Competence required to be executed in Indiana

Ronaldinho

Lumen wrote: »

Another strawman. Nobody says that everyone is a victim.

That's precisely what GreenBo said when they mentioned "2 victims", presumably referring to the convicted killer and the person they killed.

Lumen

Ronaldinho wrote: »

That's precisely what GreenBo said when they mentioned "2 victims", presumably referring to the convicted killer and the person they killed.

There are more than 2 people in the world.

...Ghost...

Well, that was some report alright. I skim read some of it and couldn't see any hard evidence, but I may have missed it. The accounts of people were disturbing and it wasn't easy at all to read the astonishingly dysfunctional and criminal way she was raised. Her mother sounds like a vindictive, manipulative and evil b!tch.

Although the murder was pre-meditated, it certainly seems she was not of sound mind and never really was. Awful stuff.

mynamejeff

seamus wrote: »

Since execution has been in use for virtually all of human history and has failed to "cut out the rot", at what point do you accept that it doesn't actually work?

o I don't know about that ,

people who have been executed have a zero re offending rate

Gael23

The world is a safer place without this woman

mynamejeff

mynamejeff wrote: »

o I don't know about that ,

people who have been executed have a zero re offending rate

Its a bit like arguing there's always been robbery no matter what the punishment, so what ever the deterrent, its mot working

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

Call me an extremist but I think killing people to prove that killing people is wrong is one of the most hypocritical beliefs a person can have.

Hold on a second there, Socrates! By this logic, fining people who steal money is also 'hypocritical', isn't it?

ohnonotgmail

GreeBo wrote: »

Not one single person who was executed ever went on to commit another crime...

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Of all the penal punishment and rehabilitation measures, it has the lowest recidivism rates.
I might be wrong, but I think it approaches 0%

mynamejeff wrote: »

o I don't know about that ,

people who have been executed have a zero re offending rate

you must have all thought you were fierce clever posting that.

Mules

The abuse she experienced as a child was horrific but I dont see how it would be related to her murdering a stranger as an adult. Maybe I'm not seeing it but why would it be a mitigating factor?

end of the road

mynamejeff wrote: »

o I don't know about that ,

people who have been executed have a zero re offending rate

so do people locked up in prison for the rest of their lives at a fraction of the cost.
it's clear the death penalty fails on all of it's reasoning.

spurious

Killing is wrong. You can't then say it is ok if the government/State does it.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you must have all thought you were fierce clever posting that.

Clever and factually correct!

Its a real sweet spot

ohnonotgmail

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Clever and factually correct!

Its a real sweet spot

keeping her in prison for the rest of her life would achieve the same aim at less cost.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

keeping her in prison for the rest of her life would achieve the same aim at less cost.

Yea, i dont necessarily disagree she shouldn't have been executed. but thats a different point.

The recidivism rate for those punished by death penalty is still zero as pointed out, incurring your admonishment, whereas those serving life are still capable of killing again.

biko

spurious wrote: »

Killing is wrong. You can't then say it is ok if the government/State does it.

I dunno, reading about what some of those men did to Lisa Montgomery and her half-sister makes me think if those men were condemned to death I'd flip the switch on the chair myself.

Kraftwerk

spurious wrote: »

Killing is wrong. You can't then say it is ok if the government/State does it.

All killing? Was the Garda who shot that guy in blanch wrong? Fact is the state already allows legal killings when deemed absolutely necessary.

It's nothing to do with you can't say it's wrong and then do it. Otherwise imprisonment itself would be abolished as that's wrong for an individual to do but a necessary part of the system.

My name is URL

It's always seemed funny to me that those most in favor of the death penalty (from a US perspective) are also those who claim to want less interference in their lives by the state.

'don't tread on me' types who at the same time want to hand the ultimate power to the state, to decide who dies at their hands

AllForIt

It's a tricky one.

Personally I don't see the point of keeping a person in prison for the rest of their natural life. What would be the point of such an existence? Wouldn't you just go mad if you weren't already. I can't think of anything worse than being confined in a building you know you can never get out off. I'd rather do myself in.

