The Law The Death Penalty

[Gethelred]

Lawyers, prosecutors, jurors and more believed Marcellus Williams may have been innocent. Missouri executed him anyway

The 55-year-old was sentenced to death in 2001 for killing Felicia Gayle, a former newspaper reporter found dead in her gated community home.

www.google.com

Is it ever right? Is it ever worth the risk of killing an innocent person? Are there grounds by which you would be willing to move ahead with it?

Share your opinions. Standard board rules apply.

 

[Shane Sheridan]

Yes. Julian Knight, Bilal Skaf, Martin Bryant to name a few; anyone who fiddles kids.

 

[barreness]

Lawyers, prosecutors, jurors and more believed Marcellus Williams may have been innocent. Missouri executed him anyway

The 55-year-old was sentenced to death in 2001 for killing Felicia Gayle, a former newspaper reporter found dead in her gated community home.

www.google.com

Is it ever right? Is it ever worth the risk of killing an innocent person? Are there grounds by which you would be willing to move ahead with it?

Share your opinions. Standard board rules apply.

Death conviction on hearsay, others dna on the knife. I hope there's more circumstantial evidence putting him there. Incompetent/kangaroo courts are the main reason for no death penalty

and looked at the seeing eye dog.
And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles
And arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry,
'Cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American
Blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it

 

[IlovethePies]

The capitalist state never has any right, moral or political, to take the life of any citizen.
The capitalist state presides over the debased cultural and political atmosphere and the grotesque levels of social inequality which spawn every kind of sociopathic behaviour.
Finally, there is no doubt that executions of innocent people are taking place in the US. Marcellus Williams is one more.

The state murder of Marcellus Williams and the fight to abolish the death penalty

The continued existence of the death penalty in the United States is yet another confirmation of the criminality and violence of the capitalist political and economic system, which oozes filth out of every pore.

www.wsws.org

 

[EagleMan87]

The capitalist state never has any right, moral or political, to take the life of any citizen.
The capitalist state presides over the debased cultural and political atmosphere and the grotesque levels of social inequality which spawn every kind of sociopathic behaviour.
Finally, there is no doubt that executions of innocent people are taking place in the US. Marcellus Williams is one more.

The state murder of Marcellus Williams and the fight to abolish the death penalty

The continued existence of the death penalty in the United States is yet another confirmation of the criminality and violence of the capitalist political and economic system, which oozes filth out of every pore.

www.wsws.org

Why not just say 'the state'? Do you think the 'socialist state' has that right?

 

[IlovethePies]

Why not just say 'the state'? Do you think the 'socialist state' has that right?

No socialist state exists, so there is no point in using the word socialist.

The use of the word highlights that the state protects capitalism, and fundamentally this is the source of such barbaric institutions as the death penalty.

 

[EagleMan87]

No socialist state exists, so there is no point in using the word socialist.

The use of the word highlights that the state protects capitalism, and fundamentally this is the source of such barbaric institutions as the death penalty.

Do you believe there have been no socialist states in history?

 

[CM86]

Lawyers, prosecutors, jurors and more believed Marcellus Williams may have been innocent. Missouri executed him anyway

The 55-year-old was sentenced to death in 2001 for killing Felicia Gayle, a former newspaper reporter found dead in her gated community home.

www.google.com

Is it ever right? Is it ever worth the risk of killing an innocent person? Are there grounds by which you would be willing to move ahead with it?

Share your opinions. Standard board rules apply.

Thanks for making this.


I've never seen a good argument for the death penalty, that doesn't end up in some inner -base- need/desire for revenge.
It's often a nurtured reaction. And there's often an element of entertainment attached to it.

I support rehabilitation for the overwhelming number of people who break the law.
For the very few historically who have committed crimes so egregious that they will always be a danger to society, I support locking them away from society for the rest of that persons life, with ongoing evaluation.


When I was very young I remember hearing about a person who was found innocent after they had already been killed due to the death penalty.
That for me was enough for me to start opposing it.
My position has only solidified since then.

It also mainly targets lower-socioeconomic groups. But that steps more into legal systems etc.

 

[CM86]

The capitalist state never has any right, moral or political, to take the life of any citizen.
The capitalist state presides over the debased cultural and political atmosphere and the grotesque levels of social inequality which spawn every kind of sociopathic behaviour.
Finally, there is no doubt that executions of innocent people are taking place in the US. Marcellus Williams is one more.

