State-Sanctioned Murder in the US

Politics US Politics
21

But whose hypocrisy? Surely not mine.

I give enormous latitude to states from Singapore to Saudi Arabia to run their criminal justice system the way they see fit.

I was a strong supporter of Singapore’s right to whip that young American punk who spray-painted those cars.

[quote=“Closet Queen”]If the EU is “meddling” to eradicate the death penalty, it is because it feels morally obligated to stop the practice.

If the US interferes in, say, human rights violations in other countries, it does so because it feels morally obligated to do so.

The only difference is you support one but not the other.[/quote]

Says who?

I did not support the U.S. effort in the Balkans. I’m dubious about the U.S. effort to bring democracy to Iraq. And I rarely support U.S. trade sanctions or proposed trade sanctions against countries from Vietnam (previous) to China (considered) to Cuba (in force).

I have not made such an argument, though there are grounds for it.[/quote]

Mother Theresa referred obliquely to those grounds when he said the U.S. was increasingly in a minority of countries that had not abolished the death penalty. I thought it worth mentioning the reason why so many countries are increasingly abolishing the death penalty. It’s not a spontaneous movement.

I doubt it. How would any Brit know? You haven’t put anyone to death in that country since the 1960s.

22

Studies have shown that a clear majority to up to 70 percent in some cases of the population in most European countries support the death penalty and that if it were voted on democratically, more European countries would have it (referendum). The EU is not a democratic organization in some regards and this particular situation is one more example of how the Central Government knows best so spare me the superior European citizenry’s enlightened adoption of anti-capital punishment measures.As the decidedly liberal Joshua Marshall pointed out in The New Republic a while back, European elites imposed the death penalty ban on an unwilling, unenthusiastic public.“There is barely a country in Europe,” writes Marshall, “where the death penalty was abolished in response to public opinion rather than in spite of it.” “In other words,” he concludes, “if these countries’ political cultures are morally superior to America’s, it’s because they’re less democratic.”

In Britain, home of Amnesty International, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the public want to reinstate the death penalty, Marshall noted. In Italy, Europe’s anti-capital punishment trailblazer, half of voters want the death penalty returned. And in France, it took nearly 20 years after the abolition of capital punishment for a majority of the French to say they don’t want it back. And, while Marshall’s numbers are a bit old by now, I think it’s safe to say more Frenchmen want the death penalty to come back than want to bathe every day.

AND

To be sure, some undoubtedly civilized European nations have abandoned the death penalty in favor of other punishments in the last few decades. But the political elites in those countries usually did so over majority public opposition. What that demonstrates is not that Europe is more civilized than the U.S. but that it is less democratic.

23

Fred’s comments are so true.

Part of the reason the U.S. might still have a death penalty and Europe does not is that the U.S. is in some ways a more democratic place, more responsive to its peoples wishes. After all, U.S. elites did attempt to revoke the death penalty, and succeeded for a time, only to have large majorities of citizens in numerous states fight to reinstate it.

24

Well, I can’t converse with extreme arrogance., but perhaps you’ll condescend to read up on the Derk Bentley case at least.

[quote]Derek Bentley was hanged on the 28th of January 1953, at the age of 19 and the above words appear on his grave stone.

On the 30th of July 1998 the Appeal Court finally ruled (after 45 years of campaigning by his father, sister Iris and since Iris’ death the previous year, by her daughter, Maria Bentley Dingwall, that his conviction was unsafe.

Derek Bentley was illiterate and is alleged to have had a mental age of 11. He also suffered from epilepsy as a result of head injury received during the war.[/quote]

And then

[quote]
1950: George Kelly, who was hanged for murder, had his conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal in June 2003.[/quote]

Then there were the three hundred plus British servicemen executed during WW1 for alleged cowardice.

[quote]A typical case is that of Harry Farr, who joined the British Expeditionary Force in 1914 and fought in the trenches. His position was repeatedly shelled, and in May 1915 he collapsed with strong convulsions. In hospital, his wife Gertrude

25

Well, I can’t converse with extreme arrogance., but perhaps you’ll condescend to read up on the [Derek] Bentley case at least.[/quote]

Derek Bentley is a famous case where the anti-death penalty crowd sings loudly the same tune with the following refrains.

All policemen are liars.

All judges that favor the death penalty are sadistic.

