California’s Death Penalty; Law in Print, Not in Reality

I suggest that CA get rid of capitol punishment as its capitol has punished the state quite enough already.

Unless, of course, CA were to punish the capitol itself, which would get even with it for punishing its state in the first place.

After all, in the state that it is in, it would be a capitol idea to get even, even if it were if it were only for that reason, that is, to get even. Which, after all, is what those unfairly punished want. Besides making someone pay their debt to society. Whatever that may mean.mean. Must have something to do with the high (and therefore punishing) cost of running a capitol in the first place. Or any other place, for that matter.

I challenge anyone to be able to effectively counter this argument.

Tonystep,

Have you had a family member abducted, tortured, and/or murdered?

My guess is that you have not....Hypothetically speaking; would you want t pay upkeep for life (avg 70+ years) sentence on the person who wilfully murdered your child? Innocent provide do you want to feed, clothe, house, educate, not only health care, but therapy and entertainment including wide-screen TVs, weight room and computer? Do you want your taxes to go for the above mentioned, which is a drop in the bucket, compared to what society pays for the killer's defense. Society, that's you and me friend!

Check this out; in the late 60's Charlie Manson found himself in a 3 bedroom apartment inside the walls of San Quentin at a cost of 2 Million annually. Has his rent gone down? If he's in a one-man cell, probably...Manson's incarceration has cost Californian's 40 million plus! That's allot of loot!

Robert Kennedy was gunned down and died on the floor of a restaurant kitchen as he left the hotel where he just had accepted the Democratic nomination. His cold-blooded, ruthless murderer was Sirhan B Sirhan, still alive wallowing in "prison luxury." His hotel bill; One million annually.

Manson's henchman Tex Watson married & produced children while serving time for slaughtering 2 uppereschellon families in the Los Angeles area. One of which was an un-born baby. Another 40 yrs left for "Tex." I wonder how much Aid for Dependant Children (AFDC) has paid Mama Tex and offspring.

In sunny CA a life sentence equates to parole eligibility in 6 yrs. A life sentence without any chance of parole simply means; after serving 14 yrs the inmate can go before the parole board and petition for release.

During the sentencing phase of a death penalty case juror instruction by the judge does not, I say: "does not," include the literal meaning of the terms "life sentence" and "life with no chance of parole." This information/explanation is withheld from the 12 men & women deciding the outcome. If they knew the full meaning, there would be more death sentences because they hear the details one does not hear outside of the courtroom. They know, based on the facts/evidence that the accused should never be freed. They often choose a life sentence over death based on, at least, one juror rejecting the death sentence. The report used in my article 'California’s Death Penalty; Law in Print, Not in Reality,' also stated that during the past 30 yrs no significant evidence was uncovered to indicate that any innocent individual had been executed in CA. Earlier I asked if you had experienced the ongoing, never-ending mental torment of losing a loved one. The absolute morally mentally corrupt mad man with blood of your loved one on his hands. I guessed you had not. Now think about the women in your life you hold the dearest, or the children....One of them is callously murdered..., Do you want their killer to, possibly, be freed in 6 yrs?? And friend, about 75% of violent (death) sex offenders, when released, repeat the crimes.
There's an incredible amount of money involved with wide reaching effects, to keep killers alive. Much much more important; there's you and me.

Your position as I understand is that we should take the chance. Maybe I responded to quickly. I thought you were a serious debater when in fact you are one who, cleverly, weaves words. You'll need to step it up Tony. This is no joke.

You are right, Kathryn. It is no joke. I have a bad habit of not taking the U.S. position on the death penalty seriously. This is partly because there are very few countries in the civilized world that still have the death penalty, and this is for good reason. Those decisions were not taken lightly by any of the countries that chose to move in that direction.

However, to argue for or against it is not going to convince either of us. More important, we need to understand each other. I have friends who sincerely believe their son was murdered by a particular police officer here in Canada. Oddly, other friends of ours, friends of the officer, are as convinced the officer acted within the guidelines of his job.

The feelings of our friends who lost a son are very strong. While we may not be able to fully empathize, as we have not been there, we certainly sympathize with them. It is easy to see why grieving relatives of a victim are so often (but not always) so happy with the execution of the murderer.

This is certainly a topic i am willing to discuss or debate in a sensible, thoughtful but thought-provoking manner. However, at this point i back away from further antagonizing you, as you responded to me in a courteous and sincere manner. your courtesy obliges me to allow you to open any further discussion with me on the matter.

Again, my apologies for the thoughtless manner in which i initiated this discussion.

Tony,

I appreciate your kind and gentlemanly response.

A little clarification from me; I don't believe on accusation of murder equates to fulfilling the death penalty. However, I strongly believe that an eyewitness, confession or DNA match does remove any "shadow of doubt," in those cases the accused should be put to death.

We should not be forced to babysit killers until they have the "privilege" of dying of natural causes, God given right they took from their victims. Having said that, yes I would like to know what foundation you stand on in support of abolishing capitol punishment.

