PDA

View Full Version : Utah executes man by firing squad


Yellowbeard
06-18-2010, 10:53 AM
Bang! Bang! Bang!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100618/ap_on_re_us/us_utah_firing_squad

I guess I've always been a death penalty supporter in principle, but I do have to admit this seems a rather grisly way to go.

In 2004, Utah apparently did away w/ firing squads as an option, but since this guy was sentenced prior to 2004, he still had that as a choice available to him. I wonder if Utah has any other death row inmates that were sentenced prior to 2004?

There was a link to another article by a reporter that witnessed it. Article had a pic of the chair after the execution. Had 4 holes in it, and they weren't tightly grouped. The firing squad did it's job, but you'd think they'd have better marksman. A single sniper trained marksman could have put one thru his throat, severed his spinal cord at the base of the head, and death would have been instant.

Weird Harold
06-18-2010, 12:48 PM
Bang! Bang! Bang!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100618/ap_on_re_us/us_utah_firing_squad

I guess I've always been a death penalty supporter in principle, but I do have to admit this seems a rather grisly way to go.

In 2004, Utah apparently did away w/ firing squads as an option, but since this guy was sentenced prior to 2004, he still had that as a choice available to him. I wonder if Utah has any other death row inmates that were sentenced prior to 2004?

There was a link to another article by a reporter that witnessed it. Article had a pic of the chair after the execution. Had 4 holes in it, and they weren't tightly grouped. The firing squad did it's job, but you'd think they'd have better marksman. A single sniper trained marksman could have put one thru his throat, severed his spinal cord at the base of the head, and death would have been instant.
I worry less about the way someone is executed thanI do about howlong it takes to carry out the sentence:
Deseret News (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700040960/Utah-has-interesting-history-of-executions.html)
Weber State University criminal justice professor L. Kay Gillespie is the foremost leading authority on death row in Utah and the history of executions in the state. He has conducted countless hours of interviews with death row inmates and done extensive research into the history of the death penalty in Utah. His book, "The Unforgiven, Utah's Executed Men" looks into details about the history of executions in Utah.

Gardner has been on death row for nearly 25 years. By comparison, Robert Sutton of Tooele was executed just eight days after killing a man in 1866. In 1912, the Salt Lake Telegram wrote a story complaining about the amount of time it was taking between a homicide and the execution of the suspect which at that point was two years.

"No wonder the public forgot what he is being shot for and cared less," the newspaper wrote.

I can understand allowing the condemend to appeal his sentence -- in fact an appeal should be automatic in capital cases -- but there has never been any question about guilt in this case so I can't imagine what sort of appeal(s) might have made any particular difference in the fact this man killed two people and maimed one more while trying to escape custody. 25 years of procrastination is inexcusable.

Davian93
06-18-2010, 06:37 PM
From what I understand, the guy choose this as his way to go. While I'm against the death penalty in general, if the guy wanted to go that way, its his choice.

Hell, its probably less painful than the electric chair, gas chamber or lethal injection (all of which have been shown to be extremely painful/crappy ways to go.


I agree on the poor marksmanship...unexcusable. At least give him a clean death.

nameless
06-18-2010, 07:55 PM
I've always thought suicide should be an option for those condemned to capital punishment. Putting someone in a locked room with a gun and a single bullet's got to be cheaper than pretty much anything else on the table and my guess is the vast majority of condemned prisoners would prefer to die on their own terms if given the choice.

JSUCamel
06-18-2010, 08:19 PM
I've always thought suicide should be an option for those condemned to capital punishment. Putting someone in a locked room with a gun and a single bullet's got to be cheaper than pretty much anything else on the table and my guess is the vast majority of condemned prisoners would prefer to die on their own terms if given the choice.

Yeah, but the fundies would revolt. Not to mention I can think of a half dozen other possibilities, not the least of which is shooting oneself but not fatally, which results in the prison (and taxpayers) having to pay to send the prisoner to the hospital to be treated.

