COuld somebody please tell me the common method of capital punishment used in the U.S.
It depends on the state, really. Most common are electric chair, lethal injection, and gas chamber [not sure if thats still used]. One state still uses firing squad, IIRC
Why d’you ask? 
Just curious.
Here is some interesting info on the subject.
cheers
Ah yes, an informative piece written by AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL.
Their POV won’t be skewed at all. :rolleyes:
As we say here in the Old Dominion, Some people just need killing.
BTW, It’s a legal defense in many courts of law south of the Mason/Dixon line.
Merryprankster, you mean the point of view that the death penalty is statistically proven to be ineffective as a deterrent, kills innocent people, is unfair to the poor, those with learning disabilities and people who aren’t white? Yeah, that’ll skiew you a bit.
Don’t let hard numbers fool you 
MP.
You mean by skewed that “capital punishment” is a human rights violation??
I mean that Amnesty International has a particular perspective on a certain set of issues, this is going to color its presentation.
Here’s an example:
The application of the death penalty is racist. Black and white people are the victims of violent crime in roughly equal numbers, yet 82 per cent of people executed since 1977 have been convicted of killing white victims.
Correllation is not causation. I’m not saying that it is or isn’t racist. I’m saying there’s not enough information here to make an informed decision whether it’s racist or not. If I said 99% of Pleasanton, SD high school graduates were white would that make the community racist? You don’t know because I haven’t given you the full picture yet. You need to know more.
Children have not reached a full understanding of their actions. No one should be sentenced to death for a crime they committed before the age of 18. However, in 24 US states people can be sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were children.
They neglect to even discuss the waiver process. A waiver must be used to transfer a juvenile case to an adult criminal court, and needs to meet specific criteria, which vary from state to state. It’s not as though the prosecution can just say "Oh, yeah, we’re going to try this as an adult. Procedure must be followed. An outline of the the waiver process can be found here.
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/transfer.html
Amnesty International acts like we’re just running around axe-happy, lopping heads off innocent, baby-faced cherubs–not exactly the case.
In 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to execute mentally retarded people. Since then some 30 mentally impaired people have been executed. However, some positive steps have been taken. In 1998 Nebraska became the 12th state to adopt a law banning the execution of mentally retarded prisoners.
They need to update their website; in the summer of 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded. I might also point out that the Supreme Court, in 1989, didn’t say “Execute the mentally impaired, by all means!” What they said was quite specific: Jurors MUST be instructed to consider mitigating circumstances (ie, mental retardation) when dealing with the death penalty.
In other words, mental retardation, in and of itself, would not disqualify you from the death penalty under the 8th amendment, however, failing to instruct the jury to consider your mental retardation would be cruel and unusual and violate your constitutional rights. In other words, this sort of thing would be decided on a case by case basis, according to the 1989 ruling in PENRY v. LYNAUGH, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), based on whether you could fully comprehend what you had done, and your fate. That has since changed. The mentally retarded are no longer deemed competent to understand the full gravity of what they have done and are therefore incapable of being fully culpable for their acts. Consequently, the death penalty is now cruel and unusual (Atkins v. Virginia Docket #00-8452).
From the decision: “Clinical definitions of mental retardation require not only subaverage intellectual functioning, but also significant limitations in adaptive skills. Mentally retarded persons frequently know the difference between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial, but, by definition, they have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand others’ reactions. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but diminish their personal culpability.”
Three paragraphs on a website, three non-complete stories. Now THAT’S an unbiased source if ever I heard one.
Might as well derive your opinion about blacks and jews from the KKK websites.
Instead of deciding that a position paper (Amnesty International’s little piece IS) that you happen to agree with is the unvarnished truth, do some research. Otherwise, you’re just as ignorant and lazy as Rush’s dittoheads.
I mean that Amnesty International has a particular perspective on a certain set of issues, this is going to color its presentation.
Yes, they are an organisation that has a mandate.
They are decidedly against the infringement of human rights in any of it’s manifestations.
They are fairly respected and have a good track record. To compare them to the kkk is ludicrous Merry. I mean c’mon dude.
All you had to say was “I’m for capital punishment”. Then maybe state your reasons why.
All I have to say is “I’m against it”. And then maybe I state my reasons why.
cheers
It also behooves me to ask:
How many deaths is “acceptable”?
How many mistaken death sentences is considered tolerable in society?
Besides this issue, I was also reading a list of statements and factual truths regarding gun facts in the US, Canada, Japan, the UK and Sweden.
I have to ask after reading that the “numbers” are much lower than those shown in the studies that date up to 1993.
Exactly how many accidental deaths of children by guns in the home is acceptable? How many easily accomodated suicides are acceptable?
What is it that makes any number “ok” when it comes to loss of human life to preserve some rather antiquated thinking that still sits in the law books around the world?
The truth to me is that the 1st world has no place telling morality tales to the rest of the world when their own face is dismal.
Freedom justice and liberty for all? I sincerely doubt that.
cheers
Kung Lek,
Like some others on this forum, you have the nasty habit of automatically assuming I’m either for or against something because I question sources.
Citing the KKK is obviously hyperbole. My point was simply that if an organization has an agenda, then the “facts” they present will be the ones that support their side of the argument, not necessarily the complete picture. A responsible organization wouldn’t resort to what is essentially histrionics. If you rely on that information alone or only information from other organizations with a similar agenda to form your opinion then your opinion is not informed.
If you rely on that information alone or only information from other organizations with a similar agenda to form your opinion then your opinion is not informed.
I don’t rely solely on any one source for any information, but instead I look at the pro and the con sources and glean an understanding from the facts presented by both and any statistical data each offers.
My opinion is formed by which side of the argument I support according to how I feel and think about it from a logical pros/cons viewpoint.
What is the source that supports capital punishment? Do they not also have a skewed agenda? Do they not also have the luxury of having it in the law books already?
I appreciate your hyperbole in regards to the kkk, my statement was merely to point out that that comparison, for the sake of comparison weighed against Amnesty international is misleading.
If anyone has a skewed perspective it is the splinter groups. I don’t see amnesty international out there hating on anyone and therefore give them creedence for their agenda. I also don’t see amnesty international as a splinter group. They are global.
cheers
Of course their POV is going to be skewed, but to present something as being “information,” as you did, when, in fact it’s closer to propaganda, is a bit disingenuous.
The Sea Shepherds are global. So is the ELF. So is Al Qaida.
However, you are correct that Amnesty International is more mainstream. Just pointing out that being global don’t mean squat.
I’m with rogue. Go VA.
(completely off the cuff and my opinion only)
As flawed as the justice system is today there are probably
far more people that should be sentenced to death than
haven’t been sentenced to death.
of course you have to believe the death penalty is an appopriate
penalty for some actions. I believe it is.
And the concept of a death row is silly too. The sentence should
be carried out immediately.
And the appeal system is blown out of proportion as well. IF the
first 12 jurors could have been wrong then so could the second
12 and the 3rd 12…
of course the problem is really too many **** lawyers.
lawyers suck, almost as much as ninjas
A slightly different perspective:
A few years ago while doing some research - most of which I’ve forgotten - into this, I ran across and interesting item.
Seems that due to the required legal wrangling and mandatory appeals for a capital sentence, it is actually almost an order of magnitude more expensive to execute someone instead of imprisoning them for life.
What is the point of the sentence? Is it to punish the convicted for their crime? If so, is the punishment to fit the crime? If yes, then there should be a deterrent factor in punishment for the convicted as well as for others. There can be no doubt that there is a deterrent factor for the convicted. You can’t get much more deterred than dead. However, every piece of research into this has indicated that there is no deterrent factor for others.
Is the point to remove a hazard to society? If yes, then permanent imprisonment does the same thing.
Is it to rehabilitate where possible, punish, and remove a danger to society? If this is the logic, the system is doing a very poor job.
You really can’t touch the concepts of capital punishment without also dealing with the concept of punishment and the basis of the criminal justice system.
Don’t know about other states, but Texas has one out of 20 people currently involved in some form of prison / parole / probation. One of the biggest growth businesses in the state is PRISONS.
So, the conclusion I make on this is that what we are doing doesn’t work.
You really can’t touch the concepts of capital punishment without also dealing with the concept of punishment and the basis of the criminal justice system.
Exactly.
GLW,
True–it is more expensive.
Clearly Amnesty International has a bias in their position since the abolition of the death penalty is in their mandate. Still,
-
They present their case pretty accurately so you can find a good bit of accurate info just keep in mind that you are only getting one side.
-
They are certainly no more biased than associations of trial lawyers discussing tort reform. At least, they don’t have a financial interest. (Sorry had to bring it up. LOL)
Myosimka, you must not ever have read my response to your post.
One was a national association of trial lawyers website, one was lectric law library, and the other was a bar association website.
Pretty good cross section.