Uechi-Ryu.com

Allan, emotional responses are not wrong. Acting in the way you suggested, I believe, is to the detriment of many and the benefit of few or none, so if you want to say its therefore wrong, in my opinion, fine.

Rich, are you seriously implying that ANY severe torture we can dream up, if commonly applied, is therefore not unusual and therefore permitted by the Constitution?? The clause then means nothing. Nothing humans can write can ignore the fact that all written law must be interpreted and enacted by the current citizenry, right? That means rational interpretation. So I would suggest asking a couple hundred people if they thought "torture," was something the founders sought to avoid when they prohibited the "cruel and unusual." See what the citizenry think. Also I would try to imagine, given the Founders experiences with gov't abuse of power (on them), how enthusiastic they would be about the gov't being able to torture its citizens.

Actually Ian, I was just making a point. You stated that torture was illegal under the US Constitution, which, it is not. Cruel and unusual punishment is. So, go read the Constitution before declaring what it says. The Supreme Court will decide what fits that description, not an individual.

As for unusual, did James Madison (he had some input to the Constution and Bill of Rights) have any concept of an electric chair when he proposed the 8th amendment? Death by electrocution is quite painful. I'm in that end of the industrial world and electrical accidents are absolutely horrible, with limbs burned off, horrible burns, permanent neurological damage... Theses are things that have happened to people I work with. I suspect the minute(s) or so that the current is applied is torturous and seems like an eternity to the victim. That method of execution may be cruel and not be civilized but the thought of the 'chair' is much scarier than the 'needle', which was the point of that method. So, if the threat of not unusual torture works as a deterrent to criminals......

Rich

OK Ian:

As you discussed in your initial post, the potential for deterring other like crimes by other individuals is frequently mentioned in arguments supporting the death penalty. Although prison should likewise serve as a deterrent to crime, I think the assumption is that a looming death penalty would make people MORE averse to committing such crimes.

If this were the case, the existence and practice of the death penalty would provide valuable benefits to the group. But can anyone really make the argument that the death penalty, as it is currently applied, actually serves as a deterrent now? NO. The reason is simple: we aren't executing enough people.

To serve as a deterrent, the death penalty must be an immediate and frequently applied sentence. It must be such a part of reality that even in a murderous fury a perpetrator remembers that he will be executed if he intentionally kills someone.

The laws regarding the application of the death penalty are simply too restrictive to allow frequent and quick executions of those convicted of murder. In addition, the current system is prone to too many mistakes.

I propose the following (not an exhaustive list):
1) Mandate the death penalty for first-degree murder convictions.
2) Open all second-degree murder convictions to punishment by death if there are contributing factors (commission of another crime, etc.)
3) Guarantee DNA testing to all suspects/convicts who request it or whose cases may be benefited by it.
4) Process death penalty appeals, etc. so that sentences can be carried out within one year of conviction.

These changes may produce the following effects:
1) DNA testing would significantly lower the chances of wrongful conviction.
2) Numbers of executions would rise by orders of magnitude.
3) Potential killers would realize that committing murder would bring a certain and quick execution.
4) Murder rates would drop (direct effect of #3).
5) Individuals who would have been murdered without the deterrent aspect of the penalty would benefit.
6) Other individuals would share the psychological benefits of living in a safer society.
7) The decline of murder rates would result in fewer convictions, and eventually fewer executions.
8) Innocent suspects would still be convicted and executed. (The benefits of DNA testing for some would be offset at least partially by the reduction in the appeals process necessary to produce the "immediate" application of the penalty.)
9) We may suffer psychically living in a society that kills so many people (deserving or not).

Could we derive sufficient utility from such an arrangement to justify it? The psychic costs/benefits (#6,#9) may well cancel each other out. I see this as analogous to arguments for helmet/seat belt laws, etc.:
The restriction of individual liberty (especially that of the wrongfully convicted) for the benefit of society as a whole (or as a group of individuals, however you want to look at it).

Ian: Tell Tim to call sometime.

[This message has been edited by Lee Herndon (edited August 31, 2001).]

Ummmmkay.... well, I'm familiar with the clause, and the wording, so, must have read it at some point... thus not understanding why I've been chided... all we offer the world are interpretations, and opinions, and in the interest of furthering the discussion I offered one of mine without asking the SCOTUS for permission. Won't happen again.

Important question: are you saying the chair is prohibited because per the founder's experience it would have been unusual?

No, not at all. Execution by some means was not considered unusual, just that electricity was something of a curiosity back then and may not have been considered reliable. Imagine putting someone out in a field with a kite during a lightning storm. Execution by lethal injection would have been strange back then, but poisening them with arsenic would be a possibility.

By the way, my longtime employer, GE, built the first electric chair about a hundred years ago. It was one of Tom Edison's inventions I believe. The one used in Richmond until about 1990 was a GE model, and before every execution one of our field service guys would get called over to make certain it was functioning properly. As a result, the Richmond chair rarely resulted in exploding or flaming executionees as Florida experienced not too long ago. The GE chair was retired when the old prison was demolished and since we exited that market many years ago some other company supplied the current one.

From what I understand the gas chamber is a horrible way to die, with violent convulsions, loss of bowel control etc. I think California may still have theirs available as an option. I wonder who thought that method up? The Supremes still allow that method, the chair, lethal injection, hanging and the firing squad in various states. I believe that the preferred methods just evolve over time.

Rich

While it may be "cruel", in many cases it can't be claimed as "unusual" to put the perp to death in the same fashion that he used on his victims. Perhaps if rapist/murderers were treated to the same treatment they gave their victims...

My only reason for not wanting the death penalty for rape is that the PsOS will just decide to kill their victims and despense with any potential witness. While the crime of rape (in many cases) leaves the victim for all intents and purposes "dead" emotionally, at least with them still alive physically there is hope for recovery.

However, I seriously challenge anyone that thinks a rape victim is ever the same again. While I know of many who have "moved on", the fact is that they've been changed forever.

Please don't anyone take this the wrong way. I don't think rape is anything but awful, and I would deal harshly with rapists, but, here are some things to consider, since the topic of death for rape has been brought up:

Rape is not a black and white entity. There is a spectrum of coercion that ranges from physical force to threats of force to positions of power misused as well as situations where the consent of the victim isn't all that worthwhile because he or she has been drinking etc, down to sex based on false promises of love (or HIV negativity, who knows??). Consider:

In Virginia I was told as the law is written if a person is drunk she cannot give consent and therefore sex with her is rape. Ok, so what's drunk, since she's not likely to get a BAL at the time of the act? Second, what if he's drunk too? Drunk enough not to know he can't trust her consent?? Who decides? Whose opinion counts? Because all this determines who gets EXECUTED.

A person has the right to refuse sexual activity at any point, including during sex. So lets say one person makes a request to stop and the other person continues for several minutes for their personal interest. Is that rape? How about 10 seconds? 5? Who decides? Whose story?

If a 40 year old man has sex with a 18 yearold on that person's birthday, that's fine even if that person is exceptionally immature, of borderline intelligence, and emotionally naiive and doesn't know the risks of sex. But it's rape if an 18 yearold has sex with a 17 yearold a day before a birthday even if that person is 4 years ahead in their education, ready to finish college, extensively educated and has a world's worth of experience and an IQ of 160. Does that make sense? Whom do we execute? If we drop the age requirement who decides maturity?

Some reasons why the concept of death for rape bothers me. Others: wouldn't we then kill all murderers, attempted murderers, those who planned for murder, or even those who physically assaulted a person and left no lasting harm but traumatized them much like a rape?

What qualifies rape as a death-deserving crime?

Tough issue. Very tough. The balance against punishment and the crime is hardly (as Gilbert and Sullivan put it) sublime.

One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty is the obvious one - errors in investigation and prosecution.

In Illinois we have had about a dozen death-row inmates freed because of compelling and incontrovertable evidence being discovered that proved their innocence of the crimes that they had been accused of.

That's about twelve people - INNOCENT people - who will not go to their deaths in error.

How often do we hear of police corruption, planting evidence and false witnesses? How often do lab results get lost or lied about as noted in two cases in a prior post?

While I believe in the idea of capitol punishment in extreme cases - Speck, Dhamer, Gacy, where the evidence is so overwhelming and the crimes so heinous, I feel that, for the majority it is simply not the way we should go. In general, there's too much room for error, as shown by the Illinois cases and others around the country.

So, I guess you could say I'm against, with exceptions for serial killers and in certain other extreme situations where the perp is caught red-handed and there is NO possibility of error.

Just my 2 cent's worth.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
P.S. - My Dad was one of the courtroom artists on the Speck case and mapped the apartment for the case and the paper he worked for. My wife's brother was the cop who pulled Corazon Amarao (the sole survivor) off the balcony. It is possible that they actually bumped into each other at the crime scene. Small world, isn't it?

Since the events of the 11th, has anyone changed thier mind about the death penalty?
Just wondering,
Ron

I was also wondering if there was any change in people's attitudes toward this issue.
I am pro on this issue but I have a feeling that this tragic event may very well have swayed me to change my mind if I were not.
Anyone else wish to comment?

Lori M-D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lori macleod-doyle:
I was also wondering if there was any change in people's attitudes toward this issue.

Lori,one change,hind sight is 20/20,anyone connected with,fundraising for,harboring,or otherwise supporting any terrorist activity or perpetrating such an act.....death.

Those who condone these acts are a waste of oxygen.

Laird

I agree they are a waste of oxygen. I agree it would have been most satisfying to kill or otherwise halt these men in the act and save their victims--or, as the passengers on the last flight did, at least save tohers if not themselves. However, these nutjobs believe fervently that they by dying in service of Allah get transfered to an express flight to heaven. Go figure.

Do we do to them what we would want to do to them? That is, death.

Or do we do to them what they don't want done to them? That is, life. Prison, Solitary until even more insane, if possible?

Put them in a triangular shaped cell.
Label the walls North,South,West.

Laird