packsaddle Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 OGE, My understanding is that the Illinois story is still unfolding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 And as I understand it, the odds that a convicted resident of Illinois's Death row actually committed the offense is what? 60-70 percent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 That is the actual experience, I think, and that only includes those for whom extraordinary evidence exists to exonerate them. There may be other innocents who cannot produce the necessary evidence. But there's no way to know that proportion would apply to any other state without going through a similar effort as has been supported by Mr. Thompson. The question I would like to see answered is how many past executed prisoners could be proven innocent? I gather the courts do not open the records on those cases and the incentive clearly isn't as immediate. But I would like for some innocent faces to be put on persons wrongfully killed by the state. It would be interesting to apply such exercise to other states like TX and FL that are especially prodigious in their application of the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 So, 30-40 percent of the time, or out of every 100 people on death roow, 30-40 individuals are facing state sanctioned death who did not do the crime they will be killed for. First, I dont agree with the death penalty, but if its gonna happen, what percentage of error do you think is reasonable? 10 innocents for every 90 guilty? 9? what? Remember, we are as a society abhor the taking of another's life as the ultimate wrong, so to prove our point we take that person's life, is that condtridictory? And then, the process, in at least one state has been shown to be more than slightly flawed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 OGE, I'm not sure your reply was aimed at me but I don't support the death penalty. Anyway, I am certain that we Southern states are much more conscientious in our investigations and are able to completely avoid the slip-ups made in Illinois...right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Remember, we are as a society abhor the taking of another's life as the ultimate wrong, so to prove our point we take that person's life, is that condtridictory? Ignoring the Illinois situation (of which, I know nothing) and other similar side issues (at least for the moment)...shouldn't you make a distinction between killing and murder? If you do, then you should understand that there is no contradiction in the death penalty. When I think of an innocent 5 year-old who's been brutally raped, tortured, and beaten to death, somehow I don't see a contradiction when the state decides the perpetrator needs to be executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Ah, Rooster, just like old times, right to the jugular. Before I answer, I would like to pose a rhetorical question, why is the murder of a child or a young woman always held up to be more heinous than the murder of some poor sloob? Now, dont lose me in this, this is all conjecture, but the brutal torture murder of a child, complete with anything you want to add, is horrible. But if the exact same event occurs to me, should it not have the same impact? Why is it that adults are considered expendable, well, he lived a good life, its ok for him to die, but the baby, wow thats bad! The punishment should be the same either all life is sacred or none is. Thats why I abhor abortion, murder is murder. Had a friend of my fathers wife die a few years back, She was 89 and he was 90. She had congestive heart failure, emphysema and arthritis. At the funeral, people were comming up to him telling him not to feel bad, they had been together for 60 years, lived a full life and well, it was to be expected. I can remember the husband looking at my father and saying, all these people tell it was to be expected, hell, I expected Hattie to always be with me, but I digress. I have to admit its easy to be clinical when I have had no one close to me murdered. I don't know what I would feel if my son or wife was killed by someone "just because". Would I cry out and scheme for blood or would I pray to God for the strength to forgive as only God can truly judge. I said I was against the death penalty as I find it contradictory to society's value of life. I do not however have any problem with a Devil's Island set up where proven murderers are placed and forgotten. When you violate the laws of a society you accept the consequences, I just dont see execution as fitting in with our value of human life. Either all life is sacred or none is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Old Guy Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Big flaw in our system is that it takes too long to execute someone. Convict them with a provision that all appeals must be filed and heard within a month. Bang! They'e gone. The problem with Devil's Island is that the murderer is walking around enjoying the fresh air, something that his victim will never do again. If you demonstrate that you don't believe that life is sacred, why should we treat yours as sacred. For the record, I've had two close friends murdered. One so brutally that the walls of her house were covered with blood. A close friend was also raped but since the police wouldn't move, some other friends of hers saw to it the rapist would never rape again. No, he's not dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsat4jb Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 OGE "...only God can truly judge." I agree that God is the ultimate and final judge, but I also believe that we have the responsibility to judge and punish criminals. Are you suggesting that we should not punish any crimes? 'Leave that murderer alone, only God can truly judge' 'Don't punish that rapist, only God can truly judge' 'That bank robber shouldn't go to jail, only God can truly judge' 'I hate child molestation, but I can't do anything about it, only God can truly judge' The list goes on. To borrow Rooster's quote from earlier in this thread: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rules are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is Gods servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. ROMANS 13 (RSV) 1 - 4" ------- Borrowing another quote from another forum, in a thread on capital punishment(not an exact quote but you get the point)... 'I believe that capital punishment should be reserved as a punishment for the most heinous crimes, such as murder, rape, armed robbery, and creating such TV shows as Power Rangers and Teletubbies' ------------ All human life is sacred. That is why I, too, am opposed to abortion. I think that Rooster was just using the common example. Would you prefer... 