cost factor as a reason to dismantle the dp. It seems to me that it should be more expensive to take a dp case to trial and conclusion as a result of a higher burden of proof and an effort by the state to ensure that only guilty parties are sentenced to this. We could change the rules and make it less expensive, but personally I dont want to see that.

Cost is just one reason and it does cost a lot more, all at our expense. Even at the extra expense there have been a number of innocent people identified on death row as a result of technology advances. This proves that innocent people are getting death sentences even if it is rare. Should the death penalty be put on hold at least until there is a 100% certainty that the people there actually deserve to be there? If proving that level of certainty is cost prohibitive then why spend the money? Give them life and throw away the key.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Because executions are no longer public. I chose the term "vivid" to imply the viewing of the execution and no one but a select few are chosen. Of those I'm not aware that any are thugs that someone is trying to deter but instead they are family members of the victim and witnesses.

OK that helped clarify what you meant. I understood your original comment as they didnt understand they could face the DP, that they were unaware of the potential for their own demise.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Cost is just one reason and it does cost a lot more, all at our expense. Even at the extra expense there have been a number of innocent people identified on death row as a result of technology advances. This proves that innocent people are getting death sentences even if it is rare. Should the death penalty be put on hold at least until there is a 100% certainty that the people there actually deserve to be there? If proving that level of certainty is cost prohibitive then why spend the money? Give them life and throw away the key.

Throw away the key and what? Solitary confinement? No access to others besides corrections workers? Here come the lawsuits for cruel and unusal punishment.

Lifers (no parole) have nothing to lose. Think of the psycology behind this and its cause and effect. Sometimes there are people who are born who just dont care about anyone else. Simply put they are wired differently and the effect of this wiring is a detriment to society. Even in the extreme when they end up 'lifers' as has been suggested, they put anyone who they come in contact with at risk for further harm (including the prison personal).

Contracts on others lives have been issued by persons in prison. Mafia types, gang members, drug dealers have all been accused (and sometimes convicted) of arranging hits on people on the outside. Heres one example: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/mafia_mexican.htm

As far as 100% certainty there is no way to ensure the system wont fail on occasion. But if (and there are studies that suggest this is true) the DP stops one-two-three additional murders for every execution carried out it has saved an innocents life and been a deterrent. Who puts a price on the innocent?

When criminals themselves indicate that it was the potential for a DP conviction that inspired them to carry a toy gun, protect guards who were overpowered, etc, I think you have your deterrent case made. Who knows better than those who have made such a choice.