Troy Davis Executed

[Laila619]

I've just finished reading this thread. I've held my tongue and it hurts very badly. Some of the arguments are knee jerk reactions and immature in terms of critical thinking. I'm sorry to say that most of these come from the liberal side of the street. My husband is a republican and I am an independent. We both voted for Pres. Obama and are extremely disappointmented with his performance. My husband has none of the attributes, which have been given to republicans in this thread. Where does this information come from? Not by speaking with intelligent people, who can understand and reason their way through the rhetoric.

One more comment. I keep reading how capital punishment is not a deterrent to [heinous] crimes. We have talked about the issues concerning recidivism. It is very important to look at the rates of reoffending after release from incarceration. If someone has committed a [heinous]crime and has been convicted, without any doubt, you can prevent him/her from reoffending. If that isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is. That individual will never commit another crime. There are crimes against humanity, which cause us to lose our own humanity by looking the other way.

Nicely said, risingsun!

 

[packrat]

I've just finished reading this thread. I've held my tongue and it hurts very badly. Some of the arguments are knee jerk reactions and immature in terms of critical thinking. I'm sorry to say that most of these come from the liberal side of the street. My husband is a republican and I am an independent. We both voted for Pres. Obama and are extremely disappointmented with his performance. My husband has none of the attributes, which have been given to republicans in this thread. Where does this information come from? Not by speaking with intelligent people, who can understand and reason their way through the rhetoric.

One more comment. I keep reading how capital punishment is not a deterrent to [heinous] crimes. We have talked about the issues concerning recidivism. It is very important to look at the rates of reoffending after release from incarceration. If someone has committed a [heinous]crime and has been convicted, without any doubt, you can prevent him/her from reoffending. If that isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is. That individual will never commit another crime. There are crimes against humanity, which cause us to lose our own humanity by looking the other way.

Have I told you lately that I love you?

 

[iheartscience]

I've just finished reading this thread. I've held my tongue and it hurts very badly. Some of the arguments are knee jerk reactions and immature in terms of critical thinking. I'm sorry to say that most of these come from the liberal side of the street. My husband is a republican and I am an independent. We both voted for Pres. Obama and are extremely disappointmented with his performance. My husband has none of the attributes, which have been given to republicans in this thread. Where does this information come from? Not by speaking with intelligent people, who can understand and reason their way through the rhetoric.

One more comment. I keep reading how capital punishment is not a deterrent to [heinous] crimes. We have talked about the issues concerning recidivism. It is very important to look at the rates of reoffending after release from incarceration. If someone has committed a [heinous]crime and has been convicted, without any doubt, you can prevent him/her from reoffending. If that isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is. That individual will never commit another crime. There are crimes against humanity, which cause us to lose our own humanity by looking the other way.

That's great that all the Republicans here don't think like the Republicans on the national stage, but since those are the ones representing the Republican party, that's the message that gets across. Many Republicans buy it hook, line and sinker, including the ones I'm related to (parents and siblings) and have spoken to many times about politics. And my parents and siblings are all intelligent people. The bottom line is that most people are not well-informed, and what they believe is truly frightening.

As for the last comment, states with capital punishment have higher murder rates than states without capital punishment. Texas for example has a very high murder rate and they use capital punishment more often than any other state. So it would appear that the threat of capital punishment is not a deterrent to committing murder. Locking someone up for life serves the same purpose if you want to prevent future crimes.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I've just finished reading this thread. I've held my tongue and it hurts very badly. Some of the arguments are knee jerk reactions and immature in terms of critical thinking. I'm sorry to say that most of these come from the liberal side of the street. My husband is a republican and I am an independent. We both voted for Pres. Obama and are extremely disappointmented with his performance. My husband has none of the attributes, which have been given to republicans in this thread. Where does this information come from? Not by speaking with intelligent people, who can understand and reason their way through the rhetoric.

One more comment. I keep reading how capital punishment is not a deterrent to [heinous] crimes. We have talked about the issues concerning recidivism. It is very important to look at the rates of reoffending after release from incarceration. If someone has committed a [heinous]crime and has been convicted, without any doubt, you can prevent him/her from reoffending. If that isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is. That individual will never commit another crime. There are crimes against humanity, which cause us to lose our own humanity by looking the other way.

That's great that all the Republicans here don't think like the Republicans on the national stage, but since those are the ones representing the Republican party, that's the message that gets across. Many Republicans buy it hook, line and sinker, including the ones I'm related to (parents and siblings) and have spoken to many times about politics. And my parents and siblings are all intelligent people. The bottom line is that most people are not well-informed, and what they believe is truly frightening.

As for the last comment, states with capital punishment have higher murder rates than states without capital punishment. Texas for example has a very high murder rate and they use capital punishment more often than any other state. So it would appear that the threat of capital punishment is not a deterrent to committing murder. Locking someone up for life serves the same purpose if you want to prevent future crimes.

most Republicans are very intelligent...

 

[risingsun]

I've just finished reading this thread. I've held my tongue and it hurts very badly. Some of the arguments are knee jerk reactions and immature in terms of critical thinking. I'm sorry to say that most of these come from the liberal side of the street. My husband is a republican and I am an independent. We both voted for Pres. Obama and are extremely disappointmented with his performance. My husband has none of the attributes, which have been given to republicans in this thread. Where does this information come from? Not by speaking with intelligent people, who can understand and reason their way through the rhetoric.

One more comment. I keep reading how capital punishment is not a deterrent to [heinous] crimes. We have talked about the issues concerning recidivism. It is very important to look at the rates of reoffending after release from incarceration. If someone has committed a [heinous]crime and has been convicted, without any doubt, you can prevent him/her from reoffending. If that isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is. That individual will never commit another crime. There are crimes against humanity, which cause us to lose our own humanity by looking the other way.

Have I told you lately that I love you?

I love to you, took, Packrat! I'm very glad you understand what I was trying to say

 

[risingsun]

I've just finished reading this thread. I've held my tongue and it hurts very badly. Some of the arguments are knee jerk reactions and immature in terms of critical thinking. I'm sorry to say that most of these come from the liberal side of the street. My husband is a republican and I am an independent. We both voted for Pres. Obama and are extremely disappointmented with his performance. My husband has none of the attributes, which have been given to republicans in this thread. Where does this information come from? Not by speaking with intelligent people, who can understand and reason their way through the rhetoric.

One more comment. I keep reading how capital punishment is not a deterrent to [heinous] crimes. We have talked about the issues concerning recidivism. It is very important to look at the rates of reoffending after release from incarceration. If someone has committed a [heinous]crime and has been convicted, without any doubt, you can prevent him/her from reoffending. If that isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is. That individual will never commit another crime. There are crimes against humanity, which cause us to lose our own humanity by looking the other way.

