Generally I'm against the death penalty. It's wasteful and ineffective. But the problem is that so many people who get executed really deserve it.
Take for example the case of Paul Warner Powell
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/19/virginia.execution/index.html?hpt=T2
Quote(CNN) -- The murderer of a 16-year-old girl who bragged about his crimes was electrocuted Thursday night, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Corrections said.
Paul Warner Powell was pronounced dead at 9:09 p.m. at a correctional center in Jarratt, Virginia. He did not make a last statement at the execution attended by the victim's family.
Powell was convicted in the 1999 murder of Stacie Reed and the rape of her 14-year-old sister in their Manassas, Virginia, family home.
Powell's execution comes after Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell denied him clemency and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block the execution.
The killer claimed double jeopardy after state prosecutors put him on trial for a second time in the killing. In July, the high court delayed Powell's execution while considering the broader constitutional claims, which were finally rejected. Powell rejected lethal injection, the state's usual method of execution.
"I'm hopeful this is the last legal chapter in the long history of this case," said Powell's prosecutor, Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert.
"The survivors -- Stacie's mother and [her sister] -- have really been traumatized by delay after delay. Hopefully they're going to get some peace and closure after all these years."
CNN does not identify sexual assault victims without their permission, even though the surviving victim, now 25, has talked publicly about the case.
The crime shocked the Washington, D.C. area. Reed knew Powell, then 20 and an admitted racist. The state's highest court eventually threw out the 2000 verdict in the first trial, saying prosecutors had not proven other necessary death-eligible offenses were committed against the 16-year-old. Such "aggravating" factors could include rape, attempted rape or robbery in commission of the murder.
The sexual assault and attempted murder of Stacie's younger sister was upheld, and Powell was given a long prison sentence.
Powell, believing he was free from execution, proceeded to write a taunting, profanity-filled letter from behind bars to Ebert, laying out explicit details of the crime unknown to investigators at the time.
"Since I have already been indicted on first degree murder and the Va. Supreme Court said that I can't be charged with capital murder again, I figured I would tell you the rest of what happened on Jan. 29, 1999, to show you how stupid all of y'all ... are," wrote Powell, who is white.
He said he had gone to the Reed house to confront Stacie about dating a black man. He admitted pinning the victim, threatening to rape her, then stabbing her in the heart when the girl resisted. He then stomped on her throat.
"I guess I forgot to mention these events when I was being questioned. Ha Ha!" he wrote in 2001. "Do you just hate yourself for being so stupid ... and saving me?"
The killer also said that after that crime, he waited in the house until the younger girl returned from school, then attacked her, leaving her for dead. In the meantime, he drank iced tea from the family refrigerator and smoked a cigarette, part of the forensic evidence that investigators used to place Powell at the scene of the crime.
With this first-hand account from Powell, he was indicated again and charged with murder and attempted rape of Stacie -- a capital-eligible crime. He was convicted again, and federal and state courts subsequently upheld the conviction on appeal.
If you want you can Google the dumb bastard and find the actual letters he wrote. Guys a total bastard and really did deserve what he got. Also in a brilliant move he rejected the lethal injection and to go for the much more painful (and entertaining!) electric chair. Oh well.
And then there is the case of the guy who was found guilty of murder after testifying while OD'ing (or at least, so says the doctor, he didn't seem to mind) on Rufies, just to remind you why you are against it in the first place.
(can't find an article in english)
Quote from: Viking on March 19, 2010, 09:43:00 AM
And then there is the case of the guy who was found guilty of murder after testifying while OD'ing (or at least, so says the doctor, he didn't seem to mind) on Rufies, just to remind you why you are against it in the first place.
(can't find an article in english)
Why would a guy take Rufies?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2010, 09:45:15 AM
Why would a guy take Rufies?
Someone told him to go fuck himself?
He definately deserves to die. In cases like this just let the prisoners or guards handle it.
Fence-sitter here. 5-year waiting list, mandatory psych eval: no remorse, no life. Remorse, set back the clock and repeat.
Basically, prove that rehabilitation is going on, and that the convict is not just being a useless drag, eating away at others' ability to support themselves.
or Hank Skinner, who's trial & police investigation is a total joke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Skinner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Skinner)
I oppose it because the state should not have the right to kill its citizens. Even if they deserve it.
Quote from: Tamas on March 19, 2010, 11:16:43 AM
I oppose it because the state should not have the right to kill its citizens. Even if they deserve it.
States don't have rights.
