can you elaborate on this statement "And each and every one of us has blood on our hands."?

it's a bit broad don't you think? that's like saying i'm responsible for what you do. that's like saying you're still responsible for bush's election despite you having voted for nader or whoever, ain't it?

I voted for Cobb, not Nader! :)

It is a bit broad, but at the same time I believe that we are responsible for the actions of our government. We pay for it, we allow it, and many support it.

Yes, some of us make our voices heard in protest in some form - whether that is picketing an execution, or having a vigil, or signing a petition. But can I do more? I sure can.

What does this mean exactly? I am not sure.

I just believe that we are all guilty of allowing this to continue.

If they committed thr crime, I don't care what they look like and the blood is only on their hands.

Fun fact:

There are more whites on death row than blacks and more whites have been executed than blacks.

it's still fairly disproportionate though. it doesn't work. it actually increases violent crime. and it can never be given equitably.

why on earth would you support something that actually encourages more violent crime?

and just for interests sake:
Australia blasts drug execution - CNN - 01DEC05

corrolation doesn't imply causation. The only thing that causes crime is the free will of the individual who chooses it.

There are more whites on death row than blacks and more whites have been executed than blacks.

What is your point? There are significantly more whites in America? Your "fun fact" adds nothing to the discussion. There should be more whites than blacks on death row.

corrolation doesn't imply causation. The only thing that causes crime is the free will of the individual who chooses it.

That is an incredibly naive and ignorant comment. There are many things that lead to crime that could be stopped. Sure, people still make their own decisions, but that does not mean that you cannot reduce crime by eliminating certain factors.

duuuuuuuuuude. it doesn't work. this kind of sentence can't be given equitably.

the numbers of whites and people of color is very disproportionate. even more, people of color tend to make less thus poor representation in court.

it. does. not. work.

the death penalty causes more of which we're trying to fight.

why use something that causes more of the same?

The only thing that causes crime is the free will of the person who chooses to commit it. There is no way around that sentence. The death penalty doesn't cause crime. Criminals cause crime.

personal responsibility.

What is your point? There are significantly more whites in America? Your "fun fact" adds nothing to the discussion. There should be more whites than blacks on death row.

The graph is not in raw numbers but in percentage of the population. so it does add to the discussion in that itdisproves the theory that blacks are executed more often than whites when that is demosntrably not true.

The graph is not in raw numbers but in percentage of the population.

Your chart shows absolutely nothing. What do you mean it shows percentage of the population? That does not make sense. Do you have something that actually talks about the graph?

And anyway...no one said that blacks are executed more often than whites. So I am not sure where you got that "theory". Again, it would help if you addressed what was being discussed instead of some random theory that was not even mentioned in this thread.

I took a look at the graph again. It appears that it is saying that 63% of those on death row are white, 35% are black, and 2% are "other". Are you saying it says something different?

And by the way, are you sure that is not just in Florida? Because I am 99.9% sure that those numbers are just for Florida, being that it is from a Florida government site.

I took a look at the numbers, and yes, I am correct. It is from Florida, and the percentage is what I said. 63% of those on death row are white, 35% are black.

Now lets compare those numbers to the population of Florida. According to the US Census Bureau, Florida is 78% white, 14.6% black, and the rest would fall under "other". See the disparity?

Okay...some national numbers:



This chart shows those that have been executed since 1976. You will see that blacks make up 34% of those executed (similar to the Florida numbers), yet they only make up 12% of the population.

Do you understand what we are talking about now?

If not, I can go on.

"The death penalty doesn't cause crime."

Yes it does. What they've found in the south where the death penalty is lawful is an increase in violent crime. Compared to the Northeast where the deathpenalty doesn't exist their crime rates have actually dropped.

Likewise with our neighborly Canada. Since they've abolished the death penalty their homicide rates have actually gone down considerably.

In addition, like we've said... the death penalty does not deter crime. It does not reduce it. It does not scare people. It does nothing.

In fact, it's doing the opposite which is increasing violent crime.

For all practical reasons and purposes, why use something that doesn't deter crime? Why keep using something that has the exact opposite of the effect you wish to put upon?

I mean dude, come on man... crikey. I was almost right there with you in 100% agreeance but now I've looked at facts. It's not even close to being liberal or what have you, it's about the system being broke.

You've said yourself there needs to be a moratorium so what in the bloody hell gives with you still defending the practice? Have you backtracked? Do you not think there needs to be a moratorium anymore?

And the very things that have been mentioned in cause for a hault is because people of color are disproportionately on death row... and now you're fighting that as well?

Not much seems to be making sense these days. I see a lot of rhetoric but no cold hard facts. Show me, convert me... until them you can expect me to very critical of what you've got to say. Like I say, I'm very open minded on this issue and for proof of that I used to be where you're at.

Show me facts Roland, not banter.

I'm saying there needs to be a moratorium until the system improves where anyone who needs access to DNA evidence gets it, etc. But in theory, I still support it to punish the worst monsters in society who commit the most heinous crimes. I don't care what they look like or what effect it has on other people (deterrance). I want THAT guilty person to face the punishment they deserve for the crime they committed. If they killed while knowing death is a potential consequence, then they chose that consequence. their fault, no one else's.

Are you going to respond to any of my comments?

um ok so yeah there is a larger percentage of blacks that commit crimes. Good point! A larger percentage of inmates on death row are white.

I really don't care what they look like. I only care about their innocence or guilt. If you're guilty and you complain "yeah but that white guy got away with it!", yes that's interesting but YOU'RE still guilty!

Roland...that is just foolish. You may not care what someone looks like, but others do, an this is well documented, and has been well documented even on this site. Do you really want me to bring up all of it to show you again?

um ok so yeah there is a larger percentage of blacks that commit crimes. Good point! A larger percentage of inmates on death row are white.

Roland...blacks killing whites are signficantly more likely to receive the death penalty than whites killing whites, even when controlling for other mitigating factors.

Here is a little scale that may speak to the race issues that you want to deny:

Most likely to receive death to least likely to receive death:
Blacks killing whites
Blacks killing blacks
Whites killing whites
Whites killing blacks

I may have the middle two wrong, but the scale still speaks for itself.

Race very much matters, and it is completely ignorant to claim otherwise.

But did they ACTUALLY kill? If so, then pointing out what others did is a strawman.

What are you talking about?

I am talking about the same crimes, with people being found guilty.

Blacks are more likely to receive a death sentence than whites when found guilty for the same crime,even when controlling for similar circumstances.

Those that kill whites are more likely to receive a death sentence than those that kill blacks when controlling for similar circumstances.

Blacks are more likely to receive a death sentence than whites when found guilty

If they're guilty, they're guilty. Other people's guilt has nothing to do with one's own guilt.

Roland...deny it all you want, but the death penalty is not applied consistently. Race is a HUGE determining factor in who receives a death sentence.

Roland...you do know that the DA decides whether to pursue capital punishment in most states, right? And you do know that there is not a clear line between a "regular" murder and a capital offense, right? Therefore a DA has complete freedom to decide when to pursue a death sentence, and in turn DA's are more likely to pursue death with black defendants. From there black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death than their white counterparts (when the DA is seeking death for both).

Race issues and capital punishment cannot be separated. To deny that race is not a factor is simply ignorant, or even worse denial. And being that I continue to give you the facts, I guess it would be denial. And I would say that denial (denying the facts) is worse than ignorance (not knowing the facts).

yeah but if the guy is guilty, what does it matter what someone else got? yeah it's unjust in the big picture that it's inconsistent, but if an individual is guilty, he's not LESS guilty because someone else didn't also get the death penalty.

gringo -- I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the death penalty causes violent crime...

What I think we are seeing is that poor, uneducated people are more likely to commit violent crimes, and poor, uneducated people are more likely to vote for the death penalty. Therefore southern states with more poor and uneducated have a higher likelihood of both - crime and captial punishment.

Roland.... once again, you hit the nail on the head:

I want THAT guilty person to face the punishment they deserve for the crime they committed.

[...]

I really don't care what they look like. I only care about their innocence or guilt.

It's about you. It's about your feelings.. your wants.. you want to see "somebody get what's coming to them"... Instead, you should try wanting to see justice served. Looked at from that perspective, you won't care whether some cosmic checkbook is properly "balanced"... whether someone gets hurt as badly as they hurt.

Here's a thought experiment for you. You and a friend have a big fight... doesn't matter over what - you're fighting. He gets mad and does something mean and cruel - let's say he slashes the tires in your car. The question is this - should the law be written so that someone gets to pay him back by slashing the tires in his car? And that's it? Or, should the law require something else instead?

If you answered that somone gets to slash his tires... well, then your thinking is consistent betwen this and your view on the death penalty. If, instead, you saw that as just mean and petty, and thought that he should be made to replace the tires on your car... well, then try to use that kind of thinking when dealing with the death penalty, and see where it leads you.

yeah but if the guy is guilty, what does it matter what someone else got? yeah it's unjust in the big picture that it's inconsistent, but if an individual is guilty, he's not LESS guilty because someone else didn't also get the death penalty.

But you don't seem to understand Roland. A death sentence is not required in most states. It is not the punishment for murder. As I said above, there is a lot of freedom in the choice of the penalty, and it is typically very arbitrary. And you definitely do not want to be black in that situation!

It has nothing to do with being "less" guilty. But it has a lot to do with the color of your skin.

smijer... i think we're saying the same thing. i'm also saying that in a culture of death the death penalty is so ingrained in us. we're born with it, we live with it and most of us die with it as "law." it's so permeated in our culture that yes, i do think it causes more of the same (that of which we're trying to "fight").

violence reaps violence.

the death penalty is violent, it's certainly not "natural" but adminstered by another person via a "system" (law).

why did the homicide rate go down in canada after the death penalty was abolished?

why does the south have the highest homicide rate and the death penalty is most prevalent i the region?

i see an association of the two. violence begets more violence.

you can click here to see what i've been reading.

Gringo...I have read through those studies, and I am not convinced that they have proven causality.

Don't get me wrong, I think that you are right in terms of our "culture of death", but I am not convinced that the death penalty creates more violence.

Sure, there may be an association, and it is clear that has been a correlation in some cases. But that does not mean that the death penalty has led to more homicides.

why did the homicide rate go down in canada after the death penalty was abolished?

Not sure. But there easily could have been other factors other than the death penalty.

why does the south have the highest homicide rate and the death penalty is most prevalent i the region?

This means little. There could easily be more homicides simply because the south tends to glorify violence more. Or has greater alcohol use. There is simply no evidence that says the homicide rates increase because of the use of capital punishment.

ok, if the death penalty doesn't deter violent crime... then what exactly does it do?

i fear it does the opposite.

i see a correlation between the two. the more i think about it, i really feel that the death penalty is counter productive. "we kill to show that killing is wrong."

violence begets more violence, especially in something like this that seems to be in more of a controlled environment.

what i've read there is just overflowing with proof that where the death penalty is abolished there less crime. that to me speaks volumes.

we're talking across the board in states that are pro vs. death penalty, canada, europe.

ok, if the death penalty doesn't deter violent crime... then what exactly does it do?

i fear it does the opposite.

If something does not do "A", that does not mean that it does the opposite of "A". I understand your fears, but the evidence simply is not there.

i see a correlation between the two.

Sorry Gringo, but again I don't the evidence in support of this.

i really feel that the death penalty is counter productive. "we kill to show that killing is wrong."

I completely agree with you here. It is very counter productive.

we're talking across the board in states that are pro vs. death penalty, canada, europe.

Like I said above, I have read the same things that you have seen. And there is a correlation, but that does not necessarily equate with causation. Maybe it is more like this:

In those states and nations that use capital punishment, there is a higher propensity for violence. The socialization in these areas glorifies (or at least justifies) the use of violence as a means to an end. This is seen both in higher violent crime rates and capital punishment (and support for war). In contrast, thsoe areas that tend to be more "pacifist" are less willing to use violence as a means. This is seen both in lower violent crime rates and refusal to use death as punishment.

I would assert that the causation is different than what you are asserting. I would say it is more like this: violent crime and the use of capital punishment are both the same result or a society's propensity for violence.

if it's not deterring violent crime, and violent crime certainly isn't going down in those areas that are pro-death penalty... it's either reached a plateau or it's rising. take a look at texas, it's done anything but gone down.

for example, as was mentioned in the journey of hope, that some people will actually cross the border into a pro-death penalty state, commmit their crime and in a sense are looking for that death penalty sentence.

i'd go so far to say it's like (although on a smaller scale) violence in video games or at school... hence, that violence begets more violence. it's not squelching it that's for sure. it's either a) going up b.) staying the same.

you say you don't see the evidence, are we reading the same website b/c that's exactly what they're advocating: the death penalty actually has the opposite intended effect thus rendering it useless.

i really really think i'm right on this one and, frankly, i'm surprised y'all aren't seeing it. when death is used in a society as a means of showing or correcting what's gone wrong (two wrongs don't make a right) then that's exactly what we're going to see. chaos. i'm just surprised you guys aren't seeing it.

gringo... Don't get me wrong - I don't believe at all that the death penalty actually deters crime. There is no evidence for this.

And I agree that violence in the culture is self-perpetuating - meaning more crimes in cultures where violence is seen as an acceptable punishment.

But to say that the death penalty - itsself, not the mindset that allows it - causes crime... that is also without evidence. Remember, for the scientist, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Finding the correlation shows that there is some relationship... But more study is needed to show causation. And, I haven't seen any research that proves causation.. So, I shy away from the argument that the death penalty causes more crime - because such an argument can be seen as wrong-headed or dishonest, and can undermine credibility for the anti-CP viewpoint.

On the other hand, I do see where you are coming from. Your perspective makes perfect sense to me. All I say is that we should state our case based on the evidence - that CP fails to deter crime, not that CP "does the opposite" and causes it. The fact that it fails to deter crime renders it useless enough, huh?

personally, i think it's one of those things we've got to wrap our noodle around and really discern. you agree with me to a certain extent at least... from what i've read and how i view the world as an ecosystem (very wholistic) i believe it makes sense.

but anyway... this sure has gotten interesting.

if the death penalty doesn't deter violent crime... then what exactly does it do?

it punishes the individual for the individual crimes that the individual freely chose to commit. It is the promised consequence for the actions that the individual chose to accept while committing the crime.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

It is the promised consequence for the actions that the individual chose to accept while committing the crime.

Accept there is not a promised punishment. It varies depending on the race and income of the alleged perpetrator.

Semantics. It's a potential consequence. Personal responsibility means that you accept responsibility for your actions.

Semantics.

Roland... sometimes I have no idea what you are talking about. It is not semantics. Death is a legal option when one is found guilty of murder, but it is not "promised". And that is important. Your race an income are directly related to the chances that you will be killed. Stop denying the facts.

Personal responsibility means that you accept responsibility for your actions.

I agree.

But simply does not mean that we kill them.

Personal responsibility means that you accept responsibility for your actions.

I agree.

But simply does not mean that we kill them.

What do you think should be done with convicted killers? What is the alternative to the problem you see with the death penalty? Do you care about the cost of the alternative program(s)? (These are honest questions, not retorical ones to try to disprove what you are tring to say)

What do you think should be done with convicted killers?

Life without parole.

What is the alternative to the problem you see with the death penalty?

Life without parole.

Do you care about the cost of the alternative program(s)?

I am not sure what cost you are referring to. The governmen spends siginficantly more funds on death row cases than non-death row cases. The link that you gave linked to my argument against the high cost of capital punishment cases. Here is what I wrote:

Some studies:

• The cost of executing a prisoner in Kansas has been found to be approximately 70% higher than a non-death penalty prisoner.
• The cost of executing a prisoner in Tennessee has been found to be approximately 48% higher than a non-death penalty prisoner.

The death penaly is more expensive than non-death penalty cases. This cost includes all of the legal processes and the detainment.

There is an easy, cheaper, and much more moral alternative to death, and that is life without parole.

The cost doesn't concern me. Justice does. Someone who cruelly extinguishes an innocent life deserves to have their life extinguished as punishment. It's fair and just. Every breath they take is a constant injustice towards the heinous crimes they committed. And we don't just give this sentence to every kiler. We usually reserve it for the worst of the worst.

And they can't complain because they know that death is a potential consequence for the action that they freely chose to do. no one sits on death row and says "they're gonna do WHAT?? I didn't know they were gonna do THAT if I raped and murdered and mutilated that little girl!"

We usually reserve it for the worst of the worst.

No...this is what you do not get. It is not necessarily reserved for the worst of the worst. It is reserved for the poorest of the poor and the minorities. It is so clearly arbitrary in its execution that it is disgusting.