I can about guarantee you that the army has already assembled an all-star JAG team, headed up by a brigadier general, to ensure that no mistakes are made which would preclude the death penalty.

 

Since you asked ... I think you made your own counter argument for the death penalty, it needs to be more consistent and much more swiftly administered. The death penalty is not a deterrent because people on death row (generally speaking) sit there for 15 - 30 years going through appeal after appeal, and they don't die quick enough. The DC snipers, BOTH of them, should have been executed no later than 30 days after their convictions. The Fort Hood terrorist should be executed no later than 30 days after his conviction.

The same goes for sexual criminals, there simply is no rehabilitating people like that. A perfect example is this psychopath in Cleveland. He was convicted of a rape in 1989, did 15 years in prison, and because he "served his time", was released to live among the civilized people. When are we, as a society, going to stop allowing these people to live among us? I'd imagine it would be a pretty safe bet that if someone knew they would die fairly quickly when sentenced to death, the death penalty would be more of a deterrent.

So basically he is not due his trial? It sounds to me, what you are actually saying is, "THAT MAN HAS A GUN, he has to be guilty!" I have an AR-15 similar to the one used in the attacks, so by your line of thinking, I could have been on my way home from the range, but stopped and assigned "unquestionable guilt". Some of us who own guns ARE actually responsible and normal folks.

 

I am against the death penalty because I think pretty much everyone involved acknowledges that innocent people have been sentenced to death and executed.

If they changed the law so that the death penalty is applied only if the person charged is found guilty 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', and not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and you could convince me it was applied equally and no racial bias was evident in the system, I'd change my mind.

 

Well great. Here we go again . . . I am opposed for the following reasons.

The death penalty has actually shown to not be a deterrent to crime. The murder rate in the USA is many, many times greater than that of Britain and Australia (both non-death penalty countries with similar economies and lifestyles). Oklahoma and Texas have executed the most people, but their murder rates have increased and are higher than the national average.

The distribution of the death penalty is also historically unfair. How about that guy in Seattle who killed 50 prostitutes and got life in jail, whereas the mentally-ill David Hockner got the DP for stabbing his boss? And, is it really fair punishment unless you're 100% sure the person did it? Even then, after showing that killing is an acceptable solution to difficult problems, and violating human rights laws recognized around the world?

The enforcer/head-of-discipline guy at my high school was a prison guard at the most dangerous prison in New England until he got injured and took up a job with the school. He told me about his guard job (which he had originally planned on making his career) - he was the guy who carried the shield when they busted into a cell to take out an inmate. He pinned the prisoner down while the other guards secured his hands and feet. That place was brutal. He saw murderers go insane as they served out their life sentences. A few committed suicide; others were murdered. Many screamed that they could not take another day of the place. He couldn't imagine death being any worse than the hellish, monotonous torment they were being put through every day for the heinous crimes they had committed. Free food and shelter must be pretty minor condolences at that point.

What's sad is that the legal system could perform so much better. Unfortunately, it is rarely a lack of forensic technology that plants an innocent man on death row. Indeed, many convicts on death row are being acquitted after years behind bars as new DNA findings and things of the sort come out.

The court-appointed lawyers who frequently represent convicts are the worst-paid and least-experienced and skillful lawyers in the country. None of the 50 states meet the standards put forth by the ABA for their defense attorneys to ensure a good defense in a death penalty case!!! Not one! The convicts are not being given an adequate chance to defend themselves. No matter how heinous their crimes appear to have been, they are American citizens and deserve the full protection and service of the law as much as you or I.

I'll quote someone who has far more experience in this stuff than me or anyone else on these forums:

"I have yet to see a death case among the dozen coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial... People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty."

- Ruth Ginsburg, Supreme Court Justice

A few more quotations to think about:

"I have never heard a murderer say they thought about the death penalty as consequence of their actions prior to committing their crimes."

- Kansas State Policeman

"The reality is that capital punishment in America is a lottery. It is a punishment that is shaped by the constraints of poverty, race, geography and local politics."

- Bryan Stevenson, Death Row Lawyer

And, finally:

"Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders."

- Camus

Would I like to beat the DC Sniper into a pulp with a crowbar and toss his limp body into a vat of sulfuric acid? Of course . . . but that isn't justice, which is what our legal system is all about - not revenge, which is mainstay of the DP.

 

I have to repectfully disagree, the DP would be a huge deterent if the law was better outlined, then again... Any type of crime would be detered alot more if the law was better outlined.

What i mean by this is, If there were set punishments (and no longer left up to the judge) for every crime, then all the courts would have to do is grant a fair trial and find them guilty or not guilty. Once the verdict is out the appropriate punishment is then assigned.