Bryan Blaire
06-18-2010, 08:50 PM
Yeah, but the fundies would revolt.

Dunno about that, Camel, as most of the fundies I know are the ones that are the biggest supporters of the death penalty.

The problem with leaving someone in a room with a single bullet is what do you do when you don't hear a shot?

JSUCamel
06-18-2010, 08:56 PM
Dunno about that, Camel, as most of the fundies I know are the ones that are the biggest supporters of the death penalty.

Suicide is a completely different issue from gun rights, fyi.

nameless
06-18-2010, 11:58 PM
Dunno about that, Camel, as most of the fundies I know are the ones that are the biggest supporters of the death penalty.

The problem with leaving someone in a room with a single bullet is what do you do when you don't hear a shot?

Ok, how about a gas chamber with a gun and a single bullet, and the prisoner is told that after they've been in there an hour the gas will turn on?

Don't get me wrong, I hate the death penalty both for moral reasons and the practical inevitability of convicting and executing innocent people, but if they have to die they should be allowed to die with a little dignity.

@JSUCamel: most of the anti-suicide crowd I know are Catholics who are also strongly against capital punishment and support gun control.

DahLliA
06-19-2010, 08:50 AM
not getting into the whole death penalty as a whole thing. but I really don't see the problem with a firing squad. I mean dead is dead. who cares how as long as it's as painless(though some cases deserve as painful) as possible

Weird Harold
06-19-2010, 02:19 PM
not getting into the whole death penalty as a whole thing. but I really don't see the problem with a firing squad. I mean dead is dead. who cares how as long as it's as painless(though some cases deserve as painful) as possible
Theproblem with a firing squad is that firing squads sometimes miss and only wound the condemned. It's why most states, including Utah for those condemned after they changed the law, have eliminated execution by firing squad.

Execution by firing squad is about as painless as a heart attack even when they don't miss, but this was the condemned's choice, so I really don't have a problem with his choice.

Zaela Sedai
06-19-2010, 04:11 PM
Who cares if it isn't painless... the people he killed didn't die pain free. I understand we can't (unfortunately) torture the people, but man they lost the right for sympathy when they did the crime.

/ahem that being said, I almost want to give the guy props for choosing to go as his victims did lol

And the above is why I am not an elected official.

Weird Harold
06-19-2010, 05:58 PM
Who cares if it isn't painless... the people he killed didn't die pain free. I understand we can't (unfortunately) torture the people, but man they lost the right for sympathy when they did the crime.

/ahem that being said, I almost want to give the guy props for choosing to go as his victims did lol

And the above is why I am not an elected official.
I don't really care about how painfully a condemned dies, just that he can't take advantage of an old capital punshiment clause -- if it still exists -- that if you survive an attempt to execute you, it is deemed a "Pardon by God" (not the proper legal term, btw.) As far as I know, firing squads are the least certain method of excution commonly used in the last two centuries.

Zaela Sedai
06-19-2010, 10:16 PM
I was surprised they still allowed it, but I guess when you've been on death row for 25 years ~rolls eyes~

Weird Harold
06-19-2010, 11:52 PM
I was surprised they still allowed it, but I guess when you've been on death row for 25 years ~rolls eyes~
Utah doesn't any longer, but those sentenced before the change in the options are "grandfathered" into the old rules.

Mort
06-20-2010, 01:45 PM
I actually saw the news bulletin on one of the news channels here in the US, I was like, wtf? I didn't know you could have any other choice than the chair or lethal injection.

Now back to enjoying myself in the US :) Just arrived in Charlotte, NC from being in Orlando for about 3 days. Staying here for almost a week and then up to NY for a short visit.

No one told me it friggin POURS down here every afternoon :D

Terez
06-20-2010, 01:54 PM
Now back to enjoying myself in the US :) Just arrived in Charlotte, NC from being in Orlando for about 3 days. Staying here for almost a week and then up to NY for a short visit.
Glad you listened to the smart people.

