Competence required to be executed in Indiana

banie01

What is the purpose of a death sentence?
Other than killing the convicted of course.

It does not deter.
It is expensive and it throttles court systems.
It also is debatable as to whether it is actually a punishment.

I do believe that imprisonment should be a reformatory process.
That doesn't mean that every person convicted of a heinous crime is eventually released.
Not at all, some people are too dangerous to be released, some are also too ill.
But that doesn't mean that we can impose a death sentence and then enter the rinse and repeat appeal cycle, it should mean we endeavour to convict and jail those guilty.
That where treatment is more appropriate than imprisonment that we ensure that happens.

Every time the debate arises, we seem to split along the same lines.
We have international obligations that preclude Ireland from reinstitution of the Death penalty here.
But..
And I say this as someone currently immersed in studying the criminal justice system and recidivism in particular.
It has absolutely zero tangible benefits to society that isn't totalitarian.

ELM327

Eric Cartman wrote: »

An absolutely harrowing story , but in no way excuses the absolute horror she committed against that woman and her baby.

If she did in any of her family or her dads friends id say she deserves a medal but this was a completely innocent woman who suffered.

mental health might explain heinous crimes, it doesn't excuse them though, and this idea that people should serve less of a sentence for mental health is abhorrent.

I agree.
Her acts deserve the death penalty and we should have similar here.

ELM327

banie01 wrote: »

What is the purpose of a death sentence?
Other than killing the convicted of course.

It does not deter.
It is expensive and it throttles court systems.
It also is debatable as to whether it is actually a punishment.

I do believe that imprisonment should be a reformatory process.
That doesn't mean that every person convicted of a heinous crime is eventually released.
Not at all, some people are too dangerous to be released, some are also too ill.
But that doesn't mean that we can impose a death sentence and then enter the rinse and repeat appeal cycle, it should mean we endeavour to convict and jail those guilty.
That where treatment is more appropriate than imprisonment that we ensure that happens.

Every time the debate arises, we seem to split along the same lines.
We have international obligations that preclude Ireland from reinstitution of the Death penalty here.
But..
And I say this as someone currently immersed in studying the criminal justice system and recidivism in particular.
It has absolutely zero tangible benefits to society that isn't totalitarian.

It's a punishment. It costs less than life without parole (the sentence one step down), and I do think it is a deterrent.


I don't subscribe to the belief that prison is for reform. It's not. It's to pay the cost for what you have done. A punishment. And the harshest punishment is death.

Zookey123

ELM327 wrote: »

I agree.
Her acts deserve the death penalty and we should have similar here.

And everyone here is shocked that you of all people share this opinion!

RWCNT

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There are bad people in this world, be it by birth or through traumatic incidents.

murderers of innocent people, serial killers, paedophiles, violent rapists, those who lunge at police with weapons. There is no other fair way to atone than death.

I dont spend any time fantasising about death, I just think the world has gone far too soft on violent criminals.

You sound like you've read too many Punisher comics tbh. Just because you have a strange preoccupation with brutal revenge doesn't mean death is the only suitable punishment for the crimes you list. It doesn't reverse any of the damage done.

Thankfully, most people do not agree and view the death penalty is rightly as abominable. Outlawed in all but one country in Europe as far as I know, I really hope the Americans get around to binning it off at some stage as well.

ELM327

Zookey123 wrote: »

And everyone here is shocked that you of all people share this opinion!

I don't know you from adam so I don't appreciate your perceived notions as to what I would think.


Regardless of your ideas, this is the only logical decision to take.

Parabellum9

Lumen wrote: »

It's amazing to me that someone could read that story and go, "ah sure, it's bad and all, but go ahead and kill her anyway".

I'm sure you'd have totally the same opinion if you were the husband of the woman she did that to...

No sympathy for her in the slightest, what she did was heinous and her mental faculties or lack of them are no excuse.

Zookey123

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't know you from adam so I don't appreciate your perceived notions as to what I would think.


Regardless of your ideas, this is the only logical decision to take.

Oh It's not much a challenge to figure out what you think.

Nermal

Blazer wrote: »

There's a huge difference between a violent murdering criminal and someone like her.
A violent murdering criminal kills someone knowing full well what they are doing and still goes ahead and does it.
Someone who's been traumatized like she has been is probably fairly doubtful.
Generally I am for the death penalty..but not in this case.

Everyone convicted of a crime warranting the death penalty has an excuse, a back story, a notion that they weren't 'in their right mind' at the time.

Are we responsible for our actions, or aren't we? It's a simple, binary choice.

banie01 wrote: »

It is expensive and it throttles court systems.

Whose fault is that?

banie01

ELM327 wrote: »

It's a punishment. It costs less than life without parole (the sentence one step down), and I do think it is a deterrent.

While you may think it's a deterrent, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that it isn't.
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/centres-institutes/centre-criminology/blog/2015/04/theres-no-evidence-death-penalty-acts-deterrent
That's an overview that will lead to further reading.

