A quick DP debate question

[TonyP]

Hi my name is Tony and I live in Australia in Yr(Grade) 10
I have to do a Dp debate for class, we we have a group of 3 members, and I am the rebut person. I have take down the notes of the opposition and write a rebut to demote their case. I have read some of the other threads so I have a fairly reasonable idea how to I should do things. The problem is that I don't know how to rebut these points if they bring it up. (PS, the opposition does not support the reinstatment of the DP in Australia)
- The death penalty if morally wrong
- The death penalty goes against human right law (or whatever they're called)
- The death penalty is not fair for those who have a mental disablility
- The risk of an innocent being executed (I sort of know what to say for this one, something like "There is also a risk of murders escaping from prison and killing more innocent people)
- The use of a life sentence in jail is harsh enough, which will prevent innocents being executed if decent evidence is found

[Lisa]

Hi Tony...



Mental Retardation:

www.prodeathpenalty.com/Articles/Sharp_MR.htm

DP as Moral and Just:

www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/death.htm

I hope these help you get started.

[bigmama]

Hi Tony, good luck with that debate.

Here are my quick thoughts:

- The death penalty is morally wrong. Response: The death penalty is proportional to the crime of murder. A life for a life. Nothing immoral about that.

- The death penalty goes against human right law (or whatever they're called). Response: Murder goes against human rights law, natural law, civil rights laws, etc. The ultimate penalty is appropriately reserved for the ultimate crime.

- The death penalty is not fair for those who have a mental disablility. Response: Depends on what you're calling a "mental disability." Insanity? Retardation? Just a little dumb? Under the influence of drugs or alcohol? For insanity, if they can distinguish between wrong and right, they're not excused. For retardation and on up to just a little dumb, it's all a matter of degree. In this country, the mentally retarded are no longer subject to execution. Under the influence, similar to insanity, if they're capable of telling right from wrong, no excuse.

- The risk of an innocent being executed (I sort of know what to say for this one, something like "There is also a risk of murders escaping from prison and killing more innocent people). Response: That's true. I would also point out that with a meaningful appeals process and the continual development and sophistication of forensic science, the risk of an innocent being executed is reduced to almost nothing. There is a lot of debate but there's no evidence that any innocent has been executed in this country since the death penalty was reinstated in 1970's.

- The use of a life sentence in jail is harsh enough, which will prevent innocents being executed if decent evidence is found. Response: Harsh enough for what? Is it harsh enough to discourage a murderer doing life in prison from murdering again, either another inmate or a corrections officer? Is it harsh enough to stop a murderer doing life from ordering others to murder, either in prison or outside? If the worry is preventing innocents from being executed, then tighten up the trial and appeals process to adequately safeguard.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Spend the time to get your research done, that's the best preparation to rebut any argument. There is a ton of great information on this site. Good luck to you!

[TonyP]

Thanks, those articles really help.
There's also one more I'm stumped on
- Two wrongs don't make a right

This one got me, the only thing I can think so say is "This has not been proven to be right, so the statement is completely false"

[Californian]

TonyP said:

Thanks, those articles really help.
There's also one more I'm stumped on
- Two wrongs don't make a right

This one got me, the only thing I can think so say is "This has not been proven to be right, so the statement is completely false"

Assuming facts not in evidence. The DP is not a "wrong," but rather a punishment.

[Lisa]

TonyP said:

Thanks, those articles really help.
There's also one more I'm stumped on
- Two wrongs don't make a right

This one got me, the only thing I can think so say is "This has not been proven to be right, so the statement is completely false"

Of course, Californian is right, the DP is the legal punishment of a convicted murderer, murder is the unlawful murder of an innocent victim. Following the "two wrongs don't make a right" line of reasoning could possibly lead to the conclusion that fines and imprisonment are "wrong" because fines could be considered state-sanctioned theft and imprisonment could be considered state-sanctioned kidnapping.

