The problem is there's too much human involvement. Mistakes are made. A prosecutor that doesn't win cases won't be a prosecutor for long. Video footage can be manipulated. Eyewitness testimony is considered the worst of scientific evidence. A confession can be coerced.

I'm not trying to just argue the details of your stipulations. I'm trying to point out the realities of exactly what you are asking for.

But in all this, you never actually answered my question. You said that you are only for the death penalty under certain circumstances. My question was how would you feel or what are your thoughts after it is discovered that we have sent an innocent human to their death?

If all the checks and balances are in place (and the system should be a lot tighter than it is now). I don't think an innocent person could be executed.

If it was found that an innocent person had been convicted on fabricated evidence, then the investigating police officers and the prosecutor should also be charged with murder. As this would count as a cold, calculated plot to kill someone, these persons would be eligible for the death penalty themselves

So you value human contact as an important part of life, and lack of human contact is akin to torture, so its better to kill them?

In effect, yes. While to some it may be an attractive thought to some to torture somebody by keeping them isolated till they commit suicide or go totally insane the line has to be drawn somewhere. Their "humaness" is recognised by giving them a quick clean death, quite unlike the one they gave their victims.

To those that oppose the death penalty for the reasons you do. I say consider what you are actually sentencing the person to. Is locking someone for the term of their natural life (30 to 50+ years depending on their age at conviction) in an 8 x 10 cell really a "humane" thing to do ?

From another point of view. Humans have always been ready to hunt down and kill predators that threaten them and their relatives, man eating animals, sharks, crocodiles etc. are all disposed of as quickly as possible. Apart from the few that finish up in zoos they are not locked away.

I never said I didn't like the term (or phrase), its just that I disagree with your proffered solution or application of punishment. I do not believe any sane human being should be given the power to decide if another human being is to live or die as a form of punishment (hopefully it goes without saying that this excludes wartime). The fact that any human can choose to decide whether someone is to live or die makes you no better than the convict.

Rather a sane one than an insane one.

A trial is a "due process" with many checks and balances, that can take months or even years to reach a verdict. The judge is not sentencing the convict to death to get a thrill, for material gain or for whatever reason the original murder was committed.

The judge's job is to listen to the evidence and after a guilty verdict, sentence the convict according to their culpability based on the evidence. This is not a spur of the moment decision or the convict a person chosen at random (as the victims most often are).

Actually I did comment on this, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I disagree that someone who has committed heinous acts have abrogated all rights as a human. To be human is a result of biology, not action.

I disagree, there is more to being human than appearance or genetics. Evolution has given us the brain power to develop moral codes, ethics and an ability to try and formulate these into a legal sytem (if it hadn't we wouldn't be having this discussion). I do agree that morality and legality are nor necessarily the same thing

A statement I could agree with would be "People who commit heinous acts of inhumanity have abrogated all freedoms as afforded by their respective laws. If a person wants their freedoms, they have to respect the rights and freedoms of others".

"Do as you would be done by" has fewer words and fewer loopholes.

I think one of the reasons for our disagreement is the difference between our legal systems. In Australia the Public Prosecutor is a career public servant, not an elected official as the US District Attorneys are. The position here is nowhere near as political as it is over there. There is no pressure on the Public Prosecutor to get the big win in court to ensure their re-election. Therefore the PP is less likely to push the boundaries of the legal system to get a conviction or push for the maximum penalty in order to appeal to the voters.

No Australian state has had the death penalty since the mid 1960's. I think it still exists under federal law for crimes such as Treason but this has never been tested in court.

To those reading this for the first time, may I point out Ozz and I are debating the fate of those at the worst end of the legal system. i.e. serial killers, those who have tortured their victims to death and so on. The ones who are totally amoral and without remorse.

T.A.

If all the checks and balances are in place (and the system should be a lot tighter than it is now). I don't think an innocent person could be executed.

Making the rules tighter only allows for extensive manipulation by those who understand it best.

