Arizona Wants to Bring Back Zyklon B for Gas Chamber Executions

[Professor Emeritus]

I know Trump is a piece of shyt and the justice system is corrupt towards black men. This thread is about Arizona reinstating the gas chamber. Does any of what you said about the unfairness of the justice system apply to the 115 people currently on Arizona's death row?

I'm sure it does. How would we even know which ones were truly innocent or truly guilty considering how fukked up the system is?

Ray Krone was on death row in Arizona, convicted of rape and murder solely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence later showed a different man was the actual rapist-murderer. If they hadn't had that DNA evidence and forced the state to retest it twice, he would be dead.

Lemuel Prion was on death row in Arizona for brutally murdering a woman. There was zero physical evidence showing he was the murderer and he was convicted almost entirely by the testimony of a single witness who couldn't even pick his photo out of a lineup. There was strong evidence that a different suspect was the actual killer.

Debra Milke was on death row in Arizona for conspiring to murder her 4-year-old son. The boy was shot and killed in a remote canyon while the mother was at home, but a police detective claimed the mother had hired the men to kill her son. There was no other evidence linking her to the crime other than that detective's claim that she had confessed to the crime during interrogation (the interrogation was not recorded and no one else witnessed the confession). The prosecutors didn't disclose during the trial that that detective had been found to have lied under oath in 4 previous false confessions.

10 different death row inmates have been exonerated in Arizona alone, and those are just the ones where the government officially admitted they were wrong and had so much evidence against them that they were forced to pull back. Imagine how many others were innocent but never had that legal representation good enough to get their case overturned, or who weren't lucky enough to have DNA evidence at the scene to show they weren't the killer?

 

[New Jeruzalem Journalist]

Every advanced democracy has eliminated the death penalty except for us. Outside of a couple especially brutal nations that don't give a shyt about human rights, pretty much EVERY country on Earth kills fewer inmates than us. Don't you think there's a general recognition that state executions are the weak response of a bygone era?

I mean, isn't that the argument here, whether or not it actually is a weak response? Whether it's the product of a bygone era isn't really relevant. I'm certain some of those very countries that have done away with capital punishment are governed in some aspect by monarchies or some other outdated forms of government. The fukking Vatican did away with the death penalty for Christ's sake (pun intended ).

If you think an eye for an eye is justified, then why not kill all murderers?

Exactly. Why not?

To clarify, I'm not a hard core proponent of the death penalty. I recognize the biases that make application of law equally consistent under all circumstances impossible, but that's why we have a legal system in the first place. To mitigate those biases as much as possible. I'm mostly arguing that the death penalty isn't this primitive school of thought that its so commonly claimed to be under liberal/leftist principles.

Why are fewer than 1% of murderers are put on death row? Well, because we recognize that just executing all murderers would be basically bloodlust, and a brutalization of society that wouldn't possibly be a good thing.

That's an assumption based upon your own opinion of the subject, when the reality is much more likely because it would bankrupt the judicial system if we did that. (Financially, not morally)

We recognize that there are a lot of factors that go into every act and that even someone who has once killed can still do something valuable in their later life.

I would agree. And I'm sure the same could be said for the victim.

So we justify some middle by picking and choosing, only killing a few murderers who have particularly bad legal representation, or whose victim was a cop, or who happen to be a black person with a white victim. We don't kill rich people or people with good lawyers, we rarely kill people with black victims. It's arbitrary as fukk.

Again, and this is mostly rhetorical, but if that is the reasoning behind why you shouldn't have the death penalty, why not apply that rationale to every aspect of the judicial system? There has to be an argument with more weight behind it than "humans aren't perfect". That's why we have lawyers, juries, judges, appellate courts, etc.

And the mistakes of the death penalty are irreversible. If someone is unjustly convicted of another crime they can still bring their life back. If you're unjustly executed, there's no recourse.

Point taken and acknowledged. Having said that, you can't give a person imprisoned for 30yrs for something they didn't do that time back either. Yes there are concerns with capital punishment, and perhaps it should be abolished. I personally just have a hard time accepting that there can never be a moral justification for it under any circumstances.

 

[Mike Nasty]

I'm sure it does. How would we even know which ones were truly innocent or truly guilty considering how fukked up the system is?

Ray Krone was on death row in Arizona, convicted of rape and murder solely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence later showed a different man was the actual rapist-murderer. If they hadn't had that DNA evidence and forced the state to retest it twice, he would be dead.

Lemuel Prion was on death row in Arizona for brutally murdering a woman. There was zero physical evidence showing he was the murderer and he was convicted almost entirely by the testimony of a single witness who couldn't even pick his photo out of a lineup. There was strong evidence that a different suspect was the actual killer.

Debra Milke was on death row in Arizona for conspiring to murder her 4-year-old son. The boy was shot and killed in a remote canyon while the mother was at home, but a police detective claimed the mother had hired the men to kill her son. There was no other evidence linking her to the crime other than that detective's claim that she had confessed to the crime during interrogation (the interrogation was not recorded and no one else witnessed the confession). The prosecutors didn't disclose during the trial that that detective had been found to have lied under oath in 4 previous false confessions.

10 different death row inmates have been exonerated in Arizona alone, and those are just the ones where the government officially admitted they were wrong and had so much evidence against them that they were forced to pull back. Imagine how many others were innocent but never had that legal representation good enough to get their case overturned, or who weren't lucky enough to have DNA evidence at the scene to show they weren't the killer?

There's 115 people in AZ currently on death row? Which ones do we need to be concerned with and what's their go fund me? and I'm being serious.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

There's 115 people in AZ currently on death row? Which ones do we need to be concerned with and what's their go fund me? and I'm being serious.

I don't know, I have no connection to Arizona and I'm only very loosely engaged in the death penalty debates. I looked up those cases on the spot but I knew they'd be there cause the same shyt happens in every state.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I mean, isn't that the argument here, whether or not it actually is a weak response? Whether it's the product of a bygone era isn't really relevant. I'm certain some of those very countries that have done away with capital punishment are governed in some aspect by monarchies or some other outdated forms of government. The fukking Vatican did away with the death penalty for Christ's sake (pun intended ).

I don't understand how "I'm sure some of them have monarchies" is supposed to mean something. The point was that every other country which values human rights to a significant extent has removed the death penalty. And there don't appear to be any negative consequences - countries which remove the death penalty (just like states that remove the death penalty) don't appear to have higher murder rates as a result, in fact the opposite is true. So why would you push for a policy with no obvious benefits and significant obvious drawbacks, which has been rejected by literally every high-functioning state in the world other than our own?

Exactly. Why not?

Because a solution as severe as "kill them all" requires strong underlying rationale, not just "why not?"

Because innocent people will be executed by the state.

Because it is not effective as a deterrent.

Because insisting on the execution of all murderers creates the impression that bloodlust is necessary, that reforming a person in impossible, and that the state is too incompetent and weak do deal with it any other way.

Because violence trickles down and especially violent states tend to breed a violent populace.

Because even secular societies have realized what Jesus already said 2000 years ago - that no man is in a position to eternally judge the life of another.

That's an assumption based upon your own opinion of the subject, when the reality is much more likely because it would bankrupt the judicial system if we did that. (Financially, not morally)

I am not aware of a single state or nation in modern history that has seriously considered, "Just execute all murderers", and certainly not one that discarded the idea for financial reasons. Even back in the day when execution was relatively cheap, "Execute all murderers" was not a policy. If financial issues were the only obstacle than it would be quite simple to just decrease the # of appeals or ramp up the timeline of the appeals process.



I'm interested, where does the "New Jeruzalem" portion of your name derive from?

 

[New Jeruzalem Journalist]

I don't understand how "I'm sure some of them have monarchies" is supposed to mean something. The point was that every other country which values human rights to a significant extent has removed the death penalty. And there don't appear to be any negative consequences - countries which remove the death penalty (just like states that remove the death penalty) don't appear to have higher murder rates as a result, in fact the opposite is true. So why would you push for a policy with no obvious benefits and significant obvious drawbacks, which has been rejected by literally every high-functioning state in the world other than our own?

The monarchies thing was just pointing out that because a practice is from a bygone era as you argued, doesn't disqualify it from consideration. There's nothing more outdated and from bygone eras than monarchies and theocracies, and I was just pointing out that some of those same countries you were using as examples as enlightenment on the subject still cling to what most advanced societies would consider to be outdated belief systems or bodies of governance.

To your latter point, because if it can still be defended as a just position in any one circumstance, I have a hard time arguing against the justification of its continued existence.

Because a solution as severe as "kill them all" requires strong underlying rationale, not just "why not?"

That was rhetorical. The underlying rationale is that they're guilty of murder .

Because innocent people will be executed by the state.

We grant the state a degree of power. And I already said I acknowledge your point here. I myself still find it hard to reconcile not allowing the state to exercise a certain power because "they might be wrong" with giving them any power at all.

Because it is not effective as a deterrent.

Agreed. Deterrents, however, aren't the only reason for punishments. Reformation, restitutions, punishment itself, etc. There are reasons beyond deterrents for holding people accountable for their crimes.

Because insisting on the execution of all murderers creates the impression that bloodlust is necessary, that reforming a person in impossible, and that the state is too incompetent and weak do deal with it any other way.

Yet what if you encounter a situation where all of the above are true?

Because violence trickles down and especially violent states tend to breed a violent populace.

Because even secular societies have realized what Jesus already said 2000 years ago - that no man is in a position to eternally judge the life of another.

I don't claim to know all the answers here. As I've said, I've struggled with this topic and have had innumerable debates on it with other people offline. I can only condense my current beliefs into, "As a general premise, I am not morally adverse to the concept of capital punishment." Having said that, it's not a hill I'm willing to die on (don't ask me how ), nor is it a belief that should be free from critiques, many of which I've acknowledged already in here. I'm open to counter arguments. The severity of the subject matter demands it.

I'm interested, where does the "New Jeruzalem" portion of your name derive from?

Lol. I generally go off on people who don't know this, but that's usually because in the 20+ yrs I've been posting under this username, some sucker ass chumps usually assume it has something to do with Israel or being Jewish and use it to somehow "expose" me (I'm neither btw) and always ironically end up exposing themselves. You get a pass because you seem to be genuinely curious about it, but "New Jeruzalem", "New Jerusalem", "New Jeru", etc. = New Jersey. Listen to literally any hip-hop song in the 90s referring to Jersey. Hence also my avi.

 

[Conan]

Life imprisonment is strong enough of a deterrent. Plus, the state has fulfilled the minimum requirement in making sure that innocent civilians are not terrorized by a murderer or serial rapist or whoever. Otherwise, capital punishment leaves the necessary and goes into the punitive. The government should not have that power to take away the life of it's citizens.

 

[Yapdatfool]

I've struggled with this argument myself for years because on the surface, I've yet to hear a totally soundproof argument against the justification of an eye for an eye. An accounting for human error can't be the only argument against the death penalty because why stop there? Why not the very application of law itself?

And not for nothing, but people dismissing an argument in favor of capital punishment as ONLY a justification for blood lust is pretty weak IMO

Now your talking my kind of language!!