The state murder of Marcellus Williams and the fight to abolish the death penalty

The continued existence of the death penalty in the United States is yet another confirmation of the criminality and violence of the capitalist political and economic system, which oozes filth out of every pore.

www.wsws.org

This post makes me think you're purely on this forum to push an agenda.
I'll try to explain why.

1.5k posts in around a decade.
Your post has almost no connection to the OP or the thread topic.
It's about your opposition to 'capitalist state', rather than any thoughts about the death penalty.
You've clearly not tested your absolute statements beyond an initial thought.

And finally, it seems you used the entire thing just to promote this WSWS agenda 'news' site. As if it's new information, when not only is it the story used in the OP by Gethelred, it even uses the same photo as the URL display on this forum.




So as you've not actually engaged with the topic.
And you've just seemed to use it to push this strange agenda, and promote the WSWS.

What do you feel is a fair view I or other posters should take from you in this thread?​

 

[IlovethePies]

Do you believe there have been no socialist states in history?

The Russian Revolution established the first ever workers' state. However that was not socialism. Socialism means a world planned economy where all production processes are integrated internationally on the basis of social need, and not profit.

When the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917, they based their actions on the perspective of world socialist revolution. Any conception that socialism could be built in one country, was anathema to them. Lenin often explained that when the working class overthrew the Kerensky capitalist government, this was the chain of imperialism breaking at the weakest link.

But socialism would only be established when the socialist revolution had spread across the entire globe

Socialism means a higher stage of civilisation than capitalism. Socialism requires the use of the advanced technology and productive capacities of global capitalism, but utilised on the basis of what society needs, not the private profit dictates of a financial oligarchy.

So no, socialism has never existed because to do so it requires the complete abolition of the nation state system by the working class led by an international revolutionary party based on the program of world socialist revolution.

 

[IlovethePies]

This post makes me think you're purely on this forum to push an agenda.
I'll try to explain why.

1.5k posts in around a decade.
Your post has almost no connection to the OP or the thread topic.
It's about your opposition to 'capitalist state', rather than any thoughts about the death penalty.
You've clearly not tested your absolute statements beyond an initial thought.

And finally, it seems you used the entire thing just to promote this WSWS agenda 'news' site. As if it's new information, when not only is it the story used in the OP by Gethelred, it even uses the same photo as the URL display on this forum.

View attachment 2123419View attachment 2123420


So as you've not actually engaged with the topic.
And you've just seemed to use it to push this strange agenda, and promote the WSWS.

What do you feel is a fair view I or other posters should take from you in this thread?​

People ask me questions, and I answer them.
Their questions stray away from the thread topic.
I simply forget that the thread is about one single topic, and that the constraints are to retain relevance to this topic because I am interested in answering their questions.

I have been a long member of BF, and never posted much. Only recently did I start, basically because I was only sporadically posting on footy topics, and only relatively recently have come to realise that there were other threads.

An "agenda" ? My view of the world is based on socialist ideology and the understanding that the class struggle is what drives historical events. I post what I believe to be true, and almost always collides with the view of others on this site.

I also often quote from the wsws, because this website is committed to analysing reality from the standpoint of the interests of the international working class. The international working class is the only social force which has a class interest at all times in exposing the truth, that is why the wsws is my primary source.

The articles I post from wsws I only do so because I think they are very enlightening about the topic under discussion.

I don't believe there is anything like a "sinister agenda" in what I have written above.

I made clear my opposition to capital punishment, and my reasons for opposing it.

Often the word "agenda" gets thrown around in relation to an analysis of events that contradicts the majority viewpoint. It is generally speaking, used in an antidemocratic spirit.

What do I think you should take from my posts here?

I would hope that there might be some who are interested in views that challenge the status quo, and approach these views with an open mind. Also yes, I think anyone with such an open attitude would benefit from considering the analysis offered on the wsws.

 

[CM86]

People ask me questions, and I answer them.
Their questions stray away from the thread topic.
I simply forget that the thread is about one single topic, and that the constraints are to retain relevance to this topic because I am interested in answering their questions.

I have been a long member of BF, and never posted much. Only recently did I start, basically because I was only sporadically posting on footy topics, and only relatively recently have come to realise that there were other threads.