No one told me it friggin POURS down here every afternoon :D
If we told tourists about that, then we wouldn't have the pleasure of watching you guys get soaked. I used to work in a restaurant on the beach, and it was our afternoon entertainment in the summer.

I think it's primarily a southern coastal weather phenomenon, though. You have probably observed it continuously by virtue of having traveled up the coastline.

Ivhon
06-20-2010, 02:08 PM
Glad you listened to the smart people.


If we told tourists about that, then we wouldn't have the pleasure of watching you guys get soaked. I used to work in a restaurant on the beach, and it was our afternoon entertainment in the summer.

I think it's primarily a southern coastal weather phenomenon, though. You have probably observed it continuously by virtue of having traveled up the coastline.

If its doing that in Charlotte, you are just unlucky. But yes, pretty much rains every late afternoon in the Florida summertime.

Say hi to all my Charlotte friends....and go get some fried pickles at the Penguin. Then go across the street and get some chicken and dumplings at Dish (and get an extra biscuit)

Neilbert
06-20-2010, 03:02 PM
Who cares if it isn't painless... the people he killed didn't die pain free. I understand we can't (unfortunately) torture the people, but man they lost the right for sympathy when they did the crime.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when people want to let murderers set the standard for moral conduct.

Sinistrum
06-20-2010, 05:09 PM
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when people want to let murderers set the standard for moral conduct.

Its also fairly sad when people show more empathy toward murderers than they do toward people who have never harmed a fly but whom they disagree with politically. ;)

Davian93
06-20-2010, 08:55 PM
Who cares if it isn't painless... the people he killed didn't die pain free. I understand we can't (unfortunately) torture the people, but man they lost the right for sympathy when they did the crime.

/ahem that being said, I almost want to give the guy props for choosing to go as his victims did lol

And the above is why I am not an elected official.

Is your motivation revenge or is it to cull an undesirable from society?

I wouldn't be upset if we got rid of the death penalty entirely. Its not a deterrent, it costs far too much money to use, and its morally ambiguous at best.

Matoyak
06-21-2010, 01:48 AM
It's not a deterrent, it costs far too much money to useIt costs more money than putting a guy in a jail for the rest of his life? I would think that between food, running the jail with more inmates (due to not killing off the death row peoples), etc the costs would add up over time to be quite a bit more than a couple bullets or a shot... But maybe I'm thinking wrong, as I don't know the cost of any of that stuff. Well, I do generally know that a couple rounds of 30-30 or thirty-aught-six isn't all that hard to come by, and isn't all that expensive, but that's about all I know. There something I'm missing here?

Weird Harold
06-21-2010, 03:21 AM
It costs more money than putting a guy in a jail for the rest of his life? I would think that between food, running the jail with more inmates (due to not killing off the death row peoples), etc the costs would add up over time to be quite a bit more than a couple bullets or a shot... But maybe I'm thinking wrong, as I don't know the cost of any of that stuff. Well, I do generally know that a couple rounds of 30-30 or thirty-aught-six isn't all that hard to come by, and isn't all that expensive, but that's about all I know. There something I'm missing here?

From an interesting article about the history of the death penalty in Utah: (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700040960/Utah-has-interesting-history-of-executions.html) (page three of the article.)

In 1923 the total cost of an execution was $200, according to Gillespie. By 1944, it was $653. A 2004 memo issued by the Department of Corrections showed the approximate cost of an execution then when supplies, manpower and overtime pay were considered, was more than $45,500.

From page two of the same article:

Gardner has been on death row for nearly 25 years. By comparison, Robert Sutton of Tooele was executed just eight days after killing a man in 1866. In 1912, the Salt Lake Telegram wrote a story complaining about the amount of time it was taking between a homicide and the execution of the suspect which at that point was two years.

"No wonder the public forgot what he is being shot for and cared less," the newspaper wrote.

I'm not quite sure how the "total cost" of a death penalty case is calculated, however...