[josephdphillips]

pdp0143 said:

Of course, Californian is right, the DP is the legal punishment of a convicted murderer, murder is the unlawful murder of an innocent victim. Following the "two wrongs don't make a right" line of reasoning could possibly lead to the conclusion that fines and imprisonment are "wrong" because fines could be considered state-sanctioned theft and imprisonment could be considered state-sanctioned kidnapping.

The only problem with that reasoning, Lisa, is that we don't really believe death is just a punishment.

Our reluctance to impose sentences of death, and carry them out, makes us look like murderers.

[Lisa]

josephdphillips said:

pdp0143 said:

Of course, Californian is right, the DP is the legal punishment of a convicted murderer, murder is the unlawful murder of an innocent victim. Following the "two wrongs don't make a right" line of reasoning could possibly lead to the conclusion that fines and imprisonment are "wrong" because fines could be considered state-sanctioned theft and imprisonment could be considered state-sanctioned kidnapping.

The only problem with that reasoning, Lisa, is that we don't really believe death is just a punishment.

Our reluctance to impose sentences of death, and carry them out, makes us look like murderers.

If we don't believe the death penalty is a punishment, what do you think we believe it is?

[josephdphillips]

pdp0143 said:

josephdphillips said:

The only problem with that reasoning, Lisa, is that we don't really believe death is just a punishment. Our reluctance to impose sentences of death, and carry them out, makes us look like murderers.

If we don't believe the death penalty is a punishment, what do you think we believe it is?

To me capital punishment appears to be a vehicle of personal expression.

Punishment, in my mind, is something designed to keep people within certain boundaries. "This you shall not do," we tell each other, with the punishment for transgressions clearly understood by all.

The true punishment we have for murder isn't death, but something much more lenient. Who gets the death penalty, and why, is still anyone's guess. No one in the United States has any reasonable expectation of ever dying by execution. Call that whatever you want, but it doesn't look like punishment to me.

To the extent we flinch in responding to murder, we yield the moral high ground to antis. It makes no sense to justify capital punishment as a moral response to murder, and then hardly ever apply it as such. We don't practice what we preach.

If death were "just" a punishment, we'd be executing murderers as easily as we incarcerate them. Yet here we are, caviling about which ones deserve death and how to dispatch them to the nether regions.

I can readily understand why antis equate executions with murder. Like murderers, we only kill certain people, for reasons we can't explain. Codifying our moral ambivalence about murder doesn't justify that moral ambivalence.

[Lisa]

I see where you're coming from now. I was looking at it from the viewpoint that the DP is punishment for those who receive it. Unlike you, I will never understand why antis equate executions with murder. We don't kill, as you say, "only certain people, for reasons we can't explain." We execute murderers because they murdered someone. Do I wish it was a helluva lot more? Oh yes. Still, I'd have to say the DP, when carried out, is definitely a punishment.

[josephdphillips]

pdp0143 said:

I see where you're coming from now. I was looking at it from the viewpoint that the DP is punishment for those who receive it. Unlike you, I will never understand why antis equate executions with murder. We don't kill, as you say, "only certain people, for reasons we can't explain." We execute murderers because they murdered someone. Do I wish it was a helluva lot more? Oh yes. Still, I'd have to say the DP, when carried out, is definitely a punishment.

If there's no moral reason to execute someone, then it's retribution without a purpose, Lisa. It's nothing more than bloodlust and spite.

You can't say there's a moral reason in executing someone if you keep making exceptions to your morals.

The anti's best weapon is the "pro" who simply wants to kill someone for no better reason than that it feels good. There is plenty of that infantilism among the "pros" here.

[Deleted]

josephdphillips said:

pdp0143 said:

Of course, Californian is right, the DP is the legal punishment of a convicted murderer, murder is the unlawful murder of an innocent victim. Following the "two wrongs don't make a right" line of reasoning could possibly lead to the conclusion that fines and imprisonment are "wrong" because fines could be considered state-sanctioned theft and imprisonment could be considered state-sanctioned kidnapping.

The only problem with that reasoning, Lisa, is that we don't really believe death is just a punishment.

Our reluctance to impose sentences of death, and carry them out, makes us look like murderers.

