Death Penalty

You must be mad to honestly believe that a 14 year old black child in Jim Crow South, with no physical evidence to speak of, commited that crime.

Your morals need a serious reassessment

 

You drag up a little-known case from 67 years ago, and expect me to believe on the basis of a half-dozen paragraphs in Wikipedia that this was a miscarriage of justice? That poor little George was innocent, and was railroaded by... what, a jury looking to kill a black boy because they had nothing else better to do?

Until you can present some evidence - not just assumptions about the "Jim Crow" South - that proves otherwise, I'll stick to my belief that George murdered these two girls.

Now that I've answered your comments, how 'bout you reciprocate and answer mine? What is your opinion of Dick and Perry? Think they got what they deserved?

 

You have some excellent points I'd like to address.

I don't generally think of punishment as retribution, I think of it as a corrective disciplinary action taken to try to deter a future reoccurrence. My grandson eats in his bedroom, and doesn't bring the dirty dishes back to the kitchen - after being told several times to do so. So, we forbid him to eat in his room - not out of retribution, but hopefully, to correct his behavior and do as we ask.

I don't think of capital punishment as retribution - rather I consider it to be the ultimate punishment, and should be used sparingly. Not all murderers should be executed IMHO - only those who commit crimes that are so against the mores and decency of common society, that the only possible punishment that suits the crime is for the criminal to forfeit the one thing that society deems most valuable, that being their life.

There are two things that I firmly believe in --

1) Not all murderers should be executed. Some most certainly deserve to die for the crime(s) they've committed, but not all.
2) Victims have rights too.

 

I don't see the death penalty as punishment, I see it as the permanent removal of of a psyche that is deleterious to humans. OR...at least that's the way I think it SHOULD be.

I was thinking of a future scenario where there would be no death penalty but the removal of the brain to be kept alive and made, through the placement of certain electrodes, to perform endless computational tasks. Death Row would be nothing more than a bunch of containers with floating brains and electrodes.

The rest of the body could go for body-part donations.

 

It would also enable both inmates to conspire in the commission of murder or some other crime.

We've been through all this crap before. What you are now suggesting is something other than strict solitary confinement, which we already have, and already know does not work.

Once again, there is NO choice. We kill the inmate because:

A.) He is an intolerable threat to society.

B.) He is an intolerable threat to the DOC.

C.) He is already de facto dead since he is never returning to society.

D.) He danm well deserves it.

E.) We have much better uses for our social resources than maintaining the physical life of sociopathic (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s.


They get the needle and say goodbye, and we focus on improving the lives of those who are worthy of life.

 

Solitary confinement does work but the issue of "isolation" causing mental illness was presented. All I presented was that we can have solitary confinement which does not create isolation.

A & B - As noted repeatedly the death penality is not required to protect either society or other inmates or the DOC personnel. Solitary confinement accomplishes this.

C - "de facto dead"? Get real. A person is not dead because they are incarcerated. In fact we have a historical instance. albeit a rare case. where a prisoner in solitary confinement actually contributed to society in the case of Robert Stroud, the famous Birdman of Alcatraz, who was sentenced to life in prison in solitary confinement. Although he was later released he's scientific discoveries related to deseases in birds are well known.

D - No one has the right to take another person's life except in cases of necessity. There is no necessity to take the life of any prisoner and such an act is rightfully considered as state authorized murder.

E - They are mentally ill so the government should kill them? Where is the concern that solitary confinement can cause mental illness? Is that argument now gone? Apparently we're back to the proposition murdering a person is the threatment for mental illness.

 

Living murderers harm and murder, again, executed murderers do not.

I already have, in detail, but a waste of time, again, on you:

Shiva, everyone has to explain everything to you, because you do no research. You make ridiculous assumptions with no facts.

You really need to educate yourself.

I know you are pushing a severe isolation type of confinement. As usual, you don't fact check anything. You need to research the huge restrictions on applying solitary confinement and why the vast majority of the subject prisoners will never be in solitary confinement, but in maximum security.

Here is a real world description of how maximum security often turns out.

Murder in Maximum Security
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/02/16/040216on_onlineonly01

Educate yourself, just a little bit. Do a search on:

"maximum security" murders

"maximum security" "cell phones" prison

"maximum security" "crimes prison

etc.

 

Why is this unrelated drivel and link being posted as if it's an argument? We're addressing solitary confinement and not maximum security confinement.

Please provide a single documented instance of where a prisoner being held in solitary confinement killed a citizen, another inmate, or a member of the DOC staff.

 

Retribution, in this context, is based upon just desserts - the nature of the crime calls for the sanction, it is just and deserved.

That is the moral foundation for all sanctions.

I doubt you would say deterrence was the goal if the punishment were not just and deserved.

No?

Deterrence is a goal and an outcome of sanction, but cannot be the reason for sanction. A sanction must be earned and deserved.

 

Solitary Confinement and the increase in violence.

Hardy drivel. I deal with reality, you deal with no reality and no fact checking.

"If the worst of the worst are removed from the general prison population and put in isolation, you’d expect there to be markedly fewer inmate shankings and attacks on corrections officers."

"But the evidence doesn’t bear this out. Perhaps the most careful inquiry into whether supermax prisons decrease violence and disorder was a 2003 analysis examining the experience in three states—Arizona, Illinois, and Minnesota—following the opening of their supermax prisons. The study found that levels of inmate-on-inmate violence were unchanged, and that levels of inmate-on-staff violence changed unpredictably, rising in Arizona, falling in Illinois, and holding steady in Minnesota.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande#ixzz1YD0uRUQl

The real truth is that “90% of inmates that are in solitary confinement have increased violent thoughts and will often spend hours just thinking of different ways to kill someone.” (Gawande, Hellhole) Using isolation as punishment is what actually increases prison violence. "The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons found that the number of inmates put in solitary confinement increased by 40% between 1995 and 2000" and isolation has become just another norm inside prison walls.(Gawande, Hellhole)

please review

http://webmerrizzed.hubpages.com/hub/therealtruthaboutsolitaryconfinment
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584254
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/tale-2-inmates-californias-security-housing-units-12609
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/CrimePunish_Pelican.html

 

There is no moral argument for the premeditated murder of a person that is held in bondage nor is there any moral argument for incarcerating a person that does not present a threat to either persons or property. The only moral foundation for incarceration is the protection of society from those who, through their actions, represent a threat to persons or property. "Protection" provides a moral foundation but "punishment" does not. There is no moral foundation related to punishing another individual.

As related to the death penalty there is no deterant value at all. Numerous studies have proven this to be a fact.

 

This remains a non sequitur argument. It addresses isolation and not specifically solitary confinement. As noted the issue of "isolation" as opposed to "solitary confinement" can be addressed by allowing interaction. There is no doubt that most if not all prisons impose isolation as a component of solitary confinement, generally preventing prisoners from talking with each other, limiting visits with family or visits with others. That can certainly be addressed. Solitiary confinement does not need to impose isolation on the prisoner and if isolation is removed then the problems related to it cease to exist.

Additionally the links and arguments are not specific to inmates that have been sentenced to death. Most violent individuals incarcerated in maximum security prisons are not condemned to death. Do they continue to be violent both in and out of prison? Generally speaking they do which reflects an inability to rehablitate the individual. Can more be done in this regard? Perhaps yes but more likely no. In any case it would have no bearing on someone sentenced to death who would never be allowed back into society in the first place and that could be held in solitary, not isolation, for the rest of their life so that they couldn't harm other prisoners, DOC staff or society.

This thread is explicitly addressing the death penalty and not violent criminals in general. The fact remains that the premeditated murder of a person that has been rendered incapable of causing any harm to any other individual is immoral and we, the People, do not have any authority to delegate a role to government that we ourselves do not possess. The death penalty is nothing but an act of revenge and yet as individuals we do not possess this Right. We cannot delegate that which we do not as individuals possess.

 

Actually a very good point. Too many people are in jails for a momentary lapse in judgement, although one must argue that a drunk i.e. falls under potentially capable of harming both persons and property.

