Texas kills fancy last meal requests on death row

[Hannathy]

Great, so the whole guiding principle of our justice system, the idea underpinning the entire thing - better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be punished - should be out the window because you can life with it just fine?

Uhh I think you have this backward. LOL I would rather 1 innocent and this is incredibly rare and getting even more rare, with all the appeals and lenient juries and judges, be punished than 10 guilty go free.

and actually it would probably be well into the low low single digits statistically.

 

[cornflake]

Uhh I think you have this backward. LOL I would rather 1 innocent and this is incredibly rare and getting even more rare, with all the appeals and lenient juries and judges, be punished than 10 guilty go free.

and actually it would probably be well into the low low single digits statistically.

No, I do not have it backwards. I'm talking about the guiding principle of our justice system, not your personal beliefs - which are, you've made clear, opposite the guiding principle of our justice system.

Again this is NOT RARE. Hundreds of freed Death Row inmates, the state of Illinois, the IP, make it very clear that this is NOT rare.

Regardless, even if it were, you can't rewrite the justice system yourself because you prefer the opposite idea from the founding fathers. We're still going by them.

 

[Hannathy]

Regardless, even if it were, you can't rewrite the justice system yourself because you prefer the opposite idea from the founding fathers. We're still going by them.

Who is rewriting the justice system?

I don't understand what you are harping about the justice system. Where did I say I oppose the founding fathers? I'm very pro sticking to the constitution and wish we did that more.

These evil people were tried following the justice system in place from the constitution and have been found guilty and should be given their punishment.

Who is opposing the founding fathers?

 

[cornflake]

Who is rewriting the justice system?

I don't understand what you are harping about the justice system. Where did I say I oppose the founding fathers? I'm very pro sticking to the constitution and wish we did that more.

These evil people were tried following the justice system in place from the constitution and have been found guilty and should be given their punishment.

Who is opposing the founding fathers?

You are.

LOL I would rather 1 innocent and this is incredibly rare and getting even more rare, with all the appeals and lenient juries and judges, be punished than 10 guilty go free.

 

[PeterPan09]

Here's a twist on the typical question: What if your loved one was falsely accused of a crime and the combination of lack of resources, unreliable eyewitnesses, unpredictable juries and poor effort by lawyers put them on Death Row? If you think it can't happen-the Innocence Project, the Southern Poverty Law Center and others would beg to differ with you. Google those organizations yourself and read their work.

Justice means innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think anyone can miss the fact that wealthy people or people with a story that can make a defense lawyer's career have an edge when it comes to making a jury see that reasonable doubt. If you're willing to admit to the fact that guilty people often get set free because of money or power-doesn't the converse also make sense? That innocent people who don't have resources or a career making case might just be found guilty? If that was your loved one in that position would you feel differently?

 

[Uncle Remus]

Here's a twist on the typical question: What if your loved one was falsely accused of a crime and the combination of lack of resources, unreliable eyewitnesses, unpredictable juries and poor effort by lawyers put them on Death Row? If you think it can't happen-the Innocence Project, the Southern Poverty Law Center and others would beg to differ with you. Google those organizations yourself and read their work.

Justice means innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think anyone can miss the fact that wealthy people or people with a story that can make a defense lawyer's career have an edge when it comes to making a jury see that reasonable doubt. If you're willing to admit to the fact that guilty people often get set free because of money or power-doesn't the converse also make sense? That innocent people who don't have resources or a career making case might just be found guilty? If that was your loved one in that position would you feel differently?

Here's another twist, it's actually cheaper to house 'em for life than to kill 'em.

 

[cornflake]

Here's another twist, it's actually cheaper to house 'em for life than to kill 'em.

*setting the stopwatch until someone suggests that that's because of appeals and thus we should (somehow) eliminate the appeals process in capital cases*

GO!

*tick tick tick*

 

[PeterPan09]

Here's another twist, it's actually cheaper to house 'em for life than to kill 'em.

Really? Like most people I would not have thought that.

 

[Uncle Remus]

*setting the stopwatch until someone suggests that that's because of appeals and thus we should (somehow) eliminate the appeals process in capital cases*

GO!

*tick tick tick*

Well, I figure the guilty criminal who really wants justice would forfeit those appeals, ya know, in the name of justice.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Really? Like most people I would not have thought that.

It offsets those elaborate last meals for the condemned.

 

[cornflake]

Really? Like most people I would not have thought that.

Monumentally cheaper, yes.

