Life in prison v. death penalty? [Archive]

Amnesiac

11-06-2003, 10:40 PM

Think of it this way...the death penalty is not used for practical reasons. If it were, then we wouldn't have the abortion/contraception paradox in America, as well as all sorts of cultural conflicts that are argued incessantly on Fox News.

The death penalty satifies a deep-felt need for revenge; and while I agree that it can be misused, it is also valuable. The common scenario broached by pro-death penalty advocates to the antis is "what if YOUR [relative] were killed? What would you think THEN?" and I myself have to realistically accept the fact that I would be a mushroom-cloud laying motherfucker under those circumstances, and the death penalty seems like a damn good idea.

The problem is that the STATE does the job for you. There is something dissatisfying in seeing someone you hate being killed in a mechanical fashion by a third party who had no involvement whatsoever other than a sense of legal entitlement. The satisfying conclusion would be to kill that person with your own two hands...with implements if you prefer. Some people couldn't do it, and some people have a more enlightened sense of being, but a lot of people would take that do-it-yourself option if it were presented. The major reservation for the law is that the public's sense of outrage clouds their thinking, and would drive them to kill someone who is actually innocent, but percieved as guilty (a la Mystic River). The other problem is that revenge can give way to VENGEANCE, which is kinda of like a plague: it just gets bigger and bigger and can never be fed, ultimately claiming innocent people in the process.

If we could prove irrefutably someone's guilt in the face of political influence, and make certain that outrage could not spread, and also get the consent of the victim's next-of-kin, I say go for that sort of execution. I can honestly say that I'm not exactly opposed to committing murder myself, but if I ever did, I would want to be dealt with by the families of my victims rather than the STATE, who just noses its way into people's lives with impugnity. I think everyone would be happier that way and it would give the public a perspective that life and society would normally deny them.

As for life in prison? I had a boss who used to be a prison guard. The lifers get away with (literally) murder behind bars because they're there for the duration, and that ruins the chances of people trying to work their way out...PLUS, our prison system is based on punishment now and not on rehabilitation.

Also, take into account the affect of 40+ years of prison on your mind. How long could you last before you went stir-crazy, insane or just overall inhuman? Then your chances of being let out are almost nil. Plus, I don't know about anyone else, but if I had the choice between the electric chair or 60 years of being a shower-room squeak toy for Bubba and LeRoy...I'll plug the damn thing in myself.

So which is more humane? Instant death or the slow, torturous decay of time?

__________________________________________________ _____________

"I fear neither pain nor death."
"What do you fear?"
"A Cage. To sit behind bars until use and old age accept them. And all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire."
-Eowyn, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

WorkInProgress

11-06-2003, 10:55 PM

The shower-room-squeak-toy reference raises another point.

There is something very, very, very seriously wrong with the fact that the prison system is not set up to guarantee prisoners' safety from being assaulted by each other. The fact that one is likely to be raped in prison, or even that the possibility exists, shows that this is a country that has a long way to go before it can claim to be worth getting sentimental and singing patriotic songs over. Even if every other country in the world is a lot worse in this regard, if this country really stands for anything, it will stand for the principle that when one is sentenced to jail, one will never, absolutely never, be in danger of getting any further punishment than he has been legally sentenced to, meaning that there will be absolute and unfailing protection from assault by other prisoners.

And listen. Every opinion involving the penal system has simply got to take into account the fact that some convicts are innocent. So even if you think that murderers and other felons in jail deserve what they get, you have to remember that there are people falsely convicted of crimes. It's bad enough they're in jail. If society allows them to be raped, then society itself is a violent criminal.

giantfan121262

11-07-2003, 12:01 AM

I am probably going to get some static but here it goes

I am in favor of life in prison over the death penalty with some stipulations. The convict is to remain in solitary confinement during his "term". I think the death penalty spaers that person the grief he would experience for the rest of his or her life. NT bought an interesting point on the point of view of the victims family and how the death penalty would bring a sense of closure. By the same token, if you are stripping that person of all the liberties that they have taken for granted and completely ravaged the quality of life, wouldn't it be a relief knowing that person is going to literally rot in a shithole and know that person will NEVER see the light of day again?

natural tickler

11-07-2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Knox The Hatter
Here's how it works:
The incentive is to execute someone. If, as the overly ambitious prosecutor that you are, you manage to have someone executed for a crime that has been committed, then the sky's the limit for you...a foot in the door in a very prestigious practice, election to public office for being "tough on crime", and other paths to money and glory. There is no incentive for you to make sure that the person you've convicted of said crime was guilty of it in the first place. In fact, the faster you have the person strapped to a gurney and have the needle put into his arm, the less chance that DNA will exonerate him, and more of a chance that the public, with their notoriously long span of attention, will forget that you callously put an innocent man to death in order to advance your career.
As long as such a system exists in this country, then I can't abide by Capital Punishment. I believe in guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and if you can't get beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shouldn't be executing people.
Some people think of it as a deterrant. I guess it would be, in some cases, say, if you committed a capital crime on Thursday, were arrested on Friday, tried and convicted and sentenced on Saturday, and strung up on Monday morning. But then, Stalin's dead, and I am glad I don't live in the old USSR.
There's the Texas of George W. Bush, where you have a steady queue of people waiting to be tied to the gurney, and they frankly don't care whether you committed the crime or not, you're gonna fucking die whether you like it or not, and the authorities will tell the world with a straight face that every person they ever executed was guilty, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
No, I'm wholeheartedly against Capital Punishment...they're gonna cover up all exculpatory evidence, have liars put on the witness stand, and do all kinds of things to get you strapped to a gurney, just to conceal their own helplessness and ineptitude in not being able to find the real culprit. Welcome to the United States.

I understand what you're saying, Knox, and you too giantfan, but you both still haven't answered my question: what is the value of the innocent life taken violently worth?? And can you look at the grieving family with a straight face and say life in prison is better?? How can they ever get closure when the killer gets to live and breathe and their relative don't have that luxury anymore??

MrPartickler

11-07-2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by natural tickler
what is the value of the innocent life taken violently worth?? And can you look at the grieving family with a straight face and say life in prison is better?? How can they ever get closure when the killer gets to live and breathe and their relative don't have that luxury anymore??

I think what they're trying to say is that any <i>innocent</i> life is priceless, immeasurably valuable and should be protected. Your question presumes the person convicted is actually guilty, and we know for a fact that is not always the case (e.g., due to corruption, politics, etc.). Since the system of conviction is imperfect and subject to question and change, they're saying that, in good conscience, the punishment should reflect that. (Note, again, that we're talking about a pretty severe punishment regardless.)

Could you look at the grieving family (who will no doubt still be grieving after any sentence is carried out) with a straight face and say you helped execute someone who is <i>not</i> the actual killer of their loved one so they could have closure? Could you do the same for the newly-grieving family of the convicted?

BigJim

11-07-2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by sceej56
Now I recognize there are individuals with a death wish who woul prefer death but if life in prison is in any way a greater punishment, why then do the overwhelming majority of murderers elect to plea bargain for life in prison or seek to stave off their executions with exhaustive appeals?

I think the main argument against it, is that it serves no purpose other than to pander to popular calls for revenge against the criminal. I think anything to do with justice that's sole redeeming feature is mob-appeasement, is skating on very thin ice from the start.

Originally posted by natural tickler
I understand what you're saying, Knox, and you too giantfan, but you both still haven't answered my question: what is the value of the innocent life taken violently worth?? And can you look at the grieving family with a straight face and say life in prison is better?? How can they ever get closure when the killer gets to live and breathe and their relative don't have that luxury anymore??

The answer is that it's worth far too much for people in thisworld ever to be able to make someone repay it. The argument about an "eye for an eye" is centuries old and doesn'r address some very fundemental points. For instance, researchers found that 23 people were innocently executed in the last century up to 1995 (I think it was 95 anyway). These were just the ones that they uncovered in a short space of investigation. The legal system and it's reliant subsiduaries are full of wackos (such as that idiot fundementalist judge with the 10 Commandments monument) panderers (such as at least half a dozen DA's and elected police chiefs who have gone for the quick fix to catch a few votes and ended up wrongly convicting someone, ruthless shitbags of lawyers who will do anything and say anything to further their own career (are you listening Gerard Leone?) and plain idiots. (Jurors in a few high profile cases spring to mind.
Do you think it's worth slotting a handfull of innocents if a bagful of murderers get executed? Some are willing for that to happen I know, but I'd hate to be in their living rooms if it was their spouse, brother/sister, parent or child that got wrongly convicted and fried.

BigJim

11-07-2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Amnesiac_m(pc)
The common scenario broached by pro-death penalty advocates to the antis is "what if YOUR [relative] were killed? What would you think THEN?" and I myself have to realistically accept the fact that I would be a mushroom-cloud laying motherfucker under those circumstances, and the death penalty seems like a damn good idea.??

As I said above, how would you feel if it was a relative or friend of yours who was the victim of a capricious, fickle and benter than a nine-bob note justice system who got innocently fried?

BigJim

11-07-2003, 03:13 PM

The main problem with the death penalty is that it's a proven fact that all but one of it's supporters motivations is actually true.

It DOESN'T act as a better deterrant as places like California and Texas who whack and stack more than the rest of the Union combined also have higher homicide rates. Official statistics from all corners conclusively prove that murder rates are hugely higher where death is the penalty for taking someone else's life. Executing a criminal does not make society any safer or prevent a single other murder. All the gathered figures show that people who are met with something are more likely to reply in kind if they are of the criminal element. That means that violence begets violence, brutality begets more brutality and death attracts yet more smegging death.

It's NOT cheaper than imprisoning someone. It actually costs less to imprison someone for 40 years in solitary confinement at the highest level of security than it does to administer a capital sentence.

It's NOT safe and foolproof despite the lengthy appeals process as investigation has proved. The Federal Government's refusal to officially issue posthumous pardons to wrongly convicted people is a stain of pure shame on society.

The only reason that it can possibly be accurately justified is on the basis of "an eye for an eye". If you want to support capital punishment knowing that, then you have to be willing to live your lives by a code of vengeance that has it's roots in cultures that are now millenia ancient. Founding your idea of justice around the concept of vengeance and mob-appeasement is a very bad idea and is the quick route to making sure that your civilisation is nothing of the kind.

BigJim

11-07-2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by WorkInProgress
The shower-room-squeak-toy reference raises another point.

There is something very, very, very seriously wrong with the fact that the prison system is not set up to guarantee prisoners' safety from being assaulted by each other. The fact that one is likely to be raped in prison, or even that the possibility exists, shows that this is a country that has a long way to go before it can claim to be worth getting sentimental and singing patriotic songs over. Even if every other country in the world is a lot worse in this regard, if this country really stands for anything, it will stand for the principle that when one is sentenced to jail, one will never, absolutely never, be in danger of getting any further punishment than he has been legally sentenced to, meaning that there will be absolute and unfailing protection from assault by other prisoners.

And listen. Every opinion involving the penal system has simply got to take into account the fact that some convicts are innocent. So even if you think that murderers and other felons in jail deserve what they get, you have to remember that there are people falsely convicted of crimes. It's bad enough they're in jail. If society allows them to be raped, then society itself is a violent criminal.

WIP, your post gives me some hope for the future of civilisation. I know I've made flippant references to "Benny The Bunghole Buster" in the past, but I think you raise a very good point.

I know of several occasions when serious sex offenders (Class C as we call them in the UK. Nonces and paedophiles in other words) have been left totally exposed and open to various horrendous assaults as a result of prisoners bribing prison officials for a few moments alone. Not a great loss even a "liberal" like me would say. Sadly the advent of DNA evidence subsequently proved two of them to be innocent. You basically had two wronged innocents walking around for the rest of their lives without their bollocks.

BigJim

11-07-2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by AphxA
Some might argue that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment. I am pro-death penalty but the crime has to be something extreme. There are alot of crazy people out there who go to jail, then come out, and commit the same crimes. When is the cycle going to end unless extreme measures are taken? :(

The cycle will end the same time as all death and disease will vanish from the world: when we cease treating the symptoms and exercise prevention instead. Right now we are punishing people who are aspects of various parts of our society. Yes they deserve punishment and richly so, because they always had freedom of choice to commit or not to commit. However every aspect of human society, good and bad, is a reflection of some part of the collective human mind-set. Right now America is largely governed and run by right-wing, God-fearing, gun waving fanatics who believe in righteous violence and an eye for an eye. Rather unsurprisingly American society is the most violent, divided and capricious in the "developed" world. Even within the United states there are examples that fighting fire with fire only results in a double sized fire. As I said earlier, the places that slot more criminals also have higher murder rates. Compare Texas, New york, Florida and California with those few states who stick to life in prison.

BigJim

11-07-2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by TicklishSinner
Grrr...i wish i had a set opinion, but everytime i get a set opinion i question the other side..blah must be a bad habit.

It's not a bad habit at all. It's the sign of an active mind that is looking for original thought. Considering how rare that is in the world today Smerphy, don't you ever change! you keep questioning and thinking. :)

BigJim

11-07-2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by natural tickler
I believe in the death penalty wholeheartedly. If you kill, then your life should not be spared. We must keep an eye for an eye principle working here.

Why? That's a societal concept that is millenia old and even if you believe in the Bible (which in my opinion is the greatest work of fiction since vows of fidelity were included in the French marriage service) all those hellfire and brimstone rules were mostly changed with the advent of the Savior, who completely changed the concept of how people should live their lives. He was after all the One who advocated turning the other cheek. I don't think that means not reacting to people who transgress against the law and common decency, but I do think it means not pandering to our basest desires for blood and vengeance. If you're going on keeping that principle how do you justify living by a moral code that comes out of the dark ages? Do you not believe at all in the evolution of mankind? I'm not saying you're wrong NT, but I would like to know your reasoning.

Originally posted by natural tickler
And for all those bleeding hearts who don't like the death penalty, here's a question for you: If you say life in prison is good enough, then what is the value of the life that was taken?? Where is the justice for the family who lost a loved one brutally?? Why does the prisoner get to breathe fresh air when the victim cant anymore?? Why does he get to live a full life when the victim can't have that priveledge anymore?? When someone can convince me with a honest answer, then I will switch my position.

a) The value of human life is in principle higher than any human can pay by their own death. Everyone is going to die anyway, that's the price we owe God for living. I think people have more chance to pay for what they've done if they suffer in this life (through whatever punishment we choose to inflict on them during their enforced confinement confinement) rather than having it ended precipitedly and somewhat mercifully compared to their possible death through cancer, AIDS or whatever.
b)What is justice? You're talking about it purely from your own personal concept of it. A lot of people contend that living a life without hope of freedom, having your own space, and nothing to look forward to other than being relieved of it through death, is justice. Your brand of it is too fraught with error and the possibility of corruption intruding into it. It also smacks of the thing I think is most dangerous of all; pandering only to the basest desires of the human character, namely revenge.
c/d) They don't get to breathe fresh air, they get to breathe feotid and stinking air. In Britain it's referred to as The Prison Stench and it permeates everyhting, including the hair and clothes. Take it from someone who's actually been inside a prison. (Not as a prisoner I hasten to add.) Nor do they get to live a full life. They live a semi-existence that few blood-and-thunder right wingers truly appreciate. So many wax lyrical about why should they have to provide them with three squares and a roof, as if this is truly a luxury. Prison food is not caviar, the air stinks and tastes something akin to the innards of a Turkish wrestler's jock-strap and the life is not full in the least. (And the roof leaks as well.)

Originally posted by natural tickler
One more question, can you, with a straight face go up to the victim's family and honestly tell them that life in prison is better than death??

Yes I could, for many reasons; only one of which is the slighted family's desire to see justice done. There is much more at stake here than one family's feelings, no matter how cruelly and savagely they've been treated. The whole question of our status as a civilisation is at stake on this matter. As I said above, the only way people can justify the death penalty is through the "eye for an eye" concept. All the other pro reasons are proven to be totally untrue. (Unless there's any new ones that I'm not aware of.) Basing your opinion on what the extreme legal penalty should be purely on your desire for vengeance is an indication that you've let your desire for absoloute vengeance rule your reasoning. Maybe that's not a bad thing, who knows? I believe it's a bad thing personally, but that is just my opinion.

Being a "bleeding heart", as it's termed, doesn't mean we love criminals or advocate inaction in the face of rising criminality.It just means we consider the possible negative actions of our actions as well as the positive ones. We believe the negativity of the death penalty outweighs it's positive effects. All it's positive effects can be duplicated by life without parole, which also gives us the opportunity to pay restitution to our mistakes, whereas capital punishment does not.

BigJim

11-07-2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by TummyDragon
Actually, I believe that anyone who intentionally violates the space of another should be executed. This would include thieves, vandals, murders, doesn't matter to me. I fully believe that we need to drop the premise that "life is precious" and realize that there are defective humans in the world and should have no problem eradicating them from existence.

That basically says that you're devoid of mercy and don't believe that any petty criminal is capable of changing their life. With someone like you calling the shots (assuming you were omnipotent and could call all cases straight down the middle with no mistakes, which obviously isn't 100% possible) someone like George Foreman would have been executed while he was still in his teens. He'd never have gone on to represent America as a gold medallist at the Olympic Games, would never have won the world title and would never have become a devout and compassionate christian who has helped hundreds of wayward youngsters back onto the straight and narrow.

Originally posted by TummyDragon
That being said... There is no way to eliminate incorrect convictions. As long as there is the possibility of one innocent person being executed for a crime someone else committed, I cannot support the death penalty. This is a complete reversal of the stance I had only a few years ago. I was an outspoken proponent of the death penalty. I think it boils down to this: Although I would love to see every single criminal eradicated from the face of the earth, and have no problem doing so with a gunshot to the head (I'd even volunteer to be the world's executioner) the reality of our inability to infallibly determine guilt and innocense leaves such perfect extirpation of defective DNA sufferers as a pipe dream. Ahhhh but to dream...

TD

I'm very happy to hear you say that. I think that POV is very noble and I applaud you absoloutely. I've heard more than one person say that they'd be willing to put up with a few innocents dieing so long as most were guilty and was sickened and horrified. I'm very glad you hold the view you do. :)

BigJim

11-07-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by R. Davis
I believe that individuals who purposely plan to terrorize and kill innocent people deserve the death penalty. And I'm talking about some lethal injection either.

The problem with that logic is that the sort of people you mean often intend to kill themselves in the process of committing their crimes. Keeping that sort of evil bastard alive and festering in some stink hole is 100% more of a punishment than fulfilling their desires and martyring them.

Knox The Hatter

11-07-2003, 08:31 PM

Thanks, Jim :)

giantfan121262

11-07-2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by BigJim
The problem with that logic is that the sort of people you mean often intend to kill themselves in the process of committing their crimes. Keeping that sort of evil bastard alive and festering in some stink hole is 100% more of a punishment than fulfilling their desires and martyring them.

Thank you Big Jim, this has been my point all along. I think that a convict sentenced to the death penalty is getting off far too easy by getting fried. Think about it this way;

Say you have a relative that is terminally ill and is fighting a deadly disease, let's say cancer, for arguments sake. Isn't it more painful for the surviving spouse and family members to know that person suffering day in and day out until the time comes, which comes as an immense relief to the survivors I may add.

I remember when my father died of a heart attack, the only thing I found comforting in that whole ordeal is that he went instantly, without suffering at all.

As far as NT's point about the value of a life, there is no way you can put a price on a human life. I totally see your point, especially if you the victim was one of your family or a close friend. I think I would gain some solace knowing that poor bastard is rotting in some dark, dingy cell in prison. Hey, the SOB will never leave that place, that is where he or she is going to die when the time comes.

Iggy pop

11-08-2003, 12:00 AM

I hope this isn't off topic. Let's say you have been convicted of murder in the first degree. Would you prefer life in prison or death by lethal injection? For me I guess that depends on prison life. If I'm getting beaten and ass raped every day, I think I would be begging for lethal injection. Then again if that's not the case and I can hang out of the internet and work out then I would prefer to live.

TummyDragon

11-08-2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by BigJim
That basically says that you're devoid of mercy and don't believe that any petty criminal is capable of changing their life. With someone like you calling the shots (assuming you were omnipotent and could call all cases straight down the middle with no mistakes, which obviously isn't 100% possible) someone like George Foreman would have been executed while he was still in his teens. He'd never have gone on to represent America as a gold medallist at the Olympic Games, would never have won the world title and would never have become a devout and compassionate christian who has helped hundreds of wayward youngsters back onto the straight and narrow.

Well, it's very easy to make a statement so far outside normality's boundaries (like executing even petty criminals) when behind the statement lies the full knowledge that such a system could never possibly come to fruition. I do have mercy. I have mercy for the people who are innocent victims of crime. I have mercy for the innocent people who arrive home after a hard day's work to find their door kicked in, their private space ransacked, their personal belongings taken or destroyed. I have mercy for the innocent woman who is raped. I have mercy for the innocent child who is molested. I have no mercy at all for the guilty criminal regardless of what his potential may be at some future date after he/she decides to grace the rest of the non-assholic population with his cessation of intentional, premeditated violation of others. Someone who chooses NOT to violate others can win the gold medal.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that there did exist this elusive infallible system which determines true guilt with 100% accuracy. I look at it this way. Eight of ten crimes are committed by a repeat offender. So, only 20% of crime is a first offense. In my Omnipotent/Omniscient TummyDragon system, 80% of all crime would instantly cease. A second crime (or third, fourth.... or 75th) cannot be committed by a non existent criminal. Perhaps, George Forman would have been written out of history at an early age, or, would he? Would that car stereo have been worth his life? Would those countless youngsters following the beacon of the reformed George have slipped away from the straight and narrow in first place? I doubt it. Most first offenders are brought into the wonderful world crime by others who have already committed a crime. Welllllll, if those who had already offended were gone, there would certainly be less peer pressure (without consulting the Psychic Criminal Crossing Over Hotline anyway). Criminal proselytizing wouldn't have quite the same appeal. Plus, since most violent crime is committed by criminals who began their careers with petty offenses, violent crime would decrease even further. Most serial killers begin with arson and cruelty to animals, but, even before that time, most of them are adolescent bed wetters! So, the next logical step is to execute leaky bladders :eek:

Would that system stop all crime? absolutely not. However, what it *would* do is dramatically decrease the crime rate by eliminating second or more offenses, and dramatically decrease the cost of the punitive system (I'd add up all the money paid into the prison system, and then charge 10% less as World Executioner.. cuz I'm just an all around great guy who believes in the capitalistic frugality of a civilised society :p )

Big Jim continues...
I'm very happy to hear you say that. I think that POV is very noble and I applaud you absoloutely. I've heard more than one person say that they'd be willing to put up with a few innocents dieing so long as most were guilty and was sickened and horrified. I'm very glad you hold the view you do. :)

Thank you. Again, it's all about mercy for the *innocent*. I do have a serious problem with even the most remote of chances that the solution would be delivered in error.

And yes, most of my comments are intentionally outrageous (just in case it's not obvious to everyone), but sometimes the most outrageous of ideas inspire the most sensible discussions.:D

Take care,
TD

BigJim

11-08-2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by TummyDragon
I do have mercy. I have mercy for the people who are innocent victims of crime. I have mercy for the innocent people who arrive home after a hard day's work to find their door kicked in, their private space ransacked, their personal belongings taken or destroyed. I have mercy for the innocent woman who is raped. I have mercy for the innocent child who is molested. I have no mercy at all for the guilty criminal regardless of what his potential may be at some future date after he/she decides to grace the rest of the non-assholic population with his cessation of intentional, premeditated violation of others. Someone who chooses NOT to violate others can win the gold medal.

Oh I didn't mean that big George morally deserved to win the medal or his title. I meant that he is a wonderful example of what a person on the slide can turn into when their correction is tempered with compassion. As the man says himself, he is an example of what a compassionate America can achieve. I think turning social mis-fits and criminals into examples like that is a better route for the whole of society than just removing them terminally. I think the latter solution underpins a negative and unintelligent framework for society.

I don't often resort to the Bible, because I'm not a Christian, but there is something in it that is relevant to this subject. As "Jeebus" himself said, "love thine enemies". It's easy to rfeel mercy and love for those we admire or those who are our family and friends; it's mega-difficult to do it when it's someone who's actions we have a deep and enduring contempt for. I think developing emotions advanced enough to "love thine enemies" is the next big evolutionary goal for mankind. We've had hatred and strife ruling the world for centuries and it's given us no advancement at all.

Originally posted by TummyDragon
Let's say for the sake of discussion that there did exist this elusive infallible system which determines true guilt with 100% accuracy. I look at it this way. Eight of ten crimes are committed by a repeat offender. So, only 20% of crime is a first offense. In my Omnipotent/Omniscient TummyDragon system, 80% of all crime would instantly cease. A second crime (or third, fourth.... or 75th) cannot be committed by a non existent criminal. Perhaps, George Forman would have been written out of history at an early age, or, would he? Would that car stereo have been worth his life? Would those countless youngsters following the beacon of the reformed George have slipped away from the straight and narrow in first place? I doubt it. Most first offenders are brought into the wonderful world crime by others who have already committed a crime.

Quite possibly you have a point. I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe in the end justifying the means. If the same goal could be achieved (theoretically I mean, I don't actually believe it can be) by a compassionate and caring route as well as a base-emotionally motivated one, would we choose the latter? Right now in a world ruled by hate and suspiscion, I very much doubt it.

Originally posted by TummyDragon
Welllllll, if those who had already offended were gone, there would certainly be less peer pressure (without consulting the Psychic Criminal Crossing Over Hotline anyway). Criminal proselytizing wouldn't have quite the same appeal. Plus, since most violent crime is committed by criminals who began their careers with petty offenses, violent crime would decrease even further. Most serial killers begin with arson and cruelty to animals, but, even before that time, most of them are adolescent bed wetters! So, the next logical step is to execute leaky bladders :eek:

I don't personally believe that. I think like attracts like and the only way to stop something happening is to meet it with it's diametric opposite. That doesn't mean I'm weak-kneed or a liberal, it's just my (and only my) opinion. I think unecessarily uncivillised punishments beget an attitude of not caring about life from society's undesireables.

Originally posted by TummyDragon
Would that system stop all crime? absolutely not. However, what it *would* do is dramatically decrease the crime rate by eliminating second or more offenses, and dramatically decrease the cost of the punitive system (I'd add up all the money paid into the prison system, and then charge 10% less as World Executioner.. cuz I'm just an all around great guy who believes in the capitalistic frugality of a civilised society :p )

LOL Well an ideal world would be very nice, but as you said yourself in your original post, it doesn't exist.

And as I said above, I think it would breed even more contempt for the value of life from criminals. *shrugs* The wonders of theoretical sociology eh?

Originally posted by TummyDragon
Thank you. Again, it's all about mercy for the *innocent*. I do have a serious problem with even the most remote of chances that the solution would be delivered in error.

And yes, most of my comments are intentionally outrageous (just in case it's not obvious to everyone), but sometimes the most outrageous of ideas inspire the most sensible discussions.:D

Take care,
TD

I realise that you were being a tad tongue-in-cheek now, but I didn't at first. The reason for that is, too many Americans I've spoken to on the subject believe equally outrageous and primitive things, without being in the least bit intentionally flippant.

BigJim

11-08-2003, 02:56 PM

There is yet another reason for preferring life without parole. In a case where the jury is swaying on the brink, they are much less likely to convict a criminal if the likely penalty is capital punishment. Juries worry so much about screwing up that evil bastards have gone free, whereas they would have gone to jail if that had been the likely option.

BigJim

11-08-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Iggy pop
I hope this isn't off topic. Let's say you have been convicted of murder in the first degree. Would you prefer life in prison or death by lethal injection? For me I guess that depends on prison life. If I'm getting beaten and ass raped every day, I think I would be begging for lethal injection. Then again if that's not the case and I can hang out of the internet and work out then I would prefer to live.

It doesn't involve being buggered witless, as much as we would sometimes wish it did. It does involve a total loss of personality and identity, loss of control over every aspect of your existence and the habitation of a "half world" where things like the luxuries you read about in right-wing papers are pure fiction. Prison is NEVER pleasant unless you're the governor.

TickledToDeath

11-09-2003, 10:23 AM

If you take a life you give yours. Period.
Why should we, as tax payers, supply room and board to anyone who takes a life from someone. In fact, serial rapists, child molestors and the like should also be eradicated from society like a cancerous tumor. Not doing so would be like taking a tumor from a vital part of the body and relocating it to a less important area of the human body.
Screw the notion that executing a criminal will not bring back those or whom he/she murdered will not bring back the victim(s)! Neither will baby sitting his/her ass for the rest of his/her life and PAYING for it out of our hard earned dollars!
IN fact, the method of execution is too 'humane'. Make the method of death soooooo harsh that one would not even consider commiting the crime! Mass extermination of these grease balls is the only solution.
The ONLY downside to the death penality is that the justice system in this country is so F'd up and in total dissaray, the innocent are sometimes found guilty and the guilty go free to kill or rape again.
The entire justice system needs to be revamped. Start with the currupt lawyers who actually work to defend these asswipes of society.

TTD

WorkInProgress

11-09-2003, 01:17 PM

>> Start with the currupt lawyers who actually work
>> to defend these asswipes of society.

Hey TTD, what validity does a conviction have if the person being convicted did not have a decent defense? If you put a moral judgment on defense lawyers who defend guilty defendants, you're going to need to design a whole new judicial system that satisfies the right of the potentially innocent person to receive a fair trial.

BigJim

11-09-2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by TickledToDeath
If you take a life you give yours. Period.
Why should we, as tax payers, supply room and board to anyone who takes a life from someone. In fact, serial rapists, child molestors and the like should also be eradicated from society like a cancerous tumor. Not doing so would be like taking a tumor from a vital part of the body and relocating it to a less important area of the human body.
Screw the notion that executing a criminal will not bring back those or whom he/she murdered will not bring back the victim(s)! Neither will baby sitting his/her ass for the rest of his/her life and PAYING for it out of our hard earned dollars!
IN fact, the method of execution is too 'humane'. Make the method of death soooooo harsh that one would not even consider commiting the crime! Mass extermination of these grease balls is the only solution.
The ONLY downside to the death penality is that the justice system in this country is so F'd up and in total dissaray, the innocent are sometimes found guilty and the guilty go free to kill or rape again.
The entire justice system needs to be revamped. Start with the currupt lawyers who actually work to defend these asswipes of society.

TTD

Ed you completely pass over the fact that it's hugely more expensive to pass and administrate the death penalty than it is to imprison someone, even if it;'s for 40 years in solitary in a Supermax. You also ignore the fact that crime was more prevalent in the middle ages when the methods of capital punishment were hugely more horrifying. Given that, why would your suggestion make practical use?

You've made your views very clear. What I'd really like is for a proponent such as yourself to comment on the points AGAINST it. What about the reluctance of juries to convict when death is the sentence instead of imprisonment?

I also find your cancerous tumor analogy to be innaccurate. (And again, I stress it is only MY opinion, not holy commands burned in stone.) Say someone has a tumor... (The analogy being society with a criminal element.) Cancer is caused by damage occuring to DNA and the cells replicating all out of order with a tumor growing. (Crime and it's causes; boredom amongst youths, feeding drug addiction, parents who can't be bothered to teach their kids some decent morals etc.) Now the medical profession in all it's "wisdom" treats cancer by pumping people full of poisonous chemicals and carving lumps of their bodies away, all of which are extremely traumatic and most of which lead to premature death of the patient. (The death penalty.) Hopefully in the fulness of time, such diseases will be be fought by fixing what the cause of the DNA mutation is and thus returning cell replication to it's normal rate. (A society that doesn't fixate on vengeance and dark-age penalties, but tries to stop the rot at source and isolate anything that slips past the guard.)

Which one of those two solutions do you think is likely to cause less pain and suffering (and ultimately death) to the patient? The one that destroys it's body with it's poisonous effluent and physical invasion, or the one that either prevents the damage occuring or stops the problem by harmlessly fixing it's source?

This debate will rage for many years to come, I'm sure. I've made my opinion clear many times in several different threads. I think the death penalty is primitive, innefective, unintelligent and uncivillised. The only thing it does is cater to people who can't control their baser emotions for whatever reasons. Sometimes those reasons are good. The trauma of losing a loved one to a criminal for instance. I hasten to say that I've never lost someone close in such a way. I've known it happen through work of course, but not directly. Perhaps such sad instances are karma's way of trying to teach the human race to evolve, who knows?
Those who believe in it think that people like me are weak-kneed and thin-blooded. Maybe they're right. Maybe I am the moron who's dangerously lax views will lead to a weakened society, overun by criminality. Equally maybe those enthusiastic proponents are the ones who's views will fill society with all the dark side emotions that seem so attractive because they offer the quick fix, the caffeine of the emotions, and then can't understand why people unlike them complain about society being run in a totalitarian and evil way.

For what it's worth, I'm not a liberal. I'm not anything in particular. I find if you confine your definition of self to any word then you're limiting what you can believe in.

Iggy pop

11-09-2003, 02:39 PM

I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent, because most people who commit murder do not think about getting caught.

TickledToDeath

11-09-2003, 07:53 PM

Jim,

Originally posted by BigJim
Ed you completely pass over the fact that it's hugely more expensive to pass and administrate the death penalty than it is to imprison someone, even if it;'s for 40 years in solitary in a Supermax. You also ignore the fact that crime was more prevalent in the middle ages when the methods of capital punishment were hugely more horrifying. Given that, why would your suggestion make practical use?

Ok, I will address or at least try to, each of your counterpoints with my countercounterpoints and a slice of agreement, for I can take both pro and con sides of contraversial subjects since contraversial subjects have both pro and con sides. When it comes down to it all, given the cultural diversity and objectivitiy of this land, damn near every subject will have a fairly even split.

Take into consideration that it really costs NOTHING for the method of execution that being lethal injection. REgardless of what is told to the general public. The chemicals it takes cost about 3 bucks. The medical techs there to moderate the procedure: 15 bucks. Take away the grossly inflated burial rate which really should cost nothing since a dirthole murderer should be cremated and the gas bill is about a buck fifty for what it would take to shake and bake the f**k. His remains are in the hands of any family left who actually give a flying f**k to take them. The states that choose firing squad, it is the cost of 1 bullet. Imprisonment is roughly $40,000 a year per prisoner and that is without them crying and bitching that things are not comfy enough for them in prison and they should have steak, cable tv and all the comforts of a Holiday Inn because anything less is cruel and inhuman! Lets digress a moment and bringup the middle ages you compared horrifying punishments to.....back in the middle ages, death was pretty much a welcome relief to the life they had to live and the conditions in which they had to live in. There were not comforts that are here in the modern world. People then did not have what we have today. The pratical solution and use would be to rid society of such criminals so we would not have to worry about them anymore. No chance of them escaping from prison or having some bleeding hearts parole such people cause they were "model prisoners"(there's an oxymoron for ya) OF course someone will act all rehabilitated and goody goody if it meant being relased back into society. Maybe the prison system should be re-evaluated and make those conditions less...comfortable for lack of a more appropriate term.

You've made your views very clear. What I'd really like is for a proponent such as yourself to comment on the points AGAINST it. What about the reluctance of juries to convict when death is the sentence instead of imprisonment?

Commenting on the points AGAINST? There are definitely points against. The criminal justice system in this country is a joke. Innocents are found guilty and guilty are set free. Jury selection is also a joke as any defense lawyer or DA can have a jurer removed if they do not seem as if they will "go their way". Evidence is often thrown out on a technicality whether it is evidence for or against the defendants. Juries won't convict at times when death is the sentence instead of imprisonment but on the flip side, there are those who would if the evidence is cut and dry and it is definite that the party in question is guilty but then again even if sentenced to death, by the time that person IS eventually put to death, 20 years of appeals and half a million dollars if not more of the taxpayers money has gone to house clothe and feed ONE of the convicted prisoners. Ponder upon this, if even the most obvious criminal was eliminated forthwith, there would be less need for lawyers and judges and less money filtering within the system and less pockets greased fo allow things to carry on. Just like the White House saying a toilet seat costs $700 and a wrench costs 200 bucks, it is actually told to the public, who will pretty much believe anything whether bullshit or not, that it costs 1 million dollars to execute a prisoner. Some of the largest piles of horseshit to every be bestowed upon the general public and some actually buy it!

I also find your cancerous tumor analogy to be innaccurate. (And again, I stress it is only MY opinion, not holy commands burned in stone.) Say someone has a tumor... (The analogy being society with a criminal element.) Cancer is caused by damage occuring to DNA and the cells replicating all out of order with a tumor growing. (Crime and it's causes; boredom amongst youths, feeding drug addiction, parents who can't be bothered to teach their kids some decent morals etc.) Now the medical profession in all it's "wisdom" treats cancer by pumping people full of poisonous chemicals and carving lumps of their bodies away, all of which are extremely traumatic and most of which lead to premature death of the patient. (The death penalty.) Hopefully in the fulness of time, such diseases will be be fought by fixing what the cause of the DNA mutation is and thus returning cell replication to it's normal rate. (A society that doesn't fixate on vengeance and dark-age penalties, but tries to stop the rot at source and isolate anything that slips past the guard.)

Coming from someone, myself, who is IN the medical profession and on top of that had watched many people slowly die of cancer, including every member of my immediate family(Grandmother,Mother,Grandfather), knows for a fact that most treatments, such as pumping people full of poisonous chemicals is ONLY a smoke screen to prolong ones life and delay the inevitable and the medical profession cares not for anything other then "profit". Hospitals are a business, they exist to make money. This is a quote mind you. I have worked for a couple of hospitals and they refer to patients as "customers". They want their business. If everyone who was or is sick was cured, there would be less of a need for hospitals. Pharmacutical companies are PROFIT oriented. Medications they claim will be a cure or otherwise have side effects that will require more medical attention subsequently more money for all involved. Case in point. Something as low level on the grand scale as cholestrol. Lipator, lowers cholestrol BUT damages the liver therefore needing MORE medication or medical treatment to fix that problem. People who have had heart problems or arterial problems are given Coulmadin(I probably spelled it wrong, I think). Coulmadin is , and this is cold hard fact, "RAT POISON". IF the cure for everything were made public, the need for doctors and hospitals would deminish. The hospitals openly admit they are a business and do not want to go OUT of business. One big circle. They want people to come back. The criminal justice system is no different. They want repeat business or their jobs would be in jeapordy. No more 500 dollar an hour lawyers. It's like society needs the negative to keep the positive. The old addage, two wrongs don't make a right is a contradiction in and of itself. Calculous says a negative plus a negative equals a positive. Massive fires are fought with starting another fire. It is not so much as the punishment being a deterent but the punishment ridding society of the problem. To completely eradicate a body of cancer, the whole cancer must be eliminated. You don't leave even the slightest bit in the body. You fight a human body with a poison(chemo) and in some cases may do the trick but then you have to have treatment to fight the effects of the chemo and then you guard against the side effects of the treatment to fight off the effects of the treatment for the aftereffects fo the prior treatment bada bada baddeee badeeee.........yikes it is a never ending vicious circle. A Paradox.

Which one of those two solutions do you think is likely to cause less pain and suffering (and ultimately death) to the patient? The one that destroys it's body with it's poisonous effluent and physical invasion, or the one that either prevents the damage occuring or stops the problem by harmlessly fixing it's source?

*****The only blanket solution is to eliminate the cause itself. Perhaps eliminate the gene that is the cause of cancer that is in every human body lying dormant until something triggers it off. Preventive medicine but then if all means of sickness were eliminated.......?! See above.

This debate will rage for many years to come, I'm sure. I've made my opinion clear many times in several different threads. I think the death penalty is primitive, innefective, unintelligent and uncivillised. The only thing it does is cater to people who can't control their baser emotions for whatever reasons. Sometimes those reasons are good. The trauma of losing a loved one to a criminal for instance. I hasten to say that I've never lost someone close in such a way. I've known it happen through work of course, but not directly. Perhaps such sad instances are karma's way of trying to teach the human race to evolve, who knows?

IF someone raped tortured and murdered someone in your family...mom dad sister wife whatever, heaven forbid my friend but say it happened, why should that person have the right to live after taking it away from another? Even the Bible says "an eye for an eye" and yes, "vengence is mine sayeth the Lord", well I say we send that person straight to the Lord for such vengence and judgement. Who suffers the consequences of the actions of murderers and rapists? The families and friends of the victims and subsequently the rest of society cause we have to pay for the imprisonment of such dirtbag criminals and hope they are not let back into society somehow and even IF they are sentensed to prison for life without parole, they get to live while the victim was not given that same consideration. Who cares whether or not the death penality is a deterent.....it obviously isn't. Never has been never will be but at least society is rid of em for good and the families of the victims have some appropriate vengence that the criminal got just desserts and not a baby sitter in the prisons of america.

Those who believe in it think that people like me are weak-kneed and thin-blooded. Maybe they're right. Maybe I am the moron who's dangerously lax views will lead to a weakened society, overun by criminality. Equally maybe those enthusiastic proponents are the ones who's views will fill society with all the dark side emotions that seem so attractive because they offer the quick fix, the caffeine of the emotions, and then can't understand why people unlike them complain about society being run in a totalitarian and evil way.

For what it's worth, I'm not a liberal. I'm not anything in particular. I find if you confine your definition of self to any word then you're limiting what you can believe in.

Maybe the whole system is too laxed. Maybe more stringent methods should be taken other than the quick fix of the death penalty. Maybe the "Clockwork Orange" method should be thrust upon criminals and reprogram their minds with drastic procedures. Who cares how harsh they may be. Did the murderers and rapists give a flying frig about the victims begging for mercy and their lives? HELL NO. The death penalty may not be the cure for the problem. Maybe that is not getting to the source. Maybe nothing will. However one cannot put a bandaid over a compound fracture.

TTD

BigJim

11-10-2003, 08:41 AM

Everyone who's ever had reason to disagree with me and then gotten offended by what I've said or the tone of outrage that's come from me, please read TTD's post above and take VERY serious note!!! When I "go off on one" I'm not searching for people to agree with me, far from it. I'm searching for people who very probably hold views totally opposite to mine, but are willing to pull all angles of the debate to pieces and discuss each one of them in detail. Yes I get very passionate about my various subjects and yes I sometimes get very strident, but THAT POST ABOVE is exactly what I've been waiting for!

Ed, we'll always disagree on a lot of things I'm sure, but I enjoyed reading your post hugely! I found it insightful, well thought out and very enthusiastic. I wouldn't care if they all disagreed with me, but I seriously wish there were more people on the TMF who were willing to make posts like that mate! :):):) Join the ranks of Hal and Myriads as one of only three people who've bothered to enter into a debate with me seriously. :happyfloa :wavingguy :bowing: :bowing: :bowing: :couch: :xpulcy:

Now, to the points you made...

First off, I have something I'd like you to read and comment on. If your comments on that thread are a tenth as intelligent and insightful as the ones you made above, I'll be a very happy bloke. Click here (http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30975).
As you work in and have experience of the medical profession and phareceutical profiteering, your thoughts would be very much appreciated.

Back to the CP debate...

Maybe it doesn't get to the cause? No, I don't think it does. Criminals in society are like boils on your arse or spots on your tongue; symptoms. Treating symptoms doesn't eliminate the cause of the disease. Of course there will always be some malcontents and criminals and they should definately be given the shaft, but our problems could be decimated if only people addressed the causes. I certainly believe that prison should be a place where prisoners are reminded every day that they're supposed to be there to suffer! Food should definately not be fillet of smegging steak and any chuggnut or dangleberry who suggests they should be able to watch cable TV should be buggered witless with a rolling pin! I think prison should have it's constructive side, so there can be more people like George Foreman in the world. Humanity's greatest triumphs aren't people who are born good, live good and die good, because that sort of person has maintained the same standard all throughout their life. The biggest successes are (I think) where people develop a desire to raise their standard far above what "their place in life" has expected of them.

I think it also an emotional/spiritual evolutionary requirement of mankind to realise that life should not arbitarilly be taken from someone. (Arbitarilly as opposed to in self-defence or on a battle field.) Including criminals who have blighted people's lives? Nope, not including. ESPECIALLY criminals who have blighted people's lives! Whether we like it or not, their personality has combined with society to produce them and believeing that we can make society better by cutting them out of it, is to deny a part of our collective self. If we deny it, then we can blithely ignore it and it will continue to exist and produce malcontents. If we acknowledge and confront it, then we can remove it entirely from existence and the symptoms it produces will be dramatically reduced.

Thanks again for that post Ed, please let me know what you think of that thread I reccommended.

Speak soon mate. :)

Jim

natural tickler

11-10-2003, 11:18 AM

I understand everyone's thinking here. However, some of you think that you can't put a value on someone's life. I say you can. When the person doing the killing, the value he puts on it is nothing. He doesn't care about your life, only its demise. So, if they think very lightly of you, then the state should think of you just as lightly and cancel you out too. As far as life in prison goes, yeah prison isn't fun, but you are still breathing,(regardless of air smell) and heart is beating. the victim taken out, isn't. that is the difference

can't make this any simpler

BigJim

11-10-2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by natural tickler
I understand everyone's thinking here. However, some of you think that you can't put a value on someone's life. I say you can. When the person doing the killing, the value he puts on it is nothing. He doesn't care about your life, only its demise. So, if they think very lightly of you, then the state should think of you just as lightly and cancel you out too. As far as life in prison goes, yeah prison isn't fun, but you are still breathing,(regardless of air smell) and heart is beating. the victim taken out, isn't. that is the difference

can't make this any simpler

Well put. :)

So what do you think of it in a practical sense, bearing in mind how far from perfect the American justice system is? Do you think it can be put into that context and operated? Like some other members do you not mind if a few innocents die to make sure most guilty ones get fried? Or do you think it's impractical in reality? Expound a bit NT, please. :)

natural tickler

11-10-2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by BigJim
Well put. :)

So what do you think of it in a practical sense, bearing in mind how far from perfect the American justice system is? Do you think it can be put into that context and operated? Like some other members do you not mind if a few innocents die to make sure most guilty ones get fried? Or do you think it's impractical in reality? Expound a bit NT, please. :)

Ok, my friend, here it goes:

You all say the system is imperfect, and some innocents die. You're right. But that is a small percentage of people. Mostly all who kill violently, the state has the right man. I doubt the system will ever be perfect, but there has to be something the grieving family can cling to in order to have peace and closure. When countries go to war, they have an understanding that some people have to die in order to have ultimate victory. So if some innocents have to die, then so be it. They weren't too innocent not be in the situation they're in are they?? Now, it could be impractical because the old law of an eye for an eye could leave everyone blind. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. But what I'm trying to say is if have loved one killed for no apparent reason-or even if its for a reason, killed anyway, and you're staring in that pine box, you cannot tell me that if the guy/girl is locked up you're happy with that. If you are, you're lying. because when you start to reminiesce bout the good time you've had with that person and then about the way they were just snuffed out, you will get angry and think of revenge. you have to think of the value of the life taken, and compare it to life in prison. Is it equal? if the answer is yes, then by all means hate the death penalty. If that answer is no, then think about evening the score. The person dead can rest in peace, one less killer in the world, more people can live comfortably a killer wont break the hearts of so many families. And all of you might be mad at what I'm about to say, and if you are, you can pm me. The people who despises te death penalty never had a love one snuffed out, never killed so violently that it was hard to recognize the person, never had to console those people, trying to convince them that justice somehow will be served. Until you have, then you can talk about abolishing the death penalty. Otherwise, you just talking from the side of your head. I hope that answers the question. If it didn't I'm sorry. Do a better job next time

BigJim

11-10-2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by natural tickler
You all say the system is imperfect, and some innocents die. You're right. But that is a small percentage of people. Mostly all who kill violently, the state has the right man. I doubt the system will ever be perfect, but there has to be something the grieving family can cling to in order to have peace and closure. When countries go to war, they have an understanding that some people have to die in order to have ultimate victory. So if some innocents have to die, then so be it. They weren't too innocent not be in the situation they're in are they??

Hrmmm, where to begin...

Closure. Whether or not closure is gained has little to do with the penalty applied to the grieving relative/friend. It's more to do with the psychological state of them. It's perfectly possible for the criminal to be thrown into a tank of cobras or be publicly dismembered on PPV telelvision and the griever still not find closure. Just as equally it's possible for the criminal to get life (or in some cases, not ever be even caught!)and the griever to find closure.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "So if some innocents have to die, then so be it. They weren't too innocent not be in the situation they're in are they??" Huh? Someone gets wrongly arrested and charged because the DA is bent and looking for votes and they're not so innocent because of their own bad luck? I'm not sure I fully understand what you meant.
As for the innocents who die in war, brother that's a whole new story! :sowrong:

Originally posted by natural tickler
Now, it could be impractical because the old law of an eye for an eye could leave everyone blind. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. But what I'm trying to say is if have loved one killed for no apparent reason-or even if its for a reason, killed anyway, and you're staring in that pine box, you cannot tell me that if the guy/girl is locked up you're happy with that. If you are, you're lying. because when you start to reminiesce bout the good time you've had with that person and then about the way they were just snuffed out, you will get angry and think of revenge.

That exact thing happened with the parents of a French girl who came over here on holiday and got murdered. After the trial was over and said criminal was on his way to Belmarsh, the parents went live on TV and said they thought justice had been done and that they didn't think the death penalty was right. Going by your analogy, those parents are liars. They said they were happy (or least as happy as was possible under the tragic circumstances) with the killer being thrown in jail. Why do you assume that every grieving person would desire the death of the perpetrator? You obviously would, or imagine you would, but why assume everyone else would? Coming from citizens of a country that was still cutting people's heads off 26 years ago, that's quite impressive really. (Last use of the Guillotine was in 77.)
A salient lesson about not assuming that everyone else would react the same way you or those you personally know would.

Originally posted by natural tickler
you have to think of the value of the life taken, and compare it to life in prison. Is it equal? if the answer is yes, then by all means hate the death penalty. If that answer is no, then think about evening the score. The person dead can rest in peace, one less killer in the world, more people can live comfortably a killer wont break the hearts of so many families.

No, it's not equal and no-one ever claimed it was. But what exactly is the point of the justice and penal systems? If it's to extract equal measure for crime committed then it's only there for revenge and satisfying the people. I don't believe it should be there for that. I believe it should be there to take criminals out of circulation. I believe it should be there to give the ones who will eventually be released a chance to raise their standards and act like normal, decent human beings. If they fail then next time they get hammered full length. In Britain there's a "three strikes and you're out rule". If you are convicted three times of certain offences then you automatically get life imprisonment. And the lifers? Make them work for their living. There is always menial work that needs to be done. If they won't, then they get nothing beyond the bare minimum that keeps them ticking. Nothing.
My personal belief (and I'm aware that precious few people share it) is that the sign of an evolved and civilised people is when it's judiciary rises above such petty purposes as revenge and mob appeasement.

Originally posted by natural tickler
The people who despises te death penalty never had a love one snuffed out, never killed so violently that it was hard to recognize the person, never had to console those people, trying to convince them that justice somehow will be served. Until you have, then you can talk about abolishing the death penalty. Otherwise, you just talking from the side of your head.

Utterly wrong. what you actually mean is that you've never heard of it happeneing. Working in te field as I do I've heard of it happening several times over the last few years. One example is of the French couple who I mentioned above. Presumably despite their horrific experience at the hands of their daughter's murderer, they were talking from the side of their head too for saying they believed that justice had been done?

Originally posted by natural tickler
I hope that answers the question. If it didn't I'm sorry. Do a better job next time

You answered full and frank. Thank you for making your views known. I disagree with them, and vehemently disagree with the comment "So if some innocents have to die, then so be it. They weren't too innocent not be in the situation they're in are they??" I also find the second half of that to be vague and fatuous. Perhaps if the death penalty actually achieved anything, I'd hold the same views as you, but it doesn't. It doesn't deter, it doesn't make society safer (the opposite is statistically true) and it isn't cheaper. It only serves to give full vengeance and that is in itself, very hollow and unsatisfying.

TickledToDeath

11-10-2003, 08:54 PM

BigJim,

I thank you for your most gracious words and comments.
In all seriousness, I LOVE a good debate and a heated arguement too every now and then. Makes the brain feel goooooooood! Psych-exercise or Psychcise as it were...lol.
Even if its with someone from the foggy side of the pond.;)

AS for your invite to that thread...... I will get back to you after reading it all then I will address it accordinly. Seemed like a long read too so I want to have time to go through it in one sitting.

Till then my Debating friend.......be well and remember, the life you kill will save another:rolleyes: ;)

TTD

BigJim

11-11-2003, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by TickledToDeath
BigJim,

I thank you for your most gracious words and comments.
In all seriousness, I LOVE a good debate and a heated arguement too every now and then. Makes the brain feel goooooooood! Psych-exercise or Psychcise as it were...lol.
Even if its with someone from the foggy side of the pond.;)

AS for your invite to that thread...... I will get back to you after reading it all then I will address it accordinly. Seemed like a long read too so I want to have time to go through it in one sitting.

Till then my Debating friend.......be well and remember, the life you kill will save another:rolleyes: ;)

TTD

Tosser! :p

Seriously Ed, it's a pleasure to disagree wit' ya. :) I love it when people who disagree with me try and give as good as they got from me, in a similar vein. More power to ya brother!

As for that medical thread, the first post in it is eight and a half thousand words long according to my Word spell checker.

natural tickler

11-17-2003, 09:15 PM

You say Jim that vengence is hollow and unsatisfying?? well, so is the loss of a loved one by a killer with no remorse or conscience. The void that the family has, the person that the family will never see alive again. The only way to start the healing process will be payback on that individual. All of you keep talking about the capital punishment system being imperfect. Let just put that aside for the moment. What about the ones who are truly and was proven guilty? I guess their lives should be spared too, huh? The killer didn't show compassion to the victim, no mercy, no nothing. Didn't care at all. Only for its demise. It was judge, jury, executioner. So why can't we hold the same standards for the killer? Oh, now its wrong now huh? The bottom line is, like TTD says, we need to have it so brutal that it will serve as a deterrent and show criminals that it will happen to you if you kill. To abolish the death penalty would mean that it is alright to kill, we just keep you in a little cell for a long time and you get to live. We care about your life more than the one you snuffed out. I just wish for a little while you guys see it from the other side. I have been to numerous funerals where the families are basket cases because they can't understand how a life so full of potential was cut short by a man who valued your life as nothing. I guess the killers get to judge how long you live, and the law gives the grieving no solace to the fact that justice can and should be served. We all know the system isn't and never will be perfect. But, politically and votes aside, if a person is guilty, and if he is truly innocent, they do have things called appeals, and the defendant should have adequate counsel to prove their innocence. It is not my fault the defense counsel isn't qualified to find the inconsistencies of evidence and deal with the imperfectness of the captial punishment system. If this sounded personal, then I'm sorry. I've seen a lot of death, and too many voids in families where justice was never served. And in these cases, they did get the right guy, and because of shadiness, got deals where they got to see fresh air again, while the victim is taking a dirt nap. Just isn't right. Forget about jail time, if you take a life, yours should be taken. That's the only way to make it right. It's not supposed to be a no win game. The game is supposed to come out even. Capital punishment should be there to make sure it does. Unfortunately, death row is overfilled, and the death chamber is used less and less. And Jim, forget the debate of cost, it cost the killer nothing to take someone out. Again, people, watch somebody you're very close to get snuffed out for nothing. I guarantee you your attitudes will change

thanx Jim, and everyone else for listening to my rambling diatribe...next time I'll try to be a little shorter:)

Amnesiac

11-18-2003, 02:19 AM

Why is everyone getting so emotional about this?

The State is only concerned with one thing: the safety of the populace. Most of the judgments that are made in any court on any crime factors in how much of a threat there is to society. Part of this also entails maintaining the image of the court...if they appear too permissive or cooperative, they fear others will act aggregiously for their own gain and exploit the system to evade the consequences.

I personally never saw it as the DEATH PENALTY...I always saw it more as the DEATH MEASURE. You terminated the life of someone who was a genuine danger to society in a fashion where rehabilitation is inadvisable or, by deduction, unfeasable. Of course, decisions similar to this are made today, but hardly by anyone with psychological genius.

Part of that you can blame on psychology itself; people are so clueless about why anybody does anything that the minute someone comes up with an idea, it is immediately marketed and exploited in magazines like Parade or Time...thus, psychology is notoriously prone to trends and fashions and as a result, is full of quacks.

But the eye for an eye thing is a bit strange, considering that it may not even be necessary.

Our immediate image of a murderer is someone like John Wayne Gacy or Dahmer or Ramirez and Speck...arrogant psychopaths who kill people because it excites them. Or we think of conniving lotharios and gold diggers who treat another person's life as a notch in the ledger and disposable. But the fact is that there are a GREAT MANY MURDERS and KILLINGS DONE OUT OF NECESSITY. You may one day find yourself in a situation where another person poses a potentially lethal threat, but not imminent. It's the Saddam Hussein scenario: he WANTS to kill you and WILL kill you if he has the chance...but not right now...he poses no IMMINENT threat...so what do you do? There are many things you can try within the boundaries of the law, of course (that is what laws are there for), but never rule out pre-emptive murder as an option. But the law doesn't see it that way and neither does our culture. In our minds, ANYBODY who kills somebody else outside of visible and concrete self-defense is an automatic danger to the community.

If a 54 year-old man kills his wife during a fight, even if it wasn't planned, how much of a threat is he? If he went for 54 years without killing or hurting anybody, it seems obvious that he is not prone to unleashing random violence to unsuspecting innocents. Of course, he has to be dealt with depending on the individual circumstance, but to give him life in prison because of his PERCEIVED danger? Ludicrous; unless his pathology was akin to that of child molesters (compulsion offenders), the chances of it happening again are unlikely. And just to be fair, the same thing applies if the roles were reversed. But it would also depend on the individual case.

The death penalty or MEASURE (as I like to think of it) should exist to eradicate the undesirable elements of society that are prone to potentially lethal behavior on a fundamental level...of course, Marxists would be quick to point out that this would be biased against the economically disenfranchised, but not exclusively...this behavior is found in ALL ages, ALL races and ALL economic groups. Only because it would loosen up living space, oil and gasoline resources, food, and also garbage and pollution levels. And this would be effective in keeping the society safe.

The life sentence on the other hand should probably exist on a choice basis...for repeat offenders with the option of Death or Life...Keep in mind that we give life sentences for a lot of bullshit reasons, and the law is also prone to trends and fads, depending on the voting season. But a life sentence can be expensive to taxpayers. I heard it mentioned somewhere that execution is more expensive than keeping them alive...how much does it cost for a box of shotgun shells? You can clear out a whole cellblock for $12.95 (+/- tax). That's pretty inexpensive.

People have made some good comments on this thread: the safety of the inmates, the corruption questions, the rehabilitation vs. punishment theme, value of human life according to various theo-political doctrines...but why can't we look at it mechanically, as a process? Just keep the constituents clear: keep the evidence clean, the people open-minded, and the details quadruple checked for errors...this is teh kind of stuff we should be doing already. The fact that we still have innocent people locked up for crimes they don't commit indicate to me that we should threaten the prosecutors and the judges with incarceration if they convict an innocent man/woman. After all, if you take years off a person's life, the law won't let you say "I'm sorry"...so why should we take that from the law when they take years off someone else's life mistakenly...lock THEM up for a change. THAT's a hell of a warning signal.

In any death, there are only three directly involved parties: The victim, the killer, and the relations...I say, if ANYONE should have a direct effect on the death measure, it should be them. Hell, if I ever killed anybody, I'd rather face the people who have a legitimate grievance with me than the State, who is only interested in maintaining the illusion that they can handle anything so the public won't resort to vigilantism.

