USA is #4...

[tommywishbone]

Those darn Chinese! First they want all the worlds oil, and now they beat us in the execution game.:| We've got to improve our execution skills.


China, Iran, Saudi, US main executioners: Amnesty 1 hour, 7 minutes ago

LONDON (Reuters) - More than 2,000 people were known to have been executed around the world last year, the vast majority of them in China, followed byIran, Saudi Arabia and the United States, Amnesty International said on Thursday.

In its annual report on executions, the rights group said about 1,770 executions were reported to have been carried out in China in 2005, but added the real figure was undoubtedly much higher, noting a Chinese legal expert had been quoted as saying the true figure was about 8,000.

More than 20,000 people were on death row around the world, said the report, which repeated a call for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.

Amnesty said at least 2,148 people were executed in 2005 in 22 countries -- 94 percent of them in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States. That's down from 3,797 executions in 2004, but up from 1,146 in 2003.

"The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights, because it contravenes the essence of human values, it is often applied in a discriminatory manner, follows unfair trials or is applied for political reasons," Amnesty International Secretary-General Irene Khan said in a statement.

At least 94 people were executed in Iran, 86 in Saudi Arabia and 60 in the United States.

"As the world continues to turn away from the use of the death penalty, it is a glaring anomaly that China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the U.S. stand out for their extreme use of this form of punishment," Khan said.

China has carried out executions by shooting or lethal injection, Saudi Arabia by beheading, Iran by hanging or stoning and the United States by electrocution or lethal injection, Amnesty said.

Amnesty said its figures were approximate because of secrecy surrounding the death penalty. China refuses to publish official statistics on executions while Vietnam has classified statistics on the death penalty as a "state secret," it said.

But the rights group said with the addition of Mexico and Liberia, 86 countries had now abolished the death penalty for all crimes, compared with 16 countries in 1977, it said.

In China, a person can be executed for as many as 68 crimes, including non-violent crimes such as tax fraud, embezzlement and drug offences, it said.

Amnesty said Iran was the only country it knew of that had executed juvenile offenders last year. The United States outlawed juvenile executions in March 2005.

Iran executed at least eight people in 2005 for crimes committed when they were children, including two who were still under the age of 18 at the time of their execution, it said.


End story-----------------------

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

That's some fine company we keep...

Sad.

 

[Ronstang]

I love how liberals can't see the distinction between an execution in the US and those other 3 countries.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I love how liberals can't see the distinction between an execution in the US and those other 3 countries.

I don't know that anyone is saying they're the same thing, but given the number of people we've removed from our death rows after they were exonerated by DNA evidence, it seems quite clear we have executed innocent people (not to mention the huge racial disparity in death sentences). I have worked extensively as a prosecutor - actually I've put someone in prison for life - but I think the death penalty is a really really bad idea. There's a reason we're essentially the only Western nation that uses it.

 

[bdude]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I love how liberals can't see the distinction between an execution in the US and those other 3 countries.

I don't know that anyone is saying they're the same thing, but given the number of people we've removed from our death rows after they were exonerated by DNA evidence, it seems quite clear we have executed innocent people (not to mention the huge racial disparity in death sentences). I have worked extensively as a prosecutor - actually I've put someone in prison for life - but I think the death penalty is a really really bad idea. There's a reason we're essentially the only Western nation that uses it.

We as Americans accept the suffering of others.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I love how liberals can't see the distinction between an execution in the US and those other 3 countries.

I have no idea what you're harping about. Are you saying that the US executes bad guys and the other countries only execute freedom loving capitalists who are Christians? This is my problem with Iraq. The Right thinks that everyone in Iraq who was jailed was there because they wanted democracy when in fact the truth was their were criminals. Big deal. The chinese executed 2k people out of 1.5 billion. God forbid they kills murders' and drug dealers.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ronstang
I love how liberals can't see the distinction between an execution in the US and those other 3 countries.

I don't know that anyone is saying they're the same thing, but given the number of people we've removed from our death rows after they were exonerated by DNA evidence, it seems quite clear we have executed innocent people (not to mention the huge racial disparity in death sentences). I have worked extensively as a prosecutor - actually I've put someone in prison for life - but I think the death penalty is a really really bad idea. There's a reason we're essentially the only Western nation that uses it.

I'm glad that DNA evidence has exonerated innocent people. That being said if that type of evidence is strong enough to overturn a prior conviciton then it is strong enough to justify the death penalty in certain types of cases also in my opinion.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

I'm glad that DNA evidence has exonerated innocent people. That being said if that type of evidence is strong enough to overturn a prior conviciton then it is strong enough to justify the death penalty in certain types of cases also in my opinion.

What, exactly, is the point of the death penalty? It demonstrably has no deterrent effect, and it strikes me as a lesser punishment than life behind bars. Doesn't it just perpetuate the idea that killing is sometimes a good idea? What is the benefit of it? I understand the visceral desire to see bad people die, but how does it improve society?

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ronstang

I'm glad that DNA evidence has exonerated innocent people. That being said if that type of evidence is strong enough to overturn a prior conviciton then it is strong enough to justify the death penalty in certain types of cases also in my opinion.

What, exactly, is the point of the death penalty? It demonstrably has no deterrent effect, and it strikes me as a lesser punishment than life behind bars. Doesn't it just perpetuate the idea that killing is sometimes a good idea? What is the benefit of it? I understand the visceral desire to see bad people die, but how does it improve society?

The benefit is much less than it could be because it is not administered as it should be. People on death row should have 1 year max to secure an appeal and if unsuccessful should be put to death the next day. If they secure an appeal and lose then they should also be put to death the next day. It is the BS system that allows them to sit on death row for 2 decades wasting the taxpayers money. I see no reason for a criminal to sit in jail costing the taxpayers $30K+ a year for his upkeep. Criminals are enough of a drain on society by the mere fact of the crimes they commit so the ones that receive capital punishment should have that sentence carried out in a quick and orderly fashion.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ronstang

I'm glad that DNA evidence has exonerated innocent people. That being said if that type of evidence is strong enough to overturn a prior conviciton then it is strong enough to justify the death penalty in certain types of cases also in my opinion.

What, exactly, is the point of the death penalty? It demonstrably has no deterrent effect, and it strikes me as a lesser punishment than life behind bars. Doesn't it just perpetuate the idea that killing is sometimes a good idea? What is the benefit of it? I understand the visceral desire to see bad people die, but how does it improve society?

It has no point other than the last element you mentioned. It satisfies a primal blood thirst for revenge.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

The benefit is much less than it could be because it is not administered as it should be. People on death row should have 1 year max to secure an appeal and if unsuccessful should be put to death the next day. If they secure an appeal and lose then they should also be put to death the next day. It is the BS system that allows them to sit on death row for 2 decades wasting the taxpayers money. I see no reason for a criminal to sit in jail costing the taxpayers $30K+ a year for his upkeep. Criminals are enough of a drain on society by the mere fact of the crimes they commit so the ones that receive capital punishment should have that sentence carried out in a quick and orderly fashion.

That doesn't answer my question. What is the point? The courts could never handle the quick appeals you envision (even if we assume for the moment that it wouldn't violate due process, which it clearly would). In practice, the cost of imposing the death penalty is nearly three times greater than giving someone life in prison. What does society get for all the extra money? If, for the sake of argument, the death penalty cost the same as life in prison, what benefit would society get that could possibly outweigh the risk of executing the innocent?

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ronstang

The benefit is much less than it could be because it is not administered as it should be. People on death row should have 1 year max to secure an appeal and if unsuccessful should be put to death the next day. If they secure an appeal and lose then they should also be put to death the next day. It is the BS system that allows them to sit on death row for 2 decades wasting the taxpayers money. I see no reason for a criminal to sit in jail costing the taxpayers $30K+ a year for his upkeep. Criminals are enough of a drain on society by the mere fact of the crimes they commit so the ones that receive capital punishment should have that sentence carried out in a quick and orderly fashion.

That doesn't answer my question. What is the point? The courts could never handle the quick appeals you envision (even if we assume for the moment that it wouldn't violate due process, which it clearly would). In practice, the cost of imposing the death penalty is nearly three times greater than giving someone life in prison. What does society get for all the extra money? If, for the sake of argument, the death penalty cost the same as life in prison, what benefit would society get that could possibly outweigh the risk of executing the innocent?

In cases where there is overwhelming evidence there is no reason it should have to cost that much money. If you put them in prison for the rest of their lives and they had to work all those days for the public benefit then I would change my mind but most criminals have a better life in prison than they would be willing to work to have outside of prison. The system continiues to get softer and softer in the name of humanity to make the lives of criminals easier all the while forgetting the victims and all at the expense of the LAW ABIDING citizens.

