Step in the right direction

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by dcv, Mar 1, 2005.

Loading...
  1. dcv

    dcv New Member

  2. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    This is the latest in a long string of cases limiting the death penalty under the eighth amendment. I haven't read this decision yet but there was an excellent survey of the field in one of last year's New Mexico Law Reviews.

    Our New Mexico legislature is considering a bill to end the death penalty here. We've executed exactly one inmate since the 1970's. The opposition is busily quoting the bible to "prove" that the State needs a death penalty. (I'm not kidding; that's EXACTLY what the state representative did yesterday on the floor of the House)

    Culturally, it's interesting. There hasn't been a "legal" death penalty in Mexico since the 1917 revolution. Here in New Mexico, before we executed Terry Clark just a few years ago, we sort of considered ourselves "too civilized" to actually DO so heinous and unnecessary an act. Our Courts kept coming up with technicalities, not enough to free the man, you understand, but enough to postpone the execution. But the day finally came.

    He was sentenced to death on a guilty plea, by the way.

    We had to rent two executioners from (where else?) Texas to kill him for us. We didn't know how.

    The wave of revulsion and shock and shame that went through the state was almost palpable.
     
  3. jugador

    jugador New Member

    Does the name "David Westerfield" mean anything to you? He was the dirt bag convicted in the murder of Daniell van Dam, the 7-year old killed just outside San Diego a couple of years ago. A little known fact is that he tortured the little girl horribly and then posed her mutilated body in a mocking fashion. One of the hikers who discovered her was so traumatized by the sight that he was institutionalized. As far as I know, he still his. I would pay $10,000 for the honor of executing Westerfield. How you sanctimonious do-gooders who so zealously advocate the abolishment of the death penalty manage to live with yourselves is beyond me.
     
  4. dcv

    dcv New Member

    Re: Re: Step in the right direction

    And the farthest leap to a conclusion award goes to...

    You'd pay $10K to kill someone. Good for you (though I suspect that's a plain and simple lie.)

    Guess what? Daniell van Dam will still be dead.

    How you "I'd paid to kill that guy" imbeciles manage to live with yourselves is perfectly and completely obvious to me.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2005
  5. jugador

    jugador New Member

    My definition of an imbicile is somebody who believes in spending $50,000 per year to keep first degree murders alive at taxpayer expense (not to mention as much as $1 million in taxpayer-incurred legal costs over many years).
     
  6. dcv

    dcv New Member

    Are you under the impression that the death penalty system is cheaper than incarceration?
     
  7. deej

    deej New Member

    Re: Re: Step in the right direction

    Maybe if there was a death penalty in place in California at the time of this heinous crime, Mr. Westerfield would have been dissuaded from committing his crime.

    Oh, you mean there was? And he wasn't? Well, shucks. Next logical fallacy...
     
  8. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Too bad. More evidence of a court system moving to a pro-criminal stance.

    BLD
     
  9. jugador

    jugador New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Step in the right direction

    Did I say anything about deterrence? (although I can cite evidence that shows there is a deterrence). I just believe that most cold-blooded murderers have forfeited their right to life, and society has a right to take their life in retaliation. Absent religious arguments (I have used none) please explain why Westerfield should not be executed. Keep in mind the DNA evidence is absolute, so there is no reasonable possibility of his innocence.
     
  10. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Oh, Terry Clark was a truly horrible human being, make no mistake. And there was NO doubt as to his guilt.

    But as to deterrence, well, there are plenty of statistics going both ways, you know.

    Look, the real debate is, "Does vengence have any place in the criminal justice system?" This issue is especially interesting to me because I am studying it now in the LL.M. program.

    There are an awful lot of states and countries that don't have a death penalty. They seem to get along okay without it. There is something truly horrifying about the cold blooded, controlled ending of a person's life when the person is no threat to society, in other words, incarcerated for life.

    And criminals ARE human, you know. It's awfully easy to forget that. Until, like me, you've dealt with a few on a practical, one-to-one basis.

    Unfortunately, lawyers, judges, and jurors are also human and we make mistakes. Look at the former republican governor of Illinios who commuted all the death penalties, not out of sympathy, but because he became convinced that the system simply isn't reliable enough to trust with death.

    I've met one or two wrongly convicted murderers. It happens.
     
  11. Charles

    Charles New Member



    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01mar20051300/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-633.pdf
    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01mar20051300/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-633.pdf
     
  12. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Justice Scalia purports to be a "strict constructionist". His approach to constitutional interpretation is to try to wear a tri corner hat and breeches, have the darky take his bags to hisl room, and visit the privy out back.

    This approach has merit in certain areas. I think the Court was right in Blakeley v. Washington, for instance, to announce (finally) that confrontation MEANS confrontation and that this guarantee arose from the abuses of the English criminal system of the time.

    The reason it doesn't work in an Eighth Amendment case is that the text includes the words "cruel and unusual punishment".

    Now, Scalia would apply the same definition in the 21st century as he would have applied in the 18th. But he can't really do that because what is seen as cruel and unusual inevitably will change as society changes. The text of the constitution itself doesn't define these words so they must be given their common meaning.

    This has been the COurt's approach to Eighth Amendment analysis for quite some time. To depart from it now would be an example of "judicial activism".

    Now, HAS the constitution changed in 15 years? Of course it has. Blakeley is just ONE example. And if the Right has its way and Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will change again even more quickly. The U.S. constitution is a living document, not a piece of paper in a dusty drawer. It must be reinterpreted to meet the changing needs and attitudes of the people it governs.
     