Life can sometimes be a crueller fate than death and much harder than prison. Death can be merciful and even welcomed; and a lot of people realize that; nd they probably take pleasure in the thought of madness and psychological decay whittling away someone's life over just being dead...so the victims are capable of being just as sadistic as the killer's themselves. So think about how humane people are being when they suggest life in prison over the death penalty.

natural tickler

11-18-2003, 12:05 PM

interesting observation:)

BigJim

11-18-2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by natural tickler
You say Jim that vengence is hollow and unsatisfying?? well, so is the loss of a loved one by a killer with no remorse or conscience. The void that the family has, the person that the family will never see alive again. The only way to start the healing process will be payback on that individual. All of you keep talking about the capital punishment system being imperfect. Let just put that aside for the moment. What about the ones who are truly and was proven guilty? I guess their lives should be spared too, huh? The killer didn't show compassion to the victim, no mercy, no nothing. Didn't care at all. Only for its demise. It was judge, jury, executioner. So why can't we hold the same standards for the killer? Oh, now its wrong now huh? The bottom line is, like TTD says, we need to have it so brutal that it will serve as a deterrent and show criminals that it will happen to you if you kill. To abolish the death penalty would mean that it is alright to kill, we just keep you in a little cell for a long time and you get to live. We care about your life more than the one you snuffed out. I just wish for a little while you guys see it from the other side. I have been to numerous funerals where the families are basket cases because they can't understand how a life so full of potential was cut short by a man who valued your life as nothing. I guess the killers get to judge how long you live, and the law gives the grieving no solace to the fact that justice can and should be served. We all know the system isn't and never will be perfect. But, politically and votes aside, if a person is guilty, and if he is truly innocent, they do have things called appeals, and the defendant should have adequate counsel to prove their innocence. It is not my fault the defense counsel isn't qualified to find the inconsistencies of evidence and deal with the imperfectness of the captial punishment system. If this sounded personal, then I'm sorry. I've seen a lot of death, and too many voids in families where justice was never served. And in these cases, they did get the right guy, and because of shadiness, got deals where they got to see fresh air again, while the victim is taking a dirt nap. Just isn't right. Forget about jail time, if you take a life, yours should be taken. That's the only way to make it right. It's not supposed to be a no win game. The game is supposed to come out even. Capital punishment should be there to make sure it does. Unfortunately, death row is overfilled, and the death chamber is used less and less. And Jim, forget the debate of cost, it cost the killer nothing to take someone out. Again, people, watch somebody you're very close to get snuffed out for nothing. I guarantee you your attitudes will change

thanx Jim, and everyone else for listening to my rambling diatribe...next time I'll try to be a little shorter:)

Yes the loss of aloved one is hollow and unsatisfying. That doesn't provide a valid reason for capital punishment unless you're working the "vengeance for vengeance's sake" angle. Hey, it's your right to. I personally find that untenable.

The ones who are "truly" proven guilty? The law is complicated enough without trying to incorporate a "we'll only zap the ones who really and for truly ARE guilty, so help us God." If anyone tried to get a law like that through congress any smart lawyer would rip it to pieces in nanoseconds. It doesn't have a hope in hell of ever working, no matter how sensible it seems to ordinary people. (Non-lawyers.)

It doesn't serve as a deterrant. It never has and never will. That is the one thing that shines through this whole murk as incontroveretable. the place in the country with the highest homicide rate also happened to be the place with the highest execution rate and the world's most psychotic politician in charge of it, before he ran for President. Hrmmmm, real good deterrant. I'm sorry if I seem over-sarcastic NT. It's just that the "it's a/it coud be a wonderful deterrant" argument is the one that is the most palpably false and yet's it's also the most regurgitated by proponents.

Cost doesn't mean much to me either. The only reason I bought it up is because a lot of people who labour under the delusion of prison being a life of luxury and cossetting, keep asking why the honest tax-payer should keep paying for a roof and three squares a day when they could ace the dude and only have to pay for a coffin.

You can guarantee all you like my friend, but different people react in different ways. I already gave you the example of the parents from France who said they approved of the sentence given to their daughter's killer. They went out of their way to say they were glad he hadn't been sentenced to death. You may know that you'd react like that and that people you know would too, but a single lifetime is a bad perpesctive to take any wide-angle shot of emotion from. I don't say that to sound deliberately patronising, it's just what I feel to be true.

natural tickler

12-18-2003, 12:17 PM

So, now that they have caught Saddam, life in prison is good for him too, huh? remember Jim, his armies killed our soldiers, yours too, and many innocent Iraqi people. Now if you tell me his life should be spared, then the law definitely favors the criminal after all, and it tells the world that it is ok to kill, the law will protect you. Let's see how you bleeding hearts feel now

BigJim

12-18-2003, 08:50 PM

I assume you're including me in the legions of bleeding hearts NT?

You have to remember that I don't hold the views I do because I'm a tree-hugging, pot-smoking hippy. Nor do I hold them because I believe in leniency. Saddam deserves an agonising and horrible death more than nearly anyone on the planet. What sentence would I personally like to see him given? Life without parole in the shittiest prison on the planet. Why? Because the law is difficult if not impossible, to make "special cases" with. We are human, as are judges and jurors. We fuck up, frequently. That of course is only one side of the case against. It only seems as if the law favours the criminal is you believe in the ethics and efficiency of the death penalty. If you believe in neither, as I don't, then it's catching, convicted and incarcerating the bastard that counts. I think this is academic though. If Saddam is convicted by an Iraqi court, he'll face either a firing party or a beheading.

Can I ask a serious question? Does it not bother any pro-CP Americans that America is the only one of the so-called "civilised" and "developed" nations that still practices the death penalty? Does it not further bother them that even in allegedly barbaric countries such as Iran, Iraq, China and SE Asia, the practice of routinely executing children is abhored as uncivilised and neandethally brutal, whereas it is positively routine in the US? In some cases the United States is only an eyelash away from needing an electric high-chair. (Either that or just turn off the music and all the kids in the room will just rush to sit down.)

Interesting note: Saddam's forces killed fewer British soldiers than coked-up American pilots did. Does that mean we can execute George W. Bush? (Oh God, what a wonderful thought! Can we send that lefty prat Tony Blergh along with him too?)

tickledorange

12-19-2003, 09:53 AM

If prison went my way, people would ask for the death penalty.

natural tickler

12-19-2003, 03:56 PM

Yes, Jim, we're still the only country that has the death penalty simply because we can do what you bleeding hearts can't: make the score even for families whose loved ones were killed brutally. We make it even for people who think they are judge, jury, executioner For all the scorekeepers here who weeps for the life that snuffed others, we even the score. Get a backbone, people

BigJim

12-20-2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by natural tickler
Yes, Jim, we're still the only country that has the death penalty simply because we can do what you bleeding hearts can't: make the score even for families whose loved ones were killed brutally. We make it even for people who think they are judge, jury, executioner For all the scorekeepers here who weeps for the life that snuffed others, we even the score. Get a backbone, people

You're also the only country in the developed world that is ever more psychotic, both at home and abroad.
Actually I'll retract that, because the UK is plenty psychotic abroad when it gets the chance.

NT, your wonderfully absoloute measures in dealing with criminals have spawned the highest crime rates in the northern hemisphere. CP really works doesn't it? You've also spawned the judiciary with the biggest racial bias, with the exception of Zimbabwe. But never mind, you can always pat yourself on the back and remind yourself that it's all okay, because you can always work of your frustrations dancing outside the jail where the next execution is held. Being psychotic, ignorant and completely ignoring established facts is so wonderful so long as you don't mind the odd innocent or child being executed.

Tell me something, and please think about this seriously. What is more important, getting even (Neener neener I got you back!!!) or trying to construct a judiciary that punishes the guilty and does it's damndest to keep law and order over the land (Take him down!)? Given your previous replies I rather suspect it'll be the former. Right now in America you have an extreme case of the former, with vote-pandering meaning more to elected officials than doing their jobs properly, innocent people getting executed because the system isn't perfect, and worst of all, children being slotted because of the excessively psychotic episodes of the pro-CP lobby.

Sometimes dude, it takes more backbone to accept that as a race we are nowhere near perfect, and to account for that by having more safeguards than your system allows without giving in to our basest desires for retribution and dismemberment. Just sometimes, THAT takes courage! Never, EVER believe that "bleeding hearts" like me do what they do because we haven't got the guts to do what you think we should do. That would be an act of supreme idiocy. And please also don't fall under the illusion that I weep for people like Myra Hindley, Saddam Hussein, Osama or Manson. I don't give a shit about them! Nor do I care how much they suffer. What I care about is what giving in to a desire for meaningless and childish revenge will turn us into as a people. America may be my favourite destination, but by Christ it leads the world in numbers of people who give in to dark side emotions.

BigJim

12-20-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by tickledorange
If prison went my way, people would ask for the death penalty.

Amen to that! I'm with you TO. Very good sentiments. :)

Morning Angel

12-21-2003, 05:42 PM

The strongests argument in favour of the death penalty seems to be it's ability to deliver vengeance (to "even the score", as NT put it). I don't believe that it truly does this. Not only does killing the criminal fail to bring back dead victims, erase rapes or un-do whatever the crime happened to be, but I think that a person's life is more complex than "one point for the good guys" on some judicial scoreboard. I don't know if I'm eloquent enough to explain this very well, but I'l try.

It's impossible to replicate the circumstances, the feelings that the victim experienced when the crime was committed. The criminal will never be able to experience the suffering that he inflicted on his victims from their perspective, no matter what how you kill him. In fact, I think that criminals have a better chance of understanding the severity of their crimes if they are given life sentences in prisons with rehabilitative programs. I don't know much about success rates of these programs, but in theory they have the potential to make the criminal suffer guilt and become a better person. The death penalty has no potential for anything except death. Killing a killer does not mean that some cosmic balance of good and evil is preserved in society - it only means that one more person is dead and did not have a chance to suffer a life in prison or turn his life around.

Interesting debate, kids.

BigJim

12-21-2003, 06:12 PM

Well you managed that a hell of a lot more eloquently than I could have done, so don't worry about your explaining skills.

Pro CP'ers:

How they think of themselves - People of moral courage who have the guts to face difficult decisions on behalf of society.

How anti CP'ers think of them - Unevolved, vengeance merchants who are too focused on drawing blood and getting even, to bother thinking about what might be best for society as a whole.

Anti CP'ers:

What pro CP'ers think of them - Gutless, limpwristed tossers who havn't got the moral fibre to face up to difficult circumstances and who are in love with criminals and bleed for them.

What they think of themselves - People who are able to restrain their most basic desires for bloodletting, in the hope that the cause can be eliminated, instead of treating the symptoms. Not likely to be politicians trying to get the God-fearing, puritan voters on their side. Not people who hate the reflection and so smash the mirror instead of trying to change what is causing the reflection.

Morning Angel

12-21-2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by BigJim
Well you managed that a hell of a lot more eloquently than I could have done, so don't worry about your explaining skills.

Thanks... what a sweetie:Kiss2:

Originally posted by BigJim
Pro CP'ers:

How they think of themselves - People of moral courage who have the guts to face difficult decisions on behalf of society.

How anti CP'ers think of them - Unevolved, vengeance merchants who are too focused on drawing blood and getting even, to bother thinking about what might be best for society as a whole.

Anti CP'ers:

What pro CP'ers think of them - Gutless, limpwristed tossers who havn't got the moral fibre to face up to difficult circumstances and who are in love with criminals and bleed for them.

What they think of themselves - People who are able to restrain their most basic desires for bloodletting, in the hope that the cause can be eliminated, instead of treating the symptoms. Not likely to be politicians trying to get the God-fearing, puritan voters on their side. Not people who hate the reflection and so smash the mirror instead of trying to change what is causing the reflection.

Kind of an over-generalised black-and-white statement, but I really agree with the last thing you said. People have a desire to exaggerate the faults they see in criminals and de-humanise them in order to create distance between themselves and the criminals. Really, there are often fine lines between the person who snaps and commits a heinous crime and the person who doesn't, but who wants to admit that?

BigJim

12-21-2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Morning Angel
Kind of an over-generalised black-and-white statement, but I really agree with the last thing you said. People have a desire to exaggerate the faults they see in criminals and de-humanise them in order to create distance between themselves and the criminals. Really, there are often fine lines between the person who snaps and commits a heinous crime and the person who doesn't, but who wants to admit that?

Yes it was generalised and stereotyped, but then it was meant to be. I could've done a thesis on it, but I save that sort of thing for political conspiracies. ;)

As for the mirror and reflection thing, well check out Indy's article from a British newspaper.
www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38368

(His is the second post in the thread.)

natural tickler

12-22-2003, 11:01 AM

Well, well, BJ and Morning Angel interesting indeed. Well, as usual, I have to retort, and it goes something like this: First, this past weekend, I buried a cousin who was just killed at random. For nothing. Didn't get robbed, the killer didn't even know him. Just random, senseless killing. Think life in prison will rehabilitate him? Well, the killer was caught this morning, and the reason for shooting him was, "just because". Well, his life should be spared because the bleeding hearts says it should. Life in prison with him gives him a chance to memorize his reasoning over and over again, with a sense of accomplishment, while my cousin, just 21 mind you, has a life cut short of unfulfilled promise. You people keep saying the innocent people executed wrongly. What about the ones who are truly guilty, found to be the right people who committed the act, youy bleeding hearts say spare them too. You keep forgetting one critical point: They took out people without caring at all about the families, the victim itself, the consequences. Why don't you all face it, and admit that the law favors the criminal, it cares for the criminal even more than the life taken, etc. You keep looking at it politically than anything else. I have seen enough blood spill for a hundred lifetimes, my relatives being taken out for no reason, and you're telling me that life is better because he can never see free air again, never going back into society again, and that's good enough. While during these trials, the killer looks unremorseful, while so called apologizing which sounds rehearsed, not genuine. And then to top it all off, the killer's lawyers makes deals to get them out just as quick as they got in, and you call that justice? the opportunity for them to kill again and again. While my loved ones and others take the dirtnap? You call that justice? Well, answer this question for me, and anyone can answer: How many more innocents have to die before someone says enough's enough and even the score for all who has lost. I bet none of you have lost a loved one so close to you senselessly and then have to suffer the injustice of a system who refuses to even it because the bleeding hearts want to protect it. They say we can't fill the hole created by capital punishment. They say life or whatever sentence they get is good enough because they're in jail. They figure the person taken out can rest in peace because the killer is locked up. That is a bunch of bullshit. If I sound personal then so be it. I've lost too many people and close friends through violence for nothing. Answer that for me. How many more must go before we make an example of people who kill? I could ramble on but it is making me madder as I type. Try to make it shorter next time:)

BigJim

12-23-2003, 04:30 PM

Very good post NT.
I would like to make a suggestion. When you feel that emotion and anger boiling through; don't stop typing! Let your emotions run across the screen. Sure, what comes out may be incoherant and gibberish, but it'll give you a shed-load of raw material to polish and hone into a new post. Some of the best thoughts and material come straight from the unconscious and emotional outbursts are a great way to unlock it.

Secondly, I'm very sorry to hear of your bereavement. I know how difficult it is to live with something like that.

To business...

Originally posted by natural tickler
Think life in prison will rehabilitate him?

It may, it may not. Rehabilitation would not be the purpose in this case though. Making his life a stinking, miserable, confined, privilledgeless hell would be the object.

Originally posted by natural tickler
Well, the killer was caught this morning, and the reason for shooting him was, "just because". Well, his life should be spared because the bleeding hearts says it should. Life in prison with him gives him a chance to memorize his reasoning over and over again, with a sense of accomplishment, while my cousin, just 21 mind you, has a life cut short of unfulfilled promise.

I tend to find that people guess wrongly at both the liefestyle of prison and also the long-term effects of it. One thing I can give a cast-iron guarantee of, is that a life W-OP sentence will profoundly change his perception of the crime he committed. His "angry young man" act will last about 20 seconds in prison, when he finds himself mixing with guys so bad they make him look like a tantrum-throwing 6 year old. They will have just as little time for him as you have.

Originally posted by natural tickler
You people keep saying the innocent people executed wrongly. What about the ones who are truly guilty, found to be the right people who committed the act, youy bleeding hearts say spare them too. You keep forgetting one critical point: They took out people without caring at all about the families, the victim itself, the consequences. Why don't you all face it, and admit that the law favors the criminal, it cares for the criminal even more than the life taken, etc. You keep looking at it politically than anything else.

No so much political, as socio-ergonomic. I believe the reasons behind wanting the death penalty are pretty harmful for society as a whole. The old hat ones about being a deterrant more than prison, the economics of it and the reliability of the system, are provably untrue. Given that, the only thing left for CP, is the "vengeance factor". A lot of people who go with this, do it because of their religious convictions. I find that very dodgy, because there are millions of people who have different religious paths to them. Why should they have to live under laws based on the dogma of someone else's religion? But what about the people who don't base it on religious issues, but purely the desire for scoring as many points against the criminal fraternity as possible? Well not everyone feels like that. And even if they did, just what about the innocents? We have a cheaper, easier to rectify in the event of a mistake alternative, that actually has lower homicide rates in it's areas of practice than CP does. Why should the people in those places have to suffer from a higher murder rate than they otherwise could, because some people feel the need to extract maximum vengeance instead of a punishment that is cheaper, easier to rectify when unjustly applied, and more effective in the terms of keeping crime rates down? Sorry if I'm repeating myself too often here, but I feel I need to emphasise some points.

Law often seems to favour the criminal. It doesn't actually, it just views all people who come before it completely equally. When one of those persons is guiltier than Michael Jackson stood in a playground with his bell-end in one hand, it seems as if it is blatantly favourable to the crim. It isn't, it just doesn't pre-suppose. It's the same way when someone innocent seems to be treated like shit, because they've innocently become involved in an investigation. From outside it looks outrageously fascist.

But don't get me started on lawyers! :disgust: Some of them put on performances worthy of an Oscar with defendants they KNOW are guilty as hell. :mad:

Originally posted by natural tickler
I have seen enough blood spill for a hundred lifetimes, my relatives being taken out for no reason, and you're telling me that life is better because he can never see free air again, never going back into society again, and that's good enough. While during these trials, the killer looks unremorseful, while so called apologizing which sounds rehearsed, not genuine. And then to top it all off, the killer's lawyers makes deals to get them out just as quick as they got in, and you call that justice? the opportunity for them to kill again and again. While my loved ones and others take the dirtnap? You call that justice?

No, I don't. I call it cretinous. The "plea-bargain" is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) weaknesses in the American judicial system. DA's who are lazy and cops who are bored accept them too often, than bothering to follow through with a full prosecution of the proper offence. However, that bears no relavence to the CP question at all. Whether the death penalty exists or not, plea bargains will continue. In fact I think it's pretty obvious that they will INCREASE if CP remains. Following a capital case through to conclusion is always going to be difficult because of the conotations, whereas one with LW-OP at the end is more likely to be accepted. The same is true of dithering juries. They are far more likely to aquit a murderer who stands to face a death sentence, than one who faces LW-OP. Keep CP and more murderers will go unpunished. Paradoxical isn't it? But true.

Originally posted by natural tickler
How many more innocents have to die before someone says enough's enough and even the score for all who has lost.

Again, no-one can even the score. It is impossible. Thomas Hamilton killed 17 school children and their teacher at Dunblaine in Scotland. He blew his own brains out rather than face prison. Dangling the turd head from a rope wouldn't have achieved any more than imprisoning him for the rest of his natural. Like many of those lunatic terrorist, he preferred death to incarceration.

Originally posted by natural tickler
I've lost too many people and close friends through violence for nothing. Answer that for me. How many more must go before we make an example of people who kill?

Again we get back to cause and effect. Which is more beneficial for every decent member of society? The one which keeps the homicide rate lower, takes less money and can be rectified if wrongly applied; or the one which has a higher homicide rate, can be abused much more easilly, would see more murderers walk free from court having been found innocent and is impossible to re-cant?

Question: Many examples have been made of people who kill. The places where such an example is made have hugley higher crime and particularly homicide rates. (coughcoughTEXAS-CALI-ALABAMAcoughcough) Just what purpose does that example serve other than to momentarilly give pro-CP'ers something to cheer about? Can you justify something so extreme on the basis of no purpose whatsoever, except for scoring points; especially when there are so many bad effects, most of which I listed above?