New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.


SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#1
Recently there has not been a lot of good news for the progressives in USA. Until Obama was elected, religious right was running rampant in USA, intent on fulfilling its agenda of bringing in religious Theocracy to USA, aided and abetted by former President Bush.

So this news comes as a ray of sunshine in the darkness. New Mexico recently abolished the death penalty, joining only a handful of US states (14 to be exact) which do not have death penalty. The last state to abolish death penalty was New Jersey, a few years ago.

In addition, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland and Montana are considering abolishing death penalty. If Montana does abolish death penalty, that will make the question of Canadian government intervening on behalf of the Canadian on death row moot.

It has not all been good news on this front, a few years New York reinstituted the death penalty (when they had a Republican governor, Pataki). Even today, most of the US population is covered by the death penalty; the states who have abolished death penalty are smaller states. Bigger states such as New York, California, Texas have death penalty (Texas of course, executes more criminals than any other state).

While worldwide there has been considerable progress towards abolishing death penalty (all the countries in the developed world, with the exception of USA and Japan, have abolished death penalty), in USA the progress has been slow and painful. The strong influence of religion is responsible for that (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, that kind of thing).

Anyway, as an opponent of death penalty, I will take any victory, however small. So congratulations, New Mexico, for entering the 21st century.

New Mexico governor repeals death penalty in state - CNN.com
 
Nuggler
#2
They're gonna have some crowded prisons, senor.

The philosophy of letting serial sexual sadists, murderers, rapists, killers, baby bangers, and assorted slugspawn live, has always appealed to me.

Makes for an interesting societal mix.

Specially in prison, where they all can find Jesus.

.......................... S ....................










(arcasm)
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#3
Ok then I guess we build more prisons let the private prison industry handle them. As long as there put in with general prison population I have no problem. Bubba you got company.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#4
Seriously this creates a major problem for a lot of States. Who do you propose pay for these people when they have just had their death penalty commuted to life without parole? The maximum security prisons are already over crowded with major criminals, I'm not counting those serving 5 years or less, (failure to pay child support type felons etc). If we could have these new prisons, where would we put them? Yes killing for any reason is wrong, but where do we put these animals and who supports them?
 
petros
#5
Wtg nm
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#6
They're gonna have some crowded prisons, senor. Ė Nuggler

Seriously this creates a major problem for a lot of States. Who do you propose pay for these people when they have just had their death penalty commuted to life without parole? Ė Ironsides

This argument does not make sense for several reasons. One, one cannot put a price on human rights, on fundamental rights.

If we are looking to save money, why not execute the criminal as soon as he is found guilty? That will save substantial amount of money, cost of housing the prisoner, cost of the appeals process etc. Or still better, why not shoot him dead as soon as he is arrested? That way we save even more money. We save the cost of trial, the cost of locking up the prisoner (it may be several months before a trial takes place), cost of prosecutors, judges, cost of the court building etc.

So human rights cannot be measured in terms of money. If abolishing the death penalty leads to increased cost, that is the price we pay as a civilized society, for permitting human rights.

Second, currently the death row inmates are housed in the prisons, they are not allowed to roam free (and I assume security must be very tight in those prisons). Why canít they continue to stay in the same place for the rest of their lives? I donítí see it costing anything extra. On the other hand, it will lead to money saving, since there wonít be the endless appeals against death sentence.

When somebody is sentenced to death, the human rights groups (ACLU etc.) try to find every loophole in the law and launch appeal after appeal in the hope of saving prisonerís life. When it is life without parole, there is one appeal and that is it. Once the appeal is denied, no human rights organization will keep beating the dead horse.

So the argument of the cost is a phony one. It probably will lead to saving of money. And even if it did lead to more cost (which I seriously doubt) that is not a reason to continue with the death penalty, which is a blatant violation of human rights.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Wtg nm

Amen, Petros.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

............It has not all been good news on this front, a few years New York reinstituted the death penalty (when they had a Republican governor, Pataki). Even today, most of the US population is covered by the death penalty; the states who have abolished death penalty are smaller states. Bigger states such as New York, California, Texas have death penalty (Texas of course, executes more criminals than any other state)........ New Mexico governor repeals death penalty in state - CNN.com

It would appear that the more people see of each other, the more popular the death penalty is. The fewer people there are the more value they place on each other. I wonder if anyone's done any research on this idea.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

It would appear that the more people see of each other, the more popular the death penalty is. The fewer people there are the more value they place on each other. I wonder if anyone's done any research on this idea.

