Scott Peterson gets death penalty recommendation- Page 5

[GovernorSlaton]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 7:24pm

Sorry to bring theatre into this, but it reminds me of the end of Act 1 in Jason Robert Brown's Parade; Menacing music is playing, Leo Frank is found guilty, and the citizens begin dancing with glee. Horrifying in the show, and absolutely disgusting in real life.

[Jess1483]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 7:27pm

Why would you ever apologize for bringing theater into the discussion? And you're very right, that's a very fitting scene.

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:06pm

Just to put my two cents in: I won't be sorry to see Scott Peterson be out to death. While there is something to be said for life without parole, I don't think that would have had as much of an impact on him. That only works on people who have a conscience. Scott was out golfing while people searched in vain for his wife. He doesn't seem to give a damn about what he did, and he likely never will.
However, that's not to say that I'm dancing in my underwear over the sentence. I don't know; I just think he deserves to die for what he did.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:11pm

To those anti death penalty, here is a problem

Someone gets life as opposed to death & knows he or she can never be executed. If this person kills a guard or another prisoner , knowing full well they will not be executed, they have nothing to lose by another killing. What do they get , another life sentence? By not executing, someone else has needlessly lost their life

Capital punishment has been described as cruel & unusual. How cruel & unusual is the punishment for the innocent person or persons killed. Their live or lives were snuffed out & yet we have pity for the killer.

In New York, year ago, we had 2 killers who walked into a Wendy's , took the 4 or 5 employees into the cellar. There they had their hands tied, plastic bags put over their head . They pleaded for their lives & were summarily executed. I am sorry but I cannot feel pity for the killers

Updated On: 3/16/05 at 09:11 PM

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:24pm

I don't feel pity for the murderers. I loathe Scott Peterson. And on a personal level, I'd be perfectly happy if he never knows a moment of peace.

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether we, as a civilized people, should have the right to kill another person in the name of justice. I've never seen any evidence that the death penalty deters anyone from committing murder. Those who plot ahead of time tend to function under the belief that they will not be caught. Whether the consequence of getting caught is life in prison or death doesn't enter into the decision.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:30pm

"I've never seen any evidence that the death penalty deters anyone from committing murder. Those who plot ahead of time tend to function under the belief that they will not be caught."


You're right. And I believe it was said in one of my Criminology classes that, in fact, there's a higher proportion of murders committed in states with the death penalty than not. If anyone cares, I can try to find sources for that.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:32pm

20 years of appeals kind of deters any hope of it being a deterent

My hypothetical problem was not answered. What do you do if a lifer murders another inmate or guard? How much more can he/she be punished ?

Updated On: 3/16/05 at 09:32 PM

[Corine2]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:41pm

Personally,
I think Scott should:
1. Be made to watch:
Bklyn, Lazer Vaudeville, Jewtopia and Modern Orthodox while Eden screetches on top of her lungs.
PUNISHMENT.
Then, he can sit in on Jackie Mason when he sings.
That could do him in for sure.
Updated On: 3/16/05 at 09:41 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:43pm

How about forcing him to listen to Michala of American Idol doing duets with David Hasselhoff ?

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:51pm

With a bit of Sebastard Bach in the mix for variety.

Roxy, maybe hard labour? Solitary confinement? You have a point, but at the same time, to play devil's advocate, there are a few hypothetical situations that would serve for an anti-death penalty agenda. For example, what about innocent people who get setenced to death? Or offenders who show remorse and may otherwise deserve to use the rest of their lives behind bars making some form of good?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:52pm

Even in solitary he gets some time out for exercise and or ahowers etc

I think solitary would be more creul. It is a debate that will go on & on

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 10:03pm

Yup, and I see where you're coming from. I used to be very anti-death penalty, but after visiting some institutions in BC and Washington and talking to many offenders, I became a bit more hesitant to stay entirely on one side. While meeting them makes them seem more human than their crimes would give them credit for, there's also many, many people convicted of heinous crimes who don't deserve any mercy. Some people are just not able to be rehabilitated. If I were to be hesitant to support the death penalty, it would be because of the innocent people who could be sentenced to death, but also because I think death is mercy compared to the conditions in prison. Especially for sex offenders and child killers - the hierarchy in prison will make their life much tougher behind bars than a needle can provide.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 10:15pm

Mr Roxy and Tiff - this is a debate that goes on and on. But, the debate is limited to few countries. Most western countries do not use the death penalty. In the Supreme Court’s recent decision abolishing the death penalty for juvenile offenders, the Court noted that the United State stood alone in the world in executing juvenile defenders. That indeed is “unusual.”

[Jess1483]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 10:44pm

I'd just like to echo ifitfloat's comments about pity. Don't get me wrong, I feel no pity towards Scott in ANY way. This isn't about pity, it's about a state's right to take away anyone's life. If there were not some intrinsic value to human life that we believe it is immoral to breech, then murder would not be the heinous crime we see it as. It is good and healthy for our society to be angry—otherwise something is wrong with society. This anger is at the taking of life because it has intrinsic value. How can this moral outrage not be extended to the taking of a life by the state?

And Tiff, if it's not a huge trouble, I would actually love those sources. I also have sources about the deterrent effects if anyone wants them.

While the autonomy of a person demands that they be punished for their crimes, this does not necessarily concede that the death penalty as a punishment for these crimes is morally justified. While the focus of most discussions about the death penalty is on what the criminal deserves, I argue that the discussion should rest instead on the right of society—and by extension, the criminal justice system—to take away a criminal’s fundamental right to life and that in doing so, it can be argued that the death penalty, even if administered without fault, is morally reprehensible.