If it was found that an innocent person had been convicted on fabricated evidence, then the investigating police officers and the prosecutor should also be charged with murder. As this would count as a cold, calculated plot to kill someone, these persons would be eligible for the death penalty themselves

Wouldn't it simply be easier to do away with the death penalty than to lose all this life?

So you value human contact as an important part of life, and lack of human contact is akin to torture, so its better to kill them?

In effect, yes. While to some it may be an attractive thought to some to torture somebody by keeping them isolated till they commit suicide or go totally insane the line has to be drawn somewhere. Their "humaness" is recognised by giving them a quick clean death, quite unlike the one they gave their victims.

To those that oppose the death penalty for the reasons you do. I say consider what you are actually sentencing the person to. Is locking someone for the term of their natural life (30 to 50+ years depending on their age at conviction) in an 8 x 10 cell really a "humane" thing to do ?

I often fantasize that living without human contact would be preferred than some of the people I deal with on the internet or in my everyday life (present company excluded thus far).

I can't state that solitary confinement, especially after they have shown no value for the lives of innocence nor the lives of their inmates (remember, I suggested solitary confinement as further punishment after additional crimes committed while incarcerated), is really an inhumane punishment. If they go insane from it, they already incarcerated so I fail to see how that affects society. There must already be something wrong with them if they end up in solitary confinement, so I would think it is an appropriate place given the permanence of the alternative.

From another point of view. Humans have always been ready to hunt down and kill predators that threaten them and their relatives, man eating animals, sharks, crocodiles etc. are all disposed of as quickly as possible. Apart from the few that finish up in zoos they are not locked away.

Sure, you're talking about our hunter instincts. We also have gathering instincts as well. However, much of that is quite primitive and should no longer be necessary in an advanced civilization. There is a better way to live, and the only way is to advance our understanding of ourselves, not become more efficient at killing that which we don't understand.

I never said I didn't like the term (or phrase), its just that I disagree with your proffered solution or application of punishment. I do not believe any sane human being should be given the power to decide if another human being is to live or die as a form of punishment (hopefully it goes without saying that this excludes wartime). The fact that any human can choose to decide whether someone is to live or die makes you no better than the convict.

Rather a sane one than an insane one.

...I'd rather it be none. No one should hold that kind of power.

A trial is a "due process" with many checks and balances, that can take months or even years to reach a verdict. The judge is not sentencing the convict to death to get a thrill, for material gain or for whatever reason the original murder was committed.

The judge's job is to listen to the evidence and after a guilty verdict, sentence the convict according to their culpability based on the evidence. This is not a spur of the moment decision or the convict a person chosen at random (as the victims most often are).

Sure, that all sounds good in theory, but we all know that justice is not applied equally to all citizens regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or creed.

Your faith in the system argument might hold more water if it weren't for the fact that so many mistakes happen almost commonly. When we have a perfect system, I might be open to the idea of the death penalty as a form of punishment. Otherwise, I don't seem to possess the same faith in our system and I think death is too irreversible.

Actually I did comment on this, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I disagree that someone who has committed heinous acts have abrogated all rights as a human. To be human is a result of biology, not action.

I disagree, there is more to being human than appearance or genetics. Evolution has given us the brain power to develop moral codes, ethics and an ability to try and formulate these into a legal sytem (if it hadn't we wouldn't be having this discussion). I do agree that morality and legality are nor necessarily the same thing

So someone who doesn't possess higher order mental functions, share the same moral and/or ethic codes, or hold the same values is somehow not human? I'm afraid that definition is too narrow and would exclude many people that are indeed human regardless of your limited classification.

I think one of the reasons for our disagreement is the difference between our legal systems. In Australia the Public Prosecutor is a career public servant, not an elected official as the US District Attorneys are. The position here is nowhere near as political as it is over there. There is no pressure on the Public Prosecutor to get the big win in court to ensure their re-election. Therefore the PP is less likely to push the boundaries of the legal system to get a conviction or push for the maximum penalty in order to appeal to the voters.

No Australian state has had the death penalty since the mid 1960's. I think it still exists under federal law for crimes such as Treason but this has never been tested in court.

I don't think our disagreement is in the differences of our legal system, but rather our disagreement on the following basic precepts:

a) What defines us as human?

b) How valuable is life, be it innocent or guilty?

c) What punishment is considered most "humane"?

Until we find common ground on these, it will be difficult to come to agreement on the death penalty as a form of punishment.

I can't say I'm willing to budge much on the first two as I've defined them, but I might concede the perceived "inhumanity" of solitary confinement, however I still believe its better than an irreversible alternative form of punishment.

Making the rules tighter only allows for extensive manipulation by those who understand it best.

Disagree, the tighter the rules the fewer the loopholes

I often fantasize that living without human contact would be preferred than some of the people I deal with on the internet or in my everyday life (present company excluded thus far).

That one I agree with :-) But you'd have the choice to return to the world if you so desired and as humans are social creatures the odds are that eventually you would

I can't state that solitary confinement, especially after they have shown no value for the lives of innocence nor the lives of their inmates (remember, I suggested solitary confinement as further punishment after additional crimes committed while incarcerated), is really an inhumane punishment. If they go insane from it, they already incarcerated so I fail to see how that affects society. There must already be something wrong with them if they end up in solitary confinement, so I would think it is an appropriate place given the permanence of the alternative.

There are some whose crimes are so bad that they revolt even the other prisoners (even the hard core ones) and are kept in solitary confinement from the first day of their sentence for their own "protection" because if they were sent to the main yard they would last less than 24 hours

Sure, you're talking about our hunter instincts.

No, I'm talking about our instinct to protect ourselves and our families

Sure, that all sounds good in theory, but we all know that justice is not applied equally to all citizens regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or creed.

You forgot wealth. Maybe I haven't made it clear enough but if Australia were to reintroduce the death penalty I sincerely hope the system would be a lot tighter than the one in Texas. Possibly even with a Court of Review to ensure that the law is applied equally across the whole society.

So someone who doesn't possess higher order mental functions, share the same moral and/or ethic codes, or hold the same values is somehow not human? I'm afraid that definition is too narrow and would exclude many people that are indeed human regardless of your limited classification.

You are now splitting hairs.
1)Someone who doesn't possess higher order mental functions is obviously suffering from a birth problem or serious injury and needs to be cared for by society. For the purposes of this debate the question is, Do they understand the difference between right and wrong?
2)Irrespective of their place of origin, all religions, philosophies and moral codes say basically the same things (with some slight variations). All of them have some form of "Be nice to each other" and "Thou shalt not kill". Apart from Buddhism all have some loopholes that allow killing in certain circumstances. The persons who don't have any moral code, regardless of their origins are the ones we are discussing.

I'll answer the rest of your points later. It's now 4am here and I need some sleep

T.A.

Making the rules tighter only allows for extensive manipulation by those who understand it best.

Disagree, the tighter the rules the fewer the loopholes

That's the general philosophy, but not always the case.

I often fantasize that living without human contact would be preferred than some of the people I deal with on the internet or in my everyday life (present company excluded thus far).

That one I agree with :-) But you'd have the choice to return to the world if you so desired and as humans are social creatures the odds are that eventually you would

You don't know me very well. ;-) If I ever left, I would bet my own life that I would never come back. I'm not nearly as social as most, if at all.

But you're right, I would have the opportunity to come back if I wished. Those who are put to death wrongly do not have the same option.

There are some whose crimes are so bad that they revolt even the other prisoners (even the hard core ones) and are kept in solitary confinement from the first day of their sentence for their own "protection" because if they were sent to the main yard they would last less than 24 hours

...and I'm OK with that. It works both ways.

Sure, you're talking about our hunter instincts.

No, I'm talking about our instinct to protect ourselves and our families

At what point do we feel safe? After they're incarcerated or only after they're dead? The primitive instinct wishes to destroy any threat. The civilized instinct wishes to isolate the problem and prevent it from having the opportunity to harm again, which doesn't necessarily equate to death.

Sure, that all sounds good in theory, but we all know that justice is not applied equally to all citizens regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or creed.

You forgot wealth. Maybe I haven't made it clear enough but if Australia were to reintroduce the death penalty I sincerely hope the system would be a lot tighter than the one in Texas. Possibly even with a Court of Review to ensure that the law is applied equally across the whole society.

Still misses the point. We are a fallible race, and our laws will always be fallible by definition. Death is permanent and leaves no room for error.

You are now splitting hairs.

Wasn't attempting to, but the accusation always seems to come up when someone tries to gain common ground by digging into the details.

1)Someone who doesn't possess higher order mental functions is obviously suffering from a birth problem or serious injury and needs to be cared for by society. For the purposes of this debate the question is, Do they understand the difference between right and wrong?

Choices of right and wrong do not define a human, those are social constructs. Biological makeup does determine what is human. Anyone classified in the race of homo sapien is a human being.

2)Irrespective of their place of origin all religions, philisophies and moral codes say basically the same things (with some slight variations). All of them have some form of "Be nice to each other" and "Thou shalt not kill". Apart from Buddhism all have some loopholes that allow killing in certain circumstances. The persons who don't have any moral code, regardless of their origins are the ones we are discussing.

How we treat the worst of us says a lot about us as a society. I would rather the message say we are a race of great compassion and do not condone finality as a form of punishment for any crime.

I think it makes it easier on the human psych to avoid thinking of these people as human beings so that we don't feel bad about killing them. Those in favor of the death penalty prefer to move the bar on the definition so that it excludes those who are put to death, which helps them when doling out justice on these individuals.

Many dictionaries define "Human Being" as "any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens." Obviously, even convicted murders fall into this definition, regardless of what we think of the correctness of their actions. I don't think that definition is up for debate or disagreement, for if we disagree with the definition of words than all communications begin to fall apart.

Take care and rest well. :-)

to gain common ground by digging into the details.

Well, a bunch of 'em got murdered in Indiana-now being reported. Five? or more? dead.

Guess they got in the way of some bullets or whathaveyou. So, don't know if they were murdered or just unlucky. Like getting hit on the head by a falling school bus.

Indiana will spend 10s of Millions investigating, prosecuting, imprisoning whomever until they are Old and Gray. Keeps people on The Payroll I suppose.

Being Murdered, The Endless Occurences.

Murderers living out their lives. Good for them.

Dull

Indiana will spend 10s of Millions investigating, prosecuting, imprisoning whomever until they are Old and Gray. Keeps people on The Payroll I suppose.

I'd say it is necessary to find the right perp.

Being Murdered, The Endless Occurences.

Murderers living out their lives. Good for them.

Good for us to recognize that putting them to death will not bring back those whom they murdered, nor will it deter anyone else from committing the same acts of violence.

Making the rules tighter only allows for extensive manipulation by those who understand it best.

Disagree, the tighter the rules the fewer the loopholes

That's the general philosophy, but not always the case.

Indeed, and no error proof method for assessing a person's guilt has been found. There was a case in the UK in which there was expert testimony indicating the chance of innocence was 1 in 73 million, only later did it emerge that the chance of guilt was between 4.5 and 9 times less than the chance innocence, i.e. "the a priori odds of guilt were between 4.5 to 1 and 9 to 1 against". With a jury being provided such astronomical chances of guilt, was their any doubt that they'd return a guilty verdict? If they'd been provided the chances of innocence compared to chances of guilt, is there some doubt that they may have returned a different verdict? In this particular case there was no question of the proximity of the accused to the "crimes" in question, though when there is doubt DNA evidence for all its use in blunt force dramas, may not be the solution it is widely portrayed as being.

Consider the far less than hypothetical situation of a group of very closely related individuals, their allele matches will be very high. One of these individuals is arrested, DNA sampled and entered into the database. This one person's DNA profile may be very different to that of everybody else in the database, but very similar to 100s, perhaps 1000s of others that are not in the database. The person was innocent of the original crime, proven by no matching DNA, though another crime is committed some time later where DNA evidence was discovered matching the previously innocent person, the database will show that this match is almost unique (1 in the size of the database). It will be this number that is presented in court, rather than the chance of one of the 100s or 1000s with very similar DNA committing the crime, as the database is unaware of these potential matches. Such mismatching is not addressed by increasing the size of the criminal DNA database, all that will do is increase the chances of a random match being found.