I stated many times over that the death penalty is something that I greatly struggle with.
The reason being is, for one, my religious conviction, with God being the ultimate judge.
But also thinking that families and friends will never reach closure through the death of the perpetrator, but rather finding peace and forgiveness in their hearts. It won't come from the outside, but from within.
Revenge, killing the killer, turns us into the same beast as the murderer, and that is something I couldn't live with.
So, that leaves me with making absolutely 100% sure that the guilty one will never ever have a chance to harm another person. Knowing that some human beings are so evil that they thrive on hurting, torturing and killing others, perhaps that is where my conviction falters.
Even in jail, there is no guarantee that no harm can be done to another.

Lastly, perhaps no one should have to guard these evil people. How can our prison guards even deal with being around (some, not all of) them?

 

I truly appreciated the thoughtfulness of the entire response and have isolated the key element to it.

Yes, the "killing of the killer" which is indeed an act of revenge does turn us into the same beast as the murderer. It is why I oppose the death penalty.

The second point is also highly accurate because our primary concern, and one for which we can claim a moral foundation, is that we must prevent such a person from ever committing such an act again. We don't need to kill them to accomplish this.

 

That leaves the last part of my post.
It amazes me that people are willing to stand between some of the most vicious psychopaths and society.
How can they possibly do it without changing themselves?

 

That's incorrect. The recedivism rate among executed convicts is exactly zero point zero. There has never been an instance of an executed murderer commiting another crime - at least not in this temporal time and space continuum.

There is no valid methodology to measure the deterrent effect of capital punishment. I submit that there have been numerous instances when a criminal is given a choice between murdering someone, or sparing the victim's life, that they choose the latter. Perhaps it's because they have some compassion, perhaps it's because they have empathy for the victim, or perhaps it's because the criminal knows that if they cross that line, that there's no turning back.

My point is this -- if someone has a firearm pointed at you, and your life hinges on whether or not they decide to pull the trigger... if they don't shoot you, then there are any number of possible reasons why they didn't. Perhaps fear of capital punishment was one of them.

 

I generally agree with this however, I believe that 'Thou shalt not kill' is a bad translation. Several translations I have read correct it to: 'Thou shalt not MURDER'. As an example, I don't believe it is a sin to kill in self defense.

 

So the lack of contemporary attention to such a case diminishes my claim against your shocking lack of compassion for the state sanctioned MURDER of 14 year old child.

Even more shocking is your apparent IGNORANCE in judging the procedure of the judicial criminal cases. "Because a jury decided it has to be right?"

Other factors apply. Social Environment for one. I.E. Lynch Mob mentality within the Jury Chambers. I mean the execution was protracted WEEKS after the case was first brought to trial!



I mean, you have be DENSE as to believe the case was handled with George Stinny's jurisprudence in mind.

 

I don't know about you, but I wasn't there for the trial. I haven't read the trial transcript, haven't read any contemporary accounts of the case, haven't read any interviews with any of the victim's family, haven't read anything more than the scant information you linked to in the beginning.

And on the basis of that - on the basis of one case that might, possibly, have executed an innocent person, you want to eliminate capital punishment as a system altogether!

In the words of John Grisham in The Rainmaker - You must be stupid, stupid, stupid.

Don't get me wrong - if little Georgie was innocent, then that sucks. But, it was also almost 70 years ago - society has changed. A case where an all-white jury sentenced a black youth to death, and punishment was carried out within months simply would not happen in 21st century America.

But back to the original point - show me some PROOF that George was innocent. Link me to the trial transcript, link me to accounts from people of that era - not a review by someone done 50+ years later - show me the raw data and let me decide for myself.

You surely can do that, can't you?

 

Blood has permanently stained the annals of the justice system because of this case. Its the Murder of Child.

Here is perfect website with audio and literary testimonies from those adjacent to the case.

http://soundportraits.org/on-air/youngest_executed/


Also, if you are looking for transcripts, there weren't any recorded, nor were any witnesses called during the trial, nor were any backs allowed in the courtroom.

