Slashdot Mirror

Regarding points 2 and 3, perhaps you should do some research before you open your mouth and "remove all doubt."

FYI, it is actually more expensive to sentence someone to death than to support someone in jail for the rest of their life. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108 [http://deathpenaltyinfo.org] The difference between death and rotting in a cell is the chance to overturn the case if new evidence turns up and the humanity of not killing your fellow man. The only reason people support the death penalty is because the victim families get some kind of revenge. I know it's cliche, but an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I would agree with the opt out option, but if someone really wants to off themselves, they'll just do it themselves.

Well, yes. And there isn't a federal law making self defense legal because there isn't a federal law against murder. How can the feds make something legal that wasn't illegal to begin with? They leave "local" laws like murder to the states, and all 50 have made murder illegal.

There most certainly is a federal laws against murder. The feds just don't have jurisdiction unless certain criteria is met.

Try 18 U.S.C 930 Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.

Murder committed in a Federal Government facility. (18 U.S.C. 924(i))
Genocide. (18 U.S.C. 1091)

First-degree murder. (18 U.S.C. 1111)
Here is a big list of federal murder laws.

Ah yes, so everyone that posts laws that prove you wrong is themselves wrong for having not posted every law that proves you wrong. Obviously, you have had this argument many times and were preparing for all the common responses. You evidently know you are wrong but don't like that idea, so you add in so many caveots and such that your statement is essentially useless. Thank you for pointing out that a legislative body that hasn't outlawed murder hasn't also outlined defenses in court to such a charge. That's a groundbreaking revelation. I'm sure we will all be kept up at night wondering how such an insight could be reached.

It would help if you had a fucking clue but I don't hold it against you. It sounds like people gave up on beating you with a clue bat a long time ago. There are federal laws over murder. You only prove what I already suggested and that was some states might have a law. And no, telling you to experience life outside your little world meant exactly that. If you would have looked outside your little world I wouldn't be replying to someone who was too stupid to google "Federal murder laws" 15 seconds before posting about how he proved everything. Instead you would have just said, Oh, I didn't know about them. I would have said, It happens And life would be good. But no, You have to jack ass around thinking you know it all and even goto the point of claiming you weren't going to look up and post every law because of your own arrogance.

Also, every other legislative body that does make the defense legal must be one of the few, even if you can list a long number of them. Which state would it take to prove you wrong?

I think maybe you should see above, Look around and then google with your google finger for "federal murder law" and just browse through the fist couple. It isn't anything that would make your head explode. It is just a few small websites with some information for you.

Assuming, of course, that you don't already have the one or two that make it illegal to defend yourself on the top of your head to respond with, how about a random picking of states and we find if they make self defense legal? If they do, you are wrong and will never bring up your lies again.

If you don't know about it, it is lies then? I bet your one of those people who claims anytime someone gets something wrong they are lieing. Well, two can play at that game. Quite you lies. You don't know what your talking about, you spout lies and then blame others when you know damn well you lieing. How does it feel to be a liar? I have always wondered.

Now that that is over. A point should be made. It isn't that they make defense illegal, it is that they don't make it legal. Each and every case has to be decided on it's own merits and follow case law on to what is acceptable or not. They make murder illegal and you have to prove you had no other choice and probably that you didn't deserve to be in that situation. Of course I could call you a liar again or something but I won't.

If they don't, then I'll keep my ass in states where I'm not re

Actually, Virginia has very liberal (conservative?) buyer and concealed carry laws. Just about anyone without a record can obtain both with little effort, so by your logic, we should be seeing shooting sprees all over VA. In reality, the firearm death rate was below the median for 2003 (only year I could find), and the murder rate has been about average (usually below, sometimes above) for the past decade.

I lived in Blacksburg about a decade ago, and my sister is a recent VT alumni who used to live in West AJ, where the shootings started. Many of my friends and family are VT alumni, and while I'm now half a world away, this tragedy hit rather close to home, although obviously not nearly as close as for current students, faculty, residents, and their families. Nonetheless, I can't help but wonder what might have happened if someone with a concealed carry permit had been nearby, or in the class, and had been able to take action. Instead, firearms are completely prohibited on campus -- which makes sense, but only if the playing field is leveled by bag checks and metal detectors at all building entrances. The "honor system" for this sort of thing only harms those who follow the laws and regulations of the state and campus.

