Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America

[charles052]

I have to respond to this again.


American prisons are mostly filled with folks convicted of misdemeanor drug possession. If the rest of the country would follow Washington's and Colorado's lead, and have a reasonable conversation about the costs of prohibition vs. the costs of decriminalization, it would become clear there's only one logical outcome.

I can't argue that. I'm all for legalization of marijuana.

Really? So you'd justify the state-sanctioned murder execution of a person on the probability that he or she is guilty of something?

And you'd sanction the continuation of thousands of worthless people who've thrown away their lives, murdered people for their own selfish gain, on the off chance that one or two might be innocent?

If anything, we need to streamline the death penalty, make it not so costly. I still don't understand why we stopped using rope for executions? It's cheap, reusable, and provides a hell of a show! (for others anyways. I couldn't stand to see even Saddam Hussein get hung)

[charles052]

From an article in 2009:

County estimates in Texas indicate that the death penalty system is much more expensive than sentencing inmates to life imprisonment. Gray County spent nearly $1 million seeking the death penalty against Levi King, even though he pleaded guilty to murder. Moreover, these costs do not include the cost of appeals, which will further increase the cost of the capital case, nor the costs of cases in which the death penalty is sought but not given. By comparison, a non-death penalty murder case in nearby Lubbock County typically costs about $3,000, court officials estimate. The average cost to house an inmate in Texas prisons is $47.50 per day, according to Michelle Lyons, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Thus it would cost about $17,340 to house an inmate for a year and $693,500 for 40 years, far less than even part of the death penalty costs. The regional public defender's office estimates that just the legal costs for a death penalty case from indictment to execution are $1.2 million. Lubbock County Criminal District Attorney Matt Powell said, “I don’t dispute that it’s more expensive,” but said he never takes cost into account when deciding whether to seek the death penalty.

According to the authorities in Texas, they acknowledge spending more than twice as much on each death penalty case than those of life in prison. If you add in that in the general population most inmates don't live a normal lifespan, I doubt 40 years is even close to the average number of years incarcerated. I believe in most murder cases, the death penalty is no deterrent either. Rage, passion, drugs, and sociopath or psychpath-ic tendencies are not usually interrupted by thoughts or jail or execution. All that aside, I truly believe there are those that deserve death, I just don't believe our system is suitable to the task. Hell, I don't trust my state government to administer school funding properly. How can anyone think they'll get state sanctioned murder right? I have always been amused the irony of the those in the religious right who claim sanctity of life with one hand while holding a noose in the other. There simply is no logical or meaningful reason to support the death penalty. It's real no more than an excuse for some to justify murder while claiming to be pious.

I've always been amused the extreme left who cry over the justified death of a murderer but sanction the murder of a innocent, unborn baby. Now, that's screwed up!

The death penalty is a necessity to prevent violent crime. If anything, the hindrance of it by the far left is causing more crime, just like how the banning of guns causes crime to skyrocket. To quote Batman: "Criminals are a cowardly lot." Give them something to fear, and they'll simply move along their way peacefully.

[HalationEffect]

The death penalty is a necessity to prevent violent crime. If anything, the hindrance of it by the far left is causing more crime, just like how the banning of guns causes crime to skyrocket.

I'd love to hear the explanation of how it is that my home country (the UK) has no death penalty and our citizens aren't allowed to own handguns, yet we have a much lower incidence of homicide than the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

USA: 4.2 homicides / 100,000 people / year
UK: 1.2 homicides / 100,000 people / year

[SteveRiley]

And you'd sanction the continuation of thousands of worthless people who've thrown away their lives, murdered people for their own selfish gain, on the off chance that one or two might be innocent?

This is an astonishingly callous statement.

It's cheap, reusable, and provides a hell of a show!

Now I'm not sure whether you're truly in favor of execution as entertainment, which would in some ways support your notion that having some "spares" on hand is an important feature, or...

(for others anyways. I couldn't stand to see even Saddam Hussein get hung)

...perhaps you're just baiting us. If you can't stand to observe the slaughter, why do you argue in favor of it?

The death penalty is a necessity to prevent violent crime. If anything, the hindrance of it by the far left is causing more crime, just like how the banning of guns causes crime to skyrocket.

Hm, I think perhaps you've answered my questions. You're harboring opinions that actual research and statistics do not support.

[Snowhog]

The death penalty is a necessity to prevent violent crime.

First, I support the death penalty as the extreme consequence of ones actions deemed by his/hers society as being such an offense that death is the only acceptable punishment.

I'm a conservative. Death at the hands of 'The State' is not a deterrent -- it's a punishment. Period. Study upon study have show (and are cited by those against the death penalty) that death isn't a deterrent to violent crime. We, as a society, need to stop thinking (or being swayed to think) that the death penalty, because it doesn't deter violent crime, should be abolished.

I've been a strong believer that what is needed, is a total re-look at the entire system of jurisprudence.

[oshunluvr]

I'd love to hear the explanation of how it is that my home country (the UK) has no death penalty and our citizens aren't allowed to own handguns, yet we have a much lower incidence of homicide than the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

USA: 4.2 homicides / 100,000 people / year
UK: 1.2 homicides / 100,000 people / year

I believe this as a lot to do with the nature of the birth of our country only 200 plus a few decades ago. There are simply a lot of very small minded "Old West" type thinkers. Something your country does not have - along with wide open space for them to live with impunity for the most part. A very large part of our country lives in total isolation from most of society and humanity. When one is removed from the actual effects of ones beliefs it is much easier to hold a low regard for others or to make statements like mass murder is preferable to just keeping the criminals behind bars. It's not unlike the anonymity of the internet. I doubt very much if we were all in a room together the opinions would be couched the same.

Of course, it's not like your people are without a history of blood on their hands. Plus, your weather sucks!

[Qqmike]

Well put, oshunluvr (#51).

More generally, and as I've said elsewhere here (to our more conservative pals), times have changed.

In the USA, we (citizens of US) are who we are. And, NOW (2012 and beyond), that is the reality we must live with and accommodate. Not any longer the Wild Wild West or the country of mainly White Euro-descendents. We are all in this together--all races, colors, ethnic classes, social and sexual persuasions, socio-economic classes, and political bents. (Boy, did Mittsy-boy ever learn that lesson. Notice, not to be inflammatory, I did not say something like Sissy-Mittsy-boy. Being very careful here.) Though some perceive they may be 'isolated' from the rest, no one is (save for some outlying extreme wealthy-eccentric, hold up in their stealth castle somewhere out on the desert, off the grid--and there are many of those, some liberal, some reactionary conservative). In the very short term, what I do/think may not affect you very much; or what you do/think may not affect me very much. In the longer term (even 3+ years), what each of us does may define the basis for "storming the castles" (the message to the have's is clear: Watch your back); or, the other way, "suppressing the masses" (the message to the have-not's is clear, You don't stand a chance).

I just wish the extreme conservatives would 'get it' [soon] so we could all get along better so we could then fight/deal with our real enemies and competitive threats here and abroad.

[oshunluvr]

@SteveRiley: I would ask "What if the one innocent person is you?" People with these kind of ideas simply cannot envision themselves in the shoes of another. It's really one of the classic symptoms of being a sociopath. It derives from an intense self-hatred. They deserve to die so everyone deserves to die. Better to ask the question "You're in prison for a crime you did not commit. The state has decided you, along with 999 other so-called convicts are to die. Is your death justified so that some others who may actually be guilty will die?" Or how about "If 999 innocents are in the group, but only one actual murderer. Is it still allowable?" The problem really lies in the idea that in some way everyone desires death. You can't win an argument against that sort of belief.

@Snowhog: +1 Totally agree.

@Qqmike: Unlikely that group will ever admit that the country is clearly sliding to the left. Colorado alone is a huge indicator. They lost all the so-called swing states except one and still insist they should lead the country. The last several elections they've resorted to vote blocking and out-right election fraud because their party message doesn't sell to the masses. It's actually more likely that the Republican party will continue to shrink until it's totally irrelevant over the entire country like it has here in California. If there was a currently viable third party, I think the party might already be gone. It's only be around since the 1840's so it can be replaced easily enough.

Another amusing irony: When formed, the Republican party was the liberal wing of the Whig party. It appears the Whigs are trying to take over once again.

[Qqmike]

oshunluvr, as I posted after the elections ... Noted Republican strategist, Steve Schmidt, MS NBC round table midnight after the election, said in no uncertain terms that if they don't change, the Republicans may not only lose the next election, but may lose elections for the next decade or two. To me, it's common sense: Either get along and accommodate, or risk having your castle stormed. Maybe some conservatives feel a false sense of security? feel immune to natural law? are blinded by their bigotry or riches or fear? To me, it makes no sense. Now, we could discuss it further, go deeper ... How can one be truly Christian (a la the mystic Christ; ref.: Sermon on the Mount) (for example) AND (conjunction) be conservative, no-compromise, Republican in favor of carte-blanche deleting transfer payments for social programs? Ad nauseum, I'm afraid.

[whatthefunk]

I think the main problem with the Republican party is that they have let themselves be led by a succession of Religious nuts, loud mouth bigots, and corporate goons. If they were a true conservative party and actually did shrink government and expand personal liberties like they claim to, a lot more people would vote for them I think. I might even vote for them. Instead, they come off as being hateful, bigoted Religious loonies who want to use government to limit personal freedoms, blow up foreign countries, and let rich people get away with murder. They are severely misguided at the moment.

[charles052]

I'd love to hear the explanation of how it is that my home country (the UK) has no death penalty and our citizens aren't allowed to own handguns, yet we have a much lower incidence of homicide than the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

USA: 4.2 homicides / 100,000 people / year
UK: 1.2 homicides / 100,000 people / year

2 years after the gun ban was enacted, the rate of crime by handguns alone went up by 40%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

As of 2010, this story makes claims of a study (which I cannot seem to find) claiming that England has a worse crime rate than the US. They are not talking about homicides, but crime rates altogether. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...tas-study.html

Me, I'm a doubting Thomas when it comes to stories such as these. I freely admit the US, as a whole, is a pretty violent nation and I have a hard time believing that England could be worse. But I do believe that crime increased after the gun ban and is still up above that point. I assume that, if guns are banned in the US, crime will only skyrocket as it did in the UK.

[charles052]

First, I support the death penalty as the extreme consequence of ones actions deemed by his/hers society as being such an offense that death is the only acceptable punishment.

I'm a conservative. Death at the hands of 'The State' is not a deterrent -- it's a punishment. Period. Study upon study have show (and are cited by those against the death penalty) that death isn't a deterrent to violent crime. We, as a society, need to stop thinking (or being swayed to think) that the death penalty, because it doesn't deter violent crime, should be abolished.

I've been a strong believer that what is needed, is a total re-look at the entire system of jurisprudence.

I agree with everything you say except that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. One study I've found says that it does. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100406.html

Of course, scientists are usually liberal, so criticism of such a study would be expected and you'd find that it is criticized quite a bit. Which doesn't prove the study wrong, necessarily, since none of the criticisms were really constructive. It only proves there is political bias in science.

[charles052]

This is an astonishingly callous statement.

I disagree. The study in my previous post suggests that 1 execution of a prisoner potentially saves 18 innocent lives. So, executing 2,000 guilty men and 2 innocent men (of the crime their sentenced for, not necessarily "innocent" period) would save roughly 36,000 lives.

Now I'm not sure whether you're truly in favor of execution as entertainment, which would in some ways support your notion that having some "spares" on hand is an important feature, or...

Public execution might be an excellent deterrent. I personally don't find death to be entertaining unless it's in an action movie or some other work of fiction.

...perhaps you're just baiting us. If you can't stand to observe the slaughter, why do you argue in favor of it?

Because I believe it's a necessity. I've seen far too much death in my time to tolerate watching it.

Hm, I think perhaps you've answered my questions. You're harboring opinions that actual research and statistics do not support.

Or you simply haven't done proper research and have gone with your liberal biases instead of your gut instincts. I've found, in my years of researching and debating, that my instincts are more accurate than any scientific method.

[sixonetonoffun]

Are we really discussing this?

I live in a county that has for many years voted Republican. Yet overall my state MN aligns with Democrats. Oddly enough my own family mainly Swede and Norwegian immigrants came from a Socialist background. We have generally had a pretty un involved live and let live attitude.

I want my guns but am not voting with a party based solely on this one issue.
I am on the fence regarding legalization of pot. I know it does more to the body of a regular user then simply scramble a few neurons and electrodes. Yet I do feel sentencing is way too stiff for selling it. Meth lab operators, Rapists and Pedophiles serve shorter sentences wtf? Hello America is there anybody in there?

Death Penalty? Well perhaps if implemented for people who Manufacturer illegal drugs, Rape or exploit our citizens and children. Seriously we have some serious problems in our society and specifically in our criminal justice system.

Some years ago we (Minnesotans) voted to allow gaming at Indian owned casinos. Now we are expanding our charitable gaming. Yet we have a growing number of people who had prior to legalized gaming been useful members of society now squandering their money to feed an addiction that never existed outside of Nevada or Atlantic City. Literally mothers stealing from employers to make one big win... cover their losses.

We are clearly in an era of social and economic change. Guided by laws that are either not enforced or are but only on a don't ask don't tell basis. I really think its time to clean house. Get down to the basics. Do we even need state government? Seems like we could get on better without it to me. Yet without it there would be no testing of the waters for legalized pot. But what are the long term trade offs? Can we use revenue to justify another pandoras box like gaming?

Texas has a great history but seriously if faced with a Soviet like breakup of our states even Obama would declare marshal law. The entire concept is a non issue. Can Texans lead a social revolution of changes in our society? Perhaps but the numbers seem to swing the other way significantly. But will fuel the latest Prepper craze a bit. Yet maybe we could all benefit from a little Victory Garden!

[SteveRiley]

Of course, scientists are usually liberal, so criticism of such a study would be expected and you'd find that it is criticized quite a bit. Which doesn't prove the study wrong, necessarily, since none of the criticisms were really constructive. It only proves there is political bias in science.

The Columbia Law School weighs in on these studies, and finds a number of flaws that weaken their utility. Predicting the number of potential lives saved is scarcely more than guesswork, and hardly qualifies as science:

What are we to make of these claims? The bar is very high when behavioral science makes such strong causal claims. The standards of causal inference in social science -- which include the ability by an independent researcher to replicate the original work under diverse conditions; the use of measures and methods that avoid biases from inaccurate "yardsticks" and faulty "gauges"; and the ability to tell a simple and persuasive causal story -- are neither technical nor mysterious. They are hallmarks of science that have been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of cases that demanded high yet common-sense standards.

When we apply contemporary social science standards, the new deterrence studies fall well short of this high scientific bar. Consider the following: Most of the studies fail to account for incarceration rates or life sentences, factors that may drive down crime rates via deterrence or incapacitation; one study that does so finds no effects of execution and a significant effect of prison conditions on crime rates. Another report shows incarceration effects that dwarf the deterrent effects of execution. Most fail to account for complex social factors such as drug epidemics that are reliable predictors of fluctuations in the murder rate over time. The studies don't look separately at the subset of murders that are eligible for the death penalty, instead lumping all homicides together.

Contrary to your earlier assertion, these criticisms are indeed constructive and highlight many of the flaws and biases that corrupt the methodological processes of the studies.

More damning is an indictment of the cost. Indeed, splurging for executions diverts funding away from more productive police work:

Finally, the moving parts in the deterrence story are unpersuasive. Execution would have to achieve a marginal cost beyond the threat of lifetime incarceration. There is no evidence that this is the case. Execution would have to occur with sufficient frequency and with widespread knowledge among would-be murderers to create a credible threat considering the types of murders that might be eligible for execution. There is no sign of that, nor does it seem likely. For example, there were 16,137 murders in 2004, according to the FBI, but only 125 death sentences were handed out, and 59 persons—most of whom were convicted a decade earlier—were executed. There are no direct tests of deterrence among murderers, nor are there studies showing their awareness of executions in their own state, much less in faraway states. There is no evidence that if aware of the possibility of execution, a potential murderer with cyclical patterns for distinct periods of more than 40 years of increase and decline that are not unlike epidemics of contagious diseases. There is nothing in the new deterrence studies that fits their story into this complex causal framework.

As a public policy choice, execution requires trade-offs of public resources and investments for state legislators and local prosecutors. The costs of administering capital punishment are prohibitive. Even in states where prosecutors infrequently seek the death penalty, the price of obtaining convictions and executions ranges from $2.5 million to $5 million per case (in current dollars), compared to less than $1 million for each killer sentenced to life without parole. These costs create clear public policy choices. If the state is going to spend $5 million on law enforcement over the next few decades, what is the best use of that money? Is it to buy two or three executions or, for example, to fund additional police detectives, prosecutors, and judges to arrest and incarcerate criminals who escape punishment because of insufficient law-enforcement resources?

Florida, for example, spent between $25 million and $50 million more per year on capital cases than it would have to if all murderers received life without parole. The Indiana Legislative Services Agency estimated that had the state sentenced its death row populations to life without parole, Indiana taxpayers would have been spared approximately $37.1 million.

Blood lust, in all its forms, is truly appalling. Expensive, too.