David Lawson is awaiting execution on death row in a Raleigh, North
Carolina prison.  In 1980 he shot and killed a 38 year old man during a
break-in at the man's home.  Lawson is scheduled to die on June 15 and he
is asking Phil Donahue to videotape his execution for national broadcast.
Lawson, backed by Donahue's attorneys, is fighting for the right to film
the event, based on First Amendment and 14th Amendment (due process)
grounds.  As of this point, the case has made it to the North Carolina
Supreme Court, where is was decided Lawson doesn't have rights in this
concern.  Donahue and Lawson's lawyers are asking this court to reconsider
and are preparing to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Should Lawson be allowed to make his execution public in this manner? 
Would society benefit?  Television over the edge for ratings? 
Whatcha think?

165 responses total.

The Supreme Court isn't going to overturn the lower courts: *they*
don't permit their affairs to be broadcast.

Telivising it might turn attention to just how barbaric the death penalty
is, which might be good.  OTOH, I certianly wouldn't want to watch it.

The execution should be broadcasted and the profits should go to the family
of his victim. 

#2: Yeah, and eating meat is barbaric to some people. 

I saw an execution in _Faces of Death_ and it was not barbaric at all. (Of
course, I'm a greedy capitalist and therefore have no feelings, so I'm
not a good indicator of how barbaric it was.) A guy was electricuted in the
electric chair. When the switch was turned on, his body shook. After probably
half a minute, the electricity was shut off and a physician took vital 
signs. They then turned the current on again (I assume the physician 
determined that he was still alive). 

The guy had tape or something on his eyes and blood poured from his 
eye sockets. I have heard that the eye-balls do wierd things during
electricutions, and thus the tape. All in all, it was not brutal at all
and the criminal died owing society a great deal. 

Did society get that great deal?

They're not going to broadcast it. ESPECIALLY not after all Congress has gone
thru to curb violence on TV (not that Congress had much effect.) TV is already
a disgusting and twisted device. Why make it worse?

Why censor anything?  re#3, alott faces of death stuff is faked, just so ya
know...I think I'd probably watch it, just because of intense curiosity.  I
think  electrocuting a person is cruel, but I guess that irrelevant to this
item. What will it hurt to show this?  Adults can make their own decision
whether or not to watch.  Parents can control the actions of ther children (YES
they can).  If you don't wanna watch, don't.  Pretty simple.

i have seen the FOD executions as well.  The chair was in fact faked.  The gas
chamber, however, was definatly not.  I think any prisoner who does not wnat
to apear on television should, and those who do will not be aired.  Why make
him happy one last time?

   There is a fine line being presented. We are bombarded with so many
murders and grisly deaths on the cop shows that they in fact,
pale in comparison to something as mundane as a state execution. If the
intent is to stop youthful offenders from committing violent crimes, then
wneeded to make these kids official witnesses to the actual excution.
Maybe thwill wake up something inside these kids that says "If you kill,
you'll be in that guy's shoes." 
   There is a initial shock value, but it soon wears off, and you're
right back at square one.

The death penalty has been shown time and time again to have no greater
deterrent value than life in prison, and to be much more expensive.  It
also ammounts to a murder by the state.  How can we say that killing is
wrong, when the government does it all the time?

Gotta love that moral relativism...

 In 1965, when Truman Capote wrote "In Cold Blood" it was estimated that
there were 100 or so people on death row, and the average time from 
sentence to actual execution was 13 mont (or so. I don't have the book
right before me)
  Now, in 1994 it's grown to 14 *YRS*. In order for the DP to become a
deterrant, we need to shorten the time between sentence to execution while
still being careful to respect the accused's civil rights. 
  Personally, I feel that John Gacy's case was handled all wrong. There
was no question as to his involvement, even though he denied even being
there right up to the last minute. He was what I call "undeniably guilty"
such as Leslie Williams and Jeff Dahmer. In these cases, where guilt has
been proven then the sentence should be carried out as soon as possible.

  The reason that this thing has grown to 14 yrs, is that all the sob sisters
are granting extra appeals based on frivolous matters. I personally feel
that a special circuit court be established to deal only with the appeals
of death penalty cases. I also feel that this court system be under federal
jurisdiction and to hell with the state's soverienty, because in the end,
the last appeal is usually made at the federal level for whatever thats 
worth,

 I'll link this over to world. 

 done. agora 142=world 31.

#9: You seem to confuse the terms "kill" and "murder". You use them
    synonymously without discretion -- possibly because you believe *ALL*
    killing is wrong, and therefore *ALL* killing is murder. That is clearly
    not the case, however. If I kill someone who is threatening my life, it
    is not murder -- not in the legal sense or the dictionary sense. 

    A state execution is "murder" only if you accept the premise that 
    it is wrong. Likewise, an abortion is "murder" only if you accept the
    premise that it is wrong (and that the glob is a human being). "Murder"
    is not an objective term in this case and you should think about it 
    before using it loosely like a maniacal "pro-lifer".

#9  Cite how lifetime in prison @ ~$20k/yr is less expensive than killing
them.

I heard on 60 minutes that it costs over one million dollars to kill a man.
This includes court costs and everything.
re#9  I agree with you 100%
re#14  How can you differentiate between murder and killing?  To me they are
the same thing.  What you refer to as "killing" and not murder is merely a
murder that you feel is justified.  Even the law has this, we call it 
manslaughter.

re:#9
Of course it isn't deterrent, mostly because it isn't used that often, takes t
too long and often criminals loophole out of it. The thing that REALLY DOESN'T
work is rehabilitation, contrary to many people's masochistic belief in it.
As far as costs are concerned: 5 bucks max (that's the government cost of a 
29 cent bullet.
re:#16
If you really do not have a right to defend yourself gimme your address and we
can test your instinct to survive; most VALUED and HIGH-HELD ideas go down the
drain once you test them against real life. If you have a knife at your throat
you'll piss your pants just like the rest of us and wish you weren't there;
unfortunatly the person doing it MAY NOT have your ideals (sanctity of life)
and despite your pleading kill/murder/slay/whatever you. Once in that position
it's do or die, and I promise you that you WILL defend yourself, even go as
far as to 'murder' the offender. Hopefully you'll never get into the position
to experience such a cognitive dissonance.   MIKE...

re #9
  it ends up costing more due in part to high court costs and endless
appeals which puts them back in court, always spending the state's money
(both for the prosecution and defence) and this appeal process goes
on for quite a while because of the fairness of the american
legal system.
there have been people sitting on death row in various states for years
and years now.

so, it isn't just a case of trial, convition, death.

Not many executed murderers escape or are paroled from prison to
murder again.

re#17  I never said I did not have a right to defend myself.  I just cannot
forsee any situtaion where deadly force is *necessary*, thats all.

re:#20
Seems that the last reply to a topic always gets whacked, I only get the first
sentence, and " I just cannot". Well,, if this system saves this as last reply
right now, then I should be able to read the rest of yours; I'll give it a 
shot.

re:#20
Better!!! 'Necessary' is quite an interesting word, what might not be necessary
one second, might not be the next. The idea I tried to 'sell' you is that the
whole issue of murder/killing is dependend on the situation you find yourself
in. If somebody breaks into your house and has a knife or gun do you start
arguing about the 'necessity' of violence??? Can you get out? Do you have 
something to defend yourself with (how do you defend yourself against a gun?)?
If you defend yourself and kill the offender (even though you did not want to)
should we label you "murderer" ? I think not. In a case of armed burglary I can
fully justify shooting-first-asking-questions-later. Well, depends on the 
social calls you get. One thing is for sure: dead people are in an bad position
to hurt you.  MIKE...

The death penalty is not a deterrent because murderers don't plan on getting
caught.  Are you going to tell me that you *seriously* envision a potential
murderer being deterred because he may face the death penalty as opposed to
"only" non-parolable life?  Heck -- I would probably choose the death penalty,
between the two.

The *trial* from a high-profile death penalty case *alone* can cost the
state hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Whereas an obviously guilty party
(e.g., Leslie Williams) can be convinced to plead guilty in return for a
jail term, this is not necessarily true if you won't guarantee that the
death penalty won't be waived -- i.e., there have been some ridiculous
trials in death penalty cases premised only on the fact that the politically-
oriented prosecuting attorney refused to plea-bargain the sentence to non-
parolable life.

By the way, there have been some atrocious miscarriages of justice in
death penalty cases, with the truth coming out only through that long,
arduous, expensive appeals process.

RE:#23
" Heck -- I would probably choose the death penalty,
 between the two.
"
Heard it before, in the end you'll rather wheeze sieved air than to get 
toasted, people have a tendency to hang on to life, regardless of what they
said priorly. Check an intensive care unit one day, you'll find lots of people
that believe in an afterlife there coughing up thousands of bucks to stay
alive and breathe disinfectant laden air.  MIKE...

Wrong.  Dead wrong.