The cost of additional security and maintenance of a separate facility to house Death row,

The cost of defending endless appeals,

The court costs of handling the endless appeals,

Often the cost of a public defender,

and a few other costs I can't think of off-hand,


are all in addtion to the normal cost of keeping a prisoner incarcerated for 25 years.

25 years is often longer than lifers serve before being "rehabilitated" and paroled or pardoned.

One thing to consider: Sometimes the added cost of endless appeals are driven by those who use the added costs to argue against the death penalty even when the condemned chooses not to initiate further appeals. IIRC, Gary Gilmore's execution by firing squad was delayed twice by appeals/challenges filed against his wishes by the ACLU and other death penalty opponents.

Davian93
06-21-2010, 07:45 AM
It costs more money than putting a guy in a jail for the rest of his life? I would think that between food, running the jail with more inmates (due to not killing off the death row peoples), etc the costs would add up over time to be quite a bit more than a couple bullets or a shot... But maybe I'm thinking wrong, as I don't know the cost of any of that stuff. Well, I do generally know that a couple rounds of 30-30 or thirty-aught-six isn't all that hard to come by, and isn't all that expensive, but that's about all I know. There something I'm missing here?

Google it...its been shown again and again. You have to keep them in isolation ($$), you have to give them multiple appeals and pay for them ($$$$)...it costs far far more.

Davian93
06-21-2010, 07:48 AM
We've already had innocent men put to death and had it shown by DNA evidence.

Give me a criminal system that is 100% accurate, not biased against minorities, and not full of corrupt cops/DAs out to make a name for themselves by bagging a murderer and you might have a good case for the death penalty. How many inmates have to be pulled off death row after its shown they werent given a fair trial, or evidence was suppressed, or now DNA evidence shows they werent really the rapist/murderer but just the most convenient guy in the area matching the description, etc etc.

If you can do all that, then MAYBE it has a place in the justice system.

Its not a deterrent, it doesnt eliminate crime and it costs far too much money.

JSUCamel
06-21-2010, 08:19 AM
" of a death penalty case is calculated, however...


The cost of additional security and maintenance of a separate facility to house Death row,

The cost of defending endless appeals,

The court costs of handling the endless appeals,

Often the cost of a public defender,

and a few other costs I can't think of off-hand,


are all in addtion to the normal cost of keeping a prisoner incarcerated for 25 years.

25 years is often longer than lifers serve before being "rehabilitated" and paroled or pardoned.

One thing to consider: Sometimes the added cost of endless appeals are driven by those who use the added costs to argue against the death penalty even when the condemned chooses not to initiate further appeals. IIRC, Gary Gilmore's execution by firing squad was delayed twice by appeals/challenges filed against his wishes by the ACLU and other death penalty opponents.


http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

"The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually."

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Davian93
06-21-2010, 08:20 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all

Great story on the execution of an innocent man by the State of Texas...take 20 min (its long) and read it.


I believe the average cost of an execution in Texas is $2.3 million...it costs about 1/3 of that to incarcerate him for 40 years.

Ivhon
06-21-2010, 08:36 AM
Isn't it ironic that those who scream loudest about government inefficiency (for example....the State of Texas) are also often the most adamant about the necessity of an amazingly expensive government administered death penalty in the government-run judicial system.

Davian93
06-21-2010, 08:57 AM
Isn't it ironic that those who scream loudest about government inefficiency (for example....the State of Texas) are also often the most adamant about the necessity of an amazingly expensive government administered death penalty in the government-run judicial system.

Some folk just need killin'. Besides, they probably figure its their State Gov't, not da Feds. Feds can't do anything right you know.

Sei'taer
06-21-2010, 09:03 AM
Isn't it ironic that those who scream loudest about government inefficiency (for example....the State of Texas) are also often the most adamant about the necessity of an amazingly expensive government administered death penalty in the government-run judicial system.

