Capital Punishment

[John Self]

The recent murder of a police officer in Bradford has ignited a call from Lord Stevens (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453848.stm), former Metropolitan Police Commissioner and lifelong opponent of the death penalty, for the reintroduction of capital punishment for the murder of police officers on duty.

The argument, perhaps, is that while most murders occur on the spur of the moment, whether 'moments of madness' or crimes of passion, the murder of a police officer on duty must always be a deliberate and premeditated act in an attempt to evade justice.

As a fellow lifelong opponent of capital punishment - and so far staying that way - my instinctive reaction is to disagree with Lord Stevens. But what are the arguments for and against? The main argument in favour, I suppose, is that life is so precious that those who take it can only pay a suitable price by sacrificing their own life in return. Or given that under recent changes to the law, those who murder police, multiple victims or children will generally spend the rest of their life in prison, it could be argued that executing someone 'humanely' is less vengeful than keeping them in confinement for the rest of their life (and presumably those lifers in this situation who attempt suicide would agree). More pragmatically, it's cheaper.

More unattractively, it satisfies the human desire for revenge, rarely an honourable motive. It brutalises society, some say, by reducing it to the level of the murderer. And with new miscarriages of justice appearing regularly, the prospect of getting it wrong chills the blood. This, for me, is the most convincing argument against, as the first two arguments tend to pall when one considers, say, Frederick West. Does the absolute sanctity of human life sustain in a world which includes (or included) him?

Has anyone changed their mind on capital punishment, one way or the other?

[RC]

Theoretically I'm against capital punishment and have always been. The reason is my feeling that it's just too awful to cold-bloodedly end the life of someone who wants to live, in other words I have a grain of pity for people who are sentenced to die. I can imagine their terrible wait and the panic as the time draws near, it is too dreadful. Secondly I think it has a bad effect on society because ideas like compassion and redemption are really quite fragile ideas and have to be protected and nurtured to keep them healthy. Civilisation is the opposite of savagery, if as a species we hope to keep growing towards the light we've got to keep pretending life is sacred in the hope that one day the pretense may become the reality.
That being said, I could give you a list of people I would shoot on sight, no trial necessary. On that I have changed my mind, at one time I would have been content to lock them up for life on bread and water. My motive would be revenge, and hatred as a consequence of what they have done and what they are. Shooting is actually too good for them, but I'm not mean enough to give them what they really deserve.

[Maggie]

For the most part I am against Capitol Punishment. I do feel however, that one of the downsides of Democracy is the never ending amount of "rights" afforded to the criminal. Once a person chooses to commit a crime, I believe that from that moment on, they have lost some of their rights. One might argue that one is innocent until proven guility and in many cases this system works. There are those criminals, like serial killers or repeat offenders who IMHO should not be clogging up our court systems and using our tax dollars for court appointed attornys.
I have a deep and abiding disappointment in the American judicial system. ......case in point, Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson and Dick Cheney, who has multiple charges against him but will not be indicted until his term is over as he couldn't keep his position if he were.

This article is from this Sunday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinal. This is a judge I like :-)

Painesville Ohio --- An animal rescuer who abandoned 35 kittens in two parks has been sentenced to a night in the woods without food or shelter.
Plainsville Municipal Court Judge Michael A. Cicconetti, known for handing out unusual punishments, sentenced Michelle M Murray to spend the cold night alone when she begins her 15-day jail sentence next week.
"How would you like to be dumped off at a Metropark late at night, spend the night listening to the coyotes coming upon you, listening to the raccoons around you in the dark night and sit out there in the cold not knowing where you're going to get your next meal, not knowing when you are going to be rescued ?" the judge asked. "That's what you're going to do."
Murray 25, pleaded guilty last month to abandoning domestic animals, a second degree misdemeanor. The kittens were recovered but many had infections and nine died.
She apologized and has previously said she was experiencing family problems when she dumped the kittens.
Murray must report to jail on Wednesday where a park ranger will drop her off at a remote location.
Cicconetti previously sentenced a man who called an officer a pig to stand on a city sidewalk for two hours in a pen next to a 350-pound hog along with a sign reading, "This is not a police officer."


These seem like trivial matters but it wouldn't hurt to give some of the criminals a little taste of their own medicine once in a while !!


Maggie

[knovella]

I'll probably come back to this thread when I have more time, but just want to address the "pragmatist" issue.

In the US the death penalty has proven very very much more expensive to the public purse than life imprisonment. This is because of the inevitable, lengthy appeals process, for which the prisoner is provided counsel on the public dime. So, assuming there is an appeals process in UK, you might want to chuck that line of reasoning.

[skinned teen]

mad propz to u, knovella. keepin it real up in hurr.... ok tha problem with most peoplez perception of capital punishment is that it is functionally incorrect. tha death penalty is imperically proven to execute innocent people, yet we continue to use it. how can ne one who believes murder is morally repgunant justify something that takes life away and be consistent with theyre reason why they advocate it? they advocate it to prevent murder, but then recognize that murder is a necessary tool.

[Digger]

Also as a lifelong opponant to the death penalty I wonder why Lord Stevens thinks that the death of a police officer makes it more of a case for capital punishment than the murder of anyone else. Tragic as it is to lose members of our services (police, firemen, ambulance staff ect) it cannot be acceptable to allow the death penalty for the perpatrators of these crimes, and not for any other murder.

Having declared murder to be wrong, of any person, we should not advocate murder in return. Revenge is nasty and messy and never works to salve people's feelings of anger because it involves no end to the violence which bred it in the first place, just places all involved in a downward spiral.

[Colyngbourne]

I agree wholly with Digger's sentiments. If anything, I think the state taking someone's life is more sinister and sadistic. I won't forget the execution of Nick Ingram in 1995, who won temporary reprieves before being subjected to the death penalty.

[John Self]

In response to the points made by skinned teen (welcome, by the way) and Digger:

Having declared murder to be wrong, of any person, we should not advocate murder in return

At the risk of being pedantic, capital punishment is not murder. Murder is unlawful (and intentional) killing, whereas capital punishment where it exists is by definition lawful.

In response to knovella's point, I don't think there was the long multiple appeals process in the UK that there is in US states. Having said that, nobody in the UK had been executed in forty-odd years so I don't really know for sure.

I believe amner is or was a correspondence-friend of a US death row prisoner. Perhaps he can shed some light on the topic.

[knovella]

Reasons people support the Death Penalty:
--it's cheaper than Life in Prison
--it's an effective deterrent
--it's only fair
--the bastards deserve it, they're guilty

The first is Untrue. Prisoners on Death Row in the US cost a bundle. They are held in 'special circumstances' and bring the courts through years of appeals, sometimes staying on Death Row for 20 years while their cases are heard. Of course, parole is out of the question.

The second 'deterrent' argument is Untrue. There is no reduction in capital murders in US states that adopt the Death Penalty, there is no change in the frequency of premeditated crime.

The third, "it's only fair", is the eye-for-an-eye argument, assuming guilt. It's primitive and final, and therefore extremely 'unfair." In the US, the prosecutor must request the Death Penalty in a trial, which (surprise!) happens way-way disproportionately when the defendant is black and poor. Guess they are perceived as more of a threat to society than other murderers.

The fourth assumes guilt, which is a dangerous thing. Even if you get it wrong just one time out of 20, you've (too) have killed an innocent person. I guess this would be called premeditated murder if it weren't legal.

The Death Penalty is all about the righteous standing in final judgment over the guilty. There's really not one part of that equation that really stands up to examination.

[Digger]

At the risk of being pedantic, capital punishment is not murder. Murder is unlawful (and intentional) killing, whereas capital punishment where it exists is by definition lawful.

yes, ok John, capital punishment is perhaps not technically murder - but to a certain extent that's surely just semantics. It is taking another person's life against their will. And it's every bit as 'intentional' as those unlawful killings.

Given that we're both against it, well, there we go....

[Wavid]

I think that Lord Stevens is wrong on both counts here, which appears to be the majority view on here. It should matter what the occupation of a murder victim, the punishment should always be the same for the murderer.

Capital pubishment is barbaric and in the C21, we really ought to be above that sort of thing.

[amner]

I believe amner is or was a correspondence-friend of a US death row prisoner. Perhaps he can shed some light on the topic.

I was - this turned into a frustrating and ultimately pointless one-way correspondence when all my letters ended up just being returned after a time - I've also been twice, which was something else.

