should stanley tookie williams be executed?

[AlphaOmega 0]

I haven't read much of the thread, but I'm a death penalty supporter. Not 100%, but at this point, I see it as a necessary last resort. There are some crimes that there is no coming back from. Mass murder is one.If you guys on the anti side want to continue the debate, I will, but if you want to let this thread sink to the bottom that's fine with me.

I think everone understands the concept of, "they killed a ton of people, committed a heinous crime, yata yata yata, they deserve to die." and many support the execution of Tookie. What is being debated is the application of the death penalty and whether it presents judicial hypocrisy or the fact that, statistically, it seems often misapplied.

[Steppin Razor 0]

What is being debated is the application of the death penalty and whether it presents judicial hypocrisy or the fact that, statistically, it seems often misapplied.

Okay. By application, do you mean the actual method, or how/why it is applied to certain cases? Are you saying there are too many crimes that the death penalty can be applied to? I assume point 1 is different than point 3, just not sure exactly what you mean.Judicial hypocrisy - I don't think this is one of the stronger anti-death penalty arguments. Only if you choose the most basic definition of murder as, 'killing people'. I think that we can find a more accurate definition than one that includes war and accidents. Crimes have victims. I also think crimes are acts against the law that are committed in society. It's not like the death penalty is executed by drive by or going to the guy's job and gunning him down.If someone is sentenced to life in prison, are they a victim of the sentence? I don't think so. What I do think is hypocritical about the death penalty is that people of diminished capacity or mental illness are not subject to it. Why does it matter? Either the crime warrants the penalty or it doesn't. That whole, 'they don't understand what they did' argument bothers me. It doesn't make anyone less dead.Misapplication - I take that to mean people being wrongly convicted and executed? I don't have any statistics, do you have any that show people are wrongly convicted of capital crimes more than they are wrongly convicted of other crimes? Convicting the wrong person of a crime is something that's built into our judicial system. 12 peers decide the accused's fate. They can be wrong.As for the finality of the death penalty regarding making amends, there are no amends that can be made for a guy who spent 65 years of his life in person wrongly convicted.It's possible an innocent person could be executed. I do not consider that an acceptable tolerance. But, sometimes innocent people die. Maybe in a car accident, on the operating table, etc.. It is a sad fact of life that you can be an angel of a person and slip getting out of the shower and crack open your skull.

[SuM827 0]

I'm not going to read all of the responses to this thread, because I can only imagine the responses it's gotten. Williams should not have been executed. I'm against the Death Penalty as is, but that aside...... how retarded is it to base your penal system on the idea that criminals can be rehabilitated, and then execute one of the best examples of rehabilitation? I'm not saying free the man, I'm just saying he shouldn't be executed.

[AlphaOmega 0]

What is being debated is the application of the death penalty and whether it presents judicial hypocrisy or the fact that, statistically, it seems often misapplied.

Okay. By application, do you mean the actual method, or how/why it is applied to certain cases? Are you saying there are too many crimes that the death penalty can be applied to? I assume point 1 is different than point 3, just not sure exactly what you mean.Judicial hypocrisy - I don't think this is one of the stronger anti-death penalty arguments. Only if you choose the most basic definition of murder as, 'killing people'. I think that we can find a more accurate definition than one that includes war and accidents. Crimes have victims. I also think crimes are acts against the law that are committed in society. It's not like the death penalty is executed by drive by or going to the guy's job and gunning him down.If someone is sentenced to life in prison, are they a victim of the sentence? I don't think so. What I do think is hypocritical about the death penalty is that people of diminished capacity or mental illness are not subject to it. Why does it matter? Either the crime warrants the penalty or it doesn't. That whole, 'they don't understand what they did' argument bothers me. It doesn't make anyone less dead.Misapplication - I take that to mean people being wrongly convicted and executed? I don't have any statistics, do you have any that show people are wrongly convicted of capital crimes more than they are wrongly convicted of other crimes? Convicting the wrong person of a crime is something that's built into our judicial system. 12 peers decide the accused's fate. They can be wrong.As for the finality of the death penalty regarding making amends, there are no amends that can be made for a guy who spent 65 years of his life in person wrongly convicted.It's possible an innocent person could be executed. I do not consider that an acceptable tolerance. But, sometimes innocent people die. Maybe in a car accident, on the operating table, etc.. It is a sad fact of life that you can be an angel of a person and slip getting out of the shower and crack open your skull.

I meant how the state can use the death penalty, at least that was the impression I got, I could be wrong.I'm not big on the judicial hypocrisy thing either, it seems like a trivial thing to me. I don't think there are any huge infrastructure leaks and I don't think it sets a powerful enough example to the public.Misapplication was someting that Iceman really hit on. It involves how minorities were far more likely to get the death penalty for equivalent crimes. It doesn't really attack the foundational aspect of the death penalty, but rather suggests a leak in the method.

[dms26 3]

im not sure if anyone has said this yet but it costs MORE money for the state to execute someone than have them in jail for life.

i'm surprised at that, since i thought it was the opposite. i find it hard to believe that executing someone costs more than keeping them in jail for potentially 30-40 years.

I don't know if anyone responded to this but the reason is because of all the appeals that take years and years. The legal fees add up quickly.

[TheIceman05 0]

It's not like the death penalty is executed by drive by or going to the guy's job and gunning him down.If someone is sentenced to life in prison, are they a victim of the sentence? I don't think so.

The argument is usually formulated as follows:SOME kind of punishment is necessary for a few reasons. A society can't have laws and rules unless there are consequences to ignoring or breaking them. There must be SOME level of enforcement for rules to work. This is pretty basic general (society at large) deterrence and specific (as it applies directly to the individual in question) deterrence.But the death penalty seems to impose a punishment above and beyond what is necessary to keep laws well enforced. It doesn't aid in general deterrence, and it's increase in specific deterrence is so negligible as to be insignificant.So, prisoners are necessary victims, while the executed are not.Ice

[Steppin Razor 0]

 It's not like the death penalty is executed by drive by or going to the guy's job and gunning him down.If someone is sentenced to life in prison, are they a victim of the sentence?  I don't think so.  

<snip>But the death penalty seems to impose a punishment above and beyond what is necessary to keep laws well enforced. It doesn't aid in general deterrence, and it's increase in specific deterrence is so negligible as to be insignificant.So, prisoners are necessary victims, while the executed are not.Ice

Above and beyond what is necessary is a different issue. All I meant in my quote was that hypocrisy is not possible because a penalty cannot victimize someone.Now, above and beyond what is necessary to keep laws enforced - as a deterrent, I agree that the death penalty is at best an insignificant factor. However, penalties are not imposed solely for their deterrent's sake. A punishment ought to be a consequence that reflects the severity of the crime. Deterrence is a by product.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

However, penalties are not imposed solely for their deterrent's sake.  A punishment ought to be a consequence that reflects the severity of the crime.  Deterrence is a by product.

Just to be clear, your argument is that the Death Penalty exists to satisfy some universal sense of justice and balance, right? Basically you support the death penalty because of the concept of "eye for an eye." I think of all the arguments for the death penalty, this is the strongest. In order to refute this argument, one must decide if there is a universal and a priori concept of justice or if justice is only a product of the laws of a society. If justice indeed is a concept that exists in and of itself, then your argument has merit. If, however, justice only exists as defined by society and is used to benefit society, then we must demonstrate that the death penalty has direct benefits to society above and beyond the punishment of life imprisonment alone. This, I think, is where the argument gets interesting.

[TheIceman05 0]

However, penalties are not imposed solely for their deterrent's sake.  A punishment ought to be a consequence that reflects the severity of the crime.  Deterrence is a by product.

Just to be clear, your argument is that the Death Penalty exists to satisfy some universal sense of justice and balance, right? Basically you support the death penalty because of the concept of "eye for an eye." I think of all the arguments for the death penalty, this is the strongest. In order to refute this argument, one must decide if there is a universal and a priori concept of justice or if justice is only a product of the laws of a society. If justice indeed is a concept that exists in and of itself, then your argument has merit. If, however, justice only exists as defined by society and is used to benefit society, then we must demonstrate that the death penalty has direct benefits to society above and beyond the punishment of life imprisonment alone. This, I think, is where the argument gets interesting.

I had some really REALLY bad flashbacks when I read that.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I had some really REALLY bad flashbacks when I read that.

You know you're in college when you use the term a priori in a poker forum, lol.

[TheIceman05 0]

I had some really REALLY bad flashbacks when I read that.

You know you're in college when you use the term a priori in a poker forum, lol.

All of a sudden I had a sudden urge to find every scrap of writing in the house by Immanuel Kant. And burn it until I felt better.Ice

[Steppin Razor 0]

I had some really REALLY bad flashbacks when I read that.

You know you're in college when you use the term a priori in a poker forum, lol.

heheh. I'm way out of college, but yesterday I used the word trepidatious on another poker forum. I hope that at least I spelled it wrong.Iceman, you haven't burned books until you've burned Sartre. :twisted:

However, penalties are not imposed solely for their deterrent's sake. A punishment ought to be a consequence that reflects the severity of the crime. Deterrence is a by product.

Just to be clear, your argument is that the Death Penalty exists to satisfy some universal sense of justice and balance, right? Basically you support the death penalty because of the concept of "eye for an eye." I think of all the arguments for the death penalty, this is the strongest. In order to refute this argument, one must decide if there is a universal and a priori concept of justice or if justice is only a product of the laws of a society. If justice indeed is a concept that exists in and of itself, then your argument has merit. If, however, justice only exists as defined by society and is used to benefit society, then we must demonstrate that the death penalty has direct benefits to society above and beyond the punishment of life imprisonment alone. This, I think, is where the argument gets interesting.

My argument is not that the death penalty exists to satisfy universal sense of justice. My argument is that the intent of punishments varying in severity is to value it against the crime committed. I don't subscribe to an eye for an eye because your eye is not my eye. I'd want mine back dammit. In fact, I'd want it never to have been taken out of my head.I personally believe that justice exists as 'a universal and a priori concept ' (I had to use it), but that it is meaningless.Justice also exists as a societal construct. That is what matters as long as you live in a society. I don't believe the death penalty balances any scales.I think the death penalty should exist because there are some people in society that one cannot suffer to have. Locking these unsufferable people in a hole forever is of no benefit. Rehabilitation for these certain people is irrelevant.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Working backwards:

I think the death penalty should exist because there are some people in society that one cannot suffer to have. Locking these unsufferable people in a hole forever is of no benefit. Rehabilitation for these certain people is irrelevant.

The death penalty and life in prison satisfy this requirement equally. (Okay, I guess it could be argued that death penalty does better by an infinitesimal degree considering the probability of breakouts etc, but I think it’s close enough to call them even).

My argument is that the intent of punishments varying in severity is to value it against the crime committed.

Of course I agree that the severity of the punishment should be directly related to the severity of the crime. We are not questioning the fact that worse criminals should receive harsher punishments. Instead, we are trying to decide what the maximum amount of punishment should be. I think we all agree that mass murderers should receive the maximum amount of justifiable punishment. The question we are wrestling with is whether this maximum should be death or life in prison. If your response to this is that life in prison is “not enough” for the worse criminals, you must let us know why it is not enough. In what way is life in prison unsatisfactory and how is the death penalty superior as a punishment.

[Steppin Razor 0]

If your response to this is that life in prison is “not enough” for the worse criminals, you must let us know why it is not enough. In what way is life in prison unsatisfactory and how is the death penalty superior as a punishment.

My response is that life in prison is a burden on society. The cost to house them is a burden. The cost to feed them is a burden. The manpower to guard them is a burden. The cost of their lifelong appeals is a burden. The need to use that square footage of prison is a burden. The small risk of their escape is a burden. All this for what? So they can exist. Clearly the quality of that existence is not very high. The closest I've come to a prison (aside from living 5 mins. away from one) is visiting Alcatraz. That is a tormented place.Some may consider life in prison worse than a death sentence. I personally do not think that, assuming life in prison is worse, we should torture criminals with it. And I don't care if the criminal would rather be put to death. I'm only concerned with the most appropriate solution.I don't see much in the life in prison case that is better than the death penalty. Is living in an 8x10 box, never to be free again better than death? To me, no. There are differences between life in prison and slavery, but they have an important similarity - the lack of freedom.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

If your response to this is that life in prison is “not enough” for the worse criminals, you must let us know why it is not enough. In what way is life in prison unsatisfactory and how is the death penalty superior as a punishment.

My response is that life in prison is a burden on society. The cost to house them is a burden. The cost to feed them is a burden. The manpower to guard them is a burden. The cost of their lifelong appeals is a burden. The need to use that square footage of prison is a burden. The small risk of their escape is a burden. All this for what? So they can exist.

