Death Penalty (effective Punishment or Cruel and Unusual)?

Originally posted by mako0956
Dude:

Are you reading my posts or just skimming through them?

#3 clearly states:

3: Incapacitation: Focuses on the potential future acts of the offender. Any sentence which restricts the offender and are future oriented. An offender is placed in a secure facility and prevented from inflicting additional harm to society for the duration of their sentence.

Capital punishment is the ultimate method of incapacitation.

Capital punishment is by definition a sentencing practice; it's certainly not a goal. And though some would like to add this in their definition of incapacitation it still doesn't make it the actual intent. Like I previously stated;

"In those four goals, there is not a single word about using capital punishment as penalty."

Notice how I said "in those four goals"; and not "in your post" or "your definition of those four goals"? Do you actually read my posts?

For the sake of argument, I'll add another, in my view less biased and a bit more comprehensive, definition of the meaning of incapacitation to this thread:

"Incapacitation has been defined as the effect of isolating an identified offender from larger society, thereby preventing him or her from committing crimes in that society. There are two species of incapacitation, collective (or general), and selective. The former refers to a strategy which would impose a prison term on all persons convicted of crime, whilst the latter refers to incapacitative policies which attempt to predict which offenders are more likely to re-offend � i.e. �dangerous� offenders." (1)

Originally posted by FredT
The death penalty statistics did show a peak after it was ruled unconstitutional in 1972.

So, does this mean that it is your opinion that the evidence at hand supports effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent? Again, considering that deterrence have long been recognized by the courts as one of the main purposes of criminal punishment; this is an important aspect of the argument for the death penalty. And I'm just really curious as to your actual opinion here.

1. National Academy of Science's Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Durden]

Incapacitation in any shape or form, sanctioned by the court for a crime committed, IS a form of punishment. Any sanction, imposed by the court, which restricts/disables an individual's actions, is a punishment.

(You can't have a checking account, you can't vote, you can't be around children, house arrest, etc...)

Capital punishment is the ultimate incapitation regardless on what side of this issue you stand on.

Weither you approve of this extreme sanction/punishment is the issue, which apparently, you do not, which is your option.

Your opposition is mainly based on the "deterent" arguement, not the "punishment" effect. "Is it effective?" seems to be your inquiry.

Well, enlighten us, give us some stats to back up your arguement that the death penalty isn't efffective.



[edit on 31-8-2004 by mako0956]

Originally posted by mako0956
Incapacitation in any shape or form, sanctioned by the court for a crime committed, IS a form of punishment. Any sanction, imposed by the court, which restricts/disables an individual's actions, is a punishment.

(You can't have a checking account, you can't vote, you can't be around children, house arrest, etc...)

Capital punishment is the ultimate incapitation regardless on what side of this issue you stand on.

Weither you approve of this extreme sanction/punishment is the issue, which apparently, you do not, which is your option.

So as to make the essence of the current discussion perfectly clear. You have argued the use of capital punishment through your interpretation of the four goals of the criminal sanctions initially presented by the Commission as guidelines. In these goals/guidelines there is no word about the use of capital punishment as the ultimate penalty. Thus this interpretation of yours is and will be considered as such; your interpretation. And the fact that a certain penalty is in use by selected states today, doesn't actually make that penalty appear as a recommended punishment in the guidelines, now does it?

Your opposition is mainly based on the "deterent" arguement, not the "punishment" effect. "Is it effective?" seems to be your inquiry.

Well, enlighten us, give us some stats to back up your arguement that the death penalty isn't efffective.

Well again, if you actually read my posts, at the moment I'm in fact not using the issue of deterrence to argue my opinion. What I am doing is asking your opinion on whether you feel there's a significant correlation between crime rate (i.e. homicides) and the chosen manner of punishment (i.e. capital punishment). I have done this for the reason of the, by the pro crowd, argued importance of deterrence as a justification of legalized murder. Yet again, considering that deterrence have long been recognized by the courts as one of the main purposes of criminal punishment.

So, what is your opinion on this again?

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by mako0956
Incapacitation in any shape or form, sanctioned by the court for a crime committed, IS a form of punishment. Any sanction, imposed by the court, which restricts/disables an individual's actions, is a punishment.

(You can't have a checking account, you can't vote, you can't be around children, house arrest, etc...)

Capital punishment is the ultimate incapitation regardless on what side of this issue you stand on.

Weither you approve of this extreme sanction/punishment is the issue, which apparently, you do not, which is your option.

Your opposition is mainly based on the "deterent" arguement, not the "punishment" effect. "Is it effective?" seems to be your inquiry.

Well, enlighten us, give us some stats to back up your arguement that the death penalty isn't efffective.

In regards to your request for stats backing up the argument that capital punishment is not a deterrent, here are a couple:

When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.

A look at neighboring death penalty and non-death penalty states show similar trends. Death penalty states usually have a higher murder rate than their neighboring non-death penalty states.

The following figures exclude Kansas and New York, which adopted the death penalty in 1994 and 1995 respectively. If these states are included in their proper categories, the results are even more dramatic:

As executions rose, states without the death penalty fared much better than states with the death penalty in reducing their murder rates. The gap between the murder rate in death penalty states and the non-death penalty states grew larger (as shown in Chart II). In 1990, the murder rates in these two groups were 4% apart. By 2000, the murder rate in the death penalty states was 35% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty. In 2001, the gap between non-death penalty states and states with the death penalty again grew, reaching 37%. For 2002, the number stands at 36%.
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

You can believe what you like, but there is a lot more evidence supporting the claim that the death penalty has failed as a deterrent, then there is for the claim that it works.

Originally posted by Durden
And the fact that a certain penalty is in use by selected states today, doesn't actually make that penalty appear as a recommended punishment in the guidelines, now does it?

Capital punishment is a states rights issue and is also an avalible option on Federal crimes. So it is a reccomended punishment if it meets certain criteria as set forth in law. States can opt in or opt out depending on the lean of thier various populations.

So just so we can be clear. What exactly is your objection to the Death Penalty?



[edit on 31-8-2004 by FredT]

Originally posted by jezebel
When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.
The following figures exclude Kansas and New York, which adopted the death penalty in 1994 and 1995 respectively. If these states are included in their proper categories, the results are even more dramatic:

Jezebel,

I hardly find an anti-death penalty site a credible source of statistical interpretation. Its no wonder that they did not to include the stats of New York. As you said the results are dramatic

Number of murders in the state of New York:
1993 2420
1994 2016
1995 1550
1996 1353
1997 1093
1998 924
1999 903
2000 952
www.disastercenter.com...

Well lookie here the number of murders go down. This is not the case as stated by you "anti" web site. Could they be looking at selective data to prove thier case. YES!

Let take a look at Kansas:
1992 1042
1993 1016
1994 1055
1995 938
1996 1096
1997 1100
1998 1119
1999 1065
2000 1022
www.disastercenter.com...

At best it is a neutral plus or minus post death penalty inactment. A far cry from the dramatic changes your web page predicts. This alone makes ALL of the statistics you have quoted very suspect IMHO. IT is apparent that they have dropped states that does not support thier hypotosis and expect us to take thier word on things.

You can believe what you like, but there is a lot more evidence supporting the claim that the death penalty has failed as a deterrent, then there is for the claim that it works.

I think you have fallen victem to manipulated data. As I have posted above, the murder rates in the two states that your web site has identified as supporting your point have been less to neutral.

According to the Bureau of Justice Website:

Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960's

The homicide rate doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's. In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1985. It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000. Since then, the rate has declined sharply, reaching 5.5 per 100,000 by 2000.
www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

[edit on 31-8-2004 by FredT]

Here are some research articles from several Universities regarding Capital Punishment and its Deternet effect

"Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-moratorium Panel Data", American Law and Economics Review. forthcoming, Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd, contact Dezhbakhsh at [email protected], ph 404-727-4679, Rubin at [email protected], ph 404-727-6365 and Shepherd at ph 864-656-6786, e-mail [email protected]
userwww.service.emory.edu...

Pardons, Executions and Homicide", Journal of Law and Economics, forthcoming, H. Naci Mocan ([email protected], ph 303-556-8540) and R. Kaj Gottings ([email protected]), October 2001, located at
econ.cudenver.edu...


Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Hypothesis: Some New Insights and Empirical Evidence, December 2001, Eastern Economic Journal, Forthcoming , ZHIQIANG LIU (e-mail [email protected], ph. 716-645-2121) on line at papers.ssrn.com...

As fredT asked, What exactly is your objection to the Death Penalty?




[edit on 31-8-2004 by mako0956]

I have to say I find it amusing that thus far there have been no straight answer by the pro crowd on what I thought was a fairly simple question: Do you think there is a significant correlation between crime rate and the manner in which society chooses to punish its citizens? Considering that deterrence have long been recognized by the courts as one of the main purposes of criminal punishment, this is a fairly important question. The fact that they continue to evade giving a straight answer makes it appear as if they actually have little faith in the argument of capital punishment being effective as a deterrent.

Originally posted by FredT
Capital punishment is a states rights issue and is also an avalible option on Federal crimes. So it is a reccomended punishment if it meets certain criteria as set forth in law. States can opt in or opt out depending on the lean of thier various populations.

The issue was whether there was any word about the use of capital punishment in the guidelines originally presented by the Commission. The correct answer to this question has always been and will continue to be: No. However, the interpretation of these guidelines varies.

I hardly find an anti-death penalty site a credible source of statistical interpretation.

Well this comment is just pathetic. I actually expected more.

Number of murders in the state of New York:
1993 2420
1994 2016
1995 1550
1996 1353
1997 1093
1998 924
1999 903
2000 952
www.disastercenter.com...

Well lookie here the number of murders go down.

You're really giving the reinstatement of capital punishment way too much credit. Is it your opinion that capital punishment is effective as a deterrent for theft, burglary, robbery etc. as well? Because actually all crime in New York have significantly dropped since 1993. Some additional figures on this (1).


Vehicle theft...........Burglary......Robbery
1993...151,949........181,709........102,122
1994...128,873........164,650..........86,617
1995...102,596........146,562..........72,492
1996.....89,900........129,828..........61,822
1997.....79,697........118,306..........56,094
1998.....68,171........104,821..........49,125
1999.....58,261..........93,217..........43,821
2000.....54,231..........87,946..........40,539

To elaborate a little further on the possible reasons for this dramatic drop in New York's crime rate. As most of you know, in 1993, Rudolph Giuliani was elected as mayor of New York. He soon introduced a brand new crime fighting policy known as 'zero tolerance', (which incidentally has cost New York about $50 million in civil rights lawsuits). IMO it's more plausible that the overall raise in arrests, increased presence of police officers etc., which was introduced as means of making zero tolerance a reality, are the actual reasons for the significant drop in overall crime rate. Another problem with your view of the statistics you presented is that for a certain punishment to even be considered effective as a deterrent, it has to be promptly and consistently employed. The fact that the state of New York hasn't executed a single individual since 1976 subsequently contradicts your analysis. And to use your own words:

Could they be looking at selective data to prove thier case. YES!

Selective indeed. And since it bothered you so much that New York and Kansas weren't included in the statistics presented by jezebel(even though she also did say the results would be even more dramatic with those states included), here is even more recent information on murder rates in the U.S. (including New York and Kansas): Average of murder rates among death penalty states per 100,000 population in 2002: 5.2. Average of murder rates among non-death penalty states in 2002: 2.8 (2).

