For you anti death penalty members…

[cebeu]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/30...est=latestnews

Hayes, still reeking of gasoline, gave an emotionless confession in which he told authorities how he sexually assaulted the mother after Komisarjevsky told him he had to "square things up" because the other man already had sexually assaulted one of the girls.

The 47-year-old Hayes said Komisarjevsky sexually assaulted Michaela, took cell phone pictures of her that he tried to e-mail to friends and doused her in gasoline,

Hayes' attorneys conceded much of the case on the first day of the trial and called only two witnesses...

First, I respect those having a differing opinion on the death penalty than I but I don’t agree with you on principal. I absolutely support having the death-penalty as an appropriate option within the prosecutorial arsenal in this country (ß my bias).

Second, I clearly appreciate intelligent dialogue about the application of the death penalty, a very different topic altogether and one always wrought with opinion, emotion and gray zone commentary. But I hope this thread doesn’t go that direction. That’s a topic for another day and frankly, I’m not a “kill em’ all” mantra kinda guy.

I have a very case-specific question for you anti’s regarding a current headline case. For some reason this one “grabbed me” when it surfaced a few years back and it has gotten under my skin since. I guess because while I’m numb to most violence and nothing has/does surprise me, this one just pisses me off in some strange way. I felt the same way about that little bitch Couey and his violence backed-up by confession.

Very simple question; “how can you not support the elimination of human excrement like this via state sanctioned termination when there is literal/physical evidence and straight-up confession?”

• Religious objection? Well…okay, I understand it but that’s never going to work for me.
• Moral or Constitutional objections? The State cannot/should not kill its own? Ok again but…nope…not accepting that either in this case but that's my stance and I'll respectfully disagree with yours.
• Other?

This case, assuming the outcome is conviction, still pending, and presuming the jury votes for death during the penalty phase, a presumption at this point, requires death. I just cannot understand any other mind-set.

I’ll be candid; I say death because I simply believe this level of violence warrants societal revenge, not just wrote, comfortable justice of conviction and life in the hard-bed.

I cannot even remotely comprehend passing through the remainder of my life, as this father will, with that horrid experience etched in my mind and knowing the vile perpetrators were still breathing. I just couldn’t do it.

[Zundfolge]

My only problem with the death penalty is that I don't trust the courts to get it right 100% of the time and I believe Blackstone's famous quote is 1000 times more applicable to the death penalty than simple imprisonment.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

[Hoosier]

My only problem with the death penalty is that I don't trust the courts to get it right 100% of the time and I believe Blackstone's famous quote is 1000 times more applicable to the death penalty than simple imprisonment.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

I agree with Zundfolge. Your example case here is one in which the person confessed, presumably there's loads of forensic evidence, it's a slam dunk. However there are many DOCUMENTED instances of innocent people being convicted, and probably innocent people who have been killed.

Agree with it or not, the number of extra hoops put in place by state legislatures (such as mandatory appeal) in death penalty cases drives up their cost beyond that of incarcerating a prisoner for the rest of their lives.

I use to be pro-death penalty, but after stuff like the cases being overturned due to DNA evidence many years later, we're seeing that it's not as rare as had been hoped for innocent people to be convicted.

Maybe we just need an option for people facing a life term to commit seppuku and go out like a man.

H.

[cebeu]

I agree with Zundfolge. Your example case here is one in which the person confessed, presumably there's loads of forensic evidence, it's a slam dunk. However there are many DOCUMENTED instances of innocent people being convicted, and probably innocent people who have been killed.

Agree with it or not, the number of extra hoops put in place by state legislatures (such as mandatory appeal) in death penalty cases drives up their cost beyond that of incarcerating a prisoner for the rest of their lives.

I use to be pro-death penalty, but after stuff like the cases being overturned due to DNA evidence many years later, we're seeing that it's not as rare as had been hoped for innocent people to be convicted.

Maybe we just need an option for people facing a life term to commit seppuku and go out like a man.

H.

I get all that, ad nauseum, that's why I tried to position with this specific case.

[cebeu]

My only problem with the death penalty is that I don't trust the courts to get it right 100% of the time

I don't either but thats a different discussion. That said, this case, confession, hard evidence, vile crime, is death deserved or not?

[OgenRwot]

My oppositions:
1: Courts get wrong guy
2: Appeal process for DP costs millions (cheaper to throw them away for life)
3: DP is getting off easy in my book. Life sentence means they sit there for a long long time and think about what they did to get there.
4: DP is not a deterrent for violent crime. Don't have the studies in front of me but I can dig them up if you want.
5: "We kill people that kill people to teach people that killing people is wrong"
6: A vast majority of victims families are not satisfied once "vengence" is done. They still feel empty and they most often don't feel like killing them was such a good idea. (Again, don't have the reports but I can dig them up).
7: People make mistakes in life, the DP is available for punishment even for non-murder/rape crimes. I think if you kidnap somebody and ask for money you don't deserve to die.
8: A lot of people convicted of the DP have a public defender for their counsel.

I'm also religious and I think that anybody can be "reformed" by God. You don't have to agree with me and you most certainly aren't going to change my mind on that one.

[Troublco]

With regards to the religious part, God says that you are supposed to obey Caesar's law as well as God's. And there's a difference between being forgiven for your sins, and having to pay the penalty for them.

I agree if there's doubt, the death penalty becomes questionable. However, in those cases where there's no question I think it's appropriate. Prison doesn't appear to be a terribly viable deterrent for many; I also don't understand why we should pay to keep some of that scum alive after what they've done.

[cebeu]

My oppositions:
1: Courts get wrong guy

Agreed, but they didn't here IMO, and the opinion is admittedly media-based.

2: Appeal process for DP cost millions (cheaper to throw them away for life)

That, too, the end-to-end cost associated with such heavy state-accepted responsibility is a topic unto itself, pron and con. I'm with ya' here but there's more disucssion to be had than just stating; "the DP costs more." Yeah, it does, would never debate that fact and as a responsible citizen I would expect it to be when employed.


3: DP is getting off easy in my book. Life sentence means they sit there for a long long time and think about what they did to get there.

Agreed.


4: DP is not a deterrent for violent crime. Don't have the studies in front of me but I can dig them up if you want.

No, I'm good re: research but thank you.

5: "We kill people that kill people to teach people that killing people is wrong"

No comment.


6: A vast majority of victims families are not satisfied once "vengence" is done. They still feel empty and they most often don't feel like killing them was such a good idea. (Again, don't have the reports but I can dig them up).

I would be interested in more references on this topic, pass those along please and thanks.


7: People make mistakes in life, the DP is available for punishment even for non-murder/rape crimes. I think if you kidnap somebody and ask for money you don't deserve to die.


This case, yup...and these mistakes deserve termination in my book.


8: A lot of people convicted of the DP have a public defender for their counsel.

Agreed.


I'm also religious and I think that anybody can be "reformed" by God. You don't have to agree with me and you most certainly aren't going to change my mind on that one.

Understood and not my privilege nor intent to do so.


Appreciate the comments OgenRwot, sincerely, thanks.

[OneGuy67]

Okay. This is going to be a long one! I realize others have used OgenRwot points to remark on, but it is easier to do it again rather than trying to argue points without the basis for the argument. So, sorry the post is going to be long.

My oppositions:
1: Courts get wrong guy

"Courts get wrong guy." Too simplistic of a statement. Courts don't "get" wrong guy. That's not the way the system works. How it works: Crime happens; crime is reported or discovered. Law enforcement conducts an investigation, provides the investigation to the district attorney's office who reviews said investigation, orders additional investigational leads if necessary and makes a determination on charges, to include whether or not to pursue a death penalty case. The DA also confers with the family of the victim to determine their wishes. When the DA decides to pursue a death penalty case, a whole slew of things go into place to include money for the DA's office AND for the Public Defenders office. The trial time gets slowed down immesurably to a crawl. Now, I'm speaking for our system in Colorado only, not to other states. We only have three people on death row here in Colorado (Nathan Dunlap, Sir Mario Owens and Robert Ray ~ all out of Arapahoe County 18th Judicial District. I think there may be a fourth now, but I didn't have time to research that prior to posting) as testiment to how we take these cases very seriously here.

2: Appeal process for DP costs millions (cheaper to throw them away for life)

Not really. Short term, yes. Long term, no. You forget we have to CARE for these people for the rest of their lives and that includes geriatric care. There are a lot of diseases in our prisons, Hep B & C, HIV, etc. that get spread through close contact and as the inmate population ages, those diseases as well as natural diseases such as cancer take effect and cost us in the long run. How much for kidney dialysis 3 times a week for an inmate? Cancer treatment like radiation and chemo? Yes, we care for them and just because they have no chance to ever leave prison, doesn't preclude them from obtaining medical attention and treatment. We don't allow them to die from cancer, we treat it. I apologize, but I didn't have the time to pull the numbers, but the cost to the state for geriatric care of the inmates is high dollars.

3: DP is getting off easy in my book. Life sentence means they sit there for a long long time and think about what they did to get there.

It took 25 years to carry out the last death penalty case. Do you really think they sit around and stress about their crime(s)? Or, do they take classes to while away the time, get college credits, work in the shops, laundry, farms, or the multitude of other options DOC has to stimulate their minds. Those convicted and sentenced to death are segregated and do not enjoy the same privileges as other inmates. Those that are not, but have life, get to enjoy all the things that DOC offers.

4: DP is not a deterrent for violent crime. Don't have the studies in front of me but I can dig them up if you want.

Agreed. No deterent factor at all. Not meant to be, really. It is meant to be the ultimate punishment for the ultimate heinous crimes.

5: "We kill people that kill people to teach people that killing people is wrong"

I don't agree with that assessment. We've been taught since childhoold that killing is wrong, through religion, through social norms, through behaviour modification. When a death occurs, there is abject horror to the victim's families, the ultimate penalty to whatever happened with their loved one.

6: A vast majority of victims families are not satisfied once "vengence" is done. They still feel empty and they most often don't feel like killing them was such a good idea. (Again, don't have the reports but I can dig them up).

That is somewhat true. There are victim's families (who refer to themselves as victim's as well) who don't get the satisfaction or retribution they sought and do feel empty. The same goes for those families whose deceased loved one's killer hasn't been found or got off, or for whatever circumstances, didn't get the penalty they wanted. Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons, Inc (FOHVAMP) is a non-profit organization in Colorado who is VERY vocal on this issue.

7: People make mistakes in life, the DP is available for punishment even for non-murder/rape crimes. I think if you kidnap somebody and ask for money you don't deserve to die.

The Death Penalty is only available in Colorado for three offenses and they have a number of aggravating factors that must be met. We are not Texas or Florida. The death penalty is available only for 1st Degree Murder with at least 1 of 17 aggravating factors, 1st Degree Kidnapping resulting in death and Treason. I'll post the C.R.S. below for these.

As you can see, we don't use it much in Colorado and its application is limited. I assume you live in Colorado by all your posts (somewhere in the south Denver/Greenwood Village/Centennial DTC area if memory serves) so your arguments should be about Colorado's use of the death penalty. If you have an argument against the death penalty in general and attempt to use other states applications of it, it isn't valid for the sake of the argument as it is enforced here.

8: A lot of people convicted of the DP have a public defender for their counsel.

Yep. So? Just like with the district attorney's office around the state, the public defender's offices hire new attorneys right out of law school, but do you think either office allows their newbie attorney's to try these cases? Nope. The attorney's who do try them are usually their most experienced or senior attorneys, who don't review the case just before they walk in the door. And unbeknownst to many, there is a section at the Attorney General's office who assists local DA's who may not have much experience trying these cases who will assist them and conversely, there is a state public defenders office who will send experienced trial lawyers to assist the local public defenders office in cases such as these.

I'm also religious and I think that anybody can be "reformed" by God. You don't have to agree with me and you most certainly aren't going to change my mind on that one.

Depending upon your beliefs, ultimately that person must stand before his God and explain his or her actions and be punished or forgiven, according to their beliefs. Me personally, it does not matter that you have become a good person during all those years in prison, you still must answer for your crime. A case years ago out of Texas cements this for me. There was a young female who was addicted to drugs and in a drug haze, killed one or two people with a pickaxe, burying it in the chest of one person. She was found, convicted and sentenced to death. In the interim of all the appeals, she found God and reformed her life in prison and by all accounts, became a good person while there. She was still sentenced and that sentence was carried out eventually. I agreed with that decision then and still do now.

I'm not trying to change your mind OgenRwot. Just trying to clear some of the fog out there on the issue as related to Colorado's use and law.

Death Penalty cases:
First-degree murder with at least 1 of 17 aggravating factors; first-degree kidnapping resulting in death; treason.