An "agenda" ? My view of the world is based on socialist ideology and the understanding that the class struggle is what drives historical events. I post what I believe to be true, and almost always collides with the view of others on this site.

I also often quote from the wsws, because this website is committed to analysing reality from the standpoint of the interests of the international working class. The international working class is the only social force which has a class interest at all times in exposing the truth, that is why the wsws is my primary source.

The articles I post from wsws I only do so because I think they are very enlightening about the topic under discussion.

I don't believe there is anything like a "sinister agenda" in what I have written above.

I made clear my opposition to capital punishment, and my reasons for opposing it.

Often the word "agenda" gets thrown around in relation to an analysis of events that contradicts the majority viewpoint. It is generally speaking, used in an antidemocratic spirit.

What do I think you should take from my posts here?

I would hope that there might be some who are interested in views that challenge the status quo, and approach these views with an open mind. Also yes, I think anyone with such an open attitude would benefit from considering the analysis offered on the wsws.

OK.

Your reply is just deliberately creating distance from my post.
It's dishonest.

If you'd like to discuss socialism, please tag me in the appropriate thread that you're having that discussion.
Unless you're just pushing these 'socialist vs capitalist' positions in as many threads as possible, regardless of the topic.

I get the impression that you may not actually have a solid concept of how a socialist society would exist.
I fear that your positions on socialism and anti-capitalism will mostly be founded in some kind of pro-Russia, anti-NATO stance.
And there won't be much depth in your ideal socialist society.


If all of your positions end up leading to reducing support for the progressive sides of our systems, with 'progressive stances' that contradict themselves, then I wouldn't believe you support socialism, I'd believe you'd be using 'socialist' as a proxy to support Putin's invasion.



Happy to be proven wrong in the appropriate thread.

 

[IlovethePies]

OK.

Your reply is just deliberately creating distance from my post.
It's dishonest.

If you'd like to discuss socialism, please tag me in the appropriate thread that you're having that discussion.

I get the impression that you may not actually have a solid concept of how a socialist society would exist.
I fear that your positions on socialism and anti-capitalism will mostly be founded in some kind of pro-Russia, anti-NATO stance.
And there won't be much depth in your ideal socialist society.


If all of your positions end up leading to reducing support for the progressive sides of our systems, with 'progressive stances' that contradict themselves, then I wouldn't believe you support socialism, I'd believe you'd be using socialist as a proxy to support Putin's invasion.



Happy to be proven wrong in the appropriate thread.

I am not sure in what way I am distancing myself from your post, nor how I could have answered any more openly.

You make accusations without any basis whatsoever.

What does this even mean:
quote from you:
""If all of your positions end up leading to reducing support for the progressive sides of our systems, with 'progressive stances' that contradict themselves, the n I wouldn't believe you support socialism, I'd believe you'd be using socialist as a proxy to support Putin's invasion."

To the extent I understand anything about what this actually means, it ends up (like 99% of what everyone else says on this forum) that I support Putin.

This just reflects, unfortunately, a sad reality: that the media has conditioned the population to such an extent that any analysis that seeks to explain this conflict in a way that conflicts with the official narrative must be, by definition, pro-Putin.

 

[CM86]

I am not sure in what way I am distancing myself from your post, nor how I could have answered any more openly.

You make accusations without any basis whatsoever.

What does this even mean:
quote from you:
""If all of your positions end up leading to reducing support for the progressive sides of our systems, with 'progressive stances' that contradict themselves, the n I wouldn't believe you support socialism, I'd believe you'd be using socialist as a proxy to support Putin's invasion."

To the extent I understand anything about what this actually means, it ends up (like 99% of what everyone else says on this forum) that I support Putin.

This just reflects, unfortunately, a sad reality: that the media has conditioned the population to such an extent that any analysis that seeks to explain this conflict in a way that conflicts with the official narrative must be, by definition, pro-Putin.

OK. I made a thread.

Society/Culture - Can a purely socialist society exist?

In broad terms. Is it possible to actually have a socialist society? How would it function? As all we have ever known and lived within, is a mostly capitalist society. Even if many of the socialist aspects are the things we most take for granted. Are we able to actually envisage what a purely...

www.bigfooty.com

Also, there's this forum as well.

