152nd person exonerated from death row since 1973

[GK4Herd]

Why I can't support the death penalty. The system just doesn't always work...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/04/alabama-death-row-anthony-ray-hilton?CMP=fb_gu

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Why I only support it for those who are obviously guilty; caught red-handed, so to speak.

And then I want it to be swift. None of this twenty years on death row crap. At that rate, might as well just give them life without parole.

 

[riflearm2]

It's barbaric. I cannot understand in the least how any educated person can think killing a person is a reasonable option when we have the capabilities of making sure that person can never harm again.

 

[Walden Pond]

The challenge is to somehow deter others. I don't think the current death penalty even accomplishes that. 20 some years on death row and then lethal injection? Seems kind of weak. Probably weak enough that if we did away with it, there wouldn't be much of a change in anything.

I guess we've got all the deterrent in place we're going to get. Some killers are going to be tough enough to face decades behind bars. Others will take themselves out first.

 

[ToesMU]

It's meant to be punishment not a deterrent. That said, I toured the Norfolk City Jail a few years ago - no way I EVER want to put myself in a position to go to jail.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Focusing on the death penalty kind of misses the forest for the trees.

The whole penal system is unjust and wicked, imo.

Our whole system of justice should be based on restoration, not incarceration.

 

[Walden Pond]

Originally posted by ToesMU:
It's meant to be punishment not a deterrent.

I don't see how that's possible. Part of punishment is to deter others. How can you separate that out and say absolutely that it's not a deterrent?

 

[riflearm2]

Originally posted by Walden Pond:
I don't see how that's possible. Part of punishment is to deter others. How can you separate that out and say absolutely that it's not a deterrent?

Regardless of if it is supposed to be a deterrent or not, numerou studies have shown it to have the opposite effect.

Echoing toes' jail sentiments: I was with a guy last night who spent about three years in jail. Though he was able to earn a college degree while in there, he said that if not for the success in what he is doing now, jail would have simply allowed him to have more connections doing what he was doing illegally before and a smarter way to do it.

Keep, a restorative approach is fine for some things. But, humans are vengeful at their core. Restorative approaches tend to focus on making things right for the victim while making the culprit benefit at the same time. Those things can be exclusive, but too many times restorative methods want to have kumbaya moments in order to make everyone whole.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

I would also be ok with an exile program for repeat offenders, but we have kind of ran out of places for that unfortunately.

 

[-Olen-]

Originally posted by wvkeeper(HN):
I would also be ok with an exile program for repeat offenders, but we have kind of ran out of places for that unfortunately.

There's always New Zealand and Australia. Or Canadia.

 

[ToesMU]

Walden, I should've been more clear in my opinion: any deterrent effects of the death penalty are secondary to the primary purpose of dispensing justice for the worst types of criminal behavior - holding people accountable for their actions. While the criminal justice system as a whole is designed to have deterrent effects, this specific penalty itself is purely a punishment.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Walden Pond]

Is that why it's a 20 year wait served with a glorious Last Supper?

If they really set it up that way then it sure isn't much of a deterrent, although they seem to put up a fight against it in court at the sentencing. The lawyers do anyway.

 

[banker6796]

3rd offense/conviction drug dealers are the ones they should kill. By the third time you are caught and convicted, it's pretty clear you have made your life choice, and your life choice has no redeeming social value, leads to the destruction of life, not only to the people you sell to but also to their families and those that they commit crimes against to get money to buy your product.

Serial killers, there's another group. If you kill multiple people, that's a good indication that you need to go. When they finally catch those people they have a mountain of evidence and they usually end up confessing anyway. I'll throw mass murderers in with that group. If you walk into a school or mall and shoot a bunch of people and aren't brave enough to shoot yourself before you're caught, then the state should go ahead and finish you off.

Run of the mill, one off murderer? Don't know, usually done to a specific person for a specific reason, life in prison without possibility of parole is probably good enough.

 

[Penn2moss]

Originally posted by banker6796:
3rd offense/conviction drug dealers are the ones they should kill. By the third time you are caught and convicted, it's pretty clear you have made your life choice, and your life choice has no redeeming social value, leads to the destruction of life, not only to the people you sell to but also to their families and those that they commit crimes against to get money to buy your product.

Serial killers, there's another group. If you kill multiple people, that's a good indication that you need to go. When they finally catch those people they have a mountain of evidence and they usually end up confessing anyway. I'll throw mass murderers in with that group. If you walk into a school or mall and shoot a bunch of people and aren't brave enough to shoot yourself before you're caught, then the state should go ahead and finish you off.

Run of the mill, one off murderer? Don't know, usually done to a specific person for a specific reason, life in prison without possibility of parole is probably good enough.

Your last comment reminds me of the documentary "Dear Zachary".

For anyone who hasn't seen it, it is an absolute must see. It shook me to my core.

 

[Chris884MU]

A few points on both sides:

- The use of advanced DNA techniques have greatly reduced the chance of the "wrong guy" being executed/put on death row. In fact, it's one of the primary things that have exonerated those who were previously wrongly accused.
- A lot of people want to look at these inmates as a Shawshank one time crime. Most people on death row have rap sheets a mile long...and that's just for the things they have been caught doing or admitted doing. It can be argued they have accumulated enough violent crime even with getting one wrong to deserve it. I'm not saying I agree but it's a point to be considered.
- Most violent offenders are not rehabilitated successfully
- The costs are enormous
- Any of these jihadists should not be treated like domestic criminals imo. They should be charged with treason and given the choice of firing squad or permanent deportation if found guilty. If you know the consequence going in you might think twice.
------
- Despite what Rifle claims, there is nowhere in the new testatment bible where capital punishment is advocated. The passages mentioned on another thread, when looked at by most bible scholars doesn't talk about it at all. In a way, it goes against the notion that anyone can turn there life over to Jesus at any time....which, IMO, is the only way a heart can be changed that drastically. The bible DOES state often that "vengeance is mine sayith the Lord". That being said, God doesn't write mans laws. You may be on death row and may even be put to death, but that doesn't prevent you from salvation from Christ.
- I see no reason why hard labor/work prisons shouldn't be brought back for repeat offenders

 

[CockyHerd]

I'll admit that I'm torn on the Death Penalty.

The one thing I feel strongly about is castration for Child Rapists. They have the highest rate of recidivism and subsequent offenses often result in murder, as they try to cover up their crime. Or eliminate protective custody , release them to the general population and allow natural selection take care of the issue.

 

[murox]

If you ever needed a reason to be against the death penalty, just look a the world map of countries who continue to use capital punishment. Not very good company. It's embarrassing that the US is still on this list.

 

[i am herdman]

So, you want to take the death penalty off the table. What about this guy? Shouldn't it be on the table. And, screw the rest of the world. They would be speaking German or Jap if it wasn't for us. The illustrious Europeans have started 2 world wars, ethnic cleansing, and change borders twice a decade. I honestly don't care what they think.



DURHAM, N.C. (AP) - A man charged with first-degree murder in the killing of three Muslim college students can face a death penalty trial, a judge ruled Monday.









Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson Jr. said prosecutors had two aggravating factors and that Craig Stephen Hicks is "death penalty qualified."



Hicks, handcuffed throughout the hearing, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the Feb. 10 killings of 23-year-old Deah Shaddy Barakat; his wife, 21-year-old Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha; and her sister, 19-year-old Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha.



Durham County Assistant District Attorney Jim Dornfried said Hicks was arrested with the murder weapon, and ballistics matched the handgun to shell casings recovered at the apartment. There was gunshot residue on his hands and blood from one of the victim's was on his pants, prosecutors said.



Police say Hicks, 46, appears to have been motivated by a long-running dispute over parking spaces at the Chapel Hill condominium complex where he lived in the same building as Barakat and his wife.



After prosecutors asked for the death penalty, defense lawyer Terry Alford declined to speak.

The victims' families are adamant that they were targeted because they were Muslims and have pushed for hate-crime charges. They sat in the second row of the courtroom and declined the comment after the hearing.



The FBI is conducting what it has called a "parallel preliminary inquiry" to the homicide investigation to determine whether any federal laws were violated, including hate crime statutes.



Search warrants filed by Chapel Hill police said Barakat was shot in the head near the entrance to his condo. The two women were found in or near the kitchen. Eight spent shell casings were found at the crime scene, investigators said.

Prosecutors said the man was shot multiple times and the women once in the head.



Earlier search warrants listed a dozen firearms recovered from the condo unit Hicks shared with his wife, in addition to the handgun he had with him when he turned himself in after the shootings.

Hicks, who was unemployed and studying to become a paralegal, posted online that he was an atheist and a staunch advocate of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.



Neighbors described him as an angry man who had frequent confrontations over parking or loud music, sometimes with a gun holstered at his hip. His social media posts often discussed firearms, including a photo posted of a .38-caliber revolver.

Hicks is being held at a prison in Raleigh.

___

 

[riflearm2]

Originally posted by Chris884MU:

- Despite what Rifle claims, there is nowhere in the new testatment bible where capital punishment is advocated. The passages mentioned on another thread, when looked at by most bible scholars doesn't talk about it at all.

the argument over whether it was addressed in the new testament is irrelevant. the fact is that your god, in the new testament, shot down levitical law but didnt do the same for civil/moral law. he specifically mentions numerous laws which are not to be followed now. he had many opportunities to address any change on his word about capital punishment. if anything, he continued to support it in the new testament, not change it.

