Originally posted by psmith81992
That is also my point, regardless of your stance on capital punishment.
It seems like a trivial point though, no? Like obviously we could change everything about the judicial process, but at some point it would also have too few failsafes for you, and that line is what we are talking about.
Originally posted by psmith81992Perhaps I would agree with you and your documentaries if the leading cause of death among inmates wasn't suicides.
And I think the seriousness of a crime is measured by the punishment we administer and I think we have progressed as a civilization precisely because we have maintained the death penalty but made it more logical and humane. I disagree with the notion that life in prison is sometimes a worse punishment. You should see these documentaries of murderers just having a ball. Granted it's not the outside but they at least get to live, which is already insulting enough based on the crimes they committed and that's really my point. Why should they get to wake up breathing every day. Furthermore, those who are lifers have no reason to behave. They've killed and will likely kill inmates, so they leave more dead in their wake. Lock them up in ad seg? That works until they get that hour in the rec yard and they assault an officer. All of these are interesting points of discussion but I focus on the fact that they're allowed to wake up every morning for the rest of their lives.It was a hypothetical question because I wanted to gauge whether you oppose the death penalty based on the chance of getting it wrong, or using that as a smokescreen. Also, the number of wrongful deaths has been so miniscule, I think it's illogical to ban the entire punishment. Otherwise, I would argue that there's been more wrongful deaths for innocent victims going to prison and getting shanked.
I did not ask you a loaded question, I asked you a hypothetical one. They are not the same but I'll entertain your loaded question. I want other humans beings who deserve death, to die.
As to the lifers having no reason to behave? There are still incentive programs that can be given, that have had success, to help curb prison violence. Better quality life rewards through community service projects. So violent offenders are still locked away but we are also getting useful work from them.
As to your hypothetical question. I called it a loaded question because it ignores our current state of affairs to argue in a context that doesn't exist. We aren't talking about a system with 100% success rate of not killing innocents therefore to me going to the unrealistic hypothetical does the actual ways things are a disservice.
Now let's look at your comment that the rate of error is low enough that the death penalty process should not only be kept around but the process should be modified to lessen the appeal process to make the death penalty cheaper.
Let's look at the fact that reducing the appeals process could raise the rate of error. Let's also look at the idea of the numbers being low enough it is okay. While you might like the idea of the death penalty as a punishment there is no serviceable data to indicate that the death penalty serves any real deterrent to violent crimes anymore than life in prison.
So I look at it this way. Why risk the lives of an innocent person to help save/reduce the effort for a system that does not give any gains over another punishment that has much better success rate of not accidentally killing any innocent people. That seems more logical to me and better for the advancement of our civilization.
Also I've seen prison shanking being brought up before as an argument about not wanting innocent people to die. Like because innocent people get shanked in prison that means the death penalty is okay. Or also if you believe the death penalty should go away because innocent people get killed your hypocrite because innocent people get shanked.
To me the murder rate among prisoners and the death penalty are exclusive issues. One is the conditions in which prisoners must live vs the punishments we give to prisoners for crimes. I would like to see something done about making prison murders less frequent. I would like to see go to zero.
Still we aren't talking about the conditions prisoners are living in. We are talking about a useless punishment that doesn't seem to help stop crime in any meaningful way especially compared life in prison which seems to be just as good as persuading people not commit crime. So we might as well get rid of it because while prison conditions need to be reexamined at least life in prison gives us a chance to correct our mistake while the death penalty is less forgiving to those wrongly accused.
Let me ask you this.
You have a prisoner that may or may not be innocent. They are accused of committing a murder. You can not say for sure if they are innocent because ultimately the system isn't perfect. You have to send them down two roads. One has 98% mortality rate, it's not 100% because new evidence could come to light after so many years have passed the other only 2% but has chances to decrease that number by creating better conditions.
Which road would you choose to send that prisoner down?
Perhaps I would agree with you and your documentaries if the leading cause of death among inmates wasn't suicides.
Meanwhile, the report found that in 2013, about 90 percent of deaths in state prisons were related to an illness, six percent were suicides and three percent were homicides.Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/Suicide-Leading-Cause-of-Death-in-US-Jails-Report/2015/08/05/article2958757.ece1
Emphasis mine.
As to the lifers having no reason to behave? There are still incentive programs that can be given, that have had success, to help curb prison violence. Better quality life rewards through community service projects. So violent offenders are still locked away but we are also getting useful work from them.