'When I think of the poor 45 year old slob who's been robbed, shot, brutally tortured and beaten to death, somehow I don't see a contradiction when the state decides the perpetrator needs to be executed'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Old Guy Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 "...only God can truly judge." God decides where you spend eternity. Man judges when you start eternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 bsat4jb, you said "Are you suggesting that we should not punish any crimes?" Did you see where I wrote "When you violate the laws of a society you accept the consequences" If a devils island scenario doesnt work, how about an 8 foot by 8 foot by 8 foot cell for life. I never said dont punish, just dont kill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster7 Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Before I answer, I would like to pose a rhetorical question, why is the murder of a child or a young woman always held up to be more heinous than the murder of some poor slob? You may have meant it to be rhetorical, but Id like to answer it. The answer is simple innocence, the ability to deal with reality, and to a lesser degree - unrealized potential. A child, in particular one as young as a five year-old, does not understand that there are things that are greater than life itself. He/She doesnt have the ability to fully understand that our lives on earth are but a blink of an eye as compared to eternity. A child amplifies every emotion, every pain, every fear, because he/she has a very limited ability to deal with the harsher realities of life. He/She is terrified at the sight of blood. A child is ill prepared for the thought that an older, grandfatherly figure, perhaps a friend of the family, has truly evil intentions. A child doesnt have any coping mechanisms to deal with the horror of a deranged pedophile or the pain that he might inflict. He/She assumes every unknown is something to be feared. He/She has no concept of true evil. Due to a childs state of mind and his/her innocence, every transgression that a rapist/sadist could inflict on an adult is amplified a thousand fold. If you dont understand, then perhaps youve forgotten what it is like to be five years-old. Similarly, many young women are sheltered and protected from these realities. An argument can be made that their parents did them no favors. Nevertheless, many young women even today, are unaware and/or ill prepared to deal with the harsher realities of this world. Consequently, when they are the victim of a heinous crime, their suffering their victimization, is greater than that of someone who is less naive and/or more prepared to deal with such a reality. Having said the above, when I think of a five year-old and his state of mind his emotions, pains, fears the terror that he (or she) must have endured while being victimized by one of these monsters, I boil with anger. Of course, vengeance is the Lords, and I realize that these animals will face God one day. However, the state has an obligation to protect the people. Locking up these guys up for life is a great idea if there was no parole system, if it was impossible for them to do harm to a guard or a fellow prisoner, but we dont have such a justice system. We have a system that allows pedophiles and other heinous criminals to go free. It happens all the time. Furthermore, I vehemently disagree that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Folks site these unnamed studies as if theyre common knowledge. What they are is common hogwash. Look at the rape and murder statistics in the Middle East. Why do you think their numbers are low? What do you think happens to a rapist or pedophile in their culture? Im not saying we should adopt their system BUT, dont tell me that capital punishment is not a deterrent. If for no other reason, capital punishment works because truly evil men (and women) are not in a rush to meet and answer to God. AND, as someone already mentioned, a murderer will not have the opportunity to take a second victim. She was 89 and he was 90. She had congestive heart failure, emphysema and arthritis. At the funeral, people were coming up to him telling him not to feel bad, they had been together for 60 years, lived a full life and well, it was to be expected. Emotionally and spiritually, it always hurts to lose someone, no matter the age or circumstance. Those people, who spoke to your fathers friend, should have been more sensitive to that reality. However, rationally, they made a valid point. I dont think its something you want to tell someone at a funeral. Nevertheless, at some point down the road after the pain of losing his wife has faded, I would think that your fathers friend would have to agree. If a devils island scenario doesnt work, how about an 8 foot by 8 foot by 8 foot cell for life. I never said dont punish, just dont kill. Heres another thought that I meant to comment on earlier. There are worst things to abhor than the taking of a human life. Using my hypothetical five year-old again (by the way, it doesn't take a lot of time to find real cases but Im not going to depress myself by digging up a factual case), I want to ask you a hypothetical question: If the father catches the pedophile in the act, and his anger causes him to react in such a way that he kills the pedophile perhaps even in a brutal manner, what crime do you think society will find to be more abhorrent - the fathers murder of the pedophile or the rape and torture of the five year-old? By the way, Jesus valued children more than men. So, theres another reason to view a crime against a child as being more horrific than a crime against an adult. 1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! 8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. Matthew 18:1-9 The punishment should be the same either all life is sacred or none is. Thats why I abhor abortion, murder is murder. I am truly disgusted when innocent life is taken. It should be noted though, there was and is only one human being who can stake claim to being truly innocent. We are not innocent, nor are our lives sacred (not without Christ). However, children come a lot closer than the rest of us in particular those who are not allowed to leave their mothers womb before suffering death.(This message has been edited by Rooster7) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 So if my wife is the victim of a heinous torture muder, I can console myself by thinking, well, at least she wasnt 5 years old, that would have been really bad. I could change my mantra of all life is sacred to all life is sacred but some life is more sacred than others In the bible it tells many times about how we must become like a child, and we are all children of God. When Jesus talks about Children, could he mean all of us who believe, or does he mean just the very young? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsmom Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Let's assume for the sake of argument that the death penalty is a deterrent, and that it is an appropriate punishment for a heinous crime. How do you address the fact (and it is a fact) that innocent people have been executed because our system is imperfect, and can never be made perfect. Isn't it better to let a guilty man live (in prison of course) than to execute the innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutdoorThinker Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 I am responding, because I was so completely enraged at Rooster's last response which included: "Similarly, many young women are sheltered and protected from these realities. An argument can be made that their parents did them no favors. Nevertheless, many young women even today, are unaware and/or ill prepared to deal with the harsher realities of this world. Consequently, when they are the victim of a heinous crime, their suffering their victimization, is greater than that of someone who is less naive and/or more prepared to deal with such a reality." As a young woman, with many friends who are young women also, I am appalled to think that there are people in this world who think so lowly of the capacity of women to be intellegent, street smart and overcome any shelteredness. None of the young women I know nor am I sheltered from the 'harsher realities of this world.' Just turn on the television at any given time. Obviously you have not encountered many young women recently...I would say that most young women of the twenty-first centuary are not sheltered to the 'harsher realities of the world' but rather they are knowledgable, strong, and the awareness has led them to becoming well prepared for problematic situations through self defense training, or at least heightened awareness when around dangerous situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now