Reason Number #243 why the Death Penalty is Appropriate

INKSTER, Mich. (AP) — A man accused of killing a 2-year-old Detroit-area girl shot her in front of her father to torture him, state police said Thursday.

The comments from Lt. Michael Shaw came after Raymone Jackson, 24, of Inkster, appeared in court on a first-degree murder charge and was sent back to jail with no bond.

"The child was the intended target," Shaw told reporters outside court. "He was going to kill the child in front of this guy and then kill him afterward so that it would be the last thing he sees."

The girl was shot in the head Tuesday while on the porch of an Inkster home. Inkster police believe it was retaliation for a shooting in April.

Besides murder, Jackson is also charged with attempted murder, torture and other crimes. Kamiya's father, Ken French, 34, and a family friend, 12-year-old Chelsea Lancaster, were also shot and are in a hospital. It wasn't immediately known if Jackson has an attorney.

"Anybody that feels that they can execute a child in the state of Michigan, we're going to go after them with everything that we can," Shaw said.

The toddler has been identified by police as Kamiya Gross. But Mary Mazur of the medical examiner's office said the girl's mother identified her as Kamiya French.

Chelsea's grandfather said she had surgery to remove bullets from her stomach area.

"She's going to make a 100 percent recovery, but it's just going to take time," Darrell Holt said.

The worse a crime is the more the state must kill to balance it. If only they could use some sort of drug that takes twenty minutes of agony...

I know this always comes up when you post this stuff but I want to ask anyway - If you truly believe in God and know this fucker is going to be tortured forever by the number one badass in the universe, why do you care that he dies slightly earlier than normal by human hands, rather than being locked up?

Its almost like your local politics doesnt sync with your wider philosophy.

Spawnie resurfaces to ask a great philosophical question. :) Is Lewk up to the task?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

The worse a crime is the more the state must kill to balance it. If only they could use some sort of drug that takes twenty minutes of agony...

I know this always comes up when you post this stuff but I want to ask anyway - If you truly believe in God and know this fucker is going to be tortured forever by the number one badass in the universe, why do you care that he dies slightly earlier than normal by human hands, rather than being locked up?

Its almost like your local politics doesnt sync with your wider philosophy.

---

Deterrence has been the primary reason for my stances on capital punishment and 'harsh' sentencing.

Why only emphasize one element of deterrence (severity)? How about the other two (celerity and certainty)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Deterrence has been the primary reason for my stances on capital punishment and 'harsh' sentencing.

---

How's that working out? The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world...yet we still have violent crimes. We're the only first-world nation that still uses Capital Punishment....but we don't have lower relative crime rates.

Why do you maintain The Death Penalty is a deterrent to crime? States still using the Death Penalty haven't seen a reduction in violent crime compared to states where the Death Penalty is banned. What's the BASIS of your opinion, other than vengeance? And what does your Christian faith say about that, hmmm?

We actually do have lower violent crime rates than most Western countries. We're only worse in murder and tied in rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

We actually do have lower violent crime rates than most Western countries. We're only worse in murder and tied in rape.

---

But it's not correlated to the Death Penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Why only emphasize one element of deterrence (severity)? How about the other two (celerity and certainty)?

---

Its not an often debated topic and there are lot fewer strong feelings on both sides which makes a debate unlikely to happen. That being said I absolutely am in favor of a faster process. After all 'Justice delayed is justice denied' right?

Also I've mentioned it before but the entire "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" legal bull shit is stupid. If society knows someone is guilty then regardless of the rights are violated in someway shouldn't change the outcome. By all means punish the people who denied someone else's rights or violated them somehow but don't change the result.

EX: Someone isn't read their Miranda Rights - confesses. No coercion was evident and all the other data fits. Oh look we can't use their confession because one dumbass didn't read them their rights? If we know they are guilty it shouldn't matter. Fire the person who failed to do their job and be done with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

How's that working out? The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world...yet we still have violent crimes. We're the only first-world nation that still uses Capital Punishment....but we don't have lower relative crime rates.

Why do you maintain The Death Penalty is a deterrent to crime? States still using the Death Penalty haven't seen a reduction in violent crime compared to states where the Death Penalty is banned. What's the BASIS of your opinion, other than vengeance? And what does your Christian faith say about that, hmmm?

---

It's not an apples to apples comparison and considering how RARE the death penalty is carried out its not an effective deterrent currently. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have it - it just means we need to have it more for it to be effective.

I'd also argue that certain pockets of our culture are seriously fucked up and generate a disproportionate amount of crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Its not an often debated topic and there are lot fewer strong feelings on both sides which makes a debate unlikely to happen. That being said I absolutely am in favor of a faster process. After all 'Justice delayed is justice denied' right?

Also I've mentioned it before but the entire "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" legal bull shit is stupid. If society knows someone is guilty then regardless of the rights are violated in someway shouldn't change the outcome. By all means punish the people who denied someone else's rights or violated them somehow but don't change the result.

EX: Someone isn't read their Miranda Rights - confesses. No coercion was evident and all the other data fits. Oh look we can't use their confession because one dumbass didn't read them their rights? If we know they are guilty it shouldn't matter. Fire the person who failed to do their job and be done with it.

---

You do know why there are those laws regarding proper procedures? You do know what can of worms you'd open by abolishing such laws?

Do you really want to relegate your justice system to 3rd world status on a level of North Korea, Iran and China?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

You do know why there are those laws regarding proper procedures? You do know what can of worms you'd open by abolishing such laws?

Do you really want to relegate your justice system to 3rd world status on a level of North Korea, Iran and China?

---

Like I said offenders would be punished (and harsher then they would be now). Bottom line as a society you know someone is a murder with a high chance to murder again why would you care if someone screwed up on a technicality? The purpose of the criminal justice system is to keep society safe from criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

....If society knows someone is guilty then regardless of the rights are violated in someway shouldn't change the outcome.

