The FBI studied states that abolished the death penalty versus those that did not. They found that the number of violent crimes decreased in states that abolished the death penalty as opposed to increasing or staying roughly the same in states that did not abolish it. Your argument for killing one person to prevent more crimes by that person is understandable but doesn't factor in the fact that the criminal justice system gets it wrong much of the time. Here are a few of the problems: Racism: - African Americans are 12% of the U.S. population, but are 43% of prisoners on death row. Although Blacks constitute 50% of all murder victims, 83% of the victims in death penalty cases are white. - Since 1976 only ten executions involved a white defendant who had killed a Black victim. - In all, only 37 of the over 18,000 executions in this country's history involved a white person being punished for killing a Black person. - A comprehensive Georgia study found that killers of whites are 4.3 times more likely to receive a death sentence than killers of Blacks. The Poor: - Over 90 percent of defendants charged with capital crimes are indigent and cannot afford to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent them. They are forced to use inexperienced, underpaid court-appointed attorneys. - In most states the pay for court appointed attorneys is so low that lawyers assigned to capital cases will lose $20-$30 an hour if they do an adequate job. In Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi defense attorneys are paid a flat fee of $1,000 -- which translates into about 5 dollars an hour for most lawyers. - In 1996, President Clinton cut federal funding to 20 legal resource centers which provided counsel to poor defendants. Now, all of the centers that received this funding have shut down. The innocent: - Since 1976, more than 82 people have been released from prison after being sentenced to death despite their innocence. - The book, In Spite of Innocence, notes that between 1900 and 1992 there have been 416 documented cases of innocent persons who have been convicted and given a death sentence. The authors discovered that in 23 of these cases, the person was executed. - Illinois has released as many from death-row as it has executed since 1976. As a result, an Illinois Supreme Court Justice said, "Despite the courts' efforts to fashion a death penalty scheme that is just..., the system is not working. Innocent people are being sentenced to death... If this is the best our state can do, we have no business sending people to their deaths." For an even more detailed study of the execution of innocent people using the death penalty, check the Lieberman Study at http://justice.policy.net/jpreport/ . The bottom line is that it is a terribly flawed system that is set up to "get tough" on crime which appeals to the vast majority of Americans. The fact is that there is NO concrete proof that the death penalty is a deterrant to violent crime on the whole. I would never claim that the death penalty is the cause of violent crime. There are myriad more problems with the system and society than that. What I am saying is that the depth of our social conscience as a people is measured in the way we treat the most unfortunate members of our society and we are failing at doing just that. The root of the problem isn't the death penalty, but it not the solution either. The death penalty treats the symptom not the illness. No one kills simply because they are evil. A person kills because of a wide ranging number of issues from psychological and social to mental and societal. We all must bear the responsibility for the fact that we allow people to grow up in our country who are so disconnected and frustrated that they commit horrible acts of violence. We cannot simply wash our hands of it and say, "Well, they are evil. We'll just put them to death and that will be the end of it." The fact is that it isn't the end. It just perpetuates the cycle of violence from one generation to the next. We have to stop looking for remedies to our societies ills and take responsibility for looking for cures. The death penalty is no cure. It isn't even a temporary solution. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Ty, you debate well, but before this goes any further, I think it is important to note that I am staunchly anti-death penalty for many of the reasons listed above but also because of other personal beliefs. I'm sure we could go round and round with stats all day long about the credibility of using the death penalty as a means of preventing or deterring crime, but it wouldn't solve much. I believe very strongly in compassion for all living things - be they animals, family, friends, criminals or Utah Jazz fans (that last one is the toughest ). I also believe that we have no right to decide when someone lives or dies even if that person made that decision him or herself. I truly feel that violence begats violence and hate begats hate. As Marvin Gaye said so eloquently: War is not the answer, For only love will conquer hate. I know not everyone agrees with me and I am fine with that. I guess I'm saying this because I began to debate the very issue I promised myself I wouldn't in this thread out of respect for the man and his family who died in the original post. So, now that I have broken my promise to myself, I'll try and retain a bit of my own dignity and quit while I'm even. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Those stats you bring up are mean nothing more than you find the system flawed, that has nothing to do with the morality of the issue. Are you saying that if the Race numbers didn't exists and the chance of an innocent victim being killed were not possible that you would be FOR the death penalty. Your highly biased stats can make a case to overhaul the system, but makes ZERO case to do away with it. One thing that bugs me. I present you with two clear cases that are cut and dry GUILTY. You side step that and bring up race stats, instead of answering the question. How are race stats relevant in these two cases? These people are GUILTY 100%, no question about it, race has NOTHING to do with their guilt. Why would you allow the gang members who brutally raped and murdered those two girls, have a chance to hurt another person why let Larry Robison have a chance to kill again? Why do their rights supercede the rights of innocent people? There is but ONE way to guarantee that these folks are not allowed to torture again, ONE way only. I'm just glad that more people are on my side of the issue than yours, and we can make Texas a safer place. You can sit there and oppose the penalty all you want and make yourself feel morally superior to the Pros, meanwhile we will make sure these rats don't get a 2nd chance to kill again. [This message has been edited by Ty_Webb (edited August 10, 2000).]
Ty, I don't think you'll be winning Jeff over with argument by example. Obviously, he feels the state has no right to kill regardless of the crime. This line of argument is a fallacy itself -- you're trying to use the emotion evoked by the brutality of crime to win your point. It's not relevant. Jeff, "No one kills simply because they are evil. A person kills because of a wide ranging number of issues from psychological and social to mental and societal." I think this is the crux of this whole argument and the reason why neither side will be changing their minds. Speaking for myself, I'd say that people do kill simply because they are evil (and I'm not just talking about murderers); it is only the psychological, social and mental issues that keep them from doing it all the time. ------------------ Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
Ty: I am not trying to be "superior." I hope I did not offend you by my statements. If I sounded superior, I apologize. My beliefs are what they are. We just happen to disagree in this instance. The whole discussion makes me rather sad, to be honest. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Ty, Jeff is being too nice. Your accusational tone and attacking argumentation accomplishes nothing. You may feel as strongly as you wish, but there is no need to act so superior (even as you accuse Jeff of trying to do the same). You are right, there are more people in Texas who are for the death penalty. There are, however, more people in the world who are against it. Please continue to keep our streets safe. I appreciate it. ------------------ "The living room is the factory... The product being manufactured... is you."
Jeff; No offense was taken. I was just referring to the common tactic of the Anti DP folks to try and make themselves out to me morally superior, and the Pro's to be heartless and barbaric. The fact is that LWOP is just not an effective way to protect innocent people from the animals on death row, as the case below illustrates. I would be curious in knowing what you would do with a person like the one below. Just give him TRIPLE LWOP? The longer this guy is around the more people he is going to murder, why give him the chance? Does his right to life supersede others? ------ Cop-killer taunts victim's family in court In Santa Ana, in a chilling courtroom scene that only underscored the violence of the crime itself, a convicted cop killer Wednesday turned around in the defendant's chair and delivered a defiant message to his victim's family: "I'd do it again," Hung Thanh Mai said, his eyes coldly focused on the parents of slain California Highway Patrol Officer Don J. Burt. Burt, 25, was killed 4 years ago during a routine traffic stop in Fullerton. According to authorities, Mai shot Burt 7 times, the final bullet being delivered nearly point-blank to the officer's head as he lay writhing on the ground. "He leaned over, held his weapon less than a foot from Officer Burt's head and executed him," said Assistant Dist. Atty. Mike Jacobs during his opening statement before an Orange County jury that is considering whether Mai, 29, should get the death penalty for Burt's murder. Mai was convicted in July without a trial as part of a deal with federal prosecutors, who had charged him with weapons dealing and plotting the death of one of the witnesses in the murder case. Mai, who arranged those crimes while in Orange County Jail awaiting trial, pleaded guilty to the federal charges and is serving a 30-year sentence. Federal prosecutors agreed to be lenient toward Mai's girlfriend, who was also involved in the murder-for-hire plot, in exchange for Mai's guilty pleas. On Wednesday, a visibly agitated Mai entered the Santa Ana courtroom wearing an orange jumpsuit and shackled at the waist. He briefly exchanged words with his attorney, George Peters, and demanded that Peters address the court. "I need to say something," Mai said loudly. "Mr. Peters, would you please speak up for me." Peters later declined to comment on his client's behavior. He also did not deliver an opening statement. Superior Court Judge Richard L. Weatherspoon admonished Mai not to disrupt the proceedings and to speak in a whisper if he needed to address his attorneys. Mai, however, continued to mumble, and from time to time turned toward Burt's parents and widow, seated just feet away from him. As Jacobs described the July 13, 1996, traffic stop that turned deadly for Burt, a rookie barely a year out of the academy, Mai turned around and smirked at the victim's parents. Don Burt Sr. stared blankly at his son's killer as his wife, Jeannie, wept quietly. Burt's widow, Kristin, who was 7 months pregnant when her husband was killed, sat motionless a row behind. "Smile," Mai told the family at one point. Finally a bailiff placed a hand on Mai's shoulder, and he remained quiet for the