Equal Protection and Equality

The death penalty will not be a deterrent unless it is quick and public. Otherwise, it's a waste of money. It costs states more to fund appeal after appeal than it does to house them for life. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Good point. I don't think most people realize that it's cheaper not to execute.

One point to this thread seems to focus on the Death Penalty" Isn't a deterrent to crime", well it isn't cause criminals never stop to think about the consequences of their actions nor do they ever think they'll ever get the death penalty in the first place. The Criminal justice system consists of three parts the Police, Courts and Corrections. Because of the nature of this thread I'll only comment on the area of corrections. The sole purpose of Corrections is to rehabilitate offenders so they can be sent back out into society to live and prosper and live productive lives. As we all know it doesn't seem to work that way. Offenders are given sentences that they fullfill then released only to repeat the same behavior and be incarcerated again. Others are given life sentences with no hope of a future outside of prison, and others are sentenced to the death penalty. Iam not really opposed to the Death Penalty, but I don't think enough is being done to rehabilitate felony offenders. Some Criminal Behavior can almost be considered a disease, similar to the way we consider Alcoholism a disease.

She's been on death row for roughly sixteen years. The appeals system is ridiculous. Murderers, rapists and child molesters should get a fair trial and then they should be put to death. The whole thing shouldn't take more than a few months. It's not uncommon for inmates to be on death row for twenty plus years. The record is thirty three years. Originally Posted by joe bloe

You can't even write a decent appellate brief for both sides in a few months, much less have the trial transcript typed Py and reviewed. You are a fool!

You can't even write a decent appellate brief for both sides in a few months, much less have the trial transcript typed Py and reviewed. You are a fool! Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You say he is a "fool." I say he is a "Bloehard."

Can we compromise and say he is a foolish Bloehard?

..but I don't think enough is being done to rehabilitate felony offenders. Some Criminal Behavior can almost be considered a disease, similar to the way we consider Alcoholism a disease. Originally Posted by acp5762

You are from Louisiana?

I never proposed a quota you fucking idiot. You're just doing the standard strawman argument. It's sophomoric but I guess it's the only trick you have. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Does calling someone a "fucking idiot" increase your credibility (in your mind)?

You are the one who stated that "we" should execute within a year, didn't you? And

You were the one who brought up the fallacious point that "Bluntstone" wasn't talking about 1,000, he was talking about 10, didn't you.

You didn't use the word "quota," but when you start putting a number on it and using them as some sort of a standard, then you are using a quota to determine validity of the system ... The reason why I say "fallacious" is the article (if you will reread it) says:

"Texas .... executes the most people in the nation — 492 prisoners since capital punishment resumed 30 years ago."

You wrote in post #14:
"If we executed scumbags in an average of one year instead of twelve years, the death penalty might be a lot more effective as a detterent."

Texas executes roughly 16 a year or a little more than one each month. It appears in the paper, just like this one, except this one got national attention, because she is a woman, ....

... so the "message" is getting out in Texas ... that you get the needle.

Hopefully all the "premeditated" murderers have moved to Chicago.

But Texas still has murders, even though we are #1 on death penalty.

... The sole purpose of Corrections is to rehabilitate offenders so they can be sent back out into society to live and prosper and live productive lives. Originally Posted by acp5762

If that were true, then legislatures would revise voting and employment law to provide that those who have "served their time" can vote and criminal histories cannot be used to discriminate in employment and housing decisions. In addition the legislatures would change "punishments" to indeterminate periods of time with a panel of "experts" to decide whether or not the prisoners have been "rehabilitated" and are ready to "live and prosper and live productive lives."

I realize this might be a novel concept to your perception of reality, but there are some who cannot be "rehabilitated" because they will NEVER believe they did anything wrong ... there are also a larger group that due to their incarceration they LEARNED in PRISON that there is a different technique for survival and they LEARN in prison to survive among other CRIMINALS. For the most part prisoners "game" the system by doing those things that earn them an earlier release ... that is not "rehabilitation" that is learning how to "game" the system.

Those who would truly be "rehabilitated" would be on probation and never go to prison in the first place. Usually (except in the Federal system) most criminals as first time offenders can get probation or some supervised release ... with conditions. Murders and violent rapists, no.

The article (if you read it) that I referenced about the woman that is going to be executed (some day) provides some in sight into a jury's thinking ... evidence in the punishment phase tied her to other deaths of old women she was apparently robbing. She committed those murders knowing Texas gives people the needle. She was apparently feeding a habit from the proceeds of her murders ... the last of which she apparently chopped off the ladies finger to get her ring WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE!

Then killed her. REHABILITATION? Give me a friggin' break!

DISEASE? Give me another friggin' break!

Now you gonna put them on Obamacare-Medicaid?

Here is YOUR resource center: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state_by_state

The overview of the argument goes something like this:
It's not a deterrent, so it doesn't work, and it costs too much for something that doesn't work. Since it doesn't work, it will be cheaper to warehouse them for the rest of their lives, until they get too old and need a lot of medical care, so we will release them "early" and put them on .... medicaid/medicare/Obamacare and DISABILITY, since they are too old to work or can't find a job because they are a MURDERER. Also, hopefully, by that time the VICTIM's (surviving family members) will have "moved on" ... died ... foregiven them ... forgotten about them ... and will not know they were released ... so they won't mind!

Here have a jelly bean.

A judge has intervened; her execution has been delayed by a Dallas County judge.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...execution?lite

A judge has intervened; her execution has been delayed by a Dallas County judge.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...execution?lite Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Yes. "Delayed" to April 3rd. If the Judge sees a potential problem, good.

Then put her to death.

What was your sole reason for posting this thread in the first place? No body really understood your point. I don't think it matters anyway. Why don't you write a book. You apparently regard yourself as an interesting guy that everyone should want to listen to.

I support the death penalty when there is NO doubt of guilt. That appears to be the case here so it is frustrating that this is still continuing. Female or male is irrelevant.

As for the appeals process I would agree if it were not for the people on death row that have been proven innocent. The death penalty is final and should not be used if there is any possible doubt. Life in prison without the possibility of parole for those is actually less expensive to the taxpayer and still an adequate penalty.

It's a very debatable point. A good case can be made for life without parole as an alternative to the death penalty. I personally believe life in prison is less of a deterrent than the death penalty, but it does have the advantage of eliminating the possibility of executing an innocent person. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Wow, very thoughtful post. I wouldn't have thunk it JB. It would also have the advantage of saving millions of dollars as death penalty trials and appeals are by far the most expensive in our criminal justice system. Keeping a convicted killer for life without parole usually costs a tiny percentage of a capital trial and appeals on top of death row incarceration.

While I do not deny that there are definitely people in this world who, to use the Texas phrase "definitely need killin'" I don't think I or probably any other human being or collection of human beings has the wisdom all the time to determine who those are. I also truly believe that eliminating the death penalty sends a message to society that says it is NOT ok even for society as a whole or the government to kill people and I believe that the commitment to not execute any innocent people will change our culture for the better over time. It seems to me that the death penalty basically says to people in society, "Don't do as I do, do as I say". I think a better approach would be for society to effectively say, "It is never acceptable to kill someone except in the extremity of self-defense". Just my two cents.

Now, I wouldn't be opposed to allowing people who are convicted and sentenced to life without parole to opt to end their own lives in some circumstances (one or two did it by firing squad if I remember correctly). Of course the procedures for that would have to be worked out as well.

If we get rid of the death penalty, or raise the standard of proof to absolute certainty, in order to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed, we have to weigh that against the possibilty that more innocent people may be murdered. The protection of the innocent should be the goal. Originally Posted by joe bloe

And yet it is almost certain that we have executed some if not many innocent people and certainly incarcerated very many innocent people for decades in some cases. The really terrible part IMHO about capital trials is that there is often limited time for new evidence to come in even if it exonerates the accused. I truly don't believe that, especially in capital cases, there should ever be a limit to considering new evidence as long as the accused is alive and even sometimes if they have died or been executed. IMHO that is one of the real travesties of our justice system that real innocence often cannot be considered because of procedural rules.

In short, eliminating the death penalty makes sense for three very good reasons:
1) Justice - It eliminates irrevocable mistakes in an admittedly flawed and human system
2) Efficiency - It will save time and money (conservatives should love this)
3) Culture - It will have (I believe) a beneficial effect to limit violence in our society.

Get rid of the death penalty, and you take away a powerful tool that prosecutors use to obtain plea bargains.

I've got mixed feelings about the death penalty.

On the one hand, 17 years of appeals undoubtedly attenuates the deterrent affect of the death penalty. But there undoubtedly IS a deterrent effect. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence applies to the rest of society and it is debatable whether or not the death penalty deters other criminals from committing future murders. However, specific deterrence applies to the convicted murder and it is undeniable that an executed murderer will never murder again.

Having said all that, capital punishment is a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. And all real conservatives need to keep that in the back of their minds. Mistakes have and will continue to be made. And it is a horrifying thought to think about an innocent man being executed. Just Google "Central Park jogger" and find out about how lazy NY cops took short cuts when pressured by their bosses to catch the rape perpetrator. They ended up coercing confessions out of 5 stupid teenage punks that had nothing to do with the crime. If the jogger had died and NY had a death penalty, those kids might have been executed.

With that in mind, I have to err on the side of NOT having a death penalty.

SHIT! Now my day is ruined. I agree with austtxjr.

Dammit.