I'm personally shocked by this event. As anyone who's ever been to Blacksburg can attest, it's not at all the sort of place where you'd expect anything like this to happen. (Not to say there's anywhere you would expect a massacre, but some places are obviously better candidates than others.) It's a very small-town atmosphere, despite a university population (including faculty) of about 35,000. The environment is very casual and laid back, and people are generally very friendly and trusting. It's almost impossible for anyone to not find a group of peers to which they can "belong," in such a place, especially where so many so-called "nerds" and other social "misfits" abound. Unfortunately, there are always people who feel isolated, alone, and without support, as most of us have from time to time, whether real or imagined, no matter how friendly and open the community is. My deepest sympathy and condolances go out to all who were affected by this tragedy.

5-4 Supreme Court Abolishes Juvenile Executions, Roper v. Simmons

did you also notice that Atkins was a U.S. Supreme Court decision?

During Bush's six years as governor 150 men and two women were executed in Texas--a record unmatched by any other governor in modern American history. The Texas Clemency Memos

The Texan executions of the retarded since 1976 were in 1990, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Defendants with Mental Retardation Executed in the United States

Oliver Cruz was the last and it became an issue in the Bush campaign:

Gov. George W. Bush claimed Wednesday that Texas doesn't execute mentally retarded killers, although at least five such convicts have been put to death in recent years.
The comment came as the GOP presidential nominee was campaigning in California, hours before two Texas inmates were executed. One of the inmates, Oliver D. Cruz, was described as mentally retarded, though that conclusion was challenged by prosecutors earlier this week.
Answering news media questions upon his arrival from Texas, Bush indicated that justice was being served with the executions of Cruz and a second inmate, Brian Roberson. But when told that several states have banned the execution of mentally retarded inmates, Bush said, "So do we, in Texas."
However, no ban has been approved by Texas lawmakers, although they tried as recently as 1999. Bush opposed that bill.
Constraints in existing law, which Bush cited as safeguards, failed to prevent the execution of five mentally retarded inmates since 1984 -- six, according to those who argue that Cruz was retarded. "For anybody tried in the state of Texas, mental capacity is a factor, not only during the trial phase but during the appellate phase," Bush said. " ... In all cases, mental competency is a factor in Texas law."
Queried about his opposition to the 1999 bill to ban executions of the retarded, Bush insisted Texas' current law is adequate. And that's the point he was trying to make when he made his controversial remark, an aide said.
"Texas law has many safeguards in place to prevent someone who is not competent from even going to trial, much less being executed," said campaign spokesman Scott McClellan, adding that at least five laws come into play in such cases.
Even if one juror has reasonable doubts about the defendant's mental ability to form the intent to commit a crime, then that person must be acquitted," he noted.
Wednesday night's execution of Cruz drew more than the usual attention on Texas' death chamber, the busiest in the nation. That is in part because of the debate over executing people with mental retardation and because of Bush's bid for the presidency, which has put his positions on crime and punishment under heavy scrutiny.
Bush's discussion with reporters on the topic ended as he headed to a campaign event, and he wasn't immediately available to elaborate. The candidate was making a train tour of portions of California.
Houston Democrat Sen. Rodney Ellis was author of the bill last year that would have banned the execution of inmates with an IQ of 65 or lower. Ellis said in an interview Wednesday that Bush told him at the time, "I think current law is fine."
Although the bill passed the Texas Senate, 22-8, it died in a House committee.
Ellis said he plans to reintroduce the bill next spring to ban the execution of anyone with an IQ of 70 or lower and to make it retroactive to include those on death row now. If passed, Texas would join 12 other states in such bans.
Nationwide, 34 mentally retarded offenders with IQs of 70 or lower have been executed since April 5, 1984, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Of those, five were in Texas, not counting Cruz.
Terry Washington, a 33-year-old black man, was executed during Bush's administration. Another mentally retarded offender, Mario Marquez, was exec

That ended five years ago:

Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty. Atkins v. Virgina,Atkins v. Virginia

Texas, the state that gave us President George W. Bush, is especially fond of executing the young and mentally handicapped.

Of the 44 mentally retarded in the U.S. executed since 1976, nine were in Texas, five in Virgina, only four were executed in states outside the southern Confederacy in the American Civil War.

Defendants with Mental Retardation Executed in the United States

There have been 387 executions in Texas since December 1982. The youngest was 24 in 1985. 17 when he killed a clerk for a six-pack of beer in a convenience-store robbery. There has been almost nothing the like of that since. Executed Offenders

That ended five years ago:

Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty. Atkins v. Virgina,Atkins v. Virginia

Texas, the state that gave us President George W. Bush, is especially fond of executing the young and mentally handicapped.

Of the 44 mentally retarded in the U.S. executed since 1976, nine were in Texas, five in Virgina, only four were executed in states outside the southern Confederacy in the American Civil War.

Defendants with Mental Retardation Executed in the United States

There have been 387 executions in Texas since December 1982. The youngest was 24 in 1985. 17 when he killed a clerk for a six-pack of beer in a convenience-store robbery. There has been almost nothing the like of that since. Executed Offenders

what is it with all these death penalty cases the rest of the world thinks. over 3/4 of the states while having the death penalty have used it less than 8 times in 30 years. . NY hasn't executed anyone since 1976. heck the US government has only executed 3 people for crimes.

Texas doesn't represent the entire country.

Take a look for your selves http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/

The fact is it takes decades to use the death penalty. You sit on death row for 10-20 years before the judicial process is complete. it's just not worth it in most cases.

Information on Costs of the Death Penalty From DPIC

Information on Costs of the Death Penalty From DPIC

Are you saying that people who are innocent and take all necessary steps will NEVER be executed? And then you want counter examples? So we're supposed to find cases where someone has been executed, THEN proven innocent, and ALL those things are true? If we can't find any, that would prove what, exactly? Do you REALLY not see how ridiculous your criteria are?

Here's a list of death row inmates exonerated since 1973. There is at least one case in that list that meets all the criteria, and would have been executed, except they were subsequently found innocent on appeal. Here's a list of people executed, but possibly innocent Realistically, that's as close as it's possible to get to providing counter examples.

Thanks for playing "Excusing the Inexcusable." Here's a copy of our home game, in which players attempt to construct arguments supporting such things as torture, rape, and Celine Dion.

Are you saying that people who are innocent and take all necessary steps will NEVER be executed? And then you want counter examples? So we're supposed to find cases where someone has been executed, THEN proven innocent, and ALL those things are true? If we can't find any, that would prove what, exactly? Do you REALLY not see how ridiculous your criteria are?

Here's a list of death row inmates exonerated since 1973. There is at least one case in that list that meets all the criteria, and would have been executed, except they were subsequently found innocent on appeal. Here's a list of people executed, but possibly innocent Realistically, that's as close as it's possible to get to providing counter examples.

Thanks for playing "Excusing the Inexcusable." Here's a copy of our home game, in which players attempt to construct arguments supporting such things as torture, rape, and Celine Dion.

And OJ Simpson wasn't let off on a technicality. He was tried in a court of law, and acquitted by a jury, fair and square. Was he guilty? Probably, but the prosecutors failed to convince the jury of that. What I found interesting was that Fuhrman bragged on tape about planting evidence in cases involving other blacks, and nothing every happened to him. Law and order, indeed. I wish Simpson had been convicted, if for no other reason that I wouldn't have to hear the indignation about him all the time, but I also wish Fuhrman had been prosecuted.

It isn't as if it "could be perverted into" a horrible torture device. It IS a torture device. It causes excruciating pain, and leaves no marks. It will be used (if it isn't already) for interrogation. In Iraq first, and eventually it will be purchased by police departments stateside.

Then you'll hear from suspects that it was used on them, and the police departments will deny it. Eventually it'll happen to a telegenic white person, and there'll be a congressional hearing (assuming the Democrats are still in office) and they'll discover that US police departments are using them to torture confessions out of people. Everyone will act shocked, condemn the "few bad apples" and it'll continue as before after a brief pause.