It is the only way to gaurantee that a murderer does not become a repeat offender.

[Deleted]

josephdphillips said:

pdp0143 said:

I see where you're coming from now. I was looking at it from the viewpoint that the DP is punishment for those who receive it. Unlike you, I will never understand why antis equate executions with murder. We don't kill, as you say, "only certain people, for reasons we can't explain." We execute murderers because they murdered someone. Do I wish it was a helluva lot more? Oh yes. Still, I'd have to say the DP, when carried out, is definitely a punishment.

If there's no moral reason to execute someone, then it's retribution without a purpose, Lisa. It's nothing more than bloodlust and spite.

You can't say there's a moral reason in executing someone if you keep making exceptions to your morals.

The anti's best weapon is the "pro" who simply wants to kill someone for no better reason than that it feels good. There is plenty of that infantilism among the "pros" here.

It is not "blood lust and spite". As a matter of fact, if you can point to 1 instance where an executed murderer murdered again, I'll drop my support of the DP immediately.

[josephdphillips]

realtex said:

It is the only way to gaurantee that a murderer does not become a repeat offender.

True, but we parole most murderers. Are we truly worried about the recidivism of murderers? What about the murder victims of first-timers? Why do these victims rate inferior justice?

The safety argument rings hollow. We're not executing all murderers to prevent repeat offenses, and many hundreds of murderers who have been executed would not have committed more murders anyway.

[Deleted]

josephdphillips said:

realtex said:

It is the only way to gaurantee that a murderer does not become a repeat offender.

True, but we parole most murderers. Are we truly worried about the recidivism of murderers? What about the murder victims of first-timers? Why do these victims rate inferior justice?

The safety argument rings hollow. We're not executing all murderers to prevent repeat offenses, and many hundreds of murderers who have been executed would not have committed more murders anyway.

I'll be the first to admit we don't execute enough. 1 murder conviction should be followed by execution no more than 30 days later.

[Lisa]

josephdphillips said:

pdp0143 said:

I see where you're coming from now. I was looking at it from the viewpoint that the DP is punishment for those who receive it. Unlike you, I will never understand why antis equate executions with murder. We don't kill, as you say, "only certain people, for reasons we can't explain." We execute murderers because they murdered someone. Do I wish it was a helluva lot more? Oh yes. Still, I'd have to say the DP, when carried out, is definitely a punishment.

If there's no moral reason to execute someone, then it's retribution without a purpose, Lisa. It's nothing more than bloodlust and spite.

You can't say there's a moral reason in executing someone if you keep making exceptions to your morals.

The anti's best weapon is the "pro" who simply wants to kill someone for no better reason than that it feels good. There is plenty of that infantilism among the "pros" here.

In your belief system, is there ever an instance when retribution is warranted? While definitely not the only reason I'm a pro, I have to admit it's one of the reasons. If we only execute ONE murderer per century it is moral IMO. You'll never get me to change my mind on that. I'm not debating the WOWIE/Frycircus subject with you. I'm about as frycircussy as one can possibly be. I think it's silly for someone who calls himself a pro to imply that the DP is immoral solely because it's not used often enough. While I understand what you're trying to say, I don't like your choice of words.

[josephdphillips]

pdp0143 said:

In your belief system, is there ever an instance when retribution is warranted?

I'm all for payback, but it is lost on those who need to appreciate it the most to the extent we keep calling it something else.

The granting of a sumptuous last meal, the holding of the murderer's hand, the incongruous concern for the executee's comfort -- does that sound like retribution, to you?

pdp0143 said:

While definitely not the only reason I'm a pro, I have to admit it's one of the reasons. If we only execute ONE murderer per century it is moral IMO. You'll never get me to change my mind on that.

Or mine, but why settle? Who created this mess, and why?

pdp0143 said:

I'm not debating the WOWIE/Frycircus subject with you. I'm about as frycircussy as one can possibly be. I think it's silly for someone who calls himself a pro to imply that the DP is immoral solely because it's not used often enough.

