Even liberal Austinites got this one right!

[cb1000rider]

If this is true, how come nearly every inmate exhausts every single appeal available to them. Death row inmates fight hard to keep that "harsher" sentence working for them.

You mean why don't they just skip the appeals and accept the punishment? Maybe because most would prefer not to die and think they might have a chance of having their sentences overturned. Odd question..

Apparently Christopher Thomas Johnson requested the death penalty and skipped his appeals. It only took 6 years to implement the sentence.

And more than a few who have been on death row have been exonerated. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ex ... ted_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That's the system working, right? I agree, except for the cases where the exoneration happened after they carried the sentence out... And we've got prosecutors in Texas that don't like to review new-fangled evidence like DNA. That kind of thing messes up conviction records and can be very bad for your career.

No legal system is perfect. Ours is pretty good.... I'm not claiming any moral high ground here. It simply makes no sense to me: If it's more expensive than life AND we put a few good guys down to get a lot of bad guys, how is anyone OK with that?

[Redneck_Buddha]

Disclaimer: I am opposed to the death penalty.

[mojo84]

I'm not sure but I think a certain amount of appeals is required by law in death sentence cases. Maybe someone more knowledgeable will give us some input.

[baldeagle]

It shouldn't matter that the guy he killed was a cop: he should still get the death penalty.

I'll agree when:
1) It costs less to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life. Life in prison is a much harsher penalty. As it's cheaper, we should use it.
2) We stop executing the very small number of people who are legally and factually innocent in order to prosecute a much larger number of very bad guys. I can't support a system that gets it wrong from time to time. If you can, let me know what the acceptable number of innocent people is.

Please let me know when the first proven case of an innocent man being put to death is found.

[baldeagle]

Disclaimer: I am opposed to the death penalty.

So why do you carry a gun?

[Redneck_Buddha]

Disclaimer: I am opposed to the death penalty.

So why do you carry a gun?

Apples and oranges, I do believe.

[VMI77]

It shouldn't matter that the guy he killed was a cop: he should still get the death penalty.

I'll agree when:
1) It costs less to put someone to death than it does to keep them in prison for life. Life in prison is a much harsher penalty. As it's cheaper, we should use it.
2) We stop executing the very small number of people who are legally and factually innocent in order to prosecute a much larger number of very bad guys. I can't support a system that gets it wrong from time to time. If you can, let me know what the acceptable number of innocent people is.

I've heard that supposed cost comparison and just figured it was bogus but never bothered to find out how. So, it's an apples and oranges comparison. It doesn't cost more to keep them in prison for life; it costs more to keep them in prison and allow them to abuse the legal system. If cost is your concern, the solution is simple: curtail the abuse of the courts.

The "it's cheaper" argument is bogus. It would be cheaper not to prosecute them at all, let them go. Keeping them alive, even in prison, puts other people at risk: prison guards and other employees and other prisoners. How much is the life of someone in for possessing marijuana worth? If there is no death penalty then every murder after the first one is a freebie.

There is a cost to doing what's right. Even if it were truly the case that it cost more for an execution, there are some crimes for which execution is the right and just penalty. Twenty years on death row filing bogus court petitions is neither right nor just.

The acceptable number of executed innocent people is zero. As long as the planet is populated by human beings there will be no perfect system. Is an American life more valuable than a Pakistani life? Should we not drone strike terrorists because an innocent will be killed? I don't think anybody posting here believes it is acceptable to execute an innocent person by mistake, but this a theoretical position that doesn't fully translate into real life.

In the first place, there are very few "innocent" persons who get tried in court, and even fewer who get tried and executed. They may be technically innocent, but often have committed another crime that is as bad or worse than the one they're being tried for, and just gotten away with it.

http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/201 ... homicides/

The national homicide solved rate has actually fallen over the past two decades to about 65%. Last I read, the unsolved rate in some places, like Chicago, is 80%. From 1980 to 2008 there were 185,000 unsolved killings. Even in places with the best solved rates about 10% of the killings go unsolved.

Secondly, the idea that life in prison is more just to an innocent person is debatable and is an individual perception. You, as an innocent person, might prefer life in prison to the death penalty, but I wouldn't. The implied presumption in claiming a life sentence to be more just is that the person has a chance at exoneration, but realistically, what are the odds such a person will be exonerated? We don't know, and can't know, but given the fact that those most likely to have been wrongly convicted are the most likely to lack the resources to challenge their conviction, I'd guess the odds are slim to none. You yourself described life in prison as a harsher penalty than death, so what are you most likely condemning the rare innocent to? And in reality, the kind of person that is really "innocent" is not likely to be the kind of person that will fare well in prison. That doesn't sound very just to me.

[mojo84]

At one time a .22 to the base of the skull would be the cheapest way. Nowadays with the shortage of .22, I'm not sure that is the case.

[cb1000rider]

Please let me know when the first proven case of an innocent man being put to death is found.

That proof doesn't exist.
I think you're asking the wrong question though:

1) You're implying that people should have to prove their innocence. For instance, Cameran Willingham, the guy in Texas that was convicted using "scientific facts" about arson that were proven to be bunk later doesn't fit because we can't know for sure that he didn't do it, right? I guess that's right.

2) DNA evidence has exonerated 17 or 18 people who were scheduled to die. That's the system working, right? Maybe... Except that courts, especially Texas courts, are very resistant to looking at the evidence of cases where sentences were carried out. Even if that evidence involves something factual like DNA. We don't want to look under the rock. That would be bad.

[cb1000rider]

I've heard that supposed cost comparison and just figured it was bogus but never bothered to find out how. So, it's an apples and oranges comparison. It doesn't cost more to keep them in prison for life; it costs more to keep them in prison and allow them to abuse the legal system. If cost is your concern, the solution is simple: curtail the abuse of the courts.

I'll state that another way: Decrease what it costs to keep people in prison.
Yep, if you do that, I can't make the cost argument. Changing the "abuse" also changes the system itself. For bad guys, I think that's a good idea. For good guys, it's a bad idea. We got a lot of one and a little of the other in prison.

The "it's cheaper" argument is bogus. It would be cheaper not to prosecute them at all, let them go. Keeping them alive, even in prison, puts other people at risk: prison guards and other employees and other prisoners. How much is the life of someone in for possessing marijuana worth? If there is no death penalty then every murder after the first one is a freebie.

There are two arguments there - cheaper and safer. I don't dispute that it's less safe for guards and staff to have them in prison over having them dead. I do dispute that it's more cost effective to execute them, under the current system.

There is a cost to doing what's right. Even if it were truly the case that it cost more for an execution, there are some crimes for which execution is the right and just penalty. Twenty years on death row filing bogus court petitions is neither right nor just.

I agree with you in terms of the concept of justice for people that are guilty. When I hear "right" that means "moral" to me, I'm not sure if it does to you. I think the moral rule is pretty clear. I'm not saying that I'm any better than anyone else, to each his/her own.

The acceptable number of executed innocent people is zero. As long as the planet is populated by human beings there will be no perfect system. Is an American life more valuable than a Pakistani life? Should we not drone strike terrorists because an innocent will be killed? I don't think anybody posting here believes it is acceptable to execute an innocent person by mistake, but this a theoretical position that doesn't fully translate into real life.

If the acceptable number of innocent people being killed is zero, how can you support the current system? BaldEagles point is that I can't prove that we've ever executed someone that we could prove was factually innocent, but I can prove that we've executed people based on evidence that was not real... Sure, they might have done the crime. We've certainly sent people to death row for decades that were proven to be factually innocent, so it's hard to say that the solution is to remove their ability to appeal the sentence.

In terms of drone strikes, I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. Others have served so I haven't had to be in that position.

They may be technically innocent, but often have committed another crime that is as bad or worse than the one they're being tried for, and just gotten away with it.

I'm not speaking to "technically" innocent or legally innocent. I'm speaking to factually or actually innocent. Lots of bad guys get off the justice hook, that's for sure.
Tell me it's OK when you're written a speeding ticket if you weren't speeding... I mean, you probably sped at some time last week, right?

Secondly, the idea that life in prison is more just to an innocent person is debatable and is an individual perception. You, as an innocent person, might prefer life in prison to the death penalty, but I wouldn't. The implied presumption in claiming a life sentence to be more just is that the person has a chance at exoneration, but realistically, what are the odds such a person will be exonerated? We don't know, and can't know, but given the fact that those most likely to have been wrongly convicted are the most likely to lack the resources to challenge their conviction, I'd guess the odds are slim to none. You yourself described life in prison as a harsher penalty than death, so what are you most likely condemning the rare innocent to? And in reality, the kind of person that is really "innocent" is not likely to be the kind of person that will fare well in prison. That doesn't sound very just to me.

Putting an innocent person in prison isn't just, VM. I can't argue with you there. At least we agree that there is a rare innocent... I'm just trying to call that spade a spade - which is we inherently fry an innocent fish to get rid of the really bad fish. To me, it's a fact, not an opinion. And it's something that isn't always presented to supporters because the violence of the bad fish get all the attention. If you or anyone else thing that it's an acceptable loss statistic, although a regrettable one, I'm not going to judge that... I'm just saying it's not for me.

[baldeagle]

Disclaimer: I am opposed to the death penalty.

So why do you carry a gun?

Apples and oranges, I do believe.

Why? If you don't believe the state has the right to take a life, what gives the individual citizen that right? Because when you pull the trigger, that's precisely what you will do 27% of the time. I'm prepared to deal with that, but I believe in the death penalty. I don't understand how you can reconcile opposition to the death penalty with a willingness to shoot someone.

[baldeagle]

Please let me know when the first proven case of an innocent man being put to death is found.

That proof doesn't exist.
I think you're asking the wrong question though:

1) You're implying that people should have to prove their innocence. For instance, Cameran Willingham, the guy in Texas that was convicted using "scientific facts" about arson that were proven to be bunk later doesn't fit because we can't know for sure that he didn't do it, right? I guess that's right.

The people who claim people like Willingham are innocent are usually ignorant of the facts of the case and willing to suspend belief to find them innocent.

2) DNA evidence has exonerated 17 or 18 people who were scheduled to die. That's the system working, right? Maybe... Except that courts, especially Texas courts, are very resistant to looking at the evidence of cases where sentences were carried out. Even if that evidence involves something factual like DNA. We don't want to look under the rock. That would be bad.

Don't be silly. If we weren't willing to "look under the rock" as you say, those 17 or 18 never would have been found. In fact, our system is such that looking under rocks is done quite regularly. In fact, looking for pixie dust is often done in attempts to get off clearly guilty people.

But here's the problem I have with people who oppose the death penalty. They complain about flaws in the system; people who withhold or mishandle evidence, overly ambitious prosecutors who don't care about justice, a legal system that makes it difficult for poor people to get justice, yet they do nothing about those problems. All they want to do is end the death penalty. Better a man rot in prison, they say, then be wrongly put to death. No! A thousand times no! Police who hide evidence should be tried, convicted and jailed. Prosecutors who don't care about justice should be disbarred and removed from office. The man who is wrongly convicted of a crime and spends five years in jail for a crime he didn't convict has been wronged just as greatly as the one who spends his life in prison or is put to death. Injustice is injustice.

But no, that won't do. We must fill our prisons with the most evil among us, and expose the guards, administrators and other prisoners to these evil men, rather than put them to death because there's a chance our flawed system will put an innocent man to death.

There is no greater poster child for the death penalty than Kenneth McDuff. Imprisoned for murder and sentenced to death, his sentence was commuted to life, then he was released. He killed again. He was released again. He killed again. Finally he was put to death. In the end, he killed between 9 and 14 women, all but two of them after having been convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

People worry about the one guy who might be innocent yet put to death. What about the victims of the Kenneth McDuffs of the world? Apparently they don't matter. Because we can't kill McDuff because someone else might be innocent? What drivel!

[Redneck_Buddha]

Disclaimer: I am opposed to the death penalty.

So why do you carry a gun?

Apples and oranges, I do believe.

Why? If you don't believe the state has the right to take a life, what gives the individual citizen that right? Because when you pull the trigger, that's precisely what you will do 27% of the time. I'm prepared to deal with that, but I believe in the death penalty. I don't understand how you can reconcile opposition to the death penalty with a willingness to shoot someone.

I believe the differences are glaringly obvious, and that you are just going after me with a straw man because I don't espouse your opinion on the DP. Since you have pointed the finger at me, maybe you can illustrate some points that would make the comparison even remotely valid.

[VMI77]

I've heard that supposed cost comparison and just figured it was bogus but never bothered to find out how. So, it's an apples and oranges comparison. It doesn't cost more to keep them in prison for life; it costs more to keep them in prison and allow them to abuse the legal system. If cost is your concern, the solution is simple: curtail the abuse of the courts.

I'll state that another way: Decrease what it costs to keep people in prison.
Yep, if you do that, I can't make the cost argument. Changing the "abuse" also changes the system itself. For bad guys, I think that's a good idea. For good guys, it's a bad idea. We got a lot of one and a little of the other in prison.

The "it's cheaper" argument is bogus. It would be cheaper not to prosecute them at all, let them go. Keeping them alive, even in prison, puts other people at risk: prison guards and other employees and other prisoners. How much is the life of someone in for possessing marijuana worth? If there is no death penalty then every murder after the first one is a freebie.

There are two arguments there - cheaper and safer. I don't dispute that it's less safe for guards and staff to have them in prison over having them dead. I do dispute that it's more cost effective to execute them, under the current system.

There is a cost to doing what's right. Even if it were truly the case that it cost more for an execution, there are some crimes for which execution is the right and just penalty. Twenty years on death row filing bogus court petitions is neither right nor just.

I agree with you in terms of the concept of justice for people that are guilty. When I hear "right" that means "moral" to me, I'm not sure if it does to you. I think the moral rule is pretty clear. I'm not saying that I'm any better than anyone else, to each his/her own.

The acceptable number of executed innocent people is zero. As long as the planet is populated by human beings there will be no perfect system. Is an American life more valuable than a Pakistani life? Should we not drone strike terrorists because an innocent will be killed? I don't think anybody posting here believes it is acceptable to execute an innocent person by mistake, but this a theoretical position that doesn't fully translate into real life.

If the acceptable number of innocent people being killed is zero, how can you support the current system? BaldEagles point is that I can't prove that we've ever executed someone that we could prove was factually innocent, but I can prove that we've executed people based on evidence that was not real... Sure, they might have done the crime. We've certainly sent people to death row for decades that were proven to be factually innocent, so it's hard to say that the solution is to remove their ability to appeal the sentence.

In terms of drone strikes, I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. Others have served so I haven't had to be in that position.

They may be technically innocent, but often have committed another crime that is as bad or worse than the one they're being tried for, and just gotten away with it.

I'm not speaking to "technically" innocent or legally innocent. I'm speaking to factually or actually innocent. Lots of bad guys get off the justice hook, that's for sure.
Tell me it's OK when you're written a speeding ticket if you weren't speeding... I mean, you probably sped at some time last week, right?

Secondly, the idea that life in prison is more just to an innocent person is debatable and is an individual perception. You, as an innocent person, might prefer life in prison to the death penalty, but I wouldn't. The implied presumption in claiming a life sentence to be more just is that the person has a chance at exoneration, but realistically, what are the odds such a person will be exonerated? We don't know, and can't know, but given the fact that those most likely to have been wrongly convicted are the most likely to lack the resources to challenge their conviction, I'd guess the odds are slim to none. You yourself described life in prison as a harsher penalty than death, so what are you most likely condemning the rare innocent to? And in reality, the kind of person that is really "innocent" is not likely to be the kind of person that will fare well in prison. That doesn't sound very just to me.

Putting an innocent person in prison isn't just, VM. I can't argue with you there. At least we agree that there is a rare innocent... I'm just trying to call that spade a spade - which is we inherently fry an innocent fish to get rid of the really bad fish. To me, it's a fact, not an opinion. And it's something that isn't always presented to supporters because the violence of the bad fish get all the attention. If you or anyone else thing that it's an acceptable loss statistic, although a regrettable one, I'm not going to judge that... I'm just saying it's not for me.

I think Baldeagle made the key point, in a flawed system, which is every system created by man, we have to look at the balance of innocent deaths. Innocents are going to be killed one way or the other, so which system is likely to produce the fewest innocent casualties? I have a hard time believing that there are more innocents being executed than there are convicted murderers killing again. According to wikipedia, the last few years, nationwide, executions have been near an average of just over 40 per year....less than one per state, and this number is probably skewed by the fact that Texas executes far more criminals than any other state (almost five times more than the next highest rate state, Oklahoma).

According to this New Jersey government study (http://www.newjersey.gov/corrections/pd ... enders.pdf)

Out of 19, 268 homicide offenders released, 3051 committed homicides again within three years.

There have only been around 3,100 executions in the US, total since 1976, according to wikipedia. Yet released homicide offenders killed 3051 more people in just three years. There is no way the number of innocent people executed is even close to the number of additional people murdered by convicted murderers. In fact, according to wiki, the highest rate of execution during the time period of the cited study was 100 per year. So, even if 10% were innocent, which I highly doubt, released murderers killed 100 times more people. So, for every innocent saved another 100 had to die.

I'll also point out that the states that don't execute killers also tend to have the most strict gun control laws and abridge the right to self-defense in a number of ways, including making it difficult or impossible for people to carry a concealed handgun.

[cb1000rider]

The people who claim people like Willingham are innocent are usually ignorant of the facts of the case and willing to suspend belief to find them innocent.

I believe that he wouldn't have been convicted without that evidence. Your guess is as good as mine in regard to him being factually innocent. Expand that to all of the people put to death over all time, I think the chances of finding one factually innocent are very very high. Can't prove it.

Don't be silly. If we weren't willing to "look under the rock" as you say, those 17 or 18 never would have been found. In fact, our system is such that looking under rocks is done quite regularly. In fact, looking for pixie dust is often done in attempts to get off clearly guilty people.

I said we're not willing to look under rocks after the sentence is carried out. You asked me for references to people who were executed and proven factually innocent. Those are the rocks that we don't want to look under.

Police who hide evidence should be tried, convicted and jailed. Prosecutors who don't care about justice should be disbarred and removed from office. The man who is wrongly convicted of a crime and spends five years in jail for a crime he didn't convict has been wronged just as greatly as the one who spends his life in prison or is put to death. Injustice is injustice.

I agree with everything you say here.

But no, that won't do. We must fill our prisons with the most evil among us, and expose the guards, administrators and other prisoners to these evil men, rather than put them to death because there's a chance our flawed system will put an innocent man to death.

I see the point - by not executing a small number of good people, we're putting many many others at risk by having them deal with the evil among us.. That's a valid point.

People worry about the one guy who might be innocent yet put to death. What about the victims of the Kenneth McDuffs of the world? Apparently they don't matter. Because we can't kill McDuff because someone else might be innocent? What drivel!

They absolutely matter. And I completely admit, you get to do away with a lot of evil at some cost to a very few people. That's the choice that we're making here... I'm not saying that everyone has to make it the same way. Not everyone is aware that we've exonerated death penalty cases or that the system is capable of making a mistake like putting someone factually innocent to death. I want people to be aware. I don't judge their opinion.