The death penalty

[accessory]

Personally I find it one of the biggest hypocrisies of our species. Putting murder up there as the biggest sin and then allowing the state to carry it out.

On a side note I read somewhere the other day that if the laws that governed the Nuremberg trials were enforced in America something like the last 6 Presidents would be hanged.

7 out of the last 8. Jimmy Carter (who incidentally was a prominent campaigner for Troy Davis) might have escaped.

Both of last night's executions cast doubt on the USA's right to proclaim itself a civilised nation. Georgia in particular still seems to be stuck in the mentailty of the civil war.

Having studied the background to the Troy Davis case, it's very unlikely he would have been convicted, let alone executed, had he been white.

[accessory]

Exactly, what on earth do you do someone prepared to chain a disabled man to a car and drive around to decapitate them on the basis they are black, his last words as well "I'd do it again tomorrow" - It would be more barbaric to keep him alive.

And what about pumping a man full of lethal chemicals because of his race, as the state of Georgia did last night?

There is no distinction between the state and the KKK. Same ends, different means.

[Guest MattP]

And what about pumping a man full of lethal chemicals because of his race, as the state of Georgia did last night?

There is no distinction between the state and the KKK. Same ends, different means.

I'll get back to you on the Troy Davis case as I havent read about it, I'll do some reading from some neutral sources tonight.

I cannot believe for one second though it was his "race" that was the reason though, plenty of white folk have been put to death in Georgia on some fairly debatable evidence as well.

You are actually accusing the American government of having the same intentions as the KKK? Are you actually being serious there? just think about it.

[Guest Bilo]

I don't wish to get into the rights and wrongs of the death penalty per se again, I think I've made my views pretty clear in the past and really can't be bothered again.

On this specific case though, it is genuinely worrying that a man can be convicted let alone executed on such pitifully flimsy evidence. I think it's a pretty safe bet that if Iran or Saudi Arabia had executed on a similarly weak case that some of this forum's vociferous adherents of the death penalty would be queuing up to condemn those countries as uncivilised and barbaric, which is exactly what I believe this instance of the death penalty has been. If a country must have the death penalty as the ultimate sanction, it must be reserved for the most appalling criminals whose guilt is beyond question because executing somebody has a pretty clear message; 'there is no doubt that this criminal is guilty of his crime and there is no hope of his being rehabilitated.' I can't pretend to be privy to all the details of this case but all the evidence I can see suggests that neither of these criteria can be fulfilled, and as such he should not have been executed.

A race issue? I'm not so sure. I would argue it's more a case of the Deep South's fanatical political conservatism and near deification of authority figures such as the police coupled with the traditional disdain for anyone not wealthy enough to buy justice. The poor always get left behind in every aspect of conservative America; be it in the justice, health, education or welfare systems. This is equally true for white people, black people or the Hispanic population.

If the state of Georgia and the American 'justice' system are not hanging their heads in shame over this, they should be.

[Webbo]

There is no distinction between the state and the KKK. Same ends, different means.

Pitiful.

[Bryn]

I think whether or not Davis committed the crime here is fairly irrelevant, to be brutally frank. I reckon he probably did have a large role in it, or else he wouldn't have been convicted and have his conviction upheld.

However, that doesn't mean this isn't a miscarriage of justice. You simply can't put a man to death unless you're sure, and there seems to be pretty reasonable doubt to me.

[Alexikokopops]

Why bring this up AGAIN Alex??? Just why???

The death penalty may be wrong on THIS count, certainly not by all counts.

Largely because I'm a bit of a dick. Also because it was a high profile case that I hadn't seen mentioned around here. The main reason though was because it was a worrying case study of a conviction that has gone through, to death, when there is questionable evidence, in a system where the state is meant to be certain when condemning someone to death. The question that leads on from this is how do you isolate the "wrong" cases for death penalties for the "right" ones? There might be cases you view as "right" more than others, but is it right as a whole when incidents like this can happen? Does that not inherently make it wrong? It's an interesting train of thought that I was having while thinking about this case.

