Will turn you against capital punishment

[QED]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743417593/qid=1046630179/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3794058-5110200?v=glance&s=books

Very sad story.

[Patroclus]

Why don't you tell us a little about the book?

[QED]

Ok,

A murder of three young boys transpired in West Memphis, AR in the early 1990's. The police completely botched the investigation, but eventually arrested three teenagers, accusing them of Satanic activity (on the basis of the one of them being involved with Wicca). On the basis of a confession, made under apparent duress, of one of the three who was mentally retarded, they were arrested, tried and convicted. The oldest was sentenced to death. Other leads, especially some pointing towards the father of one of the three murdered children, were never pursued. The father in question was an informant for narcotics, owned a pawn shop that traded guns with members of law enforcement, and had been serendipitously absolved of previous criminal activity, while charges about other alleged activity were dropped.

IOW, three innocent people are being punished, one of them by death, unless the appellate procedure eventually leads to the commutation of that sentence. The other two are serving life sentences.

You can read more about it here:
http://wm3.org/

I'm reading the book now. It was loaned by a friend, and I must say that I am appalled. Not only are the innocent being punished and one of them is to lose his life, but the real culprit will never face justice. :bawl:

[Ric]

...but after September 11, 2001 I am now all for it!

Plus God did give governments the right for capital punishment in Scripture.

[QED]

As much as I share your rage at the perpetrators of 9/11, that won't save the life of Damien Echols.

[Sozo]

I'm for capital punishment...

H:whip:

You are a very bad H... take that, and that, and...

[Patroclus]

Sozo, you oft make me chuckle. :thumb:

[Alden]

:lol:

[Epoetker]

As much as I share your rage in the case of Damian Echols, it won't turn me against capital punishment.

[Jin-Roh]

I personally am inbetween on capitol punishment. You hear stories like this and it turns you against it.

But then you also here about somebody being violenty murdered with a pick ax, or a ten year old by being aphiaxated with gasoline so his lifeless body could be raped, or an out of work man deciding that he can murder his whole family so he just "start a new life" eslewhere....

I mean, when the worst of me comes out, I say that death is to good for people like that.

http://smilies.crowd9.com/contrib/anym/hanged.gif

[undead]

03-02-2003 @ 06:34 PM
QED:
Will you turn against capital punishment?

I am against capital punishement by the state. I believe if anyone inflicts capital punishment, it ought to be the jurors. That way, they get their own souls damned when they make wrong decisions, rather than someone else's.

1Cr 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

[Hitch]

There is a single argument from reality.

Do the Scriptures teach it or not?


Hitch

[Ishmael]

03-08-2003 @ 09:36 PM
Hitch:

There is a single argument from reality.

Do the Scriptures teach it or not?


Hitch

Thank you Hitch.

The Bible is the standard of justice in the world. That the world rejects it is of no real consequence to it's truth claim. I am convinced myself that God instituted the death penalty as the consequence for murder. It really doesn't matter what we think about the moralty of capital punishment, it matters what God's Word says, as with any other issue.

[bar Jonah]

03-08-2003 @ 08:23 PM
undead:



I am against capital punishement by the state. I believe if anyone inflicts capital punishment, it ought to be the jurors. That way, they get their own souls damned when they make wrong decisions, rather than someone else's.

1Cr 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

How on earth can someone be damned by making an error in judgement such as that? Especially considering that all things are lawful for a believer??? :hrm:

On another note, I have seen that book on the three boys, but I haven't read it. However, it occurs to me that you shouldn't believe everything you read without checking out both sides. There are fools who really believe OJ was the victim of a conspiracy, and that Mumia Jamal is innocent. Just because one book paints a very strong picture in favor of these three boys doesn't necessarily mean they are innocent, or that the book is even factual. It may very well be true, but you shouldn't automatically assume it is.

[GrayPilgrim]

"Hard cases make for bad law."

[Em7add11]

Capital punishment hasn't even occured yet, how could it be the cause of everything that was done wrong in that case? Capital punishment of Damien will only be the shameful end result of a great amount of overzealous prosecution.