To me, it's not any different than being for abortion and against the death penalty...or against abortion and for the death penalty. Although, for me, the second is a little easier to understand.

Sinistrum
06-21-2010, 11:42 AM
As opposed to the problem of prison overcrowding which leads to the release of people like these.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7054001.ece

Not to mention the multiple targets they have while incarcerated or the possibility of escape.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/08/the_fallacy_of_life_in_prison/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Seven

You can either take your chances convicting and executing an innocent person or take your chances that by wearhousing violent offenders instead of eliminating them they either a. won't escape, b. won't kill anyone while in prison, or c. won't be released on parole because of overcrowding and thereby be given access to the general population to kill again. Either way, innocent people will die and the argument amounts to a zero sum game.

As for cost, don't really care. Same thing with deterrence. Neither are a consideration for why I support the death penalty.

Davian93
06-21-2010, 12:24 PM
Why do you support it then?

Sinistrum
06-21-2010, 12:56 PM
Punishment, retribution, and the complete removal of dangerous people from society.

Yellowbeard
06-21-2010, 01:33 PM
punishment - i usually think of this as training people to not repeat inappropriate actions. however, in the case of the death penalty, it makes no sense as they're dead afterwards.

retribution - speaking from personal experience here (with a queen of the harpies ex-wife that seems to be hell bent on trying to cause me as much grief as possible...gawd i wish she'd find a new victim, i mean boyfriend...after all, she never had trouble finding a new boyfriend when we were married!). basically, it's not totally fulfilling to say the least.

the complete removal of dangerous people from society - this i don't have a problem w/ at all. just like a dog can be rabid and need to be put down, so can a person.

of course, k-fed and dora the explorer could also be considered as needing to be put down to spare the rest of us, so what do i know?

Sinistrum
06-21-2010, 01:45 PM
punishment - i usually think of this as training people to not repeat inappropriate actions. however, in the case of the death penalty, it makes no sense as they're dead afterwards.

And I see it as more balancing of the cosmic scales. In that regard I think the death penalty serves the purpose of punishment for certain crimes. Punishment can serve a teaching purpose but it doesn't always have too.

retribution - speaking from personal experience here (with a queen of the harpies ex-wife that seems to be hell bent on trying to cause me as much grief as possible...gawd i wish she'd find a new victim, i mean boyfriend...after all, she never had trouble finding a new boyfriend when we were married!). basically, it's not totally fulfilling to say the least.

In your personal opinion. Not everyone feels that way, and I have experience in dealing with victims that feel the exact opposite. Just because you don't find it fullfilling doesn't mean others won't or that their emotions are somehow illegitimate. Furthermore, its not just the victims I'm concerned with here. I think society has a right to retribution against criminal offenders too.

Yellowbeard
06-21-2010, 02:52 PM
And I see it as more balancing of the cosmic scales. In that regard I think the death penalty serves the purpose of punishment for certain crimes. Punishment can serve a teaching purpose but it doesn't always have too.

isn't that more "kharma" or "what goes around comes around"?

In your personal opinion. Not everyone feels that way, and I have experience in dealing with victims that feel the exact opposite. Just because you don't find it fullfilling doesn't mean others won't or that their emotions are somehow illegitimate. Furthermore, its not just the victims I'm concerned with here. I think society has a right to retribution against criminal offenders too.

i've never met a person that was totally happy that was stuck on getting retribution for past wrongs. we've all got things in our past where we've been wronged. some more spectacularly than others. but if you don't let it go eventually, the hate and anger just eats you up. forgiveness is not a gift you give to another person. it's a gift you give to yourself.

ETA - just FYI - i am a supporter of the death penalty in principal. Sometimes someone deserves it. Kharma basically. But i don't think executing someone will bring any kind of true peace to the people that were impacted by the criminal's crime. It sucks, but the victims have to dig that out of themselves.

Weird Harold
06-21-2010, 02:56 PM
Why do you support it then?

Like you, I have some serious reservations about the way the Death Penalty is administered.

