Death Penalty

Yes, the old two wrongs don't make a right. I have been staunch on punishment that fits the crime. Heinous murders I believe should face an equal judgment should found guilty beyond a reasonable or any doubt.

The way we administer penalties is why I believe it is not the deterrent it should be.

I'm in agreement with former the SA Saint

I see the delays as a separate but frustratingly related topic.  The delays are mandated so the solution is NOT to do away with the process (or compalinits cruel and unusual when the convict has the power to waive further appeals), but speed it up, or set up a special review court ... in short, enhance the process, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

The death penalty is a 100% effective deterrent against the person who committed the crime.

A person who has shown that they can't or choose not to live within the norms of a society NEEDS to be eliminated from that society. Humans adapt to their circumstances, so after a few years, a convicted killer doesn't really feel punished by getting 3 hots & a cot for the rest of his life. Either end their life so they can never commit another heinous crime again or build an "Escape from New York" type facility that you just drop these folks into and let them fend for themselves against like minded folks.

I have to admit I still wander over to TOB a couple times a week just to sniff the sour milk, and one post yesterday was hilarious enough to warrant bringing over here.  I made it a point for several years to frequently point out the hypocrisy of the left, but this one had me busting a gut.

In a thread about Gavin Newsom voiding the death penalty during his tenure in office, the usual suspects all took their usual positions in support of his executive order.  But Vilepagan went so far as to say:

"I would also point out that while I understand your [i.e. conservatives] argument, it's entirely based on emotion, and our laws are not supposed to be so based. Justice shouldn't be about how angry you are."

So here is a guy who represents a party and an ideology whose every policy position (especially this one, illegal aliens at the border, sanctuary cities, etc.) is based on emotion rather than law, criticizing the right for basing their death penalty views on emotion rather than law, when he is doing exactly the same thing.  Thank God I wasn't drinking a hot cup of coffee at the time.

This touches on an idea I had some time ago and still think about.

pick a state (doesn’t have to be CA... maybe TX or     (You pick)     , wall off a portion of it, and make that “the” penal colony.  Move all prisoners there from every state and let them Farm the land, roam freely inside the wall, handle behavioral problems, basically live their lives but just cannot interact with us regular citizens.  Maybe put one of the walls along our southern border so Mexicans who jump the wall, jump into prison.

Our criminal justice system needs a lot of work. The idea of the death penalty is centuries old. Every society has grappled with it in some way or another. Public stoning. Public hanging. All of those types were designed to deter crime. Make sure everyone could see. Bring shame on the family. Cause anyone to think twice before they did anything. There were no advanced forensics. If enough people "thought" you did it, well, that was enough. Justice was swift and nobody much cared if it was the right person or not. I'd like to think our society is better than that, but I'm not convinced. We like to think we're better, but we're really not.

Jails are full. People are executed. Crime rates are not affected by any of that.

It's convenient to think of people who commit crimes as just "bad people". WE don't have to feel bad for locking them away. After all, it keeps is safe when they are behind bars.
We used to think of jails as "correctional facilities" where people would be "reformed". That hasn't worked either. People who are put in jail learn how not to get caught as easily next time. Those who no longer commit crimes were probably likely to avoid crime in the future anyway.

When it comes to the death penalty, I really struggle. The more heinous the crime, the more likely I am to want them killed. Bring back public execution. I'd like to put some of these people in an area and charge admission to watch them mauled by wild animals (pick your favorite). No weapons. Heck, put it on pay per view and call it the ultimate cage match.

Here's where I struggle. We've learned that even forensic evidence has turned out to be wrong. Techniques once thought to be advanced science turned out to be inexact. Eyewitness testimony that is deemed credible by jurors, isn't. Confessions are coerced or sometimes just made falsely for a variety of reasons.

Our system is made up of people for the purposes of passing judgment on other people. It's the best we've got and ours is actually pretty good. But it's still very flawed.

Are we comfortable getting a few wrong as long as we get most of it right? That's where I struggle. It's easier not to think about it and justify the death penalty by looking at the most heinous crimes with the most clear evidence. But that still has the chance of executing the innocent. Are we OK with executing a few innocent people in order to ensure the worst of the worst get their due?