I also feel sorry for relatives of the victims. Where you see the state taking a 'rehabilitative' approach to the offender. I think if a personal of mine were a victim of such a crime I'd be very angry and I don't think that's either a bad or unnatural feeling.

...Ghost...

Mules wrote: »

The abuse she experienced as a child was horrific but I dont see how it would be related to her murdering a stranger as an adult. Maybe I'm not seeing it but why would it be a mitigating factor?

Upbringing is very much a factor of how one views the world. There's also the brain damage thing she suffered.

That said, of all the abuse she experienced, it pales in comparison to what the victims family must have experienced to learn their loved one was murdered and the unborn child was cut from her womb and stolen.

Mules

...Ghost... wrote: »

Upbringing is very much a factor of how one views the world. There's also the brain damage thing she suffered.

That said, of all the abuse she experienced, it pales in comparison to what the victims family must have experienced to learn their loved one was murdered and the unborn child was cut from her womb and stolen.

I could see that, if the brain damage interfered with her ability to make decisions or tell right from wrong but I dont know if there was proof of this? That usually results from damage to the amydala. If that was where the brain injury was shown to be, I could see the reasoning for the defense. Anyway, it's only academic now.

quokula

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Yea, i dont necessarily disagree she shouldn't have been executed. but thats a different point.

The recidivism rate for those punished by death penalty is still zero as pointed out, incurring your admonishment, whereas those serving life are still capable of killing again.

Average number of people killed when a death sentence is carried out: 1
Average number of people killed over the course of life in prison: probably in the region of 0.00000001 (and if they did end up killing another inmate, sure that inmate would have been killed by the state anyway if we follow your logic to its conclusion)

Data from other countries shows that murder rates usually drop when the death penalty is abolished, possibly because living in a civilised society where the government doesn't kill people makes citizens less likely to choose to go down that path themselves.

Mad_maxx

Pythagorean wrote: »

After reading the Guardian piece on Montgomery, I believe execution is an unwarranted punishment.

Her story was tragic beyond belief, repugnant to execute her ,life incarceration

Mad_maxx

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't think theres any reasoning in the world you could give me to justify somebody violently cutting a baby out of a heavily pregnant woman that wouldn't have me wishing death upon them.

Some people are severely intellectually and psychologically damaged and thus should be sent to asylums, not prison

They should never be released though

osarusan

My name is URL wrote: »

It's always seemed funny to me that those most in favor of the death penalty (from a US perspective) are also those who claim to want less interference in their lives by the state.

'don't tread on me' types who at the same time want to hand the ultimate power to the state, to decide who dies at their hands

I have always thought this too, that it seems weird that those who otherwise advocate as little state interference in their lives as possible also seem to be the main supporters of allowing the state the power of ultimate interference - to execute.


I'm against capital punishment in any and all circumstances. When I say that to people who are pro-capital punishment (or even when I post that on here) I get two main kinds of responses.

The first is that they see my position as condoning the crime in some way, that I don't think it's that bad, because surely I should want them executed unless I condone it...a woeful argument.

Or sometimes get people responding with some scenario in which my family are murdered in some horrifically brutal way, and asking me if I'd still be against the death penalty then. It's as if I just haven't envisioned a crime horrific enough, and when I do, I'll change my mind.


But the taking of a human life is not a right I think anybody or anything should have, and I include the state in that.

GreeBo

end of the road wrote: »

so do people locked up in prison for the rest of their lives at a fraction of the cost.
it's clear the death penalty fails on all of it's reasoning.

It depends on if you see the death penalty as punishment or not I guess.

At some point, for some people, rehabilitation doesn't work and you, it seems, have to move on to punishment as a deterrent.
Now its highly questionable as to whether or not deterrents work on everyone, but they certainly work on 99% of the population, otherwise everyone would be doing whatever they want and we would have anarchy.

I'd argue that the people for whom a deterrent doesnt work fall into two categories:
1) Nothing to lose so no downside to being caught (if you live under a tree or overpass prison seems like a good deal)
2) dont have the mental capacity to understand the deterrent or the consequences of the actions

Those who fall under 2) shouldnt really be punished as it wont work, but often they cant be rehabilitated either, so what do we do? Locking them up for life doesnt seem that great an option either, but killing them because they are inconvenient is pretty abhorrent.

For those in 1) we need to give them something to lose, something to make it worthwhile to stay straight. I happened to be watching a Louis Theroux show on prisons last night and the fact that they let them be a dog eat dog situation only perpetuates the problem, even if you wanted to be rehabilitated you cant, you have to become a thug to survive in there.

TL;DR
There is no obvious answer to this problem, but I would hope most sane people would agree that killing this broken, shell of a woman served nothing and benefitted noone.

ED E

GreeBo wrote: »

Now its highly questionable as to whether or not deterrents work on everyone, but they certainly work on 99% of the population, otherwise everyone would be doing whatever they want and we would have anarchy.

This is way off.

Most people don't throw their rubbish on the ground, not because they think the non-existent litter wardens will punish them, most people are civically minded.

Deterrents mostly don't work - we just dont have anything better.




I really dont know how anyone can consider the USA first world while they carry on executing people. You'd have hoped the feds at least would have moved on.

GreeBo

quokula wrote: »

Data from other countries shows that murder rates usually drop when the death penalty is abolished, possibly because living in a civilised society where the government doesn't kill people makes citizens less likely to choose to go down that path themselves.

Correlation != Causation, even with all the "possibly"'s in the universe.

Lumen

ED E wrote: »

This is way off.

Most people don't throw their rubbish on the ground, not because they think the non-existent litter wardens will punish them, most people are civically minded.

Deterrents mostly don't work - we just dont have anything better.

Most people break the law, but do not consider themselves lawbreakers. E.g. speeding, minor tax evasion, expenses fraud.

Deterrents are like a nudge, when a crime is premeditated and the offender is sensible, they work to a greater or lesser degree depending on the risk/reward.

They don't work for crimes of passion, they don't work when people are desperate or mad or impulsive, or when they actually crave punishment or want to get caught.

I am generally stupidly honest, for example is my bill is miscalculated in a restaurant I'll correct it. But I still don't claim to have never broken a law.

GreeBo

ED E wrote: »

This is way off.

Most people don't throw their rubbish on the ground, not because they think the non-existent litter wardens will punish them, most people are civically minded.

I disagree, a large number of the anti social behaviour we see today is from people who know they will not be punished for it. be that a clip on the ear from a parent of a spell locked up.

ED E wrote: »

Deterrents mostly don't work - we just dont have anything better.

I think it would be very hard to prove the difference between "civic minded" and "deterrents" since every society I know of has these deterrents for anti social behaviour...

RWCNT

osarusan wrote: »

Or sometimes get people responding with some scenario in which my family are murdered in some horrifically brutal way, and asking me if I'd still be against the death penalty then. It's as if I just haven't envisioned a crime horrific enough, and when I do, I'll change my mind.

This line of argument and those related to it have always puzzled me. It's basically "Well, would you reach the same conclusion if your judgement was clouded by grief and rage!?!". Hardly a great recipe for rational decision making.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

Average number of people killed when a death sentence is carried out: 1
Average number of people killed over the course of life in prison: probably in the region of 0.00000001 (and if they did end up killing another inmate, sure that inmate would have been killed by the state anyway if we follow your logic to its conclusion)

Data from other countries shows that murder rates usually drop when the death penalty is abolished, possibly because living in a civilised society where the government doesn't kill people makes citizens less likely to choose to go down that path themselves.

Your stats game is poor. Average of what?
As is your logical fallacy. And a strawman.
We're comparing the rate of recidivism among those executed v those not.

The former rate is 0
The latter > 0

This is not an argument in favour or against death penalty.
Its merely a simple fact, the statement of which seems to be problematic for some.

Its either true or its not.
If you're arguing its not, please provide the number of those who were executed, verified dead, and who then reoffended. Anything else is a strawman.

