Death Sentence=Justice or Murderer

[Fat1Fared]

I think lethal injection should be made legal everywhere on humans if it's legal everywhere for animals. There aren't different levels of 'humane'. Either it's humane or it isn't, regardless of who it's going to. There's been some controversy involving the death sentence, but I think that if it's humane to kill an animal like that, it's humane to kill a human using the same method.

This is something Holy, put in another thread, which I disagree with, but thought was interesting, and it got me thinking, is death sentence right or wrong:-

=Many normal poeple agree with it, however most goverments in Western World have banned it, because it is uneffective and seen as very primative form of justice (I personally am against it, as once have it, gives state more power than I would like, it doesn't work and once justife the idea of killing for killing...etc, where do you stop?)

however I wonder what others felt, aspecially those in USA, who are one of few western countries to keep it (Also no, you cannot be hung in England for trying to kill queen, that was removed 10 years ago)

[HolyShadow]

I'm not saying that the death sentence is a good thing. I just don't think that it's right to kill an animal that way if you can't kill a human that way.

[Fat1Fared]

I see, misunderstood you there, lol, however still an interesting area to look at and something away from normal, rights of gays lol

[MrsSallyBakura]

I don't like the death sentence. It costs way too much money and I think that there are better ways of treating prisoners than killing them. Only under very major circumstances should it be allowed (ie some guy gunned down a hundred innocent people and it would be incredibly dangerous if he were to escape and live in society again). Usually, situations that extreme are rare.

[xellos88]

It costs way too much money
I hear this a lot, but how much does a lethal injection costs? Cant be more expensive that suporting someone on a life sentece for many years.

[Ohara]

I would rather die than be put in prison. Prison makes the bastards suffer. Therefore, I say no to the death penalty.

[killshot]

I think the death penalty is a form of vengeance and has nothing to do with justice. What kind of message are we sending when we say murder is illegal and then kill people who break the law? Murder is OK if the government does it? I think we should put more effort into rehabilitation rather than just killing off people that don't fit into the system.

[KaibaBoi]

should be abolished everywhere

[HolyShadow]

I think the death penalty is a form of vengeance and has nothing to do with justice. What kind of message are we sending when we say murder is illegal and then kill people who break the law? Murder is OK if the government does it? I think we should put more effort into rehabilitation rather than just killing off people that don't fit into the system.
You say that, but suppose you get married... you have 3 kids... one's a football star, a starting quarterback...

You're out for a drive with him...

You get home and you're greeted by your wife with a kiss. Your 6 year old daughter runs up to you and gives you a hug. Your 14 year old son is sitting on the couch playing video games. He's a little chubby and rude, but you know he means well.

You all eventually sit down to dinner and eat a fabulous meal. Your older son just won a game a few days ago and your younger son tells you about the video game a bit. Your daughter shows you a drawing she did that day and you smile, say it's a work of art, and put it on the refrigerator.

You go to sleep with your wife, then you wake up in the morning. You see your wife has a pool of blood protruding from her head. A single bullet in her brain.

You're wary. "Why her? Why not me?" goes through your mind. You walk through the house carefully with a blunt object in hand. You call 911 and go to the living room. You see your older son holding your daughter. She's alive, but he was just gunned down. Your younger son's bloody corpse is in his room, out of the corner of your eye.

He walks to your daughter, pulls him out from under your older son, and kills her right before your eyes.

You go into a rage and manage to subdue him before the cops arrive. He's arrested and they tell you that because he had his fingerprints destroyed and was bald, and they found no DNA evidence of him, there's no way to tie him directly to the crime, the gun is custom-made and this is its first crime, with no visible serial killings in the past, and that your testimony isn't enough to put him away for life and it's barely enough to get him a few years for a sentence.

What do you do?

You do everything you can to KILL him, regardless of the consequences. And if you say that you won't, you are FUCKING LYING.

[killshot]

What does that scenario have to do with the topic? I'm saying that the government should not be allowed to kill people. If this really did happen I'm sure I would kill the guy. But that's not the point. I would want revenge, but I would be so overcome with emotion that I wouldn't be thinking straight. Justice should be more important than revenge. We can't kill someone just to make us feel better.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I hear this a lot, but how much does a lethal injection costs? Cant be more expensive that suporting someone on a life sentece for many years.

The expenses lie more than in just the lethal injection. They also have to go through tons and tons of paperwork in order to "justify" ending his/her life.

You do everything you can to KILL him, regardless of the consequences. And if you say that you won't, you are FUCKING LYING.

Well, not necessarily. I mean that's the initial instinct of many people, but there may be a few people out there who wouldn't try to kill this person. That probably sounds ridiculous, but you never know.

[HolyShadow]

The expenses lie more than in just the lethal injection. They also have to go through tons and tons of paperwork in order to "justify" ending his/her life.



Well, not necessarily. I mean that's the initial instinct of many people, but there may be a few people out there who wouldn't try to kill this person. That probably sounds ridiculous, but you never know.
:objection:

It hasn't happened to you, so you don't know. I know someone it happened to, so I know.

Oh, and as for us, one time we were on vacation. Our house got robbed and there was evidence everywhere. Fingerprints and the like. It was muddy and his piss was in the toilet. He didn't flush.

Cop didn't feel like helping us because it was superbowl sunday. He basically said fuck off. My dad still wants to kick his ass.

That's another story of the law not supporting you. So it happened to a lesser extent.

[maisetofan]

I don't like the death sentence. It costs way too much money and I think that there are better ways of treating prisoners than killing them. Only under very major circumstances should it be allowed (ie some guy gunned down a hundred innocent people and it would be incredibly dangerous if he were to escape and live in society again). Usually, situations that extreme are rare.

thank you sally, the voice of reason :):)

i am against it in most circumstances, the worst is the innocent people who have died under the death penalty and do not tell me it has not happened before. Read "Dead man walking" TRUE STORY you know

In the 19th century, most Western European countries applied the death penalty only to murder with premeditation and (high) treason, and at the end of that century Portugal and the Netherlands in Europe, and Venezuela, Costa Rica, Brazil, and Ecuador in Latin
America was the first countries to abolish capital punishment (except for treason and collaboration in wartime).

After WWII, and after the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the push for the abolishment of the death penalty grew strongly in Western Europe. In most countries, the last executions have been for treason, collaboration with the enemy, and war crimes in the years following the end of WWII, and several countries formally banned capital punishment soon after. Although some nations like the UK, Ireland, Greece, Belgium, Spain, France, and Luxemburg still maintained the death penalty in their penal code for years or decades longer, executions became very rare occurrences. France was the last country in Western Europe to formally abolish the death penalty in 1977.

In america,at the beginning of the 20th century, a conjunction of social, intellectual, political, and economic factors led to a frenzy of death sentences and executions between 1920 and 1940, with an average of 167 executions per year in the 1930s.

This tendency reversed itself after WWII, and Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Vermont, and New York joined Michigan, Minnesota, North-Dakota, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin in abolishing capital punishment. A Gallup Poll in 1966 showed that nationwide support for the death penalty had dropped to 42%. In 1972 the United States Supreme Court declared capital punishment anti-constitutional (?cruel and unusual punishment?), thereby removing the sword of Damocles from above the heads of the 629 death row inmates at the time. But only four years later, that same Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty. All the states that had the death penalty before 1972, introduced it again, and the situation remained unchanged until December, 2007, when New Jersey abolished it.

the southern states are still yet to fully abolish the death penalty, such as Texas, Florida and California which reanacted their death penalty status in 1977.

Info from http://www.rogermcgowen.org/Death_Penalty.html

and a scary thought

[xellos88]

The expenses lie more than in just the lethal injection. They also have to go through tons and tons of paperwork in order to "justify" ending his/her life.
But it doesnt have to be that way. I think the death penalty should be used but i dont think there should be all that paperwork, if the guy is founf guilty the there shouldnt be any more paperwork....but i admit this would only work in countries with a good legal system (unlike mine)

[Fat1Fared]

I think the death penalty is a form of vengeance and has nothing to do with justice. What kind of message are we sending when we say murder is illegal and then kill people who break the law? Murder is OK if the government does it? I think we should put more effort into rehabilitation rather than just killing off people that don't fit into the system.

This pretty much sums up my view,

Holy I don't know what my reaction to that would be, however I Like to think I wouldn't, but don;t know. Like killshot, I think your missing point, an emotional person may want revenge, but we never want to allow the states idea of justice to ruled by revenge,

Mai interesting info, must say I'm amazed, i thought that would be lot of support for it, but isn't

[MrsSallyBakura]

But it doesnt have to be that way. I think the death penalty should be used but i dont think there should be all that paperwork, if the guy is founf guilty the there shouldnt be any more paperwork....but i admit this would only work in countries with a good legal system (unlike mine)

I think even countries with a good legal system would abuse the death penalty. There's just so much power behind killing a person that would probably result in wondering if the people executing these criminals are much better than the criminals themselves.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

ALL HAIL KIRA!!!!!!
KIRA IS JUSTICE!!!!!

[Ohara]

ALL HAIL KIRA!!!!!!
KIRA IS JUSTICE!!!!!
I completely agree.
A real life Kira would be amazing.

[MrsSallyBakura]

O_o

Well I dunno about amazing...

But you have to admit, how well Ishikawa's statement fit into this thread is pretty scary.

[HolyShadow]

If there were a Kira, I would be L.

[maisetofan]

i totally agree with shining there, you would be L

and FAT i am on your side XDXD

[Noah Kaiba]

Is the Death Sentence justice when forensic evidence absolutely proves the suspect is the culprit? Yes.

Is it justice when circumstantial evidence proves the suspect is the culprit? No, because circumstantial evidence is a hunch and often times they have the wrong person.

[Kiya]

The death sentence is completlly stupid.
We're going to kill people, that kill other people, to teach them killing people is wrong?

[maisetofan]

The death sentence is completlly stupid.
We're going to kill people, that kill other people, to teach them killing people is wrong?

100% with you :D

[JesusRocks]

Also, it's a little difficult to rectify the mistake of executing an innocent person >_>

Case in point: Derek Bentley

[Velocity]

The thing that comes to mind whenever I encounter a discussion of capital punishment is the following:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Send criminals elsewhere, make them do public works and DON'T give them cushy accommodations (reference this story (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/arpaio.asp) for a good idea of what comes to mind).

[Fat1Fared]

If there were a Kira, I would be L.

Well, you were L, we all know who would be Kira ^_-

Is the Death Sentence justice when forensic evidence absolutely proves the suspect is the culprit? Yes.

Is it justice when circumstantial evidence proves the suspect is the culprit? No, because circumstantial evidence is a hunch and often times they have the wrong person.

May I ask how old you are, this is not insult, or not meant to be, however it is navie to think that you will have 100% proof, it is impossible, (watch "The Life of David Gale", which is about this, sure in that it is extreme, but even when everything seems to say it one person, there is always chance (even small one wrong))

And even if we could say that there is case where it is 100%, can we say that an eye for an eye is right?

Also, it's a little difficult to rectify the mistake of executing an innocent person >_>

Case in point: Derek Bentley

indeed, and it took further 20 years for them to even give poor guy a Pardon

[HolyShadow]

The thing that comes to mind whenever I encounter a discussion of capital punishment is the following:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Send criminals elsewhere, make them do public works and DON'T give them cushy accommodations (reference this story (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/arpaio.asp) for a good idea of what comes to mind).
I believe in criminal rights. We shouldn't take away their rights just because they've taken ours away. Specifically, I think we should make sure men in prison don't get raped in the shower by other men in prison. However, the way it all works is basically a, "They deserve it" mindset.

So we're teaching one criminal that it's okay to rape others while teaching the other that it's bad to rape others. Now, suppose the person being raped is a rapist themselves. We're teaching them that what they did was bad by allowing it to happen to them. It's the same thing as killing someone to teach them that killing is wrong.

Criminals in prison should be in a safe atmosphere used to reeducate them with tactics that don't follow the same patterns that they used to commit a crime.

Do as I say, not as I do... that doesn't work. It teaches hypocrisy and no one learns from that.

[Fenrir502]

It's a little bit hard to repent for a crime you've committed if you're dead.

Murder is murder, regardless of who does the deed.

[Insane]

So it seems that we (as a collective group) are against the death penalty.

Good.
It's despicable.

And the most hypocritical thing ever.
As it was so greatly stated earlier in this very thread:
We're going to kill people, that kill other people, to teach them killing people is wrong?
And, as previously stated, it's incredibly expensive.


And finally, courts and juries can get things wrong!!

People can be sentenced to death, when they're innocent...
They're kinda screwed then, eh...

[Kanariya674]

Screw the death penalty when you could torture them! If I was going to give the death penalty, it's to a serial killer or something along those lines. It should be absolutely proven (but a lot of times, it's not).

It's a little bit hard to repent for a crime you've committed if you're dead.

I don't think some of them want to repent. They do it because to them it made sense. Let's say, you're part of a gang, and someone very close to you gets killed by a rival gang. In those instances, you don't regret killing the person who killed your loved one. The mentality of a lot of those people is killed, or be killed. They aren't going to regret it. They 'gave justice' by murdering.

I see both sides, but someone's going to get killed anyway.

[Fenrir502]

I don't think some of them want to repent. They do it because to them it made sense. Let's say, you're part of a gang, and someone very close to you gets killed by a rival gang. In those instances, you don't regret killing the person who killed your loved one. The mentality of a lot of those people is killed, or be killed. They aren't going to regret it. They 'gave justice' by murdering.

Yes, but some will want to repent, and not recieve the chance.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

No second chances. Kill Kill Kill
Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete

[HolyShadow]

Punishment is based on right and wrong. But can any wrong be solved by taking a life?

I say put shock collars on all criminals with no unlocking mechanism that will kill them when they try to unlock it. Everything they do is public record anyway. When they do a heinous crime, let them go, and punish them for it when they try another heinous crime. Insant-death, simply because they refuse to learn, or simple unconsciousness if they're doing something small, but still illegal.

[AsteriskRocks]

Well...if we're thinking economically then no. It costs more to actually put them to death rather then keep them in prison for life. (Been stated already)

But I don't believe that killing another person in order to deter other criminals from doing so is pointless. Killing the person would be a means of escape if they do the crime with intentionally knowing they will be put to death for it. Death is a means of escape as shown with various murderers who kill several people before shooting themselves to death. If one wants to necessarily punish a criminal, then it should be by means of life imprisonment and not by death because if you're putting them to death it's not a actually a punishment....it's just letting criminals off by means of afterlife punishment? (It depends if you believe in a heaven and hell, etc or not)

So I believe that the Death Penalty isn't right not only because its expensive and the fact that it has been abolished in the majority of countries in the world but it is just not an effective deterrent especially if death is what the criminal is looking for. Then again you have to take into account repenting and what not if the criminal actually intends to change, but if its by the time the person is on death row it would be too late.

[HolyShadow]

The death penalty is only expensive because of all the red tape.

[Fat1Fared]

Well, just wondered what poeples thoughts on this where:-

Baby P case, as all know those poeple, we will be out and when are, they will be given protection from the many murderering masses which wish to kill them, what do poeple feel here:-

-Death too good for them
-Stick to our morals (I know many would love them to die, but I still cannot hold that view)
-Let them do their time and then leave them to their fate

This sick (though sadly not the sickest) case where poeple show just how brutal a race we can be, but still seems wrong to, meet them with eye for eye thing, as though I could never say I personally have been any where near such a thing, to know hurt those involve suffer, if we do 2 wrongs, don't get right, all get is two wrongs
=All we can hope is that poeple can learn from things such as this and we work harder to protect poeple like Peter

[Velocity]

The death penalty is only expensive because of all the red tape.
True. The appeals process after a death sentence has been ordered is lengthy, and many inmates are on death row for a number of years. In fact, the average time on death row has jumped from 51 months (4 years, 3 months) in 1983 to 153 months (12 years, 9 months) in 2007 -- inmates are spending THREE TIMES AS MANY days on death row now!

This is in part due to the appeals process, to stays of execution, and as well to the backlog of prisoners waiting to be executed. It really is ridiculous.

[Umbrella Man]

I think that the death penalty is wrong, unless it is to someone that killed multiple people, like a serial killer. Also, what if a person didn't do the crime, but was forced to confess, and got killed because of that? I think that overall, the death penalty is wrong.

[M.P.]