Actually, the vast preponderance of available evidence does in fact, not support capital punishment to be more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder. In some cases, the death penalty may even be an incitement to criminal violence. There is also evidence pointing to death-penalty states having an increased rate of homicide when executions are carried through. In New York, between 1907 and 1964, 692 individuals were executed. In this 57-year period, one or more executions on a given month resulted in an increase of two homicides being commited the following month (3).

Another example; according to data released by the British Home Office, US murder rate greatly exceeds European non-death penalty nations; being three times as high (4).

And since you seem to like sharing research articles. Here are some for you to look into.

"New Claims about Executions and General Deterrence: Deja Vu All Over Again?"
Professor Richard Berk of the UCLA Department of Statistics.
(Published on UCLA's Web site, July 19, 2004)
preprints.stat.ucla.edu...

"The Case of the Unsolved Crime Decline"
Criminologist Richard Rosenfeld
(Scientific American, February 2004)

"Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas"
John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart
(45 Crime and Delinquency 481-93 (1999)

So just so we can be clear. What exactly is your objection to the Death Penalty?

Actually, I'm a bit surprised you ask this question as I have presented you with my opinion on the matter a few pages ago. But here it is again.

Essentially, this is a question about the moral ethics of a society and its government as well as the negative implications of using a punishment that's (quoting Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida) inconsistent with the fundamental values of the democratic system; something that greatly lessens the value of human life in a society and legitimizes the act of murder. And while we absolutly shall make sure we do all that can possibly be done to properly help and take care of the victims of heinous crimes as well as properly punish the perpetuators, this shouldn't include repeating the very offence committed in the first place.

As one of history's famous victims of a horrible crime, Coretta Scott King, widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stated, �As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder.�(5)

To those arguing that the death penalty is acceptable, but the suffering caused by waiting on death row isn't (or the costs caused by it, for that matter). Well, there's just no way there could be one without the other. Unless you're going to abandon the crucial safeguards and constituional rights of suspects in favor of a speedier conviction/execution with the obvious risk of executing an even larger number of innocents.

IMO the death penalty violates human rights and is in fact, cruel and unusual.

Originally posted by mako0956
As fredT asked, What exactly is your objection to the Death Penalty?

Fresh out of our own questions are we? Why don't you just put some effort in answering the question I gave you a while back?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

1. www.disastercenter.com...
2. FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 2002 (Published October, 2003)
3. "Deterrence of Brutalizaition," by Bowers and Pierce in Crime & Delinquency
4. New York Times, May 11, 2002
5. Quote from Coretta Scott King

i'm all for the death penality. electric chair? yay! castration for child molesters? yes!! i think maybe if we went back to drawing and quartering, the stocks, and boiling serial killers alive maybe people would think twice about what they do. american prisons are so go-easy compared to others. for some types of criminals there is no rehabilitation. so why are we spending money to house people on death row for years..and then shooting them up with drugs so they experience a semi-easy death. what about the victims who suffer torture at the hands of these monsters(i'm not generalizing all murders or criminal activities). i mean HARSH punishments for the real ooze of society. so, yea, i'm for the death penalty if it fits the crime and the criminal.

Originally posted by psychosgirl
i'm all for the death penality. electric chair? yay! castration for child molesters? yes!! i think maybe if we went back to drawing and quartering, the stocks, and boiling serial killers alive maybe people would think twice about what they do. american prisons are so go-easy compared to others. for some types of criminals there is no rehabilitation. so why are we spending money to house people on death row for years..and then shooting them up with drugs so they experience a semi-easy death. what about the victims who suffer torture at the hands of these monsters(i'm not generalizing all murders or criminal activities). i mean HARSH punishments for the real ooze of society. so, yea, i'm for the death penalty if it fits the crime and the criminal.