I don't trust government with the power of judicial killing. I don't trust them with the power to declare war, either, but that's not something you can take away from a single government, so I live with that.
Quote from: grumbler on March 19, 2010, 11:49:27 AM
I don't trust government with the power of judicial killing. I don't trust them with the power to declare war, either, but that's not something you can take away from a single government, so I live with that.
for once grumbler and I are in full agreement here.
Quote from: grumbler on March 19, 2010, 11:49:27 AM
I don't trust government with the power of judicial killing. I don't trust them with the power to declare war, either, but that's not something you can take away from a single government, so I live with that.
:yes:
At least in the US they can waterboard him every day for years. Countries that don't embrace torture don't have that option though.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2010, 11:27:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 19, 2010, 11:16:43 AM
I oppose it because the state should not have the right to kill its citizens. Even if they deserve it.
States don't have rights.
He's from Europe. They have trickle-down rights there. :P
Quote from: The Brain on March 19, 2010, 12:58:49 PM
At least in the US they can waterboard him every day for years. Countries that don't embrace torture don't have that option though.
Don't forget the prison rape.
Quote from: grumbler on March 19, 2010, 11:49:27 AM
I don't trust government with the power of judicial killing. I don't trust them with the power to declare war, either, but that's not something you can take away from a single government, so I live with that.
+1
An express lane should be put in for executions. And make 'em painful and messy.
I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder. That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception. I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.
And executions should be public.
The man described in the OP NEEDED to die.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2010, 09:45:15 AM
Quote from: Viking on March 19, 2010, 09:43:00 AM
And then there is the case of the guy who was found guilty of murder after testifying while OD'ing (or at least, so says the doctor, he didn't seem to mind) on Rufies, just to remind you why you are against it in the first place.
(can't find an article in english)
Why would a guy take Rufies?
to deal with the stress of confessing to murder it seems..
As I was driving home yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that read "Don't kill on my behalf. No death penalty."
Made me think that would be a good thing to put in wills: if you're ever murdered you don't want the perp executed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2010, 04:54:25 PM
As I was driving home yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that read "Don't kill on my behalf. No death penalty."
Made me think that would be a good thing to put in wills: if you're ever murdered you don't want the perp executed.
Can I put in my will: all gays will be executed?
Quote from: The Brain on March 19, 2010, 05:05:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2010, 04:54:25 PM
As I was driving home yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that read "Don't kill on my behalf. No death penalty."
Made me think that would be a good thing to put in wills: if you're ever murdered you don't want the perp executed.
Can I put in my will: all gays will be executed?
It will be: void for public policy. :(
Quote from: dps on March 19, 2010, 03:26:48 PM
I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder. That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception. I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.
And executions should be public.
like this guy here, clearly subject to an upstanding legal process:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/88667567.html (http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/88667567.html)
the problem with requiring a higher standard of proof is why?
You don't do that for any other crime. The verdict is achieved, then the sentence is pronounced according to the crime as reported. Judges have guidelines from the law and previous trials, i.e. minimum 10 years, max 15 years, etc, etc, but it's not attributed given the opinion of the judge on the strongness of the case.
And assume you do require an higher standard, what will happen then?
A DA wants a conviction, so he'll go for a life sentence instead of a dp case if he doesn't feel he has sufficient evidence, and then the defense will know the case is weak and insists on that during trial, and both parties will be more favorable to plea bargain resulting in lighter sentences.
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2010, 05:28:41 PM
Quote from: dps on March 19, 2010, 03:26:48 PM
I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder. That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception. I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.
And executions should be public.
like this guy here, clearly subject to an upstanding legal process:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/88667567.html (http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/88667567.html)
the problem with requiring a higher standard of proof is why?
You don't do that for any other crime. The verdict is achieved, then the sentence is pronounced according to the crime as reported. Judges have guidelines from the law and previous trials, i.e. minimum 10 years, max 15 years, etc, etc, but it's not attributed given the opinion of the judge on the strongness of the case.
And assume you do require an higher standard, what will happen then?
A DA wants a conviction, so he'll go for a life sentence instead of a dp case if he doesn't feel he has sufficient evidence, and then the defense will know the case is weak and insists on that during trial, and both parties will be more favorable to plea bargain resulting in lighter sentences.
Well, to start with, IMO the prosecutor's office shouldn't be making a decision to "go for a life sentence" instead of the death penalty, at least not before a verdict is rendered.
A prosecutor has a moral obligation to go for the death penalty, even in cases when the death penalty is not warranted, or in countries where the death penalty is unlawful.