That's great that all the Republicans here don't think like the Republicans on the national stage, but since those are the ones representing the Republican party, that's the message that gets across. Many Republicans buy it hook, line and sinker, including the ones I'm related to (parents and siblings) and have spoken to many times about politics. And my parents and siblings are all intelligent people. The bottom line is that most people are not well-informed, and what they believe is truly frightening.

As for the last comment, states with capital punishment have higher murder rates than states without capital punishment. Texas for example has a very high murder rate and they use capital punishment more often than any other state. So it would appear that the threat of capital punishment is not a deterrent to committing murder. Locking someone up for life serves the same purpose if you want to prevent future crimes.

I agree that many people from both major parties are woefully uninformed about their spokespeople. I would like to see the public receive some real education about the issues today. I go out of my way to educate myself. So does my DH. When I listen to the talking heads, I question everything they say, regardless of their political affiliation. I haven't given credence to a political speech or ad in years. It is very disappointing when you don't or can't trust those running for public office. I agree that it is truly frightening how many people are uninformed; however, there are many people who make it their business to become informed.

I don't think I made myself clear about capital punishment. Having worked with a wide range of clients, as a counselor, I have met people who are true sociopaths. They lack any remorse for their actions or their victims. They have the added attribute of being quite charming, at times. There is little doubt in my mind that if and when they are released from prison that they will reoffend. In terms of those who commit heinous crimes, we do have evidence that they will do so again, whether in or out of prison. What I meant by deterrence was to use capital punishment for the perpetrators of heinous, violent offences. That means they will never commit another crime. They won't rape, torture or kill anyone else ever. I have worked with people who have told me what they think I want to hear, in order to stay out of prison. I have had to tell them that what happens to them is determined by their behavior. I have had clients scream at me when they no-showed for an appointment, which shows noncompliance with the terms of their parole or probation. I've been accused of sending them back to prison. My response is that they have sent themself back to prison by their own actions.

I believe that capital punishment must be taken very seriously and used only in the most extreme cases. There must be no doubt about the person's guilt. I just look a deterrence differently then some. If a person has done something so heinous, so obscene to another, they forfeit their life by their actions. This protects anyone else from being a victim of this perpetrator. I have worked with too many victims not to advocate on their behalf.

 

[MissStepcut]

risingsun, I couldn't agree more that people don't do enough to inform themselves about the issues, including taking an interest in what "the issues" really should be.

Everyone has something to say about climate change, but what about our dwindling drinking water supplies, particularly in places like Arizona? What about our crumbling infrastructure? I hear people talking about disproportionate rise in the cost of higher education relative to inflation, but what about for-profit institutions eating up Pell grants, failing to graduate their students, leaving them in debt, and then passing those taxpayer subsidized tuition dollars to shareholders? What are the issues that are really holding back our country right now?

I think our politicians do a great job using pot-stirring issues to create conceptual gridlock, so no one has to actually change anything: they can just say things like, "Hey, I would love to be working on climate change/lowering taxes/etc, but those idiots on the other side of the aisle just won't let me!"

It's a lot easier to argue about controversial issues than it is to actually start solving problems.

 

[sillyberry]

That's great that all the Republicans here don't think like the Republicans on the national stage, but since those are the ones representing the Republican party, that's the message that gets across. Many Republicans buy it hook, line and sinker, including the ones I'm related to (parents and siblings) and have spoken to many times about politics. And my parents and siblings are all intelligent people. The bottom line is that most people are not well-informed, and what they believe is truly frightening.

As for the last comment, states with capital punishment have higher murder rates than states without capital punishment. Texas for example has a very high murder rate and they use capital punishment more often than any other state. So it would appear that the threat of capital punishment is not a deterrent to committing murder. Locking someone up for life serves the same purpose if you want to prevent future crimes.

Well, we agree on something.

You're right that more states with the death penalty by and large have higher homicide rates (5.26 v 3.9 per 100,000). However, with a few exceptions (particularly New Jersey, New York, Michigan, and Illinois), states without the death penalty tend to be racially homogeneous. Sadly, it seems the best indicator of murder rate per capita is demographics. Compare this list to the census. Start at one end and work your way through. It's even worse when you look at the city-level data. I think we can all agree it's a serious serious problem without an easily identifiable solution. God The Wire was depressing. Amazing television, but insanely depressing.

For what it's worth, Texas's murder rate tracks pretty closely with the other five largest states. In 2010, Illinois and Florida had slightly higher rates, California and New York slightly less, ranging from 5.5 to 4.5 murders per 100,000. If you average throughout the past decade, those rankings have varied throughout the years. Also, the latest data I could find for sentencing rate by state only goes through 1999, but at least to that point, Texas sentenced those convicted to murder to death at a rate lower than the national average for states with capital punishment (.020 v .022). It also appears that Texas, along with most other states, saw a reduction in the number of death sentences issued in the 2000s compared to the previous decade. To be fair, Texas is 2nd on the list of states that actually carry out the sentence.

Okay, I think that's enough fun with data for one night.

(Note: I used the Death Penalty Information Center because the site had the best aggregated data I could find)

ETA: I do agree with you that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. At the same time, I don't think life without parole is an effective deterrent, either. It seems most people who commit homicide either (1) do not think of the consequences or (2) think they're too smart to ever face the consequences. In either of those situations, the possible sentence is not effectively keeping them from committing the crime. I view the death penalty as punishment, pure and simple. I don't view it with glee and excitement, but rather profound sadness. But sometimes I think it is nevertheless appropriate. Not always or even often. But sometimes.

 

[mrscushion]

That's great that all the Republicans here don't think like the Republicans on the national stage, but since those are the ones representing the Republican party, that's the message that gets across. Many Republicans buy it hook, line and sinker, including the ones I'm related to (parents and siblings) and have spoken to many times about politics. And my parents and siblings are all intelligent people. The bottom line is that most people are not well-informed, and what they believe is truly frightening.

As for the last comment, states with capital punishment have higher murder rates than states without capital punishment. Texas for example has a very high murder rate and they use capital punishment more often than any other state. So it would appear that the threat of capital punishment is not a deterrent to committing murder. Locking someone up for life serves the same purpose if you want to prevent future crimes.

Well, we agree on something.

You're right that more states with the death penalty by and large have higher homicide rates (5.26 v 3.9 per 100,000). However, with a few exceptions (particularly New Jersey, New York, Michigan, and Illinois), states without the death penalty tend to be racially homogeneous. Sadly, it seems the best indicator of murder rate per capita is demographics. Compare this list to the census. Start at one end and work your way through. It's even worse when you look at the city-level data. I think we can all agree it's a serious serious problem without an easily identifiable solution. God The Wire was depressing. Amazing television, but insanely depressing.