Oh, and I wanted to make a topic where I state my opinion as though it's fact. It seems to happen so often on this forum with things ranging from team selection to things like the death penalty that I felt I was missing out.

[Charl91]

There is no distinction between the state and the KKK. Same ends, different means.

[pSinatra]

The Republican states of Texas & Georgia will take an ultra right-wing stance on crime & the penalties of crime.....it's what the electorate will demand from them & 'justice' must be seen to be done.

As long as there is a death penalty, there will always be examples of miscarriages of justice & not just in America. People who are too poor to afford a decent defence, people who are the wrong colour, or simply people not important enough to care about. Class seems to be as important a factor......an underclass.

They will argue that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, when an overhaul in the gun laws would have a more profound impact on the number of murders.

[Charl91]

I think the Death Penalty should only ever be used with concrete evidence. However, being wrongly killed is probably not much better then being wrongly imprisoned for life.

[Guest MattP]

I think the Death Penalty should only ever be used with concrete evidence. However, being wrongly killed is probably not much better then being wrongly imprisoned for life.

That's a good point actually, think I would rather be put to death than have to spend 60 years in jail for something i didnt do.

[skinnydipper]

At least in theory the standard of proof in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt" or "satisfied so that the jury is sure". Whether a jury actually applies that standard as opposed to going with their gut instinct or applying a balance of probabilities test is often debatable.

Any human system is fallible; biased judges, politically motivated district attorneys,ineffective or inexperienced defence counsel, prejudiced juries, bent police and the offer of incentives to prosecution witnesses and the use of "snitches" can all contribute to the wrong verdict being reached.

Once found guilty the burden shifts to the defendant. It is for him to show that the decision was plainly wrong or that he was deprived of a fair trial and that is not easy to establish in front of the white, middle class, conservative judges who typically make up the bench in the apellate courts.

The US rightly condemns Iran for executing a juvenile whilst maintaining a system of capital punishment that is flawed and based simply on principles if retribution.

Perhaps not the only instance of the US government applying double standards!

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I totally agree with the death penalty. For and against in this case doesn't matter, as WE don't know the relevant facts. Unless you believe that what newspapers say, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. :rolleyes:

[Rincewind]

If you can afford a good lawer the better chance you have of getting off.

A good lawer would question the jurors as to their views on certain things race colour social standing etc The ones that they consider nias against he defendant would be excluded. Even a judge can bring personal views into it even though they are supposed to be impartial.

Take a child killer, how many on here if on the jury would take into consideration physcoathric reports on the accused? And reccomend a lenient sentence because of them? I'm not sure about myself. In the discussion between jurors I may be pursuaded to convict. Justice needs to be seen to be done but to the victim or the accused?

[Smudge]

At least in theory the standard of proof in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt" or "satisfied so that the jury is sure". Whether a jury actually applies that standard as opposed to going with their gut instinct or applying a balance of probabilities test is often debatable.

Any human system is fallible; biased judges, politically motivated district attorneys,ineffective or inexperienced defence counsel, prejudiced juries, bent police and the offer of incentives to prosecution witnesses and the use of "snitches" can all contribute to the wrong verdict being reached.

Once found guilty the burden shifts to the defendant. It is for him to show that the decision was plainly wrong or that he was deprived of a fair trial and that is not easy to establish in front of the white, middle class, conservative judges who typically make up the bench in the apellate courts.

The US rightly condemns Iran for executing a juvenile whilst maintaining a system of capital punishment that is flawed and based simply on principles if retribution.

Perhaps not the only instance of the US government applying double standards!

I don't understand how this has anything to do with US policy or the Government. The States are responsible for most executions not the Goverment and fyi 14 of them don't have the death penalty.

