new jersey: thou shalt not kill

[ERD50]

Why is it that :

A) If a person is found guilty of a minor crime and is fined, we don't say that the judicial system 'stole' from the guilty party.

B) When a person is found guilty of a more serious crime and is jailed, we don't say that the judicial system 'kidnapped' the guilty party.

So, when a person is found guilty of murder and is given the death penalty, why do some people say that the judicial system 'killed' the guilty party?

-ERD50

 

[Martha]

Because "killed" is the right word. Much like "five people were killed in an accident today." Or, "not enough exercise and too much diet coke killed him."

 

[ERD50]

and being held against your will is called 'kidnapping'. No one says 'after being convicted of armed robbery, the defendant was kidnapped for five years'.

So the question still stands.

-ERD50

 

[Martha]

Illegally held against your will or the will of the state is kidnapping. If it is legal, it is something else (prison, boarding school, being grounded. . . ).

In contrast, the word kill does not imply something illegal was done. There the appropriate words are murder or homicide.

From Webster's: kill, slay, murder, assassinate, dispatch, execute mean to deprive of life. kill merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner <killed in an accident> <frost killed the plants>. slay is a chiefly literary term implying deliberateness and violence but not necessarily motive <slew thousands of the Philistines>. murder specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility <convicted of murdering a rival>. assassinate applies to deliberate killing openly or secretly often for political motives <terrorists assassinated the Senator>. dispatch stresses quickness and directness in putting to death <dispatched the sentry with one bullet>. execute stresses putting to death as a legal penalty <executed by lethal gas>.

 

[REWahoo]

Martha, is it cold and dark up in your neck of the woods today?

 

[samclem]

and being held against your will is called 'kidnapping'. No one says 'after being convicted of armed robbery, the defendant was kidnapped for five years'.

So the question still stands.

-ERD50

"kidnapped" implies an unlawful act.
"killed", to me, does not. If a person says the "inmate was killed by the state," that is just a statement of fact. If a person says "the inmate was murdered by the state" that is a term of that contains an element of judgement. I suppose "executed" or "put to death" is a rosier way of saying it, and I would agree that those terms are more appropriate than "killed"

English, an amazing language. If you want a shade of meaning, there's usually a word to accomplish it.

 

[Martha]

Martha, is it cold and dark up in your neck of the woods today?

OK, I get the hint.

 

[Shawn]

Until we fix the racial disparity issue, the death penalty is a non-starter. Amnesty International USA: Abolish the Death Penalty

It's the sex disparity that needs fixing.

Women commit 10-15% of homicides yet make up only 2% of those sentenced to death and are 1% of those actually executed. This gender disparity is more than 10 to 1.

On the other hand, there is little or no racial disparity. The black/white ratio is about 1 to 1. Blacks commit approximately the same number of homicides as whites (but a greater rate since they make up a smaller portion of the population). The number of blacks sentenced to death and/or executed is about the same as the number of whites sentenced to death and/or executed. In fact, although the difference is small and perhaps in the noise, whites convicted of murder are slightly more likely to receive the death penalty than blacks convicted of murder.

The Amnesty International reference is correct in that the death penalty is more likely to be imposed when the *victim* is white. However, what the reference fails to mention is that the death penalty is more likely to be imposed when the victim is a woman. That is, the real indicator is if the victim is a white woman.

Amnesty International completely ignores the most significant predictor of whether a convicted murderer will be sentenced to death and then be executed. These death penalty opponents talk about race and class and economic status, when the most significant factor is the sex, not race, of the accused. Instead of using the strongest argument, they use sound bites such as "racial injustice" while completely ignoring the 10 to 1 gender disparity. Clearly, they do not care about death penalty injustice when they try to twist what primarily is a gender difference into a racial difference.

 

[ERD50]

Illegally held against your will or the will of the state is kidnapping. If it is legal, it is something else (prison, boarding school, being grounded. . . ).

In contrast, the word kill does not imply something illegal was done. There the appropriate words are murder or homicide.

Martha and samclem - thanks for explaining it, had not thought of legal/illegal use of the different words.

So, I'll go back to my original question and rephrase it:

Why do some people refer to capital punishment as 'murder'?

Google "is capital punishment murder" OR "capital punishment is murder"

>15,800 hits

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

Why do some people refer to capital punishment as 'murder'?
-ERD50

Because they believe, and want others to believe, that the deliberate taking of a life in this way by the state is immoral and unethical. Thus, they believe it is murder. It is the same as the abortion debate and terminology: Those who believe that an abortion is an unethical taking of life will likely call it "murder," while those who believe the procedure is not unethical will find another term.

 

[Goonie]

Well since I can't have it my way i.e. public execution at high noon in the town square where the offense occurred carried by networks live if desired; I'd settle for confinement if a super max facility like Pelican Bay for life without parole.

DNA evidence used to convict should be the driver between the death penalty and life without parole. All convictions to date should be reviewed for DNA evidence. If it is not present then commute to a life without parole in a Super Max facility. If DNA is present and provides proof of murder then execute them. Do the execution within 1 year of conviction.

I agree with that whole heartedly. If there's DNA evidence to prove they're guilty....execute them! There's a worthless dirt-bag form my home town, sitting in a cell, being supported by my tax dollars, for committing 2 brutal murders. The 1st was a young women on her front porch with her children. There were a couple of (adult) eye witnesses. He was convicted and received 3 life sentences for the murder, and 30 years for home invasion.

While in prison, he murdered his cell mate.....while they were locked up together in their cell.....just the 2 of them. Even though his cell mate was found bludgeoned to death in their locked cell, some fool couldn't prove that he had done it, so he was never charged! WTF!!!

I like Ron White's statement "I’m from Texas. In Texas we have the death penalty. And we USE it.

That’s right, if you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back. That’s our policy.

They’re trying to pass a bill right now through the Texas Legislature that will speed up the process of execution in heinous crimes where there’s more than three credible eye witnesses. If more than three people saw you do what you did, you don’t sit on death row for 15 years, Jack, you go straight to the front of the line.

Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty … my state’s puttin’ in an express lane."

 

[NotSoonEnough]

I agree with that whole heartedly.

I don't agree. I do not believe the state should have the death penalty option, that is simply too much power in the hands of our amazingly wonderful and competent politicians.

I prefer our "deadly" convicts serve life without parole. But not the currently defined "life" in prison thing with the daily eats and comfy bunks. No, I'm thinking, life with cheap hot-dogs, life with cheese sandwiches (not grilled), life with beans and very little rice, life sleeping on a concrete bench. A "life sentence" should be miserable, not terminal. If by some miracle they are found innocent, then they at least have their life.

 

[haha]

It's the sex disparity that needs fixing.

Women commit 10-15% of homicides yet make up only 2% of those sentenced to death and are 1% of those actually executed. This gender disparity is more than 10 to 1.

My brother and I have had a hobby of collecting stories of egregious female murderers who get no time or a very light time.

Organizations like you mention above are not in business to right wrongs, they are in business to collect money to keep their salaries and perqs going. Hence they can't really tell the truth, since you can only sell what the public is willing to buy, and so far the public is not willing to buy the picture of violent murderous females.

Life is more bearable if you can approach it with at least some degree of cynicism. You will likely never develop enough to fit the reality, but whatever you can muster may be some protection.

Ha

 

[ChrisC]

It's the sex disparity that needs fixing.

On the other hand, there is little or no racial disparity. . . .The number of blacks sentenced to death and/or executed is about the same as the number of whites sentenced to death and/or executed. In fact, although the difference is small and perhaps in the noise, whites convicted of murder are slightly more likely to receive the death penalty than blacks convicted of murder.

What is your source for this statement?

 

[Shawn]

What is your source for this statement?

Compare the people who commit murder with the people who receive the death penalty.

Look at the Uniform Crime Reports from the FBI. They usually provide crime numbers by year. As an example, for 2006, the number of murder offenders was 17,399. Of those, 5339 (31%) were white and 6843 (39%) were black. The race of a large number (4922, or 28%) was unknown. The rest were other. Likewise, 11,508 were men and 1151 were women (unknown sex was 4740). The statistics vary but are not all that different for other years.

From 1977 to mid-2006, there have been 1029 people executed for murder. Of those, 590 (57%) were white and 350 (34%) were black. The rest were other. Likewise, 1018 were men and 11 were women. As of mid-2006, 3370 people were on death row. Of those, 45% were white and 42% were black. Likewise, 3314 were men and 56 were women. For example, look at The Death Penalty in the United States.

In summary, for the year 2006 anyway, at least 31% of murderers were white and at least 39% were black. However, of those executed between 1977 and mid-2006, 57% were white and 34% were black. Of those on death row as of mid-2006, 45% were white and 42% were black. Blacks make up a slight majority of murderers but whites make up a slight majority of those receiving the death penalty.

If anything, whites get the short end of the stick, although the racial difference is small. The 10 to 1 gender difference remains.

Despite the data, the response from Amnesty International and other death penalty opponents is to cry out against the nonexistent racial disparity and to completely ignore the quite significant gender disparity.

 

[Meadbh]

Sometimes the jury is wrong.....

Cases - AIDWYC.org

 

[Wags]

Cases - AIDWYC.org

Great link.

GOD BLESS

 

[dex]

Shawn,
Thanks for taking the time to get the info.
The media and most people do not know how to analyze statistical information.

I think the race issue raised by A.I. and others is due to correlating the application of Death penalty to race. I think this is and other wrong correlations are done in an attempt to hit a person's "hot button" so that they support A.I.'s goals.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

how wrong decisions are reinforced through the human tendency of justification.

or, pride goith before the guillotine blade falls.

When you talk about a life sentence you are not talking rehab, you are talking punishment so others may think twice, and you are talking warehousing.

is it warehousing or protecting society? does society benefit from a life sentence which does not involve rehab? is the world better by warehousing one more person hellbent on killing or by trying to help someone understand their actions and develop feelings & awareness? what does either action say about society? which makes the prison guard’s life more tolerable? which is better for his wife when he discusses his job, for the cashier she chats up when doing her shopping? why stop there?

a friend in calif recently sent me an email on john lennon. what he didn’t know is how close he is to the lennons because our mutual friend’s older sister befriended john & yoko many years ago. i’m not aware of the connection but i would not be surprised to find we are just as close to someone on deathrow. i would rather be connected to that person’s rehab than that person’s death, whether physical or simply the death inside.

Why is that those who are against abortion have no problem with the death penalty or with advocating wars?

anti-abortion and the death penalty (as well as anti-assisted suicide) have in common both the institutional exercise of ultimate authority over an individual’s body and the presumption that life is good and death is bad.

death is so bad that we won’t let you die even when it is your time but will take extreme measures to keep you alive regardless of the quality of your life. death is so bad that we use it to punish you. life is so good that we will force you to allow another’s life to come through your body. life is so good that if you are bad we are going to take it away from you.

Pretty damn scary -- and you can bet our system is far better than most.

fortunately it is early still in the evolution of humankind. i try to keep that in mind whenever i consider my own lack of gay rights. at least that’s only punishable by death in just a few countries still.

 

[Martha]

Shawn, I haven't looked at death penalty statistics regarding sex of the offender, though I did know that proportionately fewer women murderers are put to death than male murders. Unfortunately, the word "murder" and murder statistics are not enough to go on to determine if there is a disparity problem. From what I understand, certain mitigating or aggravating factors usually are considered in sentencing. For example, a woman who intentionally kills her husband who had beat her in the past may have mitigating factors in sentencing, even though the murder is technically first degree murder. On the other hand, men who rape and then kill may have aggravating factors applied. (It would be unusual for a woman to rape, as it is unusual for a woman to kill more than once). Also, certain killings are murder but are not eligible for the death penalty. Do you know how those factors play out? I don't think we can draw any conclusions from the raw numbers.

 

[ERD50]

does society benefit from a life sentence which does not involve rehab?

Many tough questions posed here, but I think this one is easy - 'yes'.

Ideally, we would rehab all criminals, and send them on their way to be productive citizens. More ideally, we would detect problems and do it *before* they committed a crime. Hopefully, someday we can do just that. It might be as simple as a chemical imbalance - look at medicine today compared with 100 years ago.

Unfortunately, I don't think our rehab skills are good enough to be able to set very many life-sentenced murderers free. Could you face the families of a mass murderer and say with confidence that the person was reformed and should be set free? So no, it is far from ideal, but yes, I think society is served by being protected from murderers.

Martha - interesting take on the study. It goes to show that even with what appears to be a well researched study, there may be more than meets the eye.

-ERD50

 

[ChrisC]

Compare the people who commit murder with the people who receive the death penalty.

Look at the Uniform Crime Reports from the FBI. They usually provide crime numbers by year. As an example, for 2006, the number of murder offenders was 17,399. Of those, 5339 (31%) were white and 6843 (39%) were black. The race of a large number (4922, or 28%) was unknown. The rest were other. Likewise, 11,508 were men and 1151 were women (unknown sex was 4740). The statistics vary but are not all that different for other years.

From 1977 to mid-2006, there have been 1029 people executed for murder. Of those, 590 (57%) were white and 350 (34%) were black. The rest were other. Likewise, 1018 were men and 11 were women. As of mid-2006, 3370 people were on death row. Of those, 45% were white and 42% were black. Likewise, 3314 were men and 56 were women. For example, look at The Death Penalty in the United States.

In summary, for the year 2006 anyway, at least 31% of murderers were white and at least 39% were black. However, of those executed between 1977 and mid-2006, 57% were white and 34% were black. Of those on death row as of mid-2006, 45% were white and 42% were black. Blacks make up a slight majority of murderers but whites make up a slight majority of those receiving the death penalty.

If anything, whites get the short end of the stick, although the racial difference is small. The 10 to 1 gender difference remains.

Despite the data, the response from Amnesty International and other death penalty opponents is to cry out against the nonexistent racial disparity and to completely ignore the quite significant gender disparity.

So, may I conclude on the basis of the statistics you cite that in each of the years from 1977 to 2006, no state in the United States exhibited any racial disparity in handing out the death sentence for murder or executing people for murder? Both Illinois and Maryland previously adopted death penalty moratoria a few years ago, on the grounds that there were some racial disparities in the death penalty in prior years. Were these States statistically misguided in adopting moratoria?

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Unfortunately, I don't think our rehab skills are good enough to be able to set very many life-sentenced murderers free. Could you face the families of a mass murderer and say with confidence that the person was reformed and should be set free? So no, it is far from ideal, but yes, I think society is served by being protected from murderers.

i only meant to bring to view how ramifications of simply warehousing murderers sans rehab effect those besides the convicted. even if you isolate the convicted, you still have someone bring them food. and even if the person is fed through a hole in the wall and never seen, the prison guard who brings the food to this tortured soul will be effected by how the prisoner is treated. that also effects his family and, to some degree, everyone who comes into contact with them. yes, it will effect even you.

i never suggested setting mass murderers free. i suggested only rehab. i would further suggest that how society might feel about keeping rehabilitated murderers incarcerated or not is beyond the scope of this discussion because society has not even yet decided on whether or not to let them live or to keep them from death.

 

[ERD50]

i never suggested setting mass murderers free. i suggested only rehab. i would further suggest that how society might feel about keeping rehabilitated murderers incarcerated or not is beyond the scope of this discussion because society has not even yet decided on whether or not to let them live or to keep them from death.

OK yes, I made the assumption of rehab leading to release.

You are right, this is probably beyond the scope of the discussion. I think you make a valid point, attempted rehab of a 'lifer' is a higher road than merely warehousing them. But it is a bit esoteric (IMO), and yes, most people aren't ready to address it.

Here's another thing people are probably not ready to address: Prevention is better than reaction. Read 'Freakonomics' for one cause-effect study.

-ERD50

 

[Wags]

New Jersey a·bol·ish·es the death penalty.

New Jersey bans death penalty - CNN.com

GOD BLESS