For what it's worth, Texas's murder rate tracks pretty closely with the other five largest states. In 2010, Illinois and Florida had slightly higher rates, California and New York slightly less, ranging from 5.5 to 4.5 murders per 100,000. If you average throughout the past decade, those rankings have varied throughout the years. Also, the latest data I could find for sentencing rate by state only goes through 1999, but at least to that point, Texas sentenced those convicted to murder to death at a rate lower than the national average for states with capital punishment (.020 v .022). It also appears that Texas, along with most other states, saw a reduction in the number of death sentences issued in the 2000s compared to the previous decade. To be fair, Texas is 2nd on the list of states that actually carry out the sentence.

Okay, I think that's enough fun with data for one night.

(Note: I used the Death Penalty Information Center because the site had the best aggregated data I could find)

ETA: I do agree with you that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. At the same time, I don't think life without parole is an effective deterrent, either. It seems most people who commit homicide either (1) do not think of the consequences or (2) think they're too smart to ever face the consequences. In either of those situations, the possible sentence is not effectively keeping them from committing the crime. I view the death penalty as punishment, pure and simple. I don't view it with glee and excitement, but rather profound sadness. But sometimes I think it is nevertheless appropriate. Not always or even often. But sometimes.

Thanks for the info! DH and I were discussing the deterrence effect as I was driving home yesterday. We were wondering if comparing murder rates in states with / without the death penalty was even a valid comparison because of the other factors driving murder rates, particularly racial / demographic homogeneity.

I also agree that our penalties - lifetime prison or death - are punishments, not deterrents.

 

[iheartscience]

That's great that all the Republicans here don't think like the Republicans on the national stage, but since those are the ones representing the Republican party, that's the message that gets across. Many Republicans buy it hook, line and sinker, including the ones I'm related to (parents and siblings) and have spoken to many times about politics. And my parents and siblings are all intelligent people. The bottom line is that most people are not well-informed, and what they believe is truly frightening.

As for the last comment, states with capital punishment have higher murder rates than states without capital punishment. Texas for example has a very high murder rate and they use capital punishment more often than any other state. So it would appear that the threat of capital punishment is not a deterrent to committing murder. Locking someone up for life serves the same purpose if you want to prevent future crimes.

Well, we agree on something.

You're right that more states with the death penalty by and large have higher homicide rates (5.26 v 3.9 per 100,000). However, with a few exceptions (particularly New Jersey, New York, Michigan, and Illinois), states without the death penalty tend to be racially homogeneous. Sadly, it seems the best indicator of murder rate per capita is demographics. Compare this list to the census. Start at one end and work your way through. It's even worse when you look at the city-level data. I think we can all agree it's a serious serious problem without an easily identifiable solution. God The Wire was depressing. Amazing television, but insanely depressing.

For what it's worth, Texas's murder rate tracks pretty closely with the other five largest states. In 2010, Illinois and Florida had slightly higher rates, California and New York slightly less, ranging from 5.5 to 4.5 murders per 100,000. If you average throughout the past decade, those rankings have varied throughout the years. Also, the latest data I could find for sentencing rate by state only goes through 1999, but at least to that point, Texas sentenced those convicted to murder to death at a rate lower than the national average for states with capital punishment (.020 v .022). It also appears that Texas, along with most other states, saw a reduction in the number of death sentences issued in the 2000s compared to the previous decade. To be fair, Texas is 2nd on the list of states that actually carry out the sentence.

Okay, I think that's enough fun with data for one night.

(Note: I used the Death Penalty Information Center because the site had the best aggregated data I could find)

ETA: I do agree with you that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. At the same time, I don't think life without parole is an effective deterrent, either. It seems most people who commit homicide either (1) do not think of the consequences or (2) think they're too smart to ever face the consequences. In either of those situations, the possible sentence is not effectively keeping them from committing the crime. I view the death penalty as punishment, pure and simple. I don't view it with glee and excitement, but rather profound sadness. But sometimes I think it is nevertheless appropriate. Not always or even often. But sometimes.

Yes, that's the site I was looking at as well. Your argument implies that African-Americans are just killing each other and that's why the murder rates are high, which is very dangerous, IMO. It completely ignores income disparities, which is a major factor for higher crime rates, particularly murder rates. The states with the highest murder rates are also the poorest, and the states with the lowest murder rates are the wealthiest. And of course, minorities have much lower income levels than whites. New England for example has the highest income levels and the lowest crime rates. While the statistics you cited don't lie, they point to a completely different topic on how institutional racism leads to poverty, which leads to higher crime. I'd be happy to have that discussion as well.

If you look deeper into the statistics on race and the death penalty, African-Americans are still proportionally much more likely to be sentenced to death. A study was done by David Baldus and George Woodworth in Philadelphia to tease out the many different factors leading to a capital punishment sentence, and it found that the odds of being sentenced to death increase by 38% if you're black, after controlling for the severity of the crime and the criminal background of the defendant. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#Study 1

Additionally, the study broke down the different factors (called "aggravating factors") leading to the capital punishment sentence in all the cases. The authors assigned a predictive score to each aggravating factor, and murder with torture had an aggravating factor of 1.9, while being African-American had an aggravating factor of 1. 4. So just being black was the third strongest aggravating factor.

The race of the victim matters, too, even more so than the race of the defendant. If the victim is white, the death penalty is much more likely to be pursued. And if the defendant is black and the victim is white, they are the most likely of all to get the death penalty. There's a very nice graph that illustrates this on the page I linked to above.

I don't think capital punishment is ever appropriate, whether it is doled out fairly or not. Why do you think capital punishment is more appropriate than life in prison?

 

[ruby59]

That's great that all the Republicans here don't think like the Republicans on the national stage, but since those are the ones representing the Republican party, that's the message that gets across. Many Republicans buy it hook, line and sinker, including the ones I'm related to (parents and siblings) and have spoken to many times about politics. And my parents and siblings are all intelligent people. The bottom line is that most people are not well-informed, and what they believe is truly frightening.

As for the last comment, states with capital punishment have higher murder rates than states without capital punishment. Texas for example has a very high murder rate and they use capital punishment more often than any other state. So it would appear that the threat of capital punishment is not a deterrent to committing murder. Locking someone up for life serves the same purpose if you want to prevent future crimes.

Well, we agree on something.

You're right that more states with the death penalty by and large have higher homicide rates (5.26 v 3.9 per 100,000). However, with a few exceptions (particularly New Jersey, New York, Michigan, and Illinois), states without the death penalty tend to be racially homogeneous. Sadly, it seems the best indicator of murder rate per capita is demographics. Compare this list to the census. Start at one end and work your way through. It's even worse when you look at the city-level data. I think we can all agree it's a serious serious problem without an easily identifiable solution. God The Wire was depressing. Amazing television, but insanely depressing.

For what it's worth, Texas's murder rate tracks pretty closely with the other five largest states. In 2010, Illinois and Florida had slightly higher rates, California and New York slightly less, ranging from 5.5 to 4.5 murders per 100,000. If you average throughout the past decade, those rankings have varied throughout the years. Also, the latest data I could find for sentencing rate by state only goes through 1999, but at least to that point, Texas sentenced those convicted to murder to death at a rate lower than the national average for states with capital punishment (.020 v .022). It also appears that Texas, along with most other states, saw a reduction in the number of death sentences issued in the 2000s compared to the previous decade. To be fair, Texas is 2nd on the list of states that actually carry out the sentence.

Okay, I think that's enough fun with data for one night.

(Note: I used the Death Penalty Information Center because the site had the best aggregated data I could find)

ETA: I do agree with you that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. At the same time, I don't think life without parole is an effective deterrent, either. It seems most people who commit homicide either (1) do not think of the consequences or (2) think they're too smart to ever face the consequences. In either of those situations, the possible sentence is not effectively keeping them from committing the crime. I view the death penalty as punishment, pure and simple. I don't view it with glee and excitement, but rather profound sadness. But sometimes I think it is nevertheless appropriate. Not always or even often. But sometimes.

Yes, that's the site I was looking at as well. Your argument implies that African-Americans are just killing each other and that's why the murder rates are high, which is very dangerous, IMO. It completely ignores income disparities, which is a major factor for higher crime rates, particularly murder rates. The states with the highest murder rates are also the poorest, and the states with the lowest murder rates are the wealthiest. And of course, minorities have much lower income levels than whites. New England for example has the highest income levels and the lowest crime rates. While the statistics you cited don't lie, they point to a completely different topic on how institutional racism leads to poverty, which leads to higher crime. I'd be happy to have that discussion as well.

If you look deeper into the statistics on race and the death penalty, African-Americans are still proportionally much more likely to be sentenced to death. A study was done by David Baldus and George Woodworth in Philadelphia to tease out the many different factors leading to a capital punishment sentence, and it found that the odds of being sentenced to death increase by 38% if you're black, after controlling for the severity of the crime and the criminal background of the defendant. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#Study 1

Additionally, the study broke down the different factors (called "aggravating factors") leading to the capital punishment sentence in all the cases. The authors assigned a predictive score to each aggravating factor, and murder with torture had an aggravating factor of 1.9, while being African-American had an aggravating factor of 1. 4. So just being black was the third strongest aggravating factor.

The race of the victim matters, too, even more so than the race of the defendant. If the victim is white, the death penalty is much more likely to be pursued. And if the defendant is black and the victim is white, they are the most likely of all to get the death penalty. There's a very nice graph that illustrates this on the page I linked to above.

I don't think capital punishment is ever appropriate, whether it is doled out fairly or not. Why do you think capital punishment is more appropriate than life in prison?

To highlight your last sentence, does anyone here watch "Raw: Lockup" on MSNBC? One of the episodes recently was about the producers discussing what they have encountered at the different prisons they have visited. And it is very similar from prison to prison with the worst of the lifers, those who show no remore and would do it again if given the chance. And that same thought holds true now that they are in prison. Given the chance they readily admit they would kill another inmate or any of the guards working there. Reason given--"we already have life, so why not?" Capital punishment should not be doled out lightly. But imo for some, the truely depraved, and yes, inhuman, it is the only way to prevent them from hurting someone else ever again.

 

[MissStepcut]

Yes, that's the site I was looking at as well. Your argument implies that African-Americans are just killing each other and that's why the murder rates are high, which is very dangerous, IMO. It completely ignores income disparities, which is a major factor for higher crime rates, particularly murder rates. The states with the highest murder rates are also the poorest, and the states with the lowest murder rates are the wealthiest. And of course, minorities have much lower income levels than whites. New England for example has the highest income levels and the lowest crime rates. While the statistics you cited don't lie, they point to a completely different topic on how institutional racism leads to poverty, which leads to higher crime. I'd be happy to have that discussion as well.

If you look deeper into the statistics on race and the death penalty, African-Americans are still proportionally much more likely to be sentenced to death. A study was done by David Baldus and George Woodworth in Philadelphia to tease out the many different factors leading to a capital punishment sentence, and it found that the odds of being sentenced to death increase by 38% if you're black, after controlling for the severity of the crime and the criminal background of the defendant. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#Study 1

Additionally, the study broke down the different factors (called "aggravating factors") leading to the capital punishment sentence in all the cases. The authors assigned a predictive score to each aggravating factor, and murder with torture had an aggravating factor of 1.9, while being African-American had an aggravating factor of 1. 4. So just being black was the third strongest aggravating factor.

The race of the victim matters, too, even more so than the race of the defendant. If the victim is white, the death penalty is much more likely to be pursued. And if the defendant is black and the victim is white, they are the most likely of all to get the death penalty. There's a very nice graph that illustrates this on the page I linked to above.

I don't think capital punishment is ever appropriate, whether it is doled out fairly or not. Why do you think capital punishment is more appropriate than life in prison?

Well your conclusion from Sillyberry's data seems unfair to me; I don't agree at all that it "implies" the conclusion you claim it does. You're drawing outside information (I assume you're referring to statistics indicating that most crimes perpetrated by African Americans are against African Americans, so-called "black on black crime") but you could just have easily used outside information to note that non-Asian minorities are more likely to be poor in this country, more likely to live in major cities and be raised in a crime culture, less likely to have access to top-notch education, all of which probably contribute to the picture of race-based crime disparities. A lot of theories can be drawn from the data, though it's very hard to know the true causal relationship because there are so many concurrent correlations present in the data.

I personally suspect that crime rates are high among populations that become disenfranchised. When a group senses that the deck is stacked against them within the system, the less they're going to feel compelled to work within the rules of the system. I believe you'll find the same phenomenon, but with different minority groups, in other countries, e.g. Turkish populations in Germany, middle eastern populations in France, etc.

 

[zoebartlett]

I've just finished reading this thread. I've held my tongue and it hurts very badly. Some of the arguments are knee jerk reactions and immature in terms of critical thinking. I'm sorry to say that most of these come from the liberal side of the street. My husband is a republican and I am an independent. We both voted for Pres. Obama and are extremely disappointmented with his performance. My husband has none of the attributes, which have been given to republicans in this thread. Where does this information come from? Not by speaking with intelligent people, who can understand and reason their way through the rhetoric.

One more comment. I keep reading how capital punishment is not a deterrent to [heinous] crimes. We have talked about the issues concerning recidivism. It is very important to look at the rates of reoffending after release from incarceration. If someone has committed a [heinous]crime and has been convicted, without any doubt, you can prevent him/her from reoffending. If that isn't a deterrent, I don't know what is. That individual will never commit another crime. There are crimes against humanity, which cause us to lose our own humanity by looking the other way.