Quote from: dps on March 19, 2010, 03:26:48 PM
I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder. That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception. I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.
And executions should be public.
Suppose there is a case with enough evidence to convict of premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt (the current standard) but not enough to convict according to your new, higher standard. The result is acquittal? That doesn't seem right.
Quote from: grumbler on March 19, 2010, 09:42:30 PM
Quote from: dps on March 19, 2010, 03:26:48 PM
I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder. That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception. I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.
And executions should be public.
Suppose there is a case with enough evidence to convict of premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt (the current standard) but not enough to convict according to your new, higher standard. The result is acquittal? That doesn't seem right.
Strawman.
Quote from: grumbler on March 19, 2010, 09:42:30 PM
Quote from: dps on March 19, 2010, 03:26:48 PM
I still say that the death penalty should be the standard punishment for murder. That doesn't mean that all convicted murderers should receive it, just that it should be the norm, not the exception. I also don't have any problem with requiring a higher standard of proof in order to impose the death penalty beyond that needed to convict.
And executions should be public.
Suppose there is a case with enough evidence to convict of premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt (the current standard) but not enough to convict according to your new, higher standard. The result is acquittal? That doesn't seem right.
:lol:
Grumbler, aren't you conflating penalty with verdict here and thus misrepresenting what dps has said?
:)
Anyway, although our reasons differ, I know we both oppose the death penalty, so I'm not really trying to pick a fight here. However, I thought some states did set a higher standard of proof for imposing the death penalty over that for imposing a life sentence once conviction has been achieved? I've got Texas in my head for some reason regarding this. :unsure:
No, he's not.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 20, 2010, 01:16:46 PM
Grumbler, aren't you conflating penalty with verdict here and thus misrepresenting what dps has said?
If the standard punishment for murder is death, then what happens when you have the evidence to convict but not the "higher standard of proof" for the DP? I think it a fair question
I am not even sure what "a higher standard of proof" is, BTW. Right now you have (in the US) a special phase during the sentencing deliberations in which the jury must consider whether there are the circumstances necessary to execute under state law, but hat uses the same standard of proof as the conviction does.
QuoteAnyway, although our reasons differ, I know we both oppose the death penalty, so I'm not really trying to pick a fight here. However, I thought some states did set a higher standard of proof for imposing the death penalty over that for imposing a life sentence once conviction has been achieved? I've got Texas in my head for some reason regarding this. :unsure:
All states have specific criteria that must be met for a crime to be a capital crime, and require a special sentencing process, as I noted, in which the jury must confirm that they belief that the prosecution has met the burden of proof to sentence to death. There isn't a different standard of proof, though.
Mostly, states make capital those crimes that are particularly heinous: rape or torture, multiple killings, killing of a cop in the line of duty, and that sort of thing. The vast, vast majority of murders in the US don't fall into those categories, and so the death penalty is never considered.
I have no idea why dps thinks making most murders capital crimes would be a good idea, nor why he thinks making them more public (you already can go see an execution if you really want to) would be better. He didn't elaborate.
I want to watch a crucifixion.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 21, 2010, 07:50:21 AM
I want to watch a crucifixion.
I hope you get your wish, and see it in a mirror.
Quote from: The Brain on March 19, 2010, 12:58:49 PM
At least in the US they can waterboard him every day for years. Countries that don't embrace torture don't have that option though.
You can't even take away their cable TV in the US without a major legal battle.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 21, 2010, 07:50:21 AM
I want to watch a crucifixion.
Mel Gibson made a movie for you.
As I said in such debates previously, I disagree with the notion of being against a death penalty because there is a possibility of a mistake. It seems to make light of the life sentence.
Yes, in theory someone who's in for life can be later exonerated. In practice, that's far less likely to happen given lack of natural dramatic timeline. And, in any case, sending people to life while thinking that if some extra standard of proof later exonerates them, they could be freed, seems very careless.
Whether you give someone a DP or give them life, you're effectively putting an end to their life. Obviously death penalty is a worse punishment, but beyond a certain level where things are bad enough, worse doesn't matter much. We should be equally comfortable or uncomfortable with sending people either to death row or to life in prison.
Quote from: Agelastus on March 20, 2010, 01:16:46 PM
:lol:
Grumbler, aren't you conflating penalty with verdict here and thus misrepresenting what dps has said?