18-3-102 Murder in the first degree:

(1) A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if:

(a) After deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person; or

(b) Acting either alone or with one or more persons, he or she commits or attempts to commit arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault as prohibited by section 18-3-402, sexual assault in the first or second degree as prohibited by section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as those sections existed prior to July 1, 2000, or a class 3 felony for sexual assault on a child as provided in section 18-3-405 (2), or the crime of escape as provided in section 18-8-208, and, in the course of or in furtherance of the crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit, or of immediate flight therefrom, the death of a person, other than one of the participants, is caused by anyone; or

(c) By perjury or subornation of perjury he procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person; or

(d) Under circumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally, he knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person, or persons, other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another; or

(e) He or she commits unlawful distribution, dispensation, or sale of a controlled substance to a person under the age of eighteen years on school grounds as provided in section 18-18-407 (2), and the death of such person is caused by the use of such controlled substance; or

(f) The person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim.

(2) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (1) (b) of this section that the defendant:
(a) Was not the only participant in the underlying crime; and

(b) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause, or aid the commission thereof; and

(c) Was not armed with a deadly weapon; and

(d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article, or substance; and

(e) Did not engage himself in or intend to engage in and had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious bodily injury; and

(f) Endeavored to disengage himself from the commission of the underlying crime or flight therefrom immediately upon having reasonable grounds to believe that another participant is armed with a deadly weapon, instrument, article, or substance, or intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious bodily injury.

(3) Murder in the first degree is a class 1 felony.

The 17 Aggravating Factors (18-1.3-1201):

(a) The class 1 felony was committed by a person under sentence of imprisonment for a class 1, 2, or 3 felony as defined by Colorado law or United States law, or for a crime committed against another state or the United States which would constitute a class 1, 2, or 3 felony as defined by Colorado law; or

(b) The defendant was previously convicted in this state of a class 1 or 2 felony involving violence as specified in section 18-1.3-406, or was previously convicted by another state or the United States of an offense which would constitute a class 1 or 2 felony involving violence as defined by Colorado law in section 18-1.3-406; or

(c) The defendant intentionally killed any of the following persons while such person was engaged in the course of the performance of such person's official duties, and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that such victim was such a person engaged in the performance of such person's official duties, or the victim was intentionally killed in retaliation for the performance of the victim's official duties:

(I) A peace officer or former peace officer as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S.; or

(II) A firefighter as defined in section 24-33.5-1202 (4), C.R.S.; or
(III) A judge, referee, or former judge or referee of any court of record in the state or federal system or in any other state court system or a judge or former judge in any municipal court in this state or in any other state. For purposes of this subparagraph (III), the term "referee" shall include a hearing officer or any other officer who exercises judicial functions.

(IV) An elected state, county, or municipal official; or

(V) A federal law enforcement officer or agent or former federal law enforcement officer or agent; or

(d) The defendant intentionally killed a person kidnapped or being held as a hostage by the defendant or by anyone associated with the defendant; or

(e) The defendant has been a party to an agreement to kill another person in furtherance of which a person has been intentionally killed; or

(f) The defendant committed the offense while lying in wait, from ambush, or by use of an explosive or incendiary device or a chemical, biological, or radiological weapon. As used in this paragraph (f), "explosive or incendiary device" means:

(I) Dynamite and all other forms of high explosives; or

(II) Any explosive bomb, grenade, missile, or similar device; or

(III) Any incendiary bomb or grenade, fire bomb, or similar device, including any device which consists of or includes a breakable container including a flammable liquid or compound, and a wick composed of any material which, when ignited, is capable of igniting such flammable liquid or compound, and can be carried or thrown by one individual acting alone.

(g) The defendant committed a class 1, 2, or 3 felony and, in the course of or in furtherance of such or immediate flight therefrom, the defendant intentionally caused the death of a person other than one of the participants; or

(h) The class 1 felony was committed for pecuniary gain; or

(i) In the commission of the offense, the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim of the offense; or

(j) The defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner; or

(k) The class 1 felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution or effecting an escape from custody. This factor shall include the intentional killing of a witness to a criminal offense.

(l) The defendant unlawfully and intentionally, knowingly, or with universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally, killed two or more persons during the commission of the same criminal episode; or

(m) The defendant intentionally killed a child who has not yet attained twelve years of age; or

(n) The defendant committed the class 1 felony against the victim because of the victim's race, color, ancestry, religion, or national origin; or

(o) The defendant's possession of the weapon used to commit the class 1 felony constituted a felony offense under the laws of this state or the United States; or

(p) The defendant intentionally killed more than one person in more than one criminal episode; or

(q) The victim was a pregnant woman, and the defendant intentionally killed the victim, knowing she was pregnant.

(6) (a) Whenever a sentence of death is imposed upon a person pursuant to the provisions of this section, the supreme court shall review the propriety of that sentence, having regard to the nature of the offense, the character and record of the offender, the public interest, and the manner in which the sentence was imposed, including the sufficiency and accuracy of the information on which it was based. The procedures to be employed in the review shall be as provided by supreme court rule. The supreme court shall combine its review pursuant to this subsection (6) with consideration of any appeal that may be filed pursuant to part 2 of article 12 of title 16, C.R.S.

(b) A sentence of death shall not be imposed pursuant to this section if the supreme court determines that the sentence was imposed under the influence of passion or prejudice or any other arbitrary factor or that the evidence presented does not support the finding of statutory aggravating circumstances.

(7) (a) If any provisions of this section are determined by the United States supreme court or by the Colorado supreme court to render this section unconstitutional or invalid such that this section does not constitute a valid and operative death penalty statute for class 1 felonies, but severance of such provisions would, through operation of the remaining provisions of this section, maintain this section as a valid and operative death penalty statute for class 1 felonies, it is the intent of the general assembly that those remaining provisions are severable and are to have full force and effect.

(b) If any death sentence is imposed upon a defendant pursuant to the provisions of this section and, on appellate review including consideration pursuant to subsection (8) of this section, the imposition of such death sentence upon such defendant is held invalid for reasons other than unconstitutionality of the death penalty or insufficiency of the evidence to support the sentence, the case shall be remanded to the trial court to set a new sentencing hearing before a newly impaneled jury or, if the defendant pled guilty or waived the right to jury sentencing, before the trial judge; except that, if the prosecutor informs the trial court that, in the opinion of the prosecutor, capital punishment would no longer be in the interest of justice, said defendant shall be returned to the trial court and shall then be sentenced to life imprisonment. If a death sentence imposed pursuant to this section is held invalid based on unconstitutionality of the death penalty or insufficiency of the evidence to support the sentence, said defendant shall be returned to the trial court and shall then be sentenced to life imprisonment.

(8) If, on appeal, the supreme court finds one or more of the aggravating factors that wre found to support a sentence to death to be invalid for any reason, the supreme court may determine whether the sentene of death should be affirmed on appeal by:

(a) Reweighing the remaining aggravating factor or factors and all mitigating factors and then determining whether death is the appropriate punishment in the case; or

(b) Applying harmless error analysis by considering whether, if the sentencing body had not considered the invalid aggravating factor, it would have nonetheless sentenced the defendant to death; or

(c) If the supreme court finds the sentencing body's consideration of an aggravating factor was improper because the aggravating factor was not given a constitutionally narrow construction, determining whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the sentencing body would have returned a verdict of death had the aggravating factor been properly narrowed; or

(d) Employing any other constitutionally permissible method of review.

If you want the C.R.S. for the 1st degree kidnapping and for treason, I'll post it as well, but this is getting long and all parties on death row are there for 1st degree murder.

I hope this helps and not muddies the water for anyone.

[soco11]

It should be noted that many people don't fully understand or appreciate the religious aspect. A very, very brief overview and summary:
The commandment is "You shall not murder"; not "you shall not kill". In general, premeditated murder is what is banned by the commandment. The Scriptures are very precise about drawing distinctions between the two acts. Indeed, God Himself often gives the recourse of a death penalty to the state in certain cases in the Old Testament, which killing is, at the same time, perfectly compatible with the commandment not to murder. The state's decision to take a life for criminal acts is not biblical murder, and is not banned in any way by any religious objection, at least as erroneously based on this commandment.
Nothing in the New Testament invalidates capital punishment. Remember that capital punishment was a matter of common course in the Roman era (whereas it was very rare in the Old Testament era--are we really "evolving" in terms of spirituality?), and something which the state had the right and power to institute. The New Testament does not concern itself by and large in trying to subvert or protest the state. It has a far different, and more important, purpose in mind. It strives to get men and women ready for eternity, not obsess about how to live longer here on earth.
John Murray has written a provocative classic on capital punishment from the spiritual side which argued that, in terms of spiritual benefit, capital punishment may be the single most beneficial way to die, for it is the only way in all the world where a man knows the exact date and time set for him to meet with God the Judge, and therefore has time to reconsider, and repent. No other person in this life will ever have that same privilege of having time and deadline for his death. Death comes upon most people like a thief in the night, and they are wholly unprepared. Not so the condemned criminal.
There are certainly other good arguments pro and con on the topic, but the religious anti-argument is not legitimate.