 

[Goofyluver]

*setting the stopwatch until someone suggests that that's because of appeals and thus we should (somehow) eliminate the appeals process in capital cases*

GO!

*tick tick tick*

It is because of the appeals process.

However, I'd like to think that most folks who support the death penalty see the appeals process as a necessary and crucial part of our judicial system. I'd think most folks would be highly uncomfortable with an innocent person being executed.

However, once the appeals process has been exhausted and we are left with a convicted person that has been sentenced to death, then why are supporters of our system (who believe in the appeal process through the courts) still left unsatisfied? If our system works as it should, and a truly guilty person is sentenced to death, why the objection? Isn't this an example of our competent judicial system?

Oh, and since I didn't answer the OP, no, don't feed these criminals caviar and steaks. No, they shouldn't be given a last meal of their request. Criminals have no right to comfort or unimportant "humane" last privileges.

 

[cornflake]

It is because of the appeals process.

However, I'd like to think that most folks who support the death penalty see the appeals process as a necessary and crucial part of our judicial system. I'd think most folks would be highly uncomfortable with an innocent person being executed.

However, once the appeals process has been exhausted and we are left with a convicted person that has been sentenced to death, then why are supporters of our system (who believe in the appeal process through the courts) still left unsatisfied? If our system works as it should, and a truly guilty person is sentenced to death, why the objection? Isn't this an example of our competent judicial system?

Oh, and since I didn't answer the OP, no, don't feed these criminals caviar and steaks. No, they shouldn't be given a last meal of their request. Criminals have no right to comfort or unimportant "humane" last privileges.

I know it is. As for how wrong you are about people being uncormfortable with the potential execution of the innocent, see above in the thread. There are people suggesting we revise the entire guiding principle of the system of justice set up by the founding fathers because.... fry 'em all and let god sort 'em out, I think.

The appeals process isn't perfect; it's not even close - see the IP, SPLC, and the hundreds of people freed from Death Row in the past decade. See the lawyer in Texas who slept through most of a capital trial and was deemed competent, see the studies and numbers focusing on race that I'm sure the SPLC have someplace, etc., etc., etc.

Beyond that, plenty of people don't believe, for a whole variety of reasons, that execution has a place in the justice system at all. There are plenty of states in which it not only is off the table but has been for decades upon decades, because the people of the state don't believe it should be employed in any circumstance.

The way it's employed has also come under serious scrutiny even for those who do believe it should be a resort - see the mid '70s, etc., etc., etc.

 

[PeterPan09]

It is because of the appeals process.

However, I'd like to think that most folks who support the death penalty see the appeals process as a necessary and crucial part of our judicial system. I'd think most folks would be highly uncomfortable with an innocent person being executed.

However, once the appeals process has been exhausted and we are left with a convicted person that has been sentenced to death, then why are supporters of our system (who believe in the appeal process through the courts) still left unsatisfied? If our system works as it should, and a truly guilty person is sentenced to death, why the objection? Isn't this an example of our competent judicial system?

Oh, and since I didn't answer the OP, no, don't feed these criminals caviar and steaks. No, they shouldn't be given a last meal of their request. Criminals have no right to comfort or unimportant "humane" last privileges.

but does the system always work as it should? There seems to be a decent amount of evidence to the contrary. If I could be 100% sure that the dead man walking was the right guy, I'd be more comfortable. However, if there's a reasonable doubt that still exists due to any of the problems I've alluded to in earlier posts-I have to say we shouldn't make a decision that we can't fix. If we sentence someone to life and it turns out we're wrong, we can at least let him out. We can't fix our mistakes once we kill him.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

What if your loved one was falsely accused of a crime and the combination of lack of resources, unreliable eyewitnesses, unpredictable juries and poor effort by lawyers put them on Death Row?

No doubt - must call 'dis guy!

 

[CPT Tripss]

I said deal with them. You still aren't answering the question. It is easy to sit at your computer and spout off things. Have you ever put your life on the line everyday you went to work? Have you ever had to work with someone who would kill you as soon as they would look at you? Why expose hard working people to this danger when it can be avoided.and I'm talking many more people than just guards.

I'm certain that many of the truly evil people in prison, those who would kill you as soon as look at you, are not there for capital offenses. Should they be executed?

 

[Goofyluver]

I know it is. As for how wrong you are about people being uncormfortable with the potential execution of the innocent, see above in the thread. There are people suggesting we revise the entire guiding principle of the system of justice set up by the founding fathers because.... fry 'em all and let god sort 'em out, I think.