It is my opinion that there are conflicting effects from the death penalty. Let me give an over-simplified explanation:

One of the reasons for the penalty is discourage others from doing whatever crime the penalty has been given for. One reason for not applying the penalty is that if the state accepts the principle of taking a life as the ultimate solution to an extreme crime, then there is a psychological impact on society. To a very slight extent, everyone learns to view the taking of life as the ultimate solution when nothing else works. Once that slight shift in mindset is in place, people who are at the edge of coping within their specific environment are slightly more likely to use the taking of a life as that ultimate solution. Given the large number of critical situations that arise over the population of an entire country, the actual number of lives taken for various reasons will therefore be higher in a country that accepts the death penalty.

These conflicting influences exert different amounts of influence at different levels of civilization. In a raw survival environment where civilization has collapsed or never existed, the death penalty has more influence in preventing serious crimes than the state's acceptance of the death penalty has in causing such crimes. In a highly civilized society, where for example murders are relatively rare, the state's death penalty has more influence in the direction of permitting such crimes than in discouraging such crimes.

If there is any truth to this theory, then in a relatively civilized society we should on the average find a lower murder rate in states which oppose the death penalty, and a higher murder rate in those which use the penalty. In uncivilized environments we should find that the imposition of the death penalty is effective in reducing the murder rate.

These figures are not easy to define, because there are mixed factors influencing the outcomes. Some people groups have a history or personality type that has a shorter history of civilized behaviour, resulting in different responses to state-imposed influences.

This over-simplification is a start to a discussion on the long and convoluted topic. It is my opinion that the gradual civilization of the western world is gradually shifting these influences, which is gradually causing one country after another to find the death penalty insufficiently effective to be used. Future deterioration of civilization, a real possibility, will of course shift the emphasis back in favour of the use of the death penalty.

Your thoughts?

tony,
It has taken a number of days for me to respond to you and I apologize fro that. However, the demands of life often keeps me away from the things I would rather be doing. More pertinently, I was so impressed by your comments I've been unable to organize my thoughts to deliver a "somewhat" sensible reply.

I have to admit to not having heard any of the information you supplied. It was truly a "news flash" to me. You have given me "food for thought" that I am still processing. Knowing me, as I do, I need to study the material/theory you introduced and allow some time for absorption.., but I do see how the dots could connect, and I sincerely thank you for that. As I read your words, my old Political Science instructor's adage came back to the forefront of my mind. In regards to foreign policy he said, "If you open the door a crack, you may as well fling it wide open, because there's no going back once its open."

I relate this phrase to that of the door being wide open on the death penalty. If the notion of nullifying the death penalty were to be embraced by the "mighty forces" of our judicial system, if it could be reversed, how many decades would it take for this country, or any other, to swing towards being more civilized? Could the abolishment of "death as punishment" serve to remove the fear of the death chamber from the ones inclined to kill, thus opening the door for more murderers?

I believe that is a possibility. Perhaps that fear of death as punishment serves as a degree of control over the potential killers urges and/or fantasies?

We simply don't know the answer. I wouldn't even trust a psychic on this one. :-) You described this discussion as a "convoluted topic..." I say; It's a full bucket of worms." There are illnesses with no cure and emotional pain, so deep, there can be no healing. Equally, there are problems, perplexities and situations that we are not likely to see resolved, for surely, when one issue has reached a comfortable state of being that, in itself, creates another.

You are..., interesting, funny and light wit a dead "expletive" serious side.

I've got a "meaty" one for you (moral dilemma) later.

Until next time,
Kathryn

Although i am not actually Canadian, my wife and i were both indoctrinated through the Canadian school system to favour the abolishment of the death penalty. Not all Canadians feel that weay, of course, but that indoctrination tends to produce a nation that leans in that direction. We both have parents whose life philosophies influenced us toward that decision also. In the end, of course, each person makes their own mind up, but our indoctrination has a lot to do with our final decision. As a result, the abolishment of the death penalty makes sense to us. Had we been indoctrinated differently, we would likely have seen the death penalty as the most appropriate solution. Being aware of this, i am more understanding of those who feel strongly in favour of the death penalty. Especially when the loved ones of a victim of a horrible crime are concerned. We never look down on loved ones who cheer at the death of the perpetrator. How else are they expected to feel? Of course, there are those who can find it in their hearts to forgive the criminal. OK, i say but that forgiveness cannot be allowed to put society in danger by reducing the penalty to the point where that person gets the opportunity to do it again or where others feel it might be worth their while doing the same sort of thing. That's why it is so difficult to decide within any particular society what the punishment should be. It's not cut and dries. It's a tough call. I can't say what the short or long term outcome will be for any particular state. But i do believe that generally it is best to gradually working toward the eventual removal of the death penalty. If society is taught that this this is the goal, then the negative influence of the state's decision to use the penalty in the meantime will have less negative effect on the public attitude toward killing as a solution. This might mitigate the negative statistics that seem to sometimes result from the death penalty.