Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Could you vote for the death penalty?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
phoenixgirl

phoenixgirl

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 20, 2003
Messages
3,390
There have been several horrible crimes here recently, and being VA, they sometimes involve the death penalty.

I was called for jury duty this February, but the case was settled as I was sitting there waiting to be considered as a juror.

The way they do it here, they wittle down a list of maybe 20 potential jurors to 12. So if you get called for jury duty (you''re on call once a week for a month and only have to report when there is a case), you have a good chance of being on the jury. In NJ where I grew up, a big group of people sits around all day (but that''s it -- your obligation lasts only a day unless you get on a jury). You may or may not be called. If they need more potential jurors, they just call more people up from the big group. That seems to insure a better selection of jurors, but anyway.

If you were on a jury, and some horrible schmuck had committed some heinous crime (you have no doubt he did it, and it was the vicious and senseless slaughter of a whole family, including small children), could you vote for the death penalty?

In theory I am against the death penalty. It just seems so arbitrary . . . a mentally retarded 17 year old who shoots a clerk in a robbery gone bad can get the DP in Texas, but some sadistic serial killer in Vermont never will. And there is the disturbing relationship between race/socioeconomic status and what punishment you receive. Plus in the right circumstances, with the assurance that there is no hope of parole, a lifetime in prison can be a worse punishment. And the appeals that go along with the DP end up costing more than housing an inmate for life.

So intellectually I am against it. But emotionally I am for it. I think some crimes are so unspeakable and so wrong that a person forfeits his right to live. If a person like that gets the DP, I think, "Good! He got what he deserved!"

But there''s a line between feeling satisfaction that a murderer will be put to death and being the people who have to decide. Could you do it? Could you cast your vote in favor of death? I just don''t know if I could.
 
I could never ever ever vote for the death penalty.

I understand the intention and could imagine wanting it emotionally if I was involved in a case personally, but in reality I could never support the death penalty because incorrectly killing even one innocent person wrongly accused is enough to give me the chills. Plus, I believe that no government should have the right to assassinate any of its citizens, no matter how horrible they are.

When family members of murder victims stand up against the death penalty for the accused, I am so humbled and impressed.

I''m sure this thread will go crazy, but thought I''d weigh in!
 
with you, wallermama!

movie zombie
 
I'm against the death penalty and would not vote for it. I can't create a human life, so I refuse to participate in destroying one.
 
Well, I''ve never been called on to make that vote. So I can''t say what I would do, having never been called to do so. Talking the talk is one thing. Walking the walk is another.

However, there are some vermin out there that have done horrible, terrible things and have no remorse for what they''ve done. I would rather the money spent to give them a roof over their heads and 3 meals a day be given to a homeless person who deserves it. Don''t flame me with tales of how taxpayer money is not used for this or that, or how the money would never be given from the prison system to public assistance. That isn''t my point. My point is that I have a hard time reserving regard for someone''s life who didn''t have any regard for someone else''s. Why should they get a roof and food when people who''ve done nothing wrong don''t? Does that mean they should be put to death? I don''t know. But it irks me that they get ''luxuries'' that deserving people do not.
 
i feel the same way FG...

in essence i would totally support the DP if i felt like our justice system actually worked most of the time.

however i feel like many times the wrong people are arrested or convicted. there have been many cases in the last 5 years where old DNA was able to be used with new DNA technology and they found that the wrong people had been imprisoned for many years. if the DP had been in effect in those states, those people would probably long since have been wrongly executed.

if our system WAS more reliable then i would support the DP for a myriad of reasons but the two main ones are that it costs a pretty penny to run jails and they are overloaded to begin with...that is a huge drain on a state to house criminals, especially those who are in prison for life with no parole or similar or would be eligible for DP if it was avail in that state.

i think the crime should fit the punishment basically. it's an intriguing thought but what if it was literally an eye for an eye kinda thing. think that rapists and murderers would still do the things they do if they knew that would turn around and happen to them if they were caught? it's food for thought, who knows what the outcome would really be, but you have to figure those who KNOW what they are doing (not those who are just plain insane and think so and so told them to do XYZ) might think twice if they thought that there was going to be cold hard justice at the end of the line for them.

however, with the way our justice system is now, i would not vote for the DP because there's just no real way to be sure IMO.
 
Anyone touching my kids would not have to worry about burdening the system with lengthy appeals.
2.gif


shay
 
Date: 8/17/2006 5:49:11 PM
Author: Mara

think that rapists and murderers would still do the things they do if they knew that would turn around and happen to them if they were caught? it''s food for thought, who knows what the outcome would really be, but you have to figure those who KNOW what they are doing (not those who are just plain insane and think so and so told them to do XYZ) might think twice if they thought that there was going to be cold hard justice at the end of the line for them.
Click to expand...
The problem is that no criminal commits a crime expecting to be caught. I can tell you from my time in the criminal justice system that the potential consequences years down the line should they be caught and convicted are usually the last thing on a criminal''s mind. Most violent crimes occur either in the heat of passion or in cold calculation that incorporates a confidence that the individual is too smart/good to get caught. And, there is a significant chunk of the criminal population that simply doesn''t care what might happen--for them, the risk of punishment is part of their "thug life," for lack of a better term. Plus, so much crime nowadays is drug-related, and in those cases the only thing the criminal cares about is his next fix.

The issue of capital punishment really shouldn''t come down to dollars and cents, but it does for some people. The reality nowadays is that in most cases it''s far more expensive to execute someone than keep them locked up, because death penalty jurisprudence is so complicated and drawn out. The only way around that is to create a system like they have in Texas where there is a "fast track" with a lot of resources devoted to nothing but moving capital cases along. The flip side of this is that in many people''s view, such a system simply dispenses with the risk that an innocent person might be executed and exists mainly to execute as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. It''s no accident that Texas leads the nation in executions. Of course, the opposite end of the spectrum is California, where we have the nation''s largest death row population but have executed, I think, about 5 people in 30 years.

In the abstract, I oppose the death penalty because I''ve seen firsthand the flaws in the system, and I have little confidence that such an absolute punishment can be applied in the error-free fashion such absolutism demands. Too, the chances of someone being sentenced to death depend too heavily on the quality of their legal represention--something that, for fairness'' sake, should not matter at all, in my view. Many things, by their very nature, are going to be inequitable in a free market and in most cases, that''s fine--but this should not be one of them. A rich man (e.g., OJ Simpson) should not avoid the death penalty simply because he has enough money to hire an army of top-flight lawyers to defend him and no one else when a poor man has to rely on a public defender, who, though he may be very good, also has 500 other clients at any given time.

All that said, I can''t say what I would do in an actual case, as a juror, or as a victim''s family member. It''s my sincere hope I never have to find out.
 
I would not aruge that our system, though one of the best, is without flaws. That said, I think there are absolutely times where the death penalty is warranted...Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, the Green River Killer etc...At a minimum, life in prison without parole should be standard if the death penalty is not used. People have the right to live wihout fear that some of these irredeemably sick people will get out and kill again. How many times will we let a killer free (not someone who killed in self defense or to protect family) only to have them kill again? Some people confess to things they have not done for the attention it gets them. However, forensics today are pretty amazing and I would, if the evidence were compelling and the guilt was clear, have no trouble voting fot. There have been so many cases of child molesters who get small sentences and when they get out become child killers, so as not to leave a trace. I think the guy, Karr, who killed Jon Benet allegedly is one of those types, served time for something involving a 14 year old in Petaluma and for having child ****...and once free he killed. (I DO NOT believe that if he is guilty that it was an "accident" though I could be wrong). Anyway, I just do not believe that our penal system is really rehabilitative to the hardened career criminal type, some people are just not ever going to be reformed and putting them back out in the world is a time bomb waiting to explode. In some cases, you spend less time in jail for killing someone than you do for a variety of lesser crimes.
 
Date: 8/17/2006 6:23:31 PM
Author: CaptAubrey

The problem is that no criminal commits a crime expecting to be caught. I can tell you from my time in the criminal justice system that the potential consequences years down the line should they be caught and convicted are usually the last thing on a criminal''s mind. Most violent crimes occur either in the heat of passion or in cold calculation that incorporates a confidence that the individual is too smart/good to get caught. And, there is a significant chunk of the criminal population that simply doesn''t care what might happen--for them, the risk of punishment is part of their ''thug life,'' for lack of a better term. Plus, so much crime nowadays is drug-related, and in those cases the only thing the criminal cares about is his next fix.


The issue of capital punishment really shouldn''t come down to dollars and cents, but it does for some people. The reality nowadays is that in most cases it''s far more expensive to execute someone than keep them locked up, because death penalty jurisprudence is so complicated and drawn out. The only way around that is to create a system like they have in Texas where there is a ''fast track'' with a lot of resources devoted to nothing but moving capital cases along. The flip side of this is that in many people''s view, such a system simply dispenses with the risk that an innocent person might be executed and exists mainly to execute as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. It''s no accident that Texas leads the nation in executions. Of course, the opposite end of the spectrum is California, where we have the nation''s largest death row population but have executed, I think, about 5 people in 30 years.