Unlike you, I think the solution is to fix the way the Death Penalty is administered rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Without having the option of the death penalty, what do you do to the incorrigibles who continue to commit (capital) crimes in prison under the philosophy of "what are they going to do, give me another life sentence?"

The death penalty does not need to cost more than 40 years amximum security, and there's no excuse for leaving an inmate on death row for decades.

Toughen up the standards of evidence for a death penalty -- no death sentences for convictions on circumstantial evidence; there are many people in prison for capital crimes where there is no doubt whatsoever that they are the person who committed the crime.

Streamline the appeals process -- there should be, by now, a long list of failures in procedure, failures of evidence, corruption and incompetence in death penalty cases that can be made into a checklist of thnigs to be reviewed on automatic appeals to the state and then federal supreme courts. Incorporate any third party appeals into the automatic appeals process; get all of the technical, repetitive, strung-out-one-point-at-a-time, appeals out of the way in one shot. Eliminate/deal with as many routine arguments as possible auomatically to reduce the grounds for other appeals.

Make any additional appeals first priority for scheduling through the court system; there's no excuse for a death penalty appeal to take years to get a hearing.

There are more things that need to be done, but it is possible to identify those convicts who should be executed without dragging the process out for 25 years or executing innocent people.

Sinistrum
06-21-2010, 03:07 PM
isn't that more "kharma" or "what goes around comes around"?

In a way, but since I don't believe the universe gives a damn about us or right/wrong, I think its up to us to balance the scales.

i've never met a person that was totally happy that was stuck on getting retribution for past wrongs.

I have, once said retribution was granted. To know that someone that has done you wrong is getting what they deserve can be a powerful tool for healing wounds such as the ones those who commit capital crimes can inflict. Without it, it can be difficult for many people to let go of the anger they feel over what was done and forgive.

Weird Harold
06-21-2010, 03:16 PM
...Sometimes someone deserves it. Kharma basically. But i don't think executing someone will bring any kind of true peace to the people that were impacted by the criminal's crime. It sucks, but the victims have to dig that out of themselves.

The death penalty should never be about anything except public safety.

No matter how heinous "a crime of passion" might be, those who commit crimes of passion aren't a threat to the general population and don't necessarily deserve the death penalty.

Serial killers, Gang-bangers, Drunk/Drugged drivers (who kill someone,) Criminal Negligence resulting in loss of life (tough to prove individual negligence,) and the like are continuing threats to society and should be liable to the death penalty.

But revenge, kharma, deterrence, and all of the other claimed benefits of the death penalty are merely side isssues. Society needs the option of the ultimate sanction to protect itself from individuals who are, or can be expected to be, a threat to those around them, Society and/or the general populace.

Davian93
06-21-2010, 03:23 PM
Like you, I have some serious reservations about the way the Death Penalty is administered.

Unlike you, I think the solution is to fix the way the Death Penalty is administered rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Without having the option of the death penalty, what do you do to the incorrigibles who continue to commit (capital) crimes in prison under the philosophy of "what are they going to do, give me another life sentence?"

The death penalty does not need to cost more than 40 years amximum security, and there's no excuse for leaving an inmate on death row for decades.

Toughen up the standards of evidence for a death penalty -- no death sentences for convictions on circumstantial evidence; there are many people in prison for capital crimes where there is no doubt whatsoever that they are the person who committed the crime.

Streamline the appeals process -- there should be, by now, a long list of failures in procedure, failures of evidence, corruption and incompetence in death penalty cases that can be made into a checklist of thnigs to be reviewed on automatic appeals to the state and then federal supreme courts. Incorporate any third party appeals into the automatic appeals process; get all of the technical, repetitive, strung-out-one-point-at-a-time, appeals out of the way in one shot. Eliminate/deal with as many routine arguments as possible auomatically to reduce the grounds for other appeals.

Make any additional appeals first priority for scheduling through the court system; there's no excuse for a death penalty appeal to take years to get a hearing.