I'm playing devil's advocate, and I'm trying to inject some honesty into the debate. After all, it's not really the antis that killed capital punishment in the United States. The "pros" brought it upon themselves through negligence, false assumptions, uncritical thinking and lack of self-examination.

pdp0143 said:

While I understand what you're trying to say, I don't like your choice of words.

Fair enough, but the antis aren't all just a bunch of murdererphilic, utopian yahoos. Folks like Brennan, Ginger, Lynne, Ben and others ask some good questions, and sometimes the answers the pros provide are rather lame, if not purely (and embarassingly) ad hominem. We can do better.

[josephdphillips]

realtex said:

It is not "blood lust and spite". As a matter of fact, if you can point to 1 instance where an executed murderer murdered again, I'll drop my support of the DP immediately.

The same argument supports the identification and execution of murderers in the womb, Realtex. Would you support that, just to be on the safe side?

Again, the culture is not particularly concerned about recividism among those who have murdered. Thousands have been killed by paroled murderers, and the voters don't seem to be particularly upset about it.

There are good reasons to execute a murderer, but the safety argument, to me, doesn't seem to be the most important one, given our unwillingness to punish all but a tiny fraction of murderers with death.

Surely if public safety were the primary reason to execute a murderer, Andrea Yates would be dead by now.

[Lisa]

josephdphillips said:

pdp0143 said:

In your belief system, is there ever an instance when retribution is warranted?

I'm all for payback, but it is lost on those who need to appreciate it the most to the extent we keep calling it something else.

The granting of a sumptuous last meal, the holding of the murderer's hand, the incongruous concern for the executee's comfort -- does that sound like retribution, to you?



Or mine, but why settle? Who created this mess, and why?



I'm playing devil's advocate, and I'm trying to inject some honesty into the debate. After all, it's not really the antis that killed capital punishment in the United States. The "pros" brought it upon themselves through negligence, false assumptions, uncritical thinking and lack of self-examination.

pdp0143 said:

While I understand what you're trying to say, I don't like your choice of words.

Fair enough, but the antis aren't all just a bunch of murdererphilic, utopian yahoos. Folks like Brennan, Ginger, Lynne, Ben and others ask some good questions, and sometimes the answers the pros provide are rather lame, if not purely (and embarassingly) ad hominem. We can do better.

I'm on my way out the door to the dreaded doctor's appt. I make every 3 or 4 years. I'll get back to this....but for the most part I think we agree.

[josephdphillips]

pdp0143 said:

I'm on my way out the door to the dreaded doctor's appt. I make every 3 or 4 years. I'll get back to this....but for the most part I think we agree.

You must have the wrong doctor. Mine's cute.

[Lisa]

josephdphillips said:

pdp0143 said:

In your belief system, is there ever an instance when retribution is warranted?

I'm all for payback, but it is lost on those who need to appreciate it the most to the extent we keep calling it something else.

The granting of a sumptuous last meal, the holding of the murderer's hand, the incongruous concern for the executee's comfort -- does that sound like retribution, to you?



Or mine, but why settle? Who created this mess, and why?



I'm playing devil's advocate, and I'm trying to inject some honesty into the debate. After all, it's not really the antis that killed capital punishment in the United States. The "pros" brought it upon themselves through negligence, false assumptions, uncritical thinking and lack of self-examination.

pdp0143 said:

While I understand what you're trying to say, I don't like your choice of words.

Fair enough, but the antis aren't all just a bunch of murdererphilic, utopian yahoos. Folks like Brennan, Ginger, Lynne, Ben and others ask some good questions, and sometimes the answers the pros provide are rather lame, if not purely (and embarassingly) ad hominem. We can do better.

Mine's kind of young and dorky looking but that's not it. I just hate going to doctors, period. Anyway, where were we?

Executions (if we're talking about the process of the execution, itself) are retribution enough for me, Joseph. I simply don't care as long as the end result is a dead murderer. If somebody wants the execution to be as painless as possible, feed him a meal he has chosen or hold his hand, so what? He'll be dead shortly and that's what I want. Dead. In the ground. Forgotten.