All defendants who are on death row are mentally handicapped.

Rinse, repeat.

It’s unfortunate that the British government saw fit to apologize for the case, when they were clearly in the right. How you think you can determine the fitness of a legal case nearly fifty years old based on leftist claptrap is beyond me.

[quote=“Closet Queen”]Then there were the three hundred plus British servicemen executed during WW1 for alleged cowardice.

[quote]A typical case is that of Harry Farr, who joined the British Expeditionary Force in 1914 and fought in the trenches. His position was repeatedly shelled, and in May 1915 he collapsed with strong convulsions. In hospital, his wife Gertrude

26

Populist is the term and I believe Alleycat dropped a nice article on why this was the correct course yesterday. http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spr03/polspr03-2.htm

Same numbers game in Oz.

If you read down through that article you’ll see more for your cause including statements to the effect that no one got offed that wasn’t guilty. An incredibly arrogant assumption.

The author is from my old universty and is all the way with the Chicago school. Interestingly, my desired sparring partner Mr. Howard is personally opposed to the death penalty. (Note the new found respect.)

I’m cursing that I’ve not found a dead’un that didn’t “deserve” it.

HG

27

Don’t make me puke. Maybe you’d feel differently if you had the Carr brothers living next door. (For some reason, this was little publicised by the media…and if the victims had been of another ethnic persuasion it would have been considered a “hate crime”)

"At about 11 PM on the freezing cold night of December 14, 2000, Reginald Carr, 23, and Jonathan Carr, 20, invaded the home of three young Wichita men who had two female guests. The Carr Brothers forced all of them to strip naked. They beat the men and raped the women.

In addition to repeatedly raping the women, the Carr Brothers have been found guilty of forcing them to perform sexual acts on each other, sodomizing one of them, and forcing the three male victims to perform sex acts with each of the women. Then the Carr Brothers robbed them and brutally murdered four of them.

According to a lone survivor’s horrifying pre-trial testimony, after sexually tormenting them, the Carr Brothers took the friends individually to an ATM machine and forced them to withdraw as much cash as possible. Then, the Carr Brothers transported their naked victims to a remote soccer field and forced them to kneel in the snow before shooting them execution-style in the head, and then running them over with a truck. After leaving their victims for dead, the Carr Brothers returned to the men’s apartment and stole appliances, bedding, and china."

wichita-massacre.com/

28

I guess I was wrong about the government apology

Home Secretary Jack Straw said because Mr Bentley’s conviction was overturned on the basis of mistakes by the trial judge, his case fell outside the compensation scheme.

There were no other “sufficiently exceptional” circumstances leading up to his conviction to merit a payment, Mr Straw said.

Derek Bentley had a mental age of 11
Mr Bentley was 19 when he was convicted of the rooftop shooting in south London of a policeman and sentenced to death by hanging, although he did not fire the fatal shot.

The jury was not told Mr Bentley had a mental age of 11 and controversy over the case helped to fuel the campaign for the abolition of capital punishment.

After a long fight to clear his name, relatives finally learned last July that the conviction had been quashed because the trial judge’s summing up and direction to the jury had denied him a fair trial.

Yes, some fifty years after the fact, when almost all of the participants in the saga are dead and buried, some leftist judge discovers that Derek Bentley was gasp innocent based on a technicality!

Like I said, how would any Brit today know the particulars of a case that was tried well before most people alive were even born.

By the way, this “mental age of eleven” brings up an interesting point because so many U.S. anti-death penalty advocates are now taking the same tack by saying it’s wrong that the government executes mentally retarded people.

But how does one determine someone’s mental age? Well, by giving them an I.Q. test…

Wait a second! Did someone just say the dreaded words I.Q. test! I thought those were defective devices used by conservatives to keep the inferior races in line. I had no idea that liberals and leftists could use them too.

Someone please explain to me how a defective test can be used to determine someone’s fitness as an adult and their culpability for a crime, but that same device can’t be used for determining someone’s fitness for a job or school placement?

29

Yes I can, and yes I do. So does the British government which has issued posthumous pardons in three of those cases, so clearly the state admits it was in the wrong. In at least one case (Evans) there is irrefutable evidence that the conviction was wrong.

