TEXAS - Death Penalty (Austin, Lufkin: violent crime, living in, shop)

[Houston3]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

The ideas being articulated by some here are morally repugnant and so retrograde as to throw away all evolution in humanitarian laws since the middle ages. These ideas are emotionalistic and savage. There are appear to be some real sick puppies posting here. Fortunately you're in a minority and the enlightened peoples of the world have consigned your ideas to the dustbin of history. Some people here seem ready to throw out the eighth amendment to the Constitution (do you care about that or do you only care about your dear second amendment?).

You mean those countries that cut your hand off for stealing, or the ones that stone women for having out of wedlock sex... Which countries are you referring to?

[Bo]

A reminder of City-Data's personal attack rules appears to be needed:

Be civil, no personal attacks, flaming, or insults. We may attack ideas (politely) but we do not attack the speaker of the idea. Be careful with your words, there is a point where being direct crosses a line into blunt, in-your-face hostility. Please, report bad posts instead of engaging in flame wars on the boards. Insulting another member or a moderator will not be tolerated anywhere on this website.

[doctorjef]

Originally Posted by JTinTx

Good posts loveroses and texasreb. Perhaps the enlightened doctor would feel differently if his own daughter was brutally raped and murdered. Doctorjef, you seem to have a very elitist and condescending attitude towards others. Come down off your high horse. Texas people are not a bunch of redneck simpletons as your overly verbose posts seem to imply.

The point is exactly that justice is not based on the emotions that people will naturally feel when a loved one is harmed or killed by another.

Sorry if you think a literate style of posting is a sign of elitism. I do try to use correct punctuation and spelling, and to write in proper sentences. I guess I got that from Texas, since most of my high school education and all of my university degrees came from the Lone Star State.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

The point is exactly that justice is not based on the emotions that people will naturally feel when a loved one is harmed or killed by another.

Can you elaborate on this a little further? Not sure what you are saying here...

Personally, I agree with what some fellow in an American Spectator article once wrote. Long and short of it was: The only judicial system that can ever work is one which vigorously embodies the public's instinctive sense of right and wrong.

If it doesn't? Then a seething anger over the *injustice* of it all will finally explode into vigilante action.

[doctorjef]

Yeah, I mean you might understandably feel like tearing someone limb from limb and eviscerating them if they murdered your loved one, but that wouldn't make such a form of execution right. Indeed, in many instances there's doubt about the identity of the perpetrator of a crime and we know that juries can reach factually wrong decisions, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel can unfortunately act improperly to prejudice outcomes, etc. Hence, it's a risky proposition to execute people in many instances because there's always some bit of doubt about the true guilt of the person even after they've been tried and convicted. In any event, I believe that history clearly tells us that executions which play to public sentiment and base desires for retribution are brutalising. Hence, we no longer make executions public spectacles nor ones that involve gross cruelties such as half-hanging, drawing and quartering or burning at the stake.

[catman]

There have been a whole bunch of people exonerated by DNA testing recently. That means that a death sentence needs to be absolutely ironclad. An exoneration after that happens isn't worth much to the corpse.

[texdav]

Originally Posted by BRAZILIAN

I know several states use the death penalty like punishment for crime in US and Texas is the state where most use it.
I would like to know what the Americans and the Texans specially, think about it like society instrument for combat against crime and for low crime rate.
I support the capital punishment and I sorry because here in Brazil have not it.

I thnik its the only way of assuring that so many serial and other murderers do not return to the streets. All iut takes is a slight judges error now days 10 years later for one to get a reduced sentence because the case is old.I thinik it will be used in the future more for child predators too as people leran the can't be stopped any other way. life means nothing now days.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by BRAZILIAN

I know several states use the death penalty like punishment for crime in US and Texas is the state where most use it.
I would like to know what the Americans and the Texans specially, think about it like society instrument for combat against crime and for low crime rate.
I support the capital punishment and I sorry because here in Brazil have not it.

I believe very strongly in the death penalty and yes, Texas uses it more than most states.

Even though I support it, I do think there are only a few times when it is appropriate and I do not think it is a deterant to murder..

My feelings, it should only be used when there is absolutely no doubt to the persons guilt. it should be used only in the case of truely heinous crimes and should be administered quickly. Yes, an appeal has to be allowed, but not over and over and no one should be kept on death row for years. This is expensive to the tax payer and actually unfair to those involved, be it the criminal, his family or the family of the murdered person.

People say it is costly to have the death penalty, this is true because of all the appeals allowed etc, it wouldn't be the case if it were administered more quickly. As for the argument, we have to be certain of the person's guilt, yes, I have said I agree, but with modern day DNA that is a lot easier than in years past.
Nita

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

I think it ought to be reserved for very limited circumstances, possbly including genocide (like Hitler and the leaders of the Third Reich or Pol Pot and leadership of the Khmer Rouge), mass murder (like Jonestown and the Twin Towers), or narrowly defined treason in time of war that objectively gives material aid to an enemy in such a way as to endanger the population of the - in our case - United States.

oh Doctorjef, what about cases like the guy who murdered the little girl about 3 or 4 years ago in Florida, after keeping her in captivity for a couple of days and maybe burying her alive. I don't remember all the details, but how can someone like that be allowed to live?

Nita

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by nmnita

I believe very strongly in the death penalty and yes, Texas uses it more than most states.

Even though I support it, I do think there are only a few times when it is appropriate and I do not think it is a deterant to murder..

My feelings, it should only be used when there is absolutely no doubt to the persons guilt. it should be used only in the case of truely heinous crimes and should be administered quickly. Yes, an appeal has to be allowed, but not over and over and no one should be kept on death row for years. This is expensive to the tax payer and actually unfair to those involved, be it the criminal, his family or the family of the murdered person.

People say it is costly to have the death penalty, this is true because of all the appeals allowed etc, it wouldn't be the case if it were administered more quickly. As for the argument, we have to be certain of the person's guilt, yes, I have said I agree, but with modern day DNA that is a lot easier than in years past.
Nita

Great post, Nita! You got reps coming!

Just a few random thoughts on it...

Personally, the "deterrent" factor has never been one I give a lot of weight to. For one thing, there is no way to quantify it. For another, it makes no difference to me, in the whole scheme of things. Whether or not administering the death penalty deters another from committing the same type brutal crime is of lesser importance (to me, at least) than the fact the sicko got natural justice. And too, it is unarguable that at least THAT PERSON is deterred. Ted Bundy ain't gonna do it again, by damn.

So far as the lengthy appeals process goes? Wellll, I gotta quibble just a bit with you on this score. I agree and fully sympathize with the sentiment of taking those violent sociopaths who outrage and violate society out onto the courthouse lawn once they are found beyond-a-doubt guilty and hanging or shooting them on the spot.

At the same time, some sort of practical prudence comes into play as well. That is to say, I don't want death-penalty opponents to be able to use the argument that the condemmed did not get every consideration and therefore have a case that capital punishment is inherently unconstititional.

As I say, just a few thoughts on the matter...