Justice for Jessica........

[diamond]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega
What exactly would be that "greater good"?

Read this article:

Opponents of the Death Penalty Have Blood on their Hands
By Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com | 11/29/2005

Those of us who believe in the death penalty for some murders are told by opponents of the death penalty that if the state executes an innocent man, we have blood on our hands.

They are right. I, for one, readily acknowledge that as a proponent of the death penalty, my advocacy could result in the killing of an innocent person.

I have never, however, encountered any opponents of the death penalty who acknowledge that they have the blood of innocent men and women on their hands.

Yet they certainly do. Whereas the shedding of innocent blood that proponents of capital punishment are responsible for is thus far, thankfully, only theoretical, the shedding of innocent blood for which opponents of capital punishment are responsible is not theoretical at all. Thanks to their opposition to the death penalty, innocent men and women have been murdered by killers who would otherwise have been put to death.

Opponents of capital punishment give us names of innocents who would have been killed by the state had their convictions stood and they been actually executed, and a few executed convicts whom they believe might have been innocent. But proponents can name men and women who really were -- not might have been -- murdered by convicted murderers while in prison. The murdered include prison guards, fellow inmates, and innocent men and women outside of prison.

In 1974, Clarence Ray Allen ordered a 17-year-old young woman, Mary Sue Kitts, murdered because she knew of Allen's involvement in a Fresno, California, store burglary.

After his 1977 trial and conviction, Allen was sentenced to life without parole.

According to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, "In Folsom State Prison, Allen cooked up a scheme to kill the witnesses who testified against him so that he could appeal his conviction and then be freed because any witnesses were dead -- or scared into silence." As a result, three more innocent people were murdered -- Bryon Schletewitz, 27, Josephine Rocha, 17, and Douglas White, 18.

This time, a jury sentenced Allen to death, the only death sentence ever handed down by a Glenn County (California) jury. That was in 1982.

For 23 years, opponents of the death penalty have played with the legal system -- not to mention played with the lives of the murdered individuals' loved ones -- to keep Allen alive.

Had Clarence Allen been executed for the 1974 murder of Mary Sue Kitts, three innocent people under the age of 30 would not have been killed. But because moral clarity among anti-death penalty activists is as rare as their self-righteousness is ubiquitous, finding an abolitionist who will acknowledge moral responsibility for innocents murdered by convicted murderers is an exercise in futility.

Perhaps the most infamous case of a death penalty opponent directly causing the murder of an innocent is that of novelist Norman Mailer. In 1981, Mailer utilized his influence to obtain parole for a bank robber and murderer named Jack Abbott on the grounds that Abbott was a talented writer. Six weeks after being paroled, Abbott murdered Richard Adan, a 22-year-old newlywed, aspiring actor and playwright who was waiting tables at his father's restaurant.

Mailer's reaction? "Culture is worth a little risk," he told the press. "I'm willing to gamble with a portion of society to save this man's talent."

That in a nutshell is the attitude of the abolitionists. They are "willing to gamble with a portion of society" -- such as the lives of additional innocent victims -- in order to save the life of every murderer.

Abolitionists are certain that they are morally superior to the rest of us. In their view, we who recoil at the thought that every murderer be allowed to keep his life are moral inferiors, barbarians essentially. But just as pacifists' views ensure that far more innocents will be killed, so do abolitionists' views ensure that more innocents will die.

There may be moral reasons to oppose taking the life of any murderer (though I cannot think of one), but saving the lives of innocents cannot be regarded as one of them.

Nevertheless, abolitionists will be happy to learn that Amnesty International has taken up the cause of ensuring that Clarence Ray Allen be spared execution. That is what the international community now regards as fighting for human rights

[phillyfan26]

Our suggestion is life without parole, so I don't understand what Norman Mailer has to do with this.

[BVS]

I don't either. Worthless article, not sure why he feels the need to post it twice.

[martha]

Originally posted by deep
And if this one case was ALL we considered
than support for the DP would be very high.

This is an emotional case, and there really is no doubt.

Unless one's opposition, like mine, is for moral reasons; that the death penalty is immoral.

[Vincent Vega]

Well, inmates are on death row for about ten years on average.
So you would have to execute them directly after the judgement.

It's also not right that the execution of innocents is only theoretical as there have been cases in which later it was found out that the person was innocent.

For the rest the author of that article is using the same insults, and the same crap (we don't care for the victims) used before.

[JCOSTER]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


1. That doesn't answer my question.

2. What does my opinion have to do with the processes of the legal system? As I said to JCOSTER, there's no way to measure how certain we are that someone's guilty.

I'm sorry I disagree. If there is no measure of someones guilt, then are you saying everyone in jail could really be innocent.
Physical evidence such as DNA, body fluid, finger prints as well as a confession from the person in question is pretty solid proof of guilt.

[BVS]

Originally posted by JCOSTER



I'm sorry I disagree. If there is no measure of someones guilt, then are you saying everyone in jail could really be innocent.
Physical evidence such as DNA, body fluid, finger prints as well as a confession from the person in question is pretty solid proof of guilt.

Well that is the point. There is a possibility that they are innocent. There have been innocent people place in prison even with DNA evidence. Even confessions have been known to be lies.

[Irvine511]

i don't care how guilty someone is.

i still don't support the death penalty.

[anitram]

Originally posted by diamond


Is it totally fool proof and occassionally an innocent will be killed?
Yes.
Who's fault will that be?

The prosecutor's and that is who should then be prosecuted. If he puts an innocent person to death than I say go after him.

I've read a lot of stupidities in my day but this one has got to be right there on top.

Now, nevermind that you can't hold a prosecutor responsible for someone getting the DP, nor would any law society anywhere in the world ever permit such a thing (malicious prosecution is an entirely separate and civil matter). Let's consider this. Someone is convicted and given the DP and as a result we should hold one prosecutor responsible if somewhere down the line we realize it was an error?

Really?

While we are at it, let us hold every police officer who investigated the crime guilty, let's hold the judge guilty, let's hold every one of the 12 jurors guilty, let's hold the accused's lawyer guilty for his "incompetence", let's hold the state guilty for not providing a better lawyer than the schmuck working for Legal Aid, let's hold every prosecutor, lawyer and judge who participated in the appeals system equally as responsible, let's hold guilty the guy who actually pushed the button and released the potassium, and so on.

Giddy up! There's gon' be some awesome litigation out there!!

[martha]

Originally posted by anitram

While we are at it, let us hold every police officer who investigated the crime guilty, let's hold the judge guilty, let's hold every one of the 12 jurors guilty, let's hold the accused's lawyer guilty for his "incompetence", let's hold the state guilty for not providing a better lawyer than the schmuck working for Legal Aid, let's hold every prosecutor, lawyer and judge who participated in the appeals system equally as responsible, let's hold guilty the guy who actually pushed the button and released the potassium, and so on.

Yes. As long as someone is executed to satisfy the blood-lust, yes.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by martha


Yes. As long as someone is executed to satisfy the blood-lust, yes.

and just to sort of piggy-back on this ... and to try and make things a little more interesting ... if Jessica's father were somehow able to get his hands on this man and say he killed this man, i'd be fine with Jessica's father getting a very light sentence. we can't condone vigilantisim, but i think we can understand what a father might do to someone who destroyed his little girl. i'm not advocating that fathers should kill their children's killers, not at all, but i am saying that i can understand a family memeber wanting bloodlust, and if he/she is somehow successful, i think we can not quite turn a blind eye but we can take circumstance into account and sort of move forward from there.

however, as a policy, as a punishment, the death penalty is fatally flawed and an abomination. using the apparatus of the state to satisfy a bloodlust, to commit the same crime that was just commited, all this is simply wrong. you cannot invoke an irreversable punishment in a system that is frought with error and administered by flawed human beings. it doesn't matter when we know that 1 person is 100% guilty.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by JCOSTER
I'm sorry I disagree. If there is no measure of someones guilt, then are you saying everyone in jail could really be innocent.
Physical evidence such as DNA, body fluid, finger prints as well as a confession from the person in question is pretty solid proof of guilt.

Could be innocent. Yes. They could be. It does happen. There is no measure of someone's guilt. That is what I'm saying. What you have named is, as you described it, a pretty solid proof of guilt. But "pretty solid" (your words), is not certainty. There doesn't have to be certainty. There never will be certainty.

[financeguy]

One question I'd ask the anti-death penalty people - were the Nuremberg trial sentences wrong?

[anitram]

Originally posted by Irvine511

and just to sort of piggy-back on this ... and to try and make things a little more interesting ... if Jessica's father were somehow able to get his hands on this man and say he killed this man, i'd be fine with Jessica's father getting a very light sentence.

Criminal codes already have provisions like this, covered under things like duress, provocation, etc, depending on the scenario at hand.

[martha]

Originally posted by financeguy
One question I'd ask the anti-death penalty people - were the Nuremberg trial sentences wrong?

Holocaust/WWII history gives me the willies, so if you'll eleborate, I can hazard an answer.

[anitram]

Originally posted by financeguy
One question I'd ask the anti-death penalty people - were the Nuremberg trial sentences wrong?

Wrong in what sense? Wrongly decided or wrong because they resulted in the DP?

I'm opposed to the DP because I could never, ever imagine myself pulling the plug. I can't do it, under any circumstances, so I don't believe it is right to expect someone else to kill on my behalf.

Therefore no, I would not have executed Nazi war criminals because, just like for anyone else, I can't push that button. Period.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by financeguy
One question I'd ask the anti-death penalty people - were the Nuremberg trial sentences wrong?

I don't understand what you mean by wrong. All I'll tell you is that where the death penalty is legal right now, as the highest form of punishment, it should be replaced by life in prison without parole.

[Angela Harlem]

Originally posted by financeguy
One question I'd ask the anti-death penalty people - were the Nuremberg trial sentences wrong?

Are you asking whether the magnitude of certain crime can eventually overrule the opposition to the death penalty, or is it something else?

[Vincent Vega]

I am against death penalty in each and every case.
I'm indifferent about the case that the likes of Goebbels (who committed suicide in the "last second") or later Eichmann, were sentenced to death, but in principle I'm against the death penalty and hence would also have supported life sentences in Spandau prison.

Originally posted by Angela Harlem


Are you asking whether the magnitude of certain crime can eventually overrule the opposition to the death penalty, or is it something else?

He seeks for a hypocritical answer, I guess.

[financeguy]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem
Are you asking whether the magnitude of certain crime can eventually overrule the opposition to the death penalty

Precisely. Certain crimes are so bad that they call for the death penalty and yes to a certain extent that is an appeal to vengeance. I wouldn't deny it.

It's not the deterrent effect - I fully agree that argument is highly suspect. It's a profound need of society to take revenge on people whose crimes offend its deepest instincts.

In practice, cases where the death penalty are justified are exceedingly rare, but I believe it's wrong to remove the option from the statute books altogether.