That's great that all the Republicans here don't think like the Republicans on the national stage, but since those are the ones representing the Republican party, that's the message that gets across. Many Republicans buy it hook, line and sinker, including the ones I'm related to (parents and siblings) and have spoken to many times about politics. And my parents and siblings are all intelligent people. The bottom line is that most people are not well-informed, and what they believe is truly frightening.

As for the last comment, states with capital punishment have higher murder rates than states without capital punishment. Texas for example has a very high murder rate and they use capital punishment more often than any other state. So it would appear that the threat of capital punishment is not a deterrent to committing murder. Locking someone up for life serves the same purpose if you want to prevent future crimes.

I agree that many people from both major parties are woefully uninformed about their spokespeople. I would like to see the public receive some real education about the issues today. I go out of my way to educate myself. So does my DH. When I listen to the talking heads, I question everything they say, regardless of their political affiliation. I haven't given credence to a political speech or ad in years. It is very disappointing when you don't or can't trust those running for public office. I agree that it is truly frightening how many people are uninformed; however, there are many people who make it their business to become informed.

I don't think I made myself clear about capital punishment. Having worked with a wide range of clients, as a counselor, I have met people who are true sociopaths. They lack any remorse for their actions or their victims. They have the added attribute of being quite charming, at times. There is little doubt in my mind that if and when they are released from prison that they will reoffend. In terms of those who commit heinous crimes, we do have evidence that they will do so again, whether in or out of prison. What I meant by deterrence was to use capital punishment for the perpetrators of heinous, violent offences. That means they will never commit another crime. They won't rape, torture or kill anyone else ever. I have worked with people who have told me what they think I want to hear, in order to stay out of prison. I have had to tell them that what happens to them is determined by their behavior. I have had clients scream at me when they no-showed for an appointment, which shows noncompliance with the terms of their parole or probation. I've been accused of sending them back to prison. My response is that they have sent themself back to prison by their own actions.

I believe that capital punishment must be taken very seriously and used only in the most extreme cases. There must be no doubt about the person's guilt. I just look a deterrence differently then some. If a person has done something so heinous, so obscene to another, they forfeit their life by their actions. This protects anyone else from being a victim of this perpetrator. I have worked with too many victims not to advocate on their behalf.

I haven't given my thoughts on this particular case because I'm not familiar with Troy Davis' situation and I hadn't heard of him until this thread. After reading Risingsun's thoughts on capital punishment in general though, I wanted to say that I completely agree.

 

[iheartscience]

Yes, that's the site I was looking at as well. Your argument implies that African-Americans are just killing each other and that's why the murder rates are high, which is very dangerous, IMO. It completely ignores income disparities, which is a major factor for higher crime rates, particularly murder rates. The states with the highest murder rates are also the poorest, and the states with the lowest murder rates are the wealthiest. And of course, minorities have much lower income levels than whites. New England for example has the highest income levels and the lowest crime rates. While the statistics you cited don't lie, they point to a completely different topic on how institutional racism leads to poverty, which leads to higher crime. I'd be happy to have that discussion as well.

If you look deeper into the statistics on race and the death penalty, African-Americans are still proportionally much more likely to be sentenced to death. A study was done by David Baldus and George Woodworth in Philadelphia to tease out the many different factors leading to a capital punishment sentence, and it found that the odds of being sentenced to death increase by 38% if you're black, after controlling for the severity of the crime and the criminal background of the defendant. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides#Study 1

Additionally, the study broke down the different factors (called "aggravating factors") leading to the capital punishment sentence in all the cases. The authors assigned a predictive score to each aggravating factor, and murder with torture had an aggravating factor of 1.9, while being African-American had an aggravating factor of 1. 4. So just being black was the third strongest aggravating factor.

The race of the victim matters, too, even more so than the race of the defendant. If the victim is white, the death penalty is much more likely to be pursued. And if the defendant is black and the victim is white, they are the most likely of all to get the death penalty. There's a very nice graph that illustrates this on the page I linked to above.

I don't think capital punishment is ever appropriate, whether it is doled out fairly or not. Why do you think capital punishment is more appropriate than life in prison?

Well your conclusion from Sillyberry's data seems unfair to me; I don't agree at all that it "implies" the conclusion you claim it does. You're drawing outside information (I assume you're referring to statistics indicating that most crimes perpetrated by African Americans are against African Americans, so-called "black on black crime") but you could just have easily used outside information to note that non-Asian minorities are more likely to be poor in this country, more likely to live in major cities and be raised in a crime culture, less likely to have access to top-notch education, all of which probably contribute to the picture of race-based crime disparities. A lot of theories can be drawn from the data, though it's very hard to know the true causal relationship because there are so many concurrent correlations present in the data.

I personally suspect that crime rates are high among populations that become disenfranchised. When a group senses that the deck is stacked against them within the system, the less they're going to feel compelled to work within the rules of the system. I believe you'll find the same phenomenon, but with different minority groups, in other countries, e.g. Turkish populations in Germany, middle eastern populations in France, etc.

If you compare the states with higher murder rates with the demographic information, those states all have large populations of African-Americans. For example, in 2010 Louisiana had 11.2 murders per 100,000 people, and had a 32% African-American population. So whether her argument implied that African-Americans were killing each other or people of other races, it implied that murder rates are due to African-Americans. Note that I said implied-I didn't say sillyberry was a racist. Statistics don't lie, but there are many ways of interpreting them, as I'm sure you're aware.

And I agree-I would imagine you would find the same phenomenon in other disenfranchised groups elsewhere.

 

[sillyberry]

Before I begin, let me say how much I miss my free unlimited access to Lexis and Westlaw. Google is not nearly as wonderful for finding full-text scholarly articles. Also, does anyone else get error messages when they try to go to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics? It's been driving me crazy. Anyway.

We're conflating several issues here. Let me see if I can tease them out.

First, I thought you were making an argument that whether or not a state has the death penalty is somehow related to their murder rates. Thus, I was pushing back against that. My apologies if you weren't and I misunderstood.

There is definitely correlation between poverty, race, and crime; I in no way intended to diminish that. MissStepcut, thanks for the vote of confidence in my intentions. I both thought it was implicit and that I recognized that when I noted that the solutions were difficult, but I probably still should have noted that explicitly. I considered using the phrase "racially homogeneous and generally wealthier", but when I went through the median income rates, there was not quite the same uniformity and the distribution curve is somewhat tighter. And in thinking more, I'm not sure statewide information is all that useful, anyway, for either murder rates or income. Citywide is probably a better determinate for a lot of states.

And let me preemptively say -- most people, of all races, are not murderers, do not support murderers, do not want their loved ones murdered. The percentage of fatalities from homicide in even the most dangerous city is .05%. Overall, the national fatality rate is .005%. If you want to talk about the real killers, lets talk about heart disease.

But at the same time -- there is a higher murder rate in cities and states with large black populations. The percentage of murders committed by blacks far outstrip their proportion in society. You can argue about the why, which is an important discussion with a whole hell of a lot of blame to go around, but the discussion has to begin with the underlying facts. I think it's important to acknowledge because we cannot work to develop solutions without being honest, even when it is uncomfortable. And I know I'm uncomfortable with the statistics. Considering who suffers the most -- that blacks are victims of nearly 50% of the homicides -- facing them head-on seems to be both responsible and necessary.

I'm also not under the illusion that only income and race determine murder offenders or victims. I know that personally.

It seems to me there are several strains of argument used against capital punishment: innocence questions, unfair implementation arguments, philosophical/moral disagreements.

On the implementation question, two comprehensive studies (from GAO and Baldus and Woodworth) come up with the following conclusions (quoted from a Phillip Scott ACS issue brief):
• The race of the defendant does not have a consistent influence on capital punishment: some studies suggest that the death penalty is more likely to be imposed against black defendants, but most do not.
• The race of the victim has a consistent influence on capital punishment: almost all studies suggest that the death penalty is more likely to be imposed on behalf of white victims.
• Blacks who kill whites are more likely to be sentenced to death than any other racial combination.

So it seems victim race is the defining characteristic. In another article, Scott further examines "social status" as a factor for whether the death penalty is sought and imposed. Here is an article examining his study based on death penalty cases in Harris County (I can't find the full text of the study online). The finding that "convicted capital murderers were six times more likely to get a death sentence when they killed married whites or Hispanics with college degrees and no criminal record — as opposed to unmarried black or Asian victims with records and no college degrees" is not particularly surprising to me. Those are several variables piled into one (marital status, college status, race), and I can't find the full data set online so it's difficult to go beyond this article, but it does indicate something other than race as the sole defining explanation for deciding which victims' murders to charge with the death penalty. Race might very well be conflated with status. For better or worse, the system looks at status and culpability of the victim in deciding when to charge an offender with the death penalty.

A study of crime in New Orleans in 2010 -- the city with a murder rate 10 times the national average -- reached the following conclusions (quoted from The Times-Picayune: "The report found murders are highly concentrated in pockets of the city, that victims and perpetrators are largely young, black males with criminal records, and disproportionately unemployed. Most killings come by the gun. Most occur between 8 p.m. and midnight. And most are linked to drugs. About 73 percent of the city's murder victims have some type of criminal history. Meanwhile, three out of four homicide victims know their killer." That seems to pretty much sum up both the tragic crime problem in cities and the cases that don't get the death penalty.

To some degree, this seems to be an inevitable outcome of the Court's decision in Woodson v. North Carolina where the Court struck down mandatory capital punishment for all first degree murders. Instead, the Court mandated particularized consideration of the circumstances and character of the defendant. When it isn't just all first-degree murders as defined by statute, then prosecutors have to look at the other factors mentioned above -- including victim information. Charging decisions still have an element of discretion, but are generally more clear-cut. In a world where the death penalty exists, which regime do you think is fairer?

There was a Letter to the Editor in the NY Times this past summer from a sociologist at CUNY, responding to an article about disparity. I found it interesting.

David R. Dow correctly points out that, as a host of studies demonstrate, judges and juries exhibit a prejudice that sees white lives as more valuable than black lives. Mr. Dow is also correct that this results in a prejudice against black murderers of white victims. However, this prejudice, perhaps surprisingly, implies that, nationally, there is death penalty discrimination not against blacks, but against whites. This is why: The overwhelming percentage of victims of black murderers are black, and the overwhelming percentage of victims of white murderers are white. As a result of the prejudice that views white victims’ lives as more valuable, white murderers are more often (on a percentage basis) given the death penalty, because they more often murder whites. National statistics bear this out.

STEVEN GOLDBERG
New York, July 9, 2011

I'm not arguing that we have a perfect system or that reforms wouldn't be good. Phillips has an interesting one in the article I linked to earlier. But I do think there is more nuance in sentencing decisions than opponents admit. That whole "statistics don't lie but don't tell the whole story" thing. Ultimately, one could just as easily advocate for more executions for offenders who murder black victims to end the disparity. Blacks would see increases in the death penalty at a higher rate than whites, given statistics, but perhaps that's still more equitable.

As to your last question - I think I answered that when I said that it was punishment fitting certain crimes. Sometimes I think people have lost the right to breathe. Because I hate the idea that criminals get to sit in prison and think about what they did. Because there are criminals who are not remorseful, who are sociopaths, who enjoyed their crimes. I'm looking at you David Westerfield, John Allen Muhammed, Lawrence Russel Brewer, Emeritus Davidson, Dennis Rader, Reginald and Jonathan Carr. I'm just not sure they deserve to live our their lives, in jail or not. But I understand that people disagree with that philosophy.

I've also thought about this a lot, and obviously I can't actually know how I would feel, but I think I would prefer execution to living the majority of my life in prison. I'm always intrigued by individuals who bypass the appeals stage and just get it over with.

If capital punishment was always doled out fairly, why would it not be appropriate?

 

[iheartscience]

I'm glad you expanded on my previous post regarding the race of the victim being the most important determining factor-I didn't have time to post more links. I actually came across a good quote about that issue in David Baldus' obit:

"...Professor Baldus considered what had led the Supreme Court to allow executions to proceed in the face of his study. "Perhaps most important, in my estimation," he said, "is that race-of-victim discrimination does not raise the same sort of moral concerns as race-of-defendant discrimination — even though, from a constitutional standpoint, discrimination on the basis of any racial aspect of the case is illegitimate." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/us/15baldus.html

As for the three issues you mentioned (innocence questions, unfair implementation arguments, philosophical/moral disagreements), all 3 are the reasons why I don't think there should be a death penalty in the United States. So implementing the death penalty in all capital murder cases or to more white murderers won't make me happy.

Even if the death penalty could be implemented fairly, I think it's morally wrong. And considering that the U.S. is the only Western democracy that hasn't abolished the death penalty, it appears I'm not alone! I'd be surprised if the death penalty weren't abolished in the next few decades. It always takes the U.S. a while to catch up with the rest of the world. (See: gays in the military, universal healthcare, etc.)

 

[HollyS]

"Why do you think capital punishment is more appropriate than life in prison?"


Because life in prison is still life. And that's more life than their victims.

 

[MissStepcut]

"Why do you think capital punishment is more appropriate than life in prison?"


Because life in prison is still life. And that's more life than their victims.

I understand where you're coming from, and on some level I agree, but I don't have enough faith in our government, our justice system, our juries, our police officers and our judges to rest the decision of which accused and convicted people should be executed in their hands.

 

[beebrisk]

I'm late to this thread but I find it laughable that so many people are so utterly, unquestioningly convinced that Mr. Davis was innocent of this horrible crime. None of us was in the court room, none of us could possibly know the intricacies of the case and none of us have poured over hundreds (if not thousands) of pages of testimony-- including the parts recanted. As far as I can tell, no one here is even close to being an expert in Georgia law.

I confess I know little of this case except for what I've read in the press and in the blogosphere. God help us if we think that would be enough to know, with certainty, what this man did or didn't do and what his fate should or shouldn't have been. The press tells us what they want us to know and the bloggers and activists of course, have their own agenda, too.

Many have strong opinions about capital punishment and I understand that passion..on both sides of the issue. I just wish the same passion and fervor was exhibited on behalf of the murdered officer. Someone killed him, someone left his family bereft and broken. The state of Georgia, the jury and the judges all felt that man was Troy Davis. I don't believe for a moment that every single person involved with this case, from beginning to end over the last 20 years was simply out for this man's blood and conspired to kill him for the sake of expediency.

Our system isn't perfect. Innocent men have surely been punished and put to death. But as mere observers we cannot and should not act as judge and jury. We weren't at the crime scene, we weren't at the trial. We really, really do not know what happened and anyone here who says they do is simply dishonest. I am certain there are people who believe in his guilt as passionately and as surely as others believe in his innocence.

I haven't read every word in this thread, but I don't think I saw even one mention of the officer's name. He was Mark MacPhail. He was 27 years old with a wife and two very young children.

And by the way, cops (and others) killed in cold blood make me want to stand on a chair and howl.

 

[mrscushion]

"Why do you think capital punishment is more appropriate than life in prison?"


Because life in prison is still life. And that's more life than their victims.

That's one reason I think the death penalty is wrong. It's revenge. And, it's sending the message that sometimes it's okay to take people's lives. I disagree. To me, it's not okay to take another person's life, no matter how depraved they may be.

 

[AGBF]

And by the way, cops (and others) killed in cold blood make me want to stand on a chair and howl.

Your anger at the crime is, of course, justified. Labelling it a "killing in cold blood" is inaccurate, however. It occurred in the heat of activity. Officer MacPhail was shot in the line of duty, while engaged in doing his job; he was not being held hostage somewhere. One of the differences between between states sponsored execututions and murders in the commission of crimes is the that the former are always performed in cold blood.

I was glad to see yesterday's editorial in the, "The New York Times". Their research, which draws upon a base as extensive as that as any Pricescope member (note the Senate Judiciary Committee report they cite), shows that the system administering capital punishment is broken to the point of being unable to be fixed. It shows it as unfair and unreliable in delivering just results based on how prosecutors are elected and where, how defense attorneys are chosen and where.

Here is an excerpt:

"As the unconscionable execution of Troy Davis in Georgia last week underscores, the court has failed because it is impossible to succeed at this task. The death penalty is grotesque and immoral and should be repealed.

The court’s 1976 framework for administering the death penalty, balancing aggravating factors like the cruelty of the crime against mitigating ones like the defendant’s lack of a prior criminal record, came from the American Law Institute, the nonpartisan group of judges, lawyers and law professors. In 2009, after a review of decades of executions, the group concluded that the system could not be fixed and abandoned trying.

Sentencing people to death without taking account of aggravating and mitigating circumstances leads to arbitrary results. Yet, the review found, so does considering such circumstances because it requires jurors to weigh competing factors and makes sentencing vulnerable to their biases.

Those biases are driven by race, class and politics, which influence all aspects of American life. As a result, they have made discrimination and arbitrariness the hallmarks of the death penalty in this country.

For example, two-thirds of all those sentenced to death since 1976 have been in five Southern states where 'vigilante values' persist, according to the legal scholar Franklin Zimring. Racism continues to infect the system, as study after study has found in the past three decades.

The problems go on: Many defendants in capital cases are too poor to afford legal counsel. Many of the lawyers assigned to represent them are poorly equipped for the job. A major study done for the Senate Judiciary Committee found that 'egregiously incompetent defense lawyering' accounted for about two-fifths of the errors in capital cases. Apart from the issue of counsel, these cases are more expensive at every stage of the criminal process than noncapital cases.

Politics also permeates the death penalty, adding to chances of arbitrary administration. Most prosecutors in jurisdictions with the penalty are elected and control the decision to seek the punishment. Within the same state, differing politics from county to county have led to huge disparities in use of the penalty, when the crime rates and demographics were similar. This has been true in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and many other states.

So far, under this horrifying system, 17 innocent people sentenced to death have been exonerated and released based on DNA evidence, and 112 other people based on other evidence. All but a few developed nations have abolished the death penalty. It is time Americans acknowledged that the death penalty cannot be made to comply with the Constitution and is in every way indefensible."

AGBF

 

[beebrisk]

I was glad to see yesterday's editorial in the, "The New York Times". Their research, which draws upon a base as extensive as that as any Pricescope member (note the Senate Judiciary Committee report they cite), shows that the system administering capital punishment is broken to the point of being unable to be fixed. It shows it as unfair and unreliable in delivering just results based on how prosecutors are elected and where, how defense attorneys are chosen and where.

Here is an excerpt:

"As the unconscionable execution of Troy Davis in Georgia last week underscores, the court has failed because it is impossible to succeed at this task. The death penalty is grotesque and immoral and should be repealed.

I did not discuss or argue the morality of capital punishment. I was referring to the passion involved in this debate and how it might, perhaps be misguided by information that is in all probability, not complete or completely correct.

However, if I was to argue the point (or the "morality" of any other issue) it would not be the opinion of a journalist, pundit, talking head, NYT or any other outlet that I would site as the arbiter of morality. This is, and always will be a much more complicated issue than most of us ever want to grapple with.

Who is to determine what is moral? By what standard? Your's? Mine? The NYT?

Just as a point to think about, the Nazi's believed they were doing the moral thing. The guys that crashed into the WTC believed with all their heart and soul that they were doing the right and moral thing. You see, It's all about the standard one uses to determine the morality of anything. If all standards are viable and true and correct, it must also hold true that nothing in the world is either moral or immoral. Something to think about.

Determining morality depends entirely on the standard one uses to judge what is true and right.-- and that's an issue of the ages. One far to great for an internet board and not one I would trust a news outlet to determine for me.

 

[AGBF]

I was glad to see yesterday's editorial in the, "The New York Times". Their research, which draws upon a base as extensive as that as any Pricescope member (note the Senate Judiciary Committee report they cite), shows that the system administering capital punishment is broken to the point of being unable to be fixed. It shows it as unfair and unreliable in delivering just results based on how prosecutors are elected and where, how defense attorneys are chosen and where.

Here is an excerpt:

"As the unconscionable execution of Troy Davis in Georgia last week underscores, the court has failed because it is impossible to succeed at this task. The death penalty is grotesque and immoral and should be repealed.

I did not discuss or argue the morality of capital punishment. I was referring to the passion involved in this debate and how it might, perhaps be misguided by information that is in all probability, not complete or completely correct.

However, if I was to argue the point (or the "morality" of any other issue) it would not be the opinion of a journalist, pundit, talking head, NYT or any other outlet that I would site as the arbiter of morality. This is, and always will be a much more complicated issue than most of us ever want to grapple with.

Who is to determine what is moral? By what standard? Your's? Mine? The NYT?

Just as a point to think about, the Nazi's believed they were doing the moral thing. The guys that crashed into the WTC believed with all their heart and soul that they were doing the right and moral thing. You see, It's all about the standard one uses to determine the morality of anything. If all standards are viable and true and correct, it must also hold true that nothing in the world is either moral or immoral. Something to think about.

Determining morality depends entirely on the standard one uses to judge what is true and right.-- and that's an issue of the ages. One far to great for an internet board and not one I would trust a news outlet to determine for me.

Actually, I agree with you about about using, "The New York Times" to prove "morality" per se. You are absolutely correct, logically! That wasn't the part of the editorial I wanted to quote and I could have omitted that sentence about morality (and probably should have) when when I quoted it. Like you, I think "morality" is personal. My oppositon to the death penalty is based on my personal, religious beliefs and I would have it regardless if only guilty people were put to death. However, I cited, "The New York Times" article because I felt it presented strong evidence that studies had showed, over the span of many years, that the death penalty was unfair and could not be made fair. I felt that the segment of the population that believed it should be applied as long as as it could be applied, "fairly", should be aware of those studies.

PS-I do not agree that that the Nazis thought that what they were doing was "moral". Maybe a few of them had a concept of morality, but most of the people caught up in the movement were not caught up in it because they were fighting a moral crusade! It was not a movement like the anti-abortion/right to life movement! It was one born of desperation at the deprivations of the Versailles Treaty and the easy scapegoating of small, helpless groups by a facile demagogue who preyed on them. Morality had, in my opinion, little to do with it.

AGBF

 

[beebrisk]

PS-I do not agree that that the Nazis thought that what they were doing was "moral". Maybe a few of them had a concept of morality, but most of the people caught up in the movement were not caught up in it because they were fighting a moral crusade! It was not a movement like the anti-abortion/right to life movement! It was one born of desperation at the deprivations of the Versailles Treaty and the easy scapegoating of small, helpless groups by a facile demagogue who preyed on them. Morality had, in my opinion, little to do with it.

Hitler wasn't simply a facile demagogue. He was a staunch ideologue. No one carefully and systematically exterminates 6 million+ people without considering the moral implications.

In fact, his own words are very clear on the subject. He absolutely believed he had a moral imperative to do what he did. He wrote about that--at length. He justified his struggle to create a "master race" as an issue of morality. Read his work, his thoughts on God, Nietzsche and Darwinism and you will understand what actually drove him to such lengths. His was, in fact, a "moral crusade", not merely based on political expediency. Not by a long shot.

 

[HollyS]

There is only one true moral compass. And mankind will never agree as to what/who that is.

Most people, even if they believe in a higher power, disagree vehemently with WHO that higher power is, and how to interpret what that higher power wants them to do.

Therefore, mankind as a whole will always disagree on moral issues.

Besides . . . I'm right. You're wrong. No, really.

 

[AGBF]

PS-I do not agree that that the Nazis thought that what they were doing was "moral". Maybe a few of them had a concept of morality, but most of the people caught up in the movement were not caught up in it because they were fighting a moral crusade! It was not a movement like the anti-abortion/right to life movement! It was one born of desperation at the deprivations of the Versailles Treaty and the easy scapegoating of small, helpless groups by a facile demagogue who preyed on them. Morality had, in my opinion, little to do with it.

Hitler wasn't simply a facile demagogue. He was a staunch ideologue. No one carefully and systematically exterminates 6 million+ people without considering the moral implications.

In fact, his own words are very clear on the subject. He absolutely believed he had a moral imperative to do what he did. He wrote about that--at length. He justified his struggle to create a "master race" as an issue of morality. Read his work, his thoughts on God, Nietzsche and Darwinism and you will understand what actually drove him to such lengths. His was, in fact, a "moral crusade", not merely based on political expediency. Not by a long shot.

You said, "The Nazis", not , "Hitler", so I addressed the larger issue of what drove the Nazi movement in Germany. That is why I specifically said that maybe a few of them had a concept of "morality" (by which I meant a concept of something ideological they wanted to achieve). I'm not sure what problem you have with the word, "facile"; I meant only that he easily pulled people in. His beliefs, were, indeed, staunch.

AGBF

 

[beebrisk]

Don't have a problem with the word "facile". I was simply adding to your statement. Perhaps I should have said "Hitler wasn't just a demagogue..."

As for Hitler and the Nazi's I don't think there's much of a distinction to be made here since he was revered as the de facto leader of the Nazi party. He was after all, the "fuhrer" and their ultimate figure of moral, spiritual and political authority and superiority.

Now, back to the original topic of which I've already commented as sufficiently, succinctly and completely as I know how.

 

[iheartscience]

Hey, whoever mentioned Godwin's law finally got their wish!

 

[iheartscience]

I read an interesting excerpt today from a book called "The Collapse of American Criminal Justice," and it's relevant to the discussion here. I'm going to try to get the book from my library, but if I can't get it there I'll probably break down and buy it.

http://www.salon.com/books/history/...11/09/24/collapse_of_american_justice_excerpt

The first couple of paragraphs:

"Among the great untold stories of our time is this one: the last half of the twentieth century saw America's criminal justice system unravel. Signs of the unraveling are everywhere. The nation's record- shattering prison population has grown out of control. Still more so the African American portion of that prison population: for black males, a term in the nearest penitentiary has become an ordinary life experience, a horrifying truth that wasn't true a mere generation ago. Ordinary life experiences are poor deterrents, one reason why massive levels of criminal punishment coexist with historically high levels of urban violence.

Outside the South, most cities' murder rates are a multiple of the rates in those same cities sixty years ago -- notwithstanding a large drop in violent crime in the 1990s. Within cities, crime is low in safe neighborhoods but remains a huge problem in dangerous ones, and those dangerous neighborhoods are disproportionately poor and black. Last but not least, we have built a justice system that strikes many of its targets as wildly unjust. The feeling has some evidentiary support: criminal litigation regularly makes awful mistakes, as the frequent DNA-based exonerations of convicted defendants illustrate. Evidently, the criminal justice system is doing none of its jobs well: producing justice, avoiding discrimination, protecting those who most need the law's protection, keeping crime in check while maintaining reasonable limits on criminal punishment."

 

[ksinger]

Hey, whoever mentioned Godwin's law finally got their wish!

Yeah, I thought about saying something, but was too wary of the great cosmic Wrath of Godwin.