I think death sentence should only happen if it is no use keeping them in jail (a.k.a. he/she keeps on killing people in jail...just like Rorschach in Watchmen...or somehow kills people while still in jail...like in the upcoming Gerard Butler movie Law Abiding Citizen), but let me tell you something: I'd rather die by lethal injection than spend an eternity in a prison.

[Darkhallows]

I don't know.. In one way I agree with it. An eye for an eye, y'know? And less murderers in the world. Besides I would rather die xD.
However, it seems hypocritical, too.
I really don't know.

[Cocyta]

I don't like the death sentence. It costs way too much money and I think that there are better ways of treating prisoners than killing them. Only under very major circumstances should it be allowed (ie some guy gunned down a hundred innocent people and it would be incredibly dangerous if he were to escape and live in society again). Usually, situations that extreme are rare.

And finally, courts and juries can get things wrong!!

People can be sentenced to death, when they're innocent...
They're kinda screwed then, eh...

Yes, that is true, although work with DNA evidence is improving the odds that juries will decide upon the correct verdict... as long as the DNA evidence is collected correctly and not tampered with, intentionally or unintentionally.

As for the monetary cost of the death penalty, my Criminal Justice book has this to say:

In federal cases, the average cost of defending a negotiated death sentence is $192,333; the amount rises to $269,000 if the case goes to trial. Prosecuting a federal death penalty costs an average of $365,000. These amounts don't include the cost of investigation, expert assistance, or law enforcement assistance (Judicial Conference of the United States 1998).

I hear this a lot, but how much does a lethal injection costs?

The drugs for lethal injection cost $88.42 (Johnson 1999, A1).

The death penalty is only expensive because of all the red tape.

Can you blame them for wanting to be as sure as (at least currently) possible that a person is truly guilty before the suspect is killed?

Screw the death penalty when you could torture them!

Torture is illegal. Whether or not the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment" is still under debate.

No second chances. Kill Kill Kill
Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete

So, when are you going to switch to a Yagami Raito or Mikami Teru avatar?

[MrsSallyBakura]

Considering that your book is from the 90's, due to inflation, the cost of all that is probably a lot higher now.

[Cocyta]

:: nods ::

dang inflation...

[HolyShadow]

Immanuel (Think that's his first name...) Kant would say that we'd be respecting murderers best if we killed them for killing others because their moral code led them to kill others. Therefore, to follow their moral code, we have to kill them. Otherwise, we're disrespecting their morals and being very, very rude.

[Pokey!]

If you didn't care about the life someone else, we won't care about yours.

[HolyShadow]

Essentially. It's the best way to respect them. Live by their own moral code.

[Bakura136]

I'm not saying that the death sentence is a good thing. I just don't think that it's right to kill an animal that way if you can't kill a human that way.
Well in that case we shouldn't kill animals if that's where you're getting at.
It's not right to kill another human, no matter how much of a total asshole they can be.

[HolyShadow]

That depends on which philosophy you're applying to. Kant would say it is righteous.

[Fat1Fared]

Essentially. It's the best way to respect them. Live by their own moral code.

well, wouldn't agree with bakura's actual point on animals, because they don't have moral codes, but he is right, that judging criminals by own standards in this case will only actually legitimatise their own moral code, meaning they can say will if my code is enough to judge me, then it is also enough to justify me!
=And, if your saying because I'm willing to kill, I should be allowed to be killed, then you two should be allowed to be killed and who killed you, can kill....etc, thus killing is actually right and legit all over now, meaning killing me for killing of another is actually now actually void point.
=There is a reason for legal theory of one rule for all, because judging someone by own standards can only legitimatise their standards, not remove it.

Look at this way, if you kill a terrorist bomber for his actions, you then by own admission become the terrorist bomber and follow his code, meaning you then only end up justifying his actions

Or look at this way, should be all be allowed to rob, the robber? (but if allowed to rob him, then why not rob everyone anyway?)
=Now know you will say, but he stuck first, therefore started it, problem with this is, as well as being slightly childish way of looking at world, it doesn't actually justify your action back, and could even make you look worse as you actually believe it is wrong and still did it for vindictive cause, as well doesn't leave you open the same treatment once go down this route?

Sorry Holy, to judge them by own standard only legitimises their cause.

(of course, this becomes lot more complicated when look at standards between countries, however luckily for us, that is off point anyway)

[loveistears]

i think they deserve it. fucking kill them. one less mouth the world has to feed.