 

[riflearm2]

Originally posted by i am herdman:
And, screw the rest of the world.

that sums up the point of the map, which is the same fact i have harped on for years on here. the countries that still allow the barbaric practice are nations that we are on the opposite end of the spectrum on regarding freedom, human rights, and basic decency. yet, on this one topic, we stand alongside of them while all of the other first-world, civilized countries shake their heads in shame at us.

 

[extragreen]

No, capital punishment is not supported in the New Testament.

As for civil/moral law, here it is: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

[Walden Pond]

Until they botch a few more of these, there won't be much pressure to change anything. This issue here probably isn't even in the Top 15 right now.

 

[riflearm2]

Originally posted by extragreen:

As for civil/moral law, here it is: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So, you're telling me that's the only civil/moral law you should follow according to the bible?

 

[extragreen]

Originally posted by riflearm2:

Originally posted by extragreen:

As for civil/moral law, here it is: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So, you're telling me that's the only civil/moral law you should follow according to the bible?

How well do you think things would go if everyone followed that law?

 

[i am herdman]

Originally posted by riflearm2:

Originally posted by i am herdman:
And, screw the rest of the world.

that sums up the point of the map, which is the same fact i have harped on for years on here. the countries that still allow the barbaric practice are nations that we are on the opposite end of the spectrum on regarding freedom, human rights, and basic decency. yet, on this one topic, we stand alongside of them while all of the other first-world, civilized countries shake their heads in shame at us.

We are not standing along side them. Murder in this country, outside of a few federal exceptions, is a state crime. The states decide whether they support capital punishment. For example, WV does not allow capital punishment. Ohio does. There is also a strict set of circumstances that must be approved by a jury of the accused peers and a court ruled over by a judge. The accused also has a right to be represented and the expense of the people bringing the accusation. There is also an appeals process.

Those processes are not found in other countries that have the death penalty. It is not brought about by political enemies nor religion.

The other issue is we are a representative republic and again the powers not mentioned in the constitution are left to the states. First degree murder is a state crime and the fate of the convicted is left to the state.

 

[Chris884MU]

You are full of it Rifle. You named specific passages in other post but your interpretation of those passages is considered erroneous by just about every biblical scholar on earth. And for a guy that talks about women often as little more than a piece of meat I doubt anyone is going to be taking morality advice from you.
This post was edited on 4/6 9:43 PM by Chris884MU

 

[riflearm2]

Originally posted by extragreen:

Originally posted by riflearm2:

Originally posted by extragreen:

As for civil/moral law, here it is: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So, you're telling me that's the only civil/moral law you should follow according to the bible?

How well do you think things would go if everyone followed that law?

it would be awful. people have different morals and values, including how to treat people. how i may expect or want to be treated is entirely different than how others would expect or want to be treated.

if my hypothetical daughter had sex outside of marriage, i would hope she used protection and was in a serious relationship with the guy. if a daughter in another culture had sex outside of marriage, the father would take part in her stoning.

so, instead of avoiding the question, try answering it this time: you're telling me that "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" is the only civil/moral law you should follow according to the bible?

 

[riflearm2]

Originally posted by i am herdman:

We are not standing along side them. Murder in this country, outside of a few federal exceptions, is a state crime. The states decide whether they support capital punishment. For example, WV does not allow capital punishment. Ohio does. There is also a strict set of circumstances that must be approved by a jury of the accused peers and a court ruled over by a judge. The accused also has a right to be represented and the expense of the people bringing the accusation. There is also an appeals process.

Those processes are not found in other countries that have the death penalty. It is not brought about by political enemies nor religion.

The other issue is we are a representative republic and again the powers not mentioned in the constitution are left to the states. First degree murder is a state crime and the fate of the convicted is left to the state.

that has absolutely nothing to do with murox's point or my point.

there are plenty of nations that have similar justice systems to what we have here, yet dont allow for the barbaric practice of government killing.

are you telling me that it is more humane to allow a person to be on death row for 20 years, never knowing when they will be killed, and giving them a week or two notice instead of executing them a couple of weeks after the incident if a judicial system rules against them? again, those things have nothing to do with the point that it is barbaric either way, but your argument still doesnt make sense.

