No capital punishment in Alaska

[question everything]

With the recent stories about the several cases of the death penalty, several reports mentioned that 35 states have this on their book. I was surprised to see Alaska on that list. And am glad to live in one, too.

[Taitertots]

1. The Death Penalty

Lets just take all the worst people give them free housing, medical care, water, and food so they can enjoy the rest of their lives at our expense. Sounds so terrible. Why does that vast majority of prisoners prefer life to the death penalty? Because life in prison is not bad compared to dying. Three hots and a cot. They have better health care than I do.

This idea that somehow life in prison is worse than dying is absolutely wrong. It is inarguable due to the lengths people will go to get life in prison as opposed to the death penalty. Keeping them alive in prison is giving them exactly what they want.

[bluestateguy]

2. That's a good point

Let's remove health care from life in prisoners.

[Taitertots]

4. Or we could just bump them up to the death penalty

Instead of making them suffer through preventable disease.

[question everything]

3. As others have so eloquently stated on these pages

It is not about the criminals; it is about us.

It lowers our image in our own eyes when we kill others - no matter how heinous their crimes have been.

I have never been in prison so I cannot attest to the "great" conditions in prisons, perhaps you can. I know that I value my freedom to live as I choose - within legal limitations, of course - too much to let others determine when I eat and when I go to sleep, etc.

And then, of course, there are the innocent where witnesses were "so certain" of their identification only to find out that they were wrong.

Someone on DU posted this link that I bookmarked and is worth re-posting

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?list=type&type=24

[TexasObserver]

8. You support the death penalty because LIFE is too easy?

We oppose the death penalty because it's barbaric.

[Taitertots]

9. How many millions of people have a worse quality of life around the world?

Our inmates enjoy a quality of life that would rival millions of people around the world. They have medical, dental, food, and some leisure.

Anyone who is such a danger to society that they need to be locked away for the rest of their lives should be put to death. I don't think it is barbaric to end the lives of people who violate the rules of society in such heinous ways.

What about the effect on inmates whose crimes were not so egregious? Whats barbaric is allowing violent criminals a haven to rape and abuse others with immunity.

[TexasObserver]

10. We should treat prisoners humanely. Their punishment is incarceration.

I realize that doesn't feed your lust for physical retribution.

No one on this side of the argument suggests it is a good idea to treat life without parole prisoners as ordinary prisoners. We generally accept the stricter provisions that move them out of the general population and limit their contact with others.

Your "they deserve to die" argument is not accepted by the civilized world, because it's uncivilized.

[Taitertots]

21. The punishment doesn't fit the crime

I don't want the government to physically hurt them, just end their lives in a quick painless method. While making prison more effective in rehabilitating people who we hope will be able to return to society. Ending prison rape, increased education opportunities, and a violence free place where they are safe.

Your logic is specious. It is only your subjective opinion of civilization. You have decided that in your opinion that the death penalty is uncivilized so places that do it are uncivilized. It is totally arbitrary and meaningless.

[TexasObserver]

22. Your logic isn't logic. It's a grand rationalization for your position.

It isn't my subjective opinion that the death penalty is barbaric. The countries of the world almost unanmiously agree.

You're uncivilized.

[Taitertots]

23. America is uncivilized?

They all agree except the one you are in. And China and India.
So its unanimous except for the 25%+ that still have legal death penalty statutes.

So you are absolutely wrong.

[immoderate]

26. One could make a case for that...

If you compare our health care, treatment of workers, education, child care, and reliance on superstition to other industrialized countries, we don't look so good.

--imm

[EOTE]

28. +1. And I could say similar things about China and India.

It reflects very poorly on any nation that still has the DP.

[KamaAina]

44. China isn't exactly a shining beacon of human rights

see under Tiananmen Square. :eyes:

[MajorChode]

50. In many ways, yes

As far as I'm concerned the greater measure of whether a society is civilized is not by its accomplishments and how it treats its best and most fortunate citizens, but rather how it treats its most unfortunate and its enemies. In my book, torture = uncivilized. Promoting poverty = uncivilized. Denying basic human rights = uncivilized. YMMV.