Interesting poll: A poll conducted of citizens in New York, Nebraska, Kansas, and Massachusetts, demonstrated that when given the alternatives of death penalty, life in prison without parole (LWOP), and life in prison without parole plus restitution to victims’ families (LWOP+R), people generally preferred LWOP to the death penalty and overwhelmingly preferred LWOP+R to capital punishment. Therefore, while people may believe that the death penalty is preferable to no punishment, it is not clear that the majority of people prefer the death penalty to other punishments.

We punish to communicate a point—to society, to the criminal, to potential criminals—that this behavior is intolerable and has consequences. What, then, are we telling these people when we punish murderers by killing them? We, in effect, are saying that killing is not always wrong. That we can come up with instances in which killing is okay. And whether we agree on the morality or immorality of this prima facie norm against killing is immaterial—the message we send is mixed—it is absolutely wrong to kill, unless you are the government. Some harms are unacceptable because they are not the sorts of things persons are ever entitled to do, even as a punishment. Maiming, bodily mutilation, and torture seem to be disqualified for this reason--this is what people term "cruel and unusual punishment." I would argue that this should be extended to capital punishment. Killing is wrong because it is “the sort of thing persons are never entitled to do.” Taking someone else’s life is never okay, no matter who is doing the killing.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 10:53pm

Jess - post the link for the poll. I was born in KS and raised in NE and am well aware of the very conservative views. It must be interesting to see the comparison to the "more liberal" views of Mass and NY. But, who would have ever thought that NY would reinstate the death penalty?

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 10:58pm

*grumble* Okay, Jess. I'll see what I can do. I'll do a Google search tonight, but I heard this in passing from a couple of professors in my lectures, so it's probably easier for me to ask them instead.

As for your poll, it's interesting, but not necessarily conclusive. After all, with the exception of Nebraska, the other 3 states all do not have the death penalty, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps in the other states with the death penalty, the public may have a different perspective.

I can see what you're saying. As I've said a few times in this thread, I'm on the fence about the death penalty. I don't think the government projects any positive image in sanctioning a "justified" death for certain offenders, but at the same time, is a life sentence really the best we can do?

And don't get me started on restorative justice. I've started to warm up to it, and while I'm hardly a penal abolitionist, I do think it should be used more often as an alternative - or in addition to - incarceration.

Updated On: 3/16/05 at 10:58 PM

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 11:03pm

Tiff - quick primer on restorative justice, please???

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 11:03pm

Here, Jess, I just found this. Hardly an unbiased website, but they say their source is from the FBI UCS. Death penalty states have about a 1.5x higher murder rate per 100,000 people than non-death penalty states.


ETA: Oops, a URL might actually help.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169

Updated On: 3/16/05 at 11:03 PM

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 11:06pm

*settles in with a cup of hot chocolate* What would you like to be primed on, brdlwyer? It's beaten to death in my criminal justice decision-making class but it's nice to talk about all this stuff with other people to get some fresh perspectives!

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 11:08pm

I am not familiar with the phrase. Restore what?

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 11:15pm

Oh,I see. "Restorative justice". It's a fair new-ish sentencing technique that focuses more on victim reparations, offender treatment and integration into the community than punishment and deterrence. The main idea is that an offender is best served by understanding the impact he/she's had on the victim's life, and looks towards improving the offender's future as a law-abiding citizen by having all parties (the offender, the victim, and the community) at peace with the situation through mediation, while also preventing this from happening again.

It's very community-oriented, and it's had a lot of controvery here because many people argue that it's an "easy" sentence compared to prison time, which proponents disagree with. Especially with the large native Indian population in Canada (and their overrepresentation in our prisons), it's become a more popular alternative because the native heritage includes the "healing circle" and the "elders-assisted parole hearing", which are very community-oriented and focuses on the relationship between the offender and the victim.

Some people would think this would never work with more serious crimes, but there have been many cases where even heinous crimes like murder and aggravated assault have been successfully mediated using RJ techniques.


Here's a Canadian website on RJ.
http://www.crnetwork.ca/RJ/index.asp?source=adult

Updated On: 3/16/05 at 11:15 PM

[Corine2]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 11:17pm

I have a better torture then death:
He can be made to watch:
I SEE FIRE IN A DEAD MANS EYE TILL HE BEGS TO BE KILLED.
90 minutes was enough for me.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 11:24pm

Tiff - I am now embarrassed that I did not interpret the phrase. Much of it makes sense. It would be more difficult to apply to large urban areas such as Chicago, but the principles could be applied.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 11:29pm

Haha, don't be embarrassed. Just keep me in mind when I'm an articling law student, looking to relocate, okay?

I think it would be hard to have community-focussed restorative justice (even in a really left-leaning city like Vancouver, perceptions of offenders are less than human), but I think victim/offender mediation may actually serve some good. Right now there's a really high-profile murder case going on in Vancouver where a 15-year-old girl was killed allegedly by 2 schoolmates who had bullied her at school, beat her up, and drown her under a bridge, and the co-accused who was convicted is now in mediation with the victim's family. I don't know if I could ever have that open of a mind, but it's a good way to alleviate the prison overcrowding just a little, as long as both parties are genuinely willing.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 11:40pm

Tiff – how does the theory of RJ apply to the Kobe case? You could assume that Kobe did indeed commit the crime. He then reached a monetary agreement with the victim. She would not testify in the criminal case and then later the civil case would be dismissed pursuant to the agreement reached behind the scenes.