Conspiracies

The Tinfoil Millinery

www.bigfooty.com

 

[dumb]

against it. also corporal punishment.
i think a lot about personal principles and how we reconcile topics, justification of punching people like nazis and blasé attitudes towards others suffering violence. and how rubbery and internally inconsistent we really are.

i feel inconsistent being pro-abortion but anti-death penalty. i suppose my line is drawn upon my flimsy understanding of human consciousness. of course people note the overlap of pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-gun. how ambivalent people can be when others are dying in a hail of bullets, or by lethal injection, and how much effort goes into preventing the deaths of some but not others.

i agree that murderers (one example) forfeit something, at the least their time. i haven't formed an opinion on something like penitentiary servitude, ie for manufacturing purposes. it would at least give them some meaning.

 

[ferball]

Yes. Julian Knight, Bilal Skaf, Martin Bryant to name a few; anyone who fiddles kids.

Kill them yourself then. Don't do it in my name.

 

[rank and file]

Nitrogen hypoxia seems a pretty rough way to go,surprised they don't just give them a good dose of fentanyl.
Shouldn't be to hard to source in Alabama.

 

[Malifice]

No socialist state exists, so there is no point in using the word socialist.

The use of the word highlights that the state protects capitalism, and fundamentally this is the source of such barbaric institutions as the death penalty.

Socialist states have existed, and they were more than happy to murder millions.

Ditto the fascists on the other side of the political spectrum.

On topic, under no circumstance should we have the death penalty.

 

[Rob R]

We should have the death penalty for a range of offences like serial or mass killers, serial rapists (especially of children, racially driven murder, significant drug importation, treason (in times of conflict), terrorism (that results in death). Most humane means if possible.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[IlovethePies]

Socialist states have existed, and they were more than happy to murder millions.

Ditto the fascists on the other side of the political spectrum.

On topic, under no circumstance should we have the death penalty.

No they weren't genuine socialist states. No "socialist state" can exist, because socialism is an international, world planned economy.
The states you are referring to were Stalinist.

Anyway, back on topic, I agree with your final sentence. The death penalty Is a cruel and barbaric institution, which is used predominantly to terrorise the working class.

Countless studies have shown that it does nothing to lower the rate of capital offences: it is there simply to warn the working class that the state reserves the right to take your life.

 

[Malifice]

No they weren't genuine socialist states. No "socialist state" can exist, because socialism is an international, world planned economy.
The states you are referring to were Stalinist.

No, those States were socialist.

A global Socialist State looks exactly the same as the Khmer Rouge or Marxist Leninists or Maoists, only worse.

All freedoms are curtailed. Private property is outlawed. Freedom of association is banned. Free press is outlawed. Members of 'the Party' that enforce Socialism on the population live large while everyone else gets told what to do.

The bourgeoise get sent to the gulags, forced to make death highways, bashed against trees till they die, starved to death or shot at dawn, as does anyone who speaks out about the system, tries to own their own stuff, form a capitalist liberal political party in opposition to the socialists or anything else against the system.

Anyway, back on topic, I agree with your final sentence. The death penalty Is a cruel and barbaric institution, which is used predominantly to terrorize the working class.

The French used it to terrorize the bourgeoise.

 

[Malifice]

The USA (a near identical Common law legal system with arguably stronger checks and balances than Australia with a Constitutional right to a lawyer, right against self-incrimination, and much stronger protections against unlawfully obtained evidence etc) has the Death penalty.

Routinely, innocent people are sentenced to death, and murdered by the State.

Applying the standards set here by many posters (murder of kids) Lindy Chamberlain would have been executed.

It also does literally nothing to stop crime (their homicide rate is 7 times higher than ours).

If you want to reduce crime, there are many other methods you can use (for example in the USA, banning guns would go a long way to reducing violent crime, as would implementing a functional Welfare and Public health care system).

I'm all for longer sentences for certain crimes (20 year minimum for murder, with the sentences starting at whole of life) because you can always appeal those sentences.

But hard no to the State killing its own citizens.

 

[IlovethePies]

No, those States were socialist.

A global Socialist State looks exactly the same as the Khmer Rouge or Marxist Leninists or Maoists, only worse.

All freedoms are curtailed. Private property is outlawed. Freedom of association is banned. Free press is outlawed. Members of 'the Party' that enforce Socialism on the population live large while everyone else gets told what to do.