If we know they are guilty...

---

The only way to "know" guilt is through due process. And it's a slow process for a reason -- to make sure innocent people aren't wrongly convicted. The court system has room for improvement, but efficiency and speed doesn't necessarily mean better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

It's not an apples to apples comparison and considering how RARE the death penalty is carried out its not an effective deterrent currently. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have it - it just means we need to have it more for it to be effective.

---

Again with the need for speed? :rolleyes: Put another way: spending years on Death Row is basically life in prison (without parole), but gives a prisoner more time to appeal/challenge/overturn their conviction. Hundreds have been exonerated, sometimes on 'technicalities' but also with new forensic science and DNA technology. Death is permanent, no do-overs or second chances.

If you don't believe the appeals process is anything but 'wasting time' (or money)....then you must think our legal/judicial systems are nearly perfect and get everything right on the first try. How can you give the benefit of the doubt to "the gummint" over the accused, and claim that's a liberty-loving principle? :confused:

Why does anyone engage Lewk in these death penalty threads? Even I get sick of hitting myself in the head with a hammer. (Which is less painful than reading these :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

If you don't believe the appeals process is anything but 'wasting time' (or money)....then you must think our legal/judicial systems are nearly perfect and get everything right on the first try. How can you give the benefit of the doubt to "the gummint" over the accused, and claim that's a liberty-loving principle? :confused:

---

I think this is my biggest question to Lewk. It's strange to think that the government is incompetent in every arena save law, and requires some level of cognitive dissonance to pull off. I'm sure Lewk believes that the death penalty should be enacted quickly in cases where there is no question as to the guilt of the accused, but I'm not certain how often that truly is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I think this is my biggest question to Lewk. It's strange to think that the government is incompetent in every arena save law, and requires some level of cognitive dissonance to pull off. I'm sure Lewk believes that the death penalty should be enacted quickly in cases where there is no question as to the guilt of the accused, but I'm not certain how often that truly is.

---

He also regularly complains about slippery slopes and "feature creep" - and yet here he shows that he has no problems with suspending due process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I think this is my biggest question to Lewk. It's strange to think that the government is incompetent in every arena save law, and requires some level of cognitive dissonance to pull off. I'm sure Lewk believes that the death penalty should be enacted quickly in cases where there is no question as to the guilt of the accused, but I'm not certain how often that truly is.

---

We all love government that supports our outlook. In this case, Lewk likes Big Government when it comes to the Death Penalty.

Damn it...I just joined the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Damn it...I just joined the conversation.

---

So, I heard you like pain? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

So, I heard you like pain? :p

---

:heart:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

He also regularly complains about slippery slopes and "feature creep" - and yet here he shows that he has no problems with suspending due process.

---

Because FIFTEEN YEARS is due process...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Because FIFTEEN YEARS is due process...

---

You've already said that "the purpose" of criminal justice is to protect society from criminals. Doesn't life without parole meet that standard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You've already said that "the purpose" of criminal justice is to protect society from criminals. Doesn't life without parole meet that standard?

---

That protects society from criminals who have already committed crimes. The death penalty sends a powerful message to other would be criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

That protects society from criminals who have already committed crimes. The death penalty sends a powerful message to other would be criminals.

---

How do you figure that? :confused: You've also said the Death Penalty hasn't been used enough....so to be a real deterrent it would have to be used more often. Since violent crime has actually decreased over time, you'd have to add some crimes to the capital felony list to achieve your goal. Which crimes, and using what rationale?

Not that I agree with him, but only a very small number of murders end with an execution, so you wouldn't have to add violent crime, just go for it more.

Ditto. There are studies that show that the death penalty only has a deterrent effect when it's used frequently. I.E. Only in Oklahoma and Texas in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

How do you figure that? :confused: You've also said the Death Penalty hasn't been used enough....so to be a real deterrent it would have to be used more often. Since violent crime has actually decreased over time, you'd have to add some crimes to the capital felony list to achieve your goal. Which crimes, and using what rationale?

---

Oh boy if even half of all Murder 1 cases were death penalty cases we'd be looking at 10 times as many inmates on death row.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Oh boy if even half of all Murder 1 cases were death penalty cases we'd be looking at 10 times as many inmates on death row.

---

And if 100% of Murder 1 cases were Death Penalty cases....there would no longer be Murder 1 crimes? :rolleyes:

You might believe that Death Row is a deterrent to violent crimes, and we can debate things like causation or correlation, but that doesn't address the fact that US justice has national roots, and is publicly funded by all the states.

Maybe I don't like it that "my" federal tax dollars help pay for Texas capital punishment by proxy, when I disagree with their state laws (or police policies). Maybe I like it even less to think states can do "whatever they want" so long as they have local funding from their legislative/judiciary branches. So much for the Union, and the US Constitution, huh. :rolleyes:

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

---

Texas uses federal agencies to "assist" their death penalty cases. True or False?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

The worse a crime is the more the state must kill to balance it. If only they could use some sort of drug that takes twenty minutes of agony...

I know this always comes up when you post this stuff but I want to ask anyway - If you truly believe in God and know this fucker is going to be tortured forever by the number one badass in the universe, why do you care that he dies slightly earlier than normal by human hands, rather than being locked up?

Its almost like your local politics doesnt sync with your wider philosophy.

---

I don't believe in a god at all, but if this person did the crime he was accused of, I believe he deserves to die. He made a choice to shoot the girl, torture the family and to shoot the father.

Even if you DO believe the Death Penalty is appropriate, and/or deters crime --- do you think prisoners should be tortured to death?

<Another botched lethal injection, this time in Arizona, took almost two hours.>

:sour: