Utah killer executed

[dieseltaylor]

I am just lamenting the fact that the anti-death penalty group have the meida sown up pretty tightly in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10347166.stm

I would love a graph to show - every time they show countries that use execution , a graph that shows the number of people killed by released killers, or further deaths organised from their cells.

Ronnie Lee Gardner had spent his final day watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy and meeting lawyers and clergymen.

On Tuesday, Gardner had eaten his final meal of steak, lobster, apple pie, vanilla ice cream and 7-Up, before beginning a 48-hour fast.

Gardner's lawyers said he had undertaken his fast for "spiritual reasons", the Salt Lake City Tribune newspaper reported.

'Fair opportunity' In 1985 Gardner had been attending court in Salt Lake City to face a charge of murdering barman Melvyn Otterstrom a year earlier.

So he gets 25 years more life than his innocent victims. Nice. And how much cost in terms of food and appeals. Appeals! ?!!!

[Michael Emrys]

Considering that wrongful convictions are not exactly unheard of in our system, making extra doubly sure that you are putting the right guy to death is not a bad idea. And consider this too: If you execute or even just lock up the wrong guy, then the real criminal is probably still out there somewhere doing wrong and the public is not protected.

Michael

[womble]

As a Brit, and holding a number of liberal views alongside my conservative ones, I have to say that, for me, the finality of a death sentence is the biggest argument for simply not doing it. If the principle "Better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent is punished" is valid (as I believe it to be) at a lesser level (say, simple theft) then it is emphatically more so when the punishment is so emphatically more.

And punishments really don't seem to make very much difference to criminals' propensity towards crime. One of the first things necessary to consider serious crime is a disregard towards the possibility (probability in many cases) that the perptrator will get caught. Bank robbers and kidnappers-for-profit mostly get caught, so any rational comparison of risk v reward would suggest that it's not a good way of making a living, yet people still undertake both.

I don't see why people get so worked up about the method where the death penalty is part of the legal process though. Firing squad, while messy (though I'd expect expanding rounds and no overpenetration, so not very messy), is less fraught with potential screwups than either frying or poisoning seem to be. Guillotine, now there's a messy way of offing someone. You want to be humane? Carbon monoxide poisoning is a good way to 'put someone to sleep'.

Edit: And, out of interest, just how do you take, from the text of that article, that '...the anti-death penalty group have the meida sown up pretty tightly in the UK'? Is it not legitimate to mention that there were objections? Was there a pro-death-penalty lobby making their voices heard in a presentable way, other than the legitimate authorities making their statements. The article seemed largely to be bloodlessly stating the facts of the matter, to me, and the ACLU's overblown bleatings (as reported) were obvious and arthiritic rhetoric, rather than treated with any favour.

[dieseltaylor]

Granted that an innocent man should not be executed in error I have never said that all people convicted of killing should be executed. I can think of several extenuating circumstances and also where a murder is not categoric.

For instance there is without a shadow of a doubt in this case. There was no doubt with the Moors Murderers. Some cases simply are too blatant to have any shadow of doubt.

Interesting

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/747748-half-of-us-back-death-penalty

suggests that half the popullation supports the death penalty. And what do you think of a Parliament apparently voted for its abolition against the wishes of 75% of the population. Curious thing democracy.

The split in the way the poll

Although the strongest support comes from older generations, 49 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds and 37 per cent of those aged 16 to 24, support executions.

that seems to fit the profile that wisdom comes with age. : ) Also would tend to suggest a bias in the poll given that 16 year olds are included.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I would be in favour of the death penalty if I trusted the state more to not fook it up.

I've no problem with a death penalty if:

-the crime is especially heinous or large

-the criminal can't be let back in society

-the evidence is overwhelming.

Take paedophile murderers. Again and again I'm reading stories how they've killed before, got jailed and then did it again. Fook that! If you can't execute him based on the first case, then blow his head off straight after the guilty verdict in the second. No appeals or clemency hearing, straight to the pockmarked and suspiciously stained wall.

Making taxpayers cough up to keep such vermin incarcerated is the greater injustice.

As for method: I like shooting or hanging. It has a certain honesty about it. Lethal injection is being nice about a very not nice thing to do. Electric chair is a big no-no.* Inefficient, unwieldy and cruel. And we've got to think of the environment. The hemp fandango is so much greener.