If any of you folks subscribe to a magazine called Reason you should read the article this month about this very case. It's pretty brief but it lays out the whole case and all the glaring errors in the prosecution concisely. It's a review of the book mentioned above too.

Does the book go into how the "confession" of the boy who is mildly retarded is full of contradictions? A lot of people suspect he was given leading questions and just answered affirmitively to whatever the police officers asked him.

[bar Jonah]

03-08-2003 @ 08:50 PM
Calvinist:



Thank you Hitch.

The Bible is the standard of justice in the world. That the world rejects it is of no real consequence to it's truth claim. I am convinced myself that God instituted the death penalty as the consequence for murder. It really doesn't matter what we think about the moralty of capital punishment, it matters what God's Word says, as with any other issue.
Indeed, Calvie and Hitch. Here is something we resoundingly agree on, despite our vast hermeneutical differences.

It's interesting to note that while there are many kinds of penal punishments described in the Bible, there are only three that are truly God-given:

Restitution (including above the amount damaged/stolen)
Whipping or flogging
Death

Imprisonment is never mentioned by God as a suitable punishment. If you think about it, it 1) costs society for the well-being of the prisoner, and 2) takes the criminal away from his/her family (usually his), thereby harming the family of the criminal in question.

Thoughts?

[Sozo]

03-10-2003 @ 04:42 PM
RightIdea:


Indeed, Calvie and Hitch. Here is something we resoundingly agree on, despite our vast hermeneutical differences.

It's interesting to note that while there are many kinds of penal punishments described in the Bible, there are only three that are truly God-given:

Restitution (including above the amount damaged/stolen)
Whipping or flogging
Death

Imprisonment is never mentioned by God as a suitable punishment. If you think about it, it 1) costs society for the well-being of the prisoner, and 2) takes the criminal away from his/her family (usually his), thereby harming the family of the criminal in question.

Thoughts?

I had never thought of that :ponder:

:idea: That is pure genuis! Great insight, Right!!

[bar Jonah]

Don't give me credit. I didn't think it up on my own; I gained that insight from others.

[Sozo]

03-10-2003 @ 04:46 PM
RightIdea:

Don't give me credit. I didn't think it up on my own; I gained that insight from others.

Well, at least you can recognize truth when you hear it. That is more than can be said for the majority.

[QED]

and 2) takes the criminal away from his/her family (usually his), thereby harming the family of the criminal in question.

At the risk of being obvious, doesn't capital punishment have a similar effect?

As to the costs of incarceration, I have to find it somewhat cynical to count dollar costs against the cost of (often innocent) life. OTOH, I think incarceration was a hopeless idea, doomed from the start, and lacking in acceptable alternatives. In my personal utopia, it would be replaced with a system of restitution, ostracization, and rehabilitation. Restitution should be a must up to the limits of liability or the limit of the criminal's available resources. This should be followed by either rehabilitation at an institution dedicated to the purpose, or exile to a "badlands" separate from civilized society, depending on the nature of the crime and on whether the criminal is judged capable of rehabilitation. Now, lets have a contest to see who can count the most impossible complications of my utopian plan! :smile:

PS. The OT punishments were seemingly intended for the Israelites living under the old Covenant, and the rule of wise Judges.

[GrayPilgrim]

03-10-2003 @ 07:18 PM
QED:

PS. The OT punishments were seemingly intended for the Israelites living under the old Covenant, and the rule of wise Judges.

Actually the original context when God commands captial punishment is Genesis 9, as part of the Noahic Covenant, as the only fitting punishment for murder. The Mosaic Law broadens this to include other infractions, which are dependent on that Covenant.

GP

[PerhapsItsTruth]

I'm not against it, but I am against the innocent being killed...

-Perhaps...

:argh:

[QED]

03-12-2003 @ 04:51 AM
PerhapsItsTruth:

I'm not against it, but I am against the innocent being killed...

-Perhaps...

:argh:

Yeah... but have you figured out a way to excercise it without the innocent being killed? Obviously our states' govt's haven't.

You have to respect the recent gov of IL who saw the problem and wouldn't have that innocent blood on his hands.

[bar Jonah]

03-12-2003 @ 06:45 PM
QED:

Yeah... but have you figured out a way to excercise it without the innocent being killed? Obviously our states' govt's haven't.

You have to respect the recent gov of IL who saw the problem and wouldn't have that innocent blood on his hands.
And what cases do you have of the innocent being executed, QED?

[QED]

I was referring to the Damien Echols death sentence. I've heard of some that were exonerated, some before, and some after, it was too late (by DNA testing), but cannot recall a specific instance to mind. Do you dispute that the innocent are sometimes executed?

[bar Jonah]

I'm not disputing it. I'm asking for evidence that it's ever happened.

And cases where people have been taken off death row before execution by being exonerated are irrelevant. That only demonstrates that the system works, not that it fails.

[QED]

Ok, RI - The case of Frank Lee Smith (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/) seems to be well enough documented.

[bar Jonah]

So... sidestepping the long process of proving his innocence here (unnecessary, I believe), you're saying that one man in the history of the death penalty in America was innocent?

That's your case?

[QED]

RI, it is sounding to me like you are disputing that it occurs. You asked for evidence that it has happened once, and I offerred the case of Frank Lee Smith. His case is well documented and he was exonerated by DNA testing after his execution. Not all cases are so well documented. If Damien Echols' sentence is carried out, it will be without the potential for him to be exonerated in this way, because none of the real killers' DNA was ever found. Other cases that made the headlines include people coming within a day or two of execution before being exonerated. The fact that they are alive is not because the justice system "works", but because it "works" sometimes, and they happened to beat the clock. Illinois found several people on death row who were exonerated by this method. Now, are you telling me that 100% of the people who are executed without having this re-evaluation available to them are guilty? If you find 1% of those who are evaluated to be innocent, why do you presume that 100% of those that are not evaluated must have really been guilty?

[QED]

Major correction: Frank Lee Smith died on death row, but not from execution. He died from cancer. Please excuse my error.

[bar Jonah]

What I know is that I have no reason to reasonably doubt the system as it exists, today. We don't live in a perfect world, and we never will.

Can more lives be saved if automobile drivers wear helmets? Of course. "Even if it saves one life, it's worth it." Hogwash. It might save a life. Maybe 20 or 50 or 100 lives. Is it reasonable to make that a law? Absolutely not.

Is the capital punishment system perfect? No. Does it serve its purpose? Absolutely. It's purpose isn't revenge. It isn't to punish -- life with hard labor would be a far greater punishment than a painless death by the needle. Its sole purpose is to protect society from people who are so dangerous that we can't afford to take the chance of letting them live, even in maximum security. And if I must weigh the hundreds of cases of such dangerous individuals against your one example of a man wrongly (and tragically and regretfully) executed, then there is no perfect solution but I must support the death penalty. Without apology.

[QED]

RI,

I would like to point out to you the difference between saving a life, and failing to take an innocent one.

I don't want to get into a huge debate about whether CP is a deterrent, or whether it serves better to protect than other corrective measures. One reason I have remained undecided so long is because that debate is too complex for me.

What tilts the balance, for me, is that I cannot justify taking innocent lives in this manner. The fact that 100 murderers were put to death will be little consolation to the family of Damien Echols and other victims of this system.

You do have a right to your opinion, and I respect it. If reading the Devil's Knot doesn't change your mind, it will at least give you pause for reflection, and let you understand how I feel about it.

Regards,
QED

[Patroclus]

Wow, some lively discussion!

[Socrates]

It's fallacious to use examples of incorrect APPLICATION of something to argue against that something per se.

[QED]

Socrates,

I'm not arguing against something per se. I'm arguing against its application.

I am ambivalent about the death penalty per se, but I am completely opposed to the death penalty as applied by a society that lacks the ability to correctly judge the guilty from the innocent without error.

[Sher]

I too sit somewhere in the middle. There are criminals, repeat criminals, who are too evil to live. It is a sad fact, but a true one. I think that they should be punished by the families of the victims they leave behind. :bonk::fight:

However, that said, I am against CP for the person who is not a repeat offender, the one who could possibly be innocent.