The appeals process isn't perfect; it's not even close - see the IP, SPLC, and the hundreds of people freed from Death Row in the past decade. See the lawyer in Texas who slept through most of a capital trial and was deemed competent, see the studies and numbers focusing on race that I'm sure the SPLC have someplace, etc., etc., etc.

Beyond that, plenty of people don't believe, for a whole variety of reasons, that execution has a place in the justice system at all. There are plenty of states in which it not only is off the table but has been for decades upon decades, because the people of the state don't believe it should be employed in any circumstance.

The way it's employed has also come under serious scrutiny even for those who do believe it should be a resort - see the mid '70s, etc., etc., etc.

I did say "most folks" have a problem with innocent people being executed.

My biggest objection to the statements in this thread isn't even with whether people here do or do not support the death penalty.

Someone here reiterated a story about a person whose child was savagely beaten and murdered. The mother stood against her child's killer being put to death. That person was referred to as "courageous" for her belief that the killer's life should be spared.

What of those folks who would have supported a death sentence for their family member's or loved one's killer? They would be what? Weak? Bad people?

I'd venture to say that it's not your job or my job to judge the victims of a crime. There's no direct path to righteousness when someone has been killed when you're specifically discussing how a family should react.

but does the system always work as it should? There seems to be a decent amount of evidence to the contrary. If I could be 100% sure that the dead man walking was the right guy, I'd be more comfortable. However, if there's a reasonable doubt that still exists due to any of the problems I've alluded to in earlier posts-I have to say we shouldn't make a decision that we can't fix. If we sentence someone to life and it turns out we're wrong, we can at least let him out. We can't fix our mistakes once we kill him.

In my opinion, "innocent people have been killed" is not an argument against the death penalty itself. Instead, if there are innocent individuals being convicted for crimes that they did not commit, the problem begins before that person is executed. Those issues are issues with the criminal trial and trial laws and regulations instead.

Give me a good "I'm ethically opposed to the death penalty because I don't believe in killin'" any day. But, the above argument isn't an argument against the death penalty. It's an argument against an incompetent trial system.

No doubt - must call 'dis guy!

What is a "yute"?

 

[cornflake]

I did say "most folks" have a problem with innocent people being executed.

My biggest objection to the statements in this thread isn't even with whether people here do or do not support the death penalty.

Someone here reiterated a story about a person whose child was savagely beaten and murdered. The mother stood against her child's killer being put to death. That person was referred to as "courageous" for her belief that the killer's life should be spared.

What of those folks who would have supported a death sentence for their family member's or loved one's killer? They would be what? Weak? Bad people?

I'd venture to say that it's not your job or my job to judge the victims of a crime. There's no direct path to righteousness when someone has been killed when you're specifically discussing how a family should react.



In my opinion, "innocent people have been killed" is not an argument against the death penalty itself. Instead, if there are innocent individuals being convicted for crimes that they did not commit, the problem begins before that person is executed. Those issues are issues with the criminal trial and trial laws and regulations instead.

Give me a good "I'm ethically opposed to the death penalty because I don't believe in killin'" any day. But, the above argument isn't an argument against the death penalty. It's an argument against an incompetent trial system.

I, personally, didn't say anything about families of victims, nor would I - they're entitled to feel however they feel. However, I think people tag people like the woman described as 'courageous' and not people who would like the accused executed because her reaction is generally considered to be a response that goes against what most consider a fairly universal, innate desire.

Most people - as has been shown through bad responses in political debates over the decades, heh - would, if their family member was a victim, want to see someone punished as severely as possible, strung up, tortured, whatever. but the question is whether they'd choose, if their choice, to act on it Therefore, people tend to assume that the woman has, or has had, the 'normal' reaction. That she then chooses to espouse her beliefs instead of going with what she feels - that's where people get courage. Not just from WHAT she's saying but how she got to saying it, if you see what I mean. Which puts the family members on the opposite side in the 'natural reaction' category, not weak or bad. As well, they can simply be in favour of it in a general sense, though some are not. I'm not saying I agree with her being labelled courageous or not, just trying to explain how I think people who say it got there.

I think 'innocent people have likely been executed and given the statistics surely seem likely to be' is a valid argument against the death penalty in a general sense. It's not as if, barring some terrible Tom Cruise film advances in technology and human interaction, we'll ever be able to be 100% sure. Hence 'against it because it doesn't work.' I get your objection but it's like saying to someone who doesn't want to get on a motorcycle because they're dangerous that they're wrong about the motorcycle being dangerous, it's human error that's dangerous. Well, great, but getting on the motorcycle is still statistically dangerous and that's hardly gonna change in the forseeable future.

Plenty of people also have a variety of reasons they hold. People can simultaneously know that it's not a deterent, believe that it's unjust, believe that it simply shouldn't be used, believe that it's unconstitutional, believe that it's applied in a racist manner AND believe that it's too subject to mistaks. It's not like people are limited to just one specific idea.

 

[Goofyluver]

I, personally, didn't say anything about families of victims, nor would I - they're entitled to feel however they feel. However, I think people tag people like the woman described as 'courageous' and not people who would like the accused executed because her reaction is generally considered to be a response that goes against what most consider a fairly universal, innate desire.

Most people - as has been shown through bad responses in political debates over the decades, heh - would, if their family member was a victim, want to see someone punished as severely as possible, strung up, tortured, whatever. but the question is whether they'd choose, if their choice, to act on it Therefore, people tend to assume that the woman has, or has had, the 'normal' reaction. That she then chooses to espouse her beliefs instead of going with what she feels - that's where people get courage. Not just from WHAT she's saying but how she got to saying it, if you see what I mean. Which puts the family members on the opposite side in the 'natural reaction' category, not weak or bad. As well, they can simply be in favour of it in a general sense, though some are not. I'm not saying I agree with her being labelled courageous or not, just trying to explain how I think people who say it got there.

I think 'innocent people have likely been executed and given the statistics surely seem likely to be' is a valid argument against the death penalty in a general sense. It's not as if, barring some terrible Tom Cruise film advances in technology and human interaction, we'll ever be able to be 100% sure. Hence 'against it because it doesn't work.' I get your objection but it's like saying to someone who doesn't want to get on a motorcycle because they're dangerous that they're wrong about the motorcycle being dangerous, it's human error that's dangerous. Well, great, but getting on the motorcycle is still statistically dangerous and that's hardly gonna change in the forseeable future.

Plenty of people also have a variety of reasons they hold. People can simultaneously know that it's not a deterent, believe that it's unjust, believe that it simply shouldn't be used, believe that it's unconstitutional, believe that it's applied in a racist manner AND believe that it's too subject to mistaks. It's not like people are limited to just one specific idea.

As we've seen on this thread, there are people who've expressed support for the death penalty as long as they could be guaranteed that the person being executed is guilty. That is not a philosophical stand against the death penalty. Saying, "Well, if you can guarantee me they're guilty, I'd be okay with fryin' 'em", is a direct stand against an incompetent trial system.

And you're right, we may never be 100% sure in ANY conviction. And as we've seen, the argument turns to: "You can't fix it when you kill them." How do you "fix" any wrongful conviction? Pay them money? How much is acceptable after they've spent however long in jail?

Again, all of the above are arguments against incompetent trial laws and regulations, and NOT arguments against any sentence for a convicted person, whether that be death, life in prison, etc.

As for motorcycles, well, maybe you COULD just compare those machines to this death penalty discussion as well. You choose to ride a motorcycle and you smash your head in after not wearing your helmet, well, that's the result of being an idiot. You choose to commit a heinous crime, well, what's the result of that?

 

[Nancyg56]

I cannot understand why elaborate last meals should be given to criminals who are about to be executed. I think that these people should be given their meals like every other day. I realize that others have pointed out that the victims were not offered the opportunity to celebrate their last moments on earth choosing and then consuming a special feast. Oh no, their fates were somewhat different

I am conflicted in regards to the death penalty. In theory I do not think it is a good idea but then I have never had someone I love murdered in some heinous way. On the one hand I believe it is barbaric but on the other hand................these people are barbarians. I live it CT and we are treated to the lovely men who decided to murder the Petit family. Honestly, if I was to vote yay or nay these two would be poster men for me favoring the death penalty.

Here's another twist, it's actually cheaper to house 'em for life than to kill 'em.

My real reason for wanting to do away with it. I understand that there are people who are wrongfully convicted and that is a responsibility I really do not want to bear but the money should play a big part in discontinuing the practice.

*setting the stopwatch until someone suggests that that's because of appeals and thus we should (somehow) eliminate the appeals process in capital cases*

GO!

*tick tick tick*

The appeals process does have a lot to do with the enormous expense that death penalty cases cost the State. My DFIL was a guard in a maximum security facility and he did say that Death Row was an expensive place to keep up. He did not go into it but I got the impression that the additional security cost a lot of money.