GreeBo

quokula wrote: »

Average number of people killed when a death sentence is carried out: 1
Average number of people killed over the course of life in prison: probably in the region of 0.00000001 (and if they did end up killing another inmate, sure that inmate would have been killed by the state anyway if we follow your logic to its conclusion)

Average Recidivism rate for an executed person: 0%
Average Recidivism rate for an "rehabilitated" person: 40-83%

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/may/3/long-term-recidivism-studies-show-high-arrest-rates/

Numbers are great.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Average Recidivism rate for an executed person: 0%
Average Recidivism rate for an "rehabilitated" person: 40-83%

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/may/3/long-term-recidivism-studies-show-high-arrest-rates/

Numbers are great.

You're quoting from a study of the recidivism rates for people who are released from prison.


The post you are trying to be smart about specifically refers to notional recidivism rates where life-means-life, i.e. no release from prison takes place, in cases such as the one giving rise to this thread.

seamus

Recidivism rates in the U.S. are extremely poor because the prison system there is deliberately designed to ensure that once someone enters it, they never really leave.

By your logic, everyone who goes into prison for any reason should just be executed so they can't commit another crime.

What's the recidivism rate for convicted murderers?

seamus

seamus wrote: »

What's the recidivism rate for convicted murderers?

Executed or non executed?

mynamejeff

seamus wrote: »

Recidivism rates in the U.S. are extremely poor because the prison system there is deliberately designed to ensure that once someone enters it, they never really leave.

By your logic, everyone who goes into prison for any reason should just be executed so they can't commit another crime.

What's the recidivism rate for convicted murderers?

Any one who goes to prison for the premeditated murder of a innocent person or some one kills in a gangland setting should never be allowed out of prison again.

Execution is the best way to guarantee this happens.

if they don't want to play by the rules of the human race then they don't get the benefits .

Very simple

Nerdkiller1991

mynamejeff wrote: »

Any one who goes to prison for the premeditated murder of a innocent person or some one kills in a gangland setting should never be allowed out of prison again.

Execution is the best way to guarantee this happens.

if they don't want to play by the rules of the human race then they don't get the benefits .

Very simple

What about a situation where an innocent individual is put to death based on flawed evidence? What's your take on that?

And since you brought up the killer not being allowed out of prison, what makes you think "life in prison" isn't an adequate method?

mynamejeff

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

What about a situation where an innocent individual is put to death based on flawed evidence? What's your take on that?

And since you brought up the killer not being allowed out of prison, what makes you think "life in prison" isn't an adequate method?

In specific cases where evidence is of high standard with the correct checks and balances , science has progressed to make DNA finger prints cctv etc very unlikely these days for a incorrect verdict , I wonder what the percentages of incorrect verdicts is in the last ten years say .

And if an error is made then so be it , there are many criminals wandering the streets committing crime after crime with little or no fear of repercussions.
if that costs a few people their lives then so be it. I believe that the country would be better for it.

Life in prison even with out parole allows for the possibility of escape, it also allows for the possibility for further harm to be done in prison , prison officers other prisoners etc . also wildly expensive
The death penalty in the states is so expensive because of the grubby little hands of lawyers. I wonder what it costs in other country's, Japan for instance.

ohnonotgmail

mynamejeff wrote: »

In specific cases where evidence is of high standard with the correct checks and balances , science has progressed to make DNA finger prints cctv etc very unlikely these days for a incorrect verdict , I wonder what the percentages of incorrect verdicts is in the last ten years say .

And if an error is made then so be it , there are many criminals wandering the streets committing crime after crime with little or no fear of repercussions.
if that costs a few people their lives then so be it. I believe that the country would be better for it.

Life in prison even with out parole allows for the possibility of escape, it also allows for the possibility for further harm to be done in prison , prison officers other prisoners etc . also wildly expensive
The death penalty in the states is so expensive because of the grubby little hands of lawyers. I wonder what it costs in other country's, Japan for instance.

you think the country is better off if we lock up innocent people?

mynamejeff

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you think the country is better off if we lock up innocent people?

if that's what you want to take from what I said then feel free


don't worry Im sure capital punishment will never be reintroduced in Ireland

ohnonotgmail

mynamejeff wrote: »

if that's what you want to take from what I said then feel free


don't worry Im sure capital punishment will never be reintroduced in Ireland

And if an error is made then so be it , there are many criminals wandering the streets committing crime after crime with little or no fear of repercussions.
if that costs a few people their lives then so be it. I believe that the country would be better for it.

