Georgia executed a convicted murderer on Tuesday, the first person to be put to death in the United States since the Supreme Court ended a de facto moratorium on capital punishment last month.
William Earl Lynd died by lethal injection at a prison in Jackson, central Georgia, at 7:51 p.m. Lynd, 53, was convicted of shooting his girlfriend to death in December 1988…
Lynd’s execution is the first since the same court on April 16 rejected a challenge to the cocktail of three drugs used in most U.S. executions, which opponents had argued inflicted unnecessary pain…
A nationwide pause in executions had been in effect since shortly after the court said on September 25 it would hear an appeal by two death row inmates in Kentucky against the use of the lethal drugs.
And it only took 20 years to execute William Earl Lynd.
# 35 that’s sick. It’s basically argument for killing people to keep the cost of mistakes down.
seek help.
Simply….
It is better that 10 guilty men walk than 1 innocent man burn…
…and any of you who don’t agree simply lack the imagination to see yourself as the innocent burning man.
#62 – Couldn’t have said it better myself, OFTLO.
#62,
what about 100 guilty men, or 1,000, or 1,000,000. There has to be a point.
As for me, if I was wrongly convicted? I would rather just go to sleep forever instead of spend the next 40 years in a cell.
“And it only took 20 years to execute William Earl Lynd”
And that is 20 years too much, not to mention 20 years more than his victim got.
Mustard,
Off subject,
Further to our discussion on Miley Cyrus, here is a video by Vanity Fair you might like seeing. I don’t know if it adds to the discussion, but …
And a slide show of the photo shoot.
#65, LtJackbutt,
And that is 20 years too much, not to mention 20 years more than his victim got.
And many have finally been found innocent after even longer delays.
#64 – Are you really convinced that there are that many crazy murdering lunatics out there? Because the stats just don’t bear it out.
I was reminded of just how safe America actually is when I was passing through Cabrini Green the other day.
To answer your question, I’d prefer you were released.
#66 – Your Holiness
Interesting vid and slideshow, but I’m not sure that gets us any further than we were before. She’s a cute little girl, trying to act like a grownup woman (with all that entails), and it comes back to bite her in the ass in her role as Virgin Princess. I’m glad to see that, at least in the lead-up to the satin-sheet pic, she had pants on. That’s a step in the right direction.
#61
> that’s sick. It’s basically
> argument for killing people to
> keep the cost of mistakes down.
As opposed to the argument to torture someone for life to keep costs down or in the hopes that one out of the thousands might possibly be found not guilty?
#62
#64 beat me to it. You are implying there is a threshold of mistaken guilty convictions. What is that threshold? Is it ok if a 100 guilty men go free so that no innocent man is convicted? What about 1000? If there is no threshold, or if that threshold is astronomically high, then there is a solution to completely eliminate Type 2 errors (falsely convicting an innocent): don’t try people for murder. Beyond that equally crazy idea, you have to accept some degree of Type 2 error.
#68,
at about 16,000 murders per year, thats about 500,000 murders in the 32 years since capitol punishment was re-instated. And with 1100 people executed in that time frame, thats a 0.2% capitol punishment rate. So yes, I do think there are that many killers, and I do think the stats bear me out.
>>So yes, I do think there are that many killers
Yeah, but what about the “killers” we kill who aren’t killers after all? The death penalty is a holdover from the days of Genghis Khan. Give it up.
#63–OFTLO==If you change “walk” to life in prison then I would agree and there would be no threshold issue.
If you leave walk as the outcome, then you are wrong. Release 10 folks arrested and prosecuted for murder and how many people will those released arrestees kill? Even one gives you a draw. Then there is always the question of “what does innocent” really mean? and so forth.
#72,
how many is that? Do you have a number?
If that number is 10, I can live with that.
I have a harder time living with 500,000 murders, and only 1,100 executions.
And so we come full circle to my post #22. Lock them away. SuperMax. The system is inherently imperfect because it is the product of inherently imperfect beings. Given it’s imperfect, some level of “undo” must be included when an imperfection (sentencing an innocent) arises. Since we are talking about only a relatively small number of inmates (~1,200), permanent LWOP is doable, and in my belief a far better deterrent than the death penalty.