 

[riflearm2]

Originally posted by Chris884MU:

You are full of it Rifle. You named specific passages in other post but your interpretation of those passages is considered erroneous by just about every biblical scholar on earth.

you need to learn how to read.

what am i full of? did i deny naming specific passages in another post arguing that they support capital punishment? no, i didnt. what i said, if you could fvcking read, was that it is irrelevant about whether the topic was specifically addressed in the new testament. your god had plenty of opportunities to speak out against it, as he did with other laws he changed, but he failed to address the issue from the old testament.

the only "full of it" is you claiming that "just about every biblical scholar on earth" disagrees with me on your god supporting capital punishment. hell, the only person on here that im aware of with multiple degrees on religion (bachelor's and master's) agrees with me on the topic.

Originally posted by Chris884MU:

And for a guy that talks about women often as little more than a piece of meat I doubt anyone is going to be taking morality advice from you.

and for a guy who cant see the entertainment value in that on this medium, leads to nobody looking at anything you post with even a sliver of legitimacy.

 

[extragreen]

Originally posted by riflearm2:

Originally posted by extragreen:

Originally posted by riflearm2:

Originally posted by extragreen:

As for civil/moral law, here it is: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So, you're telling me that's the only civil/moral law you should follow according to the bible?

How well do you think things would go if everyone followed that law?

it would be awful. people have different morals and values, including how to treat people. how i may expect or want to be treated is entirely different than how others would expect or want to be treated.

if my hypothetical daughter had sex outside of marriage, i would hope she used protection and was in a serious relationship with the guy. if a daughter in another culture had sex outside of marriage, the father would take part in her stoning.

so, instead of avoiding the question, try answering it this time: you're telling me that "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" is the only civil/moral law you should follow according to the bible?

No, it would not be awful, and you know it. A father, asked if he wants to be stoned for his sin is either insane or a liar. Therefore he would not be following the law I mentioned. I imagine ALL Biblical law would fall under the 2 great commandments and that answers your burning question.

 

[riflearm2]

Originally posted by extragreen:
No, it would not be awful, and you know it. A father, asked if he wants to be stoned for his sin is either insane or a liar.

in that case, you dont understand fundamental muslim extremists. that is just one example of how your attempt fails.

Originally posted by extragreen:

I imagine ALL Biblical law would fall under the 2 great commandments and that answers your burning question.

[/QUOTE]
so, the only civil/moral law the bible tells you to follow is "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." seems like a lot of wasted pages if that is all you need to know. but, of course, like with all discussions on religion, you're wrong.

 

[extragreen]

Originally posted by riflearm2:

Originally posted by extragreen:
No, it would not be awful, and you know it. A father, asked if he wants to be stoned for his sin is either insane or a liar.

in that case, you dont understand fundamental muslim extremists. that is just one example of how your attempt fails.

Originally posted by extragreen:

I imagine ALL Biblical law would fall under the 2 great commandments and that answers your burning question.

so, the only civil/moral law the bible tells you to follow is "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." seems like a lot of wasted pages if that is all you need to know. but, of course, like with all discussions on religion, you're wrong. [/QUOTE] I'm wrong? You mean like when I tried to tell you that Jesus didn't ride into Jerusalem on a horse?

Any reasonable human being would agree that the world would be a better place if we all treated each other the way we want to be treated. Regardless of whether or not religion existed.

 

[i am herdman]

Originally posted by riflearm2:

Originally posted by i am herdman:

We are not standing along side them. Murder in this country, outside of a few federal exceptions, is a state crime. The states decide whether they support capital punishment. For example, WV does not allow capital punishment. Ohio does. There is also a strict set of circumstances that must be approved by a jury of the accused peers and a court ruled over by a judge. The accused also has a right to be represented and the expense of the people bringing the accusation. There is also an appeals process.

Those processes are not found in other countries that have the death penalty. It is not brought about by political enemies nor religion.

The other issue is we are a representative republic and again the powers not mentioned in the constitution are left to the states. First degree murder is a state crime and the fate of the convicted is left to the state.

that has absolutely nothing to do with murox's point or my point.

there are plenty of nations that have similar justice systems to what we have here, yet dont allow for the barbaric practice of government killing.

are you telling me that it is more humane to allow a person to be on death row for 20 years, never knowing when they will be killed, and giving them a week or two notice instead of executing them a couple of weeks after the incident if a judicial system rules against them? again, those things have nothing to do with the point that it is barbaric either way, but your argument still doesnt make sense.

Well, that is the appeals process. That is what it is has turned into. In the old days, you were found guilty and then hung pretty quickly.

I don't think it should take 20 years. I also believe that the death penalty should only be used in the worst circumstances.

 

[HRHF]

Does that SC cop deserve the death penalty?

 

[i am herdman]

Originally posted by HRHF:
Does that SC cop deserve the death penalty?

Don't know all the facts yet. He certainly deserved to be charged with murder(from what I have seen and read).

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Yes, especially given his position of authority (and it shows the insanity of some folks who argue, by necessary consequence that only police officers and the government should have firearms).