Alaska

Hawaii

Illinois

Iowa

Maine

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

New Jersey,

New Mexico

New York

North Dakota

Rhode Island

Vermont

West Virginia

Wisconsin

District of Columbia (Not a state but self governing)

[skinnydipper]

Smudge, that's a fair point you make and I defer to your superior knowledge if the US legal system. It could be said that decisions on a state by state basis is a fine example of localised democracy in action. My understanding is that no administration would outlaw execution on a national basis because to do so would be politically catastrophic. Therefore at the very least US government/US society create a permissive environment in which legalised killing is sanctioned. Due to the fallible human elements of such a system there will inevitably be innocent victims aside from the ethical arguments of the rights and wrongs of killing properly convicted offenders. My own view is that state sanctioned killing has no place in a civilised society though I appreciate that there is a logical and rational alternative view- it's just one that I don't agree with. The US is vocal about human rights abuses in other countries whilst miscarriages of justice lead to killing within its borders.Further it circumnavigates human rights by acting outside its own laws by the use of rendition. Finally the government also has a strong influence in the judicial process at the highest level through its role in Supreme Court appointments. Many if not all of the prominent miscarriage cases end up in the Supreme Court. You will know better than I the statistical incidence of that tribunal stepping in to prevent executions.

[Rincewind]

So if you are going to kill your missus its best to take a holiday in one of the non execution states to do it? Shall have to remember that.

[David Guiza]

If the death penalty was enforceable in this country Barry George would almost certainly have suffered at it's fate. The innocent man who spent a number of years in prison for a murder that he did not commit.

America aside, the countries who have the death penalty are ones such as Iraq. Here's me thinking we live in a forward thinking nation yet people want us to revert back to 'an eye for an eye' an ideal which originates from the bible.

[Rincewind]

The death penalty still exists here. for treason but it's unlikely it will ever be used. I believe some gallows are still maintained in working order. It would be difficult to find the right person to do the job. Anyone that is eager to volunteer would probably be unsuitable. Its not a job I would think you would get job satisfaction from.

There was a play/film not so long ago about Britains hangman Pierpoint? He executed some of the Nazi war criminals. He took the job seriously and checked everything so it would be quick It affected him though because he never thought about the person but as just a job and home to his wife after.

[leicsmac]

The death penalty still exists here. for treason but it's unlikely it will ever be used. I believe some gallows are still maintained in working order. It would be difficult to find the right person to do the job. Anyone that is eager to volunteer would probably be unsuitable. Its not a job I would think you would get job satisfaction from.

There was a play/film not so long ago about Britains hangman Pierpoint? He executed some of the Nazi war criminals. He took the job seriously and checked everything so it would be quick It affected him though because he never thought about the person but as just a job and home to his wife after.

This is commonly believed, but not true anymore...as part of signing up for the European Human Rights Act in 1998, the death penalty was abolished for all offences in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_Kingdom#Final_abolition

As for my stance on the whole matter...I strongly believe that it is better for one thousand guilty men to be acquitted rather than one innocent man be executed wrongly...otherwise the whole thing edges close to barbarism.

However I do believe in certain very specific circumstances where a specific set of criteria are met the death sentence may be applicable:

1.) Guilt is proven to the absolute absence of any doubt. Not just reasonable doubt, the absence of any doubt at all - a combination of witnesses and cast-iron evidence from a variety of sources.

2.) Where the offence is either particularly brutal, involves multiple murders or innocents unable to defend themselves.

3.) Where it is clear the offender shows no remorse for his or her actions, and it is clear he or she can never be rehabilitated.

This is the important part - if they feel bad about what they've done, lock them up for life and let them think about it for the rest of their lives. If they are mentally disturbed and if it is perceived possible to cure them, keep them in a mental hospital. But for the straight-up sociopaths, the ones who do not operate on the same mental compass as most of society, the ones that would clearly be a danger to other people if they were ever released again...is it really worth keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives? Prison is supposed to be about deterrence and rehabilitation right? And some people cannot be deterred and cannot be rehabilitated. What do you do with them?

[Rincewind]

Maybe. Rabid dogs are put down. I suspect you are talking about those that go on a shooting spree and are captured before they can turn a gun on themselves. Or the person that has bodies discovered at their home.

But then again there is the case of Timothy Evans and Christie. Evans knew nothing yet he was the prime suspect mainly because Christie covered his trail well and Evans did not have a high IQ.

If any of the beyond doubt murders were suicidal in prison though I would say let them get on with ity.

[topharry123]

3 words.

Only. In. America.

That's offensive there are American fans on this forum. you obviously know nothing of the case. There was enough evidence to convict him and every last appeal was exhausted. They are the rules. Some people sit on death row for 30 years + because there are more things that possibly could prove their innocence. In this case there was nothing left. I find it offensive when people say only in america, it's not right and it's not clever. For example, Ian Huntely is a child killer, imagine the uproar if someone commented on a news story about it only in england. You wouldn't be happy, and neither would I or many others. Do yourself a favor and leave out the only in American bullshit because it's not only in America 99.9% of the time it's everywhere, it's just a stupid comment glorifying how small minded some people can be about what goes on in the world.

[leicsmac]

Maybe. Rabid dogs are put down. I suspect you are talking about those that go on a shooting spree and are captured before they can turn a gun on themselves. Or the person that has bodies discovered at their home.

But then again there is the case of Timothy Evans and Christie. Evans knew nothing yet he was the prime suspect mainly because Christie covered his trail well and Evans did not have a high IQ.

If any of the beyond doubt murders were suicidal in prison though I would say let them get on with ity.

That's right...this is why all doubt must be removed before execution is even considered.

For what it's worth, I think one good example of a country using capital punishment judiciously is Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_in_Japan

They have a 9-point series of criteria that must be met that looks clear and logical (though I disagree about having input from bereaved family members; too much scope for emotional response that may not be appropriate). It must also be the entirely last resort - used when no other punishment would be effective.

[Smudge]

Smudge, that's a fair point you make and I defer to your superior knowledge if the US legal system. It could be said that decisions in a state by state basis is a fine example if localised democracy in action. My understanding is that no administration would outlaw execution in s national basis because to do so would be politically catastrophic. Therefore at the very least US government/US society create a permissive environment in which legalised killing is sanctioned. Due to the fallible human elements of such a system there will inevitably be innocent victims aside from the ethical arguments of the rights and wrongs of killing properly convicted offenders. My own view is that state sanctioned killing has no place in a civilized society though I appreciate that there is a logical and rational alternative view- it's just one that I don't agree with. The US is vocal about human rights abuses in other countries whilst miscarriages of justice lead to killing within its borders.Further it circumnavigates human rights by acting outside its own laws by the use of rendition. Finally the government also has a strong influence in the judicial process at the highest level through its role in Supreme Court appointments. Many if not all of the prominent miscarriage cases end up in the Supreme Court. You will know better than I the statistical incidence of that tribunal stepping in to prevent executions.

What you say is totally valid in most respects I agree with the sentiments expressed. However, I learned early on that the law doesn't favour emotion. It's a set of rules that you either agree with or don't. Once you buy in to that you have to go along with it for good or bad. Not the response I expected but kudos to you for listening to my point of view, thank you.

[Guest ttfn]

There was an interesting article on the Guardian yesterday by a convicted murderer, talking about the Troy Davis case.

He felt that Troy Davis was a different man when he was executed to the man who may or may not have murdered a policeman in 1989, but at the very least was hanging around with individuals who did do that.

And it's hardly a surprise. That murder was 22 years ago. If the US criminal justice system was any good, surely he would at least have gone some way to being rehabilitated by now? At least to the point that a man who (may or may not have) committed one murder as a young man was no longer such a threat to society that he had to be executed?

And, further more, what sort of justice system can give a man a life sentence for murder, and then the next level up be the death penalty? I say this because, given the length of time people are on death row for, they end up serving a "life" prison sentence anyway (Davis being a case in point, having been locked up for 20 years before his execution). Is that not a double punishment?