From: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM (Bob Deguc)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Death Penalty in California :-(
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:35:37 GMT
Reply-To: deguc@holein1.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: holein1.corp.sun.com

In article 00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
 
> I think a big reason that the death penalty is not a deterrent is because
> it doesn't exist.  How long has it been since the last execution in this
> state?  What criminal in their right mind (or any other mind) would bother
> to fear something THAT DOESN'T EXIST?

Even federal studies (well that's what they said on TV last night :) ) show that
there is NO evidence to support this claim.  I personally don't buy that argument
because even when capital punishment was more commonplace, there was still capital
crimes.  I know, I know, "but there are more of them now".  Yup, only because
the methods of killing are much more efficent.

> And then you've got nothing more than a totally wasted life.  Not to
> mention the expense, time, and trouble to the state to keep the criminal
> there for the rest of his life.

How about making them (death-row inmates) "pay" their own way?  I sure that
"something" can be found for them to do that will result in the off-setting of
the costs to keep them incarcerated.  And if they don't work, they don't get
food and water.  If they choose to starve to death, I can't say that I'd go
out of my way to stop them.

> 
> I think it's a fine thing, when combined properly with the deterrent
> effect that would exist should the death penalty exist, and when combined
> with the attitude that punishment goes a small way towards putting a small
> amount of fairness into the world.  I don't know how else to explain my
> feelings on the matter other than that.  If you commit a crime, it is
> just plain FAIR that you pay the price for it.  And if that price be your
> death, then so be it.  Nothing can bring back the victims of those who
> WILLINGLY chose to kill, but killing said criminals in turn goes a small
> way towards restoring the balance.

Again, the deterent is not a proven VALID argument.  Besides, what about the
two men that were just recently released from prison in southern California
after serving 17 years for a murder they didn't commit?  If they had been
executed, that would have made the situation much MUCH worse!

> 
> I also think that revenge has gotten an undeserved bad name in our
> "enlightned" society.  What is so wrong about a desire for revenge?
> Even the bible speaks of "an eye for an eye".

"An eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind." - Gandi

The bible also says "Thou shalt not kill" and "Vengance is mine sayeth
the Lord".


  Those who loved the
> dead victim deserve some consideration.  If satisfying their desire
> for revenge can give them a little bit more peace, if it sets their
> minds just a tad more at ease, if it allows them to sleep just a little
> bit better at night, then the revenge has served a purpose.  I simply
> cannot understand those who spout that "we're above it" crap.  The
> desire for revenge exists, pure and simple; getting on a moral high
> hourse about it doesn't make it go away.  As long as the revenge is
> satisfied in a lawful, equitable, above-board manner, I have no problem
> with it.

Well, to take it to the extreme, if revenge is OK, what's to stop the family
of the executed inmate from extracting their own revenge?  Especially if "new"
evidence shows that their family member was wrongfully executed?

> 
> --James Preston

As I grow older and older, I am finding it harder and harder to be against the
death penalty.  My main concern though is those who have been wrongfully convicted
(and then executed) for a crime they didn't commit.  I have not been able to
lay this argument to rest as of yet.


Bob De Guc