In the abstract, I oppose the death penalty because I''ve seen firsthand the flaws in the system, and I have little confidence that such an absolute punishment can be applied in the error-free fashion such absolutism demands. Too, the chances of someone being sentenced to death depend too heavily on the quality of their legal represention--something that, for fairness'' sake, should not matter at all, in my view. Many things, by their very nature, are going to be inequitable in a free market and in most cases, that''s fine--but this should not be one of them. A rich man (e.g., OJ Simpson) should not avoid the death penalty simply because he has enough money to hire an army of top-flight lawyers to defend him and no one else when a poor man has to rely on a public defender, who, though he may be very good, also has 500 other clients at any given time.


All that said, I can''t say what I would do in an actual case, as a juror, or as a victim''s family member. It''s my sincere hope I never have to find out.
Click to expand...

Awesome post. I wouldn''t want to have to find out, but I highly suspect I could. Sure our system gets it wrong at times, but there are certain times when it''s just clear. I just hope I don''t get stuck on a case where it''s not a cut and dried case (and yes, I''m well aware that both sides usually present their side as cut and dried).
 
Date: 8/17/2006 5:23:03 PM
Author: FireGoddess
Well, I''ve never been called on to make that vote. So I can''t say what I would do, having never been called to do so. Talking the talk is one thing. Walking the walk is another.

However, there are some vermin out there that have done horrible, terrible things and have no remorse for what they''ve done. I would rather the money spent to give them a roof over their heads and 3 meals a day be given to a homeless person who deserves it. Don''t flame me with tales of how taxpayer money is not used for this or that, or how the money would never be given from the prison system to public assistance. That isn''t my point. My point is that I have a hard time reserving regard for someone''s life who didn''t have any regard for someone else''s. Why should they get a roof and food when people who''ve done nothing wrong don''t? Does that mean they should be put to death? I don''t know. But it irks me that they get ''luxuries'' that deserving people do not.
Click to expand...
That is exactly how I feel, FG.

Although, I have no doubt I could walk the walk, if it were personal. And I agree with Shay, that there would be no need to burden the legal system with an appeal or in my mind, even a preliminary hearing, if my child was the victim.

Recidivism is especially prevalent with pedophiles. I think I could support the death penalty in a situation like this, where DNA evidence is present.
 
I was thinking about this very question before I even read PS today (in light of the developments in the Benet-Ramsey case).

In college, I did a speech arguing against the death penalty for all the above reasons you've mentioned.

However, over the years, I've changed my views. Granted, it's been 20 years since I was that freshman in college, but now I do not oppose the death penalty. I would take it on a case-by-case basis.

As an outpatient therapist for adults with mental illness, nothing, NOTHING makes my angry like childhood sexual abuse. It honestly makes me want to kill the perpetrators. I would estimate that 60-70% of my clients have been sexually abused as children.
 
Date: 8/17/2006 4:21:58 PM
Author:phoenixgirl
There have been several horrible crimes here recently, and being VA, they sometimes involve the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Being in VA means you must know about the Harvey family case. That admitted monster (confession) killed in cold blood a Mother, a Father & two children like 4 & 8 years of life. FOR What for you ask - a wedding band - two laptops - a couple of bucks in change & a BASKET OF COOKIES.

People like that do not need to live in society. Prision you ask? Being in VA, you must know about the Briley Bros.

I''m sure each and every state has "their stories".
 
Yes, that is the crime that made me think of this question [don't read if you don't want to be sad]. If you click on "Harvey Family Murdered" on the right you can see pictures of the victims. He pled guilty and has been convicted; sentencing is next.

If anyone deserves the death penalty, I think this guy does. But my original question still remains; I don't know if I could vote for it, knowing that I was 1/12th responsible for somebody's death. I think it would haunt me and would make that scumbag a lot more important in my life than he should be in anybody's.

I had heard of the Briley brothers but didn't remember the specifics. I just read the story on Wikipedia. Talk about scary!
 
I pretty much agree that I could only vote for it when there is irrefutable evidence and the crime is like those above...very sick individuals such as serial killers, child molester-murderers, terrorists, and that kind of thing. Someone getting drunk and getting in fight where a gun goes off would not be something that I would likely vote for the death penalty on...or if the evidence was circumstantial, etc.
 
While every crime is to be considered on a case by case base, in general I support the death penalty. However I think it''s to be reserved for the worst types of intents and crimes, and there must be irrefutable evidence. It''s chilling to think innocent people have been put on death row. But even more chilling is people being in jail for 20+ years and being innocent.
 