There are more things that need to be done, but it is possible to identify those convicts who should be executed without dragging the process out for 25 years or executing innocent people.


I doubt that the states would actually implement such standards...considering the gross negligence that's already been proven in regards to death penalty prosecutions, the current system is broken and should't be continued.

If they could make it 100% guaranteed and then only use it for severe cases (like multiple homicides, repeat offenders, etc), then maybe I'd be okay with it.

Sinistrum
06-21-2010, 03:30 PM
If they could make it 100% guaranteed and then only use it for severe cases (like multiple homicides, repeat offenders, etc), then maybe I'd be okay with it.

That's an impossible pipe dream and just about everyone knows it. I know what your response to that admission will be. Essentially that if its impossible to make it 100% accurate with regards to convictions we shouldn't use it. My response to that argument is can you guarantee that those who currently commit death penalty eligible crimes will never kill again if given life in prison?

Davian93
06-21-2010, 03:33 PM
That's an impossible pipe dream and just about everyone knows it. I know what your response to that admission will be. Essentially that if its impossible to make it 100% accurate with regards to convictions we shouldn't use it. My response to that argument is can you guarantee that those who currently commit death penalty eligible crimes will never kill again if given life in prison?

You should google Illinois death penalty cases. They had something like 13 guys on death row that were innocent...it was bad enough that hteir pro-death penalty governor ended up suspending the death penalty due to such prosecutorial abuse. That's ridiculous.

Till they can fix it, there is no need for it.

nameless
06-21-2010, 04:15 PM
That's an impossible pipe dream and just about everyone knows it. I know what your response to that admission will be. Essentially that if its impossible to make it 100% accurate with regards to convictions we shouldn't use it. My response to that argument is can you guarantee that those who currently commit death penalty eligible crimes will never kill again if given life in prison?

Yes, easily. Life in solitary confinement. If there's no one else around for them to kill it becomes a non-issue. Of course many people would argue that violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause. I'd argue failure to seclude mass murderers from the rest of the population constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for the other prisoners.

Prison crowding is an issue but not an insoluble one. The problem is that any time someone tries to solve it they tend to get railroaded out of office for being "soft on crime." A while back there was a referendum in CA to modify their "3 strikes" law* so that it would only apply mandatory life sentences to violent offenders. The Governator launched a last-minute media blitz opposing the reform and pretty much torpedoed it. His own prison reform plan? Pay other states to take our convicts. Of course the courts told him that you're not actually allowed to buy and sell people any more, and now the crowding's so bad we're looking at the prospect of court-ordered releases, because our politicians decided appearing tough on crime was more important than the reality of managing our prisons before the courts stepped in and did it for us.

*from an anthropological standpoint the popularity of the 3 strike concept is a fascinating example of how our perceptions of fairness and justice are shaped by childhood games. From a legal standpoint it's flippin' retarded. Criminal justice isn't supposed to be like baseball.

Sinistrum
06-21-2010, 04:19 PM
Yes, easily. Life in solitary confinement.

But if its unconstitutional, and therefore you can't legally do it, how can you guarantee its result? Furthermore, solitary doesn't mean zero contact with others. They have to be fed, bathed, and are allotted exercise privileges in prison yards. All of that requires contact with prison guards who can then become victims of said violent offenders. So no, you can't guarantee that they won't kill again.

Weird Harold
06-21-2010, 04:54 PM
... in regards to death penalty prosecutions, the current system is broken and should't be continued.

Change does happen. The US Supreme Court said essentially what I quoted from you some forty or fifty years ago (with the result that Charles Manson is now serving a life sentence with has an anual parole hearing. :rolleyes:)


California's governer at the time chose to simply comutate all death sentences to life with the possibility of parole rather than review and re-sentence their death-row inmates.

Making the death penalty rational and reliable won't be easy, nor will it happen quickly, but it can be done -- and should be done. A moratorium as happened in the early seventies will just make the excessive cost situation worse.

Kurtz
06-21-2010, 05:02 PM
The U.S (or whatever States) simply must keep the Death Penalty. What with Obama's healthcare stuff and us now being as fat as ye, we're fast running out of things to power our arrogant European smuggery :mad:

Sei'taer
06-21-2010, 05:15 PM
The U.S (or whatever States) simply must keep the Death Penalty. What with Obama's healthcare stuff and us now being as fat as ye, we're fast running out of things to power our arrogant European smuggery :mad:


I thought Scotland was catching us...y'all are catching up too? Dammit! I need to eat a few snack cakes tonight...

Weird Harold
06-22-2010, 02:57 AM
The U.S (or whatever States) simply must keep the Death Penalty. What with Obama's healthcare stuff and us now being as fat as ye, we're fast running out of things to power our arrogant European smuggery :mad:
"arrogant European smuggery" will last longer than fossil fuels will without any encouragement from the US. :D

Matoyak
06-22-2010, 05:35 AM
What Weird Harold said in post 36. (Actually, what WH has said in every post since then too.) Not going to copy-paste it all.

(Yeah, that's all I have to say... sorry. Since I kinda started the whole cost-thing, I felt I should at least follow up slightly...but WH already said it, sooooo...yeah.)

JSUCamel
06-22-2010, 08:05 AM
"arrogant European smuggery" will last longer than fossil fuels will without any encouragement from the US. :D

so... 50 years?

Ivhon
06-22-2010, 08:09 AM
so... 50 years?

No...that's snake-oil science! *yes* *wink* *thumbs up*

Sei'taer
06-22-2010, 08:59 AM
No...that's snake-oil science! *yes* *wink* *thumbs up*

:rolleyes:

Davian93
06-22-2010, 09:10 AM
We should just go back to coal...plenty of that lying around still. Most estimates give us a 2-3 centuries of that still in the ground and that's just proven reserves. Sure its messy but its cheap and plentiful!

Sei'taer
06-22-2010, 09:15 AM
We should just go back to coal...plenty of that lying around still. Most estimates give us a 2-3 centuries of that still in the ground and that's just proven reserves. Sure its messy but its cheap and plentiful!

So is lithium (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html) apparently. It's our last best hope! We need those batteries!

You know what I think? I think we went in there already knowing that. I think Bush fought the Afghan war for lithium.

Davian93
06-22-2010, 09:31 AM
So is lithium (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html) apparently. It's our last best hope! We need those batteries!

You know what I think? I think we went in there already knowing that. I think Bush fought the Afghan war for lithium.

Me Too! Its a huge conspiracy!!! Clearly..he was in bed with the Lithium industry.


Honestly though, if we are gonna fight wars for Oil and Lithium, how about we make sure the conquered countries actually give U.S. companies the contracts and not Chinese. Just a thought. IF we're gonna be Imperialists, we might want to at least be smart Imperialists.

Sei'taer
06-22-2010, 09:34 AM
Me Too! Its a huge conspiracy!!! Clearly..he was in bed with the Lithium industry.


Honestly though, if we are gonna fight wars for Oil and Lithium, how about we make sure the conquered countries actually give U.S. companies the contracts and not Chinese. Just a thought. IF we're gonna be Imperialists, we might want to at least be smart Imperialists.

~Gazes over the horizon towards DC~ Lmfao...yeah, that'll happen.

JSUCamel
06-22-2010, 10:26 AM
~Gazes over the horizon towards DC~ Lmfao...yeah, that'll happen.

I actually laughed out loud when I saw Dav's post and had the exact same response as you. lmao

Weird Harold
06-22-2010, 11:08 AM
so... 50 years?
There's more to fossil fuels than just oil. :D

Coal reserves are good for at least a couple of centuries -- even if we go back to coal-fired steam trains and "city gas" gassification for cooking, heating, and motor fuel.

Uranium is also, technically, a "fossil fuel" and that could last a very long time.