The trial hinged on a Confession obtained under duress & without the presence of Defensive Council

I mean seriously what more do you need to show how HORRIFICALLY wrong this entire procedure was.

PS: Those amendments to the protraction of "Judicial Justice" by no means vindicate the crimes of past. If any death penalty case can be protracted in such a manner, the entire system represents a mechanism for such HEINOUS "mistakes"

 

Did you bother to read the transcript of the audio link you posted?

Apparently, there seem to be two sides to this case - as is usual. George's family seems to believe he was innocent, but the sister of Betty June says...

You've made a serious fundamental error, but one that's quite common - you're attempting to view an incident that happened 70+ years ago through a modern-day prism. You can't do that - you have to remember that this happened in the Deep South in the 1940's. That was then, this is now.

You need to understand something - this happened back in the day when there was no such thing as "police brutality" - police routinely extracted confessions from criminals by physical means. There was no "right to remain silent", or "right to the presence of an attorney" - police used tactics back then that would be considered horrific miscarriages of justice in the present day. Blacks didn't vote, so blacks didn't serve as jurors - hence, an all-white jury.

That's why I say, show me some evidence. Show me something that indicates George very well have been innocent - murders of this sort continued across the region for months afterwards the arrest of George, or testimony from people who saw a stranger following the two murdered girls.

In the absence of that, I can't believe that the jury back then reached anything other than the correct verdict.

 

I honestly laugh at the leap and bounds of you have to go through to continue to justify the procedure of this case. The point is, there was no investigation. There is no evidence to speak of. Why? Because the entire community, illustrated by the prattle spoken by Betty June, became a lynch mob. The police, the prosecutors office, even the defensive council made no literal stand in this case. Jury selection was from the pool of the local community! And the most adjacent black living around the area was identified and subsequently crucified by the entire local justice system. Again, I really must say your moral need a SERIOUS reassessment; "I cant believe that the jury back then reach anything other than the correct verdict". Your blind, almost fascistic faith in the justice system, apart from the tremendous effect that peripheral social realities have on jury rulings, is absolutely maddening. Anyone who uses common sense, i.e. viewing this case even with a miniscule shred of moral fiber, can see how this entire procedure was and still is comparable to mob justice. The Court is not suppose to be that. However, with death penalty cases, it makes that transition.

According to your logic the individuals that butchered Emmet Till were innocent as well. Lol either that or it has "no relevance to modern times".
The judicial process is inexorably linked to adjacent social realities and norms, and given the weight of the Death Penalty case, things like this can happen again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till#Trial

 

The recedivism rate among convicts sentenced to the death penalty while incarcerated in solititary confinement and awaiting execution often for more than 20 years is exactly zero point zero.

The point remains valid that the death penalty is not required to protect other prisoners, DOC staff or the public from those sentenced to the death penalty and incarcerated in solitary confinement. The argument that the government has to commit premeditated murder of a prisoner to ensure that they commit no further crimes is false. The death penalty is unnecessary and the premeditated murder of a person cannot be justified whether it's done by an individual or by the government.

The death penality remains an immoral act that is an unnecessary violation of the unalienable (natural) Right to Life that all individuals possess.

 

The fact is that many are changed. I've watched several of the "Locked Up" cable series shows and the guards really form what they call their own "Gang" to combat the individuals that are members of criminal gangs that are incarcerated. The DOC staff has to maintain the perception among the prisoners that they are more violent than the prisoners themselves to maintain control. It is understandable but unquestionably many do change and that the willingness to commit violent acts often does bleed over into their personal lives. While I've seen no information on DOC staff it is true police officers appear to have a very high incident rate of domestic abuse from what I've read.

When a person is empowered to commit acts of violence under the law it can change them. It doesn't have to but it often does.

 

Again, Shiva just makes up a false claim and, apparently, avoids, at all costs, fact checking.

There are likely hundreds of solid moral arguments in support of the death penalty. Of course, you don't know the differnece between a crime (murder) and a legal sanction for committing a crime (execution), because your position is amoral.

Here are some well known and solid secular as well as religious teachings with moral support for the death penalty.

"Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000: "No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty." "At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9).