According to your

30

[quote=“Cold Front”]

Almost every death sentence that is carried out has been reviewed and re-reviewed so many times, and the ruling been looked into by some well-financed groups, that it’s hard to believe there could be any substantial error. [/quote]

Thank goodness, then. No innocent victims!

It still makes me wonder however, if when people like OJ are ruled innocent, if it’s not certain types of criminal who’re deadmen walking, while many others are walking free.

And should there be no anti-death penalty advocacy at all, I wonder if cases would NOT be “re-reviewed in order to make sure there’s no substantial error”. Whatever that means.

Numbers are nothing, FS. It’s a tough issue that many folks waver on in their lifetimes and never quite know if they’re making the right decision. HGC, for example, keeps going back and forth. TM is walking a line.
If Europeans were able to vote on the issue, they may find their initial reaction for it might change once they weighed the pros and cons.

In Taiwan, I generally feel safe on the streets. I don’t in the US.
I don’t blame it on the judicial system in the US. And I don’t believe that the death penalty in TW or the US has a thing to do with it.

31

I guess what Alien wanted to say is that gun crimes are more common in countries where you have lax gun control laws.
Exceptions might exist (not aware of any though) but tougher laws would surely help to reduce accidents and intentional killings, something we should all desire. Of course there is the argument of self-defense but I don’t necessarily “need” to shoot a robber and other countries (with strict laws) prove that it does work there. Sorry, going a bit off-topic here …

Don’t tell that IYBF, it will shatter his in-a-democracy-politicians-will-only-do-what-the-majority-wants view. :wink:

On the subject: I wonder if there is any statistic or credible argument which supports the idea that stiff penalties (like capital punishment) deter or prevent people from committing such crimes?

32

[quote=“Rascal”]
On the subject: I wonder if there is any statistic or credible argument which supports the idea that stiff penalties (like capital punishment) deter or prevent people from committing such crimes?[/quote]

No criminal executed has ever committed a crime again. :laughing:

33

I guess what Alien wanted to say is that gun crimes are more common in countries where you have lax gun control laws.[/quote]

This isn’t exactly true. Up until the early 1900s, firearms were as readily available in the UK as in the US yet the UK murder rate was much lower. You’re ignoring cultural factors.

34

Alien.

[quote]According to the Death Penalty Information Centre, of the 6390 death sentences imposed between 1973 and 2000 in the US, 102 innocent defendants were sentenced to death

35

Don’t tell that IYBF, it will shatter his in-a-democracy-politicians-will-only-do-what-the-majority-wants view. :wink:[/quote]

Ahem… Rascal

I seem to remember debating ad nauseam with you that Germany’s Government was taking a stand contrary to its people (and you) and would probably feel the need to ‘show leadership’ to bring public opinion around. I am astounded that this message has still not penetrated.

And yet, it is undeniable that democracies take more notice of public opinion than other forms of Government.

This is a fine balancing act for democracies, though. (I think the case of the UK’s Blair and his ‘case for war’ illustrates the conflicting pressures). And the issue of capital punishment is one where these pressures are evident.

Its not unusual for the majority of the general public to come out in favour of capital punishment. Yet, in the UK, as I remember, each time the issue has gone to the vote recently, MPs have been allowed a “free vote” i.e., bound by personal ideas of morality, not the party line.

I may be wrong, but I think the UK Government has often voted against capital punishment being reinstated, even though opinion polls might have been in favour.

Its clear why - on some issues, the Government has to take what might be called “a moral stand.” You might say that the public can be too often motivated by revenge for horrible crimes its reads of in the papers. Government is able to take a more moral, level-headed view.

A public my be motivated out of meanspiritedness - whereas a government would be more charitable. (As Rascal knows from the B&B thread.)

My own view on capital punishment is that I am against it. Why? Well, I don’t like the idea of getting it wrong even once. And it is undeniable that innocent people have been executed.

Perhaps that is a silly squeamish argument. A more reasoned argument is:

I believe that the “punishment should fit the crime” so, murder should logically be punished by death. Yet, i also believe that sentencing must include an element of ‘rehabilitation.’ If not, what is the point of releasing people, unrehabiltated to any degree, back to an environment where people have deemed them unacceptable?

In the case of the death penalty it is impossible to achieve both a fitting punishment and ‘rehabilitation.’*

So, I come down on the side of rehabilitation.

*As an atheist, I cannot appeal to the afterlife to square this particular circle.

