Death penalty speech

Chris Losinger

here's a speech given by outgoing Illinois gov. Ryan, about why he chose to exonerate the death-row inmates. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/01/14/ryan/index.html[^] if only every politician could do one good thing while they're in office... -c

I'm not the droid you're looking for.

ThumbNailer

Jeremy Falcon

Chris Losinger wrote: if only every politician could do one good thing while they're in office... What if one of the guys on death row raped and killed your wife or daughter? Then what? Are you even man enough to get really pissed off about it to the point of wanting to kill him? Or would you just let it be. Sure, not everyone who's killed is guilty, but there are a hell of a lot more that are. Nothing's perfect. We should abandon death row as it is now and let the families hurt by these people slowly torture them to death. Jeremy Falcon Imputek Excrement escapes everyone - even elders.

Chris Austin

Jeremy Falcon wrote: Sure, not everyone who's killed is guilty, but there are a hell of a lot more that are. Nothing's perfect Sorry to disagree with you Jeremy. But, I think you've missed the point of the system. Sure it is not perfect but is a complete and utter failure if one innocent man or woman dies. How is their death any less disgusting or reprehensible? Jeremy Falcon wrote: We should abandon death row as it is now and let the families hurt by these people slowly torture them to death. What about the families of those incorrectly murdered by the state? Should the jurors and judges who sentenced them be subjected to the same madness that you suggest? By your reasoning, shouldn't they be put into a prision system where they are raped and beat? Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.

Shog9 0

Chris Austin wrote: Sure it is not perfect but is a complete and utter failure if one innocent man or woman dies. Well, that depends - what is the purpose of the death penalty? If it is revenge, then there are (IMHO) deeper issues with it than a few innocents getting killed. But i think there are (or could be) better uses for it, as a deterrent or to demonstrate the effectiveness of the judicial system. In these situations, it is perhaps not a failure so much as a regrettable side effect that some executions are carried out on people for the wrong reasons. Similar to a surgeon mistakenly amputating the wrong leg, such occurrences are the inevitable outcome of human fallibility - but not in itself a reason to ban either executions or surgery! It should be noted also that not all mistaken convictions are actually mistaken! In the case of a corrupt judicial system, banning executions is treating the symptom rather than the problem, and may only serve to placate the public, while continuing to allow "innocents" to be convicted and deprived of portions, rather than all, of their freedom.

---

Shog9 The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Beware of the dark side, young jedi. Consume you it will! -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Shog9 wrote: But i think there are (or could be) better uses for it, as a deterrent or to demonstrate the effectiveness of the judicial system. I think the deterrent argument doesn't hold water. You have to understand that a man or woman, who takes another mans or womans life, isn't thinking rationally. People who are in a rational state of mind doesn't want to die. They understand the consequences. What about an irrational mind? The mind is incredibly complex, and sometimes logic and reasoning just breaks. If I remember correctly, statistics have shown that it doesn't deter these types of crimes. I think the death sentence is just a cheap way to solve economic problems. However, I admit that it is effective. I mean, a dead person will not repeat the crime.. -- Only in a world this shitty could you even try to say these were innocent people and keep a straight face.

Shog9 0

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If I remember correctly, statistics have shown that it doesn't deter these types of crimes. They have. Statistics don't tell the whole truth, however - being dead is a significant deterrent to killing again. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: However, I admit that it is effective. I mean, a dead person will not repeat the crime.. Quite...!

---

Shog9 The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under

Chris Austin

Hey Shog, It has always been my understanding that the whole purpose of our "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" system was to ensure that no "innocent" person be convicted or murdered for a crime they did not commit. Hence the burden of proof is the state’s, and juries are supposed to acquit if there is a glimmer of reasonable doubt. So, to me at least, if a single “innocent“ person is murdered for a crime they did not commit indicates a failure of the system. The popular thing one hears about is victim’s rights and the rights of their family members. Again, I ask who or what is going to comfort the families of those wrongly murdered by the state? What is their recourse? How do they get the fabled “closure” that we here these people say they get when a criminal is brought to justice? When will they see justice? I agree that anything involving human interaction is subject to mistakes or corruption. Bearing that in mind, it makes no sense to choose such an un-reversible penalty. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.

Chris Losinger

did you read the speech? Jeremy Falcon wrote: Are you even man enough to get really pissed off about it to the point of wanting to kill him? this is about being a man? it's manly to kill innocent people who were convicted because the public defender didn't read the case? what is accomplished by picking a random guy off the street and killing him for something he didn't do? what message does that send? Jeremy Falcon wrote: Sure, not everyone who's killed is guilty would you walk into a courthouse and assume the guilt of an unsolved murder, knowing full well that you would receive the death penalty - even though you are innocent? if not, you have no right to condemn other innocent people to die for crimes they didn't commit. the gov's actions have nothing to do with the fairness of the death penalty, and everything to do with the fact that its application in Illinois is arbitrary and is being applied to people who are totally innocent. -c

I'm not the droid you're looking for.

ThumbNailer

Shog9 0

Chris Austin wrote: So, to me at least, if a single “innocent“ person is murdered for a crime they did not commit indicates a failure of the system. And if that person is imprisoned for life it is not? The system *will* fail, with or without the death penalty. Chris Austin wrote: Bearing that in mind, it makes no sense to choose such an un-reversible penalty. I think... it should be left open, as an option. But not over-used, nor used as an economical alternative to imprisonment. There *are* enough crimes where no doubt is left as to who is guilty, where such a penalty is appropriate, and does serve some purpose. My problem with this whole issue though, is the focus on imprisonment vs. execution. Imprisonment strikes me as a spectacularly bad form of punishment, and an even worse form of retribution. It is often said, you cannot put a price on human life; yet, surely something is due children whose parents have been killed? How does either imprisonment or execution of the murderer help them? An execution might provide some form of closure, or reassurance that justice, in some form, has been irreversibly served, but that can be only little comfort for the family struggling suddenly deprived of support. In the end, i don't have a nice, packaged solution or concrete opinion on this; rather, i'm convinced each scenario needs to be taken individually, considering both the criminal AND the victim. In some cases, imprisonment may be the answer; in others execution... but in others perhaps neither. This is difficult to implement, no doubt, which is why we won't be hearing anyone campaigning on it, but until something is done justice will be incomplete. :(

---

Shog9 The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under

Chris Losinger

Shog9 wrote: being dead is a significant deterrent to killing again. so is being locked in a 7x7 box, and it allows an Undo to occur, should the judicial system decide to take a fresh look at the case. since human judgement is so full of inconsistency, prejudice and ulterior motives, it seems preposterous that we should allow it to decide wether a person lives or dies. in any case - since Illinois system seems to be pretty messed up, having a temporary ban seems like a pretty smart thing to do. and once they get things back in order, they can surely reinstate it, if they choose. -c

I'm not the droid you're looking for.

ThumbNailer

Chris Austin

Shog9 wrote: And if that person is imprisoned for life it is not? The system *will* fail, with or without the death penalty. Great point. Shog9 wrote: i'm convinced each scenario needs to be taken individually, considering both the criminal AND the victim. I couldn't agree more. I just find it sad that some people will find themselves on the wrong side of abritary laws regardless of circumstance. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.

KaRl

Shog9 wrote: The system *will* fail, with or without the death penalty. The consequences are not the same. Just wondering, is it possible for a family of an innocent executed by mistake to sue the governor, or the executioner, for murder ? :confused: Or do they have a licence to kill ?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Shog9 0

Chris Austin wrote: I just find it sad that some people will find themselves on the wrong side of abritary laws regardless of circumstance. Yes. That is sad. :(

---

Shog9 The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under

Shog9 0

Before i go any further, i want to make it clear that i'm not commenting on the situation in Illinois, which is most certainly fucked. I rather think George Ryan should have commuted the sentences earlier in his term, rather than appearing to run out on the problem, but that is beside the point. KaЯl wrote: The consequences are not the same. No. They are not. In fact, i'm having a bit of difficulty thinking of many similarities between imprisonment and execution at all. One takes part of a life, the other takes all of it, once it's gone, it's gone, and there is no way to give it back. But execution cannot be stopped half-way, whereas a life sentence can. Execution has at least the appeal of relevance to the crime of murder - "eye for an eye" and all that. Given it's severity and finality, it should *not* be taken lightly - but i firmly believe in some cases it is appropriate, and in the end we must trust the justice system to use it wisely. Imprisonment, however, is the Wonder Drug of punishments - everything from forgetting to pay a speeding ticket to mass murder can get you imprisoned. We've built prisons of every shape and size: women's prisons, juvy prisons, SuperMax prisons, low risk prisons, high risk prisons... I just drove back from Cañon City, CO, a place surrounded by prisons containing everyone from Charles Manson to a local pastor convicted of writing bad checks. Does it help? Does it hurt? Is it cost-effective, or are we bleeding like a stuck pig from all these prisoners? Who cares? Lock 'em up, and ignore them - justice is served... right? A friend of mine was imprisoned for three years on drug charges - by her own account, it saved her life, as it removed her from destructive influences and provided her with counseling to help her deal with the problems causing her addictions. Certainly, this is an admirable result! Is this our goal also with murderers? Rapists? Thieves? Are these crimes even necessarily related to one another? Is there any good reason why we should pretend they should be punished in the same way? As a programmer, this system has a strange appeal to me - a uniform method of punishment, with classifications based on the type and severity of the crime. Why, how easy is that to codify! And if someone complains about the State being "soft on crime", just revise the codes to up sentences by a few years! But then, if people were simple machines we wouldn't be having all these problems in th

Shog9 0

Chris Losinger wrote: in any case - since Illinois system seems to be pretty messed up, having a temporary ban seems like a pretty smart thing to do. and once they get things back in order, they can surely reinstate it, if they choose. Trust you to cut through the crap & get back to the point :)

---

Shog9 The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under

Taka Muraoka

Chris Losinger wrote: if only every politician could do one good thing while they're in office... Yes, but you also have to examine why he did this. I don't know anything about the guy but apparently he's been mired in scandal throughout his time on office and some have suggested that this is a ploy to make his name in history and improve his chances in court. That's not really as important as this: there's been a lot of talk on other discussion boards about what a brave and courageous move this was. Bollocks. Let a politician do this kind of thing at the *start* of their term and then you can talk about bravery and courage. Whether or not you agree with having a death penalty, granting a blanket reprieve and totally bypassing the judicial process is pretty appalling. You may think that the judicial process is flawed, and well it might be, but the solution is to try fix it, not this.

he he he. I like it in the kitchen! - Marc Clifton (on taking the heat when being flamed) Awasu v0.4a[^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.

KaRl

About jails, we are following the same way, building 23(:~ ) new prisons. I always thought that anytime a school is built a prison closes. I'm stunt to see how it's easy to go to jail in some US states. Since from here they are totally crazy, quiet fascists. Jails are useful of course, but are just the proof the society/system has failed somewhere. They are only expedient, not the solution to the problem. But I'm sure anybody agrees on this :-D Shog9 wrote: care must be taken also to avoid using the hammer when the axe is what is needed. IMO, evolving is not replacing axe by lethal injections. Cleary the second one. it's an opinion, not an analysis, and I [edit]can[/edit] respect the one of a honorable man. And no, I'm not a dick-sucker (don't one what this one will give translated like this in english)

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Shog9 0

KaЯl wrote: IMO, evolving is not replacing axe by lethal injections. I rather hope punishment will evolve, though suspect the reverse is as likely. But i'd rather see the need for it removed.

KaЯl wrote: Cleary the second one. Good pick. :)

---

Shog9 The siren sings a lonely song - of all the wants and hungers The lust of love a brute desire - the ledge of life goes under

David Wulff

Jeremy Falcon wrote: What if one of the guys on death row raped and killed your wife or daughter? Then what? Then you should not under ANY circumstances be able to have ANY say in their punishment.

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk