Is the Death Penalty really a solution?

Sep 6 04:22 UTC 1993

     Is the Death penalty really a deterrant against violent crimes?
If so, how could itimplemented so it does become one? I recall hearing
on one of the national newscasts that after appeals, it takes on the
average of 10 to 15 yrs to actually carry out the sentence. 

    Should the appeals be passed by in cases of absolute guilt such as
in the case of Leslie Williams? How far should the state go to prove or
disprove a person's innocence or guilt. I am reminded of that person that
was executed in Virginia, even though there was evidence to have a new trial.

response 2 of 45:

Sep 8 19:12 UTC 1993

   It is a solution that has failed--the costs of killing someone, when
all the costs involed with appeals is taken into consideration, is often
more than it would have cost to keep the person in prison.  In the case
of a mistake, it can't be erased.  At least a 20 year vetran of a
prison can be relased.
   Lastly, does yet another murder solve anything, except removing
one individual?

response 4 of 45:

Sep 10 04:02 UTC 1993

   It sounds interesting.

response 6 of 45:

Sep 14 04:25 UTC 1993

Actually, statistics have shown that it does act as a deterrant to violent
or actually, capital offense crimes.  But, is it the solution that we're
looking for, or want to have implemented?  Personally, I'm basically
conservative on several issues, but my major choke point on Capital
Punishment isn't so much that a mistake could be made; after all, if it
was done right, there'd be no fifth amendment in capital cases, just a
shot of sodium or something, and there you go, no appeals, no nothing...
<g>  Seriously...  I have problems with the state reserving such a major
right to itself, especially while denying that right to it's citizens.
'We can kill, and if you do it, we'll kill you.'  I don't know if it's
'morally' right to kill..excuse me, execute somebody.  I know what religious
arguments could be made, but I don't think that executing somebody actually
solves any problems, or really alleviates any suffering by the family of
the victim.  Now, if the family knew that the perpetrator was working
at hard labor for 12 hours a day, with NO CHANCE of ever getting out, I
don't know if that'd make them feel any better either.  *shrug*  We
need to do any overhaul of our criminal justice systemm, and actually make
the punishments harsh, make so that people would think, a little, before
doing a crime.  Scrap the whole corrections model, which has shown that
it doesn't work, and go back to a nice penal model.  and spend all that
corrections program monies on education, or housing, or job education
programs, and try and remove the reasons for the crime in the first place.

response 8 of 45:

Sep 14 15:20 UTC 1993

re #6:  What statistics?

        The "statistics" in the field are so tentative, conclusory and/or
        contradictory, it is impossible to make a statistical case one way
        or the other.

response 10 of 45:

Sep 15 12:38 UTC 1993

The death penalty doesn't apply to crimes of passion, nor (under current
interpretation) to felony murder.  It applies to murder in the first degree
(so-called "capital murder.")

Actually, there is evidence that massive, broad-scale use of the death
penalty can be a short-term deterrent.  China has seen significant short-
term reductions in certain crimes thanks to its summary, mass, public
executions.  However, even in China the crime comes back.  (A further
argument, I suppose, for treating the causes rather than the symptoms.)

response 12 of 45:

Sep 15 20:42 UTC 1993

That depends on the situation.  There have been plenty of first degree
murders over spouses and lovers.

Voluntary manslaughter requires (a) a lack of premeditation and (b) an
inflamed mind.  First degree murder is the willful, premeditated killing
of a human being with malice aforethought.  (Nice, common law buzzwords,
eh?)  I guess, in lay terms, we execute for murders in cold blood, not
those in hot blood.

response 14 of 45:

Sep 16 03:26 UTC 1993

I had a friend that liked the idea of televising, and otherwise making 
to mass media, executions.  However, in the 19th century, when they were
still public affairs, they attracted huge crowds.  I have read of a couple
of cases where executions had to be delayed/rescheduled because of the crowd.
I don't think it'd be much of a detterant, (look at what we watch in pro
sports...).  And it might actually promote some kind of celebrity status,
or seeking of same, in convicts.   Like the guy who dememnded to be executed 
by firing squad.  (Gilmore?  Can't remember the name now...)

response 16 of 45:

Sep 16 21:41 UTC 1993

re #13:  *Which* German tourist?

re #14:  The old example of pickpockets working the crowd as other
         pickpockets were hanged comes to mind....

response 18 of 45:

Sep 17 04:31 UTC 1993

No, Jim, you are the dim one.  Perhaps you should keep up with current
events, so it wouldn't be so obvious.

response 20 of 45:

Sep 18 02:49 UTC 1993

Hey -- if airports can hunt tourists, the rest of us should be able to
hunt dogs.

response 22 of 45:

Sep 18 05:07 UTC 1993

 It clearly addressed Aaron's question, you silly goose!

response 24 of 45:

Feb 24 06:03 UTC 1994

 Did anyone catch "Witness to the Execution" about 2 weeks ago?

 and did anyone happen to read that Harry Blackmun has now come out
as being against the death penalty?

/