Video images may provide evidence that a person was at the scene of a crime and performed the actions of which they are accused. Very rarely do these images provide motive, and crimes by proxy are committed on a reasonably regular basis.

At what point do we feel safe? After they're incarcerated or only after they're dead? The primitive instinct wishes to destroy any threat. The civilized instinct wishes to isolate the problem and prevent it from having the opportunity to harm again, which doesn't necessarily equate to death.

I'd feel safer knowing I cannot be executed for a crime I did not commit, than knowing others will be executed for crimes they may have committed.

You are now splitting hairs.

Wasn't attempting to, but the accusation always seems to come up when someone tries to gain common ground by digging into the details.

Tell me about it :-).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Too many Chris.

No clue how to fix this issue....

All I know We all bleed red.

---

Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt

... And too many wealthy have skipped away free that should have been executed.

---

Janice

If you can give me an ironclad guarantee a that person convicted of a capital crime will serve the rest of his life in prison without any possibility of parole, escape, or the ability to influence anyone else to the point that they would be willing to commit a capital crime, I might support life in prison.
We know for a fact you cannot guarantee those things mentioned above. I cannot support life in prison for capital offences. I am quite proud of the fact that I live in Texas where we have capital punishment. Take a look at the list of convicted murderers that have escaped or been paroled only to kill again, that list is in the thousands!
Capital punishment does reduce the number of capital crimes. Not one person ever convicted of a capital crime have committed that crime again after the death sentence has been imposed

Yes, I support capital punishment. If you don't beleive me, break into my home with the intent to do harm to me or any member of my family. You will get to see what the inside of a body bag looks like.

IF THAT MAKES ME CRUEL, HEARTLESS, OR INHUMANE, SO BE IT.

---

Capital Punishment/Death Sentence Good.

In Prison for Life and costing MILLIONS and MILLIONS till convict Dead is No Good.

Dull

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

New Punishment: Welding

Weld closed. Food go in slot, crap come out hole. When the crap stops, put the cage in the ground and cover it. Problem solved.

---

If you can give me an ironclad guarantee a that person convicted of a capital crime will serve the rest of his life in prison without any possibility of parole, escape, or the ability to influence anyone else to the point that they would be willing to commit a capital crime, I might support life in prison.

I think anyone who has shown remorse for their actions, have learned what they did was wrong, and would like to change their life around deserves a chance for parole.

Regardless of that, even killing someone via capital punishment does not prevent them from having any influence on the outside world. I used Jesus Christ as an example of one such person that was put to death because they wanted to limit his ability to influence those around him.

Regardless of that as well, a conviction is only a judgement made against someone by a high court. That judgement does not indicate empirical Truth or guilt.

Until you can guarantee me that we have never murdered, or will never murder even a single innocence through any form of capital punishment, I will always be against it.

I am quite proud of the fact that I live in Texas where we have capital punishment. Take a look at the list of convicted murderers that have escaped or been paroled only to kill again, that list is in the thousands!
Capital punishment does reduce the number of capital crimes. Not one person ever convicted of a capital crime have committed that crime again after the death sentence has been imposed

Actually, while Texas has the highest capital punishment rate, they also have some of the highest crime rates in the US. You'd think with all the capital punishment that there would be no crime left in Texas. Maybe it's the heat. Maybe it's the stupidity. I don't know, but I do know that killing is wrong and if that makes me a bleeding heart liberal then so be it.

I made this clip from the Penn and Teller show "Bullshit" from their Death Penalty episode discussing the statistics of crime rates in states with the death penalty vs states without.

CAUTION: Adult content and language included in clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmSK3eRzPD8

that makes me a bleeding heart liberal

hehehehehe. He said Liberal. hehehehehe

BlackHeartDull

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

that makes me a bleeding heart liberal

hehehehehe. He said Liberal. hehehehehe

hehehehehe So did you. hehehehehehe