It’s really very simple.
Now mind you, I’m talking 23/7 NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE, permanent incarceration. No possibility for “time off for good behavior” because their case never comes up for review incarceration. Lock em up and throw away the key. It’s up to someone on the outside to prove conclusively that they are innocent to get released.
#43 said, “#24 – Your question assumes that I said something other than what I did say.”
Okay so you agree that these prisoners get, Cable TV, work out equipment, free education & free health care above basic needs?
I thought you disagreed with it. My mistake. 🙂
#71 – 500K in 32 years? Really? Damn… that is a smaller number than I would have guessed. I guess my point is made.
My point isn’t that we shouldn’t do anything about crime, but rather that our fear driven bloodthirst for vengeance is irrational.
#71, Les,
Your numbers are low. Between 1950 and 2005 there have been 887,603 homicides. From 1976 to 2005 there have been 614,883. (there was a huge spike from the early ’70s through to the early ’90s where there were over 20,000 annually.)
These though are ALL homicides. Since a homicide is a willful taking another person’s life, this number includes negligent manslaughter as well as capital and non-capital murder. The FBI statistics do not break down the numbers finer than that as often it is unknown at the time of reporting what the actual culpability of death is.
Don’t forget that often plea deals will give a definite sentence that precludes the death penalty. Second degree homicide seldom includes the death penalty. Many cases go unsolved and there are those who have killed multiple victims. This one of those cases where there are just not enough exact statistics to draw reasonable conclusions.
#77 – Please tell me what your point is?
I really can’t imagine a hell worse than a prison. Do you think the presence of a TV magically transforms it into a hippie love-in?
How many guys are getting their engineering degrees between anal rapes and random shivving?
Are there are lot of ex-cons who walk out those doors ready to compete for America in the Olympics?
So… what happens if we get rid of the TV? Do all the criminals suddenly learn their lesson because they miss Oprah so much? Does the government turn around and show a surplus?
Am I to assume you advocate not providing health care? Do you think literacy would be a bad idea if a guy wants to turn his life around?
Prison isn’t brimming with Batman villians. It isn’t even brimming with violent offenders. It is brimming, however with a greater percentage of our citizens than any other country’s prisons are brimming with theirs. It is brimming with a disproportionately high percentage of minorities because whites are statistically more likely not to do time for the same crimes. It is brimming with too damn many non-violent and petty drug offenders.
So there is a TV in the prison and some days it even works. What is your point?
#73 – Then there is always the question of “what does innocent” really mean?
But people who ask that question are routinely beaten up, and for very good reason.
>I’m talking 23/7 NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE
Ah yea, one hour of parole hearings a day.
Liberals consider Supermax prisons cruel as well, they’re just being quiet about it while they try to get the death penalty abolished.
>>Ah yea, one hour of parole hearings a day.
That’s probably the stupidest thing you’ve ever posted, Lyin’ MikeN.
#74, Les,
how many is that? Do you have a number? If that number is 10, I can live with that.
Statistics such as 1 in 10 or 100 or 1,000 are meaningless. Each is an individual incident and thus not a game of odds. It is within our power to give each accused a better trial.
Unfortunately too many have convicted every accused before trial and refuse to accept they might be not guilty. Therefore we allow unfair trials to take place.
We know there are innocent people on death row and in the prison system for that matter. What we don’t know is how many. There are too few dollars around to properly investigate and appeal the sentences.
While the State can spend millions investigating, testing, and prosecuting the case the defense is constrained by the limited resources most citizens have. A murder trial will bankrupt almost every ordinary family and still not approach 10% of the State’s outlay. Court appointed lawyers will spend even less.
Add to that is the object of police is to solve crimes. Getting the right person is not necessarily the same thing. Police have willfully lied in court, fabricated evidence, and not shared evidence that might have freed the accused. Successful convictions lead to promotions.
Prosecutors are little different. Judges too have been known for their bias. When Prosecutors and Judges have to defend their conviction rates before a frightened citizenry, bad things happen.
When new evidence is found (DNA or otherwise) it is too often impossible to present it or have it fairly weighed. Prosecutors almost 100% of the time will fight reopening a case and do everything in their power to refute otherwise credible evidence.
So maybe you can live with that one wrongful conviction or even execution. But what if that wrongfully convicted was your best friend? Or your nephew? Or your brother? Or even yourself? Would you still feel you can live with that kind of mistake? Just because you can live with a wrongfully convicted person being executed, should the victim’s family just accept it?
#80 “Am I to assume you advocate not providing health care? Do you think literacy would be a bad idea if a guy wants to turn his life around?”
Please learn to read posts before commenting.
I said, “In any event, no TV’s, free education beyond basic 3 Rs, no gym equip. Only basic health care, etc.”
The POINT is that they deserve nothing above that.
By omitting crime they have given up rights. My money is what pays for luxuries. I don’t want to pay more than enough to keep them alive.
If you’d like to pay more be my guest.
#84–gawd==while I basically agree with your expressed sentiments, I have to say your posting is pure gibberish, saved only by spelling and grammar rules being followed?
1 in 10 was not what was clearly presented and was not a statistic. It was a hypothetical setting a standard of justice. Still very debatable but not on the terms you hijacked.
Resource allocation is a bitch. The entire government funding could go to criminal defense bar if restrictions were removed. That too is debatable but the occasional “horror story” of justice denied is just that. We agree on the problem, don’t know about anything but wishing money were unlimited?
Appeals to “what if it was your brother” etc are wholly out of place in any serious discussion of social policy. You already made several good points and summaries, why pollute?
#78
> My point isn’t that we shouldn’t
> do anything about crime, but
> rather that our fear driven
> bloodthirst for vengeance is
> irrational.
Again, that assumes that stuffing them away is not also an irrational thirst for vengeance. You substantiated that notion in post #80: “I really can’t imagine a hell worse than a prison.”. LWOP is as much, or as little, about vengeance as execution. Since that is the case, then our choice of punishment for this crime should be based on factors other than the specious claim that one is for vengeance and another is not.
#80
You are confusing the types of prisons to which a criminal will be sent. A criminal that that is convicted of a crime that would have warranted the death penalty will be sent to a supermax prison. No TV. No natural light. Long periods with no human contact. 23 hours a day in lock down.
My god people, consider the amount of money that is spent o incarcerate a single mass murder for their entire life. And you wonder why the US is in such bad economic shape and has rampant crime. I say we reduce the minimum crime required to execute people. This way, w save money that can better be spent on education and make people think twice before jaywalking!
Will some one please think of the poor children!
#87 “#80
You are confusing the types of prisons to which a criminal will be sent. A criminal that that is convicted of a crime that would have warranted the death penalty will be sent to a supermax prison. No TV. No natural light. Long periods with no human contact. 23 hours a day in lock down.”
No, I’m not. Only a VERY small % of murderers end up in Supermax. The vast majority are in regular state prison, or federal pen.
#86, bobbo,
1 in 10 was not what was clearly presented and was not a statistic. It was a hypothetical setting a standard of justice. Still very debatable but not on the terms you hijacked.
Ahh, once again you have failed to read and understand. My post was directed at Les and his response to the often made comment that “it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.”
To that Les had responded in #64,
what about 100 guilty men, or 1,000, or 1,000,000. There has to be a point.
and in #74, responding to Mustard,
#72,
how many is that? Do you have a number?
If that number is 10, I can live with that.
In case your powers of English knowledge have again failed you, 1 in 10 is a statistic.
*
… but the occasional “horror story” of justice denied is just that.
I have responded that the “horror story” of justice denied is an acceptable consequence of our already underfunded, overtaxed justice system. But your response to that acceptance is to write:
Appeals to “what if it was your brother” etc are wholly out of place in any serious discussion of social policy. You already made several good points and summaries, why pollute?
So you too accept that sending an innocent person to jail (and not necessarily just DP cases) is normal and without controversy. This was my response to Les and his acceptance of some artificial number that is not a person.
There is a lot of merit behind putting a face to a tragedy. Social policy, after all, is about people.
Suggesting that an innocent man may be executed, spend the rest of his life in prison, or even just a few years is not pollution. It is a very germane idea and philosophy behind many (if not most) anti-death penalty advocates and legal system reformers.
While money is important, there is also a lot that can be done with attitude corrections.