I presume you would have no issue if you were an innocent person locked up or executed? the country would be better for it as you say.

Nerdkiller1991

mynamejeff wrote: »

In specific cases where evidence is of high standard with the correct checks and balances , science has progressed to make DNA finger prints cctv etc very unlikely these days for a incorrect verdict , I wonder what the percentages of incorrect verdicts is in the last ten years say .

And if an error is made then so be it , there are many criminals wandering the streets committing crime after crime with little or no fear of repercussions.
if that costs a few people their lives then so be it. I believe that the country would be better for it.

Life in prison even with out parole allows for the possibility of escape, it also allows for the possibility for further harm to be done in prison , prison officers other prisoners etc . also wildly expensive
The death penalty in the states is so expensive because of the grubby little hands of lawyers. I wonder what it costs in other country's, Japan for instance.

So you're saying the end justifies the means if potentially innocent people are killed in the process? Are you even listening to yourself right now?

Nermal

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

What about a situation where an innocent individual is put to death based on flawed evidence?

What about it? We do our best to minimise it, in the knowledge that guilty people may escape as a result, but it will always happen regardless. So what? If you discover a man innocent after his best days were spent in prison, can you grant them back to him? What if you discover him innocent after he has died there?

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

And since you brought up the killer not being allowed out of prison, what makes you think "life in prison" isn't an adequate method?

As soon as soft, well meaning hearts like yours succeeded in abolishing the death penalty, they began undermining life sentences as well:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-needs-to-reconsider-approach-to-life-sentences-1.3742360

https://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/report_determination_life_sentences.pdf

No punishment can ever be too lenient for this lobby. It lost sight of justice a long time ago.

Nerdkiller1991

Nermal wrote: »

What about it? We do our best to minimise it, in the knowledge that guilty people may escape as a result, but it will always happen regardless. So what? If you discover a man innocent after his best days were spent in prison, can you grant them back to him? What if you discover him innocent after he has died there?

Yes, we do need to do our best to ensure innocent people don't get locked up based on unreliable evidence and testimony, but one innocent person on death row out of 1,000 is still one too many. How many death row convicts who have escaped went to kill again in their time from prison compared to those who were wrongfully executed by the state?

Nermal wrote: »

As soon as soft, well meaning hearts like yours succeeded in abolishing the death penalty, they began undermining life sentences as well:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ireland-needs-to-reconsider-approach-to-life-sentences-1.3742360

https://www.ihrec.ie/download/pdf/report_determination_life_sentences.pdf

No punishment can ever be too lenient for this lobby. It lost sight of justice a long time ago.

I didn't abolish anything, so your ad hominem remark rings hollow.


Besides, I never said anything about changing how life sentences should be carried out, this is all about capital punishment here.

mynamejeff

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

So you're saying the end justifies the means if potentially innocent people are killed in the process? Are you even listening to yourself right now?

asked and answered .


just because you don't like the answer doesn't bother me :-)

mynamejeff

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

Yes, we do need to do our best to ensure innocent people don't get locked up based on unreliable evidence and testimony, but one innocent person on death row out of 1,000 is still one too many. How many death row convicts who have escaped went to kill again in their time from prison compared to those who were wrongfully executed by the state?

how many people who should have gotten the death penalty went on to kill ?

Nerdkiller1991

mynamejeff wrote: »

asked and answered .


just because you don't like the answer doesn't bother me :-)

Ooookay then. Just saying you seem to care more about maintaining the system above all else, and if innocent people are swept up in it, so be it, as you would say.

mynamejeff

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

Ooookay then. Just saying you seem to care more about maintaining the system above all else, and if innocent people are swept up in it, so be it, as you would say.

the suffering of a tiny tiny few for the betterment of every one . ?


yeap sounds good to me

Nerdkiller1991

mynamejeff wrote: »

the suffering of a tiny tiny few for the betterment of every one . ?


yeap sounds good to me

GreeBo

mynamejeff wrote: »

asked and answered .


just because you don't like the answer doesn't bother me :-)

By that logic the safest way is to just kill everyone, guaranteed to get all the bad guys that way...

How many innocents is to many?