Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Competence required to be executed in Indiana

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    quokula
    Registered Users Posts: 3,643 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #123
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #124
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #125
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,640 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #126
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    ED E
    Registered Users Posts: 36,167 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #128
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #129
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,087 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #130
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #131
    RWCNT
    Registered Users Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #133
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #134
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #135
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    What's the recidivism rate for convicted murderers?

    Executed or non executed?


  • Options
    #137
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #138
    Nerdkiller1991
    Registered Users Posts: 3,999 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #139
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #140
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,462 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #141
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,462 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #143
    Nerdkiller1991
    Registered Users Posts: 3,999 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #144
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #145
    Nerdkiller1991
    Registered Users Posts: 3,999 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #146
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭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 :-)


  • Options
    #147
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • Options
    #148
    Nerdkiller1991
    Registered Users Posts: 3,999 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #149
    mynamejeff
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #150
    Nerdkiller1991
    Registered Users Posts: 3,999 ✭✭✭Nerdkiller1991


    mynamejeff wrote: »
    the suffering of a tiny tiny few for the betterment of every one . ?


    yeap sounds good to me
    tumblr_inline_pqj8gmLb9V1s22twp_500.gif


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,164 ✭✭✭✭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?


Advertisement