As to your hypothetical question. I called it a loaded question because it ignores our current state of affairs to argue in a context that doesn't exist. We aren't talking about a system with 100% success rate of not killing innocents therefore to me going to the unrealistic hypothetical does the actual ways things are a disservice.
Let's look at the fact that reducing the appeals process could raise the rate of error. Let's also look at the idea of the numbers being low enough it is okay. While you might like the idea of the death penalty as a punishment there is no serviceable data to indicate that the death penalty serves any real deterrent to violent crimes anymore than life in prison.
So I look at it this way. Why risk the lives of an innocent person to help save/reduce the effort for a system that does not give any gains over another punishment that has much better success rate of not accidentally killing any innocent people. That seems more logical to me and better for the advancement of our civilization.
Also I've seen prison shanking being brought up before as an argument about not wanting innocent people to die. Like because innocent people get shanked in prison that means the death penalty is okay. Or also if you believe the death penalty should go away because innocent people get killed your hypocrite because innocent people get shanked.
To me the murder rate among prisoners and the death penalty are exclusive issues. One is the conditions in which prisoners must live vs the punishments we give to prisoners for crimes. I would like to see something done about making prison murders less frequent. I would like to see go to zero.
Still we aren't talking about the conditions prisoners are living in. We are talking about a useless punishment that doesn't seem to help stop crime in any meaningful way especially compared life in prison which seems to be just as good as persuading people not commit crime.
You have a prisoner that may or may not be innocent. They are accused of committing a murder. You can not say for sure if they are innocent because ultimately the system isn't perfect. You have to send them down two roads. One has 98% mortality rate, it's not 100% because new evidence could come to light after so many years have passed the other only 2% but has chances to decrease that number by creating better conditions.Which road would you choose to send that prisoner down?
Originally posted by psmith81992My point was that you are trying to make it sound like prison is a big party for people there. The suicide rate is there to show you no prison is still brutal.
How is this relevant exactly? The % of wrongful conviction and death penalty is under 3%. Meanwhile:
Assuming that I would agree that they could be given, I would also argue that more than the majority would reject them and it will no effect on prison violence. Unless there are statistics backing that up. And again, that's assuming I would even give them a chance at that.
And I gave you an answer.
Which is irrelevant because I want to know why you really oppose the death penalty and I asked that question in order to understand.
So two things here. You are trying to say that if we shortened the appeals process the death penalty would be a better deterrent. Except once again that has never been proven even in times when the ability to swiftly carry out executions was common. Look at pirates throughout the ages to see a clear cut example of swift executions not dissuading people.
Which is an irrelevant point because it's not a deterrent and I'm pretty sure we can thank the lengthy and inefficient appeals process for that. All that matters is the death penalty serves as a punishment for the offender and more often than not, helps the grieving victims.
The second point is that there have been studies done that show that the death penalty harms families more than helps them. As it turns out knowing the person who committed the act does not take away the pain.
http://www.rachelkingbooks.com/article-impactonfamilies,king_895.pdf
In fact the family has to deal with the pain more when the death penalty is pursued.
I find it odd here that you say it is a testament to our society that we have lengthy appeals processes for death row inmates but you seem so against having those appeals in place or drastically shortening them. Care to elaborate on what you mean here?
I think it's the opposite of advancement if we give everybody who's committed atrocious act a chance to reform. That spits in the face of victims, and victims family. As I've stated earlier, I believe that the severity of a country's crimes are judged by the punishment and I think the fact that we HAVE a lengthy appeals process (regardless of efficiency or lack thereof), is a testament to our advancement of civilization. Simply stating "killing is always wrong" or something equivalent is the opposite of advancement.
No I didn't get it wrong. This is the exact argument I'm talking about. You're trying to ruin the credibility of someone saying they don't like the death penalty by saying they don't like the risk to innocent life by bringing in a different topic. Basically you're saying people are hypocrites if they are for incarnations but against the death penalty based on not wanting to see the government possibly kill innocent people.
I think you misunderstood what I thought was pretty clear. If you're against the death penalty because of the possibility of the state getting it wrong and executing an innocent person, then you should be against imprisonment because the prison death toll far exceeds that of wrongful execution. Therefore, you should be more concerned of an innocent person going to prison and being killed.
It's an absurd argument that tries to break down a major talking point against the death penalty. It tries to make an extreme case to discredit people. Basically what you;re saying is if you don't want to believe innocents getting killed accidentally then there should be no incarcerations and all offenders should be free. Which is just once again a silly argument.
The conditions in which prisoners is different from the punishments we give to them. I do agree we need to do a better job of increasing living conditions for prisoners to reduce prison crime. In fact we need to seriously rethink a lot of how we punish criminals and how we treat them.
The death penalty is just one part of the issue and is a separate issue from the prison murder rates. You can believe that prisoners should not be put on death row because there is a chance the punishment was unjustly given to an innocent person. Especially considering how unforgiving the death penalty is in being able to correct it's mistakes especially when the appeals process is reduced. While life in prison means that we can still put people away that could be dangerous while still giving us adequate to review these cases in a more reasonable manner without costing people money.
Going to be a little tough when you're dealing with animals. It's a little more complicated than "oh we should just treat them like people and they'll start being nice to each other."
What do you mean "you cannot say if this person is guilty or innocent"? By you very definition, you've just eliminated "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and therefore the point becomes moot. In my opinion, that isn't a logical way to argue against the death penalty, instead of just becomes a sort of illogical confirmation bias.
I tried to create a scenario that is more likely then saying you are 100% certain the person is the murderer to reflect the uncertainty in the punishment when it is handed out.
So it's not confirmation bias. It is me asking you to make a comment about how the system currently is not how you would like to pretend it is by assuming that all people sentenced to death can be proven 100% to be guilty.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wonder if psmith has ever talked to an ex-con before.
Yup. Appreciate your contribution 👆
My point was that you are trying to make it sound like prison is a big party for people there. The suicide rate is there to show you no prison is still brutal.
Imagine that you treat people like human beings, give them reasons to do things productively and they behave.
So two things here. You are trying to say that if we shortened the appeals process the death penalty would be a better deterrent. Except once again that has never been proven even in times when the ability to swiftly carry out executions was common. Look at pirates throughout the ages to see a clear cut example of swift executions not dissuading people.
The second point is that there have been studies done that show that the death penalty harms families more than helps them. As it turns out knowing the person who committed the act does not take away the pain.
http://www.rachelkingbooks.com/arti...es,king_895.pdfIn fact the family has to deal with the pain more when the death penalty is pursued.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bal-md.kane05feb05-column.html
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/05/16/measure-of-relief.html
http://www.debate.org/opinions/do-families-of-victims-feel-justice-with-the-death-penalty
These would all disagree with you. And what you cited as well as other sources I've looked up all say the same thing. "Years of waiting for a death penalty that may or may not happen." So like I've already stated, if there's an issue, it's with the lengthy process.
I find it odd here that you say it is a testament to our society that we have lengthy appeals processes for death row inmates but you seem so against having those appeals in place or drastically shortening them. Care to elaborate on what you mean here?
No I didn't get it wrong. This is the exact argument I'm talking about. You're trying to ruin the credibility of someone saying they don't like the death penalty by saying they don't like the risk to innocent life by bringing in a different topic. Basically you're saying people are hypocrites if they are for incarnations but against the death penalty based on not wanting to see the government possibly kill innocent people.
It's an absurd argument that tries to break down a major talking point against the death penalty. It tries to make an extreme case to discredit people. Basically what you;re saying is if you don't want to believe innocents getting killed accidentally then there should be no incarcerations and all offenders should be free. Which is just once again a silly argument.
The death penalty is just one part of the issue and is a separate issue from the prison murder rates. You can believe that prisoners should not be put on death row because there is a chance the punishment was unjustly given to an innocent person. Especially considering how unforgiving the death penalty is in being able to correct it's mistakes especially when the appeals process is reduced. While life in prison means that we can still put people away that could be dangerous while still giving us adequate to review these cases in a more reasonable manner without costing people money.
Considering most murders are crimes of passion and for the majority of their lives the perpetrator has lived a perfectly normal life I don't believe they are animals. They can still be perfectly rationale human beings.I would like to see one iota of proof for this. Furthermore, where do you draw the line? Someone who breaks out of prison and kills more people? Dictators that murder millions? Or is all life "sacred"? Once again, you have refused to address situations where we know the party is guilty.