There's very little, frankly, that covers anyone in 'right' over this issue. I'm sure it all seems just perfect when they catch some evil-looking bastard with a smoking gun standing over their prone victim, but life's not like that.

In the case of my contact, he was a member of a trio who broke into a house to confront the estranged girlfriend of one of the group. A woman died from a gunshot. Only one person could have done it, yet all three were given the death penalty. Even if you agreed with the concept you'd have to concede there's a bit of trouble with the maths, huh? They were all black, too. Oh, and poor. I'm sure that had no bearing on it at all. No sirree.

In fact, get into the economics and demographic of the the thing and it all gets thoroughly dispiriting in its invidiousness. I'm with Dostoevsky, who said that a society should be "judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals." And that doesn't mean embracing wishy-washy liberalism, but it does mean eschewing barbarism.

[RC]

And that doesn't mean embracing wishy-washy liberalism...

With all due respect, wishy-washy liberalism is really the only credible stance, as it takes into account: 1) trying to do no harm and 2) there's no black, no white.

[amner]

That's more than fair enough comment, RC. I suppose I was thinking about how one might try and end up selling a different approach to the ingrained oiks who hold such stuff dear.

[maxivida]

What are the statistics on the influence of capital punishment on crime rate? Are there significantly fewer murders being committed in Texas than in, say, California? If this is the case, that could be, in my opinion, the only really valid reason for favouring the death penalty. I would personally think twice before commiting a crime if I knew it would cost me my life.

That leaves open the question of other legal aspects of the capital punishment system - what if a person is wrongly accused, or if more people are sentenced to death for the murder of one other person, like in the case of Amner's correspondent. On the other hand, there is no such thing as an absolutely infallible judicial system and I'm sure that there are innocent people serving the life sentence, which is just a little less horrible than dying for a crime you didn't commit.

Still, I'm against capital punishment and I do think it's barbaric and uncivilised as long as the crime and its consequences are happening to an anonymous, generic family. If somebody killed my child, I'd stop being civilised in a blink of an eye. I'd want to see them fry. Of course, the murderer's death doesn't bring the murdered back to life, and it's not even a question of revenge - it's catharsis. There are people who can live on knowing that the culprit is biding his time in a warm, comfy hotel room of a cell (at least that's what the capital punishment convicts are used to in Germany, don't know about other countries) while their loved ones are six feet under, and there are people who simply cannot, it's a matter of temperament, I suppose.

[Wavid]

I suppose, Max, that the rational view to take is simply that the relatives, or whatever, of victims are the last people who should be consulted on the punishment that should be meted out to the perpetrator of the crime. In the majority of cases, people are likely to be so emotionally involved that they are bound to demand the harshest penalty possible.

[John Self]

I don't see why the victims' relatives shouldn't be consulted (as I believe they are in other countries, with talk of a pilot scheme in the UK). They, after all, are the ones who are suffering directly from the consequences of the murder, rather than the more nebulous way in which all of society suffers for no man is an island etc. etc.

It depends, I suppose, on what you give more weight to: the act that the person committed, or the person who committed the act? If you don't consider the personal circumstances of the murderer and the reasons why they did it, then you risk missing important mitigating factors (say where a battered wife poisons her husband). But if you don't consider the consequences of the act itself - the effect on the victims' relatives, etc - then you risk giving an excessively lenient sentence and undermining public confidence in the judicial system, which in itself is likely to lead to calls for harsher sentences including death. Frankly as someone who has represented (minor) criminals in the past and entered pleas in mitigation on their behalf, I know that a lot of bullshit is offered to the court to evoke sympathy for the convicted. My justification to myself was always that I hoped the court wasn't taken in by what I said...

Only one person could have done it, yet all three were given the death penalty. Even if you agreed with the concept you'd have to concede there's a bit of trouble with the maths, huh?

I hate to sound like devil's advocate, but no. In the UK anyway, under the principle of 'joint enterprise' it would be perfectly proper to convict three people of one murder even if only one fired the shot - as long as they were involved in a joint criminal enterprise and the others knew or ought to have known what was likely to happen.

In response to max: as knovella said, I don't think there's any significant deterrent effect from the death penalty. Generally murders are committed on the spur of the moment - as the murder of the police officer last week presumably was - plus criminals (who generally speaking in my personal experience are pretty stupid) never think they will get caught.

[Wavid]

The point I was making was more that the victim's people are more likely to be emotional and, frankly, irrational at the time. Should something terrible be done to someone I care about, I would no doubt want the perpetrator killed, and probably tortured (by me) first - but surely being in that frame of mind I would hardly be in a position to subjectively understand what the appropriate punishment might be?

[amner]

I hate to sound like devil's advocate, but no. In the UK anyway, under the principle of 'joint enterprise' it would be perfectly proper to convict three people of one murder even if only one fired the shot - as long as they were involved in a joint criminal enterprise and the others knew or ought to have known what was likely to happen.

Not something to disavow one of the whole Law=Ass equation is it? To die for an idea like that sets a rather high price on principle.

[NottyImp]

I hate to sound like devil's advocate, but no. In the UK anyway, under the principle of 'joint enterprise' it would be perfectly proper to convict three people of one murder even if only one fired the shot - as long as they were involved in a joint criminal enterprise and the others knew or ought to have known what was likely to happen.


Would this still apply if there had been twenty people in the room? Or, say, 100 in a big warehouse?

[John Self]

It would depend on how many of the 20 (or 100) were involved in the overall criminal enterprise.

[NottyImp]

All of them.

[John Self]

Then yes.

[youjustmightlikeit]

Burn em

[NottyImp]

Then yes.


How curious. Rather more than an "eye for an eye", isn't it?

[John Self]

An extraordinarily ugly discussion (http://forums.thebookforum.com/showthread.php?t=8863)has developed over at The Book Forum, which touches on the issues of punishment and justice generally, this time for that charming sex offender Gary Glitter. I say 'discussion,' but really it's been a series of people calling for his balls to be cut off, for him to be raped, etc., for the current charges against him. I alone, as Shade, have been suggesting that just maybe he's entitled to a trial first of all... And these are the world's readers! I think I better had join Liberty after all.

[knovella]

Well, John, I missed that one. Just went and threw my beret into the ring.

[Oryx]

Anyone notice the irony in Miss Shef's signature (from the Book Forum)?

Oryx

[skinned teen]

that almost made me throw up.

[youjustmightlikeit]

You should try jellied eels.

[Stewart]

I alone, as Shade, have been suggesting that just maybe he's entitled to a trial first of all.

Do you want a cape?

[Stradlater]

Don't give him a cape! Give him an ovation!

Mr Self - my hat is off to you. You are doing a great job over there. Who are these people?

[Stewart]

Who are these people?

Well, I'm Stewart.

[Stradlater]

Hats off to you too then big man

[John Self]

An example of the 'joint enterprise' rule in action, in the conviction today of two young men for the murder of Anthony Walker, even though only one dealt the fatal blow:

A 17-year-old has been found guilty of murdering black student Anthony Walker, who was found with an axe in his head.


Michael Barton had denied killing Anthony but was found guilty of murder. His cousin Paul Taylor, 20, admitted his part in the killing.

Anthony, 18, was killed with an ice axe at McGoldrick Park in Huyton, Merseyside, on 29 July.

A judge is due to decide whether the murder was racially-motivated before sentencing the pair.
Taylor, of Elizabeth Road, Huyton, inflicted the fatal blow, but Barton was convicted on the grounds that he supplied the weapon and started the confrontation.

[grendel]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/29/landmark.execution.ap/index.html

Considering that many large cities in America have murder rates that push 1000 per year, the idea that to date, "only" 999 convicted killers have been put to death over the span of decades might lead one to believe great care is taken in deciding who lives and who doesn't. Might...

[rick green]

I'm completely against the death penalty. There's simply no argument to vindicate the willful killing of a fellow human being.

[skinned teen]

courtesy of tha ACLU...

"Thanks to Modern Politics 27 Innocent People Have Been Removed from the Living." they are...

1.) Adams, James. Florida. Adams was convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death, and executed in 1984. A witness identified Adams as driving the car away from the victim's home shortly after the crime. This witness, however, was driving a large truck in the direction opposite to that of Adams' car, and it was later discovered that this witness was angry with Adams for allegedly dating his wife. A second witness the day after the crime stated that the fleeing person was positively not Adams. A hair sample found clutched in the victim's hand, which in all likelihood had come from the assailant, did not match Adams’ hair.

2.) Anderson, William Henry. Florida Anderson was convicted of the rape of a white woman, sentenced to death, and executed in 1945 without an appeal having been made. The victim had not resisted, screamed, or used an available pistol to resist Anderson's advances. Anderson and the victim had been consensually intimate for several months before rape charges were filed.

3.) Applegate, Everett. New York. Applegate was convicted, with Francis Q. Creighton, of the murder of Applegate's wife; both were sentenced to death in 1936. Creighton had been tried and acquitted on two separate occasions for similar murders a dozen years before she met Applegate. In this case, she killed the victim (by arsenic poisoning) at Applegate's instigation. "Virtually no evidence against Applegate existed beyond Mrs. Creighton's unsupported word." Governor Herbert Lehman, who had doubts about Applegat's guilt, requested the prosecutor's support for clemency for Applegate; it was not forthcoming, and clemency was denied.

4.) Bambrick, Thomas. New York. Bambrick was convicted of murder, and sentenced to death. Evidence was later discovered that convinced Warden Thomas Mott Osbourne and the prison chaplain that another man had committed the crime. Osbourne commented "It is almost as certain that Bambrick is innocent as that the sun will rise tomorrow."

5-6.) Becker, Charles and Frank ("Dago") Cirofici. New York. Becker and Cirofici were convicted of murder; Cirofici was executed in 1914 and Becker in 1915. The victim, Rosenthal, was a gambling house owner. He was convicted largely on the testimony of gamblers and ex-convicts in the glare of extensive newspaper publicity about police corruption. Former Sing Sing warden, Thomas Mott Osbourne, who knew the closet friends of the gunmen, stated that these friends all agreed Cirofici had nothing to do with the murder and was not even present when it occurred. Warden Osbourne also believed that Becker was not guilty.

7.) Collins, Roosevelt. Alabama. Collins was convicted of rape, sentenced to death, and executed in 1937. Collins testified that the victim the "victim" had consented, which caused a near-riot in the courtroom. The all-white jury deliberated for only four minutes. Subsequent interviews with several jurors revealed that although they believed the act was consensual, they also thought Collins deserved to death simply for "messin’ around" with a white woman. Even the judge, off the record, admitted his belief that Collins was telling the truth. "An innocent man went to his death."

8.) Dawson, Sie. Florida. Dawson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The conviction by an all-white male jury was based on a confession obtained from Dawson after he had spent more then a week in custody without the assistance of counsel and on an accusation by the victim's husband. Dawson had an I.Q. of 64. At trial, Dawson repudiated his confession, claiming it was given only because "the white officers told him to say he killed Mrs. Clayton or they'd give him to "the mob’ outside." There were no eyewitnesses and the circumstantial evidence was slight and inconclusive.

9.) Garner, Vance. Alabama. With Jack Hunter and Will Johnson, Garner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. No appeals were undertaken. Garner had maintained his complete innocence, while Hunter admitted his own guilt and absolved both Garner and Johnson. Johnson's sentence was later commuted to life, but Garner was executed in 1905.

10-11.) Grezchowiak, Stephen and Max Rybarczyk. New York. Grezchowiak and Rybarczyk were both convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death. Co-defendant Alexander Bogdanoff insisted that neither Grezchowiak nor Rybarczyk had been involved in the crime, and that each had been mistakenly identified by the eyewitnesses. He refused, however, to reveal the names of his true accomplices. In their final words, they maintained their innocence, and Bogdanoff again declared that the two were innocent.

12.) Hauptmann, Bruno Richard. New Jersey. Hauptmann was convicted of felony-murder-burglary, sentenced to death, and executed in 1936. He was infamous as the ransom-kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby. Although Governor Hoffman believed that Hauptmann was framed, he chose not to halt the execution. There is no doubt that the conviction rested in part on corrupt prosecutorial practices, suppression of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, prejured testimony, and Hauptmann's prior record.

13.) Hill, Joe. Utah. Hill was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of two storekeepers. The prosecution was based on sketchy circumstantial evidence and was in part the result of collusion between the prosecution and the trial judge in an atmosphere of anti-union hostility. Despite several appeals from President Woodrow Wilson to the Utah authorities for a reprieve, Hill was denied a new trial. Hill appears to have been an innocent victim of "politics, finance and organized religion, a powerful trinity"; his conviction and death are "one of the worst travesties of justice in American labor history."

14.) Lamble, Harold. New Jersey. Lamble was convicted and sentenced to death. After the execution, Governor Edward Edwards refused requests to appoint a special counsel to investigate the case, despite what the New York Times called a "rather widespread fear that perhaps" Lamble was innocent. Lamble's attorney was disbarred for mishandling the defense.

15.) Mays, Maurice F. Tennessee. Mays was convicted of murder in the killing of a white woman and sentenced to death. Mays’ conviction rested on the testimony of a police officer who had disliked him for years and on the testimony of an eyewitness who never got a clear look at the killer. On appeal, the conviction was reversed because the judge, rather than the jury, had fixed the penalty at death. Mays was retried, reconvicted, and resentenced to death. In 1922, Mays was executed, still maintaining his innocence. In 1926, the real killer confessed in a written statement that revealed she was a white woman who had dressed up as a black man to kill the woman with whom her husband was having an affair.

16.) McGee, Willie. Mississippi. McGee was convicted of the rape of a white woman and sentenced to death by an all-white jury that deliberated for only two and a half minutes. the chief evidence against him was a coerced confession that he gave after being held incommunicado for thirty-two days after his arrest; the victim's husband and her two children, asleep in the next room, never heard any commotion from the alleged attack. The victim had been consorting with McGee for four years and was angry at his efforts to terminate their relationship. Nonetheless, local blacks were too intimidated to give this evidence in court, and local whites felt the woman's consent was impossible or irrelevant. McGee was executed in 1951.

17-18.) Sacco, Nicola, and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Massachusetts. Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of murder in the course of armed robbery, sentenced to death, and executed in 1927. Their case is probably the most controversial death penalty case in this century. They were arrested and tired in an atmosphere dominated by "the Red Scare" of the early 1920s. In 1925, another man also under the death sentence in Massachusetts confessed to the crime. Extensive investigation of the confession convinced many that he was, indeed, telling the truth. In 1926, the trial judge denied motions for a retrial based on the confession. In 1977, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the executions, Governor Dukakis signed a carefully worded proclamation intended to remove "any stigma and disgrace" from their names.

19.) Sanders, Albert. Alabama. Sanders was convicted with Fisher Brooks of murder and sentenced to death. Though he had nothing to gain by helping Sanders, Brooks testified at Sander's trial that Sanders was innocent. Another fellow prisoner testified that he had heard Sanders confess, however, and both Brooks and Sanders were executed in 1918. In a statement from the scaffold, Brooks again insisted on Sanders’ innocence.

20.) Sberna, Charles. New York. Sberna was convicted of first-degree murder of a police officer. His codefendant, Salvatore Gati, testified at the trial that Sberna was innocent. Gati also said the head of the New York Homicide Bureau had told him that he knew Sberna was innocent, and would clear his name if Gati would reveal the name of his real accomplices. Gati refused to do this. Sberna and Gati were both wrongfully executed in 1938. The prison chaplain said of Sberna, "This is the first time I’ve ever been positive that an innocent man was going to the chair."

21.) Shumway, R. Mead. Nebraska. Shumway was convicted of the first-degree murder of his employer's wife on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to death. One juror, the only one to hold out against the death penalty, told his friends he "had not slept well any night since the trial." He later left a note in which he expressed "great worry at the trial," and he then killed himself. In 1910, the victim's husband confessed on his deathbed that he had murdered his wife.

22.) Tucker, Charles Louis. Massachusetts. Tucker was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1905. More than 100,000 Massachusetts residents signed petitions on behalf of clemency. Among those convinced of his innocence was the county medical examiner and a clergyman who said a witness had told him she perjured herself at the original trial. Tucker was nonetheless executed in 1906.

23.) Wing, George Chew. New York. Wing was convicted of first-degree murder (after a 30-minute trial) and sentenced to death. While he was in prison awaiting execution, Wing convinced several observers that he had been falsely identified by eyewitnesses and that perjured testimony had been used against him. Warden Lewis Lawes also questioned his guilt, but Wing was nonetheless executed in 1937.