  13. I'm one of those "weird liberals" who actually believes in the value of the death penalty.

    When someone commits a horrible murder, accompanied by child torture, the ethical case is clear - the state, society, and humanity have a DUTY to execute that person, to remove them from society permanently, to not allow them to live another day, and to bring about appropriate vengeance for those type of actions.

    I don't give a crap if it deters anyone from committing further murders - what I care about is whether society gets its revenge on those who choose to destroy it and have already ignored all accepted standards of human decency. It is NOT the same when the state executes someone under these circumstances as when a madman goes around killing children, or terrorists in coldblood strike our innocent citizens down. When the state does it, it does so with the full authority and support of a population that wants protection from this person ever doing this type of thing again, and as justified vengeance against the act itself.

    I suppose the next argument will be that we shouldn't kill in war either - maybe we can come up with bullets and bombs that just render someone unconscious? Well, that's not going to happen either, and wars are also sometimes justified, as is the violence and revenge visited upon our enemies. Did Germany deserve the scathing bombings it received from our forces in WWII? OF COURSE IT DID! Did Japan deserve two atom bombs and the deaths of millions of their citizens? OF COURSE IT DID! Do any of you remember the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking?

    Same with individual criminals who choose to walk outside the pale of civilized society, and who torture and kill innocents for fun or because of some sick psychotic urge. Death is the only possible solution to this malady. Incarceration almost rewards them for their crimes.... and sends a very, very wrong message to the rest of us.

    As for those countries who have abolished the death penalty? Well, my sense is that they don't have the same type of criminal undercurrents that our nation (sadly) has. With freedom comes a price - and that price is that sometimes weirdos and wackos go over the edge, and are allowed to do so because of our free and open society, until they are caught AND punished. Not rehabilitated - PUNISHED.
     
  14. pugbelly

    pugbelly New Member

    I know this is a touchy issue with valid points on both sides. Personally, I favor the death penalty. I believe reason for the death penalty can be supported biblically as well as socially. As a tax payer I don't like the idea of paying to support a murderer for life.

    Pug
     
  15. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    To say that society has a DUTY to punish serious offenders begs the question.

    What is the source of that duty? What is the extent of that duty? To whom is the duty owed?

    To my earlier question about whether vengence has a place in criminal justice, you answer "yes". Why? What compelling government interest justifies vengence as a specific goal?

    Don't mistake me here; my emotional response is very close to your own. But scholarship (and aren't we who post here supposed to be scholars?) requires a dispassionate analysis of public policy. It isn't always wise to base public policy on emotional responses.

    I don't know the answer, BTW. I am only now acquiring the tools to examine the question in a systematic fashion. I DO suggest that any rational criminal justice system needs to identify its GOALS before determining its MEANS. And I frankly have difficulty with the idea of public vengence. I see no clear social value to it you see.
     
  16. dcv

    dcv New Member

    Personal problem.
    I don't support it, so how can it be full support? Answer - it's not.
    Cute. I suppose your next argument is that the state should kill jaywalkers.
    No, four is the only possible solution to this malady. (Subtitute any word for four to construct your own personalized absurdity.)
    Ahh...would that someone would lock me up for the rest of my life...heaven!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2005
  17. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    I'm with Pug and Carl. I used to oppose the death penalty but no longer do. I appreciate the feelings of those who oppose it and respectfully disagree.

    My only gripe is with Nosborne's characterisation of Scalia as racist. I am not a fan of Scalia* (as I certainly am a fan of Nosborne) but I think the "darky" bit is a rare nod from our juridical Homer.

    *My layman's impression is that he's not friendly to natural law. I got this impression from looking through a book of his stuff published by (who else?) Regnery. If I'm wrong on this please let me know.
     
  18. dcv

    dcv New Member

    But you support the idea of paying MORE for the state to kill someone they have in custody?
     
  19. little fauss

    little fauss New Member

    The death penalty is a wonderful deterrent. That murderer will never kill again.

    Don't think that people haven't murdered in cold blood, been released at a later date or escaped, and gone on to murder again. Don't think that murderers haven't killed in prison, often times killed those who had committed far less heinous crimes.

    I find this the one gaping hole in the anti-death penalty argument. As an attorney--and I'll bet Nosborne48 can relate to this--I can say I've encountered situations where I've seen evil. Not just lost souls or misguided people, but stark evil. Those people need to be removed from the rest of society, if for nothing more than the protection of the whole.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2005
  20. Rob L

    Rob L New Member

    I normally steer clear of sensistive topics like the death penalty. But, against my better judgement, I am going to chime in. I vote Republican, but I am against the death penalty. I agree with the principles behind the death penalty, but I don't agree with how it is applied. First, when you take the costs of mandatory appeals and other related costs, it actually costs taxpayers more to carry out the death sentence than to incarcerate the offenders for life.
    Second, the death penalty is not much of a deterrence because the vast majority of murderers do so believing they will get away with it. Finally, what scares me most about the death penalty is the possibility of executing an innocent and/or mentally incapable person. I know I would be overwhelmed with guilt if I sentenced the wrong person to death.

    Although I am not for the death penalty, I am for longer and harsher sentences. I believe that a life sentence should mean exactly that. If some one is convicted of a heinous crime like 1st degree murder, they should have absolutely no possibility of being paroled. Also, I want prison to be a punishment. I am all for chain gangs and making prisoners wear pink uniforms with fuzzy teddy bear patterns. Prisons should no longer be a training facility that makes convicted criminals more knowledgeable criminals. it should be a place where no one would ever want to go again.

    I apologize for straying off the topic of the death penalty. But, I feel that the death penalty can't be discussed without mentioning a overhaul of the criminal justice system.

    I know many won't agree with me. All that I ask is that you do not make your replies personal.
     

Share This Page