• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas carries out its 500th execution since 1982

Paschendale said:
Several of the ones I read about involved one of the key witnesses actually being the perpetrator. And prosecutorial misconduct all around. But no, it wasn't a matter of "getting off on a technicality", they were all exonerated. Which means the court, upon review, concluded that they were innocent.



No, it shows how the system doesn't work! Texas was all set to execute these 12 people, and only a lot of outside intervention prevented the murder of innocent people by the state. But you don't know how many of these 500 were actually guilty. You don't know how many slipped through the cracks. And as Danarhea said, one is too many. Why so gung ho about state sanctioned murder?



And since we can't be sure, how can we risk killing an innocent person?
Click to expand...

The only things in life we can be absolutely sure about are taxes and death.

Are we suppose to stop everything because we might make a mistake? Because we're going to.
 
shrubnose said:
Well, I certainly don't feel sorry for someone like Osama bin Laden when they die, but I am not happy to see the state executing people in my and other American's name.

It's a nasty business and the USA should get out of it.

Killing people in war is one thing, but coldly executing people is a business that I want no part of.
Click to expand...

Would you consent to a relative of the victim doing the deed? If that happened to be a choice.
 
wbcoleman said:
Many people think that George Ryan's grandstanding was intended to ingratiate himself with his future jury pool.
Click to expand...

Since you're from Chicago, how about our crooked ex-governor Big Jim Thompson. The 1920's Illinois Repub crooks would be proud. Well over $2million in pension since 1991. A higher pension now than his governor's salary due to compound COLA he signed into law. Kudos to the Tribune for their crusade against our crooks specifically, and all crooks like the Whiting, Indiana BP refinery in general.
 
WCH said:
The only things in life we can be absolutely sure about are taxes and death.

Are we suppose to stop everything because we might make a mistake? Because we're going to.
Click to expand...

And killing someone is a mistake that cannot be taken back when we discover that we were wrong. The consequences of an irrevocable mistake are substantially higher than one that can be revoked. It's one thing to lock someone up without complete certainty, knowing that they can be released later. But you cannot bring back the dead.
 
greyhat said:
It may "feel like punishment" but it isn't punishment because the person dies.
That's just good ol' bible inspired "eye for an eye" revenge.
Click to expand...

Hve you ever been on death row ? Are you texting from Huntsville ?

It absolutley IS punishment.

It's why the vast majority of death row inmates file one appeal after another.
 
Fenton said:
Hve you ever been on death row ? Are you texting from Huntsville ?

It absolutley IS punishment.

It's why the vast majority of death row inmates file one appeal after another.
Click to expand...

No; it's not punishment- it's legalized revenge. Death row inmates appeal often as a byproduct of rules and regulations, in many states it is an automatic process. In other cases it is because they believe themselves to be innocent and well if you did, you'd appeal it too. Lastly appeals occur as interested groups take action to advance their agenda.

In the end a dead person is dead and therefore not rehabilitated nor punished, both functions of the penal system that in this case are unfulfilled...
 
Paschendale said:
And killing someone is a mistake that cannot be taken back when we discover that we were wrong. The consequences of an irrevocable mistake are substantially higher than one that can be revoked. It's one thing to lock someone up without complete certainty, knowing that they can be released later. But you cannot bring back the dead.
Click to expand...

Again, with the advancement of DNA technology and such, the chances of making a mistake will go way down. It will still take a decade and a half to do the deed.

Does having so much belief in the sanctity of human life make it hard to be a Socialist? Just wondering.
 
greyhat said:
No; it's not punishment- it's legalized revenge. Death row inmates appeal
often as a byproduct of rules and regulations, in many states it is an automatic process. In other cases it is because they believe themselves to be innocent and well if you did, you'd appeal it too. Lastly appeals occur as interested groups take action to advance their agenda.

In the end a dead person is dead and therefore not rehabilitated nor punished, both functions of the penal system that in this case are unfulfilled...
Click to expand...

In the end we're all dead so why punish anyone ?

Hey why dont we let the criminals go free when the last Family member or good friend of the victim dies off ?

Theyr' " dead " so no one even knows anymore the guys being punished.

And yes part of it is retribution. When criminals steal they usually get fined, when they steal ALLOT, they usually get fined ALLOT.

Retribution to the State but the Victims family can go pound sand ?

Sorry, your'e not the arbiter of what constitutes punishment.
 
WCH said:
Again, with the advancement of DNA technology and such, the chances of making a mistake will go way down. It will still take a decade and a half to do the deed.
Click to expand...

And I refuse to allow a government to kill when I have the power to stop it. I don't approve of killing people at all, but killing innocent people is completely unacceptable. If there is any chance, I will not allow it.

Does having so much belief in the sanctity of human life make it hard to be a Socialist? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

It makes it much much easier. Callousness and indifference to the problems of others is pretty incompatible with socialist ideals. Egalitarianism does not allow for harming others to benefit oneself.
 
Grand Mal said:
'Way back, before there were prisons, they'd hand thieves publicly in the city square. A crowd would gather, make a day of it, and pickpockets would be working the crowd.
Capital punishment isn't a deterrent. There may be reasons to have it but crime prevention isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

Judging by statistics, it looks like prison isn't a deterrent either.

If a person is convicted on solid evidence, like DNA or such, these murders should be put to death quickly, not decades later.

I love Texas!
 
greyhat said:
It may "feel like punishment" but it isn't punishment because the person dies. That's just good ol' bible inspired "eye for an eye" revenge.
Click to expand...

It is proven to stop repeat offenders.
 
Texmex said:
Judging by statistics, it looks like prison isn't a deterrent either.

If a person is convicted on solid evidence, like DNA or such, these murders should be put to death quickly, not decades later.

I love Texas!
Click to expand...

I doubt it's possible to deter crime. I'll generally obey traffic regulations but I'll cheerfully defy any law I consider a bad law. So long as there's no cops around, anyway.
Prisons aren't the reason most of us don't steal or murder or beat up strangers in the street. Maybe if you've already been up once you'll try to avoid it but recidivism rates kind of say 'no' to that, too.

God bless Baja Oklahoma!
 
Paschendale said:
And I refuse to allow a government to kill when I have the power to stop it. I don't approve of killing people at all, but killing innocent people is completely unacceptable. If there is any chance, I will not allow it.



It makes it much much easier. Callousness and indifference to the problems of others is pretty incompatible with socialist ideals. Egalitarianism does not allow for harming others to benefit oneself.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, killing is sometimes necessary for the protection of everyone else.

Using the death penalty is hardly showing "callousness and indifference". It is stopping known very violent criminals from ever possibly doing it again and is done to protect society. Further, funny how many people feel locking a person into a cage, treating them like uncontrollable animals, which some are, for their entire life is somehow "better" than just passing them on to the next life. Personally, the possibility of not getting the death penalty and having to spend the rest of my life is prison is far more of a deterrent. Death, to me, is much preferable and merciful than to spend a useless life of torture locked in a cage.
 
DVSentinel said:
Unfortunately, killing is sometimes necessary for the protection of everyone else.

Using the death penalty is hardly showing "callousness and indifference". It is stopping known very violent criminals from ever possibly doing it again and is done to protect society. Further, funny how many people feel locking a person into a cage, treating them like uncontrollable animals, which some are, for their entire life is somehow "better" than just passing them on to the next life. Personally, the possibility of not getting the death penalty and having to spend the rest of my life is prison is far more of a deterrent. Death, to me, is much preferable and merciful than to spend a useless life of torture locked in a cage.
Click to expand...

If the death penalty stopped crime then we'd be crimeless. The reality is that it doesn't deter anyone...
 
greyhat said:
If the death penalty stopped crime then we'd be crimeless. The reality is that it doesn't deter anyone...
Click to expand...

Which you cannot prove. You can prove it doesn't deter all crimes/murders, but you have absolutely no way to prove it does not in fact deter. There is no conceivable way to gather that data.

However, I do believe that the current methods are less of a deterrent. It should be done publicly and be either hanging or firing squad. I think hanging would be more loathsome to most people, but firing squad also has it's uses. Take the kindergarten classes down to the square and let them see that people who kill others die for doing it. If done by firing squad, you can also better teach them firearms safety as they get a very clear picture that shooting someone, unlike in movies or television, kills and those killed don't get a part in a different movie/series next week. Say from Kindergarten through 12th, they go see one every other year, when available. If not very common, then just take the whole school. We would see much better results that way.
 
Paschendale said:
There would be plenty of space for anyone who would be otherwise executed if we let the potheads out of jail. But I wouldn't be so quick to write off problems today. It's easy to think that we're past such shortcomings, but these problems do crop up fairly frequently. I think a lot of the problems that plagued our justice system in the past have been seriously exacerbated by the drug war. It's made the adversarial nature of it even more adversarial, and to our detriment. It fundamentally changed the duties and style of police, from attempting to protect people from harm to attempting to control us, because we're all potential carriers of contraband. I think without that mentality, we would see a lot less police misconduct. Because while some of those problems exist, you're right that they're not as bad as they used to be. Racism does not rule the day when a black man is accused of harming a white woman. At least not as much as it used to. But the adversarial nature of police procedure has gotten much worse to compensate.
Click to expand...
You know Im all about changing the drug laws, but having more room isnt the solution. Those folks on death row are usually there for a reason. Let em live in Genpop on a life sentence...there is no reason for them not to harm others.
 
NIMBY said:
Since you're from Chicago, how about our crooked ex-governor Big Jim Thompson. The 1920's Illinois Repub crooks would be proud. Well over $2million in pension since 1991. A higher pension now than his governor's salary due to compound COLA he signed into law. Kudos to the Tribune for their crusade against our crooks specifically, and all crooks like the Whiting, Indiana BP refinery in general.
Click to expand...

I am no fan of Big Jim -- I think he helped ruin the state -- but whether he is literally a criminal I don't know.
 
greyhat said:
No; it's not punishment- it's legalized revenge. Death row inmates appeal often as a byproduct of rules and regulations, in many states it is an automatic process. In other cases it is because they believe themselves to be innocent and well if you did, you'd appeal it too. Lastly appeals occur as interested groups take action to advance their agenda.

In the end a dead person is dead and therefore not rehabilitated nor punished, both functions of the penal system that in this case are unfulfilled...
Click to expand...

Wow, you really are digging in on this nonsense! :wow:
 
Grand Mal said:
I doubt it's possible to deter crime. I'll generally obey traffic regulations but I'll cheerfully defy any law I consider a bad law. So long as there's no cops around, anyway.
Prisons aren't the reason most of us don't steal or murder or beat up strangers in the street. Maybe if you've already been up once you'll try to avoid it but recidivism rates kind of say 'no' to that, too.

God bless Baja Oklahoma!
Click to expand...

It certainly deters the recipient of the injection!
 
greyhat said:
If the death penalty stopped crime then we'd be crimeless. The reality is that it doesn't deter anyone...
Click to expand...

As I just said, there is one class of persons which it undeniably does deter.
 
DVSentinel said:
Unfortunately, killing is sometimes necessary for the protection of everyone else.
Click to expand...

Not outside of immediate self defense or defense of others, no.

Using the death penalty is hardly showing "callousness and indifference". It is stopping known presumed very violent criminals from ever possibly doing it again and is done to protect society for revenge.
Click to expand...

Fixed for accuracy. Unless you're ignoring the actual evidence and arguing that the death penalty is a deterrent, how is an executed prisoner safer than an incarcerated one?

Further, funny how many people feel locking a person into a cage, treating them like uncontrollable animals, which some are, for their entire life is somehow "better" than just passing them on to the next life.
Click to expand...

Mostly it's that there is no such next life. But if you've read anything that I post on this issue, you would know that that is not at all how I argue for treating prisoners. I'm a very staunch advocate for restorative justice. See also my reply to Vance for additional details.

Personally, the possibility of not getting the death penalty and having to spend the rest of my life is prison is far more of a deterrent. Death, to me, is much preferable and merciful than to spend a useless life of torture locked in a cage.
Click to expand...

If it's more of a deterrent not to be killed, why kill? Deterring crime is actually a good thing. Also, I'm pretty sure that no one actually feels that way when facing death. A desire to accelerate slow and painful deaths notwithstanding, of course.

VanceMack said:
You know Im all about changing the drug laws, but having more room isnt the solution. Those folks on death row are usually there for a reason. Let em live in Genpop on a life sentence...there is no reason for them not to harm others.
Click to expand...

So, keep them cordoned off. Or even better yet, rather than simply keeping prisoners locked away, try to reform them. Restorative justice works. A lot of those death row inmates were in jail before they killed someone. If they had been properly educated and treated (as many have psychological disorders, were victims of abuse, or have mental disabilities) they could have become productive members of society rather than murderers. But you're right that more dangerous prisoners should not be mixed in with those that are not, for the safety of all.
 
What a milestone. I wonder if they had a cake. Or gave the lucky inmate a festive hat.
 
Using the death penalty is hardly showing "callousness and indifference". It is stopping known presumed very violent criminals from ever possibly doing it again and is done to protect society for revenge.

Paschendale said:
Fixed for accuracy. Unless you're ignoring the actual evidence and arguing that the death penalty is a deterrent, how is an executed prisoner safer than an incarcerated one?
Click to expand...

That is not fixing it, that is breaking it.
 
greyhat said:
How can capital punishment be punishment if by virtue of the execution the person cannot absorb the punishment because they die? Doesn't make sense to punish someone by killing them; this may provide comfort to the families of those whose loved ones were harmed but that's vengeance- not punishment.
Click to expand...

Think of it as absolute denial of parole. I don't feel the need to punish a murderer at the state's expense. They are the throw away fringe of society, throw them away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom