There is a 100% chance that there is at least one person on death row who has not committed the crime they were accused of.  This, despite the American justice system being the best, and fairest justice system in the world.  I’ve seen too many people let out after spending 20+ years in prison after DNA demonstrates that they are innocent of the crime to not know that this is the truth.

Knowing that, how can you possibly be in favor of capital punishment.  I don’t need to hear any other argument other than this one – this one supercedes all others.

Herr Werner is an absolute genius, I cannot wait to see this film. 

Werner Herzog is a God. Can’t wait for it. Glad you mentioned ‘Aguirre’, it is too often forgotten.

 I really loved Aguirre, the Wrath of God.

When countries in like the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand & almost all of continental Europe went about reviewing their official use of the death penalty at various times following WWII, it was in the context of a century of accumulated data showing time & time & time again where the state had executed people convicted of capital crimes & the real killer later confessed; or it turned out later than science was able to prove that the death was an accident; or that the convicted & executed person’s alibi turned out to be true; etc.  

But it wasn’t just that. Those countries went deeply into all the other arguments for punishment, including personal deterrence, rehabilitation, general deterrence, public safety & revenge. Obviously the first two have no application at all when it comes to the death penalty, & statistical analysis showed no meaningful difference between the death penalty & life imprisonment, so it really comes down to general deterrence & revenge. General deterrence turns out to make no sense: no one committing a murder somehow needs to be reminded that what they’re doing is wrong & will be punished severely, & no one in that situation stops to consider, Hey, if I actually kill this person, I may fry, as opposed to being imprisoned for life. So, it all comes down to revenge. 

But revenge is such a weak benefit, if benefit at all, that it’s more than offset by the fact that the at least some people the state executes will turn out innocent – which turns out to have devastating effects on the respect of the public for the Rule of Law.

Me, too. But also Fitzcarraldo, with that whole crazy idea of building an opera house in the Amazon; & Nosferatu. Plus he did the recent documentary exploring the prehistoric cave paintings in France.

Fitzcarraldo is my favorite movie ever. I loved Aguirre (and all the Kinski movies) too, but I like Herzog best with happy endings. Also, if you haven’t seen it, Bad Lieutenant is simply phenomenal– you’ll never look at Nicolas Cage the same way after that.

You sound like a typical liberal and probably one of those who support abortion(termination of innocent human lives), while being against the death penalty for murderers. For example, over 50 million(50,000,000+) babies have had their lives terminated since Roe v Wade 39 years ago; but I’m sure(according to data of total executions) that less than 100 “innocent” convicts would have faced a fate similar to that of the unborn humans, whose lives were terminated by verdict of their mothers and the State, during the same 39 year period. I digress

The fact that the U.S justice system is flawed(yet still the best in the world), and some inmates possibly wrongly accused and convicted, is actually a silly argument to make for the abolition of capital punishment.

If not that you’re a traditional liberal as I have asserted, a logical argument with reason and common sense which you could have made, would have been to suggest that the US justice system undergoes a comprehensive reform, compliant with 21st century science and technology, whereby capital punishment should ONLY be administered when there is “indisputable” evidence(DNA,CCTV,Crowd of Witnesses in live shooting, etc… ) against a defendant being charged for taking the life or lives of innocent human beings.

Only typical liberals would make your kind of silly argument, like those who similarly support the basic rights for human beings, yet are against the right to LIFE itself,of the unborn humans.

Innocent victims of violent deaths are never shown clemency by their assailants(multiple murderers in some cases), who eventually hope and expect clemency, by drawing up sentiments in the minds of liberals like you. Being a repentant murderer or mass-murderer is a good thing, but his or her creator would show them mercy in the life after; i.e. for those who believe there one. But at far as this life is concerned, the laws of the land should take precedence.

I don’t have to address your entire statement due to time constrains on my part, but let me quickly point out one issue you mentioned: that people while committing the act of murder and other heinous crimes, do not consider the punishment that awaits them.

You are right to say they do not “stops to consider” i.e. if you mean literally; otherwise perhaps you need to watch some documentaries and even fictional movies that have to do with hostage situations, premeditated murders, and similar crimes. Capital punishment has always been and still is a significant deterrent against most crimes of murder.

This would be a compelling argument, but I don’t think it’s backed up by compelling statistical evidence. I’m going to post a couple of links here from the Death Penalty Information Center. Now I know the group (despite never having made a formal declaration of intent) is anti-capital punishment. I also admit that there are many many other factors at play which are not being taken into consideration. But I still think you should take a look at this: 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

Your argument here is one of consistency, yes? I came across this idea in the documentary “Lake of Fire”. An agnostic/atheist anti-abortion individual said that for those who are anti-abortion you need to be consistent and be anti-death penalty, amongst other things. I think it was called The Blank Slate or something. I can’t find a clip, sorry. 

But the argument I think is flawed in that abortion and the death penalty are fundamentally different issues. Due to their differences it cannot be assumed that just because one supports one of them they have to support the other. Personally I find myself on the pro-abortion side of the argument but anti-death penalty. My reasoning is fairly simple: I don’t consider (logically) an unborn child to be a human being. Is it possible that I might characterize or personify an unborn child? Yes. But I think that’s evidence of my brain being less logical and more emotional. I tend to do the same thing to animals despite recognizing the fallacy. 

“Innocent victims of violent deaths are never shown clemency by their assailants”

Well, yes. But if they had those people wouldn’t be innocent victims of violent deaths. The whole point is that a person has been murdered. The murderers can’t grant clemency after the fact and bring the person back to life. Even if they wanted to. They don’t have the option of granting clemency.

Could I ask you to expand on your idea about death row inmates who don’t believe in the afterlife? I think that’s an interesting point.

“But as far as this life is concerned, the laws of the land should take precedence.”

Which is why I support the law of the land outlawing the death penalty.

There is no contradiction with being pro-life on
abortion and pro-death for murderers. On the one hand you have completely
innocent babies destroyed while waiting to be born. On the other, you have
vicious and vile human beings guilty of murder and the worst of atrocities. The
circumstances are totally different so you treat them differently, not the
same. To do otherwise shows that you are morally blind.
Those numbers of exonorees cited by you and so, so many other sources are
bogus. They come from the rabidly anti-death penalty group (with a deceptively
neutral sounding name) The Death Penalty Information Center. Only a fraction of
the “over 130″ inmates exonerated are truly innocent. This has been
pointed out by Dudley Sharp and others time after time. This group makes no
distinction between legally innocent (guilty for sure but the overturned
conviction cannot be secured again based on stricken evidence, deceased
witnesses, etc.) and actual innocence (never committed the crime). So very few
of the DPIC’s exonorees are actually innocent and this group knows it.
And there is not one single case where the death penalty opponents can say
involved execution of the innocent. Not one. Only trumped up claims and
exaggerations. Yet we know for sure that numerous killers once on death row
were spared only to kill again, e.g. Kenneth Allen McDuff, Darryl Kemp, Eddie
Simon Wein, Joseph “Mad Dog” Taborsky, Anthony Prevatte, Bennie
Demps, Jeffrey Landrigan, Harvey Carignan, Robert Lee Massie, etc. Had these
killers been executed the first time around, numerous innocents would have not
been murdered.
Way, way more innocent people will die because of our failure to execute than
our executing of the innocent. Think about it? Execution of the innocent? Never
proven. Innocents dying from killers spared execution? Its happened over and
over and over again.
And as far as the cost of executing? It costs more to execute than life in
prison because of the gross manipulations of the system by the very people who
complain of its costs – opponents of capital punishment. Streamline appeals and
executions will become cheaper than life without parole.
And speaking of life without parole, the anti-death penalty crowd will focus on
getting rid of that punishment and protection to society as soon as they are successful
in getting rid of the death penalty.
There is no conservative argument against the death penalty. It saves lives
through general deterrence (numerous peer reviewed studies from top
universities show deterrence, i.e. Emory, Univ. of Chicago, Univ. of Houston,
etc.) and actual deterrence (executed killers will never kill again).
The world is a better place with certain people gone from it, child
abductor/killers especially. 

I agree about there being a difference between abortion and the death penalty (see my post below). I also gave my reasons for supporting one and not the other.

Why are the statistics bogus? I don’t see you refuting them in any way. I noted that the group is quite anti-death penalty. But that doesn’t mean we discount their research. It is tough truly ‘objective’ viewpoints and if their data has not been tampered with, we should take it into account.

Legally innocent is what matters here because the system is set up so that all are considered “innocent until proven guilty”. In those cases it could not be proved. It’s quite simple really. If someone is legally innocent the law can’t convict them and put them to death. I’m sure that some people have gotten away with murder and other atrocities because of this, but that doesn’t convince me that the principle is faulty.

Yes, there are examples of death row inmates being pardoned and killing again. True. Those are tragedies that would never happen in a fair world.

For one example of innocence, what about the case of Randall Dale Adams? He was pardoned and is now widely considered to be wrongly convicted. 

“It saves lives through general deterrence (numerous peer reviewed studies from top….)” 
I addressed this issue already. You are using ‘expert’ testimony, so am I. The difference is that most ‘experts’ agree that it is not an effective deterrent. And as the DPIC thing states, most criminologists agree (i think it was 85%) that the penalty does not act as a deterrent. 

Sorry if this is a bit harsh and snarky but the general tone of your post rubbed me the wrong way. 

Anyone supporting murder by the state shares some guilt of the crime of murder!
Fuckingbarbarians!

 Your general tone of your post replied to me also rubbed me the wrong way. Randall Dale Adams – he was not executed. I am glad he was not. 

<> And speaking of life without parole, the anti-death penalty crowd will focus on
getting rid of that punishment and protection to society as soon as they are successful
in getting rid of the death penalty.<> All the more, we want those guilty murderers dead, so they cannot be allowed by criminal rights group to kill again.

Your general tone of your post replied to me also rubbed me the wrong
way. Randall Dale Adams – he was not executed. I am glad he was
not. 

<<but ‘objective’ viewpoints and if their data has not been tampered
with, we
should take it into account.>> And speaking of life without parole, the anti-death penalty crowd will focus on
getting rid of that punishment and protection to society as soon as they are successful
in
getting rid of the death penalty.<<yes, again. True. Those are tragedies that would never
happen in a fair
world.>> All the more, we want those guilty
murderers dead, so they cannot be allowed by criminal rights group to
kill again.  

First of all it takes just a little common sense to realize the consistency in preserving the value of innocent human lives. The death penalty has always been the sentence for those who choose to take innocent human lives; and those who support the death penalty while opposing abortion, do believe that no one has the right to take the innocent lives of their fellow humans, born or unborn. There is absolute consistency in that argument, is it your own argument(pro-abortion but anti-death penalty) that proves to be highly inconsistent from a logical point of view, given that you support terminating the innocent life, while sparing the guilty one who killed others.

I find it rather disturbing that in your opinion, an unborn child is not a human being. As a matter of fact there were some in past centuries who also passionately and vehemently made a similar argument that humans with a black skin were lesser beings and should be owned as property; so in this 21st century I am compelled to consider you in the same light as those who made that centuries old argument. Science, Nature and Religion all have a consensus that “HUMAN LIFE” begins at the moment of conception. Even scientists with their evolution fanaticism, do not dispute the fact that ‘human life’ begins right from the moment a human spermatozoon meets an ovum. The argument here should be: “What is the value of human life to you?” and not “When does human life begin?” Based on your opinion, it is obvious you could care less about the lives of babies who are taken out from the womb prematurely, through Caesarean section.

———
“Well, yes. But if they had those people wouldn’t be innocent victims of
violent deaths. The whole point is that a person has been murdered.The murderers can’t grant clemency after the fact and bring the person back
to life. Even if they wanted to. They don’t have the option of granting
clemency.”
———
A history and documentation of violent crimes shows that victims almost always begged for mercy that their lives be spared by their assailants. Besides some people have been killed for mere robberies as little as $50. So if the murderers did not grant clemency when they had the opportunity, and cannot bring back the lives they took, then I think the same fate should meet them after a fair trial and conviction.

Inmates are people from the free society, and in the society there are people who do not believe in God or the after life, so it is accurate when I said “but his or her creator would show them mercy in the life after; i.e. for those who believe there is one.” Not everyone believes in God or an after-life, so the same applies to convicted inmates.

If you support the law of the land outlawing the death penalty, you might as well support outlawing LIFE INCARCERATIONS, ABORTIONS and WARS(which involves one person shooting another, or killing thousands).

Under laws of the land:

Life incarcerations are legal
Abortions are legal
Declaration of wars are legal

Thanks for your reply. As noted before the consistency argument cannot be applied because there are clear differences between abortion and the death penalty. Being against one and for the other are not inconsistent. Just like you are for one and against the other doesn’t make you inconsistent. It doesn’t make me inconsistent either. Like I said, the consistency claim is not an effective argument.

As the DPIC link I posted previously points out, several death row inmates have been found innocent. Therefore they would also count as “innocent lives”, don’t you think? Not always “really innocent” but legally innocent. And if any innocent person is hanged isn’t that also an innocent person’s life being taken? There is no way to prove that 100% of all death row inmates are guilty. In fact that is just not true

Yes, we agree that the fertilized egg has the potential to become a human being. But there are several cases where that doesn’t happen. Like when the zygote moves through the uterine wall without  implantation. We don’t consider that the loss of human life. We don’t mourn that. If you do, then I’m sorry, we just can’t see eye to eye. To me, until the fetus has been born (whether through natural birth or means such as a Caesarean) it is not a human being. You may disagree of course. I just don’t see the fetus as a separate, conscious being until it is independent of its mother (even if the mother dies during birth, the child can still survive).

By “clemency” I meant the ability of certain judicial/political entities to prevent incarcerated criminals being dealt a punishment. Sorry if I was unclear last post. So the equivalent I was thinking of was the forgiveness of an action, which is why your statements did not make sense to me. Also, it seems you are advocating an eye for an eye here, and that, as that wonderful quote goes, just makes the whole world blind.

I would personally love it if nobody could ever declare, fight or need to go to war. I know that’s unrealistic, but I can’t give up on the hope. Why should I not support life incarcerations? I do support them. If an individual proves to be a consistent and dangerous threat to society I don’t think there is anything wrong with incarcerating them and isolating them from functioning society. To me that person has violated the social contract and so should not be allowed to participate in society.

All the best.

As a victim, going through this process and now waiting for an execution, I would love to see just one of these programs from the victims point of view. This show is going to be made with an anti-death penalty  theme and will not cover the victims with the same coverage time or depth as the murderer. The victims are not only the one who is killed, but the ones left behind to deal with the horror of the murderers deeds. These murderers now have a TV show, nice.

The Heart of a Chicken: Notes on Werner Herzog

http://www.berfrois.com/2012/03/eli-evans-werner-herzog-chicken/
 

The show last night about the man in Texas who claims he’s innocent could be The MO of the murder sounds like two intruders two weapons

Texas is hiding the evidence and want’s him to be exeacuted so they don’t have to pay a lawsuit

A crime with a blongeoned to death Mom and two mentaly ill boys stabbed should of been blood foot prints

It’s also possible one of the teenage boys blongeoned his Mother and the other boy got a knife to try and help and then the boy stopped and got a knife and the two boys fought each other with the two knifes, Three weapons

I would like to see Cold Cases  come in and go through this information

I only know I have watched hundreds of crime shows and this one is missing a lot of evidence and it looks like they just grabbed her boyfriend who was drunk and never even looked for any other suspects

Looks like it’s to late last month they denied the DNA another innocent man dies

The truth is if he was guilty then bring in the DNA and prove it ,The crime scene was so contaimanated  that no one took any,