Understanding of this issue is divided starkly into two camps--those who understand that power is abused, and those who think power is only abused by that other political party, the one they don't like. I know that humans are who they are. I spent part of my morning reading http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6 &did=110, and time and time again I read of police torturing confessions out of people. Police do this. In every country. Every police officer? No, but that distinction won't matter when it's you feeling as if your arm is being cooked.

It isn't that particular police officers are "bad people" but that people can't be trusted with this much power. Give any population of human beings the power to inflict great pain without being caught, make it convenient for them to use it because doing so will get results, and the results will always be the same--people will do the wrong thing if doing so is in their best interests. Call it original sin, whatever, but power corrupts. It's part of our nature, and can't be negated by optimism or indignant "cops are good people!" responses. People invariably take it as an insult to good cops they know, because they think that evil in this world is due to a few bad apples, not to an innate, insurmountable flaw in our nature. It's that naive optimism that prevents us from acknowledging the limitations to what we can trust people with, and leads us to keep inventiing torture devices like this. This is one of those cases where optimism causes more harm than good, and a bit of cynicism would result in a lot less human suffering.

You don't need to drag out treason, there are lots of other Federal capital crimes. As I recall, if you traffic in a large enough quantity of drugs, it can earn you the needle, among many other things. (Here is a list, if you're interested; be aware it's an anti-death-penalty site.) Some examples: Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime; Murder of a Federal judge or law enforcement official; Trafficking in large quantities of drugs; Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror, or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs.

Not sure how many people are executed by the Federal government every year, but I bet there are a few.

So even if you're in a "no death penalty" state like West Virginia or Maine, you could still do something that would get you executed, by virtue of it being a Federal crime.

unless you have a link, i'm generally skeptical of your claims as to what the UC law school found. one, because you claim it wasn't published (this makes little sense in a university setting - where darn near everything anywhere near important gets published and this would definitely be important). and two, it directly contradicts the cnn article as to why ryan made the decision he made.

i'm not claiming that we haven't executed innocent people. but i haven't seen a lot of definitive proof showing we have. just inference (which is valid enough to me to be against the death penalty, but doesn't actually prove anything). if you look at this anti-death penalty site you'll find it contains no proven claims of innocence after someone has been executed - and you'd expect that if there were such a site would definitely have that information.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6 &did=111#executed

sure, some of these were before dna testing and sure, prosecutors don't want to reopen the case for a dead person so dna testing is about the only way to prove innocence without going through a trial making it nearly impossible without someone else confessing and being proven guilty. but it does make your claims very hard for me to believe (even if i agree with the end conclusion that the death penalty is bad).

Actually it's a federal offence to kill a US citizen through a terrorist act anywhere in the world (punishable by death Reference). Yes, you heard right, US federal law declares it's juristiction to cover the entire world.

The problem is that with national sovereingty, a nation can declare it's juristiction to be anything that it wants and because there's no higher law to trump it, the only option for the rest of the world is to wield national sovereignty back at them (i.e. acts of war). Unfortunately, it would take an alliance of most of the rest of the world to effectively do that to the USA so the US government can arbitrarilly declare juristication over anything for any action and everyone else just has to sit back and watch.

However, your assertion that because that's 'de facto' the way the world works is justification for the world to work that way is total nonsense. Right now the USA could declare eating celery a capital offence anywhere in the world and legalising extraordinary rendition to bring suspects into US juristiction to be 'brought to justice', that doesn't mean that it would be just or right (or legal under any other interpretation of the way relationships between countries work).

FYI, you need to update your talking point. The Supreme Court has already held that executing minors is unconstitutional. See Roper v. Simmons.

"Life costs more than death"

It costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life

Well, I'm not sure about people who actually have been executed and then found innocent, but there have been plenty sentenced to death but luckily found exonerating evidence before they ran out of ways to stall the system. Read about them here:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6 &did=109

The reasons run the whole gamut: DNA evidence, prosecution destroying or withholding evidence, witnesses who lied or were coorced, coerced confessions, the real criminal confessing, etc.

An entire 123 people on that list, all found innocent after being sentenced to death. So now let me ask you a question. Do you really think that every person wrongly convincted was lucky enough to find the proof before being put to death? Don't you think that there were probably at least a few (if not a bunch) who were not so lucky as to find the evidence in time?

Remember, in most cases, once the suspect has been executed, there isn't a whole lot of motivation to continue devoting the time and expense required to find the exonerating evidence. Don't take a lack of documented cases as evidence that it's never happend.

How can you have "no hope" of defeating their lawyers in a crime that you didn't commit? If there was "no evidence" then you would have all sorts of legal avenues for reprisal, many of which could possibly lead to a large pot of gold.

Sera

There has yet to be a single major case of someone who wasn't really evil being anything other than mildly inconvienced. If and when some average joe is taken advantage of, or criminally or financially damaged, THEN you will see people upset.

Blink...Blink
1) How would you know?
The vast majority of the warrents issued in the name of national security are done through the FISA court and I don't believe that they are reported in those numbers.
2)As someone else pointed out - the FBI was doing a lot of wiretapping in the 60's that had more to do with politics than crime. To think that given free reign, today would be any different is naive.
3)Since when is 'taken advantage of, or criminally or financially damaged' the standard for when it's time to stop the government. Whatever happened to the standard of "that which governs best, governs least"?
4)'There has yet to be a single major case ...'
I assume you meant 'single case proven', since there are a heck of a lot of people sitting in jail on material witness warrents who have never seen a judge.
{Tangent warning based on the proven assumption}
After 100+{Reference} people have been released from death row based on DNA/other forensic evidence, people are still shouting that [shout][blink]NOBODY[/blink][/shout] has ever been executed who was proved innocent.
Of course not, why bother trying to prove someone who's already dead was innocent when you can be trying to prove someone who is still alive is innocent.
Do the vast majority of people who are on death row deserve to be there? - without a question. Are some there in error - play the odds - 3,383 people currently pending execution, all put there by groups of 12 people usually shown very ugly pictures & told by a person in authority that they {the defendant} did it.
3,383 people pending execution, 1011 executed since '76. {Reference}
122/4394=3.7% of the population of the total death row population has been cleared.
3.7%*1011=37 --- Playing the odds, the US has executed 37 people innocent of the crime they were accused of.
Are the numbers accurate? In gross terms,yes. Do they tell the whole story, no because the 1011 already executed had gone through appeal after appeal. However, given the gross numbers, statisticly at least one of those was innocent.
If I'm on death row, I would hate to have to be the 'proof'.
Would be nice to know the numbers for the FISA/no warrent taps and the outcomes of those, but that's still live NSA paperwork and not available.

There has yet to be a single major case of someone who wasn't really evil being anything other than mildly inconvienced. If and when some average joe is taken advantage of, or criminally or financially damaged, THEN you will see people upset.

Blink...Blink
1) How would you know?
The vast majority of the warrents issued in the name of national security are done through the FISA court and I don't believe that they are reported in those numbers.
2)As someone else pointed out - the FBI was doing a lot of wiretapping in the 60's that had more to do with politics than crime. To think that given free reign, today would be any different is naive.
3)Since when is 'taken advantage of, or criminally or financially damaged' the standard for when it's time to stop the government. Whatever happened to the standard of "that which governs best, governs least"?
4)'There has yet to be a single major case ...'
I assume you meant 'single case proven', since there are a heck of a lot of people sitting in jail on material witness warrents who have never seen a judge.
{Tangent warning based on the proven assumption}
After 100+{Reference} people have been released from death row based on DNA/other forensic evidence, people are still shouting that [shout][blink]NOBODY[/blink][/shout] has ever been executed who was proved innocent.
Of course not, why bother trying to prove someone who's already dead was innocent when you can be trying to prove someone who is still alive is innocent.
Do the vast majority of people who are on death row deserve to be there? - without a question. Are some there in error - play the odds - 3,383 people currently pending execution, all put there by groups of 12 people usually shown very ugly pictures & told by a person in authority that they {the defendant} did it.
3,383 people pending execution, 1011 executed since '76. {Reference}
122/4394=3.7% of the population of the total death row population has been cleared.
3.7%*1011=37 --- Playing the odds, the US has executed 37 people innocent of the crime they were accused of.
Are the numbers accurate? In gross terms,yes. Do they tell the whole story, no because the 1011 already executed had gone through appeal after appeal. However, given the gross numbers, statisticly at least one of those was innocent.
If I'm on death row, I would hate to have to be the 'proof'.
Would be nice to know the numbers for the FISA/no warrent taps and the outcomes of those, but that's still live NSA paperwork and not available.

And since I don't believe that we should be willing to waste $36,000 per year on their permanent incarceration, it's merely a matter of economic logic that they be disposed of. Personally, I'd harvest anything I could from them (organs, tissue, etc.) and give the proceeds to the victim's family but that's just me.

It doesn't work that way. The death penalty costs quite a bit more than life incarceration.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=10 8&scid=7
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

I have no moral "problems" with the idea of executing the guilty. My problem lies in the costs in doing so, and in the risks of executing the innocent. You'll need umpteen appeals, just in case someone is innocent, and the process of proving guilt to that degree is very expensive.

Better to throw someone in jail forever, so that they may emerge if they are innocent. Keep in mind people tend to sit on death row for 20-30 years anyways; at that point their crimes are so far in the past that I can't imagine the relatives of the victim really dwell on it.

To survive cruel-and-unusual scrutiny, you'd need to limit the corporate death penalty to crimes that normally get the death penalty.

I suppose you could get something equivalent to corporate imprisonment by requiring that for the term of imprisonment: all liquid assets must be converted to cash for non-interest escrow with the government, and non-liquid assets may only be transferred by Takings or sale for escrow; escrow may be tapped only for payment of extant debts or taxes; and possibly the corporation is prohibited from entering new contracts for the term.

NeverGonnaHappen.

Also, the FBI stats http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreporte d/02-table01.html also has an interesting footnote, but you have to REALLY squint to find it:
The murder and nonnegligent homicides that occurred as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, were not included in this table.

Why? because it would screw up the stats. Awwwww. The fact is that, after the total # of crimes peaked in 1991 and going into decline under Clinton, its starting to inch back up again under Bush, even excluding 9/11.

Also, they no longer count such things as "taxing" by school kids as violent crime, but it is. "Give me your lunch money and your new runners or I'll beat you up" is assault. Not including it in the stats doesn't make it "go away."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8 &did=245

My karma is gonna regret this, but here goes:

Because unless the government has good reason to fear the people, they will have no reason to respect their rights and liberties

Well, since we (the usa) kill something like 13,000 (about five 9/11s worth?) of ourselves a year with guns, they might have a legitimate worry. Not that we will revolt, but that we will deny the right of life from a few too many of our peers.

Nobody bigger and stronger preys on those who are smaller and weaker?

Is it your suggestion that all criminals are big and strong, and all victims are tiny and weak? Look, I am sorry that all people are not the same size as each other, but that is no justification to increase your lethality. Carry some pepper spray, you will be fine. If your kid is getting picked on at school, do you hand him a knife?

Honestly, do you say such things about hammers? "We don't think a hammer is useful just because it's a hammer. Just cause you can hammer nails in doesn't mean you should get to use one. After all, you might hit someone in the head with it. Maybe even in self defense! The horror!"

I am sorry, could you please bring up the plans for the last house you built using a gun? Guns kill. That is what they are for. They don't have any alternate use.

Again, don't let the facts get in the way of your wild speculation there. In fact, in every state in the US where Gun laws are relaxed or where concealed carry (or open carry) are available as options crime goes down. More than that, statistically, the fear such laws put in criminals means that for every one of us that carries a gun, 12 other people who live near them will not become a victim of a crime. Yes, no benefit to society there.

All of this overwhelming evidence, and yet you didn't link any examples. I live in Louisiana. Several years ago, we were the highest in the nation for per capita murders. Our then governor instituted a carry concealed law, and guess what, we are still number 1. In fact, our murders per capita are going up. Don't believe me? Here is a link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=1 2&did=169

Regardless, statistics (yours or mine) don't equal "facts." If they did, it would be a "fact" that the number of pirates roaming the open water is inversly proportional to the mean temperature of the earth.

I do, however, have a fact for you. Guns make killing things a heck of a lot easier. IMO, it isn't very healthy for us make it too easy for our populace to kill. But, hey, I am a big guy who knows how to defend myself with my hands, so YMMV.

Hahahahaha. Yea, I bet we could do a study on how much money this guy cost us for writing a stupid article.

"The only crimes that have death as a punishment are high treason and murder."

Crimes Punishable by The Death Penalty"
-Capital Drug Trafficking.
-Train wrecking.
-Capital Sex Battery.
-Aggravated Kidnapping.
-Aircraft Hijacking.
-Terrorism.
-Kidnaping with bodily injury, or ransom when the victim dies.

However, I'm sure a death is involved in anything saying 'aggravated' or 'capital'.

Kansas Summary

The number of federal inmates on death row is 37, Federal Death Roll Inmates, the number in Texas alone, 447. Death Roll Inmates By State

When the Feds do become involved, the sentences are rarely lightweight and the prospects for early release are negligible. California man sentenced to 30 years in sex case

The number of federal inmates on death row is 37, Federal Death Roll Inmates, the number in Texas alone, 447. Death Roll Inmates By State

When the Feds do become involved, the sentences are rarely lightweight and the prospects for early release are negligible. California man sentenced to 30 years in sex case

How is the number of people in the US relevant? What matters is the percentage of criminals who are black. I would expect the percentage of executed persons who are black to be roughly the same

Well, lets look at costs, shall we? Here's a random study - Kansas. Emphasis mine.

Conclusions

The estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).

Items:

The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.

The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 per death case; $32,000 per non-death case).

The appeal costs for death cases were about 21 times greater.

The costs of carrying out a death sentence (including death row incarceration) were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.

Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.

For death sentence cases, the pre-trial and trial level costs were the most expensive parts: 49% of the total costs. The costs of appeals were 29% of the total, and incarceration and execution costs accounted for the remaining 22% of the total.

P.S. - I agree with the GP; however, I wasn't commenting on my personal views (which are, in fact, that the purpose of our judicial system is prevention, not retribution). I was just trying to bring facts into the discussion, and the facts are that the death penalty states have *higher* murder rates. If one believes that the purpose should be retribution - well, that's your opinion, and if it is your opinion, then believing in the death penalty, despite the clear lack of a preventative effect, is a good choice for you.

Yes, because as we all know, would-be suicide bombers and people on "martyrdom operations" don't want a glorious death.(/sarcasm)

Even for normal crime, the death penalty appears, if anything, to be a negative deterrent. Yes, it might make you feel better - if you believe that the criminal justice system should be about retribution instead of prevention, then you can certainly justify it. But from a prevention standpoint, it's a pretty hard claim to make.

Yes, because as we all know, would-be suicide bombers and people on "martyrdom operations" don't want a glorious death.(/sarcasm)

Even for normal crime, the death penalty appears, if anything, to be a negative deterrent. Yes, it might make you feel better - if you believe that the criminal justice system should be about retribution instead of prevention, then you can certainly justify it. But from a prevention standpoint, it's a pretty hard claim to make.

The costs may be due to BS red tape, but they are real. Given the current system, and the real tax dollars, I think the costs to society should be a consideration. One also has to consider that the appeals for someone under 18 could be much more extensive due to the age/maturity/responsibility/ emotional development arguments.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=4 5&did=385

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20050220/OPINION03/502190321/1058

http://www.nyadp.org/main/police811.html

Here's a few sources I found - if you want more, google them "death penalty taxpayers millions"

Back to your argument: if you had two cars, one which got you from point A to B killing people, and the other which killed no one, the no-killing version is better.

Oddly, it's more expensive to execute criminals than it is to incarcerate them for life. See this from Indiana:

Total cost of Indiana's death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences. A study by Indiana's Criminal Law Study Commission found this to be true, assuming that 20% of death sentences are overturned and resentenced to life. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002)

Not race?

Then you just need to compare conviction rates as a percentage of cases brought to trial. Studies have shown that arrest rates are higher for blacks, but that the conviction rate is much lower indicating bias in police arrests. On murder cases that actually go to trial, the chances for a black getting the death penalty vs a white are higher, indicating bias in the justice system.

example
example2

The minimum age is sixteen (fourteen states.) No juvenile younger than seventeen at the time his crime was committed has been executed in the United States in over thirty years. Age Requirements for the Death Penalty and the Execution of Juveniles

Is...showing a video clip of her in a game considered commercial use?..Her image is...being used as a minor reward in the game.

I think you have answered your own question.

... emergency medical treatment to anyone based on thier ability to pay since the 80's

So what are his choices - wait until it becomes an emergency? And after that, ('cuz emergency care is expensive) end up bankrupt? Sheesh.

As a percentage of the population more blacks commit more serious crimes

Two of the country's foremost researchers on race and capital punishment, law professor David Baldus and statistician George Woodworth, along with colleagues in Philadelphia, have conducted a careful analysis of race and the death penalty in Philadelphia which reveals that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly four times (3.9) higher if the defendant is black. These results were obtained after analyzing and controlling for case differences such as the severity of the crime and the background of the defendant. The data were subjected to various forms of analysis, but the conclusion was clear: blacks were being sentenced to death far in excess of other defendants for similar crimes.

As for the ketchup? i can both sides of that. If it is used inside a product them its ingredients need to be listed. if it is a condement then no. I havn't head anyhting of that happening here so i don't know how it was being used.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, proposed classifying ketchup as a vegetable as part of Reagan's budget cuts for federally financed school lunch programs (it would make it cheaper to satisfy the requirements on vegetable content of lunches). The suggestion was widely ridiculed and the proposal was killed.

Now for the effects of Bush's tax cuts killing off the middle class: just google for "tax cust shift burden - you'll get lots of hits showing that the rich (who need it the least) get the most benefit: one example: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000299.html

Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new analyses of the Bush administration's tax policies.

recent tax breaks that shift the burden disproportionately to those least able to pay it ...

So, to quote you, in all these cases,

you are either uuninformed or flat out lying...

All this also ignores the problem of the $5 Trillion Bush Deficit, which will have to be paid, meaning less money for social programs, health care, etc., and still more taxes on the middle class.

No civilized governments do that.

Really?

my original reaction to this post follows, copied from its original location here:

It's articles like this one that make me think we should round up all the economists, stuff them in burlap sacks and throw them into the nearest convenient river. Allow me to explain. Slate's latest journalistic atrocity claims that, after a diligent consideration of all the relevant make-believe economic factors, one must inescapably conclude that it makes more sense to execute the authors of computer virii, trojans and worms than it does to execute murderers.

Now, put aside the fact that this article's fourth-and-a-half sentence is "What do we get out of executing a murderer? Deterrence." (oh really?) Further, ignore how conveniently round all the numbers are (people deterred by an execution? 10. Value of a human life? $10 million. Economic benefit of executing a murderer? $100 million). And disregard when the author unabashedly says "...I take my stand with the president of the United States, who, in a 2000 debate against Al Gore, said quite explicitly that nothing other than deterrence can justify the death penalty," despite the fact that President's resume isn't exactly burgeoning with the names of states known for their nuanced philosophical consideration of capital punishment.

No, all you have to know about this article is that the author, Steven E. Landsburg, writes the following:

Compare that to the benefit of executing the author of a computer worm, virus, or Trojan. There seems to be no good name for such people, so I'll make one up--at least until some reader sends in a better suggestion, I'll call them "vermiscripters."

First, Steve, there are names for these sorts of people. This oversight can perhaps be forgiven -- sure, it reveals that you did absolutely no research or background reading prior to declaring a number of misguided teenagers fit for death, but this pales in comparison with your second offense: implying that "vermiscripter" constitutes a "good name."

Ladies and gentlement, if you should run into Steven Landsburg on the street, do not make eye contact. Keep him away from your children. And for god's sake, don't let him start to draw any graphs.

One of the major assumptions by the author of the article (and most people) is that the death penalty deters murder. It doesn't.

Check out The Death Penalty Inormation Center for more facts, info, and studies.

All of the authors economic number crunching is totally invalid because of this. :(
However that doesn't mean that I don't WANT to execute them. ;P

There are statistics that show that a person sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole will cost his state 35-40% less than one sentenced to death.

I can't find any good resources that you wouldn't declare biased, though.

This may be of interest to you.