Chenoa
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 273
- Reaction score
- 241
- Location
- Huntsville, Alabama
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I don't think we should be killing people purely based on the risk that they might act violently in prison. That's what we have guards and segregated/solitary confinement for. It's not a good enough reason to end someone's life. We execute people for what they've done, not what we think they might do.If everyone that is on death row were to suddenly be resentenced to life without parole, and integrated into the mainstream prison population, there would more than likely be a number of inmates and C.O.s murdered.
I don't think we should be killing people purely based on the risk that they might act violently in prison. It's not a good enough reason to end someone's life.
That's what we have guards and segregated/solitary confinement for.
We execute people for what they've done, not what we think they might do.
And anyhoo, almost all death row inmates live in prison for years before they are executed. I haven't heard many stories of them being any more violent than anybody else.
Well I guess this highlights where we disagree then. I don't like to err on the side of death.Oh... Well, I don't think we should refrain from executing a convicted killer based upon the risk that they might not be guilty.
Except when we execute we are the sole party accountable and the victim is an innocent, whereas when criminals kill they typically do so intentionally to other criminals and we try to stop it.There is grave risk when we execute and when we don't execute. This is the point!
Very few even in the correctional field still hold to that view. And please remind me how the death penalty is consistent with rehabilitation?WRONG.
The function of a correctional facility is to rehabilitate.
My point is that your reasoning doesn't make much sense and isn't in line with related policy. What is your point in responding with the above-quoted fact?Yes, Troy Davis was executed for killing an off-duty police officer. So, what's your point????????
Of course they do. But my point is that I haven't seen evidence that they behave any more violently in prison than those we don't kill, and for the most part prisons seem more than capable of handling them.Death row inmates are under much tighter supervision and segregation than lifers in general pop. That being said, death row inmates still manage to kill each other and assault guards.
Death Row Inmate Said to Beat and Kick Another to Death in New Jersey Prison - New York Times
But, despite the claims by Davis's lawyer that his execution was a "legal lynching", a sober reading of the evidence would suggest whatever objections you might have to his execution, Davis's innocence shouldn't be one of them. And you certainly shouldn't worry that he wasn't given the chance to have his claims considered properly.
For in addition to an extraordinary US District Court hearing granted to him by order of the US Supreme Court in 2009, Davis's evidence for his innocence was examined by the Georgia State Supreme Court, its Board of Pardons and Paroles and a Federal Court of Appeals.
The Georgia Board of Pardons alone spent more than a year studying and considering Davis's case, giving his lawyers opportunity to call - and question closely - every witness they wanted. It also read Davis's trial transcript, the police investigation reports and the original witness statements, had physical evidence retested, and interviewed Davis.
By the time US District Court Justice William T. Moore - a Clinton administration appointment - last year came to hear Davis's extraordinary Supreme Court-ordered appeal, most of the evidence on which it was based was almost 10 years old.
His 174-page judgment, reached after a two-day hearing in which Davis's lawyers were again allowed to call witnesses, demolished many of the claims repeatedly aired last week.
Indeed, it is hard not to agree with Spencer Lawton, the man who prosecuted Davis in 1991, when he said last week that many of those calling for clemency were doing so not because there was any evidence exonerating him but because they opposed the death penalty.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
While all the righteous indignation in this thread is certainly entertaining, I'm curious how many here have even tried to objectively review the evidence in this case.
No getting around murder evidence | Herald Sun
It's fine if people want to make Davis a rallying point for opposition to the death penalty, but don't do it on the false claims that there was no evidence of his guilt. BTW, does anyone know (or care) about the name of the police officer who was shot in the face? This is the problem with such a prolonged appeals process. The actual victim is long since forgotten.
BTW, a few have brought up the idea of government intrusion and the Constitution. These are red herrings. Whatever the objection is to the DP, it cannot credibly be argued that our founders did not envision it's use or that it is unconstitutional.
Well I guess this highlights where we disagree then. I don't like to err on the side of death.
Except when we execute we are the sole party accountable and the victim is an innocent, whereas when criminals kill they typically do so intentionally to other criminals and we try to stop it.
Very few even in the correctional field still hold to that view.
And please remind me how the death penalty is consistent with rehabilitation?
My point is that your reasoning doesn't make much sense and isn't in line with related policy. What is your point in responding with the above-quoted fact?
Of course they do. But my point is that I haven't seen evidence that they behave any more violently in prison than those we don't kill, and for the most part prisons seem more than capable of handling them.
The death penalty needs overhauled. It shouldn't be as easy as it currently is for the government to kill people. In some cases, I have no problem with it and never did. I see it as practical, but it's mostly handled like an instrument of politics today which is the problem. Conservatives are especially afraid of pardoning somebody for fear of appearing soft on the death penalty. But, putting to death serial killers, sadists, admitted thrill killers, and socipathic killers is practical. They show no remorse, and they basically thrive on hurting others. They will hurt people if they are released or escape, they think about hurting people, some of them even get off on fantasies of hurting/killing/torturing other people, and they write letters to people outside of prison to cause more fear and pain. Many serial killers have even achieved cult status fame and followers and cash in on their crimes. There is some kind of ebay site where they can literally sell letters and murder memorabilia.
I have no problem putting certain people to death, never did, but I don't think every single person should be condemned to die for a crime just to make a political statement... and that's all the death penalty is IMO
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?