Posted on 02/14/2007 10:19:32 AM PST by jsmith1942
Even if you could argue justified killing by the state, the fact that a poor person is much more likely to be "worthy" of execution is indefensible.
I find it incredibly ironic that conservatives who want the government out of our lives also think they should have the ultimate power of life and death upon the people.
Unless, of course, "poor" people (by whatever definition of "poor" is being used at the moment) are much more likely to commit first degree murder.
Even if what we have currently are half and three quarter measures to sentence people to death, then there should be at least half and three quarter measures to punish those who bear false witness. Such as Nifong should at this point be tried and convicted with a heavy sentence 25 years to life for his conspiracy.
If wealthy folks can afford to escape penalty through conspiracy and collaboration, then those same wealthy folk should be held accountable for that. If a DA or Sheriff conspires against a fall guy for other reasons then that Sheriff and DA should be held fully accountable. Make them indistiguishable from Journalists held accountable for their sources.
I realized I was preachin to the choir- I wasn't really responding to what you said so much as I was basically agreeing and making a statement for this thread.
I'm referring to a comparison of first-degree murder representation, wherein the wealthy can hire the slickest, most experienced lawyer on the planet and avoid the death penalty while some dish-washer gets stuck with a somnabulist, state-provided defense attorney. Who do you think is going to the chair? Phil Spector or Joe Blow? You know, third class compartment on the Titanic, and all that...
I agree. People who conspire to frame the innocent or doctor evidence to point to an innocent person should face the same potential sentence as the crime they framed their victim for. If Nifong was facing 25 to life, I think he would have handled the evidence exonerating the Duke players with greater...um...respect for the law.
A hypothetical statistical analysis that doesn'tr capture reality.
The definition of "poor" can be engineered to produce whatever result you like.
A drugdealer who makes $500,000 a year in unreported tax-free income magically becomes "poor" when he is up on first-degree murder charges. Why? Because from a legally-reported income perspective he is an unemployed school dropout whose last legal address was in an impoverished neighborhood.
A truck driver who makes $35,000 a year in pre-tax income becomes "middle class" when he is up on first-degree murder charges.
Why? Because he is gainfully employed, pays taxes and lives in a respectable neighborhood.
The designation is almost completely arbitrary unless we are talking about the microscopic percentage of accused first-degree murderers who actually are independently wealthy.
In that case we are talking about 1 out of 100,000 and not 20 out of 100.
One could then argue that there should be no life-without parole sentences, or even custodial sentences at all, because the hyperwealthy will generally be able to avoid the harsher end of sentencing for any crime.
If you don't meet Jesus on death row, you will never meet him.
I think innocent men have been executed. I am also a strong supporter of the death penalty. It is a foregone conclusion that nothing created by man is perfect, but we don't let that hamstring us. We don't refuse to build skyscrapers becuase an innocent person may be killed during construction and we don't abolish cars.
Accidents happen. That is life.
“We’re going to get you, Kirk!”
I remember that line in a Star Trek episode...
Here are some interesting remarks about that point from a poster on Jimmy Akins blog. I've often thought the same, but the poster, Deacon John Bresnahan, expressed the point very well:
Rarely do I ever hear mentioned that to keep some of the most vicious murderers in jail costs innocent lives. How many guards a year are murdered by escaping murderers who should have been executed? We had one recently here in anti-death penalty Ma. How many people in prison for crimes far lower than murder are murdered by murderers who should have been executed. We've had a series of them in Ma. including one this week. A few years ago in another state a young man in jail for a very short period (for drunkeness) was murdered by a murderer. Are anti-death penalty people willing to endorse creating jails where the imprisoned murderers are always chained, never have human contact or receive privileges of any kind the rest of their lives?? If such a jail were even proposed I can hear the howls and screams from the same people whose hearts bleed for murderers on the dp issue. Yet to keep those who are the most vicious class of murderers alive costs the lives of innocent people--by the hundreds over the years.This is a whole separate issue from whether the dp is a crime preventative in the wider society.Consequently it seems those states which have separate categories such as dp for those who are serial murderers or especially violent murderers and those who kill prison guards or inmates after already dodging the dp for an earlier killing--are handling the issue in the best and fairest manner and within traditional Christian ethics which especially values innocent human life but also is willing to accept the dp in definitely needed situations.
It is often stated as a fact beyond debate that modern technology can secure the safety of society at large as well as prisoners within the walls. I'd like to see some evidence of this. I've also never heard a convincing argument that the death penalty doesn't deter criminals.
Having said that, I think the death penalty is probably overused in our society and in the current politicized climate can be abused by unscrupulous prosecutors. If it's possible to secure the safety of society and the population inside the prison walls, then less drastic punishments should be used. I'm just not sure such a thing has been proven and am somewhat sceptical about the prospects. Just my opinion.
If General Motors started manufacturing vehicles that every once in a while exploded for no good reason, the public would demand it to be removed from production and either fixed or scrapped altogether. Whereas there will always be instances of innocent people going to jail, when it's a matter of life and death, I don't think we can support a system which so obviously favors the O.J. Simpsons of the world over you or me.
Since we can't realistically devise a system that provides equal representation to every single criminal, I feel that we should err on the side of the handful of innocents that are going to have their lives cut short in the name of "justice". Even if it means a thousand other bona fide murderers will spend the rest of their lives in jail cell instead of on a gurney, I think the lives of a few innocent people are worth it.
The very DNA testing that this guy helped bring to the forefront DRASTICALLY reduced the possibility of innocent men being convicted of crimes of the type that end up with the death penalty.
He is trying to implement a solution to a problem that was already drastically reduced in risk factor, by many magnitudes.
I like that idea: it is what is always cited when we discuss absolutely frivolous lawsuits which nonetheless wind up bankrupting innocent parties that are sued."It's what they do in Britain", they always say. Sometimes this is done by representatives of "Government", like Nifong, sometimes not. But it is ALWAYS perpetrated by LAWYERS/ Either way , the lawyers and/or the prosecutors should be held liable for the same punishments they are promoting for the accused parties. But sometimes they are VERY careful about pushing it to the very edges of legality in their transparently self-serving prosecution....my guess is that Nifong will retire soon, and for the sake of nicey-nice the lawyers for the LaCrosse players will just accept a dropping of charges./
It's not about power over life and death. The death penalty is as old as man. There are some crimes that cannot be atoned for. Therefore the state is dutybound to be the avenger.
If someone killed my wife, or raped and killed my daughter, or slaughtered my sons, am I a bad person for wanting the murderer executed?
A murderer has already committed execution on an innocent person. The have killed that person, wrecked families forever, ruined lives, and prevented that person from having a legacy. They deserve death.
Murder is when someone plays God who shouldn't be playing God. When the state executes someone, they are doing that with authority not only from God, but from man.
That's why I said it must be absolute that the guilty has committed the crime. If so, justice is required.
I wouldn't want to be a victim of that sort of "accident".
How many people in prison for crimes far lower than murder have killed prison guards?
With all due respect to Deacon Bresnahan, murderers aren't the only ones who kill prison guards. If he's going to use that argument, then he's also arguing for the execution of thieves, rapists, drug-dealers, and pretty much anyone in a maximum security prison.
I've also never heard a convincing argument that the death penalty doesn't deter criminals.
States such as California (which implements the death penalty) are seeing a horrendous uptick in violent crime between gangs (and sometimes involving innocent bystanders) in the L.A. area. Unless someone runs a Gallup poll of armed robbers and rapists, I don't know how one measures deterrance except by crime statistics, which are going in the opposite direction, if that's the case.
>>I wouldn't want to be a victim of that sort of "accident".<<
Me neither.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.