The problem now is we have either extremely liberal judges who will give 10-15yrs for a drunk driver killing an entire family (to me is murder) or an extremely conservative judge giving the DP to someone who was mentally ill and kills somone while blacked out on meds. If we had a set sentencing system this wouldnt happen.

Now as for the DP not detering anyone, as stated above if you knew without a doubt that if you killed someone you indeed would be killed if found guilty, i can garuntee, 100% without a doubt in my mind, you would think twice and 8/10 times would not do it. But these murderes know that A i might not get caught, B if i do then its a year of trials, C if i get found guilty its 10yrs before my execusion(at least), and D once my execusion is scheduled i can delay it another 30 years by appealing over and over and over. And after that 40 years in jail they are either dead or too old to care anymore and usually die in prison before being executed.

There is a number of reasons why crime rates are rising and not going down. There is a lack of personal accountability nowadays and no love for you neighboor. Parents stopped teaching thier children respect and its now showing.

The DP would work but im my opinion one thing is keeping it from working, the same thing that keeps us from winning any wars or living in a trully free society....and that one thing is politics.


All this being said, if you still dont support the DP thats fine but we need to turn these prisons into proffit instead of nothing but a debt hole. Make these prisoners earn their food and shelter by making them work like they did in the "old days". Clean up highways, creeks and lakes... Sew clothing for uniforms for soldiers or law enforcement officers, there are endless number of things these guys can be doing to make money for the prison.

Either way you go our justice system is failing and in my opinion its because of politics.

 

I disagree with some of your analysis. There are something like 4 elements of criminal punishment meted out by the state (easily checked by a search of the internet): retribution, deterrence, protection of the innocent, and rehabilitation. There is no requirement for all of these elements to be satisfied in each case--that includes deterrence. Whether or not the death penalty deters anyone is, therefore, a bit of a red herring.

I think your last statement requires some clarification. Justice (with a captial J) is not achievable, what is "Just" cannot even be known. We have developed a system of laws that we agree, by social compact, approximates justice. This is justice (little J) vs Justice (big J).

WW

 

I've always thought in serious cases of this sorts, you should have 3 trials. 1/3 XX years in prison w/ parole, 2/3 and you're in for life w/o parole, 3/3 and you are on death row with a maximum wait of 30 days

 

What was notable was the lack of demonstrations. Had it been in Texas there would have been the usual candlelight vigil.

With Hassan, it will be more probing as to what made him 'snap'. Snap? Why are more healthcare professionals snapping? The man has created what seems to be a clear path toward the event at Ft. Hood.

But news reports say 'federal officials' knew about Hassan and his contacts but chose not to proceed. Hmmm.. let's play the old DC game and ask, "Who are those 'federal officials' and why did 'they' give Hassan a pass? And of course, how high did this info go? The FBI was looking at him. Did this info get to Holder?"

 

Yes, that is a great idea. When making decisions that can result in someone’s death, you better make it quick. I believe he was guilty, and I believe well over 99.999% of people sentenced to death are guilty, the problem is, is that there will always be those few cases where bad luck causes an innocent person to be sentenced to death, and if that were to happen to you, you would want more than 30 days to prepare an appeal. I just saw something on the news a couple weeks ago about a trial in the 90s where the guy was convicted and now after the execution it has been uncovered that some of the DNA lab results may not be accurate. There are too many of examples of people wrongly convicted.

Like many others, I am also against the death penalty, and I don’t appreciate snide comments suggesting that anyone with this viewpoint must be a tree hugging fool who doesn’t understand that some truly deserve to be removed from the population permanently. There is a very strong case to get rid of the death penalty citing costs savings for appeals, the fact that it is not a deterrent for crimes, and that the legal system is not perfect and we should not take any irreversible actions. I respect the viewpoints of others who believe we should have the death penalty mainly because I have never had someone I loved been taken away purposefully by another person so I have never truly felt that anger and desire for revenge.

So don’t lump everyone against the death penalty together as a hippie, and I won’t lump those who believe in the death penalty together as an inbred hick. Nearly all of us wanted him to suffer, some think death is good enough, but I thought keeping him locked in a windowless box for the rest of his life would have been even better.

 

I'd rather have my tax dollars go towards a .99$ bullet to kill a killer/molester/rapist than have our tax dollars spend millions to keep these pieces of garbage alive in the prison. Prison solves nothing for these disgusting human beings, and they don't deserve a meal.....their victims don't get to eat anymore. All they are worth is that .99$ bullet to the head. End of story.