Death penalty abolitionists advocate the death penalty is indefensible, beneath the dignity of a civilized society and fails to serve as deterrence to murder and other violent crimes. Instead, they advocate an across-the-board moratorium or elimination of the death penalty, asserting a guaranteed sentence of life without the possibility of parole will serve as a fair and humane punishment for even the worst serial killers, sexually sadistic psychopaths and mass murderers. This benevolent social concession is fraught with red flags and merely serves up the American people as guinea pigs in yet another social experiment of dubious merit.
One huge gap in the logic of replacing the death sentence with a punishment of life without the possibility of parole is that in America there are 51 separate criminal justice systems.
States account for about 95 percent of all crimes committed and federal statutes only apply when crimes are committed on federal property, against federal employees or are interstate in nature. Therefore, to replace the death sentence 33 states (the number of states that currently allows execution), the federal government and the military court would have to change their laws not only to eliminate the death penalty, but also to substitute life without the possibility of parole and offer up some kind of guarantees that these laws would not be subject to the capricious whims of pandering politicians.
Should the political climate change and attitudes toward crime and punishment undergo a fundamental shift I guarantee, as surely as there will be individuals pleading for the life of Richard Ramirez (Nightstalker) or Richard Allen Davis as they are strapped into the gurney, legislation will be introduced and court rulings will alter, tweak and create loopholes in the law.
Before we declare an across the board moratorium on the death penalty, we should also consider the repercussions of unilateral disarmament. At best, there will be no positive impact on crime statistics and at worst we send the message to killers that they can continue to kill with impunity with full knowledge that they have achieved victory without concessions.
Criminals would know that regardless of the crimes that they commit, they will not have to pay for their crime in kind, even in its mildest form. That in fact, if caught, the worst they can expect is guaranteed room, board and health care in perpetuity. This is a social concession that despite the mindset or nature of the criminal, we are affording them a power that society is unwilling to assign itself. The message is obvious and fraught with ominous implications such as, “You win.”
However, the most straightforward argument for deterrence is that it saves innocent lives by preventing convicted murderers from killing again.
On January 7, 1965, 23-year-old Robert Lee Massie was sentenced to death for murdering Mildred Weiss during a botched robbery near her home. The sentence was commuted to life in 1972. Massie was paroled in 1978. Eight months later, Massie killed Boris Naumoff in another botched robbery. Pleading guilty, Massie was again sentenced to death. Finally, in 2001, Massie was executed.
In 1966, Kenneth Allen McDuff forced a teenage girl and two teenage boys into the trunk of a car. He raped the girl then murdered all three. During his trial, McDuff said that killing a woman was like killing a chicken, ”They both squawk.” The jury recommended the death penalty. When the death penalty was suspended in the U.S., McDuff was released from prison. In the early 1990s, McDuff murdered at least nine more women. He was again arrested, convicted and sentenced to death for those crimes. He was ultimately executed in 1998.
With no death penalty and only life without parole there isn't any deterrent for inmates serving a maximum sentences from killing others while in prison or after escape. In fact, there is positive incentive for individuals with a predisposition to kill, knowing that eliminating evidence, thrill killing and other horrors have been voided of external controls. There are many killers imprisoned in states that do not have the death penalty who have killed again and again, knowing their penalty cannot be increased.
In 1980 Clarence Ray Allen was serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, yet he masterminded the murder of three of the witnesses who had testified against him from his prison cell. He was ultimately executed for the subsequent crimes.
Approximately 810 of the 52,000 inmates serving time in state prisons for murder in 1984 had been convicted of murdering 821 persons following their previous murder conviction. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives.
And, never forget. Bundy, Gacy, Massie, McDuff and Allen will never kill again for they have been deterred.
Your plan if followed would actually lead to the execution of 52,000 people and not just 810. The world is moving in the direction of abolition of the death sentence and the floodgates of crime have not opened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Movements_towards_humane_execution >One huge gap in the logic of replacing the death sentence with a punishment of life without the possibility of parole is that in America there are 51 separate criminal justice systems. This is not a matter of logic and not a problem and not a fault with abolitionism. Again for social liberal reasons it is better to have authority distributed. We don't want a powerful centralized police and court system with the ability to execute citizens. While I sympathize with the intention of justice, the policies suggested would greatly weaken the principles of freedom in society. What is not taken into consideration is the history of temptation to use absolute power, once granted, to be used for personal gain, prejudice and caprice. I have further outlined the reasons against state executions here: http://newark.patch.com/blog_posts/vote-no-on-proposition-34
site, both a gift, so stay tuned! ! ! UGG BOOT ,nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike shox shoes,gucci shoes ,true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans,ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T- shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts,coach handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag . http://www.simpletrading.org/ Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30 UGG BOOT $50 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $32 Handbags(Coach lv fend
One idea to keep in mind however (discussed in the lecture cited) is the cruelty and barbarity contained in the law before the liberal era. Today's death penalty is mild (IMO) compared to judicial torture and death in the past eras. Yet, the amount of crime does not appear to be significantly changed by making punishments more severe. This is not just my estimation it is well known apparently. Is there a study that arrives at your conclusion for your evidence? The problem is that it is not clear what is the cause as crime is always rising and falling and >Today I demonstrated some of the ways that it does deter future murder, yet you ignore everything that I said. I don't think you demonstrated it. I think it is very inconclusive on the evidence cited. I am willing to spend more time to research the effective deterrence of the death penalty.
> Also you jump to hasty conclusions. Only 2% of murderers serving time in American prisons sit on death row. 1. You claim there were 52000 inmates serving time for murder 2. How would you have executed the right 810 second offenders before their second offense? Unless it was for their first offense. 3. Your statement said nothing about death row. I did not think that the 810 were on death row prior to their second murder conviction. 4. Therefore I reasoned that you believe in the death penalty for all with a murder conviction. I think my conclusions were reasonable given what you wrote, but if I got it wrong I am not trying to misrepresent you. But please do clarify what you meant and your position so I get it right. -Albert
While it is true that most societies have moved or are moving away from capital punishment, what is more important and are the reasons why. Only the strongest reasons can persuade. There are many things most nations do that are in fact wrong or unethical. The fact that they do it is not an endorsement by itself.
>I believe that my blog demonstrated that the death penalty is a deterrence. I offered two individuals who had total control over their victims. McDuff and Massie were both removed from death row and placed back into society where they killed again. "The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be true but unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases. Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim... The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence ... Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Capital Punishment: Deterrent Effects & Capital Costs by Jeffrey A. Fagan, Professor of Law & Public Health; Co-Director, Center for Crime, Community, and Law "In this essay, Professor Jeff Fagan questions research that supports the long-accepted view of the deterrent effect of capital punishment. States must also come to terms with the fact that each execution can cost between $2.5 million and $5 million, he writes, and ask themselves whether that money can be put to better law-enforcement uses." "When we apply contemporary social science standards, the new deterrence studies fall well short of this high scientific bar. Consider the following: Most of the studies fail to account for incarceration rates or life sentences, factors that may drive down crime rates via deterrence or incapacitation; one study that does so finds no effects of execution and a significant effect of prison conditions on crime rates. Another report shows incarceration effects that dwarf the deterrent effects of execution. Most fail to account for complex social factors such as drug epidemics that are reliable predictors of fluctuations in the murder rate over time. The studies don't look separately at the subset of murders that are eligible for the death penalty, instead lumping all homicides together." http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/summer06/capitalpunish
If I were to select one method over the other it would be based more on economic considerations than any sense of justice. To me they both seem extremely harsh and are enough to deter me from ever thinking of committing a capital crime. If it cost more in appeals, etc. to execute a convicted murderer than to incarcerate them for life then I am against the death penalty. This also has the benefit of freeing the few who are proven to have actually been innocent. On the other hand if lifetime incarceration is proven to be more expensive then I would be for the death penalty. I make no pretense of playing God or being a moralist in these matters. I also make little distinction between those who are accused of molesting or raping a non-consenting child or adult. Both are horrendous acts and deserving of hard prison time and treatment if they are ever released back into society. As for consenting sexual crimes I need to make a case by case judgment. In general if an individual poses no danger to society I tend to be much more lenient.
I am not a religious person but I do believe that with the possible exception of sociopaths whom I cannot relate to, there is much of me in everyone. Thus if I were a surviving victim of the homicide of a loved one I would hope I would have the grace to visit the murderer in prison and tell him/her that I don’t understand why they did such an heinous act but I forgive them and really mean it. I would do this more for me than them to bring closure and peace of mind so I could appreciate more those I still have and love and care for them as never before as well as cherish all the memories I had of my departed with a smile and a tear. Of course I might do just the opposite if such were to really happen but I would hope for the sake of my sanity not.
I've been unable to find any organized effort or campaign to defeat Prop. 34--or SAFE CA. A simple Google search led me to your article but I still can't find any active campaign where I can devote my time. I'm assuming you know where to I can go?..Please let me know!
First thing, my deepest sympathy to you for the loss of your daughter. As a family member of a murder victim, by The Nightstalker, I applaud your effort to get the otherside out on this proposition. It is disgusting that those who have caused our appeal system to be backed up, are now saying we should get rid of the death penalty now, because it takes so long to execute people. My grandmother's murder was sentenced in 1989 to death, first time we heard any news on his appeals came around 1998 or 99. If people truly want to change the wait time of this state's death penalty they should look at changing the constent delays in filing appeals these people use to get advantage. Hopefully this state population will not be fooled into voting for this. Tom. PS: like a poster above I found this article through a search looking for a site for, no on prop 34. Didn't see any site that appears to be around but if you know where the No on 34 can be found I would appreciate it.
>Approximately 810 of the 52,000 inmates serving time in state prisons for murder in 1984 had been convicted of murdering 821 persons following their previous murder conviction. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives. I still don't see how this is a valid argument. I am still interested in understanding how you can save 821 lives without executing all 52,000 inmates. Or is it your open position that we should execute all inmates convicted of murder? Or is there another explanation?