[TexasObserver]

51. Those who support the death penalty are.

[EOTE]

24. And what of the innocents who were murdered by the state?

I'll ignore the myriad other problems with the death penalty and focus on this one exclusively for the moment. How many innocent people are you willing to have killed in order to continue with the death penalty which has been proven NOT to have a deterrent effect on crime? 1? 10? 100? 1,000? How many people whose only crime was being unable to afford a decent defense or perhaps getting caught up in a corrupt or incompetent legal system should have to die in order to make the death penalty not worth it? Ignoring that the death penalty is a GOOD deal more expensive than life in prison, how many innocent people should have to die just so we can give certain prisoners the punishment you want?

[Taitertots]

29. How many innocent people have ever?

Get tried, found guilty, go through all the appeals and are still not guilty. Juries are reluctant to convict death penalty cases, which cuts the number of questionable cases. Stop with the theatrics as if there is a relevant amount of innocent people being put to death.

The death penalty has a deterrence effect on crime. I can PM you some papers from journals that discuss this if you care to educate yourself about it.

[EOTE]

30. You haven't even come close to answering the question.

I haven't told you how many innocents have died, we know for certain that innocents HAVE died, but there are many more that we don't know about. But my question to you is how many would be acceptable. 1? 5? 10? What's the acceptable limit for innocents killed in your opinion? Is Cameron Todd Willingham's life an acceptable cost to maintain the DP to you? How many more innocents would have to die to make it unacceptable to you. I await your answer to my question and hope you don't answer it with another question. And you are absolutely wrong about the DP having a deterrent effect on crime. In fact, it's just the opposite:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

[Taitertots]

32. How many is not one number

However many people can get tried, found guilt, lose all the appeals, and get turned down for a pardon. That is the acceptable limit. If you think that is too many, that is not a problem with the death penalty.

Your wildly biased anti-death penalty source is mulling over an irrelevant figure. It only works if you are such a simpleton that you believe the only thing effecting those numbers is the death penalty. Why not look at times where the same places went from having the death penalty to not having it? Then you could produce numbers that are not wildly biased, irrelevant, and dishonest. Oh wait, I have exactly that right here.

THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: EVIDENCE FROM A "JUDICIAL EXPERIMENT"
Hashem Dezhbakhsh; Joanna M Shepherd
Economic Inquiry; Jul 2006; 44, 3; ABI/INFORM Global
pg. 512

I can't find a linkable source because I needed to login to access this.

[EOTE]

34. I've provided MANY links.

They all show the same result. The DP does NOT act as a deterrent. You're only able to provide the title of a document, that means a little bit less than nothing. And your refusal to tell me how many innocent deaths is acceptable to you is extremely telling of your scruples. I've given you many chances to answer the question and you refuse.

[Taitertots]

36. They are all to self proclaimed biased anti-death penalty sources

I can't link you to the journal source because where I read it requires a UofM login.

Your question doesn't warrant a numerical answer. It is however many can get tried, found guilty, and lose all the appeals. You keep asking dishonest, intellectually devoid questions. What answer can I give? I hope it is none, but accept any that are proven beyond reasonable doubt and tested through legal appeals. It is telling of your mental capacity that you can't understand this answer.

Death penalty is a deterrent to crime. I've supplied you with the source of my data, a peer reviewed journal. Your "data" is from an organization with a self proclaimed bias. Your information is irrelevant and useless for formulating any conclusion. I've not only given you the title, but the name of the journal, the date, and the authors. Do I need to e-mail you a copy?

[EOTE]

39. You've provided less than nothing.

You decry my sources as anti-dp, but that's meaningless. Your source is pro-dp. So what? My sources are backed by the scientific method and your ONE source has been thoroughly discredited (I'll post the link again for you). Many people far smarter than you have weighed in on this debate and the consensus is that the DP does NOT provide a deterrent effect. Your link may be provided in a peer reviewed journal and the author's peers have reviewed it and eviscerated it.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216548.pdf

And you may HOPE it's none, but it's not. Many innocents have died and you apparently think it's still worth keeping the DP in spite of it. I have all I need to know regarding your mental capacity in your outright refusal to answer a simple question. Your "hopes" have nothing to do with reality. Innocents HAVE died because of the DP, the question I pose to you is how many is acceptable before you think the DP is no longer worth it? I'll give you a hint, your answer should be in the form of a number. You've already proven you're incapable of providing that number, so I don't expect you to suddenly gain 30 IQ points and be capable of providing an answer.

[Taitertots]

45. An unpublished DoJ grant article

That holds almost as little weight as the Anti-death penalty site. Get something peer reviewed and published, not unpublished and un-vetted. So far all you offered is a self proclaimed biased source and a DOJ paid for unpublished and un-reviewed paper.


That article is incorrect with its analysis. During the course in which it was presented those criticism were covered. There is only a consensus against it when you willfully ignore the body of evidence for it.


How many children is an acceptable number to die in car accidents? What, you don't have a specific number.
How many children must die in pools before we ban them?
How many people must die from alcohol before you ban it?
There just isn't a specific number. What about that are you so dense that you can't understand? We have them and do our best to mitigate the risk. We do our best to make sure innocent people don't get executed, if you think innocent people are found guilty then your problem is with the courts and not with the death penalty.

[EOTE]

52. The Stanford Law Review? The Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law?

I've provided a number of studies which all refute the ONE that you've brought up. Your tired data has been reviewed and it's been found lacking. There is a consensus against it because the great majority of people in related fields have formed the consensus that it doesn't work. That is what a consensus is, don't you know? Do you know what percent of criminologists believe that the DP acts as a deterrent? How about 12%. That's a very tiny minority that you belong in.

And even after you're done arguing about the deterrent effects, then you have to ask how many more lives could be saved with the tens of millions of dollars we spend on the DP. And we already KNOW that innocent people have been killed by the state. Apparently you're fine with that mitigated risk so long as it satisfies your bloodlust. We can't just say to the courts "Do better and stop convicting innocents." When innocents are dying, the DP MUST end. You can't separate the court system from the DP, they're all intertwined. That you knowingly support a system so flawed just for revenge is sick.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies

[EOTE]

38. And here's a specific paper discrediting the one you bring up.

The authors use an extremely flawed methodology. It's been torn apart many places other than this, but this paper does a good job of it:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216548.pdf

[MajorChode]

49. Quite the moral hazzard you have there

One would be one too many and there have undoubtedly been more than that. That's what gets me the most about those who have such a hard on for the death penalty. They seem to think it's OK to murder a few innocents so long as their lust for a pound of flesh is satisfied.

[Selatius]

14. The death penalty is unnecessary. The purpose of prison is to isolate the dangerous from society.

Once a person is interred in a prison cell after being deemed unfit to mingle in society, the objective has been achieved. Killing him would be unnecessary beyond that point. It also costs taxpayers' money when death row inmates file appeals. On top of that, the death penalty system is not beyond human error. Just talk to Governor Rick Perry of Texas who just killed an innocent man and is now desperately trying to rig a forensics commission to bury the report.

[Horse with no Name]

16. Do you consider yourself a progressive?

Just asking because your answer looks like something you would find in freeperland.
You just might spare yourself from looking so anti-progressive to study and find that death penalty cost much more than life sentences.

[question everything]

17. Ah, but it "cost" a lot of money because of the lengthy appeals

thus, say a freeper logic, just go ahead and execute the convict within, say, two weeks of the verdict and, "problem solved."

:puke:

[Taitertots]

20. Do you consider yourself a Nazi?

Because I don't have anything of value to say so I'm going to accuse you of things you obviously don't support. Yes, I'm a progressive.

The cost of the death penalty is irrelevant. I'm going to assume that you don't make all your decisions by only considering cost. There are an infinity of less costly systems that would be less effective.

[EOTE]

27. OK, so you admit that it's more expensive.

I'm also sure that you know it's not effective as a deterrent. Are you aware that the death penalty is also applied with a racial bias? And that innocent people have been murdered by the state? Given all those things, what possible good does it do to have the death penalty? Is revenge really that important? If you say it's not about revenge, then I don't think you know what life without parole means. Yes, people on death row tend to try to get off it, most people don't like dying. But to say that something is good simply because prisoners don't like it is fairly poor reasoning.

[Taitertots]

31. It is an effective deterrent to crime

If you use econometric modeling comparing times when capital punishment went from between legal to illegal a clear positive relation between them appears.

How many innocent people has the state executed?

[EOTE]

33. It's impossible to put a number on the innocents the state has murdered.

Generally a case is closed once the person has been put to death. However, we know that a dozen had been removed from Illinois death row by the late 90s and the system was wrought with corruption. I'm sure you know what happened in Illinois after that. I can only make a guess about the number of innocents murdered, but I'd be damned surprised if it weren't in the 100s. More recently, it's pretty much been proven that Cameron Todd Willingham was murdered and innocent. The only reason we're hearing about it now is because of Perry's completely unethical behavior.