The bourgeoise get sent to the gulags, forced to make death highways, bashed against trees till they die, starved to death or shot at dawn, as does anyone who speaks out about the system, tries to own their own stuff, form a capitalist liberal political party in opposition to the socialists or anything else against the system.



The French used it to terrorize the bourgeoise.

History has moved on since then.

 

[IlovethePies]

No, those States were socialist.

A global Socialist State looks exactly the same as the Khmer Rouge or Marxist Leninists or Maoists, only worse.

All freedoms are curtailed. Private property is outlawed. Freedom of association is banned. Free press is outlawed. Members of 'the Party' that enforce Socialism on the population live large while everyone else gets told what to do.

The bourgeoise get sent to the gulags, forced to make death highways, bashed against trees till they die, starved to death or shot at dawn, as does anyone who speaks out about the system, tries to own their own stuff, form a capitalist liberal political party in opposition to the socialists or anything else against the system.

Sorry, but his post is just not true.

No one has any idea what a global socialist state would like, because it has never existed.

The Khmer Rouge, Maoists, Che Guevara etc were anti -Marxist and utterly opposed to any socialist perspective based on the working class.

They were all nationalists...they fought for a "national solution", just like Hitler did.

The Khmer Rouge imposed a fascist regime which murdered the workers in Cambodia, supposedly to create a "socialist peasant econmy".

Anyone even slightly educated in Marxism and socialism understood that this would lead to mass murder.

What needs to be understood is that there are many extreme right wing nationalists who actually claimed the mantle of "Marxism" to carry out mass murder.

Only by clarifying this history can mankind make progress.

To stay on topic 5 executions in America this week:

Week of executions in America ends with a nitrogen gas asphyxiation in Alabama

Five death row inmates were put to death in the US over the past week, a pace unprecedented since July 2003. With the deaths of Freddie Owens, Travis Mullis, Marcellus Williams, Emmanuel Littlejohn and Alan Miller, the US has now executed 1,600 people since the US Supreme Court reinstated the...

www.wsws.org

 

[Episode IV]

Lawyers, prosecutors, jurors and more believed Marcellus Williams may have been innocent. Missouri executed him anyway

The 55-year-old was sentenced to death in 2001 for killing Felicia Gayle, a former newspaper reporter found dead in her gated community home.

www.google.com

Is it ever right? Is it ever worth the risk of killing an innocent person? Are there grounds by which you would be willing to move ahead with it?

Share your opinions. Standard board rules apply.

You know, I sometimes get the feeling you're asking questions in order to get ideas for a framework for a university essay. Personally, I always find it easier to answer questions (to one extent or another) rather than to pose those questions myself. Your OP in itself is not something I'd disagree with, inherently, keeping in mind the expectation of a quid pro quo, but then we get to the old "'good faith" thing; and without that, there is the danger of the questioner simply looking for grounds upon which they might become... militant.
That last is, incidentally, pertinent to the topic at hand.

That being said, this is an extremely difficult question to answer. There are many factors in play - practical, moral, philosophical.
Those three (at least) are important. Are we really talking about crimes against the state, or those against "humanity"? Are we willing to make that distinction, separate from moral considerations? Are we ready for that moral quagmire?
Particularly, and this is where things get difficult: as a multicultural state?

You've asked three questions.
The first relies upon a distinction between "right", and "just". One you haven't asked for, but is is absolutely at the heart of the question.
The second relies upon a general overview of the social and political situation, and how many people there are in the world - to whit, is the removal of one, just or otherwise, of any great significance other to those who might individually value that person, when balanced against the removal of a person in the service of the greater good - or in service to the innocent or aggrieved? Perhaps not really "one", but rather "one" as an expression of a margin for error. What fraction of unjust executions are we considering, are we willing to examine the accuser as well as the accused, and to whom is compensation rendered to under those circumstances?

And the third... my answer is yes. My grounds for saying so and the circumstances under which I might say so, however, might not align with yours. Thus, in the eyes of society, it must be no. Of course, it is No.

A tangent:
Perhaps we're speaking about the State as an agent of vigilante justice. Vigilante justice has only ever really occurred when the people do not trust the state to deliver justice.
I wonder. Has anyone ever referred to vigilante justice as vigilante law? To what extent does the acceptance of vigilante justice rely upon the ability of the state to administer law?