[HolyShadow]

well, wouldn't agree with bakura's actual point on animals, because they don't have moral codes, but he is right, that judging criminals by own standards in this case will only actually legitimatise their own moral code, meaning they can say will if my code is enough to judge me, then it is also enough to justify me!
=And, if your saying because I'm willing to kill, I should be allowed to be killed, then you two should be allowed to be killed and who killed you, can kill....etc, thus killing is actually right and legit all over now, meaning killing me for killing of another is actually now actually void point.
=There is a reason for legal theory of one rule for all, because judging someone by own standards can only legitimatise their standards, not remove it.

Look at this way, if you kill a terrorist bomber for his actions, you then by own admission become the terrorist bomber and follow his code, meaning you then only end up justifying his actions

Or look at this way, should be all be allowed to rob, the robber? (but if allowed to rob him, then why not rob everyone anyway?)
=Now know you will say, but he stuck first, therefore started it, problem with this is, as well as being slightly childish way of looking at world, it doesn't actually justify your action back, and could even make you look worse as you actually believe it is wrong and still did it for vindictive cause, as well doesn't leave you open the same treatment once go down this route?

Sorry Holy, to judge them by own standard only legitimises their cause.

(of course, this becomes lot more complicated when look at standards between countries, however luckily for us, that is off point anyway)
Yeah, that's a bunch of bullshit.

We instantly assume killing is wrong?

Okay.

Is killing the ultimate wrong?

[Fat1Fared]

Yeah, that's a bunch of bullshit.

We instantly assume killing is wrong?

Okay.

Is killing the ultimate wrong?

though Holy I'm sure you can find an example of where killing is wrong, that I may even agree with, no one ever said anything about it being ultimate wrong (mainly as no such thing) or any of these other examples we could come across, because they are not part of this, and with the here and now example, killing justified by killing, doesn't work and will only justifie those your killing and make you same as them, which is something I personally wouldn't want

[Cocyta]

Personally, I think we should try to make space travel more cost-efficient and send criminals to Mars.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Personally, I think we should try to make space travel more cost-efficient and send criminals to Mars.

That might make people commit crimes just so that they can go to Mars.

[Ishikawa Oshro]

well send them their with no air globe ^_~

[Cocyta]

That might make people commit crimes just so that they can go to Mars.

Well, I was just talking about making space travel affordable enough to get them to Mars. The criminals sent there would still have to work on terraforming Mars (http://www.howstuffworks.com/terraforming.htm) to make it more inhabitable.

well send them there with no air globe ^_~

That would kill them, and thus be equivalent to the death penalty.

I'm thinking of how Mars could be a prison colony with strict guidelines and hard labor. Giving them an education in science would also be useful both there and after they return to Earth, and other courses and various self-help training (such as anger management and the like) could be made available to help people overcome whatever it was that led them to become criminals.

[HolyShadow]

though Holy I'm sure you can find an example of where killing is wrong, that I may even agree with, no one ever said anything about it being ultimate wrong (mainly as no such thing) or any of these other examples we could come across, because they are not part of this, and with the here and now example, killing justified by killing, doesn't work and will only justifie those your killing and make you same as them, which is something I personally wouldn't want
I'm asking you. Is it the very worst thing a person could possibly do?

[Arbaal]

I'm asking you. Is it the very worst thing a person could possibly do?

It Depends

[HeyDudez]

I'm one of these people who dose'nt have a death sentence in the country I live in. But the thing is that a life sentence over where I live is only 8 years I think life should mean life considering the murders that happen. I don't agree with the death sentence because it dos'nt give the person chance to figure out what he done wrong and why he done it in the first place.

[HolyShadow]

Corrections don't always work. The death penalty is reserved for those that there is a very high chance of a life sentence not working on.

People for death sentences have to be BAD motherfuckers.

[Elky]

i fail to see anything wrong with putting murderers, pedophiles, and terrorists to death.

[Autopsy Gremlin]

The death penalty isn't a very good deterrent because they're more likely to die of natural causes than by execution. From 1978 to 2005, during the same period that 11 inmates were put to death, 28 died naturally, 12 committed suicide and two were killed in incidents
on the San Quentin exercise yard.