NEWS: Death Penalty Opponents Murder Innocents in Honduras

POLITICS: Death Penalty Opponents Murder Innocents in Honduras

While not the most horrific terror attack in recent years, the Christmas Eve massacre in Honduras is almost surely the most ridiculous.

Obviously, these thugs don’t oppose the death penalty out of some bleeding-heart liberal humanitarianism. They’re against it because they’re afraid they personally could be executed.

Wow, talk about a ridiculously misleading headline. Referring to a bunch of gang members as "death penalty opponents" because they happen to oppose having it used on themselves is ridiculous. And the "bleeding heart liberal" crap was equally unnecessary. I can assure you that most of us who oppose the death penalty do so because our brains work, not because our hearts bleed.

I am pro-death penalty. I am pro-multiple death penalty in cases of multiple murders, (torture them a little before killing them, a set amount for each death but the last, kill them for the last.)

I am also for public executions, and requiring the jury to be on hand for the execution.

Our society has veered far too much from the old saying "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Too often it is -guilty because no one can think of someone else who could or would have done it, with the punishment graded to the certainty. How many times have you heard of the DA NOT asking for the death penalty because he couldn't be sure the jury would be absolutely certain of the accused guilt?

Death because your certain, but only life if you have the slightest doubt? Not the way it's supposed to work. This goes for ANY other crime as well.

Indeed. And what's particularly silly about this is that virtually all of the executions under democratic governments occur in a handful of American states. The class of "bleeding heart humanitarians" is apparently pretty large...

I'm always mixed on this issue. For the most part, I think too often it is barbaric, but then I remember that a lot of murderers deserve to be treated as such.

My only problem with the death penalty is that innocent people might die because of it. The only time I'm truly in favor of it is when the case is so clear cut, such as Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy, that there is no doubt the person who is going to be executed is 100% guilty of the crime they're convicted.

For other cases, life without parole is good enough. Provided they actually do spend the rest of their lives, until the very day they actual die, behind bars.

I sort of assume by now that the headlines of a news story might not actually reflect the story. It seems to be the thing to get the clever headline.

I'd have no problem with killing off horrendous people who do horrendous acts, but the fact it our legal system does have flaws and innocent people are executed. At least with life in prison they have a shot at being exonerated and living out however much life they have left free like they should be.

Dogmatix1977,
Brinstar,

You both illustrate my point.
If there is even the slightest chance that they are NOT guilty, then they should be FOUND Not Guilty. Not locked up for the rest of their natural lives.

No one should be convicted on probably.

You convict based on evidence available at the time, based on the standard of whether a reasonable person would have reason to doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime based on that evidence. Most of the cases in which someone on death row was released were cases in which new evidence arose, in which there was bad representation that didn't challenge evidence properly, or other circumstances that arose after the trial.

If the court system was set to not convict based on the possibility that maybe someday you'll find something that shows the defendant is not guilty, then you'd never get a conviction. Instead, we have to decide based on what we have at the time. And there are cases where a jury probably very rightly convicted based on what they had, but something else came up later. That, to me, is a compelling reason not to execute a prisoner.

Sigh.

I oppose the death penalty myself. I wasn't taking a swipe at you, I was referring to people like my very own self. So relax. I'm sure your brain works, as does mine.

Then you have no criminal justice system. There is no such thing as 100% certain of guilt, especially when you take into account forced confessions and police set-ups. The jurie's job is to convict "beyond a REASONABLE doubt" not "beyond any possible doubt whatsoever, however extremely unlikely it may be".

Exactly what century do you think you are living in? Thanks for your thoughts but we are fortunately far beyond this sort of adolescent revenge fantasy.

[Edited on Dec 27, 2004 by tangent23]

i always smell conspiracy whenever something like this happens and the military uses it as a carte blanche for a show of force in civilian lives. Get ready for the coup, I mean what else is fucking new in Latin America.

uhm, as a honduran, i can say that there won't be a coup (current prez is popular)... by having the military out patroling the areas of honduras has made the people feel safer, at least from what i saw last summemr...

this story is particularly sad to me cuz if i think about it, some gang in the capital city might have possibly shot up one of my aunts, uncles, cousins, and that would have made my christmas even worse (not that it already isnt b/c some family friends missing in thailand)...

the point of this article is to show the hipocracy of these "gangs" who are nothing more than young kids deported from the US...

btw, there is no life sentence in Honduras... the max you get is 30 years... i'd rather see these guys get death rather than 30 years if they ever did anything to my family members...

