Mitch,
What about the innocent, (or guilty, for that matter) who can and have been killed by persons from inside prison? Al Capone ran his operation from the inside, as I'm sure many others have.

You also worry about innocents being executed by the state (which you have understandable and sound reservations about), yet many innocents are killed by that same state in military action, and you accept this. There is no moral equivelance?

Yep. Strangely enough, one cliche of that most traditional of American art forms, the western, has played into the mind-set that was so prevalent back in the early 80s, and still exists in certain corners today. How many westerns have featured the plot device of the gang of criminals riding into a town and terrorizing the peacable citizens? I can think of a half-dozen right off the top of my head. Although that device serves the function of allowing the hero to save the day, it masks the reality of the American west, which is that that the citizenry was armed and experienced. Many had served in the Civil War. Somebody who had seen Gettysburg was not going to allow a band of thugs to ride roughshod over their town. When the James gang ventured into Northfield for some robbery, they got their asses handed to them, courtesy of the peaceful citizens of that small Minnesota town.

It is no different today. The greatest deterrent the criminal predator has is the prospect that their thuggery will be met by competence in arms.

Kermit, prison technology is such that it is now perfectly possible to incarcerate murderers in such fashion that the chance of escape, or even coming into contact with other human beings, and thus threatening them, approaches zero. John Gotti, when he was put into a supermax cell, wasn't running squat.

If you can demonstrate that pacifism is feasable, then your analogy of war to opposing the death penalty will hold. Pacifism is not only not feasable, of course, but is, indeed, immoral, in some contexts, so the analogy with opposing capital punishment does not hold.

Mitch, I don't think Tookie Williams is a reasonable argument for more guns. The topic was sufficient to discuss capital punishment.

Tookie Williams was found guilty, I find that compelling enough to incarcerate him for the rest of his life. Had he repented (truly), and asked forgiveness, it would be difficult as a Christian, not to grant it, however, my religious beliefs do not have business superceeding justice due the victims and their families.

In this case, however, Williams professed his innocence. Given the numerous mistakes of the system, I am troubled. If, later, we find he was innocent (which has happened now many dozens of times in capital cases), we can't fix it. I concur that the power of government to take a life, even to incarcerate, should be limited.

Syl Jones, whom I almost always disagree with, wrote an article this morning, which I mostly agreed with. However, that was before I knew Williams professed innocence. Jones' primary point, that this man hardly deserves clemency because his profoundly evil acts are not washed away by his good, is compelling. They might have been if he were repentent, but he wasn't, though Jones doesn't say that.

It's a double edged sword, if he repents, then he is admitting guilt. If he were truly innocent, why repent? I have sufficient faith in the legal system that even though he professed his innocence, if found guilty, he should be incarcerated. I don't have enough to allow me to take someone's life, or agree the state should do so. You may see it as a subtle difference, since they die in prison, but I don't. In one, I'm restricting their liberty, in the other, I'm ending their existence.

The point is, Mitch you are ambviliant, I am also. Were he fully admitting of his guilt, and unrepentent (like Bundy, or Gacy), my religious objection is not compelling enough to deny society what it perceives as justice.

The rest, the argument that they can kill w/o feeling they are putting their life at risk, the argument for gun control.. that's all bunkum, they certainly are at risk the police will shoot them, and sooooo few crimes are stopped by armed citizens, the net benefit is MASSIVELY outweighed by the harm. Which isn't advocating for gun control, I don't support it really at all, but these kinds of arguments are ludicrous. When someone else has a gun drawn, good luck to you getting yours before they shoot you.

The analolgy of Will to the 1880's is accurate, in that citizenry were armed, but they generally needed to be. The law was often corrupt, certainly much less available, and frequently far away. There were also MANY MANY more murders, random, stupid acts between normally peaceful people, accidental tragedies. Advocating for a period of anarchic law is hardly a supporting argument. James Gang certainly got shot to hell at Northfield, but the prevelance of guns didn't stop James from killing some 80 people, nor did it stop HIM from being shot in the back.

The topic is sound, do we forgive if asked, how far? Is the risk of killing innocents worthwhile? Stay with that and you have a good debate. Arguing that guns save lives.. sure, for example, Iraq is the most heavily armed nation in the world, outside the US, it sure is stopping crime there.

PB

Mitch, the government can no more return 30 years of an innocent man's life to him than it can his life itself. Wrongful imprisonment isn't any more reversible than wrongful execution. It may be the lesser of the two evils, but acting like you can simply wipe your hands of the mistake by letting a person out of prison is intellectually facile.

As is the proposition that the likelihood of innocence is the same in every capital offense. Between DNA, finger-prints, audio and video evidence, eye-witness testimony, and even confessions, there are crimes where we can be 100% certain we've got the right person. Why rule out the death penalty in those instances because of the slim chance that someone else in a completely unrelated case may be innocent?

"It may be the lesser of the two evils, but acting like you can simply wipe your hands of the mistake by letting a person out of prison is intellectually facile."

Fortunately, I never acted in any such way.

I believe that wrongful imprisonment is subject for relief via the courts. Lots of it.

"As is the proposition that the likelihood of innocence is the same in every capital offense."

Which is a claim I've never made. There are cases where I believe capital punishment to be amply deserved. But...

"Between DNA, finger-prints, audio and video evidence, eye-witness testimony, and even confessions, there are crimes where we can be 100% certain we've got the right person. Why rule out the death penalty in those instances because of the slim chance that someone else in a completely unrelated case may be innocent?"

Because EVERY DA thinks his case is one of those 100% cases. And every one convinces a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" of the strength of his case. EVERY person released from Death Row in America - and there have been dozens in the past 30 years - was originally convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Short of a separate legal standard - "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Really, REALLY Double-DOG beyond a reasonable doubt", perhaps - I'm not seeing how we deal with that.

I don’t even know where to start with PB's comment. So if the convicted person claims innocence he shouldn’t be executed no matter what the evidence shows. Wouldn’t this only allow an execution order be carried out on someone who WANTS to be executed? I can understand those who are against the death penalty, I can understand those who are for it. There have been cases where the wrong man was convicted and sentenced to death. This isn’t one of them. "If, later, we find he was innocent (which has happened now many dozens of times in capital cases),” I would like to see these dozens of cases you sited. I have seen a number of cases overturned on appeal, which is kind of the idea of the seemingly unlimited review process.
As far as the comments about the old west, I would love to see PB's documentation of what he apparently believes life was like back then. It appears to be obtained via TV and movies.
"The analogy of Will to the 1880's is accurate, in that citizenry were armed, but they generally needed to be." This is Mitch's argument. That the common citizen needs to be armed. Hard to argue if you live on a street where drive-bys are common.
"The law was often corrupt, certainly much less available, and frequently far away."
The courts have ruled that the police dept has no duty to protect an individual. Calling 911 while someone is breaking in your house or trying to steal your car or money doesn’t bring a policeman instantly. Sometimes the only person you can count on immediately is yourself. Much like in the old west. The main difference is that current day the police will arrive a lot sooner to take the crime report.
"here were also MANY MANY more murders, random, stupid acts between normally peaceful people, accidental tragedies. "
I challenge you to find ANY documentation to this. Most of the cattle towns in my part of the country had one side of town where the local people lived and one side for the drovers and drifters. Things were fairly loose on that side, but even there not as PB describes. In the movies people are shooting each other all the time, in real life not so much.
"Advocating for a period of anarchic law is hardly a supporting argument.”
Since no one is advocating that, this is a huge strawman.
"James Gang certainly got shot to hell at Northfield, but the prevelance of guns didn't stop James from killing some 80 people, nor did it stop HIM from being shot in the back."
Google Jesse James and you find "killed at least a half-dozen or more men." This would be a far cry from 80. Yes, of course being armed doesn’t help anyone from being shot in the back, but it does a hell of a lot of good stopping anyone from shooting you in the front, which is the point.
"Arguing that guns save lives.. sure, for example, Iraq is the most heavily armed nation in the world, outside the US, it sure is stopping crime there." Or we could point to the Swiss who are also well armed. What's their crime rate? Who cares, it has as much relevance as the Iraq example. None in other words.
"When someone else has a gun drawn, good luck to you getting yours before they shoot you."
Nonsense. The hard part is never getting to your gun. The hard part is hitting the target. Why do you think most police shootouts occur from 4 feet or less, with the vast majority of bullets missing their intended target? I am tired of hearing how people owning guns will turn the country in the Wild West. It wasn’t that wild, and every state that has allowed it has not erupted in violence. Just how many examples do we need before that caricature is done?

"The rest, the argument that they can kill w/o feeling they are putting their life at risk, the argument for gun control.. that's all bunkum, they certainly are at risk the police will shoot them,"

Criminals are frequently inconveniently smart; they try to avoid cops. Which is why cops tend to do more *investigating* than *shooting*.

"and sooooo few crimes are stopped by armed citizens, the net benefit is MASSIVELY outweighed by the harm."

Completely wrong. As in, light leaving "right" right now won't reach you until long after your grandchildren are voting Republican.

Gary Kleck - a U of Florida criminologist and, by the way, a Democrat - showed that there are between 1.2 and 2 million deterrences of crime in the US per year. Even the FBI's stats - which are overly conservative - show a minimum of 80,000 deterrences a year. And John Lott's various books and studies pretty well showed that at the *very* least there was no net harm in "shall issue" concealed carry laws, and in most places at least a marginal benefit. (And please, please bring up the various purported "refutations" of Lott; It'll be like Minnie Pearl playing one on one against Allan Iverson).

" Which isn't advocating for gun control, I don't support it really at all, but these kinds of arguments are ludicrous."

Your underlying sympathies are noted - but the arguments are ludicrous only if you studiously ignore the available data.

" When someone else has a gun drawn, good luck to you getting yours before they shoot you."

True. But that's not what happens in the majority of armed self-defense cases.

The government killing a guy after a trial by jury and years of appeals is bad.

Vigilantes killing some guy in their neighborhood is so good it gives a Christmas feeling.

Mitch - gotta work through that ambivalence a bit, get to a firmer conclusion.

I'm 100% with you on the gun issue and I'd bring the marshmallows to the car roast, but your analysis of the death penalty leaves me dazed.
.

"I believe that wrongful imprisonment is subject for relief via the courts. Lots of it."

Would any amount of money really make up for three decades of your life lost unjustly behind bars? It wouldn't for me. I don't think anything the courts could do would remedy that kind of loss.

"Short of a separate legal standard - "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Really, REALLY Double-DOG beyond a reasonable doubt", perhaps - I'm not seeing how we deal with that."

Sarcasm aside, what's wrong with a separate legal standard for a punishment that you assert is uniquely irreversible? I believe Texas has a special statute for cases where there are three credible eye-witnesses (though I get that from a comedian, so take it with a grain of salt). Why not propose that the death penalty require DNA to support the conviction along with a clear video of the crime taking place, and the accused caught with the victim's blood on his clothes, rather than opposing it outright? I'm sure if you put your mind to it you can come up with a number of generalized scenarios where you'd be 100% certain the person being put to death was guilty, and I don't see the problem putting that into law. I'd personally be more "liberal" with the death penalty than that, but at least we'd be closer to agreement.

"Would any amount of money really make up for three decades of your life lost unjustly behind bars? It wouldn't for me."

It's academic for you. I've read fairly extensively from people who've been released from prison - including one who was sprung a couple of years ago after *21 years* on Death Row. Money probably doesnt' *make up* for anything, but you have to be alive to regret lost time and rebuild a life.

Ask the people involved which they'd prefer. It's a trick of course; I already know the answer, at least in every case I know of.