 

[ntdz]

I don't see the problem with executions, as long as thats what the people want. It is what we want, afterall...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

In cases where there is overwhelming evidence there is no reason it should have to cost that much money. If you put them in prison for the rest of their lives and they had to work all those days for the public benefit then I would change my mind but most criminals have a better life in prison than they would be willing to work to have outside of prison. The system continiues to get softer and softer in the name of humanity to make the lives of criminals easier all the while forgetting the victims and all at the expense of the LAW ABIDING citizens.

Their appeal rights are the same whether or not there is overwhelming evidence. Unless the defendant waives his appeals (a la Timothy McVeigh), it will always be much costlier to impose the death penalty than to imprison for life.

I think there's a difference between supporting the death penalty under your completely inaccurate, hypothetical set of assumptions, and supporting it in reality. I personally wouldn't support it in either event (actually the risk of executing an innocent person would be much greater under the rules you propose, so it would, if anything, make matters worse), but it seems to me it's pointless to make arguments based on inaccurate theoretical precepts (in this case, the notion that the death penalty is or could be made to be cheaper than life imprisonment).

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't see the problem with executions, as long as thats what the people want. It is what we want, afterall...

What if "the people" wanted slavery (as they did at one time)?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't see the problem with executions, as long as thats what the people want. It is what we want, afterall...

What if "the people" wanted slavery (as they did at one time)?

Not a valid argument. Exeuction of murderers is different than slavery.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Ronstang

In cases where there is overwhelming evidence there is no reason it should have to cost that much money. If you put them in prison for the rest of their lives and they had to work all those days for the public benefit then I would change my mind but most criminals have a better life in prison than they would be willing to work to have outside of prison. The system continiues to get softer and softer in the name of humanity to make the lives of criminals easier all the while forgetting the victims and all at the expense of the LAW ABIDING citizens.

Their appeal rights are the same whether or not there is overwhelming evidence. Unless the defendant waives his appeals (a la Timothy McVeigh), it will always be much costlier to impose the death penalty than to imprison for life.

I think there's a difference between supporting the death penalty under your completely inaccurate, hypothetical set of assumptions, and supporting it in reality. I personally wouldn't support it in either event (actually the risk of executing an innocent person would, if anything, be much greater under the rules you propose, so it would, if anything, make matters worse), but it seems to me it's pointless to make arguments based on inaccurate theoretical precepts (in this case, the notion that the death penalty is or could be made to be cheaper than life imprisonment).

That's fine. I do see where you are coming from. You know more about this than I care to know. You derive your livelihood from the broken system so there is no way we are going to agree and that is fine. I am not saying you are wrong I am just tired of the criminals of this world putting such a high burden on the law abiding in society. I just wish prison was actually a punishment but it is not that way anymore.

If you want the death penalty to be more of a deterrent then maybe we should have public executions and the sentence of a certain level of crime should include that person being forced to witness an execution....that might change their attitudes and the future course of their life choices. It is amazing how witnessing death changes someone.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Not a valid argument. Exeuction of murderers is different than slavery.

Not so different. Essentially the entire western world, exclusive of the US, regards both as inhumane and barbaric. My only point was that I don't think the fact that America supports something means that it should be enacted as a matter of law.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't see the problem with executions, as long as thats what the people want. It is what we want, afterall...

What if "the people" wanted slavery (as they did at one time)?

Not a valid argument. Exeuction of murderers is different than slavery.

But you stated as a reason that people want it. What you are saying is this:

If the people wan't x, then x is ok.

You have to say why it is ok in this particular case and how this case is different from others in order to reject any counterexamples like the one given (slavery).

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: DonVito
What, exactly, is the point of the death penalty? It demonstrably has no deterrent effect, and it strikes me as a lesser punishment than life behind bars. Doesn't it just perpetuate the idea that killing is sometimes a good idea? What is the benefit of it? I understand the visceral desire to see bad people die, but how does it improve society?

Are you sure it doesn't have a deterrent effect, or do you just mean in some cases (e.g. murder in the US, where the death peanalty is harldly a statistically significant punishment). No effect on drug traffic in Singapore for instance?

I think it can have some good additional effect in upholding part of a sense of justice, but only in the right context and not in all cultures.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Are you sure it doesn't have a deterrent effect, or do you just mean in some cases (e.g. murder in the US, where the death peanalty is harldly a statistically significant punishment). No effect on drug traffic in Singapore for instance?

I think it can have some good additional effect in upholding part of a sense of justice, but only in the right context and not in all cultures.

The only empirical evidence I have studied was from the US. I don't agree, BTW, that is isn't a "statistically significant punishment," in that it is fairly common in murder prosecutions in states that allow it. The studies have shown zero correlation between the death penalty and lowered murder rates.

I don't know what you mean about "upholding part of a sense of justice." That strikes me as a pretty nebulous basis for government-sanctioned killing, particularly where it creates great cost and no measurable benefit.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: DonVito
What, exactly, is the point of the death penalty? It demonstrably has no deterrent effect, and it strikes me as a lesser punishment than life behind bars. Doesn't it just perpetuate the idea that killing is sometimes a good idea? What is the benefit of it? I understand the visceral desire to see bad people die, but how does it improve society?

Are you sure it doesn't have a deterrent effect, or do you just mean in some cases (e.g. murder in the US, where the death peanalty is harldly a statistically significant punishment). No effect on drug traffic in Singapore for instance?

I think it can have some good additional effect in upholding part of a sense of justice, but only in the right context and not in all cultures.

Killing killers will uphold a sense of justice. Hahahahahaha! For a pig justice is a full stomach.

We kill killers because 1. they bring up our killing rage and 2. provide us with a rationalization to act out our hate with a rationalization provided by law that they are evil. We differ from the original killer in that he supplies other rationalizations as to why his victim's death is just. We love the murder because he does what we can't wait to do when we catch him. Blessed are the evil for they allow me to feel hate. Some hate is good you see, and some hate is bad, but don't look any deeper than that. You wouldn't want to think too much about such an obvious source of pleasure. Please oh please, God, let me compartmentalize so I can kill. I died as a child, Oh Father, and now I want revenge.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: DonVito
The only empirical evidence I have studied was from the US. I don't agree, BTW, that is isn't a "statistically significant punishment," in that it is fairly common in murder prosecutions in states that allow it. The studies have shown zero correlation between the death penalty and lowered murder rates.

I think the US is in a different situation from other countries with the death penalty. I consider the death penalty disfunctional in the US.
Now I would maintain that it is not a statistically significant punishment.
From the OP, 60 death penalties in the USA in 2005.
(How much effort is expended on behalf of these people! Saving 60 people in almost any other way, improvements in health, roads, foreign aid, etc etc. would be a negligible cost. This shows the whole business is symbolic rather than practical on both sides. Symbols have their importance of course.)
While murders (in 2000) 15000 to 16000.
So about 0.4% of murders result in a death penalty.
States with death penalty in use: most.
At any rate less than 1% of murders result in a death penalty. Unlikely to weigh heavily on the mind of a murderer.
I am not even sure how statistics are carred out with these very small probabilities. Maybe using historical data when the practice was more common?

I don't know what you mean about "upholding part of a sense of justice." That strikes me as a pretty nebulous basis for government-sanctioned killing, particularly where it creates great cost and no measurable benefit.

Oh yes? And are you arguing against things with nebulous bases, without mathematically measurable benefits?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Killing killers will uphold a sense of justice. Hahahahahaha! For a pig justice is a full stomach.

We kill killers because 1. they bring up our killing rage and 2. provide us with a rationalization to act out our hate with a rationalization provided by law that they are evil. We differ from the original killer in that he supplies other rationalizations as to why his victim's death is just...

It is not true that no sense of justice exists.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CSMR
I think the US is in a different situation from other countries with the death penalty. I consider the death penalty disfunctional in the US.
Now I would maintain that it is not a statistically significant punishment.
From the OP, 60 death penalties in the USA in 2005.
(How much effort is expended on behalf of these people! Saving 60 people in almost any other way, improvements in health, roads, foreign aid, etc etc. would be a negligible cost. This shows the whole business is symbolic rather than practical on both sides. Symbols have their importance of course.)
While murders (in 2000) 15000 to 16000.
So about 0.4% of murders result in a death penalty.
States with death penalty in use: most.
At any rate less than 1% of murders result in a death penalty. Unlikely to weigh heavily on the mind of a murderer.
I am not even sure how statistics are carred out with these very small probabilities. Maybe using historical data when the practice was more common?

The number of people sentenced to death != the number who receive the death penalty in any given year. California is the most prominent example - they have given the death penalty to many people since it restarted in the 1970s, but only a handful have been executed. Regardless, it has no demonstrable benefit in terms of the murder rate.

Here is a simple matrix of the murder rate in death penalty and non-death penalty states. Interestingly, the gap is getting greater and greater, with death penalty states currently having murder rates 42% higher than those without.

Oh yes? And are you arguing against things with nebulous bases, without mathematically measurable benefits?

When my tax dollars are at stake, yes, I am.