:)
Anyway, although our reasons differ, I know we both oppose the death penalty, so I'm not really trying to pick a fight here. However, I thought some states did set a higher standard of proof for imposing the death penalty over that for imposing a life sentence once conviction has been achieved? I've got Texas in my head for some reason regarding this. :unsure:
No he isn't. DPS said we needed an higher standard of proff for death penalty. How do we achieve that? Let the judge decide after the fact? Endless appeal...
Decide before the fact if we go for DP or not? Then either you get reduced sentence or acquittal.
Quote from: viper37 on March 22, 2010, 09:47:05 AM
No he isn't. DPS said we needed an higher standard of proff for death penalty. How do we achieve that? Let the judge decide after the fact? Endless appeal...
Decide before the fact if we go for DP or not? Then either you get reduced sentence or acquittal.
Plus, you end up with comparisons like this:
Case 1: Man breaks into a house, rapes, tortures, and kills a woman and her daughter over the course of a day, and gets convicted based on a DNA comparison that reduces him to one of only ten people in the country who could have done it, and the others have decent alibis.
Case 2: Woman gets telephone call telling her her husband is on the way home after having just visited his mistress. She is infuriated that he lied to her about not having a mistress, goes into the gun safe, pulls out the handgun the couple keeps for security, and blasts him when he comes through the door twenty minutes later. She confesses to the police who arrive shortly thereafter.
Both charged with first-degree murder. Which one would be executed under the "higher standard of proof" criteria for execution, as opposed to the current "greater crime" criteria?
I reject the idea that punishment should be based on how much evidence there is. You are punishing the crime of murder, not the crime of sloppiness or stupidity.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 22, 2010, 08:40:54 AM
Not the same. :(
I'm not sure what the point of simulated violence is when we can watch actual wars on our televisions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8586374.stm
QuoteTexas execution of Henry Skinner halted over DNA appeal
The US Supreme Court has stayed the execution of a convicted murderer, less than an hour before he was due to die, after an appeal for new DNA tests.
Henry Skinner was convicted in Texas in 1995 of the murders of his girlfriend and her two sons.
Skinner, who is now married to a French campaigner against the death penalty, had called for new DNA testing to prove his innocence.
His appeal received the support of French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
The French ambassador to the US has asked the Texas governor to pardon Skinner or halt the execution.
The stay of execution grants a delay but does not ensure the DNA tests will be carried out.
Skinner, 47, was told about the reprieve as he waited in a holding cell next to the death chamber in Huntsville, Texas.
"I had made up my mind I was going to die," he was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.
"I'm eager to get the DNA testing so I can prove my innocence and get the hell out of here. I'm greatly relieved. I feel like I really won today."
There's been a recent Supreme Court decision on capital punishment I think you need to be aware of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ&NR=1
Why can they only make such decisions one hour before the execution is meant to take place? It makes for good Hollywood films I guess. They had 15 years to review the case and they do so hours before he is meant to be executed. That's really inefficient.
Quote from: Zanza on March 28, 2010, 08:11:06 PM
Why can they only make such decisions one hour before the execution is meant to take place? It makes for good Hollywood films I guess. They had 15 years to review the case and they do so hours before he is meant to be executed. That's really inefficient.
I don't know about 15 years, but why stretch it out when there is a week left? Are they trying to carry out a couple of mock executions before the real one, for good measure? His lawyer should appeal his execution just on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment.
Quote from: Zanza on March 28, 2010, 08:11:06 PM
Why can they only make such decisions one hour before the execution is meant to take place? It makes for good Hollywood films I guess. They had 15 years to review the case and they do so hours before he is meant to be executed. That's really inefficient.
Who is "they?" "They" make decisions on appeals that are not last-minute all the time. You just don't hear about them. I am willing to bet that, in this case, the lower courts of appeal (this went to the USSC, remember) probably don't expedite rulings on specific appeals until execution time nears, and then the appeal of the appeal has to be heard and ruled on, etc. The USSC probably didn't have this case for very long, and all they are ruling is that they want to have the time to consider the case.
The Skinner case is one of those bags of worms you get from a corrupt judicial system. His attorney was court-appointed, and the official responsible for handing out the case gave it to a fired DA who needed the money to pay delinquent taxes - and who had prosecuted Skinner in the past and apparently had no interest in actually defending Skinner. Skinner's appeals have been denied, on the basis that he cannot now get testing his attorney could have gotten during the lead-up to the trial just by asking for it.
The prosecutor also will not release the evidence for private testing, though it is in her power to do so.
The case will test some of the limits of the claim of ineffective counsel, and, of course, whether or not one has a civil right to have evidence DNA tested. Personally, though, I think the guy is guilty as hell.