Whatever your opinion, make sure you know the reason for it so it's based on facts and not ignorance. If you would like to educate yourself on this issue. A fairly good start would be to read this very thread from the beginning and go from there. Enjoy .

i did read it from the beginning and i do understand both sides of the issue and i am not ignorant. i am just starting to abhor living in a society that boo-hoos terrible criminals. it makes me a cynical person....my last post was VERY cynical. for someone to take the lives of many people or for someone to steal the innocence of a child, on purpose, is disgusting and should be punished,in MY opinion, swiftly and to the FULL extent of the law. if that means the death penalty, so be it.

Here we go again!

I have given you the four goal's of the justice system which are the basis of which punishments are granted to those convicted in our society. These range from the least offensive, to the greatest, capital punishment.

Your arguement against the death penalty is one of what is the deterent value? Is there a corralation between the actual deterent action and the action of taking ones life?

In answer to your question, most definitly, YES.

The individual who committed these violent crimes and destroyed the lives of others is forever prevented from destroying additional lives.

Coretta Scott King is entitled to her opinion and so are you. This is just one victim's stance, which conveniently reflects yours, on this issue.

Why don't you quote some of the judges or detectives who work on some of these brutal murders and see what their opinions are? How about the parents of a child who is kidnapped, raped and murdered?

Again, you don't want to see the whole picture and call it legitimizing murder. The crimes they committ go unnoticed- you are more concerned with what punishment they get rather than the rights of the victims which were denied.

You, Sir, would rather tell someone like Jeffrey Dahlmer "Human meat is fattening, here, try this chicken" than accept the fact this man has seriously gone over the line and could not have been rehabilitated.

If you choose to be a non death penalty supporter, that's your right, just as it is my right to support it.

Originally posted by mako0956
I have given you the four goal's of the justice system which are the basis of which punishments are granted to those convicted in our society. These range from the least offensive, to the greatest, capital punishment.

Intentional or not, you seem to completely misunderstand what I questioned in your previous statement about the four goals which were initially presented by the Commission. In those guidelines, again, there is not a single word about using capital punishment. Every state however, does have the right to interpret the guidelines in the way they see fit. This does still not make any word about the death penalty appear in the initial guidelines. This is only an interpretation of the guidelines. And this interpretation does vary from state to state.

Your arguement against the death penalty is one of what is the deterent value? Is there a corralation between the actual deterent action and the action of taking ones life?

In answer to your question, most definitly, YES.

The individual who committed these violent crimes and destroyed the lives of others is forever prevented from destroying additional lives.

Well this is actually an incapacitative, not a deterrent, effect of executions. And like I stated earlier about deterrence; the vast preponderance of available evidence does in fact, not support capital punishment to be more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder. And as to the question of incapacitating an individual from repeating a heinous act; equally as effective as capital punishment but far less inhumane is the use of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Coretta Scott King is entitled to her opinion and so are you. This is just one victim's stance, which conveniently reflects yours, on this issue.

Why don't you quote some of the judges or detectives who work on some of these brutal murders and see what their opinions are? How about the parents of a child who is kidnapped, raped and murdered?

Ask yourself this question: Would it change my opinion if I were to receive confessions, supporting the abolition of the death penalty, from "detectives who work on some of these brutal murders" or "parents of a child who is kidnapped, raped and murdered"? Well, would it? Because there is no shortage on victims, judges and officers of the law not agreeing with the use of capital punishment.

Again, you don't want to see the whole picture and call it legitimizing murder.

I would argue it is you who in fact fail to see the whole picture as you continue to ignore the evidence of harmful consequences of the death penalty in favor of blood-thirst and the need for violent retaliation.

The crimes they committ go unnoticed- you are more concerned with what punishment they get rather than the rights of the victims which were denied.

What you fail to understand is that the opposition to capital punishment does not arise from any misplaced sympathy for convicted murderers - actually quite the contrary. Murder is an act demonstrating a lack of respect for human life. For this very reason, murder is and should be considered abhorrent which also makes any policy of state-authorized killings immoral.