24.) Jones, Leo. Florida. Convicted 1981. Executed 1998. Jones was convicted of murdering a police officer in Jacksonville, Florida. Jones signed a confession after several hours of
police interrogation, but he later claimed the confession was coerced. In the mid-1980s, the policeman who arrested Jones and
the detective who took his confession were forced out of uniform for ethical violations. The policeman was later identified by a
fellow officer as an "enforcer" who had used torture. Many witnesses came forward pointing to another suspect in the case.

25.) Spence, David. Texas. Conviction 1983? Executed 1997. Spence was charged with murdering three teenagers in 1982. He was allegedly hired by a convenience store owner to kill another girl, and killed these victims by mistake. The convenience store owner, Muneer Deeb, was originally convicted and sentenced to death, but then was acquitted at a re-trial. The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime. The case against Spence was pursued by a zealous narcotics cop who relied on testimony of prison inmates who were granted favors in return
for testimony.

26.) O'Dell, Joseph. Virginia. Conviction 1986. Executed 1997. New DNA blood evidence has thrown considerable doubt on the murder and rape conviction of O'Dell. In reviewing his case in 1991, three Supreme Court Justices, said they had doubts about O'Dell's guilt and whether he should have been allowed to represent himself. Without the blood evidence, there is little linking O'Dell to the crime. In September, 1996, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals reinstated his death sentence and upheld his conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review O'Dell's claims of innocence and held that its decision regarding juries being told about the alternative sentence of life-without-parole was not retroactive to his case. O'Dell asked the state to conduct DNA tests on other pieces of evidence to
demonstrate his innocence but was refused. He was executed on July 23rd.

27.) Coleman, Roger Keith. Virginia. Conviction 1982. Executed 1992. Coleman was convicted of raping and murdering his sister-in-law in 1981, but both his trial and appeal were plagued by errors made by his attorneys. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the merits of his petition because his state appeal had been filed one day late. Considerable evidence was developed after the trial to refute the state's evidence, and that evidence might well have produced a different result at a re-trial. Governor Wilder considered a commutation for Coleman, but allowed
him to be executed when Coleman failed a lie detector test on the day of his execution.

also, it should be understood that, in tha united statez of amerikkka, an execution is sufficient legal cause to close a police case. in otha words, once someone has been executed, only a confession from an actual guilty party can reopen a case. as a result, tha state does not allow executed people to be legally declared innocent. in some states, when someone is executed, all files regarding their case are destroyed.

[grendel]

On another note, check this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4487366.stm

15 grams gets you a death sentence by hanging. I wonder what the drug related crime rate in Singapore is like? Has the death penalty been a deterent?

Singapore has some of the strictest drug trafficking laws in the world, and anyone found with 15g of heroin faces a mandatory death penalty.
According to Amnesty International, about 420 people have been hanged in Singapore since 1991, mostly for drugs offences.

[grendel]

This just in: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/01/smith.sentenced/index.html

I can really see no reason why this guy should be allowed to continue to live. I know that many will argue that he is the father of children and why punish those children and his other family members even more than he's already done, but I almost feel like his family might be better off with him dead.

He brutally raped and murdered an 11 year old girl. As long as he's alive his own daughters will have to think about this. With him dead they can bury that along with him. I would imagine it would be easier to say "My father's dead." Than to have to say "My father's in prison for raping and murdering an 11 year old girl."

When there's clear, cut and dry evidence. DNA. Video. I have no problem with the death penalty. I see caging a human for life, where drugs, violence, homosexual predation, and deviant behavior are an everyday way of life, as being just as inhumane as a relatively quick and relatively painless lethal injection. In some cases a somewhat dignified death may be more humane than 60 or more years in the current "correctional" institution.

[skinned teen]

that's where I disagree. tha death penalty assumes u are always defined solely by tha worst thing u have ever done.

"whenever I hear justice all I hear is just vengeance" - nietzsche

I can really see no reason why this guy should be allowed to continue to live. I know that many will argue that he is the father of children and why punish those children and his other family members even more than he's already done, but I almost feel like his family might be better off with him dead.

[knovella]

I can really see no reason why this guy should be allowed to continue to live.
.

Um, because he is human and nobody has the natural right to take his life? Because revenge killing is primitive and uncivilized? That's for starters.

[grendel]

It's kinda interesting that when an animal like a couger or a bear kill a human, either in the wild or in a zoo, the first thing we humans chose to do is destroy the animal. I tend to think of humans as animals. Advanced to be certain, but animals none the less. And those like this trash who raped and murdered an innocent 11 year old girl, and don't forget he has daughters and a wife, are not the type of life that should be given any second chances. It's partly revenge, it's partly punishment too. Prisoners have been known to escape and kill. Prisoners have been known to riot and take innocent guards as hostage. Some murder other inmates. Why should a piece of sub-human trash like this guy be given any more than what he chose to levy out to another human?

Do unto others....

Lethal injection is more than better treatment than he gave to the little girl and her family isn't it?

[knovella]

It's kinda interesting that when an animal like a couger or a bear kill a human, either in the wild or in a zoo, the first thing we humans chose to do is destroy the animal.

Well funny enough, I don't think that's the right thing to do. Most of the time when animals attack people it is because they are either baited, provoked, or mistreated. They are not inherently 'bad' and deserving of immediate killing.

[grendel]

It is interesting to me that some of the very same people that want to protect the rights of a female to terminate a pregnancy, have such strong issues with terminating the life of child killer-rapist.

Child in the womb = definition of pure innocence = ok to destroy

Rapist-killer of 11 year old girl = definition of evil - must be kept alive at all cost

??????

Also, I must assume that some of you think it's wrong for man to play god/mother nature/father time when it comes to determining who should die, yet nobody seems to care about playing those roles in terms of keeping people alive or creating life. Man will go to extrordinary measures to prolong and preserve life when in the past nature/god/time would surely have taken this person.

Isn't it playing god to treat and cure deadly diseases?
Isn't it playing god to constantly feed and medicate thousands of people who live in lands that are incapable of sustaning large populations?
Isn't it playing god to provide chemotherapy to cancer patients?
Isn't it playing god to make an infertile female pregnant?
Heart, liver, lung transplants?

It's ok to alter nature/time/god when it's life, but not when it's death. Is that the idea?

[knovella]

Holy cow. What kinda rhetorical trainwreck is that?

So, you equate distributing vaccinations and building dams and bridges with capital punishment?

By that reckoning, any kind of engineering, applied science, or medicine would be somehow off limits, unless one accepts capital punishment?

We may as well all sit right down in the dirt and wait to die.

And what if there is no magical god-guy? How does the moral compass swing then? I think if you take the whole spurious god-notion out of the equation, moral choices become much clearer.

[skinned teen]

that's quite an interesting spin on things there, grendel. its true many people support tha death penility while they hate/abhor abortion, and vice versa. however, I don't think anyone is killing fetuses b/c they're "evil". also, you've based your reasoning within tha framework that altering nature is anthropocentric, but one could also say that your use of reason is anotha form of anthro., so why should ne one accept your framework? I'm not necc. saying you're wrong, just that your argument is moot. personally, I feel there's a difference between feeding a duck bread and feeding it cigarette butts, even if tha act of feeding it is anthropocentric.

edit: sorry I keep stepping on your toes, knovella.

[grendel]

It's not a train wreck....it's really quite simple. Read it line for line.

Many believe it's just fine to terminate a pregnancy, but it's not ok to terminate a grown man that rapes and kills young girls.

Kill a person in the womb = woman's right
Kill a person outside the womb = not for any human to decide

Ironic I think.

[rick green]

I think there's a worthwhile question in all of this. It has to do with how we understand human life. One way to look at the problem (I'm sure there are others equally valid) is in terms of a sacred vs. a secular conception of human life. The former would hold that there is something wrong with taking a life (or a potential life) regardless of the circumstances. This is basically how I feel. I am informed by this point of view in questions of capital punishment, abortion, etc. (Euthanasia is slightly different in my mind, but I won't go into that here.) The secular position (as I understand it) removes any idea of the sacred from the question. Once that excision takes place, politics--questions of legality, justice, etc.--take over the responsibility of defining right and wrong. While it might seem somehow contradictory to support choice and euthanasia while condemning capital punishment, all of these positions grow from a common root: the rights of the individual vs. the state. I am also sympathetic to this point of view. That's why I feel conflicted about abortion and euthanasia. The sacred and secular positions are in conflict there and it's all very confused. At least I can rest easy in my opposition to capital punishment.

It all brings to mind "The Second Coming" of Yeats, wherein the center cannot hold, and mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. How can we find first principles to hold in common? How can we speak calmly and intelligently about such things?

[knovella]

Kill a person in the womb = woman's right
Kill a person outside the womb = not for any human to decide

.

The Supreme Court defines 'person' much differently than you do. And I agree with them.

[grendel]

The Supreme Court defines 'person' much differently than you do. And I agree with them.

That may all change sooner, rather than later.

[knovella]

That's extremely unlikely. As history will show you, all Supreme Court consistitutional law (as Roe v. Wade is) that has been reversed has been reversed through new Consistitutional Amendments. Since Roe, nobody in the Senate or the House has EVER proposed such an amendment. So all this focus on the SC nominations is barking up the wrong tree.

Aside from that, no matter how fallacious (see Plessey), Supreme Court rulings throughout US history have always reflected overwhelming popular trends, as Roe did and continues to do.

[skinned teen]

grendel could be right. to build on your example, roe hasn't been reversed, but it isn't exactly tha most important case anymore, even though its a relatively old precedent. planned parenthood of SE PA v. casey is actually tha more substantive precedent, because it says that the right to an abortion is protected by the due process clause. if u remember, the supreme court was going to overrule roe v. wade until tha last second when justice kennedy changed his mind (literally, last second. tha majority opinion overturning roe had already been written.) likewise, plessy stood for 60 years or so before it was overturned. that seems to point to something, don't u think? maybe the third time's the charm.

[grendel]

I could be wrong, it's happened in the past...:roll:

...but it would not surprise me to see the current administration, with a majority of Republican's in the House and Senate, make a push to have this one issue come to bear before the end of the Bush era. The religious right, and the moral majority funnel too much money through the republican party to not warrent at least an attempt to overturn this ruling while they control so much of the power.

Time will tell.

[grendel]

To get back on topic here (sorry about diversion...)

Republican Gov. of California Terminator has a very tough decision to make. Stick to party lines and allow Tookie to die, or ....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/williams.execution/index.html

[knovella]

Tookie is a perfect example of a man who has truly changed for the better while in prison, and he's done plenty of good work in that time. It seems, to me, that to follow through on a decades-old death sentence in the face of his current life's work would serve no good purpose. As an anti-gang activist, he could still potentially steer a lot of young people away from lives of violence.

[grendel]

Tookie is dead: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/13/williams.execution/index.html

[John Self]

I'm not convinced that the fact he has (a) changed and (b) done much good work since, should affect the notion that he should pay the lawfully imposed penalty for what he did at the time. Tookie, as co-founder of the Crips, started it. That he subsequently worked sincerely to end it is worthy but to apply that to his sentence is a little like reducing the sentence of an arsonist because long after he set a building on fire, he made efforts to put it out. Also as I understand it he didn't accept his guilt, which is a crucial element in commuting the sentence.

[knovella]

I'm not convinced that the fact he has (a) changed and (b) done much good work since, should affect the notion that he should pay the lawfully imposed penalty for what he did at the time. Tookie, as co-founder of the Crips, started it. That he subsequently worked sincerely to end it is worthy but to apply that to his sentence is a little like reducing the sentence of an arsonist because long after he set a building on fire, he made efforts to put it out.

But that's the essence of the parole system, which is used and abused throughout the rest if the system, for better and worse. It's considered a humane part of the justice system to take personal change while incarcerated into account.

[grendel]

One of the murders Tookie was convicted of was firing a shotgun into the back of another human being while that person was laying face down on the floor. He fired the shotgun twice into that persons back. Twice.

Whatever work he's done can live on for as long as people want to read it, and use it. Just because a person is dead does not mean their work can not continue to influence.

There's also a very valuable lesson for young kids in that when you play the game to the ultimate level you must be willing to pay the ultimate price. Letting Tookie off the sentence that was given him would show that there's always a way around the system, and that even Tookie can beat it. What's a shame is that it took 25 years for his sentence to be carried out.

There's also conflicting stories about Tookie's involvment in "starting" the Crips gang. Some say his defense team and the media have blown that way out of proportion in order to make the case for his transition from "evil to example" appear much stronger. The person who many say started the gang was killed in 1979.

[John Self]

But that's the essence of the parole system, which is used and abused throughout the rest if the system, for better and worse. It's considered a humane part of the justice system to take personal change while incarcerated into account.

All that's true, but I don't think the situation is analogous to parole. Parole (at least in the UK) is when you're sentenced to a minimum of say 15 years, and can be considered for parole after that. Then it's not only humane but essential for the system to take into account personal change while incarcerated. However Tookie was sentenced to death 25 years ago and all the appeals and delays in the interim are (legally) of no relevance. As far as his sentencing was concerned, it was still 1980 when he was executed earlier today. Of course I'm no expert on US criminal law so am open to correction.

As an aside, when I heard the radio announcer yesterday begin the story with "The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger..." I imagined that if that phrase had been used in a spoof news source 10 years ago, like The Day Today or The Onion, we would have rolled our eyes and said "Very funny" with unsmiling mouths.

[Stewart]

There's pages and pages and pages of comments on the BBC (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=573&&edition=1&ttl=20051213121211).

[John Self]

Yes, that'll be their new reactive moderation system which enables literally every comment to be posted on the site, whereas before they selected ones to go up (keeping the overall balance of views consistent with the proportion in which they were received). As a result it's completely overwhelming and unreadable, with thousands and thousands of messages on the hottest topics. A supposed intention to create more interactivity (and sack the people who moderated the comments previously) has actually led to the service becoming unusable. Another knockout for the BBC News website.

[John Self]

To expand this discussion to sentencing generally: every time I'm feeling liberal about criminal justice policy, along comes a story like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/4549600.stm) to throw me off track. A young woman married into a family who systematically tortured her over a period of months and then murdered her. One of the reasons they were caught was because the mother of the family told her son about it in recorded phone calls to her son who was in a Young Offenders' Centre (you can hear the phone calls, and his disbelief at the news the girl has been killed, on the BBC video console in the link above) - so extremely thick, then, as well as extremely cruel and extremely vicious. The parents of the family, five of whose members were convicted of murder, have been jailed for a minimum of 20 years each, and their children for 14-19 years. But really: what's the justification in a case like this for ever allowing them to be considered for release?

[HP]

Quite frankly there isn't one. Here is a case where life should definitely mean life. The cruelty and eventual murder of that poor girl was all of it entirely premeditated. These savages knew precisely what they were doing and would appear to have derived some sort of viciously sadistic pleasure from their abominable actions. Lock the bastards up and throw away the key, I say.

[Digger]

I was shocked and horrified to read this story in the paper this morning, along with the case of the 5 abandoned children left locked in disgusting rooms while their parents spent their child benefits on TV, DVDs computer games and going out. The youngest child was hours from death when they were all found, finally by Sheffield's social services (don't know how they were alerted). What is almost worse in this case is the complete inability of Sheffield SS to notise sooner despite numerous visits. Victoria Klimbie (sp?) all over again.

it makes me sick to my stomach, and sad beyond belief that anything of this nature happens, by collective groups - the couple and the family - who clearly have no idea about any way to treat other human beings, be they family or stranger. Lock em up and throw away the key

(but I still think the death penalty is wrong)

[grendel]

Lock em up and throw away the key

So, they are to spend the rest of their life in prison, and die there. Why not have them die now? Why feed them, and medicate them? Why keep them warm and clothed? There's no chance for them to really do anything worthwhile for society. They could escape, or train/teach others who might be let out of jail how to be ruthless and violent?

What's the point in keeping them alive? At least dead the money saved could help rehabilitate other criminals, or open up prison space for other criminals....

A life sentence is a death sentence depending on how you look at it. They either die in prison of "natural causes" or they die through lethal injection. Either way the end result is the same. Isn't it?

[amarie]

They could escape, or train/teach others who might be let out of jail how to be ruthless and violent?

What's the point in keeping them alive? At least dead the money saved could help rehabilitate other criminals, or open up prison space for other criminals....

A life sentence is a death sentence depending on how you look at it. They either die in prison of "natural causes" or they die through lethal injection. Either way the end result is the same. Isn't it?

For a start, I would imagine that many prison inmates wouldn't need training in ruthlessness and violence.......

I think it is far too simplistic of you to claim that the end result is the same. By sentencing someone to life imprisonment, you are taking away most of their basic rights, and punishing them for what they've done. By zapping them with lethal injection - well, for a start it's barbaric, and what gives anyone the right to decide who lives or dies? And don't give me any of that crap about, well so-and-so who murdered so-and-so didn't have the right to do it, so we can murder him in return. That's just balls, and in a civilised society we shouldn't give in to those strange people that are so anti-abortion, yet hysterically pro the death sentence.

[grendel]

I could look at it as:

Caging a human being in a concrete environment, where rape and brutality are common everyday occurances for the rest of their life, as barbaric ans uncivilised. Couldn't I? Punishing people for 20, 30, 40, or more years, everyday without any chance of reprieve until they die.

Again, the end result is the same. They die in prison. People who are so off the scale evil will not get much sympathy from me.

I also wonder then how you feel about doctor assisted suicide for terminally ill people? Is it cruel and against mother nature to allow a person, and even help a person who is suffering great pain to end their life? Should people be kept alive at all cost regardless of any, and all circumstances?

[ono no komachi]

The 'against mother nature' point is a spurious argument which is not really usable. It's 'against mother nature' for women not to have babies squatting in fields. The whole of modern medical science is 'against mother nature'.

Rape and brutality may be common in prisons but they are not state sanctioned as any policy of capital punishment would be, were it in effect. It is the state's duty to attempt to eradicate rape and brutality within prisons, just as it is within wider society. Prison should be a place where rehabilitation is attempted. Clearly, in some instances, rehabilitation will not be achieved. But I wouldn't want to be the one drawing the line between the cases where it's possible and those where it's not.

[grendel]

The comment "lock 'em up and throw away the key" is a death sentence. The sentence states the person will not leave prison, ever, until they are dead.

Why prolong the inevitable?

In the grand scheme of things, when all evidence points to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, what difference does it make if a 50 year old man dies today by injection, or 30 years from now due to old age?

Suppose he gets cancer? Do you treat his cancer to keep him alive even if he can't leave prison until he's dead?

[ono no komachi]

The comment "lock 'em up and throw away the key" is an expression of the irredeemable quality that is apparent in people who perform such appalling acts, and a recognition that they should not be released and given the opportunity to repeat them.

"Lock 'em up and throw away the key" is a world away from "hang 'em and be done with it".

And I think even the most liberal of Palimpers would admit to feeling a gut instinct that such perpetrators 'deserve' something bad to happen to them. Such emotional responses are will not necessarily result in the right solution when considering how murderers should be dealt with.

And the difference it makes, in your hypothetical situation, is that the state is acting to cause a death, removing any chance in the intervening 30 years for the person to reach a state of remorse or understanding or anything which might approximate any level of (sorry about using this word but I can't think of a better one) redemption.

[grendel]

What difference does remorse or redemption make if they are to die in prison?

And I still question why the confinement of a human being in an 8 foot by 8 foot concrete cell with at least one other human being for all their eternity is not cruel and inhumane punishment?

[grendel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4547568.stm

I wonder how many celeb's and gang members showed up at the funerals of the murder victems? How much press did they get about their lives?

It's a strange world we live in when the murderer gets more sympathy, and more attention than the murder victems.

[John Self]

And I still question why the confinement of a human being in an 8 foot by 8 foot concrete cell with at least one other human being for all their eternity is not cruel and inhumane punishment?

It's not cruel because cruelty requires intention to do gratuitous harm, whereas the intention behind imprisonment is to punish in accordance with the laws imposed by society and prevent re-offending. It's not inhumane because prisoners aren't locked in an 8' x 8' cell 'for all their eternity.' There are educational opportunities, leisure facilities and social intercourse in prison.

If you're saying that no prisoner under any circumstances should ever be imprisoned for the rest of their natural life, then I would disagree.

[ono no komachi]

If, in theory, someone achieved some kind of redemption their life would still have value, even if they are confined. Their continuing confinement is recognition that some kind of penance is required for committing appalling crimes.

Being contained within an 8 x 8 ft cell raises additional issues of what are acceptable conditions for prisoners, which is a whole extra debate which I'm not sure I have the energy for right now.

EDIT: And, what John said.

[ono no komachi]

And I would dispute that murderers get more sympathy than murder victims.

[HP]

Well, I'm certainly no bleedin' heart liberal (thank you Daily Mail and goodnight!) - and I'm far too cynical to expect or to even hope all prisoners will eventually repent of their sins, and become model citizens of which we can all be proud, but I do think that we should at least turn useless, destructive lives into constructive ones. Locking somebody up with nothing to do but watch tv and loll about on a cell bed is a surefire way of achieving tiddly squat. Fuel that enforced idleness with drugs - and most prisons are absolutely awash with them - and you have a recipe for making a rotten apple even more rotten. So, while I can't pretend to give a damn about the comforts and living standards of the sadistic mob who tortured and murdered that poor girl, I do care that the current management of prisons is so appalling, that the only good thing you can say for them is they help to protect the public a little, by keeping violent murderers off the streets.

[grendel]

And I would dispute that murderers get more sympathy than murder victims.

Dispute it if you'd like, but my guess is there were no celeb's at the funerals of the victims. I don't think there were mutliple stories about their lives broadcast across the world, or on the bbc.

I doubt the Rev Jackson was present. Snoop might have been too young to be there at the time, there was probably not live close-circuit television coverage broadcast because the crowds were too large to fit in the church....but I might be wrong...it was 20+ yeras ago.

[HP]

The case of Stanley 'Tookie' Williams III is a fascinating one. Here's a guy who did everything possible to prove he was a reformed man, but who still failed to convince that ol' meat head, Arnie Schwarzeneggar, now Governor of California, that he should be spared the death sentence. It's not surprising this case so sharply divides public opinion. I must admit, after reading a couple of in-depth articles recently about the case, I thought the decision to execute Tookie was very definitely the wrong one. And I still do. To all intents and purposes, it appeared the man had done everything possible short of turning water into wine to prove he was one hundred percent remorseful and repentant; and since his 'turn-around' he had made huge practical efforts to dissuade others from a life of violent crime. It must also be taken into account that throughout all his years of incarceration, he maintained his innocence of the actual crimes which landed him behind bars in the first place. But despite all this, Schwarzenegger didn't believe him. Now, admittedly, those reports I read were heavily biased in Tookie's favour: they weren't looking for evidence to prove he was nothing more than a conniving murderer. But how do you prove, definitively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what was really in Stanley Tookie Williams's heart ? The answer is you don't, because you can't. And the great unwashed - you, me and every other ordinary Joe - who never got to spend one nano-second in Tookie's company, let alone get to know the man properly, can only ever look at the practical tangible evidence and must be guided by that - and that alone. Well, the practical tangible evidence is that for the past twelve years of his incarceration, Stanley Tookie Williams did everything he could to show remorse and to dissuade others from a life of violent crime. If that wasn't enough, and given as I've already said that no man can really know what lies in the heart of another, my question is this: just what the fuck else did they want him to do?

[grendel]

How 'bout not put a shotgun into the back of a person lying face down on the floor and pull the trigger... twice ....then not kill a few other people too.

How 'bout not start a violent street gang that's been responsible for hundreds of murders over the decades and is also wrapped up in drugs and all that goes along with it.

Sure he's sorry now. He got caught and convicted. He wasn't so sorry for it before he got caught that he turned himself in. How many people behind bars are "innocent"?

I do not grieve one second for "tookie". I do think it absurd it took 20+ years to carry out the sentence, but at least nobody can claim it was a kneejerk reaction either.

He was judged by a jury of his peers with lawyers and a judge. He was sentenced under the law according to his crimes that he commited. The sentence was carried out with as much humanity as possible. Much more than you could say for the victims tookie left behind 20 years ago.

[HP]

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth .... it's a vengeful ol' world you'd have us live in, isn't it, Grendel? If you believe prison is purely there to punish and avenge, then yes, they were right to have executed Williams. If you believe that a man having served many years as punishment behind bars, and having made every endeavour to atone for his sins, should be shown clemency, then it was wrong.

[John Self]

I tend to agree with grendel's sentiments here. In answer to your question, Honey, what else could he do?, the answer is nothing; the state didn't say to him, 'Prove you're a reformed man and we'll commute the sentence.' The state never intended to commute the sentence and never suggested that it might. Just because the governor was asked to look at the case, no-one should realistically have expected an intervention of clemency. As I suggested before, he was sentenced to death for things he did 25 years ago and nothing he did after that was relevant to what he was sentenced to death for, so why should the sentence be altered?

It's a highly controversial case which splits the world - as it has split opinion here - and that's why there is, possibly, in this case, as much sympathy among some for the murderer as there was for the victims. But I don't see it becoming a trend.

And I do still think Schwarzenegger's a twat, for his posturing response to his homw town of Graz in Austria, when they criticised his decision. Punters back home got a petition to have Schwarzenegger's name removed from the sports stadium because they were disgusted by his refusal to grant clemency. This annoyed Arnie so much that he wrote to the town burghers and told them he withdrew his consent to have his name used on the stadium. So, er, giving his opponents what they wanted. Nice one, oh tactical maestro!

[HP]

Yes, you're right, and I realise that the death sentence was imposed without any promises of a review in the light of possible atonement and model behaviour from Williams, John, but his seemed to be as good a case as any for showing clemency - which Schwarzenegger could have granted. But if the sentence really is so immutable, then Grendel does indeed have a point when he says why make the Damned wait for all those years before carrying out his/her execution?

[grendel]

An eye for an eye would have been to take him straight from court, force him to the ground face first, place a shotgun in his back, and then pull the trigger twice. Then, leave him to die like so much road-pizza. Forgotten. Without celebrities and news coverage plastering his face all over the media.

What Tookie got was years to think, to talk, to see his family, to appeal, and to have 25 years to do all this. He had handfulls of legal people fighting for his life. He had more handfuls of regular people and famous people all fighting to keep him alive.

That's not an eye for an eye.

What I saw was Tookie getting praised for his life behind bars, while most seemed to forget his life on the outside. Most also seemed to forget the lives of the people he murdered. Can you think of thier names right now? Can you tell me what they did before they were thoughtlessly, and needlessly snuffed out by Tookie.

Why don't teachers, doctors, firefighters, scientists, counselors, parents and other law abiding citizens get the same kind of celebrity attention that Tookie got? Tookie became a cult hero. Somebody who spends their entire life teaching children to read and write does not get that same status.

[HP]

And I repeat:

If you believe prison is purely there to punish and avenge, then yes, they were right to have executed Williams. If you believe that a man having served many years as punishment behind bars, and having made every endeavour to atone for his sins, should be shown clemency, then it was wrong.

'Night Grendel.

[grendel]

HP you made this post back at #65 of this thread. Punishment, or rehabilitation, remourse....what's your stance with this? It's a death sentence for this person without the benefit of providing a specific date of death. Isn't your thought here purely punishment?

Quite frankly there isn't one. Here is a case where life should definitely mean life. The cruelty and eventual murder of that poor girl was all of it entirely premeditated. These savages knew precisely what they were doing and would appear to have derived some sort of viciously sadistic pleasure from their abominable actions. Lock the bastards up and throw away the key, I say.

As was mentioned by someone earlier....isn't that exactly what pretty much all the worlds prison systems are about? Punishment?

It's no so much about getting criminals to understand the wrong they've done, as it is hoping the experience of being a caged animal is so horrible and demeaning that they would prefer to not go back.

[knovella]

As was mentioned by someone earlier....isn't that exactly what pretty much all the worlds prison systems are about? Punishment?

It's no so much about getting criminals to understand the wrong they've done, as it is hoping the experience of being a caged animal is so horrible and demeaning that they would prefer to not go back.

This is a really medieval view.

The primary function of incarceration is to protect society from the potential future actions of offenders, not to inflict punishment. It's called the Corrections system in the US for a reason--their mission re the offenders is to correct the behavior of prisoners so they may return to their lives.


Defining prisoners solely by the crimes they've committed is very limited, but it seems to underlie your overall view, grendel. If the civilized world viewed prisoners as merely 'caged animals' then they would not be provided with libraries, additiction counseling and other counseling, family visits, or the option to learn a trade or continue their studies.

The overt ideal outcome of incarceratin is for a prisoner to return to his or her life with some means of staying straight.

[grendel]

I understand what the "intent" of the prison (correctional) system is...but is that reality?

Do most who leave stay out, or do most return?
Do most get "rehabilitated" and grow conscientious (sp ?), or are most hardened and angrier when they enter society again?

I don't know the statistics, and I'm sure there are plenty that are biased towards both arguements.

What prisons are supposed to do, verses what they really are, are two different things aren't they?

Knovella, do you think most people who enter the prison system and then leave it are rehabilitated, or have they simply been punished?

[knovella]

Knovella, do you think most people who enter the prison system and then leave it are rehabilitated, or have they simply been punished?

I think the percentage successfully rehabilitated in jail is about the same as the percentage successfully rehabilitated in the general population for addiction and other pathological behavior.

[HP]

I don't know about the States, but I do know the number of re-offenders who have served at least one prison sentence in this country is appallingly high. But then our prisons are a travesty.

Anyway, to answer your earlier questions, grendel - but fairly speedily:

1. I'm afraid I disagree with Knovella a little in that whatever the US aims, and however admirable, personally, I do think there should be an element of punishment - certainly out of respect for the victims of such crime, as much as anything. But to merely punish would achieve little. Of course, the ideal should be, as knovella has stated, to be able to return a prisoner at the end of his term, to live at liberty as a safe, well-adjusted, useful member of society. But the reality in so many of our prisons is very, very different. Much of the time, despite the lipservice paid to such ideals, UK prisoners are simply banged up with little to do in an overcrowded cesspit of violence and drugs. The drugs representing a huge problem - for very obvious reasons. I mean, just how the hell do you expect to affect any reasonable changes to the better, if your candidate has a drug dependency and spends much of his/her time in a state of altered reality? So sadly, the reality is that instead of rehabilitation, our prisoners are more likely to encounter drugs and enforced idleness, violence and intimidation. And with precious little to show for their time, except a habit (if they didn't already have one), and a thorough schooling in general criminality.

Anyway, let's move on to what I think prison should be about - punishment aside: Basic education should be provided for those that need it, and a trade to ply upon their release if they have none when incarcerated. AND - some good ol' fashioned physical exercise in the fresh air - don't laugh! Am not talking breaking rocks in chains or owt - but man is an animal primarily, and like all animals, he needs fresh air and physical exertion to feel well both in body and spirit. In short, I'd keep prisoners healthy and busy and useful from sun up to sun down. Mental and physical well-being are conducive to a better attitude to life all round and you need to provide a man with a sense of purpose and a sense of achievement if you want to get the best out of him. And in lieu of wages, whatever profits were made by the prisoners' labours would go towards the cost of their incarceration. Of course, there's a whole package of other niceties, you could dream up too, but I'm running short of time here, so we'll skip on. The fact is that at present, the UK penal system is antiquated, overcrowded and woeful. By contrast, making conditions so abysmal that you hope nobody would ever reoffend is just as knovella says - medieval and unlikely to achieve results. All you'll get is throughly hardened criminals who are still of no use to society. I mean, bloody hell, grendel, - you'll be wanting standard issue thumb-screws and a daily session on the rack, next!

With regard to my declaring that those bastards who tortured and murdered that girl be locked up and the key thrown away - hell, sure I do. Anybody who can cold-bloodedly inflict such callous, knowing suffering on another human being, and go so far as to take their victim's life, forgoes the right to live amongst the rest of us. But I would still allow them all those measures I've outlined above. Yes, they'd see out their days behind bars, but they would be given every chance to make their lives productive. In fact, I'd make darn bloody sure of it! Of course, had they killed their victim in a moment of madness that was entirely out of keeping, then that is a different matter. Each and every case involving murder or manslaughter must be considered on its own merits and peculiarities. But when one person, or several, deliberately and in all consciousness set about to inflict such grievous injuries and pain that they eventually rob their victim of life, then the term 'life imprisonment', for me at least, should mean just that. Is that pure punishment? No - not purely, although I do believe such evilness should be punished by the loss of liberty for life, but it's also a personal belief that those who can commit such a crime are so damaged that they are not fit nor safe to live in the free world. The same logic applies to paedophiles who have repeatedly abused kids. The world must protect the innocent from those whose sexual emotional wiring represents a constant ongoing danger. If, however, such a prisoner can convince, beyond a shadow of a doubt that they no longer represent a danger to society, then perhaps, just perhaps, some form of parole might be considered. But the circumstances would have to be exceptional and the evidence of their reformed behaviour absolutely overwhelming.