Of course they have. The basic experiment runs as such.

Get a cage.

Get rats.

Start adding rats to the cage.

Observe how behaviour changes as rats/sqft rises.

Humans are no different.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#10
Quote:

SirJosephPorter; They're gonna have some crowded prisons, senor. Ė Nuggler

Seriously this creates a major problem for a lot of States. Who do you propose pay for these people when they have just had their death penalty commuted to life without parole? Ė Ironsides

This argument does not make sense for several reasons. One, one cannot put a price on human rights, on fundamental rights. - SirJosephPorter;


But punishment of any kind removes the "rights" of the individual convicted.......the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of movement, etc., etc..........


Quote:

If we are looking to save money, why not execute the criminal as soon as he is found guilty? That will save substantial amount of money, cost of housing the prisoner, cost of the appeals process etc. Or still better, why not shoot him dead as soon as he is arrested? That way we save even more money. We save the cost of trial, the cost of locking up the prisoner (it may be several months before a trial takes place), cost of prosecutors, judges, cost of the court building etc.

We do all the above things of course, not to protect the perpetrator of heinous crimes, but to protect the INNOCENT . There is a difference, you know.



Quote:


So human rights cannot be measured in terms of money. If abolishing the death penalty leads to increased cost, that is the price we pay as a civilized society, for permitting human rights.

Second, currently the death row inmates are housed in the prisons, they are not allowed to roam free (and I assume security must be very tight in those prisons). Why canít they continue to stay in the same place for the rest of their lives? I donítí see it costing anything extra. On the other hand, it will lead to money saving, since there wonít be the endless appeals against death sentence.


When somebody is sentenced to death, the human rights groups (ACLU etc.) try to find every loophole in the law and launch appeal after appeal in the hope of saving prisonerís life. When it is life without parole, there is one appeal and that is it. Once the appeal is denied, no human rights organization will keep beating the dead horse.


So the argument of the cost is a phony one. It probably will lead to saving of money

Here you are absolutely correct. Executing a prisoner in the USA costs tens of millions of dollars in lawyer fees, court costs, etc as the appeals process is exhausted......much more than simply keeping him inside for the next 100 years, if necessary. It ain't about the money.
.

Quote:

And even if it did lead to more cost (which I seriously doubt) that is not a reason to continue with the death penalty, which is a blatant violation of human rights


Execution of those guilty of extreme violation of the basic rules of humanity is NOT a violation of their human rights.....in fact it is the celebration of the human rights of the rest of society........

Having said that, let me say I agree with the decision of New Mexico....I would see mass killers executed.....I believe that society has a duty to eliminate from this earth the evil that is Clifford Olsen, Ted Bundy, Karla Holmolka and her idiot ex-husband.....but I also know that there are Marshalls, Milgaards, Morins out there.....convicted but innocent.......and it is better to let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent......especially of capital offenses.....

So, let's try mass murderers seperately for each killing.....three trials, three different juries, three different judges, three different prosecution teams.......and on their third conviction of murder, execute them within 3 days.

Otherwise, forget capital punishment..
 
Nuggler
#11
Kill them !!!!!!!!!!!

KILL THEM ALL !!!!!!!!

ESPECIALLY J-WALKERS !!!

And people who eat with their mouths open!!!

EXECUTE THEM, BUT
TORTURE THEM FIRST !!!
Mehhhhhhh, or not.


 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#12
Nuggler, you may be interested in the song of Lord High Executioner from Mikado.

As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list--I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed--who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs--
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs--
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat--
All persons who in shaking hands, shake hands with you like
that--
And all third persons who on spoiling tte--ttes insist--
They'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed!

CHORUS. He's got 'em on the list--he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed--they'll none of
'em be missed.
There's the banjo serenader, and the others of his race,
And the piano-organist--I've got him on the list!
And the people who eat peppermint and puff it in your face,
They never would be missed--they never would be missed!
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
And the lady from the provinces, who dresses like a guy,
And who "doesn't think she waltzes, but would rather like to
try";
And that singular anomaly, the lady novelist--
I don't think she'd be missed--I'm sure she'd not he missed!

CHORUS. He's got her on the list--he's got her on the list;
And I don't think she'll be missed--I'm sure
she'll not be missed!

And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife,
The Judicial humorist--I've got him on the list!
All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of private life--
They'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed.
And apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind,
Such as--What d'ye call him--Thing'em-bob, and
likewise--Never-mind,
And 'St--'st--'st--and What's-his-name, and also You-know-who--
The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you.
But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be
missed!
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

It would appear that the more people see of each other, the more popular the death penalty is. The fewer people there are the more value they place on each other. I wonder if anyone's done any research on this idea.

I donít know about that, Gilbert. In Europe the population density is very high. People are much more in each otherís way in Europe than they are in USA. But still Europe has abolished death penalty, while the Americansí love affair with death penalty continues.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#14
"This argument does not make sense for several reasons. One, one cannot put a price on human rights, on fundamental rights. - SirJosephPorter;"

What are you talking about, protecting the human rights, fundamental rights of a convicted murderer or what ever major crime this person was convicted of. There is really a much bigger thing going on here. Protecting the rights of a convicted murderer, protecting terrorists human rights do you know we give more rights to them than we do to unborn children. It is not so much the abortion issue I am defending. It is the so called mixed signals the ACLU and people against the death penalty send out. In most States now a convicted felon is stripped of all rights except for any cruel or unusual punishment. The death penalty has been made as painless as possible and if there was a better way to do it, I'm sure we would use it. Bottom line there are people living in this world that the world and society would be better off without. Keeping them alive will only increase the chances for a mistake that they can escape. No prison is 100% secure, death is.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#15
But punishment of any kind removes the "rights" of the individual convicted.......the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of movement, etc., etc..........

Colpy, punishment of any kind must not take away the very basic, fundamental rights from the prisoner. He still enjoys rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech (subject to prison regulations, of course). But even on a more fundamental level, he is entitled to adequate food, water, shelter, and yes, even right to life.

We do all the above things of course, not to protect the perpetrator of heinous crimes, but to protect the INNOCENT . There is a difference, you know.

We do all those things, are you serious? Let me reproduce what I said.

If we are looking to save money, why not execute the criminal as soon as he is found guilty? That will save substantial amount of money, cost of housing the prisoner, cost of the appeals process etc. Or still better, why not shoot him dead as soon as he is arrested? That way we save even more money. We save the cost of trial, the cost of locking up the prisoner (it may be several months before a trial takes place), cost of prosecutors, judges, cost of the court building etc.

And you are saying we do all this? We shoot a person dead after he is arrested without any trial, without any due process of law? Or that we execute a criminal as soon a she is found guilty? Are you sure you live in Canada? Or do you live in Saudi Arabia or North Korea?

Or are you saying that that is what we should be doing, shoot a suspect of sight, after he has been arrested? The whole thing is nonsense.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

But punishment of any kind removes the "rights" of the individual convicted.......the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of movement, etc., etc..........

Colpy, punishment of any kind must not take away the very basic, fundamental rights from the prisoner. He still enjoys rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech (subject to prison regulations, of course). But even on a more fundamental level, he is entitled to adequate food, water, shelter, and yes, even right to life.

We do all the above things of course, not to protect the perpetrator of heinous crimes, but to protect the INNOCENT . There is a difference, you know.

We do all those things, are you serious? Let me reproduce what I said.

If we are looking to save money, why not execute the criminal as soon as he is found guilty? That will save substantial amount of money, cost of housing the prisoner, cost of the appeals process etc. Or still better, why not shoot him dead as soon as he is arrested? That way we save even more money. We save the cost of trial, the cost of locking up the prisoner (it may be several months before a trial takes place), cost of prosecutors, judges, cost of the court building etc.

And you are saying we do all this? We shoot a person dead after he is arrested without any trial, without any due process of law? Or that we execute a criminal as soon a she is found guilty? Are you sure you live in Canada? Or do you live in Saudi Arabia or North Korea?

Or are you saying that that is what we should be doing, shoot a suspect of sight, after he has been arrested? The whole thing is nonsense.

Oh gimme a break! You know perfectly well what I meant.........but let me spoon-feed you, just the same........

I mean we provide trials to protect the innocent.

As well as all the other protections and actual (not imagined) rights available.....such as the right to be presumed innocent, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a defence, etc etc...........all intended to protect the innocent.......a point often missed in the debate over "criminals" rights.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#17
More and more US States are removing the death penalty - to many mistakes for one.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#18
Execution of those guilty of extreme violation of the basic rules of humanity is NOT a violation of their human rights.....in fact it is the celebration of the human rights of the rest of society........

Colpy, that is your opinion. In my opinion, every individual is entitled to the right to life. It is wrong to take anybodyís life, but it is especially odious when the state kills its own citizens.

in fact it is the celebration of the human rights of the rest of society........


You do not celebrate rights of the society by taking the rights away from a few individuals. When rights are taken away from its members, the society as a whole is diminished.

So, let's try mass murderers seperately for each killing.....three trials, three different juries, three different judges, three different prosecution teams.......and on their third conviction of murder, execute them within 3 days.

And I say let us make sure that the government does not kill its own citizens. Nobody deserves to die, even people like Olsen or Paul Bernardo. Or maybe they deserve to die, but it is not the place of the government to kill them. If they commit suicide, I wonít be too unhappy. However, government has no rights to kill its own citizens.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#19
"while the Americans’ love affair with death penalty continues."

Nobody in America have a love affair with the death penalty, we do want those convicted of major crimes warranting a death penalty removed from society. There is no chance for rehabilitation, they have given up their right to live in society.


By the way your wording does about Americans saying we like this or dislike that is pretty inflamitory. I would not knowingly lump any country into a group.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

Of course they have. The basic experiment runs as such.

Get a cage.

Get rats.

Start adding rats to the cage.

Observe how behaviour changes as rats/sqft rises.

Humans are no different.

*Sticks tongue out* Is that a hypothesis or is it fact?
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler View Post

Kill them !!!!!!!!!!!

KILL THEM ALL !!!!!!!!

ESPECIALLY J-WALKERS !!!

And people who eat with their mouths open!!!
EXECUTE THEM, BUT
TORTURE THEM FIRST !!!
Mehhhhhhh, or not.


Better add those that slurp their coffee real loud like - Please include mouth breathers as well - And finger tappers - My my, now you got me started -
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Oh gimme a break! You know perfectly well what I meant.........but let me spoon-feed you, just the same........

I mean we provide trials to protect the innocent.

As well as all the other protections and actual (not imagined) rights available.....such as the right to be presumed innocent, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a defence, etc etc...........all intended to protect the innocent.......a point often missed in the debate over "criminals" rights.


Now we are on the same page, Colpy. We do all this to protect the rights of the innocent. But all this is expensive, costs a lot of money. But we do not let financial considerations overrule the rights of the citizens. It is worth spending money to make sure that rights of the citizens are protected.

And that is why when somebody says that life without parole is more expensive than death penalty (which it isnít), that is a phony argument, even if true (which it is not). We do not let financial consideration take away anybodyís rights, including the rights of a convicted criminal. In my opinion, convicted criminals have a right to life, and that right may not be taken away, just because if happens to be the cheaper alternative.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

But punishment of any kind removes the "rights" of the individual convicted.......the right to freedom of assembly, the right to freedom of movement, etc., etc..........

Not sure about NM, but in Canada, prisoners can vote. So it seems that what you say is only partially accurate.




Quote:

We do all the above things of course, not to protect the perpetrator of heinous crimes, but to protect the INNOCENT . There is a difference, you know.

That's why the CIC leave the bad aliens alone and eject the nice ones.






Quote:

Here you are absolutely correct. Executing a prisoner in the USA costs tens of millions of dollars in lawyer fees, court costs, etc as the appeals process is exhausted......much more than simply keeping him inside for the next 100 years, if necessary. It ain't about the money.

Quote:

.



Execution of those guilty of extreme violation of the basic rules of humanity is NOT a violation of their human rights.....in fact it is the celebration of the human rights of the rest of society........

Having said that, let me say I agree with the decision of New Mexico....I would see mass killers executed.....I believe that society has a duty to eliminate from this earth the evil that is Clifford Olsen, Ted Bundy, Karla Holmolka and her idiot ex-husband.....but I also know that there are Marshalls, Milgaards, Morins out there.....convicted but innocent.......and it is better to let 100 guilty go free than convict one innocent......especially of capital offenses.....

So, let's try mass murderers seperately for each killing.....three trials, three different juries, three different judges, three different prosecution teams.......and on their third conviction of murder, execute them within 3 days.

Otherwise, forget capital punishment..

I'd go along with that.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

More and more US States are removing the death penalty - to many mistakes for one.

They are, Goober, but the progress is slow, too slow for my tastes. Besides, as New York did, some states are actually regressing.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorter View Post

I donít know about that, Gilbert. In Europe the population density is very high. People are much more in each otherís way in Europe than they are in USA. But still Europe has abolished death penalty, while the Americansí love affair with death penalty continues.

It wasn't a statement of fact, it is an observation and we are not in Europe, we are North Americans. We think differently.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#26
"And I say let us make sure that the government does not kill its own citizens. Nobody deserves to die, even people like Olsen or Paul Bernardo. Or maybe they deserve to die, but it is not the place of the government to kill them. If they commit suicide, I won’t be too unhappy. However, government has no rights to kill its own citizens."

It is not the goverment who is killing its citizens, it is the people who created the Law ( for a death penalty) in the first place. The goverment is just carrying out the wishes of the citizens as it should do. Any change in the law should be put thru a popular vote first, then the State legislators do their vote, not the other way around. It is always harder if not impossible to reverse a law already enacted by legislators.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#27
What are you talking about, protecting the human rights, fundamental rights of a convicted murderer or what ever major crime this person was convicted of.

That is exactly what I am talking about, ironsides. It is easy to talk about human rights of upstanding citizens, somebody whose behavior is exemplary. It is easy enough to say that Mother Teresa should have human rights. But a commitment to preservation of human rights means that the least of us, the least deserving also must be given human rights, not because they deserve it, but because they are human. After all, if one is human, one deserves human rights.

Thus even convicted criminals, mass murderers have certain rights. They have the right to worship the God of their choice (or no God, though that is very rare). They must be given enough to eat, must be given proper shelter and clothing. They must not be tortured. In addition to this, I also think that they are entitled to the right to life.

Protecting the rights of a convicted murderer, protecting terrorists human rights do you know we give more rights to them than we do to unborn children. It is not so much the abortion issue I am defending.

In the abortion argument, nobody can prove that the fetus is a human being. If scientists ever tell us that fetus is a human being, then that will end the abortion debate right there. In death penalty we are talking of killing human beings, in abortion it is not at all clear that we are killing any humans.

In most States now a convicted felon is stripped of all rights except for any cruel or unusual punishment.

Exactly, and I consider death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. And it is not true that convicted felons are stripped of all rights. They are entitled to food, clothing and shelter. Also they may not be tortured. So they do have reduced rights, by no means they are stripped of al rights.

Bottom line there are people living in this world that the world and society would be better off without.

Sure there are, but the question is, should the government kill them? In my opinion, government killing its own citizens is always wrong.

Keeping them alive will only increase the chances for a mistake that they can escape. No prison is 100% secure, death is.

Perhaps. On the other hand, if the wrong person is convicted and put to death and later it is discovered that the wrong person was convicted, there is no recourse. There is nothing left but to shrug one’s shoulders, say ‘oh well, better luck next time’ and go on with the next execution.

In life without parole situation, if it is discovered that wrong man was convicted, government can at least make partial restitution.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#28
We should just let the gods do all the punishing. That'd sure free up a lot of public money. There'd be no need for cops at all then.

I am all for removing people like Olson from the rest of society. In a few cases, such as his, I don't care if they live or die.
 
SirJosephPorter
No Party Affiliation
#29
It is not the goverment who is killing its citizens, it is the people who created the Law ( for a death penalty) in the first place.

Ironsides, it is the government which is killing its own citizens. The fact that it is behaving within the constraints of the law is neither here nor there. Before women got the vote, the government used to deny women the right to vote, it was also acting according to the law. That doesn’t mean that its action was right.

So here we are not discussing what the people want, but what constitutes fundamental, basic right. If people want to bring back slavery or want to install apartheid, that dos not make it right. Similarly I think right to life is absolute, and just because American people disagree, does not mean that they are right.

Any change in the law should be put thru a popular vote first, then the State legislators do their vote, not the other way around. It is always harder if not impossible to reverse a law already enacted by legislators.

Again, I am not commenting on the process by which law could be changed, I am commenting on the current state of death penalty in USA.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#30
Ok, I can see we can go on forever on this topic. What I'm waiting to see if there will be a voter backlash in New Mexico over this issue, think we have a year and a half to wait. If they are anything like the residents of Texas and Arizona there might just be. I know in Florida at this time nothing will change.
 

Similar Threads

6
54
Yay, or Nay... Death Penalty.
by Libra Girl | May 9th, 2007
88
Death Penalty
by westmanguy | Feb 10th, 2007
66
The Death Penalty
by missile | Jun 11th, 2005
67
Death Penalty
by Jay | Jun 6th, 2005