Already been said, but it's actually more efficient to house them than kill them. It costs more (see the studies earlier in the thread) to go through the entire execution process, on average, than to imprison someone for life. So the Death Penalty actually creates a greater burden.It's not so they "can exist." It's so that, as a society, we can look ourselves in the mirror and smile. Electrocuting someone is barbaric; so is filling someon's veins with poison.It's going across the line, and serves NO PURPOSE save to sate our bloodlust. We're better than that.Wangwang

[LongLiveYorke 38]

My response is that life in prison is a burden on society. The cost to house them is a burden. The cost to feed them is a burden. The manpower to guard them is a burden. The cost of their lifelong appeals is a burden.

Ignoring the actual economics of the situation, let’s suppose that it indeed was less costly to execute than it would be to keep a prisoner in jail for life. You are suggesting that we kill people because it saves us money? At least in my concept of morality, there is no financial equivalent of a life. We can only measure the value of lives against other lives. We can not bring economics into the argument of whether to kill a person or not.

[AlphaOmega 0]

My response is that life in prison is a burden on society. The cost to house them is a burden. The cost to feed them is a burden. The manpower to guard them is a burden. The cost of their lifelong appeals is a burden.

Ignoring the actual economics of the situation, let’s suppose that it indeed was less costly to execute than it would be to keep a prisoner in jail for life. You are suggesting that we kill people because it saves us money? At least in my concept of morality, there is no financial equivalent of a life. We can only measure the value of lives against other lives. We can not bring economics into the argument of whether to kill a person or not.

Your argument parallels that of a moral argument, no?The moral argument that there is no financial equivalent to a human life?This contradicts earlier points about the law being emotionless in rebuttal to KingAustin's anecdote of his cousin's murder. If this premise is taken, and moral consideration cannot be used to justify the judicial aspect of the death penalty, then I don't see how it is fair to use moral consideration to attack it.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

My earlier quote when I used the term “emotion” was a knock-off of an Aristotle quote:“The law is reason, free from passion.” In the context earlier, I described that we can not administer the death penalty based on the line of reasoning that if we were a family member of the victim, we would want the criminal to die. Again, it is not about what we want but rather what benefits society. In my above quote, I stated something of a moral given. I postulated that the damage done to a society by a loss of life can only be measured against other losses of life, and not against economic loss, etc. All I was saying was that no amount of money can “buy” a life, and thus we can not justify taking a life with the money that it could potentially save the state. So when I said emotions earlier, I was referring to a sense of passion. It was not through passion that I came to my conclusion about the monetary price of life. I guess I didn’t fully justify my statement, but a formal proof would be quite lengthy, so I took it as somewhat of a given.If you really want to contend the fact that life has no monetary equivalent, I’m very willing to listen.

[Steppin Razor 0]

My response is that life in prison is a burden on society. The cost to house them is a burden. The cost to feed them is a burden. The manpower to guard them is a burden. The cost of their lifelong appeals is a burden.

Ignoring the actual economics of the situation, let’s suppose that it indeed was less costly to execute than it would be to keep a prisoner in jail for life. You are suggesting that we kill people because it saves us money? At least in my concept of morality, there is no financial equivalent of a life. We can only measure the value of lives against other lives. We can not bring economics into the argument of whether to kill a person or not.

I skimmed through some of the previous replies, but didn't see any stats that it's cheaper to imprison people for life. How is that possible? Death row inmates don't get better food, or classier accomodations. And I can't imagine that they appeal more often than someone spending life in prison. After all, lifers have a lot more time to file appeals.Economics kills people whether you like it or not. Happens all the time, all around the world. But, I didn't say put people to death because it's cheaper. I am saying the value of the life of a mass murderer lived in prison is not worth it to society.I don't think you can measure the value of lives against other lives. I just don't think these kinds of criminals belong in society.

It's not so they "can exist." It's so that, as a society, we can look ourselves in the mirror and smile.

That ship sailed when someone gave Howard Stern 500 million dollars. I'm not sure if I'm kidding.I just don't see much difference locking some vicious bastard in a hole for the rest of their lives and putting them to death for their crimes.On a side note, after reading some of the previous posts, I might switch sides just because of the morons on this side. Every time I happen to agree with so-called conservatives, I end up wishing they never opened their mouths.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I skimmed through some of the previous replies, but didn't see any stats that it's cheaper to imprison people for life. How is that possible?

It is my understanding that this is indeed so. Here's one site to check out:http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...?did=108&scid=7If you want to do more reasearch, google is a beautiful thing.

[76clubs 0]

As George Carlin once said, the more devout they are, the more they see killing as negotiable. capital punishment blows.O GOD BUT DONT KILL TERRY SHIAVO!

[AlphaOmega 0]

My earlier quote when I used the term “emotion” was a knock-off of an Aristotle quote:“The law is reason, free from passion.” In the context earlier, I described that we can not administer the death penalty based on the line of reasoning that if we were a family member of the victim, we would want the criminal to die. Again, it is not about what we want but rather what benefits society. In my above quote, I stated something of a moral given. I postulated that the damage done to a society by a loss of life can only be measured against other losses of life, and not against economic loss, etc. All I was saying was that no amount of money can “buy” a life, and thus we can not justify taking a life with the money that it could potentially save the state. So when I said emotions earlier, I was referring to a sense of passion. It was not through passion that I came to my conclusion about the monetary price of life. I guess I didn’t fully justify my statement, but a formal proof would be quite lengthy, so I took it as somewhat of a given.If you really want to contend the fact that life has no monetary equivalent, I’m very willing to listen.

Heh.What, do you think I'm a demon or something? Of course life doesn't have a monetary value, but that's not really what I wanted to argue. You said that we must measure how much the death penalty benefits society, correct? Ignoring the morality of the issue, economics CAN be brought into the issue, and we have strived to ignore the morality of the issue, for the most part, because we look to examine this issue as it pertains to law, the state, etc. Of course, that doesn't necessarily bolster the pro-DP argument at all, but I have trouble believing that it costs more to kill someone than it does to support them for 50-60 years in prison.On a side note, how serious of an issue is this? I know the hypocrisy of government sounds bad, but at the end of the day I don't really think it affects any of us. And it's not like we're executing our best friends or Mother Theresa, these people are garbage.Can someone present an argument to how keeping these people alive benefits society? Or even how killing them affects society? These people are no longer a part of society, they broke their social contract. They are no longer among us, and none of us will ever see them or be affected by them unless we actually visit the pit hole that they reside in. It's like we are arguing whether to raise or limp KQ off UTG. It seems extremely marginal one way or the other.

[Rybo 0]

I'm not going to read all of the responses to this thread, because I can only imagine the responses it's gotten. Williams should not have been executed. I'm against the Death Penalty as is, but that aside...... how retarded is it to base your penal system on the idea that criminals can be rehabilitated, and then execute one of the best examples of rehabilitation? I'm not saying free the man, I'm just saying he shouldn't be executed.

BWAHAHAHAHA I can't believe that no one said anything about this statement. Hell even some of the anti-DP debaters on here HAVE to have something to say about this.

[Steppin Razor 0]

I have trouble believing that it costs more to kill someone than it does to support them for 50-60 years in prison.

According to the reports cited in the link LongLiveYorke supplied, death penalty cases end up costing more is large part because there are different rules for death penalty cases, lawyers file more paperwork, more lawyers are hired/provided on both sides, they run the trial twice - one for conviction and one for punishment, appeals usually result in a life sentence, and people on death row rarely have their sentence actually carried out.It seems like there are a few minor holes in the statistics, but overall it's pretty compelling. It's certainly stupid to incur all the up front expense of a capital case and then not carry out the sentence. Rules changes could bring down the capital cases' costs, but as it is, it is cheaper to incarcerate for life.Even still, life in prison burdens society. Their existence burdens the victims' families, and the energy expended is not worth it. Take the case of John Mohammed as an example. What good does it do anyone to have him rot in jail for the rest of his life? Why should we waste any resources or energy on him? It does his vicitims' families good to see him executed, as many of them have said. And I don't think we should spend any energy on keeping him alive. And, his crime is so heinous that he cannot be tolerated.

[SuM827 0]

I'm not going to read all of the responses to this thread, because I can only imagine the responses it's gotten. Williams should not have been executed. I'm against the Death Penalty as is, but that aside...... how retarded is it to base your penal system on the idea that criminals can be rehabilitated, and then execute one of the best examples of rehabilitation? I'm not saying free the man, I'm just saying he shouldn't be executed.

BWAHAHAHAHA I can't believe that no one said anything about this statement. Hell even some of the anti-DP debaters on here HAVE to have something to say about this.

I'm not sure what you're saying here..... Are you saying that the co-founder of the Crips becoming an anti-gang advocate, and author of children's books as well as recieving a nobel peace prize nomination for 5 straight years isn't proof that he had been rehabilitated?