death penalty

[Neutron]

Fuck That Shit...

Whack em and stack em I always say. One of the reasons I voted for Bush was Texas was popping them at the rate of one or two a week for quite some time.

These crimes deserve the Death Penalty

Kidnapping a child
Paedophilia
Rape or Sexual Assault
And Murder


I need to be in charge and I need to be a damn judge. It's high time we start deleting the wiswired from society.


Tron

 

[BigJim]

Re: Fuck That Shit...

I need to be in charge and I need to be a damn judge. It's high time we start deleting the wiswired from society.


Tron

You voted for Bush because he "was popping them at the rate of one or two a week for quite some time"?

Tron, have you been hanging around leaky reactors again? I for one am very glad that you will never be a politician or judge. The last politician who was of your mindset used to sign his letters...


Kind Regards,

Adolph.

Those crimes you mentioned were henious indeed, but I'd rather blow my OWN brains out before living in a society where people like you held the power.

 

[shark]

I personally support the death penalty where it is warranted.The statistically small number of false convictions and resultant
executions does not warrant the end of capital punishment.It does warrant a better-run system with which to administer punishment.

Biblical references to capital punishment can be confusing and,as is often the case,contradictory.I have seen both the "Thou shalt not kill" version of the 5th commandment and the "Thou shalt not commit murder" version....big difference between the two.There is also a difference between vengeance and justice,and Christians are expected to obey just governments.Differences in interpretations of Scripture are allowed,as long as the parties involved worship the Father.So,we still have the same old problem with the Bible.

The abundance of blacks in prison can be tricky.The last stats showed that 25% of the black male population aged 17-27 was in some form of judicial supervision....jail,parole,or probation.Much of this lies in the drug trade,where sales predominate in the inner cities,which tend to have high black populations.I doubt race has that much to do with it.Eliminate the drug problem and most crime in the US disappears.

This subject was touched upon in a past thread.Without searching it out,here are my problems with life sentences and no capital punishment:

Some of the convicts are perfectly happy in jail...the recidivism rates suggest this well.
Life sentences are rarely "life"...some states allow paroles in as few as 7 years.
Life without parole is no guarantee....some have been paroled to murder and rape again.This has happened in PA.
The convicted party still poses a threat to other inmates serving shorter sentences,prison guards (a number have died in riots),prison staff, and contracted employees.The option of solitary comfinement will be met with screaming by other parties and the lawsuits that are sure to follow.
Lastly,there has to be an ultimate punishment that sets the value of human life.A person who kills 6 and spends his life in prison,say 48 years,will serve only 8 years per murder.Tell the families of the victims that their loved one's life is only worth a little over 16% of the person's who killed them.Then there is always the cable tv, air conditioning,exercise rooms,friendly get-togethers with the old gang,snd still the drugs that get smuggled in in various ways.Life sentences are hardly an ultimate punishment.

 

[Haltickling]

shark

Lastly,there has to be an ultimate punishment that sets the value of human life.A person who kills 6 and spends his life in prison,say 48 years,will serve only 8 years per murder.Tell the families of the victims that their loved one's life is only worth a little over 16% of the person's who killed them.

shark, regardless of your opinion on the death penalty, there's a logic flaw in the above quoted statement:

If a convict gets executed for one murder, how many times would he have to get executed for 6 murders? He can only die once, so in the case of 6 killings, he'll still receive only 16% of the deserved punishment...

And isn't it convenient that the same Bible can be read in different ways by different persons because it's full of human errors anyway?

 

[BigJim]

Re: shark

And isn't it convenient that the same Bible can be read in different ways by different persons because it's full of human errors anyway?

Not to mention the 39,000 translation errors.

 

[JoBelle]

To start, I just never understand why a discussion of capital punishment always fall to "Christian theology." It's not a matter of religion. It's a metter of crime. If we're going to fall back on the Bible for all decisions (whether we be Christian or not) then alot of things are going to have to change.

I hear valid comments about the loss of innocent life when a decision is made to execute a person who was not guilty. That is a shame and a loss no matter how rarely it occurs. I totally agree. HOWEVER, how many murderers are you willing to set free in order to save that innocent saint, who for whatever baseless reason, has inadvertantly been found guilty of a crime? Note the sarcasm, please. ((Realizing I sound like a lunatic chasing down innocent old ladies while dragging my electric chair behind me!!)) How often does it happen? Does anyone have some stats on how many innocent people have been executed? Anyone ever talk to a death row inmate who claims they are "innocent" who would say they are willing to die to keep the real monsters off the street? I'm just poking around for more specific thoughts than the ones I've read so far. NOT meaning to insult anyone. OK?

I'm curious about something...
The pros and cons of the legal systems aside, how many of you think that someone who kills, oh say, 9 people should not receive the death penalty? For example, I know in another discussion, Myriads made his feelings known that sentient beings should not be put to death by another. Personally, I disagree. *shrug* What I'm getting at is this. Let's say the person even admits he killed them therefore there is NO DOUBT that he or she is guilty. What are your views on capital punishment in a case like that?


AND ANOTHER THING....I can't abide VH1 any longer for the decision to create their nifty little MUSIC BEHIND BARS show. A few murderers and rapist getting together to jam and they get to be on national TV too. Gee?? Now THAT is entertainment....what kind of sicko came up with THAT? And...why are these people even allowed to do this? I'm just simply so nauseated! I keep hearing all this talk about "First Ammendment Rights." Excuse me, but when you commit a felony, don't you lose a few "rights?"

OK, so maybe this is a topic I should avoid now. I just have to say that until one of these sub-human death row winners invades part of your world, it's all just PC mumbo jumbo. Let's see how you feel when you come face to face with the person who kills your roommate, lover, parent or child.

Joby

 

[BigJim]

I hear valid comments about the loss of innocent life when a decision is made to execute a person who was not guilty. That is a shame and a loss no matter how rarely it occurs. I totally agree. HOWEVER, how many murderers are you willing to set free in order to save that innocent saint, who for whatever baseless reason, has inadvertantly been found guilty of a crime?

Hmmmm. You might lose them morally, but legally it's not possible for people to give away their basic constitutional rights.

Anyway, on with the program.........................

From the way you speak Joby I get the feeling that this subject has touched you personally in real life. If that is the case, I hope that what I say doesn't offend you.

Who said anything about setting anyone free? The way you put it, it's a choice between them getting the drop/riding the lightning and being set free. The choice isn't freedom or death, it's penal service for life at hard labour, living in a hole and eating slop, (in my ideal situation anyway) and being executed. At least with the former a mistake can be partially made up for. Compensation can be paid, records can be set straight. With the latter all you can do is exhume the body and be legally allowed to bury it in consecrated ground. (Executees in Britain were buried in the prison grounds, which was not consecrated.)

My ideal sentence for your child abuser/murderer would make their death drawn out and miserable for every second. It'd also hopefully benefit the country with their unpaid labour for about 30 or whatever years. Someone who get's the chair suffers for less than a minute (unless you use alternating current of course) and someone who gets a lethal injection is unconscious in seconds. That's justice? They were gonna die anyway one day and we gave them a quick and efficient method of doing it.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this, because it's obvious that there's a lot of hot blood about it. From my point of view, I'd prefer to see someone who killed my brother/father/mother/whoever suffer for however many years it took them to be worked to death, than die in a comfortable instant. I'd also like to see someone given the chance to do some good for the world before they die. It'd take more than 40 years hard labour to do it, but it would be a start.

Not having been in the position of losing someone I love to a murderer, people might say that my opinions are as uninformed and irrelevant as they said they were on parenting; but it's the view I hold for now. A few years back I was 180 degrees the other way. A few years ago I could have been Neutron's twin brother and an ardent fan of George W. Bush's policies on execution. I was quite famous for a time at school, because I wrote to the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asking for Capital punishment to be re-instated.(I was 11 years old!) That was one of the things that changed about me. I've mellowed over the years and changed a lot of my views. Maybe they'll change again.

