How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

[matapule]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

I'm not quite understanding the difficulty you have, here. If the US has a higher crime rate, shouldn't it be more appropriate for us to have capital punishment -- to get rid of all those bad guys?

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I guess it depends on from where you are coming. "Higher crime rate" includes bogth capital and non-capital crimes. So, if I understand you correctly, any crime is worthy of capital punishment?

[GregLee]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Oh, I see. You're saying that if the US would just stop executing people, the crime rate would go down. Hmmm.

[matapule]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

Well, executing people certainly hasn't worked as a deterrent, has it.

[Nobunaga]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

No. I said:I did not say "impossible" - it is certainly possible to do so, but the courts, as they function currently, won't do it.

Please do not re-interpret my words to make your arguments. Again - you behave disrespectfully.

Hi Leo,
In the case I presented of Roger Keith Coleman, the courts as it functions denied the request for the DNA tests, but they were asked. It was the VA governor who ordered the DNA testing. Colman was already convicted, sentenced to death, and executed when the DNA tests were ordered. I don't see how else to interpret your post here. You said they won't do it, and I showed you a case where they could do it. If you read the source I posted, you would have seen that this was the second such case where it was posthumously tried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Keith_Coleman


I am not trying to be disrespectful, but it seems to me that you are backing off on your very words here. I really do not see any mis-interpretation. In this case, the courts were asked and the courts declined. Are you saying that they will always decline???? If so, why even make such a request????

Do you stand corrected?

[Nobunaga]

Oh, I see. You're saying that if the US would just stop executing people, the crime rate would go down. Hmmm.

That is one of the points I was trying to make. The states that abolished capital punishment does have lower homicide rates, but it was already lower before they abolished capital punishment. Hawaii had an increase after we abolished capital punishment, and the homicide rates never fell below what it was in 1957, when we abolished capital punishment.

Another big problem with the death penalty is trusting the government with the ultimate power. It is undeniable that innocent mistakes happen, a prosecutor or detectives, a jury, can make a sincere effort to be correct but fail. That is clear. It is also clear that government itself can become corrupted and evil. Recent history: Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Castro's Cuba, on and on, the state with ultimate power of life and death and doling out death by the millions. A few centuries ago such abuses were common in France, England, Spain, and many other governments as well. Its just too much power to trust Big Government with. In America we have the example of the Japanese internment during WW2, the whole country went insane. In that case people were merely deprived of everything they owned and forced into concentration camps--bad enough. No trial, no due process, no appeal, just...gone, along with everything the family had accumulated. America is obviously not immune from collective mass insanity, if it happened once it can happen again. Hitler came to power when the Germany economy disintegrated, if the same thing happened here there is no assurance at all a similar nut case couldn't come to power here. So...if you think the government always exercises its power and always will exercise its power justly (take the IRS for example) then you should feel comfortable giving Big Government the ultimate power of life and death. Otherwise, caution might be a wiser approach.

Granted, the system consists of humans, and it is subject to human error. Still, if we are worried about the human error, then we should not have a penal system. Putting an innocent person in prison for the rest of his natural life is just as much a travesty as killing him.

Well, executing people certainly hasn't worked as a deterrent, has it.

While that is besides the point, I don't think you can prove that capital punishment does not deter. For sure, capital punishment deters more than a $100 fine. You might say that capital punishment does not deter MORE than LWOP, but even that cannot really be proven.

The punishment should fit the crime. If a person commits a heinous murder, capital punishment should be an exerciseable option that we should be able to use.

[bjd392]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

Well, executing people certainly hasn't worked as a deterrent, has it.

I think the actual execution works as a deterrent, but the decades upon decades of sitting on death row minimizes its effect. The murderer can kill now, and still be content knowing it'll be 20-30 years before anything can really happen to him. And while he's waiting, he can work out in state of the art facilities, write books boasting about his killings, and essentially have an all-expense paid for un-vacation. Then, when it comes to his last meal or final request, his execution is stayed because he requests fresh strawberries when they're out of season (or some other stupid excuse).

We say DNA can and has exonerated people who committed crimes 25+ years ago. But now that the technology tables have turned, I think if it's solid enough evidence to prove the killer did it, and appeals and re-examinations still prove beyond reasonable doubts that he did it, then technology should now work against the murderer... which means the sentencing should be carried out faster. In that case, swift punishment will be the deterrent.

[scrivener]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

But now that the technology tables have turned, I think if it's solid enough evidence to prove the killer did it, and appeals and re-examinations still prove beyond reasonable doubts that he did it, then technology should now work against the murderer... which means the sentencing should be carried out faster. In that case, swift punishment will be the deterrent.