36

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”] In this sense irregardless of whether the death penalty is carried out with all due care (how ironic is that) in the present hour, it might prove a disastrous option down the track.
[/quote]
Agreed. And I live in fear.

But HGC, the word is ‘regardless’, not ‘irregardless’. Tis a common error, no worries mate. Sorry to be pedantic.
And while I’m on it, Cold Front, the word is spelt J-U-D-G-M-E-N-T. There’s no ‘e’. It’s one of those mistakes I have to watch myself with. Blame it on Samuel Johnson.

HGC, yours is the point I was getting at in both threads today. Economic disparity plays such a major role in any criminal case, that it’s almost impossible to debate these issues fairly at all. We could be for or against the death penalty, or for or against three strikes, but bottom line is, WHOM ARE WE SENTENCING AND WHOM ARE WE NOT?

37

Feeling like a shabby soapbox talker, or worse still Johnny Howard at question time, I slinked off to the Merriam for help.

Back to the hangin’s

HG

38

Thanks for the history lesson but I was rather thinking about present times here.
Then again maybe ‘cultural factors’ would support stricter laws, i.e. the mix of those factors and lax laws might be a part of the problem. You can’t immediately change cultur but you can implement such laws and thus “restrain” the ‘cultural factors’ in a way.
(Sorry, don’t know how to express it properly but I trust you get the idea)

Oh, I got that message but it was your argument that the opinion of the majority would have such a great impact on the governments decision.
I recall to have said this is not always the case and has been hereby confirmed and agreed by you. In fact I support the opinion that sometimes the government must overried public opinion, else minority groups (racial or otherwise) would have a hard time, even in democracies.
As such Freddie’s conclusion (or was that just another meaningless cut & paste job?) and CF’s agreement that Europe is less democratic is just BS.
A ‘mean’ person would now assume that the two don’t mind if certain groups will be ‘voted out of the US’, as long as they get a majority and thus can call it being (more) democratic … :unamused:

Don’t take it personally, but you gotta admit that this ‘argument’ is a bit off.

Entirely agree and I don’t think I ever refuted that claim.

Unless there is a clear argument that capital punishment has some positive effects (spare me the jokes) I don’t see why it should be in place or even be re-instated where it has been abolished already, even ‘the public’ (that requires a clear majority) wants it.
The risk of taking innocent lives is just too high and as seen there isn’t a ‘perfect’ way of executing them, as such it should be “if in doubt for the accused”. Rather keep a mass-murderer alive in prison, even we knew for sure he is guilty, than killing one innocent and wrongly convicted person.
Keeping them alive but securely locked up wouldn’t harm anyone, but executing someone wrongly does.

39

Yes I can, and yes I do. So does the British government which has issued posthumous pardons in three of those cases, so clearly the state admits it was in the wrong. In at least one case (Evans) there is irrefutable evidence that the conviction was wrong.[/quote]

Okay, I’ll give you that one. In fact, I’ll give you all three. So Britain has wrongfully executed three soldiers under what was probably martial law almost a century ago. Hardly a damning indictment of the lax standards of proof for death penalty cases.

[quote=“Closet Queen”]According to your

40

[quote=“Alien”][quote=“Cold Front”]

Almost every death sentence that is carried out has been reviewed and re-reviewed so many times, and the ruling been looked into by some well-financed groups, that it’s hard to believe there could be any substantial error. [/quote]

Thank goodness, then. No innocent victims!

It still makes me wonder however, if when people like OJ are ruled innocent, if it’s not certain types of criminal who’re deadmen walking, while many others are walking free.[/quote]

Presumption of innocence. I’m sure there are far more murderers walking around free men than there are wrongfully convicted men sitting on death row. Of course, the leftists aren’t going to play up that angle. It doesn’t sit well with their “repressive” government motif.

If you want to argue that these advocates play a somewhat useful role in our society at the margins, you’ll get no argument from me. We just don’t want them running the asylum.

I generally agree with this comment. However, a properly and conservatively administered criminal justice system could alleviate many of the problems we face. One un-conservative playbook I would take a page from, though, is the revamping of the drug laws that Libertarians and the hard left often argue for. I think this is ultimately a much more important question for the U.S. criminal justice system than the death penalty, which is a powerful symbolic issue, but not substantial in making the streets safe one way or the other.