And your mindless talk about deterrence is worthless. Once you get people who are actually qualified to do statistical reports on this effect, you'll see it doesn't exist. Reports that try to demonstrate a deterrent effect are easily destroyed:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/law-enforcement-views-deterrence#lawenforcement
http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-deterrence_1202edi.ART.State.Edition1.36bbe2f.html
http://www.truthinjustice.org/922death.htm

But screw the work of experts and people far smarter than you. I'm sure you'll just reply back "Nuh uh! The DP is soooo a deterrent!" You need to realize that you saying something doesn't make it so.

[EOTE]

35. Here is a link to information on exonerations.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

If you're on death row, it's supposed to be because you've been proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Here we have 138 people who were found guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, yet somehow they were found NOT to be guilty later on. That seems pretty fucking flawed to me. How many of those people would have been killed if it weren't for some tiny twist of fate? How many more people on death row are actually innocent like these people, yet they simply haven't had the good fortune of having DNA tests that would clear their name? Or haven't had testimony in their favor describing the actions of a dirty cop? You do know that the word of cops is pretty much taken as gospel in testimony. And whether you'd like to admit it or not, many cops would gladly send someone to the chair if it means covering their own ass.

[Taitertots]

40. Just proof that the system works

Those people were innocent and not put to death. It is a clear example of how the appeals process weeds out people who are innocent.

[EOTE]

42. That's like saying that air bags are proof that a car can't get into an accident.

Logic seems to be like a second language to you. The point is that these people obviously weren't "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", were they? Then why, pray tell, were they on the death row to begin with? Do you honestly believe that these exonerations were the only cases where people on death row were actually innocent? That some people may be exonerated mere hours before their death date, but no one would be exonerated AFTER their death date? You really think the system is that perfect? I think there are some forensic commissions in Texas that would disagree with you.

[Taitertots]

48. Total analogy fail

Exonerations are just proof that the appeals process works. They show that all due effort is made to ensure only guilty people are executed. Many of those people were only exonerated because of increased scrutiny associated with death penalty cases.


Not perfect, but as good as we can make it. If they are tried, found guilty, and subject to an extensive appeals process I'm willing to accept that we have done as much as we can to ensure only guilty people are executed. If an innocent person gets executed it is a unfortunate but acceptable loss. It means we need better review processes, instead of ending the DP.

[EOTE]

53. You can't take the DP apart piecemeal.

I'm not going to wait for a better review process which will probably never come while innocent people are being killed by the state. That you consider these people's deaths acceptable losses speaks VOLUMES about who you are. But hey, you got to get your pound of flesh somewhere, huh?

[quaker bill]

41. Why does "what they want" matter

in even the slightest degree? Apparently you have no concern about killing people to solve problems and are only concerned when the government monopoly on this is threatened. Personally, I think killing people to solve problems is always wrong, it is wrong when they do it, and it is also wrong for me to sanction or fund it.

[iris27]

43. Life in prison is cheaper for the state than the death penalty,

precisely because of "the lengths people will go to get life in prison as opposed to the death penalty". The years-long appeals process ties up the state's time and money in the courts.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. There are a lot of things about Alaska that might surprise you.

Not only do we not have a death penalty, but our prisons are much more humane than many of the ones in the Lower 48, even our max prison in Seward, as you would know if you happened to see it on "Lock Up" on MSNBC :). We seldom have "incidents."

We are much more progressive than people give us credit for, thanks to the vision of the delegates to our constitutional convention. http://www.alaska.edu/creatingalaska/constitutional-convention/

For instance, did you know that possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use is not a crime here and hasn't been since 1975 because of the strong privacy clause in our constitution? See Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/conlaw/ravin.html

Did you know that our Native people were not pushed onto reservations but retained a lot of their land with subsistence hunting and fishing rights?

As I just posted this morning, Alaska was the first state in the country to enact anti-discrimination laws in 1945. See: http://www.adn.com/life/arts/story/977688.html Anchorage is a very diverse city, with almost 100 languages spoken by its school students.

Alaskans own the state's resources, which is why we have a Permanent Fund and we all get dividends once a year - $1305 each this year.

Abortions are still legal and accessible.

Our Supreme Court has ruled that gay partners of state employees are entitled to benefits.
Anchorage's assembly passed a GLBT nondiscrimination ordinance this summer, which unfortunately was vetoed by our Neanderthal mayor, but at least the Assembly did the right thing. (They also passed a similar ordinance in 1977 which was also vetoed by the mayor back then, who coincidentally was our current mayor's father.)

On a lighter note, we have wonderful progressive bloggers like Mudflats, Shannyn Moore and Phil Munger who work tirelessly towards their ideals, and without whom the truth would never have come out about Sarah Palin. Her popularity in Alaska has dropped from 89% to 43% since last year.

We still have issues, of course - mostly related to alcohol and our insane sexual assault statistics (number 1 in the country, aren't we proud?) - but the framework established by our very wonderful constitution gives us the potential for being one of the most progressive states in the union.


Okay, I'm off my soapbox now. Somebody needs to pay me for all this promotion. :rofl:

[bluestateguy]

6. I'd like to see Obama give Alaska a try in 2012

I think he was setting up to do so last year before Caribou Barbie was chosen.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. He was,

and we were all looking forward to seeing him up here. Until Sarah was picked, Obama and McCain were about even here. Alaskan Republicans don't care for McCain much -- he came in last in their presidential preference caucus in February. Mittens was first.

Even Ms. P herself spoke highly of Obama in August of last year before her selection. Check out this New Yorker piece where she states she wouldn't mind at all if he did well in Alaska. This was "pre-pick," of course. http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/09/08/080908ta_talk_gourevitch

I really don't know what's happened to Sarah in the past year -- she seems to have gone completely "rogue."

[thenooch]

11. You need to drop some props for...

The Great Alaskan Bush Company!

http://www.akbushcompany.com/

Not all pages safe for work...

[Blue_In_AK]

12. Ah, yes, a venerable institution.

:rofl: You must be familiar with the story of Mechele Linehan.

[question everything]

13. Thanks for the detailed list

yes, I will take your word for the conditions of the prisons. I think that watching MSNBC on non-news hours can be construed as unreasonable punishment ;(

I think that before she was picked by McCain, even Palin was more or leas reasonable. I know that some on DU pointed to the "contradiction" in her more moderate stand on some issues - don't remember which - and her rabid conversion.

I wonder, though, about that permanent fund. I think that since the price of oil collapsed, that Alaska has suffered from it, not sure.

I still remember sitting on a tour bus August 2006 when Condi Rice was visiting Fairbanks, and seeing people and banners lining the streets protesting the war in Iraq. Was a nice sight.

[Blue_In_AK]

15. The Permanent Fund took a big hit last year

like all other investors, more as a function of the collapsing stock market rather than the falling price of oil, but since our dividends are based on the earnings of the fund averaged over a five-year period, we still got a pretty good check. Last year's was almost $2,000, plus the $1200 "energy rebate" that Socialist Sarah gave everyone, so it was more than we ever got before. I even had some of it left over when we got this year's check -- a first for me.

As for protesting, we do like to get out in the streets some. People aren't shy about their opinions here. Did you see my photos from out "Hold Palin Accountable" rally last September? http://northernvisions.smugmug.com/Politics/Hold-Palin-Accountable-Rally/6083679_8Emun#382203710_7RivZ

[question everything]

18. Nice pictures. And, I suppose things kinda get quiet

between October and March?

[Blue_In_AK]

19. Not necessarily quiet, but different.

Fewer people show up for protests when it's snowing and blowing, but I've been out a few times protesting the Iraq War in some pretty nasty conditions. Plus we have all kinds of little celebrations throughout the winter that bring us together as Alaskans - New Years Eve Fire & Ice Celebration downtown, Fur Rendezvous and the Iditarod in February and March. Politics is almost always set aside during these times, and people have a lot of fun. I really enjoy living here. Alaska really is like a small town.

[tanyev]

25. They'll just make them listen to Sarah's audio recording of her book 24/7,

and they'll wish they were dead.

[truebrit71]

37. To busy killing all of the wilflide in that state..

..to bother about humans apparently...

[jinto86]

46. While we use the death penalty way too often in America

Something sits wrong with me about letting the worst murderers live. I mean do we really believe that people like Timothy McVeigh and the like or Slobadon Milosevic (sp?) and the like deserve to be alive? Something seems wrong with letting them live after all those they killed...

[NYC Liberal]

47. Anyone who supports execution and opposes torture is a hypocrite.

Period.