Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    
    
      I believe the punishment should fit the crime !
    
    
    
    Ben

Thinking about crime is very tricky.

It demands understanding the human nature and human behavior of all
parties involved in the criminal justice system: the criminal, the
victim, the judge, the jury, the lawyers, and the media.

I look at the issue not so much in terms of the question "Is the death
penalty a fair and just sentence for the worst of violent crimes?" (I
think it is, BTW),  ...  but more in terms of:

Will making sentences for violent crimes more severe decrease the rate
at which these crimes are being committed by first-time and repeat
offenders?

Had I not had first-hand experience in court where the defendent was
being charged with several counts of violent crime, my immediate
response to be above question would be, "Of course more severe penalties
would be a better deterrent!"

Now, I see some other factors to consider:

1) When the penalty is very severe, the jury is much more likely to search
for the 'shadow of the doubt' type evidence that any good scumbag
criminal defense lawyer can easily scrape up.  Hence, the severe penalty
can make "getting to guilty" all the more difficult, and increase the
chances of the criminal serving no time.

2)  Sentences for violent crimes should be imposed with greater certainty
and swiftness in order for them to be a more powerful deterrent.  The
track record for the death penalty in terms of certainty and swiftness
is pretty dismal.   I think the more severe the penalty is, the greater
the delay and uncertainty in arriving at verdicts and sentencing, even
when the criminal is clearly guilty.

It's wishful thinking to dream of appropriate sentences like the death
penalty being successfully used as an effective punishment with statistics
like :

o  only three felonies one hundred even result in merely the
imprisonment of the offender
[Blumstein, Cohen, Nagin, eds., "Deterrence and Incapacitation:
Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates (Washington,
D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1978]

o  1 rapist of every 605 gets caught and convicted
[from my notebook where I kept research notes while preparing for court;
Bureau of Justice report; date illegible, other bibliographical info not
recorded]

The problem of violent crime is very, very complicated.  

I have no answers.
                                                      nancy b.

    Re .0, and .2, I agree it's all very complicated, and there's a
    lot I don't know about the criminal justice system.  In fact, I
    guess I don't know much about it all, to be truthful.  But, it does
    seem to me that the death penalty should be reinstated for murder
    and violent crime.  It *seems* like there's been more violent crime
    since most states did away with the death penalty, and since there's
    so much delay even when it's legal.  But, maybe that's just because
    it's reported more in the media, or maybe I've paid more attention
    to this sort of thing as I've gotten older.  I don't know.  But,
    I do know that I agree with .0.  I'm shocked and disgusted by how
    easily convicted murderers, rapists, etc., get off in this country
    today.  I would vote to reinstate the death penalty, and I definitely
    am against early parole for good behavior.  I think it's an insult
    to the American public that these crimes are treated so lightly.
     I can't understand why people who have done such unspeakably horrible
    things to other people, have to be treated so gently by our legal
    system.
    
    Lorna
    

    I agree about the complexity of the problem.  My only thought on the
    subject at the moment is that it has always irritated me that some
    folks think that people who kill cops should get the death penalty.  I
    don't see what makes a cop's life one whit more valuable than anyone
    else's life.  
    
    Dondi
     

    Re .4, I agree with you on that point about a cop's life being no
    more valuable than anyone elses.  That's always annoyed me, too.
     In fact, when a person takes a job as a cop, I would think they
    would realize (with all the dumb cop movies that have been made) that
    it *is* a very dangerous job, and that since they do carry a gun
    somebody might decide to try to shoot them back.  But, whenever
    a policeman does get killed, other policemen and their wives, and
    the media all act as though it was the worst crime that could ever
    be committed.  (Personally, I think an adult killing a child 
    is the worst crime.)
    
    Lorna
    

    I am not sure that a deterrent exists since, to me, those who kill are
    working with a different rulebook.  I favor the death penalty for
    murder and violent crime becuase in *most* cases the murderer or rapist
    or whatever is only punished for the crimes for which (s)he is caught.
    How amny times have people later confessed to X number of other
    killings, armed robberies, rapes etc.  From what I understand the
    actualy statistics on the catching of criminals is low enough even 
    before you worry about if they got enough cups of coffee during
    questioning.
    
    I am not sure how you would follow through, but retraining before the
    act is committed is the answer.  Impossible I know, but if at very
    early ages people were REALLY taught the "Golden Rule" .... do unto
    others etc. so many problems would be solved.  A simplistic answer,
    but sometimes answers are simpler than people will admit.  But you
    have got to start with the young and there will always be those who
    will do whatever they want to because they only recognize THEIR wishes
    and honestly cannot see other views.

    
    The justice system and death penalty will work if the criminal will
    get fixed amount of penalty no matter what.  Most of muderer will
    think that they won't get death penalty because he can get a good
    laywer, the jury or judge will be sympathy to him.
    
    If you look at the some oriental country, like Japan, Rep of China,
    or Singapore.  They are very successfully to the criminal.  All the
    drug dealer will get death penalty.  And you can walk safely at 
    mid-night in the street.  I know, this country is very kind and gentle to
    everybody include criminal.   So all the talk about the death penalty
    won't work is just an excuse to be "gentle to criminal".  

    re: -.1
    
    When I was in Taiwan, a woman could walk freely through the streets day
    or night and have no fear.  BUT every crime is punishable by death so
    that you have NO repeat offenders.  Unless we were to go to such
    extremes, there would always be loopholes.  But do we want to go to
    that exteme end?
    

    Re .7 & .8, I think the death penalty should be limited to murderers
    and repeat rapists.  I think it's a bit much (to say the least)
    for drug dealers to get the death penalty.  But, I do agree that
    the death penalty should not just *be* legal, it should be carried
    out in the case of convicted murderers.

    Lorna
    

    I'd vote for the death penalty for any three-time felon. 
    Then again, he shouldn't have been free after the first two 
    convictions! And for all murderers.
    
    For all deadly assault - life imprisonment, parole *only*
    if the victim consents. 
    
    As for drug dealers, legalize the damn drugs, free up the 
    prison space for the real criminals. (Cheap legal drugs
    would also reduce other crime.)

    I agree that the death penalty must be given more even handedly - studying
    the death penalty in college we found it given to more black men who
    raped a white woman or killed a white person.  It wasn't given as much
    to white men who raped and/or killed a black woman.  That is why I am
    against it - unless it can be given out without discrimination then I
    don't think we should have it at all.  I also have this terrible fear
    of someone being wrongly put to death - it has happened that people
    have been convicted of murder and then later released because the real
    murderer was found.  Our judicial system can make mistakes and death is
    not reversable.
    
    The other thing I think is totally ridiculous is that someone can
    receive 20 life sentences and still get out.  A life sentence should be
    just that.

    Re .11, when I say I'm for the death penalty, to me, it goes without
    saying that conviction should have nothing to do with the color
    or race of any of the parties involved.  
    
    I think that the fact that it is possible that an innocent person
    could be sent to the electric chair is just a chance our society
    has to take as long as violent crime is such a big problem.
    
    I remember that when I first heard of Sacco and Vanzetti (sp?) back
    in high school history class, I first thought that was a good enough
    reason to be against capital punishment.  Now I don't.  What happened
    to them, and others less famous, was a horrible injustice.  But,
    it's also a horrible injustice that people like Charles Manson and
    Sirhan Sirhan are still alive sitting in prison and asking for parole.
    
    Lorna
    

    I've always found the death penalty to be a tough question, but
    I'm opposed to it for several reasons:
    (1)	the omnipresent threat of killing an innocent person
    (2)	the injustice in our legal system which will ensure that the
    	death penalty is not applied fairly to the different sexes,
    	races, and socioeconomic "classes"
    (3)	this is a biggie:  how will it be determined whih crimes will
    	be punishable by death?  I suppose it's fairly safe if we stick
    	with violent crime, but... the death penalty for drug dealers
    	(unless it's applied to drug-related violent crimes only) would
    	open a doorway to use of the death penalty against other
    	distributors of illicit materials.  Under a different political
    	climate, who knows what other "illicit materials" might be
    	considered to warrant the death penalty...  a frightening thought.
    
    Keith

I have been thinking a lot about my feelings about the death penalty
lately (why?  I dunno...)  Traditionally I supported it, because to me
it seemed that there were some crimes that were so atrocious that the
people committing them *deserved* to die.  (My mother was raving this
morning about how, if anyone deserves to die, it's that guy who is currently
being tried for killing his toddler...i guess she agrees with Lorna about
the worst possible crime.)

Anyway, I haven't decided how I feel, but a big part I was thinking about is
this: what is the purpose of punishment?  I see three possible reasons..

      1 - to deter the perpetrator of the crime from doing it again
      2 - to set an example to deter others from committing similar crimes
      3 - to avenge the victim, and "pay back" the perpetrator.

From what people have said in this note, it sounds like most people are
thinking about reason 3 - "these people 'deserve' to die for what they did".
While I feel this way too, I am not sure a legal system should be based
on revenge; I am not sure that people's need to get revenge is an desireable
human trait.

In evaluating the death penalty, I try to take these into account.  Which
ones are "good" reasons for punishing someone?  Once you have decided that,
what punishments work best towards those goals?

(Here, a little moral dilema presented in my ethics course last semester:
A man has been committing atrocious murders.  The police know who it is
but don't have enough evidence to convict him.  That man kills himself.
However, the murders continue because of "copy-catters" [this happens!]
think they can get away with it because they don't know he's dead.  The 
police can't even prove that the man who is dead was the original killer,
and if they tried publicizing that he was, the public would get very 
upset and worried that the mudrers were continuing, and proabbly not 
believe them.  *Then* the cops find a guy who they know is innocent, but
circumstances are such that they could very easily frame this guy with
manufactured evidence.  If they did so, one innocent person would go to
jail/executed, but many lives would be saved when the copy-catters stopped the
murders, and the public could breathe much easier.  What to do?  If the
purpose of punishment is reason 2, the answer is seems obvious...)

Feeling philosophical,
D!

    From what I know of the insides of prisions from people who have
    been at walpole and billerica, rapists and child molesters are spit
    upon. they have to be protected from the other prisioners, or the
    inmates will harm that prisoner who commits these crimes.
     For me knowing two cops that were killed in the line of duty, one
    a state and one in town where he lived and worked. I hope the prison
    somehow kills these low life, they won't live long if they hit the
    streets.
     
     IMHO drug dealers shuld also be given life sentances! why not
    they ae dealing with a life threatng substances that harm our children,
    these low life "prey on children"  and now drugs are entering our
    elemtary schools where the kids don't know what drugs are all about!
    they aren't aware of the dangers it can impose in their life.
     Why should these people be any different, they "deal" substances
    that can take a life at any given moment (that basketball player
    in college) but it CAN happen to our children also why not they
    are dealing out death why not give them death
    
    
    Lise

    While reading through the responses here, I found myself donning
    my "Devil's Advocate" hat(horn's?) several times.  The issues and
    points raised by all have been quite interesting and rather
    enlightening.  I do have several direct responses:
    
    RE.1  You make such a broad statement that it begs discussion (your
    intent?).  My perception is that "we" (society, the justice system,
    elected officials, the Supreme Court) believe we have made progress
    to that end and that, in fact, our system does provide for the
    punishment to fit the crime.  One should remember that with MIRANDA
    as a significant milestone "we" determined that the alleged criminal
    offender had some rights, too.  Furthermore, we pride ourselves
    on being a civilized society and, thus, view the penal system as
    a rehabilitative process.
    
    RE.2 &.3 The problem of violent crime *is* very, *very* complicated.
    Why else would the justice system provide for such pleadings as
    "Guilty by reason of insanity," and "Temporary insanity"?  Consider
    that the disciplines of, e.g. psychology and sociology play a role
    in defense arguments.
    
    RE.10 >For deadly assault - life imprisonment; parole *only* if
    the victim consents.<  Why force the victim to have to re-visit
    the crime?  Why should the victim again be a "victim" of the same
    crime?  The offender would not/cannot be subjected to such double
    jeopardy.  
    
    Re.12  I,too, was reminded of the Sacco and Vanzetti case as I read
    through this topic.   However, I was reminded of the details of
    the evidence of the case as I read the response in .2.  The jury
    certainly did not search for the "shadow of a doubt" in that case.
    
    I realize how very liberal my comments sound.  I guess I should
    relate that I was engaged in a similar conversation just a few days
    ago.  I posed the notion of public corporal punishment for certain
    crimes (floggings, public humiliation -- the "stocks" from colonial
    times).  There was surprising support for such practices.  After
    some kidding and joking, the consensus was that it just might work
    -- why not give it a shot, what we have is ineffective......
    
    --TM the JD

    
    RE.17
    
      Rapists and child molesters not needing protectin as far as your
    dad saw. 
    
    All I did was pass on info that convicted fellons in the prisions
    told me.
    
    oh well nothing is black and white when dealing with todays criminal
    system.                 

    Funny...  We live in a society where rapists, child molesters and
    murderers should have no rights, but a week old fetus should. 

    re .19 There is a difference between the accused and the 
    convicted. The accused have rights under the law. The
    convicted have been found to be in violation of the rights
    of others, thereby forfeiting their own rights. ( A thief
    has no right to property, a murderer no right to life, etc...
    Rights depend on mutual recognition/respect)
    
    As for 'foetus vs. child' or foetal viability, maybe we 
    need a separate note for that. It does seem to be one of
    the critical issues in the whole abortion controversy.

    That note exists; let's not start another.
    
    .19 raises the issue of pro-life folks who also believe in capital
    punishment, and that's a crossover issue for this note and for 183.*. 
    I, personally, don't believe in capital punishment and I am pro-life. I
    believe in protecting life not "from cradle to grave" but from
    "brainwave first to brainwave last".  
    
    We definitely need to improve our ability to keep violent criminals in
    jail for the full length of their sentence, and to have minimum
    sentences for violent crimes, escalating for repeaters.
    