You, Sir, would rather tell someone like Jeffrey Dahlmer "Human meat is fattening, here, try this chicken" than accept the fact this man has seriously gone over the line and could not have been rehabilitated.

Again, the rather tiresome use of Jeffrey Dahmer as the typical example of an individual being sentenced to death. However, the answer to how we should deal with a person like J.D. in a civilized society is still not to murder him right back (i.e. legitimizing murder). And why do you even argue that Jeffrey Dahmer could not have been rehabilitated as it is actually your opinion that the question of possible rehabilitation is of no consequence in a case like this - is it not? Still, in cases where we are not able to properly rehabilitate a dangerous individual, we should keep them locked up, we should keep them off the streets, but we should absolutely not repeat the very offence committed by the perpetrator in the first place.

If you choose to be a non death penalty supporter, that's your right, just as it is my right to support it.

Finally, something we actually agree on. I would however like to add one thing; make sure your opinion is not based on ignorance.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Durden]

What you fail to realize is keeping a dangerous individual locked up, without the possibility of parole, does not diminish his violent tendencies and perhaps may even increase them as he has "nothing to live for".

He is still a threat and will gain more criminal knowledge from other prisoners, like himself, and perhaps, even attempt an escape.

Keep him in isolation, away from other inmates? Sure, a valid answer.
However, nothing is infallible and other prisoners will wind up smuggling stuff in his food, laundry or whatever. It happens daily as I have witnessed it personally. This is a security issue within the facility.

You cannot keep someone in isolation with no contact. The subject will have contact with facility staff, medical personnel perhaps even family members. All of the above are potential hostage's and are at risk of being another victim.

Another alternative is to keep this person heavily medicated 24/7, which would be cruel and unusual. (Besides, whoever administer's the medication is again, at risk).

Here are people who committed vicious, brutal murders with total disregard for their victims, or the consquences of their actions. These people have chosen to use their freedom to destroy other people's freedom's, right's and live's as judge and jury.

They have broken both man's law and God's law.

They need to be held accountable and accept the consequences of their actions. If death is the ultimate penalty for their crime, then so be it.

Originally posted by mako0956
What you fail to realize is keeping a dangerous individual locked up, without the possibility of parole, does not diminish his violent tendencies and perhaps may even increase them as he has "nothing to live for".

He is still a threat and will gain more criminal knowledge from other prisoners, like himself, and perhaps, even attempt an escape.

Keep him in isolation, away from other inmates? Sure, a valid answer.
However, nothing is infallible and other prisoners will wind up smuggling stuff in his food, laundry or whatever. It happens daily as I have witnessed it personally. This is a security issue within the facility.

Another alternative is to keep this person heavily medicated 24/7, which would be cruel and unusual. (Besides, whoever administer's the medication is again, at risk).

So now you want to argue merciful killings? Or even murder for preemptive reasons? Is your actual answer to a failing prison system to kill its inmates? You do realize that this would mean you would have to do quite a bit of killings? Which would mean you would subsequently considerably be increasing the amount of innocents being executed. Not to mention the fact that you would be going against your own constitution.(1) Please make an effort and provide us with something at least resembling evidence of the soundness behind this IMO ridiculous reasoning of yours.

You cannot keep someone in isolation with no contact. The subject will have contact with facility staff, medical personnel perhaps even family members. All of the above are potential hostage's and are at risk of being another victim.

You keep presenting your personal view on this issue with no credible evidence to support it. As an example, evidence shows us that police officers on duty does not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault (i.e. kidnappings, beatings etc.) and homicide in abolition-states than they do in pro-death-penalty states (2).

Here are people who committed vicious, brutal murders with total disregard for their victims, or the consquences of their actions. These people have chosen to use their freedom to destroy other people's freedom's, right's and live's as judge and jury.

They have broken both man's law and God's law.

They need to be held accountable and accept the consequences of their actions. If death is the ultimate penalty for their crime, then so be it.

Please read my comment to this argument in my previous post.

-----------------------------------------------

1. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280

2. Criminology by Bailey and Peterson, p. 22

You want credible?

Here you go:

www.ledger-enquirer.com...


Posted on Thu, Sep. 02, 2004





Warden's report details death row escape plot

JACKSON, Ga. - A piece of gray string dangling from an air vent in the cell of a death row inmate helped unravel an escape plot at the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, according to the warden's report.

A prison guard searching the cell pulled the string and noticed that it was secured by a piece of tape painted to conceal a cut in the vent. Convicted killer David Scott Franks apparently had cut through the vent and through another grate in the crawl space behind it.

The officers later found a cache of contraband allegedly used by Franks and two other condemned prisoners, Andrew Grant DeYoung and Michael Wade Nance, to further their escape - welding material, five hacksaw blades, two reciprocating saw blades, knives, duct tape, 25 feet of "rope" fashioned from bedsheets, ski masks crocheted by the inmates themselves, $280 in cash, even a map of Georgia.

Many of the items uncovered in the three cells could only have come from the outside, said Warden Derrick Schofield, who suspects prison employees might have been involved in the plot.

"In order to get the amount of contraband found would require some staff involvement," Schofield's report said. "The hacksaw blades and the J-B Weld were brought in from the outside."

Borrowing from the storyline of a prison movie, two of the inmates told investigators they plotted for months and fooled prison guards by piling blankets and clothing on their beds to make it appear that they were asleep in their cells. Instead, they were crawling through ventilation spaces that link the cells and hacking away at bars leading to an exit door.

Corrections officials were tipped off to the plan on Friday and searched all 112 occupied death row cells at the prison in Jackson, about 45 minutes south of Atlanta.

DeYoung, Franks and Nance have been locked in solitary confinement since the plot was discovered.

Even if the inmates had been able to escape the death row unit, prison officials said, they still would have had to scale fences topped by razor wire and evade routine vehicle patrols of the grounds.

Scheree Lipscomb, spokeswoman for the Georgia Department of Corrections, emphasized Wednesday that prison officials foiled the plan. Still, Lipscomb said, the department is concerned about the lapses in security.

"We are going to make sure there are no breaches of security at any state facility," she said, adding that charges will be filed against anyone involved in the escape plot - including employees, visitors and inmates.

No inmate has ever escaped from death row at the Jackson prison. In 1980, when death row was part of the Georgia State Prison in Reidsville, four condemned inmates fled after sawing through several sets of bars with hacksaw blades. One of the inmates was killed in a bar fight, and the other three were caught in North Carolina.

DeYoung, 30, was sentenced to death in Cobb County for the June 1993 stabbing deaths of his parents, Gary and Kathryn DeYoung, and his 14-year-old sister, Sarah.

Nance, 42, was condemned for the shooting death of 43-year-old Gabor Balogh in Gwinnett County in December 1993. Nance had robbed a bank and shot Balogh to take his car.

Franks, 43, received the death penalty for the August 1994 stabbing death of 35-year-old Deborah Wilson in Hall County. Franks also injured Wilson's children, ages 13 and 9.

---

Information from: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, www.ajc.com...



*This story was just released today.

You cannot convince me nor the general populace that the death penalty is immoral, unethnical nor unjust no matter how many times you state my view as being ridiculous.

You have not provided any evidence nor documentation, other than quoting Coretta Scott King, in your pathetic attempt, to illustrate why the death penalty is cruel and unusual.

So what if you can quote from books. You did a little research on anti death penalty sources. Big deal. I can quote many authors also but I dont have the time to sit around and post my findings I'm too busy making sure that those who are convicted, stay there.

You can go on with your naive conclusions on what the death penalty is or isn't. In the mean time, the death penalty will stand unaffected by my or your opinion.


Git 'er done!

[edit on 2-9-2004 by mako0956]

Originally posted by mako0956
You cannot convince me nor the general populace that the death penalty is immoral, unethnical nor unjust no matter how many times you state my view as being ridiculous.

Well you've made the fact that I'm not going to be successful in convincing you quite clear. Believe it or not; I never thought I would. However I do find it important to question your claims when I find them to be false or contradictory. The reason I do this is the simple fact that a lot of people are sitting on the fence on this issue; waiting for enough information to make up their minds on what seems right to them.

You have not provided any evidence nor documentation, other than quoting Coretta Scott King, in your pathetic attempt, to illustrate why the death penalty is cruel and unusual.

Oh, please. If this is your summary of the discussion we've had thus far, you have missed quite a bit. Admit it; you're not even trying to seriously discuss this issue anymore.

So what if you can quote from books. You did a little research on anti death penalty sources. Big deal. I can quote many authors also but I dont have the time to sit around and post my findings I'm too busy making sure that those who are convicted, stay there.

What exactly is it you have a problem with about what I have presented? Please make an effort and dispute my information. Because you're really starting to sound quite foolish. I wouldn't however want to steal the time you do need to do your job, as I realize that what you do is very important as well as it is difficult. And even though we clearly don't agree on this issue, you seem to be a person of a sound mind.

You can go on with your naive conclusions on what the death penalty is or isn't. In the mean time, the death penalty will stand unaffected by my or your opinion.

Obviously you're free to call my conclusions whatever you like, though I can't say I understand what you find naive about them. As to what you said about the death penalty staying unaffected by your or my opinion; I don't think that is necessarily true. Public opinion have been known to change laws before, which I'm sure will continue to happen.

Edit to add: About the death row escape plot you presented. I didn't dispute the fact that there are cases where inmates with lifetime sentences do attempt to escape. The point I was trying to make was that there is no evidence to support that this is more commonplace in non-death-row states than it is in death-row states.

Another interesting fact about this. According the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (1990), prisoners and prison personnel does in fact not suffer a higher criminal assault/homicide rate from prisoners serving life-term sentences in states having abolished capital punishment than they do in death-penalty states. Between the years 1984 and 1989, there were 17 murders of prison staff perpetrated by prisoners in 10 states. 88% of these killings occurred in death-penalty states. Evidently, the actual threat of capital punishment "does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist state."

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Durden]

i have a comment on the rehabilitation issue. how many psychologists and mental health professionals have spent life times studying serial killers not bothering to put any links here because you can easily find thousands and the majority have come to what conclusion? these people are usually BORN this way. family life, education, none of this affects these types of criminals.
how can you stop someone from being hungry?thirsty? this is my point: there are violent criminals out there who are born with the NEED to kill. Killing is the same to them as hunger and thirst. as i was searching around i came across the following, a comparison between serial killers and other homicides. the death penalty isn't right for everyone, but for no hope cases like this? indeed! i think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of a Serial Killer
A serial killer is an individual who murders at least four persons in a reasonable amount of time. A serial killer continues to kill until they are either dead or captured. However, serial killers are proned to have "cooling off" periods in which they take a short break from killing innocent victims.
Among most murder cases, the victim is killed by someone they know, whether the murderer be a family member, a friend, an acquaintance, or a co-worker. However, serial killers murder strangers.

For the majority of the time, serial killers work alone. Only in rare and few cases, have serial killers work with another person.

In other murder cases, the motive to kill can range from rage to jealousy to money to anger, however, serial killers' motive is to kill. Killing is a basic necessity of a serial killer's life. Killing is needed to exist for them as food, shelter, and water is needed for humans.

Serial killers motives aren't obvious. They don't kill for fame or a reaction. Serial killers kill for internal motives. Because of these internal motives, psychologists find serial killers to be a mystery.
THESE are the criminals i think deserve capital punishment.