The most imprisoned nation per capita, is the US.
How is the death sentence working out for them?
The murder rate there per 100k is @5 with death penalty in many jurisdictions.
If the death penalty works?
Why is the comparable rate in Ireland 0.85 per 100k?
Or just 1.2 per 100k in the UK and Wales?
https://dataunodc.un.org/crime/intentional-homicide-victims


The deprivation of a convicts liberty is punishment.
The penal service can choose to ensure a path towards education and reform is available.
Or it can choose to dehumanise inmates, feed them, lock them, let them out an hour a day and otherwise throw away the key.

Dehumanisation is from the US example, clearly not working.
It's a broken penal system that operates on a huge degree of reoffending.
Don't hold it up as an example as anything other than what not to do.

Nermal

banie01 wrote: »

What is the purpose of a death sentence?

Justice.

hynesie08

Nermal wrote: »

Justice.

For who?

banie01

Nermal wrote: »

Whose fault is that?

Really? I suppose it would be Dev and McQuaid, but the original Constitutional committee of 1921 would carry a bit of the blame too.
As would the electorate that accepted the 1937 constitution and the guarantee of due process.

Is the convicted then to be denied any right of appeal?
Just take them to the CCC, convict them and shoot?

Due process is a cornerstone of fair and free society.
Juries aren't infallible, relying on a group of random citizens to come to a cogent and rational decision?
What if someone is convicted in error?
But your rush to deny due process to free up appeals courts means that just within the acceptable margin of error?

Nermal

hynesie08 wrote: »

For who?

Society.

listermint

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't know you from adam so I don't appreciate your perceived notions as to what I would think.


Regardless of your ideas, this is the only logical decision to take.

Ya ya and just like Eric , someone else can pull the trigger for you . Right.

Nermal

banie01 wrote: »

Is the convicted then to be denied any right of appeal?
Just take them to the CCC, convict them and shoot?

Due process is a cornerstone of fair and free society.
Juries aren't infallible, relying on a group of random citizens to come to a cogent and rational decision?
What if someone is convicted in error?
But your rush to deny due process to free up appeals courts means that just within the acceptable margin of error?

To call the circus that surrounds the death penalty in the US 'due process' is laughable. There's an entire industry designed to frustrate it's application. Of course it's expensive in those circumstances. Regardless: a price worth paying for justice.

Ashbourne hoop

The death penalty is abomination, should not be used anywhere in the year 2021. It is not about justice, purely about revenge. This woman's story is horrendous and it's clear that she should not have received the death penalty.

There hasn't been a federal execution in America since 2003, the fact that Trump is trying to push through a number of them before he leaves office says everything about him, particularly as he's pushing them though because Biden is opposed to the death penalty.

ELM327

banie01 wrote: »

While you may think it's a deterrent, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that it isn't.
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/centres-institutes/centre-criminology/blog/2015/04/theres-no-evidence-death-penalty-acts-deterrent
That's an overview that will lead to further reading.

The most imprisoned nation per capita, is the US.
How is the death sentence working out for them?
The murder rate there per 100k is @5 with death penalty in many jurisdictions.
If the death penalty works?
Why is the comparable rate in Ireland 0.85 per 100k?
Or just 1.2 per 100k in the UK and Wales?
https://dataunodc.un.org/crime/intentional-homicide-victims


The deprivation of a convicts liberty is punishment.
The penal service can choose to ensure a path towards education and reform is available.
Or it can choose to dehumanise inmates, feed them, lock them, let them out an hour a day and otherwise throw away the key.

Dehumanisation is from the US example, clearly not working.
It's a broken penal system that operates on a huge degree of reoffending.
Don't hold it up as an example as anything other than what not to do.

No comment on the cost?

listermint wrote: »

Ya ya and just like Eric , someone else can pull the trigger for you . Right.

:rolleyes:


Do you take your trash to the tip yourself? Clean your own sewers? People are employed to do these things. I'd have no problem morally being an executioner, but such a profession is not available here and I can't really uproot my family to move to be one. I can't imagine the pay is great either

Nermal

listermint wrote: »

Ya ya and just like Eric , someone else can pull the trigger for you . Right.

Just because capital punishment has sometimes been carried out in the name revenge or bloodlust doesn't mean it always must be so.

CtevenSrowder

banie01 wrote: »

While you may think it's a deterrent, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that it isn't.
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/centres-institutes/centre-criminology/blog/2015/04/theres-no-evidence-death-penalty-acts-deterrent
That's an overview that will lead to further reading.

The most imprisoned nation per capita, is the US.
How is the death sentence working out for them?
The murder rate there per 100k is @5 with death penalty in many jurisdictions.
If the death penalty works?
Why is the comparable rate in Ireland 0.85 per 100k?
Or just 1.2 per 100k in the UK and Wales?
https://dataunodc.un.org/crime/intentional-homicide-victims


The deprivation of a convicts liberty is punishment.
The penal service can choose to ensure a path towards education and reform is available.
Or it can choose to dehumanise inmates, feed them, lock them, let them out an hour a day and otherwise throw away the key.