Originally posted by Star428This is another silly argument. First off most people that want to abolish the death penalty aren't saying that dangerous people should not be locked away. Or that everyone is capable or willing to be rehabilitated. That's just another way people in this thread try to shut down discussion on the topic.
I suppose all the people arguing against the death penalty would prefer to rehabilitate rather than execute known ISIS members too that've wrongfully killed many people. LOL. "Just try to get to know them and you'll see that they're not such bad people". LMAO.
Originally posted by Newjak
Before we continue psmith how would you streamline the death process?
I'm not a politician but I know that judges/lawyers put those appeals in the bottom of their piles. Same with detectives and everything involving DNA, etc. The convicted have last priority regarding their cases. You could start with that.
Originally posted by psmith81992So you've got nothing?
I'm not a politician but I know that judges/lawyers put those appeals in the bottom of their piles. Same with detectives and everything involving DNA, etc. The convicted have last priority regarding their cases. You could start with that.
I've heard you say the appeals processes take too long? So I assumed you meant by streamlining that included shortening the time span appeals can be given? You did say 15-30 years was too much.
I assumed you wanted fewer appeals as well?
So right now all you're telling me is the death penalty would be better if it was streamlined but you can't tell me what ways to streamline. Except that maybe filing the paperwork faster would help?
I was hoping to get a decent set of criteria because I was going to create a list of people sentenced to death since 1973 who later were proven innocent that would have been executed under your criteria.
It's kind of hard to do that though when you give me nothing.
So you've got nothing?I've heard you say the appeals processes take too long? So I assumed you meant by streamlining that included shortening the time span appeals can be given? You did say 15-30 years was too much.
I assumed you wanted fewer appeals as well?
You've gotta do better than that, seriously? I didn't say anything of the sort. Less appeals for who?
So right now all you're telling me is the death penalty would be better if it was streamlined but you can't tell me what ways to streamline. Except that maybe filing the paperwork faster would help?
I was hoping to get a decent set of criteria because I was going to create a list of people sentenced to death since 1973 who later were proven innocent that would have been executed under your criteria.
Here you go:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
Originally posted by psmith81992And what would reshuffling the priority of paper work do. How much faster do you think it makes the process?
I just answered you. Ignoring that and claiming that I have nothing makes you look dense. I would shorten the appeal process by giving convicted inmates more of a priority during their appeals process, so a lengthy process would be rendered unnecessary.You've gotta do better than that, seriously? I didn't say anything of the sort. Less appeals for who?
I told you exactly what to streamline. Convicted inmates are a nonexistent priority. If you choose to ignore what I said, that's on you.
Is 1973 some kind of magical number that's going to help your argument out?
How does that streamline it so death row appeals don't cost so much money?
Is this supposed to shorten the time a convicted death row inmate can spend on appealing their decision before the execution is carried out? If so by how much? How much do you want the appeals process to be shortened by?
1973 is as far back as the data I was looking at went.
EDIT: I just saw the link you put in. I've seen that information before but that is not what I said I was doing. There is a list of people that have been exonerated since 1973. I was going to make a separate list to show how many people would have been executed on that list had your criteria been in play at the time.
And what would reshuffling the priority of paper work do. How much faster do you think it makes the process?
How does that streamline it so death row appeals don't cost so much money?
Is this supposed to shorten the time a convicted death row inmate can spend on appealing their decision before the execution is carried out? If so by how much? How much do you want the appeals process to be shortened by?
I'm not sure about 1973, but 1976 is a magical number for the death penalty in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_v._Georgia
Originally posted by psmith81992Okay this I can work with.If you're asking me personally, I would say 10 years from the time he's convicted to the time the sentence is carried out, provided the inmate doesn't get his papers put at the end of the pile. I think a decade is adequate time. And I'm talking about all convicted first degree murderers, even the majority whose guilt is apparent.
Here is the number of people that would have been wrongfully executed had they only been able to appeal for ten years.