Brinstar,
Point.


Tangent23,
I'm for some way of doubling up punishment for multiple murderers, and am for killing them...unfortunately, you can only kill them once, even if they killed dozens, or hundreds.

I'm for public executions, well several reasons. I feel the condemned lacks any right to privacy, I feel that the public should have the right to see justice done, literally. I feel that if you support an execution, you should be able to prove it by witnessing one, not hiding it in a dark room, out of sight out of mind. FInally, I'm for the jury being on hand as one more guard against them convicting a person who they shouldn't.

I will say this. You do seem intelligent in your arguments, and show no bloodlust. I went digging and found no comments of yours wishing anyone ill. Not a comprehensive search, but I suspect representative. Your arguments re. israel, and regrettably Bush, are very well made, for example.

Edit. Original line was
I'm for some way of doubling up punishment for for murderers, and am for killing them...unfortunately, you can only kill them once, even if they killed dozens, or hundreds.

[Edited on Dec 27, 2004 by gunphreek]

The death penalty is suspect enough in itself without the added barbarism you advocate. There is little rational justification for taking the life of another human being under the auspices of a modern legal system. There is a reason that a majority of modern, western countries have abolished the death penalty. Look at this Link

Justice in exactly what sense? Public executions were used by western countries in the past and have been denounced as a gross violation of human rights by most modern governments and international human rights agencies.

When was the last time you witnessed an execution?

Ed. for Spelling

[Edited on Dec 27, 2004 by tangent23]

Apologies to the Thread for Topical drift.

I agree with you mostly. Unfortunately, I'm to lazy to type and explain my whole opinion.

I'm pro death penalty. My reason is simplest enough. To not execute a murderer is to say that their victims life was not worth as much as their own. It's a complete slap in the face to the victim, their family and every other law abiding citizen. We value life and the only equal price to life is another one. While torture and public displays of execution are considered "brutal and inhumane" they are effective. China with a population 4 times the size of the U.S. has what, a tenth of the crime rate? The reason being is a stricter upbringing and undoubtedly a hard line rule with regards to crime and its punishments. Here in the U.S. the criminal justice system is a joke. If executions and torture doesn't lower crime rates than life imprisonment sure as hell isn't going to do it. At the very least we'd be cleansing our society of filth and the cost when executed properly is negligible. China for instnace also uses the firing squad the way it was intended to be used mind you. >not like Utah where they lock you in a room in shoot<
The cost of the bullet used in the execution is then billed to the family of the executed. How's that for sending a clear message?

That's it...I'm outta here. How did this discussion degenerate to this so quickly?

Tangent23,

I'll continue to disagree regarding whether or not capital punishment has a place in modern society.

As to witnessing one, obviously I haven't. I would rather hate to see anyone die, expecially by violent means. If they were made public, I would watch an execution, once, to prove my convictions, ...then I'd probably have nightmares for a few weeks.

Comments on your link.

From the bold text on the main page.

Opinion, (although I tend to agree, but I feel that cruel crimes diserve cruel punishments.) As to inhuman (did they mean inhumain?), or degrading...well.

True, it violates the right to individual life, but in the case of a murderer, the murderer has already violated anothers right to life, and thus, in my opinion, given up any such rights him or herself.

True, it's irreversible, and regrettably true...I still say, "innocent until proven guilty."

The rest of the first page appears to be a progress report, so I'll not comment on it here.

From the fact sheet,
(skipping 1-5 as being more progress report,) 6 gives a cite, I'll not evaluate it, but it is worth considering. I, however, would throw someone in jail for theft even if there was no chance of that person repeating the crime, nor anyone else learning I had, or had not, done so. Deterrance is only a third of it. Yes, I suppose I am equating revenge and justice. A jail is to not only rehabilitate the offender, and deter potential offender, but also to punish the offender, and I still believe the only adequate punishment for killing another, without reasonable cause, is to be killed.
Yes, this is a cop-out. I feel that being threatened to the point of believing oneself at risk of harm is reasonable cause. I feel that being insulted while drunk, is not.
7. gives the same cite. It references a reduction in homicide in Canada. Personally I can not see how abolishment, by itself, or as the main variable can possibly reduce murder. Not cause it to increase perhaps, if it were not a variable at all, but not reduce it. This suggests to me that other factors were at work in the drop...of course I believe executions ARE classified as homicides, so it WOULD reduce the numbers. (I remember an anecdote about having to do an autopsy on an executed prisoner because, technically, it was a homicide, even if the reason for death was quite clear cut...a lethal injection or several thousand volts of electricity.) I'm not saying this is the case, but I have heard of similar ploys in other instances. "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
8. is a progress report.
9. True, but I'm for not imprisoning the innocent too. Hmm...maybe falsifying evicence in a murder trial should be consider attempted murder...
10. of little interest to the argument, except to say we DO still have a death penalty.

The rest appeared to offer neither opinion to argue, nor detail to refute. They did offer facts, but of the sort that are not in question.

On a marginally related note, "international" law, and treaties like the Kyoto accords and anti-landmine treaty, bug me. I see valid applications, but it stinks too highly of world government in general. Like the meat eater who doesn't want to consider the origin of a sausage casing, (or vegan who doesn't want to hear the FDA limits on rat parts in grain,) I am somewhat self-contradictory on the concept. Also, I question the how something can be "prohibited" under "international human rights standards". This suggests an enforcability not in evidence. If I prohibit you from wearing red, does my saying so have any effect, (except, of course to dictate that you will wear exactly that color tomorrow.)? Held unacceptable, perhaps, anathemia, even, but prohibited?

I'll check the thread sometime tomorrow evening. I've got to go to sleep now, or I'll be a zombie tomorrow at work.

That's how they do things in the "People's Republic" of China.

"An eye for an eye" would leave us all blind.

I used to consider th death penalty the right thing to do. Then I saw far too many innocent people injected.

Its too hard to be sure whether you got the right person. And until we can be absolute with our judgements, one should not be so absolute with justice.

The clear message being, "We place no value on human life whatsoever." You do realize that they execute people in China for any number of reasons, ranging from murder down to expressing a dissenting opinion, right? I mean, you're not seriously holding China up as an example to pattern ourselves after - China, who rolled tanks over their own people a few years back because they committed the ghastly crime of creating a papier mache replica of the statue of liberty and displaying it in public? That China? Oh, and you are also aware that there are places that have done away with the death penalty altogether, that have lower murder rates than the US, right?

The rest of your post is equally ridiculous. To not execute an alleged murderer, keeping in mind that innocent people are convicted of crimes all the time in this country, is not to make any meaningless value judgments about the victim's life, but rather to say that the state has no business empowering itself to do the bad things that it expects its citizens not to do. To say that we should execute people because of some woefully outdated, uncivilized "eye for an eye" mentality is to "value" life the way that accountants value assets, as entries in a ledger book. People who really value life always avoid ending it unnecessarily, and it simply isn't necessary to pander to the bloodlust of people who have lost a loved one. It may feel good, but that doesn't make it necessary, or smart, or right.

"Cleansing our society of filth," indeed. Whether you'd like to acknowledge it or not, murderers are just as human as you are, and murder is an all too human pastime.

While I can't agree or support with what China does, punishment should fit the crime. Locking people up like we do in this country doesn't do jack shit. Someone commits a crime and hey look! We give them free room and board. Muderers should be put to death, rapists should be fixed so they can't perform a sex act anymore and people who steal should lose fingers with repeat offenders losing a whole hand. Its called deterrence. Getting locked up doesn't carry any weight anymore.

Reminds of of that time back in the 90s when that american kid got caught spray painting cars or something over there in Southern Asia. They were going to whip him but president Clinton intervened, if i remember correctly.