 

[R. Davis]

Make sure the suspects are completely guilty. Once convicted a speedy execution is order. For the people who perform extreme acts of violence there should be no mercy. I stress again a complete and thorough investigation should be done for all cases with inmates going on death row, so no innocent person is executed. Everyone knows our legal system is FLAWED.

 

[BigJim]

Make sure the suspects are completely guilty. Once convicted a speedy execution is order. For the people who perform extreme acts of violence there should be no mercy. I stress again a complete and thorough investigation should be done for all cases with inmates going on death row, so no innocent person is executed. Everyone knows our legal system is FLAWED.

Maybe you're right, but a system as efficient as the one you say is required will never exist within the framework that we have.

 

[shark]

I think that the logic Hal has used is flawed.This logic discounts the fact that execution is the ultimate penalty,and,short of confiscating parts of an estate,no further penalty can be assessed.It
is the limit of what is possible in terms of punishment,and that brand of logic fails,or refuses,to acknowledge that.

The points about Biblical interpretation and translation are very true.That's why believing in the literal translation can be so troublesome.

Constitutional rights are given away every day by people in different situations,from searches of vehicles and homes without warrants to states' rights to drug testing.With a felony conviction, the felon permanently loses his right to vote,own firearms,and much of his or her privacy rights.In prison,search warrants are unnecessary.While on probation or parole,privacy rights are seriously
curtailed to allow for supervision.

There will always be problems with human-run systems,so one has to decide what he or she can live with.Capital punishment is probably the biggest example of this.

Not to get off topic,but a buddy of mine recently did some duty in Germany,near the Austrian border.He said that the people were great, the countryside beautiful,and that he wished he had more free time to spend there.

 

[Strelnikov]

It appears to me that Hal and Jim oppose the death penalty because it offends their sense of justice. You're uneasy with the idea of the State killing someone on your behalf, am I right? But I detect a notion of retribution in your idea of working murderers to death. That would never fly here - some shitbird "civil rights" lawyer would file a lawsuit, and in too many places he would find a custard head judge who would order the State to make nice with the bastards.

For Joby and me, our sense of justice is offended when murderers keep on breathing long after their victims cease (sometimes horribly), and while the families are left to deal with the huge hole in their lives. Justice and retribution, if not the same thing, are very closely related.

We're never going to convince each other, because this topic goes to the core of our personal morality.

I imagine that the majority of Europeans share Hal's and Jim's views. Their laws reflect that. Could be a result of their recent history, when millions of people were executed for frivolous reasons or none at all. Maybe it's a manifestation of "national character" which differs at least in part because our ancestors elected to come here, while theirs stayed behind. In any case, I have no problem with that - what Europeans do in their own countries is their business.

Lately, I've seen organized letter-writing campaigns where Europeans try to educate us ignorant colonials about the evils of the death penalty. In this country, about 70% of us favor the death penalty under at least some conditions. That's reflected in our laws. With all due respect, that's our business.

Strelnikov

 

[BigJim]

It appears to me that Hal and Jim oppose the death penalty because it offends their sense of justice. You're uneasy with the idea of the State killing someone on your behalf, am I right?

No Strel, you're not right. You obviously didn't read a lot of the posting I did above. The idea of dangling someone like Thomas Hamilton from the end of a rope, would'nt make me loose any sleep, is what I said. I even said that I would'nt feel guilty if I pulled the trapdoor lever myself. My reasons for opposing the death penalty are....
1/ It isn't a good deterrant. The United States has a higher rate of slotting it's prisoners (quite a few of whom are minors on both the date of their crime and the date of their execution! How fucking warped is that!!!!??!?) than any other country in the developed world. It also has the highest crime rate and the highest murderrate of any country in the deverloped world. The state with one of the highest murder rates per capita is Texas, which thanks to George W. Bush has slotted more prisoners than the other 42 states who have the death penalty put together. If the death penalty really is a good deterrant, then America must have a very high percentage of suicidal criminals.

2/ It's a waste, whatever perspective you look at it from. If you say it's religious/spiritual thing, then it's a waste of a spirit that might be redeemed. If you look at it from an indignant point of view, it's a waste of labour that could be done. Human rights bods might complain about it, but we can always fantasise about an ideal world can't we?