As to Tookie Williams, there was no mixed messages there as to my stance: in his case, I was advocating clemency - but not release. It's the death penalty that I object to very strongly. Because there have been too many cases of wrongful convictions, the innocent being framed etc. to ever risk murdering (well it is!) a convicted man or woman. And in Tookie's case, while he readily admitted his part in forming the Crips gang and his violent past, he always steadfastly maintained his innocence with regard to the four murders of which he was convicted. Whether you believe him or not, is up to you, but given Schwarzenegger even taunted him by saying that unless he confessed his guilt, he could never be considered for reprieve, Williams never made any attempt to play patsy with what he might have considered a means to save his skin. There are plenty of rumours of tampered evidence, police frame-ups, surrounding his trial, so there is a shadow of doubt as to his guilt over those murders, if not over his woeful violent past. And the fact remains the man had done much to dissuade others from following his route. In killing him, what message does that send out to those kids who looked up to him for the man he had become, not the one he used to be? It says the system always wins no matter how you try to turn your life around - so why bother. Live by the gun and to hell with tomorrow - you'll wind up dead any which way.

Edit: have just grabbed five to tidy this up; it's still flawed, but will have to do since I've no more time tonight or for some days to come to waste on it. But since knovella and I and several others have all stated our take on this subject - I think it's about time you gave us your detailed views on how the justice system should run in the case of murderers and other malevolents. Hanging Judge grendel (or am I doing you a grave disservice?) - take it away, sir ......

[grendel]

From cnn:

"No mercy for oldest man on death row
Inmate, 75, scheduled to die on January 17

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has ruled out a clemency hearing for the state's oldest death row prisoner.
Clarence Ray Allen, 75, is scheduled to be executed on January 17 for ordering three murders while serving a life sentence in prison. He is blind, deaf, and confined to a wheelchair.
Allen would be the second-oldest man executed in the United States in recent decades. In December, a 77-year-old Mississippi man became the oldest prisoner executed in the United States since it resumed capital punishment in 1977.
Citing the failing health of their client, who suffered a heart attack in September, Allen's lawyers have sought to stay his execution. A federal judge last month declined their request."

Had this man been put to death for his original crime, 3 other people might still be alive. Three people are dead because he was allowed to live.

[chinking]

I believe that society has the right, and responsibility, to protect itself from the depraved. When such a person identifies himself through his actions he should expect to lose his life, and as quickly as his guilt can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The effort to ensure that no innocent person is executed is vital. The following article demonstrates one serious approach to dealing with that problem.

http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Criminal_Justice_Issues&CONTENTID=14715&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

[amarie]

When such a person identifies himself through his actions he should expect to lose his life

I don't know if you're taking the piss or not, but how someone who has the, albeit somewhat naff signature, 'God is good', can be in favour of the death penalty (and probably anti-abortion whatever the reason) just doesn't add up.

[chinking]

I don't know if you're taking the piss or not, but how someone who has the, albeit somewhat naff signature, 'God is good', can be in favour of the death penalty (and probably anti-abortion whatever the reason) just doesn't add up.

Oh amarie! I was just soooooo close to having the last word on all the topics listed on the home page! Oh well.

I don't know what 'naff' means. Will you enlighten me?
And doesn't that seem like kind of a personal objection to my point of view? Why should you care what I think about God or abortion. Whether my opinion on capital punishment squares with anything else in my world (in your opinion) is moot.

By the way, I certainly can justify the congruence of all three (yes, you have correctly identified me as anti-abortion, thank you) of my opinions.

God is good: a given, in the definition of God; as well as a statement of faith. I hold on to confidence in God goodness even when life brings many difficulties

Abortion is murder: An innocent person loses his or her life without an accident or illness.

Capital punishment: A deliberate application of justice. It demonstrates to would be offenders that society holds innocent life dear, and therefore, murder seriously. It protects other innocents from his inherent danger. It fulfills Governments mandate to establish peace.

[amarie]

Abortion is murder: An innocent person loses his or her life without an accident or illness.

Executing someone is murder too! However, it's clear to me that this is a discussion that won't really go anywhere. You have your views and I have mine. The fact that I think yours are so flawed that I wouldn't know where to begin is irrelevant because discussing issues like this with someone who knows that they're right just isn't worth the effort.

[chinking]

Executing someone is murder too! However, it's clear to me that this is a discussion that won't really go anywhere. You have your views and I have mine. The fact that I think yours are so flawed that I wouldn't know where to begin is irrelevant because discussing issues like this with someone who knows that they're right just isn't worth the effort.

I think abortion is akin to murder, but capital punishment is not.
I disdain abortion, but not capital punishment.
You think both are murder (see your quote above).
You support abortion (I speculate). You disdain only capital punishment.

Does this 'add up'?

[Wavid]

Chinking, you may have noticed I have made your signature just a little bit less juvenile.

Can you stop spamming the P&S threads with your idiotic opinions please.

[Colyngbourne]

Chinking, if abortion is killing someone, then surely so is capital punishment. If one takes the bible as a moral guide, both OT and more importantly the NT, - even if you take it selectively or with some degree of modern interpretation - it still doesn't condone killing people, even as a social good "for governments to mandate peace". After all, the Romans occupying Israel and crucifying Jesus (an innocent, most would say) would claim they were mandating peace. Of the two issues, I would think there is less room for arguing capital punishment in accordance with Christian faith/belief, than for the rights of the unborn child.

[Digger]

I was quite pleased to hear on the Today Programme this morning that California's capital punishment system has been thrown into chaos recently 'cos apparaently they've been unable to find doctors to administer the lethal injections because the doctors are citing ethical disagreements (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1715055,00.html)(Guardian online article). Well finally they seem to be taking their hypocratic oath to 'first do no harm' seriously!

[amner]

Just reading this again, I'd forgotten how insufferable grendel and chinking were.

Bless 'em.

[Wavid]

I agree re: Grendel, but my recollection is that Chinking had a certain lunatic charm...

[Hekaterine]

I don't know what 'naff' means. Will you enlighten me?

He probably would have exploded if anyone had answered this question ;-)

In case you were wondering, the OED says it is a euphemism for 'fuck'. My understanding is that it originated in Polari (British gay slang) and stands for Not Available For Fucking.

[John Self]

Ooh, I dunno, Hek, that sounds like one of those too-neat-to-be-true plausible explanations for words (like Port Out Starboard Home for Posh). Mind you, I don't have a better source.

Am I right in thinking though that the use of it in "naff off" was first (and possibly last, now I think of it) used in the TV series Porridge?

[John from Paris]

My understanding is that it originated in Polari (British gay slang) and stands for Not Available For Fucking.

That's what wikipedia suggests (plus that it's consequently used by gay men to talk about straight men...) I agree with JS that it sounds too far-fetched to be plausible. Reminds me of those (including a militant lesbian I once listened to at Speakers' Corner) who maintain that "gay" means "good as you"...
I tend to use "naff" quite a lot; I just think of it as meaning the opposite of "cool"... although "cool" is a bit naff nowadays... still quite trendy as an exotic anglicism in French, however.

[gil]

Yes, naff is most often used these days as a lightweight put-down for something that is out of fashion or otherwise not very good. For example, lava lamps and flared trousers.

[John from Paris]

Yes, naff is most often used these days as a lightweight put-down for something that is out of fashion or otherwise not very good. For example, lava lamps and flared trousers...

... or Jeffrey Archer

[Hekaterine]

Didn't Princess Anne famously tell a journalist to 'naff orf' in the seventies?

[gil]

Yes, but I think "naff" wasn't the word she was groping for at the time.

[John from Paris]

Yes, but I think "naff" wasn't the word she was groping for at the time.

Yes, I seem to remember that she actually came out with something sounding far closer to the f-word, and that the press conveniently changed it to "naff" because it was somehow more in keeping with what she'd be expected to say. I may have misremembered. Without checking, I'd say it was later than the seventies, though - possibly even in the early nineties, no?