Oh and fire&ice, I just moved from Richmond and remember very well the Harvey case -- it was so horrifying. I went to that shop in Carytown all of the time.
 
I agree, depending on the crime, in a heart-beat if a child molester, serial killer, serial rapist, etc. Why should our tax dollars pay for them to stick around for the rest of their lives. Get rid of them and now without having them sit on death row for 10 years going through appeal after appeal. If you''re found guilty or worse yet, admit guilt, they should be gone the next week. With prison overcrowding, some criminal committing less serious crimes are having their sentences reduced simply for the fact that we don''t have enough room for them. If we got rid of the really bad useless individuals, we would have more room for prisoners to serve out their full sentences for less serious crimes. And, hopefully, may make someone think twice before committing a crime if they think they will get a real reprocusion from our justice system.
 
Date: 8/17/2006 8:15:58 PM
Author: phoenixgirl
Yes, that is the crime that made me think of this question [don''t read if you don''t want to be sad]. If you click on ''Harvey Family Murdered'' on the right you can see pictures of the victims. He pled guilty and has been convicted; sentencing is next.

If anyone deserves the death penalty, I think this guy does. But my original question still remains; I don''t know if I could vote for it, knowing that I was 1/12th responsible for somebody''s death. I think it would haunt me and would make that scumbag a lot more important in my life than he should be in anybody''s.

I had heard of the Briley brothers but didn''t remember the specifics. I just read the story on Wikipedia. Talk about scary!
Click to expand...
It''s something that I would wrestle with. But, in the Harvey case, sadly I could vote for the death penalty. Obviously, he was found guilty (in 30 minutes of delib.). I wonder how much the confession will play into the sentencing. To me, the excuse that he was on drugs doesn''t fly. Of course he was on drugs - illegal ones! How could anyone commit the cold blooded murder of innocents for a couple of laptop & some cookies?

I use this expression quite a bit in regards to the death penalty. A "conservative is a liberal that was mugged yesterday.". Consider that me regarding the death penalty. You are probably too young to remember the "Southside Strangler". We lived in Woodland Heights when *that* was going on. He killed a doctor we knew one block down. He paralized the neighborhood. He was *another* monster.

Perhaps this is reverse logic - it''s not that I think some people deserve to die. It''s just that society is better off without someone living in society. Prisions are NOT secure. The Briley Bros were on death row only to escape and KILL AGAIN.
 
yes I could and would.
 
I''m against the the death penalty. Every time I read of an execution being carried out, I feel saddened, sick, and somehow diminished. To me, a state-sponsored murder is as heinous (albeit different) as individual murder.

That being said, I totally relate to the ambivalence expressed by Phoenixgirl. The Polly Klaas murder took place not far from where I live. I remember thinking at the time that that monster should be executed...

Because of my stance against the death penalty, I presume I''d be excused if called to be a juror in that kind of case. I hope so, anyway..

widget
 
Date: 8/18/2006 9:51:34 AM
Author: widget
I''m against the the death penalty. Every time I read of an execution being carried out, I feel saddened, sick, and somehow diminished. To me, a state-sponsored murder is as heinous (albeit different) as individual murder.

That being said, I totally relate to the ambivalence expressed by Phoenixgirl. The Polly Klaas murder took place not far from where I live. I remember thinking at the time that that monster should be executed...

Because of my stance against the death penalty, I presume I''d be excused if called to be a juror in that kind of case. I hope so, anyway..

widget
Click to expand...
On the last assumption - don''t be so sure.

So, I have a hypothetical - Let''s say you (the collective you against the death penalty) didn''t not vote for the death penalty in a pretty cut and dry case (Like the Harvey Murders). Say the convicted prisioner escapes & commits more heinous murders. Would you feel responsible?
 
Date: 8/18/2006 10:01:15 AM
Author: fire&ice
On the last assumption - don''t be so sure.

So, I have a hypothetical - Let''s say you (the collective you against the death penalty) didn''t not vote for the death penalty in a pretty cut and dry case (Like the Harvey Murders). Say the convicted prisioner escapes & commits more heinous murders. Would you feel responsible?
Click to expand...
The question is somewhat invalid. In California at least, usually the first question potential jurors get asked in a capital case is, "Could you vote for execution if the evidence weighed in favor of it?" If you say no, you''re gone. If you say yes, then don''t vote for the death penalty when the evidence clearly argues for it, you''re either not doing your job as a juror or you perjured yourself during voir dire. So yes, you might bear some small responsibility in your hypothetical--though the lion''s share would rest with the prison officials who let him escape. That''s their job, and they would have failed at it.
 
Yes, but I would venture a guess that some people may be ambivilent at the time or plain not state their intention.

Yeah, alot of hypos - but I know in my heart I would have felt responsible in the senerio.
 
Date: 8/17/2006 6:02:41 PM
Author: Shay37
Anyone touching my kids would not have to worry about burdening the system with lengthy appeals.
2.gif


shay
Click to expand...
AMEN Shay.. AMEN!!!
 
i think the crime should fit the punishment basically. it''s an intriguing thought but what if it was literally an eye for an eye kinda thing. think that rapists and murderers would still do the things they do if they knew that would turn around and happen to them if they were caught?

I agree Mara.. but then you would have all the people screaming about their ''human rights'' and how they should not be put through this "cruel and unusual" punishment....
20.gif
 
There''s a reason cruel and unusal punishment is talked about in the Constitution...

when the State starts torturing people in the name of justice something is going to go seriously wrong.

It''s not that I don''t think these people might not *deserve* what they did given back to them fully, but that if you set up a government with that sort of power it can be a slippery slope..


I''m with a lot of the people who said that the advantage of the death penalty is that it removes the threat of the dangerous person from the population permenantly. No chance of a breakout there.


BTW, does it ever strike anyone as odd how much most right-wing Christian rhetoric differs so strongly from WWJD as set out in the Bible? It''s much more Old Testament "eye for an eye" type concept. I''m not accusing their views (i.e. pro capital punishment) of being wrong per se, just pointing out that it''s actually less of a New Testament view than an Old Testament one.
 
When people talk about how expensive it is to keep someone in jail as a reason FOR the death penalty, it makes me cringe. First, look at the costs involved with keeping someone on death row through all of their appeals, etc. Not that much cheaper. Also, I think the death penalty is too easy for the sick people who molest children, are serial rapists/murderers, etc. Put them in an 8x8 cell. No cable, no university training, no working out in the weight rooms. You put them in a cell. You feed them some bread, water, a little protein, and that''s it...enough to sufficiently keep them healthy (NOT just barely keep them alive...I''m not on their level). And that''s where they stay. Let them out one hour a day, not to socialize but to shower and walk around. That''s it. (Like the supermax prison in Colorado). And I guarantee you could raise enough money from people outraged by their crime to support a prisoner in those conditions. I''d throw in some cash for some of these people. Personally, I just feel that lethal injection is far too easy...that''s how I benevolently put my sickly dog to "sleep". Way too good for these people. And the fact is, the death penalty ISN''T a deterrent to crime. If someone is messed up enough to molest children or brutally rape women, they''re not going to sit back and think "hmmmm...if I do this, and get caught, I might get the death penalty". Once you''ve reached that point, all bets on rational thought are off. End of story.
Actually, if I ran the world, despite the slippery slope it might create, there would be some offenses that you WOULD be tortured for...I know the Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishment, but you forfeit your rights when you commit a crime of a particularly heinous nature. I''m pretty bitter about this, and this is why I would never GET to rule the world
3.gif
...regardless, the death penalty is a travesty of justice. It either sends an innocent man to his grave early (if they''re really not guilty) but mostly it lets completely sick individuals off without having to endure a life of hell.
 
Date: 8/18/2006 12:10:28 PM
Author: CaptAubrey

So yes, you might bear some small responsibility in your hypothetical--though the lion''s share would rest with the prison officials who let him escape. That''s their job, and they would have failed at it.
Click to expand...
On a update note, today one of the police officers at the Richmond Jail testified that they found a "sheet rope" in the killer''s jail cell. He made the assuption that the killer was planning on escaping. This was brought out in the penalty phase of the trial.

Also, why would it be relevant that he was on PCP? It was his choice to take the drug.

Here in VA, you just need one dissent.
 
Date: 8/18/2006 4:35:45 PM
Author: fire&ice

Also, why would it be relevant that he was on PCP? It was his choice to take the drug.
Click to expand...
Penalty phases are different from guilt phases. With the caveat that I don't know how things work in Virginia, the general approach is that the jury is weighing all the facts surrounding the offense and the killer's situation to determine if he deserves execution. Some factors are considered "mitigating," others "aggravating." Whichever way the balance leans, that's the decision they're supposed to reach.

The fact that he was using PCP at the time seems relevant to me in that it goes to his state of mind at the time of the offense; however, whether you consider it mitigating or aggravating depends on your point of view. Certainly it could be considered an aggravating factor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top