rest of the proceedings. Burt's family members, some of whom are expected to testify, declined to comment. But Carol Waxman, a former county grief counselor who has accompanied the Burts from the beginning of their ordeal, expressed astonishment. "Can you believe that? I have never seen anything like that before," she said. "There is no human being behind those eyes." According to authorities, Mai killed Burt in cold blood in a Fullerton parking lot after the officer pulled over Mai's white BMW on the Orange Freeway. Mai produced a suspended driver's license under someone else's name. As Burt waited for a tow truck to impound the car, he began searching the trunk and allegedly found some forged traveler's checks. According to witnesses, as Burt approached the driver's door, Mai burst out of the BMW and fired a pistol several times. "There was a flurry of shots," Benjamin Baldauf, who was using a pay phone nearby, testified Wednesday. "There was a couple of seconds and then a single shot." Officials never recovered the 9-millimeter semiautomatic weapon Mai used or Burt's service weapon, which authorities said Mai took from the scene. The killer fled in Burt's patrol car, its lights still whirling, but abandoned the vehicle seven miles away in Anaheim. On Wednesday, Jacobs played a tape of Burt's last contact with the CHP's dispatch office. After he learned that the driver's license had been suspended, he asked for a tow truck. "'Ten-four' [a police code for acknowledging a radio transmission]. That was the last thing he said to me," said dispatcher Paul Wilcox. Burt Sr. and his wife broke down as they heard their son's last words on the scratchy tape recordings. Anaheim police arrested a man shortly after the shooting, but he was released. Authorities then began a nationwide manhunt for Mai, who had left his wallet containing his real driver's license under the seat of the BMW. He was arrested in Houston 4 days later on a tip from a friend and associate of his. Jacobs said Wednesday that bloodstains found on Mai's shoes in Houston matched Burt's DNA. While in jail, Mai, who allegedly operated an extensive forgery and fraud ring, arranged for the murder of the friend who had turned him over, authorities said. He also ran an arms smuggling ring using the jail's cell phones and his contacts on the outside. Mai's accomplices in the murder conspiracy and arms deal, including his girlfriend and a private investigator on his defense team, were convicted of the federal charges. Wednesday's proceedings began under tight security. Jurors and spectators were required to go through 2 sets of metal detectors before entering the courtroom on the 9th floor of the courthouse in Santa Ana. Mai, officials said, has violated jail rules several times and has attempted to communicate with other prisoners at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, where he is being held. Assistant U.S. Atty. Marc Greenberg, who prosecuted Mai on the federal charges, was dismayed when told of Mai's courtroom behavior. "He is one of the most high-security prisoners in the U.S. at this point," he said. "As you can see, for a good reason." ------------------
And more people in the US that are PRO, too. If I lived somewhere else maybe I would care what those people think. your welcome. ------------------
I am really just sad for him. Anyone with that kind of hate in his heart makes me sad more than angry. Living a life like that is far greater punishment than putting him to death. Death, for him, would be a reward. I have no answers, only questions. I would never suggest what is best for a human life. His life does not supercede others but neither do ours and we are the one's that make the decision to execute because citizens are the one's that sit on the jury panel. I could NEVER make that decision and I feel for those who have to do it. I do not believe we have the right to take a human life for ANY reason. That won't change no matter how many awful stories you post. They just make me sad. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Jeff I respect your opinion, and think it is great that you have such a forgiving heart. That being said I am glad you are not in a position to decided the fate of the animals that commit these horrible murders. As for being sad for him, that doesn't protect or bring back the innocent peoples lives he has and can take. While it is not pleasent the simple fact is certain situations force us to make life and death choices. Like a war, surely you wouldn't argue that stopping the Nazi's attempt at genocide was a bad thing, and the only way we could have done that was to kill people. Unfortunatly not every person is as kind hearted as you are, and sometimes it takes the most extreme measure there is to safe guard innocent people. [This message has been edited by Ty_Webb (edited August 12, 2000).]
In China, they have attempted to commit genocide against a Tibetan society that did nothing but publically pronounce their religious beliefs - Buddhism. When asked why he would not support the use of violence to take back his land, the Dalai Lama said that while violence might stop the problem now, it won't solve the larger problem of violence everywhere. Because he believes that all men and women are part of each others' destiny despite where they live or who they are as I do, he knows that someone must say "No" to violence in all forms no matter how justified it may seem because, like I posted before, "only love will conquer hate. I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince me that killing somewhere, anywhere is justified because of what was done to provoke it. Killing is killing no matter what the motivation and until we stop the violence, all of it, we are all doomed to continue its vicious cycle. As you can imagine, I have a very difficult time imagining things like Nazi Germany, Rowanda, China and the like. Even thinking about it nearly brings tears to my eyes. I would never condone what happened in any of those places, EVER. But, stopping one with force only causes us to have to continue to demonstrate our might to others and the cycle continues. I will not contribute to that. I cannot do it. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
at this point, i would not call him human ... just like we put a rabied animal to sleep ... ------------------ ...out with the old, in with the new...
Jeff, I'm sorry you've been hung out to dry on this one. I feel that you need a little back up. Otherwise, people may think you're the only one who feels this way. My one little post earlier is not sufficient for this topic/thread. Ty Webb, How does killing him bring back the innocent lives he has taken? How how is keeping him in prison for the rest of his life without parole more risky to other people than killing him? How do you know that more people in the U.S. are for the death penalty? And, even if they are why do you hold the opinions of Americans over the opinions of any other people? Are Americans better people just because we come from the United States? If you lived in a country that didn't have the death penalty and the majority of the citizens were against it, would you then be against it too? And, if the majority of Americans are against it, would you then follow the majority and be anti-death penalty? Ty what happens if you go to another country to visit, and you happen to get into trouble and are accused of a crime that warrants the death penalty in that particular country. Let's say that the same crime would not be considered are severe and not warrant the death penalty in the states. Would you go along with it and accept the verdict (if it were guilty) and take your punishment? If not, how is that any different than our system, and the racial biases Jeff pointed out earlier? And, don't go and say, "But, that is in another country. I'm not worried about what happens in another country." Because, the whole concept behind the death penalty is the same. I am not against the death penalty for all of the same reasons as Jeff, but I am against it. My number one reason is that I do not want my or any government having the ability to say who lives and who dies. I am not for war, but if I were in a war, I would definitely defend my life and the life of my fellow Americans by killing the enemy. I do not approve of killing in war time, but I accept it. I only accept killing in order to protect yourself, or someone else, or in war. Those are the only times my conscience would be clear, not totally clear because killing another human being is never "good", but clear enough to rationalize what took place. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem. DREAMer's Rocket Page
"How does killing him bring back the innocent lives he has taken? How is keeping him in prison for the rest of his life without parole more risky to other people than killing him?" Dreamer, go back and read the post (about 5 up from here) about Hung Thanh Mai, he was in prison when he MURDERED another person, on the outside. LWOP is not enough. There is case after case like this one, where a murderer in prison goes onto murder again, whether it be another inmate, a Guard or someone on the outside. The only way to guarantee these people will not murder and torture innocent people again, is the death penalty. Jeff, your vision and mentality are wonderful unfortunately though about as realistic as a fairytale. [This message has been edited by Ty_Webb (edited August 14, 2000).]
