Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a: something very difficult or dangerous <the traffic was murder> b: something outrageous or blameworthy <getting away with murder>

therefore isn't the same as self defense or protecting. since there are death penalty laws...doesn't apply either.

how would you suggest we solve it?

zap....falsely accussed and convicted is one thing and hopefully tests are even more improved. but most prisoners have it better than hard working honest people so how is that a punishment? maybe if we had more road side chain gangs that would help deter people but then we would have those that say that's slavery or something...no one will ever find a solution that everyone will be happy with

CP is a tough issue not only because of the emotional nature that the discussion can't help but bring forth but also because of the way it is administered. My issue with CP has nothing at all to do with a soft spot for people who commit premeditated murder or because of some misguided belief that such people can be rehabilitated. I don't and they can't (at least not to the extent where their reintroduction into society is a good idea) so feeling "bad" for people who earn themselves a cell on death row is not an issue in the least.

What I have an issue with is the standard that a jury has to reach in order to impose CP. It's not that the standard is too strict but that it is in fact not strict enough.

Consider for a moment the primary way by which one can be put to death by way of the state. A jury must convict the person "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty." Great, but that is not good enough.

CP imposes an absolute punishment. Nothing is more absolute than death. There is no going back, no "oops, we screwed up," there is either alive or dead. When a person is convicted of capital murder they evidence may or may not be absolute. But in order to stick a needle in a man's arm to cause his death--it should, hell, MUST be.

In the case of someone like Ted Bundy there was absolute proof. Not only did we have his perfectly matched dental records that confirmed bite marks left on his last victims but we had his own confession (a pathetic attempt to buy more time as he attempted to trade information of where he disposed of missing women in an effort to manipulate and play games with both the authorities and his victim's families) for many of the crimes for which he was charged and convicted.

In 1989 in Florida, Ted was put to death. It was both well deserved and appropriate but only because we knew he was guilty.

That is the point. We need to have more than beyond a reasonable doubt to impose a perfect punishment that cannot be undone. Absolute punishment must have as a prerequisite--absolute proof. Without it there is a chance that the state could take the life of someone innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced to death.

So, imagine you are picked up for, charged with, and convicted of a capital crime. You aren't wealthy so as a result you are "issued" and overworked, inexperienced and underpaid public defender who is handling fifteen cases; you make sixteen. Everything is at stake. Any mistakes could mean your life and you are now playing Russian Roulette with the legal system. You had better hope that your attorney isn't fighting with his girlfriend the night before opening (or perhaps even more frightening; closing) arguments. You had better hope that your attorney gives a damn and is going to go all the way to block the state's attempts to prove your guilt. You had better hope that he is perfectly absolute in his defense of you.

If found guilty and as a result you are sentenced to death it is likely that you will linger for many years if not a few decades during which time you'll be able to file appeals. But criminal conviction appeals are not often overturned so it should go without saying that it's much better not to be found guilty in the first place.

But the point here is that CP is too arbitrary as it is applied and administered now. Green River Killer Gary Ridgeway was stupidly given a life sentence as opposed to CP which sets the standard. If Ridgeway's crimes (he killed more than sixty women) aren't worth CP then where is the bar?

So there are issues and mine are based simply on the moral argument that absolute proof must be found prior to absolute punishment. And I realize that a person's life could be ruined by sitting in prison for life for a crime not committed and that is a weakness to my position. But while in prison (if wrongly convicted) you are still alive--and as long as one is still alive the fight can continue.

It is now my sincere hope that some of what I wrote made at least some sense. If not, apologize--sometimes it makes more sense in my mind than it does when I lamely attempt to put word to thought.

-Drew

fire and brimstone, hell and damnation. Eyes for an eye, and teeth for a tooth. This is the way of the old testament

CP...Drew...my only problem with CP is that there are innocent people that slip through the cracks. i think they make up the minority of the case but 1 person wrongly convicted is 1 too many. the true guilty...yes to CP if it fits the crime. you would think with the new forensic tests and all the appeals lately that this should do alot more

Aren't death row inmates in a 5X10 cell and allowed out for one hour per day? I hardly find that better than what I have. My reasoning is that even with technology as it is today there is still the possibility of error. Working to pay for your incarceration isn't slavery but working to achieve financial gain for the government would be slav........... wait a minute! We are ALL slaves!

and eye for an eye.. It also says if the accusser turns out to be lying then they get the same punishment as the accusser. This is fair law.But the accusser gets nothing in most cases.This would stop some of betterness towards another to try and cause them harm using the justice system