I'd like to see every single DP eligible case prosecuted as such and I'd like to see all those found guilty of special circumstance or capital murder to receive the DP. I would like to see all 1st deg. murders become DP eligible and prosecuted as such. Admittedly, I sometimes get confused between 1st. Deg. Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter. That is a HUGE problem for me when I question my own thinking. We've discussed this before but "intent" is important, at least for me it is. I'd also like to see the appeals process shortened but I'm not a legal expert so I have no idea what the time frame or process should be. I do think the rights of the accused and condemned should be protected and are EXTREMELY important. I do know that to blame WOWIES completely for the current state of affairs is wrong IMO. There's enough blame to go around. Liberal judges with lifetime appointments who legislate from the bench haven't helped, for example. There are other examples but I've got to run a ham to the neighbors' house (her father died) and don't have time to think about it right now.

With regard to your last paragraph, I couldn't possibly have said it better.

[josephdphillips]

pdp0143 said:

Mine's kind of young and dorky looking but that's not it. I just hate going to doctors, period.

You dames are supposed to be more conscientious of your health. Hmph.

pdp0143 said:

Executions (if we're talking about the process of the execution, itself) are retribution enough for me, Joseph. I simply don't care as long as the end result is a dead murderer.

That end result is almost impossible to reach, probably because no one wants to make it a political issue. For a country where very few people actually oppose capital punishment, no one lifts a finger to save it -- not even those we pay to keep it going.

pdp0143 said:

If somebody wants the execution to be as painless as possible, feed him a meal he has chosen or hold his hand, so what? He'll be dead shortly and that's what I want. Dead. In the ground. Forgotten.

Again, sanitizing the killing has only made it more difficult to execute anyone. We have "evolved" to the point where the majority wants someone dead, while the same majority doesn't want to be feel vested in that killing.

The death penalty is moribund in this country because, deep down, the punishment isn't seen as morally justified. The only way some overcome this compulsion to spare murderers is to occasionally find one of the crimes to be sufficiently "heinous" (wink-wink). As if.

pdp0143 said:

I'd like to see every single DP eligible case prosecuted as such

Me too, but we are thousands of miles from that point, and people like Allison and Georgie want it that way.

pdp0143 said:

and I'd like to see all those found guilty of special circumstance or capital murder to receive the DP.

Most already do. The prosecutors make sure a case is a "slam dunk" (even if they have nothing to lose -- LWOP is still a "win") before making it DP-eligible.

The biggest problem isn't so much lack of prosecutorial zeal (although that is a problem), but lack of public support. Prosecutors only see acts of murder as paperwork. Unless you are on them all the time, they will always deal a murder case down, just to get rid of it. They're not going to make a case capital unless there's a political push to do it.

pdp0143 said:

I would like to see all 1st deg. murders become DP eligible and prosecuted as such.

No moral or logical reason why they shouldn't be. I agree.

pdp0143 said:

Admittedly, I sometimes get confused between 1st. Deg. Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter.

Is the line that thin? Isn't a true act of manslaughter usually followed by some expression of surprise and remorse, a call to 911, an admission of responsibility and guilt?

When Marvin Gaye Sr. pulled the trigger the first time on his son, that was arguably manslaughter.

Those two had a history of violence. Both were looking for a confrontation, and each could have backed away from it.

The father, though, paused and squeezed a second time, just to make sure.

There's your distinction.

pdp0143 said:

That is a HUGE problem for me when I question my own thinking. We've discussed this before but "intent" is important, at least for me it is.

Reasonable people can argue about what is or isn't murder. What I don't understand is why people disagree about punishment, as though there are good murders and bad murders.

pdp0143 said:

I'd also like to see the appeals process shortened but I'm not a legal expert so I have no idea what the time frame or process should be.

I have to ask why the time frame and process have to be different at ALL. If death is just a punishment, why are we obsessed with perfect justice? We don't insist on same for other criminals.

Why isn't the standard of reasonable doubt good enough? And if it isn't, why involve juries at all? If their verdicts don't matter (apparently), why not let the U.S. supremes adjudicate all capital cases?

pdp0143 said:

I do think the rights of the accused and condemned should be protected and are EXTREMELY important.

How much protection? How important? If a five-year period for appeals is good, isn't ten better? If one eyewitness is good, aren't two or three better? Do we low-ball cases where there isn't physical evidence? Should DNA evidence be considered dispositive?

The defense bar and its allies in robes have the country by the short hairs -- but the country tolerates it. There are no protests, no calls to arms, nothing like what happens when a single jurist somewhere (anywhere) makes the teeniest tiniest modification to abortion on demand.

Even something as mild as streamlining federal habeas corpus is opposed, if you can believe it, by prosecutors. Does anyone at all give a crap about murder victims? When did this turn into a game of dice?

pdp0143 said:

I do know that to blame WOWIES completely for the current state of affairs is wrong IMO.

Justice William O. Brennan did, in Furman v. Georgia. He was quite eloquent in breaking down the evolution of punishment of murder in the United States. That's good enough for me.

pdp0143 said:

There's enough blame to go around. Liberal judges with lifetime appointments who legislate from the bench haven't helped, for example.

I used to think that way, but I've since come to believe that these "activist" judges are doing exactly what people want. Think about California, for instance.

Californians have sentenced hundreds of murderers to death in the past handful of years, and have only executed a dozen or so. Now our esteemed governor, Mr. Schwarzenegger, could simply wrap himself in the state flag, declare he's had enough of the court's intransigence, and mow down all 650+ DR inmates. Clean-up on aisle five.

What would be the political consequence of having done that? Californians aren't marching in the streets, demanding justice for murder victims, are they? (Except for that march in Riverside a few months ago.) Are my fellow citizens here really into the death penalty, or are they just into sentencing people to death (which isn't the same thing)?

To me there's a dichotomy between what people say they want, and what they insist on having. There's a difference in the two as wide as the Grand Canyon, and I'm trying to learn why.

[Lisa]

why are we obsessed with perfect justice?

Don't know. I'm not really what I would consider "obsessed." I accept that an innocent has more than likely been executed and that it probably will happen again in the future. The reason I know this is because there is no such thing as "perfect" justice. Never has been. Never will be. Where you and I differ in this area is that I definitely believe trustworthy exculpatory evidence (whether withheld by the prosecution during the trial or newfound, i.e. DNA technology) should result in either a new trial or exhoneration altogether and I don't mean mitigating factors...I mean evidence related to possible innocence. Sure "reasonable doubt" is a good standard but not if juries don't have all of the evidence and it must include exculpatory evidence in order for us to achieve a sense of fair justice, not perfect justice, but fair.

I used to think that way, but I've since come to believe that these "activist" judges are doing exactly what people want.

It's not what people want. It's apathy, Joseph. Pure and simple. People are too busy with their own lives to care. Murders don't effect them. Oh, they hear about murders on TV and they get upset for about 5 minutes then forget about it. Most people don't think about murder until it happens to one of their own. That is the sad truth. Anyway, no, I don't believe judges are doing what people want. I think judges are doing what judges want and people are too apathetic to raise a stink about it.

To me there's a dichotomy between what people say they want, and what they insist on having. There's a difference in the two as wide as the Grand Canyon, and I'm trying to learn why.

What did you and I do today to insist on having it our way, Joseph? Answer that question honestly and you'll have your answer as to why others talk about what they want yet do nothing to insist on it. I can tell you that I did nothing. I was busy with my own life today. You probably went to the office. Oh yeh, you and I banged away on our keyboards posting here but what good has our banter really accomplished? The truth is we're just as guilty as those we complain about. I've tried and tried to get a MVS to tell me what I can do that might be worthwhile but I'm still waiting. I fire off e-mails protesting parole of various offenders and I've written letters to legislators. Is there anything else I'm missing? I've got plenty of time on my hands. Tell me what it is you think I and others should be doing.

[Donnie]

TonyP said:

Thanks, those articles really help.
There's also one more I'm stumped on
- Two wrongs don't make a right

Correct, it is wrong to murder and it is wrong to allow a murderer to be in a better condition than his victim.

[Donnie]

TonyP said:

The risk of an innocent being executed (I sort of know what to say for this one, something like "There is also a risk of murders escaping from prison and killing more innocent people)

We face the risk of death every day. But the risk of a non-murderer being executed is so small that it cannot be grasped as a real risk. Hundreds of people, on the ground, have been killed by falling airplanes. But we don't outlaw airplanes. Thousands of pedestrians are killed every year, but we don't outlaw automobiles.

[josephdphillips]

pdp0143 said:

Where you and I differ in this area is that I definitely believe trustworthy exculpatory evidence (whether withheld by the prosecution during the trial or newfound, i.e. DNA technology) should result in either a new trial or exhoneration altogether and I don't mean mitigating factors

I don't disagree with that, within a reasonable time limit. I would severely punish a prosecutor who deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence. I'm not certain how much of that punishment would suffice. It's pretty low to even risk convicting a man one knows to be innocent.

Absent a reasonable time limit, though, there's no point having capital punishment for anyone.

pdp0143 said:

I mean evidence related to possible innocence. Sure "reasonable doubt" is a good standard but not if juries don't have all of the evidence and it must include exculpatory evidence in order for us to achieve a sense of fair justice, not perfect justice, but fair.

OK, so what's "exculpatory," then? DNA evidence, in particular, has one big weakness -- it can be used to frame someone (especially nowadays).

What do you with juries that would rather acquit a murderer than risk a sentence of death?

pdp0143 said:

It's not what people want. It's apathy, Joseph. Pure and simple. People are too busy with their own lives to care. Murders don't effect them. Oh, they hear about murders on TV and they get upset for about 5 minutes then forget about it. Most people don't think about murder until it happens to one of their own. That is the sad truth.

I don't think they're too busy. If they've got time for America's Got Talent, they have time to write a letter. The apathy has more to do with rampant individualism than anything else.

pdp0143 said:

no, I don't believe judges are doing what people want. I think judges are doing what judges want and people are too apathetic to raise a stink about it.

Can you blame the judges? Their entire profession holds the death penalty in low esteem. Who among them wants to stick his neck out for a punishment no one really cares about?

pdp0143 said:

What did you and I do today to insist on having it our way, Joseph? Answer that question honestly and you'll have your answer as to why others talk about what they want yet do nothing to insist on it.

What, exactly, is "our way," Lisa? Killing all murderers, or simply getting the public to wake up about murder?

I support capital punishment, but it's not an end in itself, to me. I'm not married to it.

Like you, I'm tired of murder and want to stop it. And, if I read you correctly, a harsh, retributive and consistent policy against murder has the best chance of success in a free society.

Is such a policy even possible, with our without capital punishment, if we persist in seeing less than 1 percent of murders as "heinous?" How much do we truly value the lives of murdered victims if we're fixated on those killers who may murder again? (The first victims are what? Chopped liver?)

pdp0143 said:

I can tell you that I did nothing. I was busy with my own life today. You probably went to the office. Oh yeh, you and I banged away on our keyboards posting here but what good has our banter really accomplished?

I wouldn't say the time has been wasted. Social change starts with investment of intellectual capital. You get people thinking critically and eventually the status quo doesn't seem like such a great system after all.

It would be a lot easier if murder victims could talk. They can't, so they're easily forgotten. Someone has to remember them, given them voice and represent them. Prosecutors won't do it. State and federal politicians won't do it. Certainly judges and lawyers won't do it. Ordinary schlubs like us have to do the work.

pdp0143 said:

The truth is we're just as guilty as those we complain about. I've tried and tried to get a MVS to tell me what I can do that might be worthwhile but I'm still waiting.

I don't know if the aggrieved make the best policy analysts, Lisa. Except for John Walsh and maybe Nancy Grace, who among them has the energy, time and resources to carry the baton? After losing loved ones to murder, then being crapped-on by the system, they're the ones looking to us for answers. It's only right that they do, since we didn't do enough to punish, and therefore prevent, murder in the first place.

pdp0143 said:

First sociey lets them down, treats them like dirt, and now they I fire off e-mails protesting parole of various offenders and I've written letters to legislators. Is there anything else I'm missing? I've got plenty of time on my hands. Tell me what it is you think I and others should be doing.

More of the same. I've written protest letters, too, although California is already doing a pretty good job of keeping murderers in prison (if only for the wrong reasons).

Talk among friends and relatives, write letters to your newspapers. Challenge apathy and moral relativism when you see it, as I do. Let your politicians know you care about urban violence and want something done about it. It's a start.

[Lisa]

What do you with juries that would rather acquit a murderer than risk a sentence of death?

I'm not sure what anyone could possibly do about that. People who are biased one way or another get on juries. Not sure what can be done about it, though. People who are absolutely opposed to the death penalty are supposed to be disqualified but they can always lie to get on the jury. I imagine that biased people serve on juries more than we think. A lot more than we think.

I don't think they're too busy. If they've got time for America's Got Talent, they have time to write a letter. The apathy has more to do with rampant individualism than anything else.

Like I said, most people don't think about murder until it hits them personally. They're not really too busy. They're just not concerned which is the definition of apathy.

I hit "post" accidentally. More to come.

[Lisa]

What, exactly, is "our way," Lisa? Killing all murderers, or simply getting the public to wake up about murder?

With regard to your first question I'd say executing everyone who has been on DR for at least 10 years RIGHT NOW would be a good start. Your second question...with the number of murders occurring every day in our country you would think that alone would be enough of an eye opener. Little old me and little old you can do nothing, absolutely nothing to open their eyes if that hasn't already. Tragic, really.

Can you blame the judges?

Hell yes, I can. They do take an oath.

How much do we truly value the lives of murdered victims if we're fixated on those killers who may murder again? (The first victims are what? Chopped liver?)

I agree. Completely. Again, retribution is one of the main reasons I support the DP. Deterrence is last on the list. Dead last.

It would be a lot easier if murder victims could talk. They can't, so they're easily forgotten. Someone has to remember them, given them voice and represent them. Prosecutors won't do it. State and federal politicians won't do it. Certainly judges and lawyers won't do it. Ordinary schlubs like us have to do the work.

Maybe we are accomplishing at least a little something, when you put it that way.

I don't know if the aggrieved make the best policy analysts, Lisa. Except for John Walsh and maybe Nancy Grace, who among them has the energy, time and resources to carry the baton? After losing loved ones to murder, then being crapped-on by the system, they're the ones looking to us for answers. It's only right that they do, since we didn't do enough to punish, and therefore prevent, murder in the first place.

I think I have been approaching this wrong. I had assumed they would know because of their involvement with the court system. Now that I think about it, I'm sure the state of our judicial system wasn't high on their list of priorities. We shouldn't ask them to be legal analysts after all they've been through. We should be here for THEM, not the other way around. How stupid of me to think of them as a source. You're right. I'm sure they're looking for answers much more fervently than we are.

[josephdphillips]

pdp0143 said:

With regard to your first question I'd say executing everyone who has been on DR for at least 10 years RIGHT NOW would be a good start.

Yeah, it would. Ten years is plenty. Time's up. Gotta go gotta go!

pdp0143 said:

Your second question...with the number of murders occurring every day in our country you would think that alone would be enough of an eye opener. Little old me and little old you can do nothing, absolutely nothing to open their eyes if that hasn't already. Tragic, really.

I wouldn't say that. We've each made an impact. The mightiest tidal wave starts with a tiny ripple.

pdp0143 said:

Hell yes, I can. They do take an oath.

The oath isn't to do what the voters want, Lisa. Ask any judge and s/he'll tell you the same thing: they're not there to help democracy, but to thwart it.

[Charlene]

Take your debate back to the board - you have long since strayed from helping this student.