Huh. I have to give you credit for the first new argument I've heard in this debate in a zillion years. The problem I see (I mean outside the fact that I am against the death penalty) is that most appeals are based on procedures. It's important in our system that the prosecution play by certain rules. Those rules protect us from a government's stepping outside its boundaries and into territory we consider un-American. The appeals process is long and drawn-out, I agree; as long as the entire process could be expedited without stepping on the rights of the accused you might have a good case. Guilt alone should never be enough to imprison or execute someone. The state has to play by the rules even in convicting a guilty person, or we risk changing our own definition of who we are as a state. If DNA proves a person is guilty of a horrible crime, but if there is some question about how the state came upon its evidence, a speedy execution serves justice in a larger sense but not the judicial system that's supposed to serve justice.

If that makes any sense.

[Nobunaga]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

I think the actual execution works as a deterrent, but the decades upon decades of sitting on death row minimizes its effect. The murderer can kill now, and still be content knowing it'll be 20-30 years before anything can really happen to him. And while he's waiting, he can work out in state of the art facilities, write books boasting about his killings, and essentially have an all-expense paid for un-vacation. Then, when it comes to his last meal or final request, his execution is stayed because he requests fresh strawberries when they're out of season (or some other stupid excuse).

We say DNA can and has exonerated people who committed crimes 25+ years ago. But now that the technology tables have turned, I think if it's solid enough evidence to prove the killer did it, and appeals and re-examinations still prove beyond reasonable doubts that he did it, then technology should now work against the murderer... which means the sentencing should be carried out faster. In that case, swift punishment will be the deterrent.

Most of the death sentences that are thrown out are because of procedure error during the trial rather than possible innocence. What we should consider, is public safety. In Hawaii, the worst sentence anyone can get is Life, without the possibility of parole, which actually meand 20 years without the possibility of parole. As I see it, I could go along with those who oppose capital punishment if we abolished parole completely, so that a person sentenced to life, must spend the rest of his life in prison.

I know of a case here in Hawaii, where a person sentenced to life without the possibility of parole was released after serving only 10 years in prison, because he had a terminal illness, and it was costing the state hundreds of thousands a year for his treatments.

[scrivener]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

What we should consider is public safety.

I know of a case here in Hawaii, where a person sentenced to life without the possibility of parole was released after serving only 10 years in prison, because he had a terminal illness, and it was costing the state hundreds of thousands a year for his treatments.

If your primary concern is public safety and not vindication, I'd think this wouldn't bother you much. Depending on the illness, it seems unlikely the freed convict is a threat to public safety. Meanwhile, the money saved by not keeping him can be applied to keeping OTHER dangerous people away from the public. No?

[Nobunaga]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

If your primary concern is public safety and not vindication, I'd think this wouldn't bother you much. Depending on the illness, it seems unlikely the freed convict is a threat to public safety. Meanwhile, the money saved by not keeping him can be applied to keeping OTHER dangerous people away from the public. No?

Perhaps. This person was a personal friend of mine. A person I golfed with in the afternoons. He lived for about 5 years after his release.

While I was glad for him getting out, the reason for the sentence was punishment. Should a murderer have his punishment cut short because he is terminally ill? If I was the victim's family, I would be screaming bloody murder!

A person getting the harshest sentence should never walk out of a prison alive. Death sentence OR LWOP.

[bjd392]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

That's the thing though. We have the initial trial court that awards the death sentence. Then we have the following court of appeal to completely review the technicalities of the lower court. If that court deems the initial one to be true and correct, then the decision should stand. (Yes, it drags out longer after that if they do find something erroneous.) With a completely separate review process going through all that, I can see it taking months, or a few years. But certainly not 20 or 30.

It is unfortunate how it's faster to exonerate a guilty person through a stupid technicality, than it is to exonerate an innocent person through years and years of technological research and review.

But I disagree that the court system is corrupt when it comes to awarding these sentences. There are way too many laws and restrictions that work in the accused's favor. The jurors (hand-selected chums like us) ultimately decide that based on the evidence put before us. It's not the government who decides the death penalty, it's the jurors that agree with the prosecution and deem that punishment appropriate. We're not in the Inquisition where the judge decides that fate, but I've seen a few cases where the jury awards death, and the judge lessens the punishment to life.

In addition to post 69, improper procedures by the prosecution are typically thrown out right away. But many DA's won't pursue a case unless they have a good chance of winning it, which means (for the most part) there isn't a reason to "break rules" or "violate procedure" to prosecute the defendant.

[Kalalau]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

Civilizations that we today think of as "great" used horrible tortures as means of punishment. Rome had so much good about it, but it did torture people to death with crucifixion. England drew and quartered people, the tortures of the Spanish Inquisition are too numerous and unpleasant to even talk about. All of these punishments had the same argument in their favor that the death penalty does today, a deterrent to crime. But the real motivation was that dark human side, the desire for cruel, brutal vengeance, a sick desire to torture and abuse, not too different from our sickest murderers today. Civilization is slowly evolving. It has left behind those brutal cruel punishments and no one in his or her right mind would want to go back to the days of crucifixion or burning at the stake, etc, no matter how good such measures are as deterrents. Slowly, civilization is leaving the death penalty behind, too. Good. You never want to step backward, you want our society go forward, becoming more enlightened and merciful and humane, not crueler and more brutal. Life in prison is not a picnic.

I am serious about drug therapy to eliminate the ability to form violent impulses, it would be a lot cheaper than the $40,000/year/inmate currently being spent. They could hold productive, simple jobs, pay taxes, their medical expenses would not fall on taxpayers. Why not give it a try.

[Nobunaga]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

Hi Kalalau,
Did you know it is actually cheaper to give a would-be robber the same amount of loot he would normally net rather than to prosecute and punish him?

The same goes for murder or any crime. It is much cheaper to look the other way, and not prosecute and punish. However, we do have laws, and violating the laws will net punishment. The severety of the punishment should be fitting to the crimes.

Japan also tortured some of their worst prisoners, and Japan still has capital punishment. Japan, incidentally, has the lowest homicide rate of any country with a population of 50 million or more. Japan has a population of 130 million.

The USA has a homicide rate of about 8 per 100,000. There are more than 2 million people residing in our prisons, and we are letting criminals out as if our justice system was a revolving door. An execution stops the revolving door from revolving. The rate of recidivism after an execution is ZERO. I really don't see anything wrong with that.
Nobu

[Nobunaga]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

That's the thing though. We have the initial trial court that awards the death sentence. Then we have the following court of appeal to completely review the technicalities of the lower court. If that court deems the initial one to be true and correct, then the decision should stand. (Yes, it drags out longer after that if they do find something erroneous.) With a completely separate review process going through all that, I can see it taking months, or a few years. But certainly not 20 or 30.

It is unfortunate how it's faster to exonerate a guilty person through a stupid technicality, than it is to exonerate an innocent person through years and years of technological research and review.

But I disagree that the court system is corrupt when it comes to awarding these sentences. There are way too many laws and restrictions that work in the accused's favor. The jurors (hand-selected chums like us) ultimately decide that based on the evidence put before us. It's not the government who decides the death penalty, it's the jurors that agree with the prosecution and deem that punishment appropriate. We're not in the Inquisition where the judge decides that fate, but I've seen a few cases where the jury awards death, and the judge lessens the punishment to life.

In addition to post 69, improper procedures by the prosecution are typically thrown out right away. But many DA's won't pursue a case unless they have a good chance of winning it, which means (for the most part) there isn't a reason to "break rules" or "violate procedure" to prosecute the defendant.

I agree. Actually no reasonable prosecutor will take a criminal case to court without thinking that he will get a conviction. Because of our double jeopardy laws, if the prosecution fails, the criminal walks, and can never be convicted of that crime again.

[Kalalau]

Re: How about reinstating capital punishment in Hawaii?

There are a lot of reasons the US has such a high crime rate. One, the free and easy availability of guns. If we want to take the stand we do on the Second Amendment, there are going to be consequences and a high murder rate is just part of the bargain we made. If you don't like that, modify the Second Amendment. I think some states even allow you to take guns into bars now. Great idea! I used to be in favor of gun control but as a result of the bush administration I now accept the right wing's attitude that the citizenry does need to be armed as a counterbalance to overpowering government. Also, Japan is a much more homogeneous society and economy than ours. As our economy continues to disintegrate and as the elite rich become wealthier and as the middle class declines into uneducated unemployable peasant status, what would your guess about the future of the crime rate be? Already the US has the highest number of prisoners of any country in the whole world. We have some of the heaviest sentences in the world. And yet...one of the highest crime rates. If heavy punishment worked, wouldn't you expect crime rates to be lower? In the USSR it turned out that Stalin's prison camps functioned as crime schools, prisoners who went in with very little anti social feelings came out monsters. Our prisons, full of drug offenders many of whom are hurting only themselves if anybody, also learn skills and arts of crime, and to loathe and hate and want to destroy the people who put them there. Its not a wise way to educate people.

? What makes anybody think I am against punishment? Punishment is only a means to an end. The end should be reducing or stopping crime. If brain surgery or drugs can accomplish that cheaper than subsidizing a massive prison industry, it might be a good idea to give it a try.