I've twice seen a program on television where this professor assigns his class a case to "solve" of a person on death row that appears to be innocent. His students have been personally responsible for getting several people released when it has been proven that they did a better job than the overworked investigators.

But ... then again ... If you find the bones of 10 victims in a person's house, and the person is picking human flesh from his teeth, I say fry him like an egg.

[Em7add11]

03-16-2003 @ 07:00 PM
QED:

Socrates,

I'm not arguing against something per se. I'm arguing against its application.

I am ambivalent about the death penalty per se, but I am completely opposed to the death penalty as applied by a society that lacks the ability to correctly judge the guilty from the innocent without error.

I think to expect anything to operate with 100% accuracy is ridiculous. There's lots of scientific progress that helps eliminating false positives when it comes to guilt. So, in all seriousness, this would be the best time to have a death penalty because the odds of being wrongly convicted with DNA evidence is pretty slim.

[QED]

Today @ 01:59 AM
Em7add11:

I think to expect anything to operate with 100% accuracy is ridiculous. There's lots of scientific progress that helps eliminating false positives when it comes to guilt. So, in all seriousness, this would be the best time to have a death penalty because the odds of being wrongly convicted with DNA evidence is pretty slim.

I have to remind you that in the case in the OP, the only DNA evidence is extremely ambiguous. There was a knife belonging to the stepfather which had traces of blood consistent with one of the victims (his step-son) but also consistent with 8% of the population including the stepfather. There was necklace owned by a defendant. It had traces of blood consistent with one of the victims, but also consistent with 11% of the population. No decisive DNA evidence was available.

Yet Echols is on death row as we speak. The evidence? The coerced confession of a mentally retarted minor, in which he was named after numerous leading questions that pointed to him. The fact that he was seen in the general vicinity of the location of the bodies hours before the murders were likely to have occurred (and not in the company of his codefendant or another supposed murder who was tried separately). A single fiber that was "similar" to a fiber from clothing at his home. Testimony from a teenage girl, who came forward long after supposedly hearing him brag to his friends that he committed the murders. His involvement in the occult (when the physical evidence lacked most indicators of cult involvement).

The single biggest problem in his trial was that the judge refused most of the best defenses. Testimony from another man who confessed to the murders (then retracted them), who had a history of drug offenses, and who moved away to California shortly after the murders. Testimony to show that the confession of the mentally retarded youth was coerced. Testimony to reveal shoddy police work.

If the law were changed, requiring hard forensic evidence connecting the defendant with the murders, including DNA evidence in order for the death penalty to be imposed - that would be a huge step. But, for those innocents not fortunate enough to have a case where such evidence can exonerate them, now is no better time than any other for the death penalty to be applied the way that our society applies it.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 07:40 PM
QED:
I have to remind you that in the case in the OP, the only DNA evidence is extremely ambiguous. There was a knife belonging to the stepfather which had traces of blood consistent with one of the victims (his step-son) but also consistent with 8% of the population including the stepfather. There was necklace owned by a defendant. It had traces of blood consistent with one of the victims, but also consistent with 11% of the population. No decisive DNA evidence was available.

Yet Echols is on death row as we speak. The evidence? The coerced confession of a mentally retarted minor, in which he was named after numerous leading questions that pointed to him. The fact that he was seen in the general vicinity of the location of the bodies hours before the murders were likely to have occurred (and not in the company of his codefendant or another supposed murder who was tried separately). A single fiber that was "similar" to a fiber from clothing at his home. Testimony from a teenage girl, who came forward long after supposedly hearing him brag to his friends that he committed the murders. His involvement in the occult (when the physical evidence lacked most indicators of cult involvement).

The single biggest problem in his trial was that the judge refused most of the best defenses. Testimony from another man who confessed to the murders (then retracted them), who had a history of drug offenses, and who moved away to California shortly after the murders. Testimony to show that the confession of the mentally retarded youth was coerced. Testimony to reveal shoddy police work.

If the law were changed, requiring hard forensic evidence connecting the defendant with the murders, including DNA evidence in order for the death penalty to be imposed - that would be a huge step. But, for those innocents not fortunate enough to have a case where such evidence can exonerate them, now is no better time than any other for the death penalty to be applied the way that our society applies it.
There you have it. The problem isn't the death penalty. The problem is local corrupt officials railroading this person -- if indeed this person is innocent. And in this corrupt world, there will be corrupt people.

Corrupt people pushing steroids in sports. Corrupt people mistreating employees and discriminating against workers based on irrelevant factors such as race and religion. Corrupt people selling bad products on in the marketplace. The problem isn't the system. The problem is bad people misusing a good system.

And this is exactly the problem in the situation you're describing.

[QED]

RI, workplace discrimination and other ills you mentioned are illegal. It should be illegal to put a person to death with only circumstantial evidence.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 04:32 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42021#post42021)
QED:

RI, workplace discrimination and other ills you mentioned are illegal. It should be illegal to put a person to death with only circumstantial evidence.
You're totally missing the point.

It is illegal discriminate against someone in the workplace based on race, religion, sexual preference, etc. (I think this law is wrong, but that's another debate, entirely.)

It is also illegal for law enforcement individuals to harass and prosecute someone they know to be innocent. It is illegal to get a false confession out of someone, falsify evidence, ignore other evidence, etc. If what you say is true about this particular case, the law enforcement individuals involved have broken the law.

Whether in the workplace or in your example, the system is good. But people break the rules and abuse the system, and bad things happen as a result. And though we should fight this rule-breaking and abuse, this will always exist at least to some extent, because we live in a flawed, evil world.

[QED]

We must also have precautions against and protect individuals from this rule-breaking and abuse. A law requiring certain kinds of evidence before the imposition of the death penalty would accomplish this.

[bar Jonah]

Yesterday @ 02:06 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42596#post42596)
QED:

We must also have precautions against and protect individuals from this rule-breaking and abuse. A law requiring certain kinds of evidence before the imposition of the death penalty would accomplish this.
"Certain kinds of evidence?" What do you mean?

[QED]

DNA karyotyping.

[bar Jonah]

So you would require certain kinds of evidence in certain cases but not others, thereby affording some people extra rights other people don't have?

[QED]

Today @ 03:29 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42914#post42914)
RightIdea:

So you would require certain kinds of evidence in certain cases but not others, thereby affording some people extra rights other people don't have?

No-one, regardless of the case, could be sentenced to death without DNA evidence. Who gets extra rights?

[bar Jonah]

But people facing life in prison without parole would have no such protection from wrongful prosecution, conviction and punishment.

[QED]

They would have all of the same protections as those facing the death penalty.

Since those facing the death penalty are not acquitted in the absence of DNA evidence (only protected from a certain type of sentence), then they will still be prosecuted, convicted, and punished - most likely with life sentences. Therefore, the chances that these things will be done wrongfully are equal between the two sets of cases.

[bar Jonah]

Something just occurred to me.

I'm curious... Anyone here who knows a great deal about the culture and technological level of OT Israelites? I'm wondering if anyone here can verify how far advanced Moses and his people were in the area of DNA karyotyping when God handed down the death penalty as law?

Anyone?

Today @ 11:52 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43022#post43022)
QED:

They would have all of the same protections as those facing the death penalty.

Since those facing the death penalty are not acquitted in the absence of DNA evidence (only protected from a certain type of sentence), then they will still be prosecuted, convicted, and punished - most likely with life sentences. Therefore, the chances that these things will be done wrongfully are equal between the two sets of cases.
So how about people facing life with parole. Or just 20 years? Or one year? Someone carjacks a Mercedes and doesn't hurt anyone. Does he get afforded this right to have DNA evidence, or to be set free in the absence of such evidence?

[QED]

So how about people facing life with parole. Or just 20 years? Or one year? Someone carjacks a Mercedes and doesn't hurt anyone. Does he get afforded this right to have DNA evidence, or to be set free in the absence of such evidence?

I must have been unclear. There would be no right to be set free in the absence of DNA evidence. There would be a protection against the death penalty (only) in the absence of such evidence. IOW, Damien Echols would be facing life w/o parole now. Still unjust, but better than a wrongful execution.

As to Hebrew law, the gathering of wood on Saturday, the prohibition on shellfish, and the death penalty in that context - we don't live in that context. Perhaps Moses, Joshua & the Judges were imbued with greater skills at discerning the truly guilty from the innocent than the people we have now. We don't know for sure, but we do know that there is a problem with executions in the modern American world. And that problem could be greatly mitigated by restricting the death penalty to cases with less room for error (i.e. w/ DNA evidence).

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 12:33 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43050#post43050)
QED:
I must have been unclear. There would be no right to be set free in the absence of DNA evidence. There would be a protection against the death penalty (only) in the absence of such evidence. IOW, Damien Echols would be facing life w/o parole now. Still unjust, but better than a wrongful execution.

As to Hebrew law, the gathering of wood on Saturday, the prohibition on shellfish, and the death penalty in that context - we don't live in that context. Perhaps Moses, Joshua & the Judges were imbued with greater skills at discerning the truly guilty from the innocent than the people we have now. We don't know for sure, but we do know that there is a problem with executions in the modern American world. And that problem could be greatly mitigated by restricting the death penalty to cases with less room for error (i.e. w/ DNA evidence).
I must have been unclear. You're treating them symptom instead of the disease. Your answer to a corupt system is a slightly less corrupt system.

Again, the problem isn't the death penalty. It is the corrupt individuals misusing the law. Echols would still be TERRIBLY wronged within your solution. Life without parole? For an innocent, mentally handicapped boy? Which is more merciful? Which is more cruel?

You've as much as admitted that without the corrupt individuals misusing the system, nothing is inherently wrong with the death penalty. And yet your solution hinders the good part of the system (the death penalty) and leaves the bad part of the system in place. What kind of solution is that??? :doh:

[QED]

Today @ 07:47 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43055#post43055)
RightIdea:


I must have been unclear. You're treating them symptom instead of the disease. Your answer to a corupt system is a slightly less corrupt system.

Find a way to treat the disease & I'm all ears. I don't think that human error will ever be eliminated.

I don't think a solution that prevents innocent people from being executed should be characterized as a "slightly less corrupt system".

Again, the problem isn't the death penalty. It is the corrupt individuals misusing the law. Echols would still be TERRIBLY wronged within your solution. Life without parole? For an innocent, mentally handicapped boy? Which is more merciful? Which is more cruel?

Actually, the mentally handicapped boy is only in for life without parole. Echols is of normal intelligence. (It was the confession from the mentally handicapped boy that fingered Echols). Which is more merciful? Life imprisonment. For a number of reasons:
1) Evidence that could overturn the conviction may surface, but will do no good after he is dead.
2) Ask a death row inmate if he wants to live (in prison) or die. People want to live, and we shouldn't want to kill them.
3) These people still have families that love them. Their feelings and needs should count for something. How many families of death row inmates write the warden to hurry up & put them out of their misery?

You've as much as admitted that without the corrupt individuals misusing the system, nothing is inherently wrong with the death penalty.

No, I haven't. I haven't made the case that there is anything inherently wrong with the death penalty, because I have always been ambivalent on that point.

And yet your solution hinders the good part of the system (the death penalty) and leaves the bad part of the system in place. What kind of solution is that??? :doh:

I am not convinced that the application of the death penalty to people who are truly guilty of capital crimes is a good thing, but it may be. I am still ambivalent about that.

The solution to the problem of executing individuals must be realistic. Human error and human corruption will never be eliminated on this earth. We should strive for that goal, but we cannot delay protection for those about to die because of this human frailty while we wait on humans to become perfect.

The solution does hinder the imposition of capital punishment, but only in case where there is a lot of room left for doubt. In fact, it separates the bad part (the execution of innocents) from what you call the good part (execution of the guilty). It doesn't do so perfectly, but it does so better than our current system, and errs on the side of caution for life.