You are making the assumption that *all* people want to cling to life.
Under any circumstances.  It just isn't so.

re:#25
If you're suicidal I suggest you see your local charter hospital or get help 
somewhere else <G>. No, I said, "..people have a tendency to hang on to life."
NOWHERE did I say that ALL people want to cling to life, thousands of suicides
each year would invalidate that (but also note that the number of FAILED,
ie.e., half-hearted, suicide attempts is much higher than that of successful
ones).  I think you're terribly misguided if you propose your course of action
that is very much dependend on the actual circumstances; you're life is not
threatened right now (in this context), therefore you cannot implicitly make
that judgment . Reminds me of some of my buddies when Irak invaded Kuwait,
first they were all in a "we're-gonna-kick-ass" mood, when the orders came they
became MUCH more solemn. MIKE...

You're telling me what I would do, on an assumption that all people act in
a certain way.  I simply told you that you were wrong.  You were, and you
still are.

RE:#27
Nope, what I'm trying to convey to you is that your preconceived notions of 
WHAT you are GOING to do are meaningless in such a context, YOUR own ability
to judge that is clouded on this because the situation has not precipitated
yet (and hopefully it won't). I have to save this so I can read the last 
sentence of your message.

RE:#27
Again, I'm not trying to tell you exactly WHAT you're going to do, what I prop
se is that what you think you're going to do is UNLIKELY. As long as you do not
have to make the decision cognitively, you're in a bad position to predict 
even your own behavior, especially if we talk about a situation of this 
gravity. Reality and percieved reality are simply not the same. MIKE...

        I think a person himself is the most likely to know what he wants or
what he will probably do in a given situation.  If Aaron says he would
rather die than spend the rest of his life in jail, I'm going to trust him
on it more than I am you who don't even know him.

re #28-29:  Again, you are using your own preconceived notions to say that
            I am wrong.  By persisting in this, you not only continue to be
            wrong but prove yourself a hypocrite.

            Some people commit suicide rather than going to prison.  Some
            people demand the death penalty.  Some people say, "Death before
            dishonor."

Michael, if you make a general claim that many people will say (sincerely)
that they'd die before <something else> but that they change their minds
when push comes to shove - you're on very solid ground.  To suggest that
you know what one particular person is likelier to do in specified
circumstances (and then to insist on it) is both silly and somewhat rude.

Given that you don't know Aaron, it's quite fair to say that his statement
doesn't give you a whole lot of confidence without a lot more evidence to
back it up.  I don't know him well enough myself to have an opinion on this
one; but I've seen him on Grex enough to say confidently that he's not given
to rash statements.  I'd take his word on this kind of thing a lot more
readily than I would most people's, but it's the kind of thing that you only
learn for sure when it's put to the test.

(Aaron, is *that* a fair thing for someone else to say about what you said,
in your view?  I hope so.)

Certainly a person is entitled to his own opinions.  And opinions are
valuable.  But they are not facts.

Your second paragraph explains how one can form an opinion that I was
somehow mistaken in my self-assessment.  The formation of such an opinion
is perfectly legitimate.  To assert it as fact is not.  So, yes, your
comment is fair.

RE:#30
" I think a person himself is the most likely to know what he wants or
"
Are you really sure of that? You ever watch the news? MIKE...

RE:32
"but it's the kind of thing that you only
 learn for sure when it's put to the test.
"
Finally somebody with an idea of what I'm talking about. Thanks for thinking
along. MIKE...

If that's what you were trying to say, you really need to work on your
delivery.

RE:#31
"Again, you are using your own preconceived notions to say that
             I am wrong.  By persisting in this, you not only continue to be
             wrong but prove yourself a hypocrite.

             Some people commit suicide rather than going to prison.  Some
             people demand the death penalty.  Some people say, "Death before
             dishonor."

First of all I'd suggest you get off the RIGHT AND WRONG horse, 2nd you might
want to consider that this might NOT be a personal attack on you, and 3rd you
should attempt not to mis-interpret what I'm saying. 
Consider being accused of murder in a state that has the death penalty; the
twist being that you didn't do it. You get a choice: death or life-long 
imprisonment (since you were not able to prove your innocence). What's it 
going to be NOW? Will you scream, "Give me liberty or give me death!" ?? Or 
will you opt for a chance of being found not-guilty?? (the person that did it
might wait until the statute of limitations runs out, happend before.) 
CAN you make an assessment of ALL possible situations? Can your 'I prefer 
death' statement hold up in ALL possible situations? Don't you think such
convictions should be contingent on the situation, not vice-versa ??
On to your last statement: "death before dishonor". Well, well, if I interpret
that one right then I have to offer the following: lifetime imprisonment is 
not dishonor, it is (one of the possible) endresult(s) if you act dishonorably
(WOW, a complete reversal of cause'n effect). MIKE...

RE:#33 "To assert it as fact is not.
"
The word FACT is at best misplaced in something that concerns human affairs.
MIKE...

RE:#36
You'd have to pay extra for delivery.  MIKE...

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss