Lincolnite

Strap them both in, just to be sure?

<i>die hard death penalty supporters won

Dave, you continue to blow my mind.

When we have a system in which “a weakness in the prosecution’s case” can result in the state murdering an innocent person, we have a flawed system.

Electric chairs don’t kill people - prosecutors and juries who have to figure out who to believe kill people.

...the state murdering an innocent person…

Careful there, Neal. The word “innocent” will probably get you in trouble there. Lotter is probably innocent of the charges for which he was sentenced to death, but I think it’s likely Lotter’s hands aren’t completely clean in all of this.

I must be missing where an innocent person is going to be executed.  Since I don’t know the legalities of the case, I’m taking Mr. Wilson’s word for it when he says this: State law allows accessories to murder to be put to death, so Lotter could remain on death row.  

In addition, the LJS (which stands for Little Justice for Slayers when it comes to death penalty matters) says this in its story:

<i>In a recent interview, Nissen described the affidavit as

I’m not saying Lotter is innocent. Lotter is also not the only person to ever get put on death row. Think bigger picture here, folks.

Regardless of the details of this case, the death penalty is still problematic. As Mr. Wilson points out, they sentenced a man to death with no hard evidence. While the sentencing may still stand in this particular case, due to the complicity law mentioned above, it is still a recipe for disaster. For the gov’t to kill a person based primarily on another person’s word is reckless to say the least. If we are going to impose execution, the evidence should be hard and beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Of course, there are broader arguments against the use of the death penalty. Research suggests the deterrent to crime is an illusion (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=870312; http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/KatzLevittShustrovich2003.pdf). Also, is it morally acceptable for the gov

Neal, you always take everything I say literally so I thought that’s how you generally communicate things. So I’ll make sure to perceive everything you say in the context of the ‘bigger picture’ from now on, even when it’s irrelevant to the topic of discussion.  If you would do the same for me, I’d appreciate it.

MSC, nice copy and paste job.  While you’re on Wikipedia, please look up where 2Pac and Elvis are hanging out these days.  I really want their autographs. 

But seriously ... pointing out which countries have the death penalty is probably the weakest argument you could possibly make.  Besides, I constantly hear people talking about how we need to be more like other countries in terms of health care and socialist programs.  Why not emulate the punishment of other countries as well?  Sounds like a good idea to me, especially when a couple of those countries have the lowest crime rates in the world.  Also, trying to ‘be more like’ these countries will help decrease terrorism, right?

Dave K, snarky comments are a rather poor way to counter an argument. Emulating other “socialist” countries is irrelevant (as is your terrorism comment). America is a fine nation of which I’m quite proud to be a citizen. My point is simply this: the US often criticizes the human rights records of the countries I listed, but yet here we are in their company when it comes to state-sanctioned killing.

Your dig at Wikipedia is also of no use.  I see no problem using that as starting point for a little online research. My only intention was to provide some factual information to back up my argument. I chose to link to the sources the article referenced as that was where the facts were first presented.

What about my other points (deterrence, morals)? I don’t mean to come across as a jerk, but I don’t think the death penalty is an issue to take lightly, and some honest debate on the subject is a good thing in my mind.

So those of you Lincolnites and Nebraska residents that hate the death penalty so much - have you taken it up with your elected Unicam representative? It’s the law we have on the books in this state. If you detest it so much, instead of arguing on message boards and holding up signs the night of an execution when it’s far too late, how about trying to get the law changed to life without parole? I guess I am “for” it because it’s the law and I am “pro-law-abidement.” It doesn’t bother me enough to talk to my senator, but I certainly woulnd not care in the least if these turds on death row all got life without parole, either.

If you really want something to happen, you should act, and act now when someone is not at the 11th hour. Surely there is someone in the Unicam that would listen and try to bring a bill to the floor. It may be easier to do that than change it to lethal injection, but I’d make the same argument to those people as well. Writing to the editor of the Journal Star or that Omaha rag, or yelling at “pro” death penalty people and calling them names at a rally may be a good gesture, but it won’t bring about real change.

MSC, you drawing a moral equivalence between human rights violations and capital punishment (which is done only after a guilty verdict given by a jury of one’s peers) exposes your position for what it is: a distorted view of reality.

Deterrence? Given the way we carry it out, it isn’t much of a deterrence.  If you ever hear me claim it is as support of my pro-death penalty position, I will ask that you get your hearing checked.

Morals?  Executing someone convicted of a capital crime is the only way for society to show that the aforementioned capital crime is immoral.

Great points MSC. I agree with you and would much rather see life without parole in place of capital punishment.