    Marge
    
    

I'm very much in favor of the death penalty for violent crimes.  I would also
eliminate the insanity plea.  I firmly believe that a person has to be insane to
commit violent crimes.

The only problems I can see are what to define as violent crimes (I'd put
murder, large-scale drug dealing, disfiguring, rape and child molesting in
that category, at the very least) and how to get convictions.

I don't believe that the death penalty would act as a deterrent and don't look
at it as revenge, but it would certainly have some major benefits.

It would eliminate the expense of caring for the criminals who committed those
crimes.  This is what I would consider a fringe benefit.

It would prevent their committing another crime.  This is my main reason for
being in favor of the death penalty.  Yes, we might kill an innocent person
once in a while.  However, they would go quickly, and think how many people
would be saved from horrible deaths or worse by preventing the criminals from
going out and committing more horrible crimes.

Just as an example, if one out of every hundred people put to death was innocent,
but killing that one innocent person and those 99 other guilty people prevented
those 99 from going out and committing an average of 0.25 more violent crimes
apiece we would have saved 25 people from suffering from violent crimes by
killing 99 guilty people and one innocent person.

It would be wonderful if all people convicted of any crime could be reformed,
but that is obviously not possible now and probably won't be in the forseeable
future.  Until we can reform criminals lets prevent them from repeating their
crimes by eliminating those who commit violent crimes.

					Larry
					  ~

    Some years ago, I decided that my stance on capital punishment
    was: Life for the first offense, death for the second one.  This
    would pretty much cover the `unjustly convicted' case.  Just to
    be sure, I feel that the death sentence may be appealed if the
    *same* evidence was used in both trials.
    
    I waffle on whether murder, or just any violent felony would be
    sufficient for the one of the offenses (but not both).
    
    To me, the *best* thing about the death sentence is that those who
    have received it never escape from prison and commit more crimes.
    Look.  Prison as a rehabilitative process currently works very
    badly.  Even non-criminous rehabilitation (a.k.a. therapy) works
    very badly.  Yes, we should work -- and work hard -- on making it
    work better, but until then, we still have to do something about
    the hardest cases.  Pareto's rule is that 20% of your causal
    population produces 80% of your results, so I'd recommend the most
    stringent response be to the 20% of the criminal population who are
    the career criminals and the repeaters.
    
    Criminal trivia:
    
    	Only about 30% of all crimes are "cleared by arrest".  A smaller
    	percentage produce convictions, of course.
    
    	A "life" sentence is, in most states, considered to be forty-five
    	years.  A ninety-nine year sentence is a life sentence is
    	forty-five years.  Consecutive life sentences are one life
    	sentence is forty-five years.  A convict is eligible for parole
    	after serving one-third of the sentence.  So a "life" sentence
    	is generally fifteen years imprisonment.
    
    	One of the two murder weapons was found in Sacco's possession;
    	the other was never found.
    
    							Ann B.

RE: SEVERAL OR  ALL

Sentencing must be fair, in the paper(worcester) last night a man was 
convicted of unarmed attempted robbery(he didn't get any money, showed no 
weapon) sentance 9 years. 
Drug dealers are averaging 2-3 in worcester courts.

Initiaion of force by one person against another should be the measurement
of sentence, with Rape, Murder, (including arson that ends in death of 
innocent people) should carry the death penalty.

Years ago I testified against a man in maine on some minor charges, he went to 
jail for a couple of years, later he did more serious things and due to their 
nature(there is other history I'm leaving out)he was sentenced to serve some
terms one-after-the-other or a total of 245 years, as far as I'm concerned 
parole after 1/3 would be ok with me :-)

There are lot's of safeguards to prevent an innocent from the death penalty
but if people are so concerned about that then there should at least be
a life sentence that means *NEVER GET OUT*.

There is an excellent book on Sacco/Vanzetti, written by Francis Russell(now
deceased) I don't remember the title at the moment but if I do I will
enter it. I know for a fact that a tremendous amount of research and
investigative work went into that book. (as well as into all his books in the 
sixties) I won't spoil the ending, you should
read it. I am sure it will be in your public library.

RE:swift justice, Every report I have ever read on the difference in crime 
rates between the U.S. and other countries makes a clear point that 
when the police carry out swift investigations followed by arrests and speedy 
trials that country or city has a far lower rate than here.

England eliminated the death penalty a few years ago and the crime rate is 
climbing at an alarming rate faster than the average for Europe. (I believe
I remember the article correctly).

    I also believe in the death penalty.  
    
    I realize that sometimes mistakes are made, but I know that I would
    rather die than go to prison on the behalf of a mistake in justice.
   
    I have a neighbor that has been working in Saudi Arabia for the
    past 7 years.  He explained to me how their system works and how
    little the crime rate is. I do not believe that all of their lifestyle
    is suitable, but I do believe in their ways of preventing crime.
    
    If a person is convicted of...
    
    stealing (third offense) - their hand will be cut off in public
                                        
                                       
    dealing drugs (repeat offense) - they will be beheaded in public
                                      
    
    committing adultry - they will also die
    
    etc...
    
    It's an eye-for-an-eye.  I don't particularly like their tactics in the
    death penalty, but people seem to think before they commit a crime
    in that country.              
    
    Somebody had mentioned a few notes back that criminal should not
    get the death penalty for drugs.  IMO, I feel that anbody "dealing"
    drugs should die.  They are the suppliers of a lot of overdoses
    resulting in death.
    
    As I said, this is strictly my OPINION.
    
    TB 
        
    
    

    Re .25, I still think the death penalty should only be for murderers and
    repeat rapists.  I couldn't even begin to find the words to explain
    how ignorant I think it is to kill two consenting adults for having
    sex, or committing adultery.  I really don't care what country it
    is or what their religious views are, there are some things we should be
    too enlightened to do in this day and age.
    
    As far as drug dealing goes, I think it's a shame that some people
    take drugs to the point that it has the potential to ruin their
    lives.  But, people still have a *choice* when it comes to drugs.
     If somebody runs up to me this afternoon and tries to sell me some
    cocaine or heroin or something, I don't have to buy it.  (Just say
    No, remember!)  But, if somebody runs up to me and shoots me or
    stabs me, I haven't been given much of a choice have I.  I don't
    think it's the same sort of situation at all.  People shouldn't
    sell drugs, but people shouldn't buy them either.  (And as far as
    marijuana goes, it shouldn't even be illegal.  I don't think it's
    any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco.  BTW, I don't particularly
    care for any of those 3.  I'd rather spend my money on clothes or
    jewelry.)
    
    Also, even tho I am for the death penalty, I'd really hate to see
    our society return to public executions as a form of amusement for
    the masses.  I don't think that would say much for the advancement
    of civilization.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    (oh, what the heck...)
    
    i am unequivocably opposed to the death penalty.
    i would be very happy to see more stringent and rigorous penalties
    for those committing violent crimes.
    i agree with those who have suggested that a quicker, more reliable
    criminal justice system is the best deterrent.
    