Also, don't do it in prisons, especially if you pretend to do it for the deterrent effect. If you feel you need to kill a guy on behalf of the people, do it in front of the people. If you get the death penalty in Iran, they will winch you up in your home town.

*I've seen a documentary as to how it came to be that The Chair was even selected as an execution device. Disgusting how that came about.

[womble]

Granted that an innocent man should not be executed in error I have never said that all people convicted of killing should be executed. I can think of several extenuating circumstances and also where a murder is not categoric.

For instance there is without a shadow of a doubt in this case. There was no doubt with the Moors Murderers. Some cases simply are too blatant to have any shadow of doubt.

There have been other times when, given the situation at the time, it looked categoric, including confession, but the confession turned out to be the fantasies of a deranged mind and the real killer walked away. Not just in cases where the capital option was available, mind, but had the death penalty been on the books at the time, the wrong person would have been killed in revenge.

Because revenge is all it is. It's not a deterrent, as I've pointed out.

Interesting

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/747748-half-of-us-back-death-penalty

suggests that half the popullation supports the death penalty. And what do you think of a Parliament apparently voted for its abolition against the wishes of 75% of the population. Curious thing democracy.

[gunnergoz]

When I believed in competent government, I was for the death penalty. What with the influence of media and lobbies upon elected officials nowadays, I'm not so sure any more that justice will be served and that checks and balances in the system will even work any more.

[dieseltaylor]

womble- in the case you state - the deranged false confession that would not be sufficient. Incontrovertible proof is not someone confessing. The specific examples I gave you seem not to refute - is that because they do not deserve to die?

And in the end, logic says the death penalty is a bad thing.

Pardon me. Logic says no such thing - you may array some facts that support your case. This case especially fails if you ignore my very specific instances where murders are 100% proved and try and extend me being in favour of capital punishment in specific circumstances to a blanket call for all murderers to be executed.

On the more wafty subject of what society requires there are many experiments proving that people want a fair society. Even dogs are known to sulk where other dogs get preferential treatment. Is an eye for an eye actually what mammals expect to happen.?

Logically as I get into my dotage it will be in my interest to murder someone so that I get food and secure lodgings, plenty of people to chat to and all amenities on site. No need to worry about taxation, cooking etc. Neat huh. And if enough of us do it we can have quite a nice prison to ourselves.

ANyway the other strand to the argument is how many people have been killed by murderers after they have been convicted. In the UK about 31 people have died at the hand of already convicted murderers - but what the heck - society should be prepared to sacrifice 31 people in order that ....... er what

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4940180/Trail-of-crime-by-65-killers-who-were-freed-early.html

Let me apologise in advance for using anything from newspapers you dislike as they do not share your views.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Indeed it is a curious thing. There are lots of things that governments pass which nobody really voted for, even if they got the most seats and it was in the manifesto that almost nobody read.

Yeah, if you agree with the stupid reactionary oldsters... Note that the poll is being quoted sans reference by a paper that's part of a media group with a notorious reputation for reprehensible rabble-rousing on all sorts of subjects.

And in the end, logic says the death penalty is a bad thing.

Logic says no such thing.

The argument of the death penalty being final is not very persuasive on account of people spending decades in prison don't exactly get their lives back either. There's a difference between the two, but it's a smaller distance then you paint.

If you think the justice system is entirely incapable of ever supplying evidence that provides a level of certainty that could green light a death penalty, you shouldn't be against the death penalty, you should be oppose any and all punishment not of a monetary nature.

So what if it's revenge? Revenge is not a bad thing. And I think it more a low cost way of waste removal in any case.

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235764/Convicted-killer-die-bars-murder-mother-died-days-alerting-police.html

Bear in mind that in Germany you are not allowed to say someone is a murderer once they finish their sentence. See Wiki being sued by two German murderers.

[Ziploc]

Are you allowed to call them an ex-murderer?

[noxnoctum]

I'm against the death penalty simply because we've already executed too many innocents.

The ongoing advance of DNA technology means that a lot of convictions in the past were false.

Sure you can say, "when there's overwhelming evidence", but where do you draw the line? At what point is it "overwhelming"?

I say just give them life imprisonment in solitary. That's worse than death. Then, if they turn out to be innocent, let em out and give them a multi-million dollar payout as a way to "apologize", though no amount of money can pay back years of (usually) a person's youth.

Anyways, what do you expect, it's Utah, probably the most backward state in the union apart from Mississippi (or Arizona currently)

[Stalins Organ]

It is overwhelming when there is no doubt.

the bar for conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt"......and I have little problem with a bar for execution being "beyond any doubt".

[hoolaman]

I say just give them life imprisonment in solitary. That's worse than death. Then, if they turn out to be innocent, let em out and give them a multi-million dollar payout as a way to "apologize", though no amount of money can pay back years of (usually) a person's youth.

That's my preference too.

The hypocrisy of killing someone because they killed someone is a big thing imo. The state declares that juman life is sacred, the only way you get away with killing is if your life is in danger. Yet the state can declare that someone must be killed when they are already safely locked away in jail. Ironically a lot of "pro-life" folks seem to be the same crowd that supports killing criminals.

The death penalty is not a deterrent to murder and rape, and even many family members of murdered people are against the death penalty, so what purpose does it serve?

[Stalins Organ]

There's no need to think that the state holds that human life is "sacred" - quite clearly there are cases where you can take a life - you even list one of them in your post.

there is a right to life, but the right to life is not unqualified - individuals are allowed...even encouraged .... to take someone else's life in some clearly defined and pretty well known situations.

I have no problem with the state being able to do so too.

[Affentitten]

Post-conviction DNA exonerations

Including 17 people on death row.

"Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions

These DNA exoneration cases have provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events, but arise from systemic defects that can be precisely identified and addressed. For more than 15 years, the Innocence Project has worked to pinpoint these trends.

Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 75 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses). Studies have shown that people are less able to recognize faces of a different race than their own. These suggested reforms are embraced by leading criminal justice organizations and have been adopted in the states of New Jersey and North Carolina, large cities like Minneapolis and Seattle, and many smaller jurisdictions.

Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing. While DNA testing was developed through extensive scientific research at top academic centers, many other forensic techniques – such as hair microscopy, bite mark comparisons, firearm tool mark analysis and shoe print comparisons – have never been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation. Meanwhile, forensics techniques that have been properly validated – such as serology, commonly known as blood typing – are sometimes improperly conducted or inaccurately conveyed in trial testimony. In other wrongful conviction cases, forensic scientists have engaged in misconduct.

False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. In 35 percent of false confession or admission cases, the defendant was 18 years old or younger and/or developmentally disabled. Nineteen of the first 250 DNA exonerees pled guilty to crimes they did not commit. The Innocence Project encourages police departments to electronically record all custodial interrogations in their entirety in order to prevent coercion and to provide an accurate record of the proceedings. More than 500 jurisdictions have voluntarily adopted policies to record interrogations. State supreme courts have taken action in Alaska, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Wisconsin. Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, and the District of Columbia require the taping of interrogations in homicide cases.

Snitches contributed to wrongful convictions in 19 percent of cases. Whenever snitch testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most snitch testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges. Prosecutors should also reveal any incentive the snitch might receive, and all communication between prosecutors and snitches should be recorded. Fifteen percent of wrongful convictions that were later overturned by DNA testing were caused in part by snitch testimony.

[Stalins Organ]

From my point of view there would not be an automatic death penalty, and with modern and improving techniques of forensics "mere" eyewitness identification would almost certainly not be sufficient to ensure there was _no_ doubt as to guilt.

So all the cases from the past where innocent people have been executed are irrelevant.

Edit: If you haven't seen The Secret in Their Eyes (El secreto de sus ojos) I recommend it - it got the foreign language Oscar in 2009 - good murder/mystery/manhunt/forlorn romance flick ...and with a plot that's kinda relevant to the debate

[hoolaman]

There's no need to think that the state holds that human life is "sacred" - quite clearly there are cases where you can take a life - you even list one of them in your post.

there is a right to life, but the right to life is not unqualified - individuals are allowed...even encouraged .... to take someone else's life in some clearly defined and pretty well known situations.

I have no problem with the state being able to do so too.

The only situation I can think of where it is legal to kill someone is where doing so will prevent the death of yourself or another person, in other words this concept is also based in the sanctity of life.

People who track down and murder the guy who they know killed their wife/daughter are just as guilty of murder as the first guy. Even police and soldiers in times of war are not permitted to do this.

But the state can catch the guy, take him off the streets and lock him up for decades, and only then decides that he must be killed. It just seems so arbitrary and pointless to me, and killing a person when it is arbitrary and pointless is not good.

Not to mention the death penalty in the US can be imposed by jurors on certain people who they just don't like the look of. So poor people, black people and men are pretty highly represented on death row.

[Affentitten]

Not to mention the death penalty in the US can be imposed by jurors on certain people who they just don't like the look of. So poor people, black people and men are pretty highly represented on death row.

From the same link above about wrongful convictions:

Races of the 254 exonerees:

151 African Americans

76 Caucasians

21 Latinos

2 Asian American

4 whose race is unknown

[Stalins Organ]

I am not talking about the current system - I am talking about a system where I would be prepared to support capital punishment.

So there's no use complaining to me that the current system takes forever, etc., and that in the past there have been all sorts of injustices, etc.

IMO we have the ability to have capital punishment withoouth those shortcomings.

I doubt it will happen....but if it did I would support it.

as far as I'm concerned execution by the state after determination of certain guilt is less arbitrary than execution by another individual upon even reasonable presumption of future guilt.

In both cases a judgement has been made, and execution delivered. Except in 1 the verdict is the result of consideration based on all the gacts and with no doubt as to the guilt of hte condemned....in the other perhaps a split second decision based upon beliefs at het time which are probably not fully examined (for completely practical reasons).

that decision will then be examined after the fact and may be found to be not correct - even if it was made in good faith and the killer is not held responsible

The other case where homicide is sanctioned is, or course, war.

[hoolaman]

But what purpose is served by executing them at all, perfect system or not?

Its not a deterrent, it often doesn't make the family of the victim feel any better and it doesn't bring back the victim and I'm pretty sure God is no happier with us afterwards.

I'd rather keep them very cheaply in a dungeon with plenty of dank.

[hoolaman]

The other case where homicide is sanctioned is' date=' or course, war.[/quote']

Yes I left that out because it seems a bit irrelevant to the civilian criminal justice side of things. I'm not keen on war either as it happens, but a stand up fight with someone who is pissing you off is different to offing a guy you already have deprived of his freedom and have complete power over.

[Stalins Organ]

Hoola I'm an atheist, so what god thinks is of no interest to me...and probably vice versa.

However from the scriptures I am aware of I'm pretty sure that most gods aer quite happy with capital punishment as a general principle!

Keeping them in a dark dank dungeon seem to be pretty much as useless as a deterrant or a means of making the survivors feel better too - sure it will affect some of both....but so will the death penalty.

I see no reason why any given punishment needs to be a panacea for all the issues - it just needs to achieve ends I am satisfied with.

Nope - for me it's just that I don't want to have to pay anything towards their upkeep, and they'll have broken the social contract (implied or explicit - I don't care which) to be allowed to exist.

How about dropping bombs on civilians then?

[JonS]

Reasons not to kill prisoners:

# Mistakes happen. To use engineering terminology, the death penalty doesn't fail gracefully since mistakes are difficult to recover from.

# It's difficult to learn anything from someone who is dead. Prisoners provide endless fodder for psychs interested in that kind of behaviour.

# Moral issue c.f. Hoolaman's post. It's immoral to deliberately harm anyone, least of all those who are already under you complete control.

Reasons to kill prisoners:

# acts as a deterent. Unfortunately(?), it doesn't.

# revenge. Is this even part of our criminal justice system?

# stops them reoffending. This is essentially punishing someone for potential future offending, as opposed to punishing them for something they have actually done. I don't think punishing crimes not yet comitted is part of our criminal justice system*.

I'm against it. Lock them up, leave them there.

* Although there are some sort-of exceptions, usually framed as "intent to commit ...", or crimes for possessing particular artefacts, such as lock picks.

[JonS]

How about dropping bombs on civilians then?

For those who care about such things, it is explicitly prohibited.

Next question?