Lately, I've seen organized letter-writing campaigns where Europeans try to educate us ignorant colonials about the evils of the death penalty. In this country, about 70% of us favor the death penalty under at least some conditions. That's reflected in our laws. With all due respect, that's our business.Strelnikov

LOL I wondered when that little gem would come out. America, much as I love it's people, is a right wing society (despite the presence of those oh-so hated liberal human rights groups) with a collective right wing philosophy that a huge percentage of the population subscribes to and agrees with. I mentioned a saying earlier; "If you always do what you've always done, then you'll always get what you've always got". Right wingism such as that espoused by Dubya is direct, painful and quite often violent. It also leads to fanatical groups (quite often based on extremist religious philosophies like the KKK) find a home, because too many judges and senior state officials sympathise with them to make them totally extinct.

Until it's collective political mind is more balanced, America will be riddled with yet more violence, crime, poverty and racism. When the state replies to it's problems with direct action of the most violent nature and draconian laws that border on facism, the problems will only get worse. Like begets like, violence and hate beget more violence and hate. If overtly right or left wingism is applied in any society, then it's in for protracted misery.

Sure it's your business Strel. I hope you're happy living in a society where even though you personally may be untouched; crimes like murder and rape are leaping from strength to strength. You might say it's only Americans business to decide on what happens in America. You're probably right. Just don't complain about "whining Europeans" when you see the rest of the world treating you like a medieval society, despite your financial and technological superiority.

 

[omega]

Until it's collective political mind is more balanced, America will be riddled with yet more violence, crime, poverty and racism. When the state replies to it's problems with direct action of the most violent nature and draconian laws that border on facism, the problems will only get worse. Like begets like, violence and hate beget more violence and hate. If overtly right or left wingism is applied in any society, then it's in for protracted misery.

When Hitler was rising to power and taking over Europe starting with Poland wasn't it Great Britain that kept calling for peaceful solutions? They could have countered and possibly stopped Hitler right away. But instead they kept looking for a peaceful solution that as it turns out Hitler would never have gone for. It was only when Hitler was hit with violence and forced to give up that peace came.

 

[BigJim]

When Hitler was rising to power and taking over Europe starting with Poland wasn't it Great Britain that kept calling for peaceful solutions? They could have countered and possibly stopped Hitler right away. But instead they kept looking for a peaceful solution that as it turns out Hitler would never have gone for. It was only when Hitler was hit with violence and forced to give up that peace came.

That's a matter of foreign policy, not home policy so it doesn't automatically follow the same reasoning. (It should do, by while nations exist, people will hardlyever regard people from other nations as compatriots.)

My personal opinion on the true reasons behind the second world war are aeither very unpopular, or extremely laughable, so I'll go on "official" history here.

Nazism could have risen in any country. Germany was just unlucky enough to have the right circumstances for Hitler to take the reigns. The problem with my "respect and love all others and world strife will end" idea, is that it takes all peoples of all nations to make it work. The German people were treated abominably after the first World War and thus there was a nationalist climate that was ripe for the taking in the early 1930's. The victors of WW1 created nazism in that way. IF they hadn't torn what was left of Germany to shreds after Versailles, then Hitler would'nt have had anything to stand on.

You also talk Omega, about "they were looking for a peaceful soloution." Again we have this extremely pissing-me-off soloution where people keep giving the responsibility for peace on earth and good international relations away to other people. Why give governments the responsibility for decideing who we should be friendly with? Governments thrive from war and so do the friends of ministers and congressmen who have shares in the armaments industry!

We have an horrifyingly inevitable chain reaction in pre-war Germany. The victors of WW1 reduced the people to poverty as bad as any that ever occured in Africa. A political atmosphere of resentment and anger. A political psychopath that was ready to take advantage of it for his own ends.

My point Omega, is that compassion, respect and love would'nt have stopped Hitler. In that you are perfectly correct.They'd have prevented him from ever getting to power.

 

[JoBelle]

To note, I doubt anyone really thinks that CP is a a viable detterant to brutal crimes. Instead I would argue that it is a matter of sequence. If you take a life, you give up your own. Seems fair, no?As far as the waste issue....I personally don't give a damn whether that "spirit" is wasted or the possible gain from his labour is lost. I can't justify giving value to that individual.

I notice no one has answered the question I posed regarding a "no doubt" case. No thoughts?

Intersting theory...
To enjoy the privilege of using cars, airplanes, or any other device that improve the quality of our lives, we accept the risks and deaths that are caused by them completely in order to reap their full benefits. The same concept applies for the death penalty only on a far lesser scale. As long as we're entitled to recklessley endanger hundreds of innocent lives daily for our personal convieneinces, then surely we sould be allowed to take on lesser risks for something far less selfish and self serving like public safety. Every institution that is of great benifit to society always contain risks so that we may enjoy a better world. The death penalty happens to be the least dangerous of them, yet it is focused on with the most paranoia. Such an attitude is completely irrational. Every country in the world is ready and willing to kill thousands, even millions of human beings in brutal, merciless ways to defend their nation from the aggression of other countries. I don't see why public safety doesn't deserve as much respect and protection as a nation's national security does. In fact, it can be reasonably argued that supporting armies and waging war is far more barbarous than the death penalty is. So I find it hypocritical that the same countries who have abolished capital punishment because it is "barbaric" to defend public safety that way are at the same time prepared to enforce political power and defend their territorial claims through infinitely more violence and bloodshed than the death penalty would ever require. It seems to me that those nations are just trying to rationalize their apathy and scorn for any institution that doesn't serve their self-serving and political interests. Even famed Russian author of "War and Peace" and pacifist Leo Tolstoy referred to capital punishment's morality to criticize warfare when he said:
"For the executioner only holds himself in readiness to kill those who have been adjudged to be harmful and criminal, while a soldier promises to kill all who he is told to kill, even though they may be the dearest to him or the best of men."

Joby...God help us cave-dwellers over.

And Strel, you're right on spot!

 

[BigJim]

On the point of it being fair to judge that we should make someone give up their life physically if they took another's, it's all a matter of personal choice. Do you believe in an eye for an eye, or turning the other cheek? Do you believe that the act of relieveing a murderer of his life will beget more violence in your society, or frighten more potential criminals into remaining passive? Do you believe in 100% vengeance with your justice, or do you believe that two wrongs don't make a right? Everyone's personal decision to make.


As to your other point Jo, I agree with all of them. I just didn't mention any of those points on public safety etc, because it would probably have resulted in my post being deleted for being off topic. The death penalty debate isn't the only thing we should be discussing about society. Let's start a whole series of threads about the other stuff now, I say!

 

[ForgottenTcklr]

The death penalty (IMHO) is not a means of revenge for what that person did, but a matter of safety for what they might very well possibly continue to do!

I do agree with Amk and many others who say innocents die under it. 1 out of every 7 people killed via the death penalty are innocent (I have no clue who did this study, but it's true.)

However, I still have to give the death penalty my support to make sure that innocents in society do not die.

 

[BigJim]

The death penalty (IMHO) is not a means of revenge for what that person did, but a matter of safety for what they might very well possibly continue to do!

How can anyone say that the best reason for the death penalty is because it keeps a killer from re-entering society? It certainly does, but so does Life Without Parole. (In an ideal world.) How many people have succeeded in escaping from a state penitentiary and stayed out? Less than the amount of people who got away with being executed because the trapdoor didn't open I suspect.

You could say that you prefer the idea of death over life imprisonment because it costs less to trim the grass on a grave than it does to feed a prisoner, but there's no way it can just be because it "keeps them from re-entering society". When there's other alternatives that do the same, that argument isn't logical.

 

[ForgottenTcklr]

The problem with Life without Parole is that jails get crowded, behavior is top-notch, and break-outs occur so that our friendly neighborhood killer is now once again roaming the streets.

I guess you have to ask when is the danger large enough.

Maybe you can't give a murderer the death penalty... but how about Osama Bin Laden?

 

[BigJim]

Maybe you can't give a murderer the death penalty... but how about Osama Bin Laden?

The man is a lunatic and a manipulator, and I'd treat him exactly the same way as I'd treat any other lunatic or manipulator. I'd give him as harsh a punishment as I could devise that he would hate.

The problem with someone like Bin Laden, is that he'd prefer death to life imprisonment. His creed is that death by an enemy's hand, is honourable and even desireable. You'd give him what he wanted? Or you'd give him what he hated? How about 150 years hard labour with only pork to eat?

 

[omega]

The problem with someone like Bin Laden, is that he'd prefer death to life imprisonment. His creed is that death by an enemy's hand, is honourable and even desireable. You'd give him what he wanted? Or you'd give him what he hated? How about 150 years hard labour with only pork to eat?

And non-stop Lawrence Welk music.

 

[ShiningIce]

Lol well................I sorta agree with Tron's stack em and whackem philosophy.................BUT ONLY when it comes to dealing with TRUE MONSTERS!! I also agree with BigJim, If the death penalty worked so well why do we have such a f***king high crime rate??? Sometimes it isnt so black and white there's a grey area when it comes to looking at people. Is there a difference between a man who kills a child and a man who kills another murderer over something as petty as drugs?? I think so. So do they BOTH deserve the same sentence of death if one is more vile than the other???

 

[kurchatovium]

The main problem with the death penalty reducing crime is that it takes so many, many years before the actual execution takes place that it becomes almost meaningless. There should be a thourough review of the evidence to make sure nothing was botched up and then the sentence should be executed. Hopefully if you got the time down to a year it would be a reasonable effective measure against crime.

 

[Strelnikov]

Thanks, Joby, for the tip o' the cap.

OFF TOPIC ALERT! Jim, maybe we should start another thread, but I can't let your KKK/racist comment stand without challenge. Tell me, how many members of HM Govt are Black? Not Labour back benchers, but members of the Govt. I'll tell you - one - in a minor role, and he just got there this past summer. OTOH, we have Colin Powell, who could be a serious candidate for President if he wanted the job. Condi Rice on Bush's staff, J. C. Watts in the House of Rep - and that's just the Republicans. Lots more in the Democrat Party. Feel free to throw stones at our govt - Lord knows I've done enough of that myself - but please, do some research first.

We now return to our regularly scheduled thread.

Strelnikov

 

[JoBelle]

You could say that you prefer the idea of death over life imprisonment because it costs less to trim the grass on a grave than it does to feed a prisoner, but there's no way it can just be because it "keeps them from re-entering society". When there's other alternatives that do the same, that argument isn't logical.

I'm not worried about cost. I'm worried about privelege. The cost is apparent. The cost to society to take care of a murderer is insane. Frankly, I just have a simple problem with the fact that someone who kills suddenly becomes someone to be pampered. *shrug* You can argue that there are other things you'd LIKE to see done. LIKE make him miserable..yadayadayada...but that's not how it works. As was pointed out before, there will always be someone crying about his rights being violated. Sadly, even though he's been found guilty of murder, he'll be given more time and energy than a kid sleeping in a box on the street.

Eye for an eye. Every other aspect of life we expect equality to stand when an exchange takes place. From partnerships in marriage to the cost of good and services. Why not for crime?

I think what you're failing to realize is a punishment should equal the crime. Call it an eye for an eye if you will. Personally, I think that's how things should be. And the only way a punishment of murder can be equal to the crime is execution. (off topic for amoment)I can guarantee you that Osama would cut a deal fast enough to make you head spin if he thought he could avoid execution if he ever gets caught. He's a lunatic, but just like most people in highly iunfluential places, he's more interested in self preservation than anything else. (back on topic)

I think YOU would fine solace IN THEORY!
You THINK you can make him work in jail. You THINK you can make him miserable.
Hoever--
You MUST feed him everyday. You MUST house him. You MUST medicate him. You HOPE he never esacapes. You pray there are never any overcrowded jails and you hope he won't be close enough to the door compared to the other guys. Sure, if the world was perfect, all your hopes would be enough to YOU. Still not for me though.

The reality of the situation is that people who kill and are not executed run the risk of walking the streets again. No matter how little the chance...it's there. Unless they have the only punishment equal to the crime.

Joby