    I, like so many others in this note believe in the death penalty
    for "violent crimes".  It never seems like a life sentence is really
    a life sentence.  I think about that guy "Dan White" who only got
    5 years for killing those two guys in San Francisco, what is wrong
    with the justice system??, and look how long it took to finally
    execute Ted Bundy....all at the tax payers expense, it makes me
    sick!!  We are paying for them to be housed, fed, medical treatment,
    and whatever else, what about the victims, and their families??
    
    I'am a very compassionate person, but I really question the way
    these criminals are let out, and repeat the same crimes.  All the
    children, which to me is my sensitive area, as well as all the other
    senseless killings, they are the silenced voices that don't get
    to be heard, such a waste!!

I wonder if there is a humane way to make money out of prisoners...
	Mez

re .22

XNTRIK::MAGOON "Village idiot"                       

>Yes, we might kill an innocent person once in a while.  

    One of the purposes of the death penalty, as I inferred from the other
    notes, is to protect innocent people from violent crimes.  Now if
    innocent people can be victimized, with absolutely no recourse, by the
    same system that is suppose to protect them, why bother? 

>However, they would go quickly, and think how many people
>would be saved from horrible deaths or worse by preventing the criminals from
>going out and committing more horrible crimes.

    How about if you were the innocent one to go quickly?  Quite frankly,
    I'm definitely not interested in being a martyr. 

    
    This is also my biggest problem with hanging them...
    
    What if you are wrong? One cannot restore an innocent 
    life. 
    
    I fear for our freedom when we allow censorship or abridgement
    of a criminal's right to appeal because "we know he done it"...
    

    On a purely ethical basis, I'm against the death penalty, this
    despite the fact that my brother was a murder victim.
    
    On a more practical level, however, I would support it. We don't
    have the resources, monetary or otherwise, to support those who
    have committed violent crimes. Our prisons are overloaded. We
    can build more, but "not in my backyard".
    
    Many of the violent criminals are simply not rehabilitative.
    I don't see that their lives are necessarily of greater value
    than the burden they place on society.
    
    As for what crimes should be eligible for the death penalty, I
    don't think it's quite so cut and dried. There will always be
    loopholes. "Murder" isn't enough. Premeditated murder, yes, but
    there are many cases of "crimes of passion" that are clearly
    different than premeditated murder. To use an example from a
    different topic in this file, what would you do about a mother
    who murders her child due to post-partum depression? Clearly,
    she cannot be put in the same class as Ted Bundy.
    
    On the other hand, that's why we have different degrees of
    murder and manslaughter.
    
    --- jerry

Note 713.25 by LACV01::BOISVERT >>>
    
    Somebody had mentioned a few notes back that criminal should not
    get the death penalty for drugs.  IMO, I feel that anbody "dealing"
    drugs should die.  They are the suppliers of a lot of overdoses
    resulting in death.
    
True, people dealing drugs (major wholesaler types, anyway) result in
many deaths.  The should be prosecuted.  But I don't feel that what
they do is in anyway analagous to "murder",  Manslaugher, *maybe*...
AFter all, it was not intentional or premeditated.  As someone pointed,
not all crimes resulting in death should be dealt with the same.

Also, calling drug dealers responsible for the deaths they indirectly help
cause seems similar to holding a gun dealer responsible for any deaths
resulting from a gun he sold; or a pharamcist responsible if someone
overdoses (intentioanlly or otherwise) on a product he sells; or, for that
matter, a safe salesmen, if the safe falls out of a window onto someone's
head.

Now, if he actually forced, coerced or tricked someone into taking the
drugs involuntarily, that's a different story...

D!

I tried to find a closer analogy than D!, but could only come up with a
fireworks person selling really big, dangerous fireworks to an individual. The
sale itself is illegal, and it _can_ be used safely (not mortally).
	Mez

    re: .33
    
    Well...
    
    a bartender is responsible for a drunk that leaves his bar, if the drunk
    was buying from him.
    
    Isn't this correct?
                                                              
    BTW, I was saying in my reply that I do beleive in the death penalty.
    I also mentioned that I didn't believe in their style, so to speak.
                 
    
    
    Also, I can't see how anyone really thinks that it's less of an
    injustice to be falsely convicted for a crime and spend 20 years in prison
    than to be falsely convicted to death.  IMO, I feel that 20 years in 
    prison would be a far worse conviction than death. 
    
    TB

    Re .35, yeah, but if a person goes in a liquor store and buys a
    lot of booze and then goes home and drinks it all and then goes
    for a drive and gets in an accident, it's not the fault of the
    person who sold them the booze.  So, if a drug dealer sells somebody
    a lot of cocaine or heroin or something and the person goes home
    and does it all at once and OD's, it's not really the drug dealer's
    fault that the person took it all at once.  So, the drug dealer
    may or may not be a sleazebag for making money selling drugs, but
    they're not a murderer.  Drug dealers are making money off of other
    people's weaknesses, which isn't admirable but I don't think it's
    anywhere near as bad as murder or rape or assault.
    
    Lorna
    

    >Also, I can't see how anyone really thinks that it's less of an
    >injustice to be falsely convicted for a crime and spend 20 years in prison
    >than to be falsely convicted to death.  IMO, I feel that 20 years in 
    >prison would be a far worse conviction than death. 
    
    Well, I think it all depends on how much the individual values life
    versus death.  You may think that 20 years in prison is far worse
    than death, but I think that even if I spent 20 years wrongfully
    imprisoned - at least I'm not dead - I have the rest of my life
    to make the most of. Yes, it would mean that I would have lost a
    chunk of my life, but again its only a chunk.
    
    20 years married to the wrong person, or 20 years of physically abuse
    or something equally awful, could be described as worse than death. 
 

           <<< Note 713.37 by ATAGPX::WHARTON "No soca, no party" >>>


    >Also, I can't see how anyone really thinks that it's less of an
    >injustice to be falsely convicted for a crime and spend 20 years in prison
    >than to be falsely convicted to death.  IMO, I feel that 20 years in 
    >prison would be a far worse conviction than death. 
    
    Well, I think it all depends on how much the individual values life
    versus death.  You may think that 20 years in prison is far worse
    than death, but I think that even if I spent 20 years wrongfully
    imprisoned - at least I'm not dead - I have the rest of my life
    to make the most of. Yes, it would mean that I would have lost a
    chunk of my life, but again its only a chunk.
    
Not only that, but if you are sentanced to 20 years, and they find out
they made a mistake, they can release you before your sentance is up.
If you are executed, and they find out you didn't do it...well...
*That* I think is more the issue than whether it is better to die than
be imprisoned, because the latter issue is personal, and the law shouldn't
really say "Well we know you would prefer to die than be falsely imprisoned,
do we'll kill you."

D!

    It would be nice if we could ship the repeat violent offenders off
    to an island somewhere.  The nastier the crime, the nastier and more
    remote the island.  Some basic supplies for self-sufficiency could
    be left, and from then on it would be up to them to support themselves.
    
