Posted on 02/14/2007 10:19:32 AM PST by jsmith1942
There's a big difference between accidents occurring and the government deciding that a person should be put to death.
IOW, risk analysis strongly points to continuing on with executions post-haste, when the crime warrants it. And far worse things can happen to a man than the apparent premature end to their life.
How does one measure "beyond a doubt"? Apparently in this guy's case, it was "beyond a doubt", not once, but twice.
Sure, but in the Church's own words, these conditions are, for all intent and purpose, non-existent. We're not talking about executing people in self-defense, for example, in a battlefield environment or one of civil anarchy, where the rule of law has disappeared and/or authorities cannot protect citizens at large. It's morally acceptable to protect oneself and to protect society, however, there is no room for the self-defense of society argument where the criminal can remain in prison for the rest of his life. Where the dignity of the innocent individual is not endangered, there is no justification to execute the criminal, whose dignity is inviolable by the mere fact that he is made in the image of God.
"The measures follow a 14 percent increase in violent gang-related crime in 2006 despite a citywide decrease in crime over the past five years. Police say street gangs were responsible for 56 percent of the city's 478 murders in 2006." See below.
Police target 11 worst Los Angeles street gangs
Violent Crime
The violent crime category includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. Nationally, preliminary data for 2005 showed increases in three of the four violent crimes from the previous year’s data. The number of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters rose 4.8 percent. Robbery offenses increased 4.5 percent, and the number of aggravated assaults was up 1.9 percent. Forcible rape was the only offense among the violent crimes that decreased in volume in 2005, down 1.9 percent from the 2004 figure.
A breakdown of the 2005 data by population group revealed that all city population groups experienced increases in violent crime when compared with those data reported for the previous year, with the exception of the Nation’s largest cities, 1 million and over in population, where the number of violent crimes was down 0.4 percent. By percent change in the number of violent crime offenses in 2005 compared with totals from 2004, cities with populations from 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants saw the greatest increase, 8.3 percent, and cities with populations of 10,000 to 24,999 saw the smallest increase, 0.5 percent. In the Nation’s metropolitan counties, violent crime was up 2.1 percent, and in nonmetropolitan counties, it increased 1.0 percent.
A further examination of violent crime data for the population groups showed that cities with populations from 100,000 to 249,999 had the greatest increase in the number of murders, up 12.5 percent. Cities with 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants experienced the greatest increases in both robbery, 9.9 percent, and aggravated assault, 8.5 percent. The number of offenses of forcible rape decreased in all city population groups except in those cities with under 10,000 in population, where the number of forcible rape offenses was up 1.5 percent from the 2004 level.
The Nation’s four regions all saw increases in violent crime in 2005. The Midwest experienced the steepest increase, 5.7 percent. The West had a 1.9-percent increase from the previous year’s number; the South, a 1.8-percent rise; and the Northeast, a 1.4-percent increase. All four regions had increases in murder, robbery, and aggravated assault. Contrary to the other three violent crime offenses, the number of forcible rapes declined in each region.
The following data indicates a declining trend in violent crimes (other than murder) until 2005-2006, which saw a sizable reversal of the decline. The murder rate has not seen any decline since 2002.
And attempt to kill and/or actually kill guards and inmates for a decade or so.
If you and the law would support a regime wherein such mad dogs are strapped in restraints 24 hours a day and fed remotely via an IV so they do not have to interact with any other human beings ever, then I would agree that the claim of "necessity" would disappear in such cases. So would dignity as well, of course.
But some people, even outside of war and civil anarchy, need to go.
If you spent one night in prison, or even walked through one, you would not wish that "reward" on your worst enemy;
That's about the same conclusion I've come to. I oppose capital punishment in general, but there needs to be a last in extremis option for people who continue to commit violent crimes after they're sentenced to life without parole.
They're definitely much more likely to have piss-poor lawyers.
The difference is that a murder is carried out by a depraved individual. An execution is carried out by the state. The people. Us.
Is that a double standard? Damn straight, it is. I hold the people acting in my name, exercising their just powers by the consent of the governed, to a higher standard than I do perverts and criminals and terrorists. When did that become wrong?
To definitively prove that the DP deters/doesn't deter murders, we would have to set up parallel universes where all conditions are the same except for the death penalty. You note above that California has the death penalty, but murders are increasing. But the question is, would they have increased more if the death penalty were not in force?
Which is why the deterrant argument is faulty by nature. It's speculative. Here we are, some 40 years since the death penalty was re-instated, and there's no real way to measure whether the DP deters. If the ultimate penalty does not demonstrably deliver the ultimate benefit of reducing crime in a significant way, why do we give power to the state to take lives? The only reasonable impetus, therefore, is vengeance, which, spiritually speaking, is contrary to the teaching of Christ.