1) Wilbert Lee
2) Freddie Pitts
3) Lawyer Johnson
4) Joseph Green Brown
5) Randall Dale Adams
6) James Richardson
7) Gary Nelson
8) James Robison
9) Robert Charles Cruz
10) Verneal Jimerson
11) Dennis Williams
12) Roberto Miranda
13) Troy Lee Jones
14) Ricardo Aldape Guerra
15) Benjamin Harris
16) Curtis Kyles
17) Anthony Porter
18) Steven Smith
19) Ronald Williamson
20) Eric Clemmons
21) Earl Washington
22) Frank Lee Smith
23) Michael Graham
24) Albert Burrell
25) Oscar Lee Morris
26) Peter Limone
27) Charles Fain
28) Juan Roberto Melendez
29) Aaron Patterson
30) Madison Hobley
31) Leroy Orange
32) Stanley Howard
33) Rudolph Holton
34) John Thompson
35) Timothy Howard
36) Gary Lamar James
37) Joseph Amrine
38) Nicholas Yarris
39) Gordon Steidl
40) Laurence Adams
41) Ernest Ray Willis
42) Derrick Jamison
43) Harold Wilson
44) Curtis McCarty
45) Michael McCormick
46) Jonathon Hoffman
47) Kennedy Brewer
48) Glen Chapman
49) Levon Jones
50) Michael Blair
51) Nathson Fields
52) Paul House
53) Ronald Kitchen
54) Yancy Douglas
55) Paris Powell
56) Anthony Graves
57) Gussie Vann
58) Joe D'Ambrosio
59) Damon Thibodeaux
60) Seth Penalver
61) Reginald Griffin
62) Glenn Ford
63) Henry McCollum
64) Leon Brown
65) Ricky Jackson
66) Wiley Bridgeman
67) Kwame Ajamu
68) Debra Milke
69) Anthony Hinton
70) Willie Manning
71) Lawrence William Lee
Since 1976 there have been 1412 executions in the united states . So you're saying you're okay with a roughly 1% increase in wrongful executions in that time frame for the ability to streamline the appeals process to what you think is a reasonable time frame.
For what? Oh yeah to act as a better deterrent to crime. Oh wait a number of countries without the death penalty have a laughably lower violent crime rate than the United States. So as a crime deterrent it doesn't seem to work well or even be needed in that matter.
So grieving families get their justice quicker. So what you're saying is it's okay to kill innocent people so long as families get some sense of satisfaction over watching another person die. Even though there are studies that show the death penalty can take a huge toll on families from the length of time they have to deal with the process to even discontent inside of the family over the death penalty. The only way I could see the death penalty truly helping the family is if that death somehow brought back the person they lost.
I have yet to hear any good reason to keep the death penalty considering the risk of killing innocents versus potential rewards it gives us. Which at this point the rewards seem to be pretty much zero.
The fundamental flaw with your logic, psmith, is that you think that "justice" is important. That's barbaric thinking. You think we should bust out the old "eye for an eye" Code of Hammurabi. That's barbaric. That's violent ancient human bullshit.
When people like you stop viewing incarceration as a place to punish people but, instead, a place to rehabilitate people, then we can start to make meaningful changes to combating crime. I noticed you didn't address recidivism, at all: the fundamental problem in the US Criminal System. It's because we are focused on "punishment" and not rehabilitation.
The reason you separate a criminal from the public is because the person represents a danger to the public. If a person commits a victim-less crime, they should never ever be incarcerated. Ever. The point of criminal rehabilitation is to reintegrate that human back into society and make them a positive contributor to society (instead of a drain).
You have a fundamentally flawed understanding of how crime should be addressed. You are literally part of the problem with you views. Until people like you can be squashed from having any relevancy in how the US addresses crime, we will continue to wallow in fetid, putrescent, barbarism.
And how Christian is it to think, "String him up and murder the **** out of him!!! Raawwr!"? Doesn't that strike you as very anti-Christlike? For a "Christian Nation", we are awfully barbaric and unforgiving.
Also, notice I specifically said unrepentant criminals? Because, yeah, if they are not going to reintegrate and we have irrefutable evidence that they committed the crime, that's when the "death penalty" should be used (for things like mass murderers and serial rapists).
Also, why can not the idea of "justice" also be that the criminal has the serve the community in incarceration? Why does your idea of justice have to be punishment in an inhumane prison?
Do you see where I'm going with all of this? Your idea of how we should address crime is actually part of why we continue to have crime. It is also quite barbaric. The US, in general, needs to shift their way of thinking.
Also, this is one topic I'm not going to be nice about. If you say stupid shit about wanting to perpetuate homicide, I'll treat what you say like the stupid shit it is. Take a step back from your words and realize what you're saying: you want to kill people and you wholly endorse it. "This person murdered someone. So let's murder him back! ha! That'll teach 'em!"