    If a mistake is made, there is a chance that the person could be
    retrieved.  
    

    I oppose the death penalty.  It is judicial murder.
    
    Practically speaking, legislating death as the punishment for certain
    crimes might be very tidy.  However, I do not see practicality as a
    rationale for killing a person.
    
    Speaking a victim of rape, I certainly wished the perpetrator dead. But
    I did not want to kill him nor did a wish someone else to do so.  [OK,
    so I had fantasies of a buried aneurism doing him in...]
    
    Speaking as myself, I value life. I would rather go to prison than be
    dead.  I might _enjoy_ being dead more, though.
    
      Ann

	I am against the death penalty - I would like to say that
	people who commit violent crimes should be killed but who
	makes that decision?  Which are the violent crimes? The
	Alaskan oil spill? the disaster in India with the deadly
	gas leak? The interference by the United States in the
	way other countries function?

	Rape and murder are violent crimes and in simple cases
	there are identifiable people who are responsible.  What
	about the people who pollute the air so that our great-
	great-great-great grand children won't be able to breath
	it.  (Talk about saving the unborn!!!)

	_peggy

    Well, I'm in favor of the death penalty..
    but, as someone said, the WHOLE criminal justice system
    needs an overhaul.  Until that's done, just the addition, or
    use of, the death penalty won't make a difference.  Trials should be 
    swift, justice should be meted out fairly across gender, race, etc.
    and life should mean life, and death should mean death.  Appeals 
    should be limited to one, and should be performed within a reasonable
    (2 years) timeframe.  
    I don't think public hangings, or 'an eye for an eye' makes
    sense....but swift sure punishment is a deterent (imho)...
    First time offenders should get quality therapy, and support
    once they are released...help in finding a job, etc.  
    Repeat offenders get the punishment as required.  
    It's not nice, but seems to me lots of the 'tough love' programs
    work.  as do the 'scared straight' ones.
    
    complex issues, but they must be addressed as our prisons
    are way overcrowded, punishment is not fair or evenly distributed.
    and taxpayers are getting nothing for all their $$$$ spent for
    'justice'
    
    just my thoughts...
    
    deb
    

    I think there are two types of criminals.  Those with a conscience,
    and those without.  Anyone who can kill repeatedly, or rape repeatedly,
    without remorse or concern, without stopping, without caring, is
    VERY sick and deserves AT LEAST to be permanently removed from society,
    if not killed.  Those whose crimes are "acts of passion" - those
    who respond to years of abuse (as in "The Burning Bed) - those who
    don't know any better, or fully realize the horror of their crimes,
    can perhaps be mainstreamed once again after rehabilitation of whatever
    sort (perhaps a little bit o' the old "ludwig van" for the droogs...;).
    
    I'm not sure how to tell the two types apart.  But that is what
    I think separates hardcore criminals from those who can be returned
    to society at some point.
    
    And, although if it continues to get discussed it should have a
    separate topic if it doesn't already, I think drugs should be legalized
    and controlled in many ways, rather than being black-market the
    way they are now.
    
    -Jody
    

Around the time that Ted Bundy was executed the subject of capital punish-
ment was raised in Soapbox.  At that time I wrote a rather long essay on
why I oppose capital punishment.  I am reproducing the relevant portions
of that essay here.  If you would like to read the relevant discussion in
Soapbox (type SELect, or hit KP7 to add Soapbox to your notebook), this
comes from note 277.57 over there.

This essay is about three times as long as my typical reply, so those who
do not wish to dig through a long reply may wish to hit KP3 (or type NEXT
NOTE) at this time...

						--Q (Dick Wagman)


I am opposed to capital punishment.  I believe that a society which likes to
think of itself as enlightened should not tolerate execution as a punishment
for any crime, no matter how heinous.  There are several reasons for my be-
lief:

    1.	Murder, in most civilized societies, is a crime.  In making it
	criminal we attempt to make a statement to the effect that no
	human has a right to play god with another's life, and that we
	value life as one of our most precious rights.  When we allow
	execution as a punishment for some crimes we cheapen the value
	of that statement.  In effect we say that "No, you can't take
	someone's life because you are angry with him/her.  But it's
	OK for us."  Thus, some humans are more godlike than others.
	Those who might contemplate serious criminal violence might
	well fail to be able to draw such a blurry distinction.

    2.	It is exceedingly difficult (and perhaps impossible) to arrive
	at a consistent standard for capital punishment.  We have tried
	to do so in this country for a long time, but even now we fail.
	It is not enough to say, for instance, that first degree murder
	should be a capital crime (as it is in some states now).  Up to
	this time, you are much more likely to get the death penalty if
	you kill a white person than if you kill a black person.  You
	are more likely to get the death penalty if you are poor than
	if you are rich.  (This need not mean that juries like rich
	people more than poor people, by the way.  If you are rich you
	can afford an attorney who may be sharp enough to plea bargain
	your crime down to a non capital offense in exchange for a guilty
	plea, for example.)  And there are a number of other similar
	categories.

	The result is that capital punishment becomes a very unusual form
	of punishment indeed.  Up to now, the Supreme Court has not ruled
	that it violated the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the
	eighth amendment to the Constitution (I disagree with the Supreme
	Court on that).  But constitutional or not, the application of
	capital punishment has always been arbitrary and capricious, turn-
	ing more on random factors (and occasional community blood lust, as
	in Ted Bundy's case) than on some consistent standard.  As civilized
	people we should not tolerate the termination of the most precious
	right by caprice.  And vengeance makes a very poor emotion for
	determining public policy.

    3.	Capital punishment is *very* expensive.  No, it isn't the electric
	bill for the chair.  Rather, if a defendant has any will to live
	at all, he or she is likely to be willing to throw all possible
	resources into the fight to delay or prevent the execution.  Thus,
	we can anticipate all rights of appeal to be used (persistently),
	all defensive avenues to be explored (exhaustively), all claims of
	insanity to be asserted (in my opinion, irrelevantly), and, in
	general, to get the legal kitchen sink thrown at us (repeatedly).
	All of these appeals take time and a lot of money.  And lawyers and
	judges are a lot more expensive than prison turnkeys.

	We could, of course, throw away our constitutional rights and stream-
	line the procedure by quite a lot.  But that (besides being illegal)
	would run the serious risk of an incorrect conviction.  And *that*
	is a true horror.

    4.	Occasionally, an innocent person may be convicted.  If new evidence
	comes to light it is possible to free an imprisoned person, and even
	to give some sort of compensation for time spent imprisoned.  If the
	person is dead, that sort of thing is not possible.

	I suspect that this sort of thing doesn't happen very often, and I
	was hesitant to list it among my reasons.  But have any of you seen
	the very fine documentary film "The Thin Blue Line"?  It seems to
	have happened in Texas, and I am delighted that the defendant is
	still alive (and now free).  Maybe it really does happen more often
	than we would like to admit.

That makes four good reasons to oppose capital punishment.  There is, however,
another important factor to consider:  are we safer with capital punishment
than without?  Does it prevent murders and rapes?  If there were a significant
deterrent effect, it might be worth overriding all of the above objections in
order to make the streets safer.  Unfortunately, the evidence here is clear:

    5.	Capital punishment fails as a deterrent.  Oh, it might deter some
	noters from taking their handguns and shooting one another.  But
	we weren't seriously considering murdering anyone in the first place
	(were we?!).  In fact, there have been many studies comparing murder
	rates in states where murder is a capital crime with rates where it
	isn't, and comparing the same state both with and without capital
	punishment.  Consistently, no one has found a statistically signifi-
	cant difference.  Evidently, most murderers expect not to get caught
	when they commit their crimes.  And if they don't get caught, it
	doesn't matter whether they escape being fried or a $10 fine.

So, to summarize: (A) Capital punishment is hypocritical.  (B)  Capital
punishment cannot be applied fairly.  (C) Capital punishment is inherently
expensive to apply.  (D) Capital punishment makes retraction of a failure
of the justice system impossible.  And (E) Capital punishment fails utterly
as a deterrent.

I won't argue that some prisoners (such as Charles Manson, for example) don't
present us with a serious long term problem if we decide not to execute them--
they do.  But, whatever we do decide to do with them (the subject for a
different discussion), we should not--ever--execute them.

						--Q

Re:  .10

>    For all deadly assault - life imprisonment, parole *only* if the
>    victim consents. 

In this country we have always tried to administer justice in a fair and im-
partial manner.  (We don't always succeed, but we do make the effort.)  That
is why we have an impartial judge impose a sentence on a convicted criminal.

The decision to grant parole is a part of a criminal's sentence, so it would
make sense that that decision should be made in a fair and impartial manner
as well.  If there is one thing a victim is not, it's impartial; indeed, the
need for vengeance may make robbery victims lust for the death penalty.  That
emotion may be perfectly human and reasonable, but it has nothing to do with
fair and impartial justice.  Accordingly, I see no reason to give a victim
any power over the decision to grant parole to an offender.

If our judges are granting parole too soon or too easily, we should deal with
that issue directly.  Getting the victim into the sentencing process will not
improve justice for all.

						--Q

Re:  .14

D! presented the moral dilemma that might occur when the police considered
framing an innocent person as the perpetrator of a series of copy cat murders,
in order to obtain a conviction and stop the copy cats.  As she put it,

>   one innocent person would go to jail [or be] executed, but many lives
>   would be saved when the copy-catters stopped the murders, and the
>   public could breathe much easier.  What to do?  If the purpose of
>   punishment is reason 2 [to set an example to deter others from com-
>   mitting similar crimes], the answer seems obvious...

Well, I agree that the answer is obvious.  But I see no moral dilemma here:
if the police ever deliberately frame an innocent person, none of us can
breathe easier--the next time it could be us.  Furthermore, if the scam is
ever uncovered (and it can happen), the resulting scandal will be much more
serious than the original murders.

So for me it's easy:  the police should never deliberately frame anyone.  Ever.
They should spend their time and money trying to catch the copy cats, instead.

						--Q

    >Getting the victim involved in the sentencing process will not
    >improve justice at all

    I disagree - the victim of a violent crime is not a victim
    *only* at the time the crime is committed, but until they
    are fully recovered physically and, more importantly,
    emotionally. Why shouldn't the victims' perception of
    their own recovery be the criteria of when the perpetrator
    has been punished long enough ? Justice must serve not just
    the guilty, but the innocent.
    
    Case scenario : You are kidnapped, held for ransom, beaten,
    threatened with death. Your kidnapper is caught, sentenced
    to jail for ten years, six years with time off for good behavior.
    Suppose that six years from now, you're still having nightmares,
    drinking excessively, in therapy. *You are still being victimized*
    but the _justice_ system says that the kidnapper has 'suffered
    enough'. Is justice served ? I say no.
    
    Dana 

    In today's court system, the prosecuter gives the judge a "Victim
    Impact Statement" which he reads and takes into consideration before
    he sentences the defendent.
    
    It has a potential for abuse.  I know of one instance where there
    was false and inflamatory information contained in the report. 
    The information is not investigated or otherwise checked to verify
    its validity.  Sentence is passed based on national guidelines and
    (in part) on information contained in the Victim Impact Statement
    (among other things).
    

                   <<< Note 713.47 by AQUA::WAGMAN "QQSV" >>>
                     -< The police should *never* frame! >-
>>   one innocent person would go to jail [or be] executed, but many lives
>>   would be saved when the copy-catters stopped the murders, and the
>>   public could breathe much easier.  What to do?  If the purpose of
>>   punishment is reason 2 [to set an example to deter others from com-
>>   mitting similar crimes], the answer seems obvious...

>Well, I agree that the answer is obvious.  But I see no moral dilemma here:
>if the police ever deliberately frame an innocent person, none of us can
>breathe easier--the next time it could be us.  Furthermore, if the scam is
>ever uncovered (and it can happen), the resulting scandal will be much more
>serious than the original murders.

(Sorry, this is getting way off topic - but if we *are* discussing the
ethics of the legal system....)

Well I agree, in terms of the practical implications.  I would not support
the decision to frame someone.  But looking at it in purely ethical terms,
it *did* present a dilema for me.  Traditionally, I considered myself a
"utilitarian" - paraphrased, this is "The greatest good for the greatest
number".  (Specifically: choose an action that maximizes total(amount of good
per person)*(# of people effected) - total(amount of bad per person)*(# of
people effected).)  The way the case was discussed in the book, looking at
it from a Utilitarian standpoint, the answer was quite obvious -frame the
guy!  This didn't jibe with my "intuitive" sense of ethics, so I no longer
consider myself a utilitarian.

The reason I brought this up was that a lot of the arguments I have seen
in this string seem to base themselves loosely on Utilitarian ethics.  Everyone
seems to hold the basic assumption that an act is good if the good-things
resulting from it outweigh the bad-things.  However, if you came to the
someone came to the same conclusion as Q and myself, perhaps it's time to
rethink that basic assumption.

D! (who is still in philosophical mode, but don't worry, cause the weekend's
    here, so by Monday I'll be normal again.)

    Wish I could remember names better - but what about the actress who was
    stabbed repeatedly.  The man was put in prison, but has continually
    made statements that he will kill her when he gets out.  His parole was
    stayed the first time, but he is up for parole again in March.  Someone
    like this just doesn't deserve to get out, but they do.  Don't you
    think the victim should have a little say in this?  (I'm in no way
    advocating the death penalty - just trying to point out that there is
    something very wrong with our judicial system when crazies like this
    get out).

Re:  .48

>   the victim of a violent crime is not a victim *only* at the time the
>   crime is committed, but until they are fully recovered physically and,
>   more importantly, emotionally.

I agree.

>   Why shouldn't the victims' perception of their own recovery be the
>   criteria of when the perpetrator has been punished long enough?

I think that we, as citizens, are entitled to know what society's expectations
of us are.  There is a lot of merit, in my opinion, to the idea of a relatively
fixed sentence for any given crime (and yes, as you said in a previous reply,
it should be swift and sure).  Individual victims have their own perceptions,
needs, fears, and senses of justice; their senses may, in fact, be quite ar-
bitrary.  I guess I don't like the idea of saying that a kidnapper should
serve less time in jail if s/he kidnaps someone who is psychologically strong
than if s/he kidnaps someone who is psychologically frail.  Your scenario
would seem to lead to that possibility.

>   Justice must serve not just the guilty, but the innocent.

Once again I agree with you, but I disagree about the method.  I don't think
we serve your hypothetical kidnap victim nearly so well by, say, keeping
the kidnaper in jail for an extra two years as we might by forcing the kid-
naper to pay the victim some sort of reparations (and no, I can't say just
how much should be paid for any given crime).  Keeping the kidnaper in jail
longer might assuage a lust for revenge, but that would be all that would
happen.  Reparations could conceivably do a victim actual good.

The relevance of all of this to capital punishment, by the way, is that a
dead perpetrator can pay no reparations.  If we keep the criminals alive we
may be able to get some useful work out of them.

							--Q

Re:  .51

>    The man was put in prison, but has continually made statements that
>    he will kill her when he gets out. . . . Someone like this just
>    doesn't deserve to get out, but they do.

I don't remember the victim's name either, but I think I recall the case.
Please note, though, that the perpetrator has *not* gotten out yet.  Asking
for parole is not the same thing as getting it.  Maybe the system is actually
working this time.

>    Don't you think the victim should have a little say in this?

No.  I think the parole board ought to be sharp enough to deny the parole
without any help from the victim.  (And I really wish that guys like this
could be made to pay reparations, as per my previous reply.)

>    there is something very wrong with our judicial system when crazies
>    like this get out.

As I said, he isn't out yet.  But if there is something wrong with our
judicial system, let's fix our judicial system.  Let's not compound the
error by choosing the wrong form of punishment.  As I said earlier, capital
punishment is no panacea, either.  Who knows?  Maybe a jury, not wanting to
kill the guy, might have let him off with manslaughter or some such if cap-
ital punishment were the alternative.

							--Q

    >a lust for revenge
    
    If potential attackers knew that their victims could avenge
    themselves *that* might be a powerful deterrent. Certainly
    the current system is not.
    
    As for reparations - if the victim has been destroyed - 
    murdered - there can be no reparation to the victim.
    Reparations to the family of the deceased will not help
    the victim.
    
    Dana
      

    re .54
    
    Well if the victim has already been destroyed, AND it can't be proven
    that the death penalty is a deterrent, killing the murderer doesn't
    make a whole lot of sense in terms of helping the victim and the
    rest of society.  Unless we want to exact revenge a la an eye for
    an eye..,

    I am a firm believer that the death penalty should be used more
often for persons convicted of first degree murder.*   We must be
realistic; there are persons from whom society must be protected, and
the resources of society are not unlimited.

    One cost of executing killers is the possibility that an innocent
person may be executed.  That is a high cost, but not as high as the
cost that we are currently paying.   Innocent people are being murdered
by repeat killers; society could have protected those innocents, but
chose NOT to.  Even if the death penalty is not a deterent to OTHERS, it
guarantees that the recidivism rate of convicted murderers is 0. 

A few anecdotes:
    There is a murderer in Arizona who was sentenced to life (without
parole, I think).  Since then, he has MURDERED three more people in
jail (he explained that he *enjoys* killing).  He has personally 
requested the death penalty, but someone else intervened  on his
behalf.  What can society do with him?  

     My uncle was murdered; the killer is serving a life term.  He has
no chance for parole for 25 years.  The amount of money spent to keep
this sub-human (I do not use this term lightly) alive is sufficient to
send two people to Harvard EVERY YEAR.  This price is too great for
someone who has demonstrated that he cannot live in this society.


Barbi


  * But the execution should be carried out swiftly.  In my opinion, it
is cruel and unusual punishment to keep someone on "death row" for
years.  (You're going to die, you're not going to die -- isn't that
torture?)

    
    Sometime last week, (Thursday?), a man in NJ was released after
    serving 13 years in prison for killing a cop.  Apparently, he is
    innocent.  I only caught part of the story, but it seems it was
    a young DA, under a lot of pressure for a conviction ( after all,
    it was a cop), false evidence, etc.  Jersey authorities don't expect
    that they will ever find the real murderers.
    
    At the time, there was no death penalty in NJ.  Today, there is.
    
    Phyllis
    
    

on revenge: I wish I knew more about how blood feuds used to work (like, did
they take care of certain aspects that today's society doesn't). Any pointers?
	Mez

    Romeo and Juliet?
    
    --bonnie

    Random wonderings:
    
    For those who feel the risk of executing an innocent person is
    an acceptable price for the death penalty, I wonder if they'd
    feel the same if the innocent person were their son or daughter.
    
    For those that feel the death penalty is warranted for drug 
    dealers, I wonder if they'd feel the same if their 18 year-old
    daughter or son were busted for selling dime bags of pot to
    their friends.
    
    Maggie's (?) suggestion of life for the first murder conviction 
    and death for the second makes a good deal of sense to me, assuming
    it's murder 1 we're talking about.  Given that around 80% of murders
    fall into the "passion" category - including "burning bed" situations - 
    it seems to me that an arbitrary death penalty for all murder
    convictions would not serve justice.
    
    It's of course a matter of personal viewpoint, but, at my age, given 
    the choice of a 20-year prison sentence and the gas chamber, I believe
    I'd take the gas (especially if the time had to be done in one of
    the, uh, less progressive state pens).
    
    Steve

    Well it certainly generated more discussion than I ever anticipated.
    I'm glad that each person got to air their views on the subject,
    but I'm still convinced that the convicted person has it much better
    than the victim.  My views may have become a little more enlightened
    but they are still basically the same.  
    As far as drug dealers go, I think they provide a service and as
    long as one wants the garbage they sell, there will always be a
    demand from persons desiring the product.  No one forced a drug
    addict to take their first shot or snort, just as no one forced
    a alcoholic to take their first drink.  Legalize it, tax it and
    many people will stop because they won't be getting away with anything
    any more.
    The actress' name is Teresa Saldana I think.  Thanks again for the
    lively and sometimes heated discussion.  Lisa

  A lot of people are in this note clamoring for the Death Penalty, as
  though we could decide to employ that one tactic *IN ISOLATION* without
  its affects showing up anywhere else in the overall morality and attitude
  of our society.

  Would someone with access to the facts please present a two-column
  list, showing those countries that allow the death penalty versus
  those countries that don't?  That would allow those who are clamoring
  to see, in more full perspective, what other societal baggage goes
  along with the death penalty.

  I'll start, based on some that I'm sure of and some of the previous
  replies -- please add on:


      Employs Capital                         Forbids Capital
         Punishment                              Punishment
    -------------------                     -------------------
      CUBA                                    FEDERAL REP. of GERMANY
      IRAN                                    GREAT BRITAIN
      PEOPLES REPUBLIC of CHINA
      SAUDI ARABIA
      SOUTH AFRICA
      UNITED STATES


                                   Atlant

    1) I am opposed to the death penalty;
    
    2) I am in favour of stricter sentences for criminals;
    
    3) re: -1
    
    					Countries that have 
    					abolished the death penalty
    
    					FRANCE
    					SWITZERLAND
    
    Regards,
    Joana

re Note 713.61 by RAVEN1::CROMER:

>     but I'm still convinced that the convicted person has it much better
>     than the victim.  

        I have no doubt that this is true, at least for the more
        heinous crimes;  but I think that's how it should be.  Society
        isn't served simply by returning atrocity for atrocity.

        In the US, our constitution has always forbidden "cruel and
        unusual punishment", even in the case of crimes that were,
        themselves, "cruel and unusual".  Thus we are left with the
        somewhat ironic situation that the less serious the crime,
        the more likely it is that the punishment fully matches it.

        Bob

    I consider a quick death neither cruel nor unusual. On second
    thought, death sentences have been carried out in many cruel
    ways - hanging, crucifiction, burning. A person sentenced to
    die should be killed quickly, the same as we would put a
    rabid dog to sleep.
    
    I recall Heinlein's statement to the effect that if a
    murderer were *truly* rehabilitated he would be so
    ashamed of what he had done, he'd kill himself. So why
    bother ?

    RE: .65--quote not exact
    
    "I recall Heinlein's statement to the effect that if a
    a person were truly rehabilated he/she would kill himself/herself"
    
    Heinlein's idea of shame is rather bizarre in my opinion. Does
    it make everything all right if the killer dies? If I were
    a member of the victim's family I would prefer that the killer
    spend his/her life trying to prevent murder. What about the killer's
    family?  Does Heinlein have no regard for the family of the
    killer? Does anyone think that one person's death diminishes
    no one but that person?
    
    Those who are in favor of the death penalty often cite deterrence
    as a reason, but it has been proved many times over that it is
    useless as a deterrent. For example, the state of Florida
    has always had the death penalty enforced, and its murder
    statistics are far higher than those of states who do not
    enforce/have a death penalty. This is an Amnesty International
    statistic.  Amnesty opposes the death penalty and works to
    have it removed.
    
    Mario Cuomo also opposes the death penalty and believes
    real life sentences should be substituted. I'm with him.
    
    Eileen
    
    

    
    

>Does it make everything all right if the killer dies? 

 No. A murder cannot be undone. The death of a particular killer precludes
the possibility of further interactive murders from the same perp, though.

>If I were
>    a member of the victim's family I would prefer that the killer
>    spend his/her life trying to prevent murder. 

 And you are entitled to your opinion. On the other hand, many other people
believe differently. Even if capital punishment were a _possibility_, there
is no guarantee that it would be used. You could also make a statement to the
judge (as a victim's relative) for your personal preference for punishment.

>What about the killer's family?  

 What about them? They are generally innocent bystanders.

> Does anyone think that one person's death diminishes
>    no one but that person?

 Most everybody recognizes that there is a sphere of influence that exists
between a person and their surroundings. People within that sphere are
certainly affected when that person dies.

>For example, the state of Florida
>    has always had the death penalty enforced, and its murder
>    statistics are far higher than those of states who do not
>    enforce/have a death penalty.

 The reason that the death penalty is not an effective is because it is too
infrequently applied. Since the death penalty is so infrequently applied,
it makes a lousy deterrent, because nobody thinks they will get it even for
first degree murder. It only is applied for the most heinous crimes.

>This is an Amnesty International
>    statistic.  Amnesty opposes the death penalty and works to
>    have it removed.

 I think that the statistics probably have some merit, but I would like to
caution against partial facts which are often used to advantage by groups
with a particular axe to grind. Nuff said.

 Well, we've chased the furry rodent 'round long enough.

 The Doctah

    I stand in the camp that says, "Kill them, and if a mistake happens,
    that's regrettable, but look at our results..."
    
    IF we speedily execute convicted murderers, rapists and drug dealers,
    and IF these crime rates go down significantly, then the system
    works.  It is very regrettable that an innocent gets killed, but
    on the whole, the system is served.  
    
    I don't have the statistics, but I believe that the number of people
    later proved innocent in the US since the turn of the century is
    four (yes FOUR).  I think that is certainly within safe bounds.
    
    Drug pushers?  Hell yes.  The misery that they cause for a quick
    buck is enormous.  Currently, they can afford the richest lawyers
    to get them off cheap.  Killing them works - in Malaysia (death
    penalty for posession) there is not a drug problem.
    
    Rob

      I certainly agree that we ought to kill those who cause illegal
      drugs to spread through this country. So who's gonna arrest
      Reagan,Bush and the CIA for all the drugs they've allowed to
      transfer around the world (not to mention that they funded it)
      through all the petty dictators they actively supported. Just to
      grab a name Noriega for instance. But he's not the only one.

      Our government has supported any drug runner that says he's
      anti-communist. To then say they will kill others for the same
      crime is quite absurd. You want to stop the drug problem? Legalise
      the milder forms (we should be able to choose our own poison) and
      stop supporting the international drug runners for political
      reasons. liesl

Call me old-fashioned, but I think killing is wrong.  I think
no government or human being has the right to decide who gets
to live and who doesn't.

The existing system may not be working right, in letting out
those who endanger others, but that  just means, to me, that
the system needs work.  Copping out by saying "oh, just kill
them" is beneath us as a society and as individuals, I think 
("beneath us" being a gross understatement). 

There may or may not be a supreme being, that decides on
giving and taking the gift of life, but I'm certainly not it.


	MKV (who, after 3 earthquakes in the last 11 hours,
		is _not_ gonna mess around playing Goddess  :-))

    Re .69, Liesl, I agree!
    
    Lorna
    

	I recently read an argument for the death penalty to the 
	effect that, just as a country that is unwilling to go to war
	inevitably finds itself at the mercy of a country that is,
	if a society guarantees in advance to a potential criminal
	that their most precious possession, their life, will be secure
	no matter what they do, that society will similarly find
	itself at the mercy of those who have no qualms about
	taking life.

	Looking at the situation in this country today, I think there is
	more than a grain of truth in that argument.

					Tom_K

>	no matter what they do, that society will similarly find
>	itself at the mercy of those who have no qualms about
>	taking life.

Advocating "the death penalty" is advocating killing individuals.
I don't want the society I live in to be at the mercy of those
who advocate the death penalty (i.e. those who have no (or not enough) qualms
about taking life).

	MKV

    I look at the death penalty as self-preservation in a sense.  If
    a person gets by with a serious crime, what's to keep them from
    doing it again, and again.  Yes, our nation is weak in this respect.
    Murderer's get a token slap on the wrist, terrorists don't even
    get that much ... so the murder rate goes up, and terrorists laugh
    at American anti-terrorist policies ...
    
    
    				Scary
    
    		(a die-hard capital punishment kinda guy ...)