From even a non-spiritual perspective, we naturally want an eye-for-an-eye, but in the satisfying of our vengeance, we give the state power it should never have, except in extreme circumstances. We all cringe at the thought of the government tapping our phones, but we're willing to give the government the power to kill us? It does not compute, and under the wrong circumstances (say, a radical secularist government and society that seeks to banish Christianity - yeah, unlikely now, but talk to me in twenty years) such power could be abused to an extreme.
Don't get me wrong. I'll be the first to admit that I get a certain, immediate feeling of satisfaction when I hear that a violent killer has been sentenced to death. But in grasping the bigger picture, I have a severe conflict with the DP. I'm not sitting in judgment of anyone who supports the DP. I'm working out what the Church is saying versus my natural impulse. This debate has been a good one.
A bad person? No. I'd want the mf-er dead, and want to do it myself. But the goal of the state is to mete out justice, not to satisfy your (or my) desire for revenge.
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.
I don't give half a damn what a murderer deserves. He deserves nothing. He is a non-entity who deserves no more than a passing thought. The important question is what is best for the general good, for the innocent, for society at large. I am unconvinced that, in most cases, the death penalty meets this criterion.
That's why I said it must be absolute that the guilty has committed the crime. If so, justice is required.
If you're saying that criminals should only be executed when their guilt is absolutely certain, and I'm saying that criminals shouldn't be executed, we're saying the same thing. Absolute certainty exits only in the mind of God, and only His judgment is perfect.
So trial and conviction by one or more juries, endless appeals and an average stay on death row of over 20 years before the sentence is carried out compared to walking into a convenience store and blowing away a clerk is not a higher standard?
In what universe?
Just curious -- what color is the sky on your world?
Higher? Certainly. High enough? Debatable. I've seen enough coerced confessions, stacked juries, railroad jobs and outright bigotry under color of law that I'm loath to entrust the state with the power to determine life and death. That's even before DNA testing, which offered the first definitive and scientific proof that things are not what the jury thought they were.
(As an aside, DNA testing does not "prove innocence" -- a victim could have been raped by one person and murdered by another. Unlikely, but possible. A negative DNA match does undercut the case for guilt and raise a large, never mind reasonable, doubt.)
He was not on death row when he was exonerated. His first conviction was overturned after two years. He had a new trial, was convicted again, and sentenced to prison. I think it said in the article he was serving two life sentences.
The prison guard is there by choice, just as a soldier is on the battlefield in Iraq by choice. He places himself in harm's way as a great sacrifice for the public. Although his life is worth as much as yours and mine, he accepts the risk, and so, the nobility of his calling. The public at-large has a reasonable expectation not to be a victim of violent crime, the prison guard knows his risk is greater.
Furthermore, as I've mentioned, executing murderers doesn't remove the danger of a prison guard being killed by a lesser criminal. The only way to completely protect prison guards is to either not have prison guards, or execute everyone.
If you and the law would support a regime wherein such mad dogs are strapped in restraints 24 hours a day and fed remotely via an IV so they do not have to interact with any other human beings ever, then I would agree that the claim of "necessity" would disappear in such cases. So would dignity as well, of course.
This will eventually be accomplished with robots, and without strapping people down and feeding them with an I.V. I wonder how many people will suddenly oppose the death penalty when that comes to pass. Not many, I'd wager. Even so, such conditions would not prevent the criminal from maintaining a relationship with his Creator, and its certainly not an inherent indignity to be isolated, when one considers the life of a hermit.
But some people, even outside of war and civil anarchy, need to go.
I'd hate the worthiness of my life to be a matter of opinion. Opinions change you know, and it's certainly not unheard of for governments to suddenly be of the opinion that Christians are worthy of being put to death. Our society rejects Christ, our courts don't believe in the sanctity of life, our doctors are gradually gaining the power to end life at their own discretion, and a nation just north of us has essentially categorized the Bible as hate speech. If we don't reject the death penalty here and now as an affront to human dignity, when the time comes, we're going to be the first ones lined up against the wall, I assure you.
The best way to make a Hell on earth is to try to make Heaven on earth.
Human institutions, like the human beings that populate them, will ALWAYS be imperfect.
Get over it.
Someone serving life without parole in a system where life without parole is the severest punishment has no fear of receiving a harsher sentence, so he is not incentivized to not kill guards and fellow inmates.
Someone serving 5-10 for robbery and aggravated assault is incentivized not to kill prison guards.
I'd hate the worthiness of my life to be a matter of opinion.
I am not referring to matters of opinion. I am referring to the fact that certain inmates will kill a guard if they have half a chance to do so.
Comparing murderers who try to kill guards to Christians imprisoned for their faith is more than a little silly.
We're moving into Mumia Abu Jamal sympathizer territory in which all prisoners, by virtue of being prisoners, are unjustly incarcerated prisoners of conscience.
I just wonder if you'd have the same position if it were you who were innocent and strapped to the gurney.
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.