Dehumanisation is from the US example, clearly not working.
It's a broken penal system that operates on a huge degree of reoffending.
Don't hold it up as an example as anything other than what not to do.

There is also the problem with wrongful conviction that doesn't get realised in time.

banie01

ELM327 wrote: »

No comment on the cost?

No comment on your thoughts of deterrence being demonstrably wrong?
Why the stark difference in murder rates in otherwise similar developed countries?

As for comment on costs?
Have you?
You've presented nothing other than an "I think".

Break out the costs on US capital murder trial and show how you came to your position maybe?

Or have a read of the available research and be probably as surprised as I was when I discovered that in just Maryland alone.

In Maryland, taxpayers paid $186 million between 1978 and 1999 to prosecute death penalty cases. The average cost per case was $3 million. Only five prisoners were executed during that time.

https://www.thebalance.com/comparing-the-costs-of-death-penalty-vs-life-in-prison-4689874

Nermal

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

There is also the problem with wrongful conviction that doesn't get realised in time.

The effects of wrongful conviction cannot be undone, regardless of the punishment. Money and apologies can't be turned into time. All we can do is make the appropriate efforts to minimise their occurence.

CtevenSrowder

Nermal wrote: »

The effects of wrongful conviction cannot be undone, regardless of the punishment. Money and apologies can't be turned into time. All we can do is make the appropriate efforts to minimise their occurence.

Well, jaysus, I'd rather be given a million dollars having been in prison for 20 years than be murdered and be given a pardon that is meaningless because I'm dead.

...Ghost...

osarusan wrote: »

More to the point is that you need to be considered competent to even stand trial in the first place.


I don't see where the WTF comes into it, the concept of being considered not responsible/guilty due to mental defect or insanity is pretty common knowledge I would have thought.

Whether it applies in this particular case is another question.

The article I linked from RTE only mentions that she claims not to understand the rationale of being sentenced to death. As the conviction was 13 years ago, we don't know from that article what her mental state was before or during her trial. Presumably she was deemed fit for trial, or it wouldn't be getting discussed in 2021. That's where my WTF comes into it.

I would say you have to be evil, crazy or acting in self defense or defence of others to kill another person outside of state duties (military, police etc). I haven't read any other articles and would prefer not to given what was already covered in the linked article.

Lumen

...Ghost... wrote: »

I would say you have to be evil, crazy or acting in self defense or defence of others to kill another person outside of state duties (military, police etc). I haven't read any other articles and would prefer not to given what was already covered in the linked article.

Of relevance to your enumeration of possible motives for murder, one of the (I presume) unintended consequences of three strikes policy is that if you're two strikes down and committing your third crime (say, a burglary) you have a twisted incentive to murder the victims and risk a low probability death sentence so as to not leave any witnesses and risk a high probability life sentence.

That didn't stop Renua from proposing it as a policy:

https://www.thejournal.ie/renua-three-strikes-rule-2529895-Jan2016/

Now, whether you think burglary is worthy of a life sentence or not, if I ever find myself on the receiving end of a burglary I'd rather not have to worry about the scumbags weighing up murdering me to cover it up.

So, harsh punishment is not necessarily a deterrent, sometimes it's an incentive to commit a more serious crime.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

The key is to hold two things in one's head at the same time:

- Very bad things were done to her
- She did very bad things to other people

...and not force oneself to minimize one in order to fully embrace the other.

And then consider the available options:

- Execute her
- Keep her in jail where she poses little risk to others
- ...rehabilitation/treatment?

...and decide which results in a less bad outcome.

I don't know enough about the case over and above that Guardian article, but I generally find it uplifting to read about cases of rehabilitation of serious offenders, including where that person dies in jail but is able to have some kind of positive effect on those around them. We don't have to celebrate those outcomes, just recognise that some goodness can come out of a life filled with horror.

But even if no treatment or rehabilitation is possible, it is still better to keep people in jail than kill them, because killing people is always bad.

She says very bad things were done to her. Isn't that always the defence for every scum bag in court in Dublin? I was abused, drugs, alcoholic parents etc.

The Guardian piece reads like an opinion piece, not a unprejudice piece on news information.

rossie1977

ELM327 wrote: »

I agree.
Her acts deserve the death penalty and we should have similar here.

I would rather we not follow the lead of 95% of these countries and pretty sure most Irish citizens would agree

Lumen

Deleted User wrote: »

She says very bad things were done to her. Isn't that always the defence for every scum bag in court in Dublin? I was abused, drugs, alcoholic parents etc.

The Guardian piece reads like an opinion piece, not a unprejudice piece on news information.

Do you have alternative sources?

randd1

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Well, jaysus, I'd rather be given a million dollars having been in prison for 20 years than be murdered and be given a pardon that is meaningless because I'm dead.

But you'd be dead, so you wouldn't care either way.

As an aside, what is the rate of executed innocent people? And I mean actual innocent, as in someone wrongly convicted.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Do you have alternative sources?

I don't need any. You need to be able to support the source you approve - while at the same time saying the source is incompetent.

Do you deny the first last line of defence for most offenders is abuse or mentalism?