Death Penalty: Hypocritical bullshit

Gosh, I love it when the title gets the job done, don't you?

Actually, I should be clearer, really. For myself, in my fascist heart (those of you who have been paying attention know that my Gemini nature plays itself out in my multi-political stances: mostly liberal/fascist, with varying appearances of libertarian/eco-terrorist/socialist) I think there are people who just missed the humanity boat and therefore deserved to be put to death in the most revolting manner possible: Dahmer being a prime example..

But the calm, thoughtful, careful liberal in me took the time one day to examine the issue more closely, and discovered that, based on the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, I have to withhold my support of the death penalty in real life. And my reasoning is simple, and subjective: to me, the most disturbing, terrifying, upsetting, horrifying and general unpleasant thing in the world would be to not only know how you are going to die, but to know the exact day, hour and minute. That would drive me insane. That would be cruel beyond measure. I think I'd rather be stretched on a rack.

Therefore.... the death penalty, to me, by its very nature embodies the idea of cruel punishments.

Ta da!

Talk amongst yourselves.

------------------
Stoidela

******Thesaurus: An ancient reptile with an excellent vocabulary******

Stoidela says:to me, the most disturbing, terrifying, upsetting, horrifying and
general unpleasant thing in the world would be to not only know how you
are going to die, but to know the exact day, hour and minute.
I must say that the EXACT opposite is true for me. I would LOVE it if somebody told me when I was going to die, and how. I think that the general population fears NOT knowing the most.

Now, I don't agree with the death penalty simply because it's murder. I think a much better punishment would be to put the prisoner in a dark little room, and leave them there for the rest of their lives. They could never, ever leave, and they'd be all alone forever, with nothing to do but stare at a wall. No books, no TV, no windows, no visitors...etc. I agree that you should not torture them physically, and they should be fed, and somehow kept clean. But it's still a far more horrific punishment than the death penalty.

Adam

I can be a really liberal guy, but this issue makes me seem like a total conservative:

If you kill someone, you should die. If you kill someone I love, you will die (read into that what you will).

Yes, there are shades of gray, and while the above may seem like a black & white statement, in fact I know that there are circumstances that would call for lesser punishments. That is for the judge to decide...

I do have a problem with how the death penalty is implemented, however. I think it's bullshit that if I kill a black man, I probably won't fry, though if a black man kills me, he probably will.

I think it should be more standard and definitely be more colorblind than it currently is.

As for the usual arguments, yes, it has been proven not to be a determent to other murders. But it IS a determent to the murdered who is killed! After all, they don't kill again, do they?

And I do worry about an innocent person being killed, but I also think that is one of the gray areas i talk about. If the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt but not a shadow of a doubt, a lesser sentance should be given; again, the judge can make that determination.

But I can say this without hesitation - If any of you who are against the death penalty were to have a husband, wife or child snuffed out by someone, I'll bet youdd change your tune. If not, fine - We can let them live in jail the rest of their life while you pay the taxes for it!

------------------
Brian O'Neill
CMC International Records
www.cmcinternational.com (http://www.cmcinternational.com)

ICQ 35294890
AIM Scrabble1
Yahoo Messenger Brian_ONeill

I find the death penalty to be unacceptable in all situations, for a variety of reasons (none of which involve any sympathy per se for the prisoners condemned to die, most of whom deserve worse than death).

However, given that capital punishment's existence is expressly recognized in the constitution at several points, I cannot agree that it is inherently "cruel and unusual punishment" within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

I think I speak for those adamantly indifferent to capital punishment. The uncontested fact is that death row inmates are almost unimaginably despicable. Whether these wretches live out their lives in prison or are executed is of no practical importance. Get them off the street and out of society. Period.

Stoi: how do you reconcile the Constitution's support of the death penalty?

ARG:

Considering that you look upon death as a positive thing, your attitude is completely understandable and consistent. I don't share it, obviously. I like thinking I have alot more time than I might in reality have.

I do agree with you about horrible punishments, though. In the movies, the bad people always get killed int he end. That drives me nuts. If thier dead, how can they appreciate how awful their predicament is? They've been taken out of the game. Far better to torture them.

Satan:

Many people who have lost loved ones to the hands of others remain opposed to the death penalty. Many.

And perhaps you mean deterrant. So far as I'm aware, determent isn't a word.

It's alot mroe expensive to go through the death penalty appeals process than it is to simply lock someone up forever, BTW.

And as for the innocent dying? Better that the guilty should go free. What if YOU were the innocent wrongly convicted?

Dirty Devil:
Adamant indifference...now there's a concept!

Monty, Big Iron:

Constitution is always being interpreted and re-interpreted. In MY interpretation, the death penalty qualifies and C&U, for reasons set forth at the beginning.

------------------
Stoidela

******Thesaurus: An ancient reptile with an excellent vocabulary******

That would be: "if THEY'RE dead"

First of all:

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Author" content="briank.o">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.61 [en] (Win98; I) [Netscape]">
<title>deter</title>
</head>
<body>
Main Entry: de&middot;ter

Pronunciation: <tt>di-'t&amp;r, dE-</tt>

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): de&middot;terred; de&middot;ter&middot;ring

Etymology: Latin deterrEre, from de- + terrEre to frighten
-- more at <font size=-1><a href="../../dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terror">TERROR</a></font>

Date: 1579

1 : to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting

2 : <font size=-1><a href="../../dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=inhibit">INHIBIT</a></font>

- de&middot;ter&middot;ment /<tt>-'t&amp;r-m&amp;nt</tt>/ noun

- de&middot;ter&middot;ra&middot;bil&middot;i&middot;ty /<tt>-"t&amp;r-&amp;-'bi-l&amp;-tE</tt>/
noun

- de&middot;ter&middot;ra&middot;ble /<tt>-'t&amp;r-&amp;-b&amp;l</tt>/
adjective
</body>
</html>

Second of all, I do not doubt many people still are against the death penalty after a loved one is taken away. But you don't answer whether you are one of them. I hope you never have to find out...

My point is a lot of people change their tunes when tragedy strikes close to home. I've seen it happen...

And as far as I'm concerned, if the family of a loved one tells the judge and jury that they do not agree with the death penalty, and didn't think the deceased would, they should take that very seriously into consideration when the sentence is decided.

Third of all, the only reason it costs so much for the appeals process is that we allow too damn many appeals. Death row should offer much shorter stays. If the scum on death row can take the life of someone for no reason and do it in the space of a moment, we can make their death row stay almost as brief.

As for the innocent getting fried, I submit that it regretably has occured in our time, and no doubt some anti-death penalty sort will mention a few cases.

Nobody ever said our system was perfect. And I think the only way you fry someone is if you have overwhelming evidence. As in witnesses, being found with the victims blood and the weapon in your possession, positive DNA analysis - not just a little of the above, ALL of the above. Maybe more, even.

You can be convicted of murder beyond a reasonable doubt and be jailed for life; if you would re-read what I wrote, I said the death penalty would go to those proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. And a judge can make that determination.

I do not advocate random killings and kangaroo courts here. I suggest a systematic way of making sure that if you take a life, you will have yours taken from you.

How about doing something about cruel and unusual crimes? How about doing something for the victims? How about keeping killers where they can truly do no more harm - not in a 6x6 cell, but 6 feet under?

------------------
Brian O'Neill
CMC International Records
www.cmcinternational.com (http://www.cmcinternational.com)

ICQ 35294890
AIM Scrabble1
Yahoo Messenger Brian_ONeill

Good enough.

Speaking of witnesses, did you happen to see the 48 Hours last night where they did the little test on eyewitnessing? Very interesting. Shows to go ya that eyewitness testimony is pretty worthless.

Wonder how many people have been sent to their deaths on the basis of eyewitness testimony that left no doubt, especially prior to the days of DNA?



------------------
Stoidela

******Thesaurus: An ancient reptile with an excellent vocabulary******

I have wrestled with this one all my life. In the end, I lean towards anti-DP. All other arguments aside, it's the fact that it's irreversible that really gets to me. Now if Dahmer or O.J. or whoever confesses to the crime and chooses death over life in prison...let 'em have it. But we see imprisoned people being found innocent after 2 or 3 or 10 or 20 years in prison. You can't give them their time back, but at least you can let them out. What is the acceptable number of innocent people that we can put to death? Zero.

Second of all, I do not doubt many people still are against the death penalty after a loved one is taken away. But you don't answer whether you are one of them. I hope you never have to find out...


Someone I love is in jail for murder. He did it. I have to say that I am glad that it was not charged as a death penalty offense. Made all the Chicago newspapers a couple of years ago (for which I have formed the strong opinion that the Trib doesn't care what you say -- they'll quote you as saying what they want you to say). This is the only time in his life he has had "trouble with the law." Before this he was just another white collar kind of guy, a 'puter geek, good job with a nice mid-five figures income.

I was surprised at how intensely we, his family, felt the pain of the victim's family. We cried together, at least some of us, and some of us prayed together. They had a great deal of (justified) anger, but they did not seek the death penalty. I think they did not want to put us through the grief that they themselves had experienced. They DID seek a long prison sentence.

On the other hand, there are people who have been executed I shed no tears for. Especially those who have killed repeatedly, and have stated that if given the opportunity they would do so again. (I will not dignify by posting it the name of the man executed here in California a few years ago for kidnapping, molesting, and murdering so many teenage boys. He was one who admitted his guilt and said he'd do it again.)

I have no answer here -- I straddle the fence, I admit. I do agree that it scares me that innocent people have been executed, and have come too close to being executed. Maybe Phil is right (gasp! Did I really say that? ;)) and we should lock 'em up and throw away the key, but I'm not sure that that gives me enough security. Time and philosophy and practicality all cause changes. My loved one mentioned above was sentenced to 25 years. He gets a day's extra credit for each day of good behavior -- and he is a model of a prisoner -- so that he could actually be out in 12.5 years. Lately there has been discussion that due to prison overcrowding they may start giving two days' extra credit for each day of good behavior, meaning that he could be out in 8.33 years. From my point of view that's a good thing -- I know that he is no danger to anyone else. But I don't know that that's the case about a lot of people who may be in the same position.

There's no conclusion to this post, really. I don't have the answer, just lots of questions and concerns.

-Melin

In order to protect itself, the Society as a whole must be ruthless. A person who steps outside of Society and murders must be delt with as harshly as we deal with rabid animals. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. The man in a drunken rage who shoots his brother over a minor manner most likely doesn't desever to be hooked up to Ol' Sparky. On the other hand, I think anyone who harms a child should be cooked up within the month.

If calling the Death Penalty the Revenge Penalty makes it easier for people, then so be it. Will we as a Society put to death innocent people? Without a doubt. But since we have decided to use the death penalty, we will have to live with that as well.

I wouldn't mind if every one on Death Row was offed in a single weekend. And to "balance" things out for all this bloodshed, I think everyone in jail right now for a minor drug offense that did not involve any weapons should be set free. Not pardoned, mind you, but given a chance to do something worthwhile for Society with a stern warning to not return to the prison system.

And finally, lethal injection seems like the way to go. Why Florida is sticking with Ol' Sparky strikes me as not as cruel, but stupid.

Satan:

the only reason it costs so much for the appeals process is that we allow
too damn many appeals.

and

As for the innocent getting fried, I submit that it regretably has occured in our time,

Emphasis added. Do I have to point out the contradiction here?

Personally I don't care which is more expensive, executions or imprisonment. And I think a society which makes decisions about whether a person lives or dies on the basis of cost-effectiveness, is a society in real trouble.

------------------
Never regret what seemed like a good idea at the time.

Why do we punish criminals?
1. As a deterrant: so others are discouraged from committing crimes
2. As a punishment: the criminal simply "deserves" to be punished
3. For revenge: I- or society- will feel better if the criminal is punished
4. Rehabilitation: change the criminal into a productive member of society
5. Retribution: the criminal pays back his victims or society, for example by paying a fine or doing community service.

Every punishment we use fits into one or more of these. What is the death penalty's purpose? It's not a deterrant (as others have pointed out), nor is it rehabilitation or retribution (executing the murderer doesn't bring his victim back to life). That leaves us with punishment or revenge.

It seems to me, reading these posts, that most of those who favor the death penalty view it as a tool for revenge. (To quote egospark as an example: "If calling the Death Penalty the Revenge Penalty makes it easier for people, then so be it.")

Is this a legitimate reason for the state to kill people? Pardon the awful cliche, but two wrongs don't make a right. Feeling vindicated or joyful as a result of another person's death, even when that person is a scumsucking lowlife who killed someone you love, is not a good thing.

To quote Satan: "If you kill someone, you should die." This is viewing the death penalty as punishment, which is arguably the only legitimate reason to use it. Still, the issue isn't exactly clear cut. Is the death penalty the most appropriate punishment? Maybe, maybe not. If life in prison without the possibility of parole is as appropriate a punishment as the death penalty, we should use prison. If the death penalty is to be used it must not only be superior to life imprisonment, it must be superior enough to offset the inevitable result that innocent people will occasionally be executed.

Is use of the death penalty valuable enough to compensate for innocent person's death? If not, the death penalty should not be used. No matter how elaborate (or expensive) the controls, an innocent person will slip through the cracks. History has shown this to be true; nothing has changed to suggest it can't happen again.

On the one hand:
Will we as a Society put to death innocent people? Without a doubt. But since we have decided to use the death penalty, we will have to live with that as well.

But on the other hand:
I think everyone in jail right now for a minor drug offense that did not involve any weapons should be set free.

So, those who did nothing should be killed, while those who actually broke the law should be let free. Am I the only one who thinks this makes no sense whatsoever?

But I can say this without hesitation - If any of you who are against the death penalty
were to have a husband, wife or child snuffed out by someone, I'll bet youdd change
your tune.

This is the ultimate bullshit, illogical, appeal-to-emotion argument. You are privy to no such knowledge about anyone, and frankly, I have more respect for people who stick to their principles than who sing a different tune when it happens to them.

If not, fine - We can let them live in jail the rest of their life while you pay
the taxes for it!

You have to pay for it whether someone has personally wronged you or not, and the penal system is not anyone's personal revenge mechanism, so this is also meaningless.

Stoi: you may consider the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment; heck, I may also. The fact remains, however, that the constitution itself does not consider it that way; therefore, said penatly is not unconstitutional.

[[Constitution is always being interpreted and re-interpreted. In MY interpretation, the death penalty qualifies and C&U, for reasons set forth at the beginning.]] Stoi


Since several Supreme Court Justices share your view, I suppose this interpretation cannot be dismissed out of hand, but it seems to be unreasonable to interpret a document expressly recognizing execution as a criminal punishment to forbid such punishment.

Actually, the arguments (or most of them) that the D.P. constitutes cruel and unusual punishment do not arise from the punishment itself (putting someone to death), but from its application. In modern America, it may take years for a state to put a criminal to death, while the criminal waits through multiple appeals, stays are imposed and lifted, the date is set and reset. Meanwhile, the criminal literally does not know if he or she is to live or to die. The question is whether it's acceptable to put someone to death fifteen or twenty years after their offense -- THAT'S arguably the cruel and unusual part. The problem, of course, is that the process of appealling and reviewing a death sentence MUST be allowed to run completely, without deadline or impediment, PRECISELY so that innocent people are not executed. So what's the answer? You got me. BTW, I have absolutely nothing against the death penalty in theory or as a punishment, but I do have a problem with the its application, because I am not convinced it is applied fairly.

1. As a deterrant: so others are discouraged from committing crimes
2. As a punishment: the criminal simply "deserves" to be punished
3. For revenge: I- or society- will feel better if the criminal is punished
4. Rehabilitation: change the criminal into a productive member of society
5. Retribution: the criminal pays back his victims or society, for example by paying a fine or doing community service.

6. To get people out of society that are committing crimes.

Many people who commit crimes are repeat offenders. They may only serve one jail term, but the person with the scruples to rape a woman will rape another regardless of whether caught or not.

The reason for any punishment should be to get people who have comitted crimes out of society permanently. If you kill someone, or rape someone, you should never be able to interact with the general society again. I could give a hoot about rehabilitating criminals, getting revenge on them, or whatever. Just get rid of them. It doesn't matter of you lock them up for life or kill them, so long as they no longer get to walk among the general populace.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"And it could be safely said that at that moment, in the whole of India, no one, absolutely no one, was f^(king a goat."
-- John Irving A Son of the Circus (1994)

[[Actually, the arguments (or most of them) that the D.P. constitutes cruel and unusual punishment do not arise from the punishment itself (putting someone to death), but from its application. ]] jodih


Excellent point, as usual, although that is NOT, IIRC, the position of Justices Brennan, Marshal, and Blackmun. They argued that capital punishment was inherently C&U punishment, as I think Stoidela is maintaining.


[[{{1. As a deterrant: so others are discouraged from committing crimes
2. As a punishment: the criminal simply "deserves" to be punished
3. For revenge: I- or society- will feel better if the criminal is punished
4. Rehabilitation: change the criminal into a productive member of society
5. Retribution: the criminal pays back his victims or society, for example by paying a fine or doing community service.}}

6. To get people out of society that are committing crimes.]] JayRon


Also a very good point -- and don't you all appreciate me sitting here pontificating about what points are good. <g>

The reason for any punishment should be to get people who have comitted crimes out
of society permanently. If you kill someone, or rape someone, you should never be able
to interact with the general society again.

Are you serious?

I mean, first of all, is there no room in your worldview for someone who commits a murder under a certain circumstance which might never occur again? History is full of the names of people who committed "crimes of passion," or killed a person undedr other circumstances, who were otherwise notable and accomplished people.

Second of all, I fail to see the allure of any argument against taking people who have committed crimes and making them productive and useful members of society. That'd be terrible, huh?

All the people in this country who wonder whether the problems come from movies or video games, or from the availability of guns, should read some of the bloodthirstiness in this thread. That's where it comes from.

People can change, both for better and for worse.

Being in Prison is not a "punishment" in itself.......My uncle is a prison guard, and he claims that the modern day prisons have heating and air contitioning, and Television...All prisioners get three meals per day, and a recreation/exersise period in a fenced in area with basket ball court and gym iquipment better than that found in most high schools.........And they dont have to pay for any of it------Hmmm...this sounds like PUNISHMENT to me HA!!!!

i would like to see more "chain gangs" (work crews made up of convicted criminals) They could do stuff like cleaing up roads and parks, and other public constuction jobs...........as for the Death Penalty----im completey for it.......If you kill somone, for any other reason than self defense or defense of property, you deserve the Death sentence............OR, here's a little twist on it----why dont we let the FAMILY of the murdered person decide the criminals fate-------That s fair' aint it?

------------------


"In wildness is the preservation of the world, so seek the wolf inside thyself"

Being in Prison is not a "punishment" in itself

Ah, here we go, the old "A day in prison is like a day at Disneyland" canard. I can safely assume, then, if prison is such a picnic, you are willing to spend some time there voluntarily?

My uncle is a prison guard

Well, if he's half as smart as you are . . .

and he claims

"Claims"? So you're saying this may not be accurate at all?

that the modern day prisons have heating and air contitioning, and Television...All prisioners get three meals per day, and a recreation/exersise period in a fenced in area with basket ball court and gym iquipment better than that found in most high schools.........And they dont have to pay for any of it------Hmmm...this sounds like PUNISHMENT to me HA!!!!

So, would you take all that if it included not being able to interact with society in general? Oh, yes, not to mention the constant possibility of a penis in your mouth or anus? Or regular beatings?

Oh, BTW, none of this is true of maximum security inmates, many of whom are on 20-hour lockdowns; or of death row inmates. And I hesitate to think you are advocating starving or broiling prisoners. Personally, if it makes otherwise violent people docile, I'll sign 'em up for DirecTV myself.

OR, here's a little twist on it----why dont we let the FAMILY of the murdered person decide the criminals fate-------That s fair' aint it?

This is what is referred to in the field of jurisprudence as a "stupid idea." Our criminal justice system does not exist for the purpose of allowing individuals to exact personal revenge.

::sighing:: Thanks, Phil. I don't think I have the energy to go through all this again. This is one issue, at least, that I know we agree on. ;)

-Melin

Bernard:

Are you suggesting then that the crime be ignored? What do you
suggest we do with minor criminals?

Assuming that no other solution can be thought of and that
prisons must persist, your very statement lends itself to
supporting the utter removal of major criminals since they will
then be unable to breed more major criminals

Well, that certainly isn't very imaginative of you, now is it? "Hmm... prison breeds criminals, so let's kill 'em all!" Sheesh.

yes, other solutions can be thought of and are actually being implemented in one or two rare instances.

First of all, let me say: yes, there are people who are going to be bad no matter what we do, whether born that way or made, they are what they are and there's probably no hope. A standard prison setting is probably fine for them. 'K?

BUT... as it happens, MOST of the people in our prison system are or were redeemable, or are there for crimes that should never have been crimes in the first place (i.e. DRUG crimes. Please. Jsut legalize the shit and let the chips fall. We'd all be so much better off.) Prison does not have to be a hellhole that breeds more criminals. It can and SHOULD, as often as possible, be a place of true rehabilitation. Instead of spending scads of money building bigger fences and hiring more $6 hour "corrections" officers, the money we are spending now could be much more productively and usefull spent helping many of these people turn their lives around and become productive members of society.

There is at least one prison I read about some 4 or 5 years ago that is operated in this way. I still have the article somewhere, I believe. I think it was private, and it was amazing. They were educating and training the inmates, they had created a prison culture that helped create self-sufficiency and self-control, they had for the msot part eliminated violence and rape, etc. The results were amazing.

But our society is too stupid to realize that IT is best served by this kind of approach, that we do OURSELVES no favors by taking the attitude we do about prisons. But then again, our society is stupid in so many ways, why single out this one?



------------------
Stoidela

******Thesaurus: An ancient reptile with an excellent vocabulary******

Are you serious?

I mean, first of all, is there no room in your worldview for someone who commits a murder under a
certain circumstance which might never occur again? History is full of the names of people who
committed "crimes of passion," or killed a person undedr other circumstances, who were otherwise
notable and accomplished people.

Second of all, I fail to see the allure of any argument against taking people who have committed
crimes and making them productive and useful members of society. That'd be terrible, huh?

All the people in this country who wonder whether the problems come from movies or video games, or
from the availability of guns, should read some of the bloodthirstiness in this thread. That's where it
comes from.

People can change, both for better and for worse.

You know what Phil, you're right. I have seen the light. Instead of locking up all of the rapists in the world, and putting them in prison so they can never rape again, let's send them to your daughter's house. Let them hang out there for a few weeks. Lets see if that rehabilitates them any.

I have no problem making violent criminals productive, so long as they do it in a way that no longer allows them to be violent against the general populace.

People can change. The problem is, that people, by and large, DON'T change. Certain crimes, I will grant you, even those that involve someone else dying, are not sufficent proof that the person who has committed them will committ. There are however some crimes that are so heinous that they can only be committed by a person who has shown so little respect for human life that they can no longer be trusted among the general populace. How many sorority sisters do guys like Ted Bundy have to rape and murder before we can say they are unfit to intermingle with the rest of society? How many times does John Wayne Gasey have to dress up in his clown suit and rape and murder a little boy before you no longer want to invite him to your son's birthday party?

I understand that some people commit murder in fits of rage, and that ultimately they can be reformed and will cause no harm to anyone else any more. I have no problem with helping people cope with these problems and helping them back on their feet.

However, again, certain crimes are so heinous as to merit permanent removal from society. There should, for example, be zero tolerance for rape. If you rape a woman, you have displayed sufficient lack of respect for human life to have forfeited you Human Race membership card. Multiple murders, murder comitted with complete lack of remorse, or muder so brutal as to display complete lack of respect for human life are also sufficent for permanent lock-up. I have compassion for people who have made a mistake at a point in their lives, but I also have compassion for innocent citizens.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"And it could be safely said that at that moment, in the whole of India, no one, absolutely no one, was f^(king a goat."
-- John Irving A Son of the Circus (1994)

"Well, that certainly isn't very imaginative of you, now is it? "Hmm... prison breeds criminals, so let's kill 'em all!" Sheesh."

Thanks for complimenting my imaginative abilities ... oh wait, you mean that sarcastically. ;)

I did not say "kill 'em all", if you mean that as saying that all criminals should be killed. There are some criminals which society would be better served by simply putting to death so that their poisonous (sp?) spirit can no longer infect others either by their own acts or their influence.

Rather than use exact quotes (save space) I'll respond only to the spirit of the remainder. Feel free to correct me if I have been understood.

I also didn't say that I thought there was no room for rehabilitation or for special "prisons" for minor criminals. But even a special prison is still a prison even if the conditions are different than what you expect. I do believe in the possibility and occurance of rehabilitation. I also would agree that our current prison system does not facilitate this. In some and perhaps many cases it would likely be futile anyway. You want proof? I don't have any so there ... if you want to show me proof (and I mean proof) to the contrary I would like to see it. This is simply something I believe.

My point is simply this. The death penalty properly implemented would not be a bad thing. Would it be better to have lots of preventative measures? Sure... I am all for it. Would it be better to rehabilitate criminals? Yes. But when a person CANNOT be rehabilitated what sense is there in holding them for a period of time and then releasing them to do more harm? What sense is there in holding them forever? Do we know when somebody cannot be reformed? I think there are times when we know somebody can be reformed, I think there are times when we aren't sure, and yes I think there are times when we now that somebody is quite simply gone.

I agree that most (not all) of our drug laws ought to be repealed and that that would eliminate a lot of crime.

That being said, I wouldn't necessarily assume, without more facts, that you'd rather release the guy who has been selling drugs and keep the guy who killed somebody locked up. The guy selling drugs most likely made a conscious decision to do so, and figured that the rewards outweighed the risks. It's not something that happens as a "moment of passion" or without some thought. He (or she) has simply decided not to obey the law, period. This person shows a disdain for the rules of society, and most likely doesn't have any remorse for his crime. On the outside he or she will make the same analysis again, and do as they damn well please if they believe that they will benefit from what they do and the odds of gettng caught and punished are not high.

The person who has killed someone quite often has done so in the proverbial moment of passion, or out of desperation, or under circumstances which are not likely to repeat (we are not discussing the truly sicko types who murder repeatedly, or who abuse and torture their victims). Quite often they are indeed remorseful, and sometimes this is the only unlawful event they have committed in their otherwise law-abiding lives (well, yes, except traffic infractions, okay?). These people are, IMHO, less of a risk to society if released from prison than the drug dealer posited in the first paragraph of this post.

-Melin

Presently there is entirely too much focus on rehabilitation. Nowadays, it has become politically incorrect to state that the main focus of the penal system should be to punish, not to rehabilitate. Why are we trying so desperately to rehabilitate these people rather than focusing on punishing them for their crimes and keeping them out of society so they can not do any more damage? I know, we're trying to make them into "productive members of society", but why? Can't our money and resources be used more effectively to help other, more deserving, "productive members of society?" How about using our tax dollars to do the following:

1. Provide free psychiatric care and/or counselling (for life, if need be) for victims of violent crime (most notably, rape).

2. Provide to the families who have lost a breadwinner to violent crime a lump sum of money representing the present day value of all of the lost future earnings of the victim.

3. Pay for all medical treatments and lost wages for survivors of crime.

Of course, none of this would be cost effective. Much better to let the victims suffer the financial and psychological effects of crime alone and concentrate on improving the lives of a bunch of deadbeat criminals.

IMHO, once you make the conscious choice to break the law, you should damn well be prepared to face the consequences. This extends to so-called "crimes of passion". Sure, some of these people may be really, really sorry for what they did, but (with all due respect, Melin), they should be able to leave prison and walk around in society as soon as their victims have that same option.

[[Being in Prison is not a "punishment" in itself....... ]] Justin


What are you, a looney? Of course it is.

[[Presently there is entirely too much focus on rehabilitation.]] katmandu


What are you, kidding? Rehabilitation has been way out of vogue for years and years.

[[ Nowadays, it has become politically incorrect to state that the main focus of the penal system should be to punish, not to rehabilitate. Why are we trying so desperately to rehabilitate these people rather than focusing on punishing them for their crimes and keeping them out of society so they can not do any more damage?]]


If there has been any "political correctness, on this issue, it runs the other way, with any suggestion that attempts at rehabilitation are is society's interests being shouted down with the accusation that said speakers care more about criminals than victims, are "soft on crime," etc.

Justin, Justin, Justin....

It is people like you that make me want to go live in a cave, far from the rest of society.

Yeah, how could it be puishment if they still have TV? Not to mention the fact that we aren't starving them and freezing them!

Prison is hell. Even if they gave everybody their own personal television, a feather bed, and gourmet meals, it would still be hell.

I lived with a man many years ago who, at the time I met him, had spent nearly half his life in prison.(He'd originally gone in for a very petty crime when he was young, but ended up staying after he killed a man to avoid being raped.) I learned alot about prison from knowing him, and let me tell you, it is punishment.

Imagine being put in a place where you have no idea when you might be killed or raped. Where these things are a daily part of your existence. When the fact that you've gotten through the day unmolested is a cause for celebration. eventually everyone you love will stop coming to see you, if they ever started, and there you are, alone in a sea of really badass motherfuckers, day after day, just trying to stay alive.

Imagine a place where everyone treats you like garbage, where you are considered less worthwhile than a cow. Where you, as a man, have virtually zero control over any aspect of your life, including when you go to the bathroom, in large part. (Hey, imagine a place where you have to go to the bathroom in front of anyone who cares to watch, that would be hell enough for me, thank you. I'd die of constipation.) Imagine being forced to become a violent, scary person, just like everyone around you, just to survive.

Have you ever seen HBO's "Oz"? It's a tiny bit over the top in the frequency and grislyness of its depiction of prison life, but it is rooted very much in reality.

Now, you may say that anyone who commits a crime deserves this, and whether you are right or not is open to debate. But the point is that it IS punishment. And even if it were not, the more important point is that the bad people are off the streets and locked away where they can't hurt you or me. And that is really all that should concern us.

And finally, realize this: prison is a breeding ground for criminals and madmen. Take a dumb kid who sold the wrong guy some pot and throw him in jail for five years. This same kid, had he not gone to jail, would probably have stopped selling pot and gone on to have a normal decent life. But after a few years in the joint what you have on your hands is a man who is angry, violent, and completely transformed by a vicious culture that teaches him to be a much worse human being than he would ever have become on his own.

And that is a very foolish and fucked up thing for a our society to be doing. Maybe some day it will wake up.

------------------
Stoidela

******Thesaurus: An ancient reptile with an excellent vocabulary******

Phil and other friends from the old AOL board can attest to the fact that on most issues, I'm a pretty conservative guy. For most of my adult life, this was also true of the death penalty. Even through law school, I always believed that society had the right to determine that certain offenses could be punishable by death.

Indeed, I still feel that way. But after serving as a judicial clerk for the Illinois Supreme Court (which means as an attorney I assisted one of the Justices in researching and drafting judcial opinions), I came to realize that the whole judicial framework for death penalty cases was an incredible waste of time and effort. I'm not sure what the ultimate answer is, but it always appeared to me that crimes which were ultimately punished by a prison term (even life in prison as the ultimate sentence) were resolved in a few years tops. Bring in the death penalty as the ultimate sentence, and the appeals are dragged out for an insufferable time, sometimes more than a decade. We end up basically taking convicted capital crimanals and supporting them in prison; taking the suspense out of it wouldn't make much difference.

By the way, as an aside, here in Illinois we've had a spate of death row inmates exonerated by new found evidence or DNA techniques. Imagine, if there had not been a death penalty, would any of these inmates gotten the scrutiny needed to be exonerated? I think not. They would have been just another convicted felon serving a long sentence.

The passion that supports this kind of debate can lead to interesting results.



------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

Stoidela: "And finally, realize this: prison is a breeding ground for criminals and madmen. Take a dumb kid who sold the wrong guy some pot and throw him in jail for five years. This same kid, had he not gone to jail, would probably have stopped selling pot and gone on to have a normal decent life. But after a few years in the joint what you have on your hands is a man who is angry, violent, and completely transformed by a vicious culture that teaches him to be a much worse human being than he would ever have become on his own."

Are you suggesting then that the crime be ignored? What do you suggest we do with minor criminals?

Assuming that no other solution can be thought of and that prisons must persist, your very statement lends itself to supporting the utter removal of major criminals since they will then be unable to breed more major criminals (I assume you understand that itself is the hard criminals and madmen that affect the minor criminals into making them harder and more vicious).

About the original question, I support the death penalty for a few reasons:

1) Some crimes are so terrible and the proof so complete that no punishment that isn't cruel or unusual fits the crime. I wouldn't support for example locking a man in a small dark room, with nothing to do for the rest of their lives since as ARG said above that would be truly more terrible than death.

2) The "proof" that death penalty is not a deterrant to murder is highly circumspect as are many statistics. Anybody care to debate whether guns prevent more crimes than they start? (this is rhetorical). I believe that if it were properly enforced it would be (see Cons #1 below). As it is the death penalty is likely not a deterrant because there is little bite behind. It is hardly ever set as an actual sentence, and as mentioned elsewhere appeals can last 15-25 years in some cases. It is not hard to imagine that somebody (a criminal) might not be too fearful of a potential death so far off. If the death penalty were implemented more often and with a greater degree of speed then I think it would be more dreaded.

3) There is little reason to lock a man up for life. Assuming that a life sentence were to be truly a life sentence (i.e. no parole).

Cons:

1) One problem with the death penalty is the enforcement of it. The entire appeals process (if not the judicial system itself) is out of whack. It makes no sense that we allow appeal after appeal over a variety of issues.

2) If prison sentences were carried out with much less parole chances, I might actually change my mind on this (despite Pros #3 above). I find it personally very frustrating that criminals laugh at justice. If criminals feared the judicial system without the death penalty then I would would have no trouble supporting such a judicial system.

However, I am not a diehard supporter of the death penalty. It does bother me a bit that society views killing as a solution to a problem, but I do believe that the death penalty could be a tool against crime. It probably isn't as it currently exists.

I use to be pro death penalty and having the executions held in high school gynmasiums, then I decided to do some research into the subject so as no make my bias-ness at least intelligent. Now I am anti death penalty, not because it is a final. Not becuse some consider it murder. Not because there may be possible killing of innocent. And not because it might not be a deterant after all. But, brace yourselves, it is a waste of money.
It costs more to run through all the appeals before the guy is fried or released, than to keep him in solitary the rest of his life.

Now I think public trials should be held in school gymnasiums, in a controlled enviroment, so kids can see first hand the consequences of actions.

Big Iron, for some prison is NOT a punishment. There are some crimminals who like it and commit crimes specifically to go back.

For most of you posting on this thread, you like most of Americans don't seem to understand that almost all people on death row (I'm NOT saying ALL, for there are some who, while guilty of their crimes don't belong there.) have been in prison multiple times for violent offences and are beyond hope of ever functioning in any type of society, including IN prison. My stepfather works as a counsler in the Va prison system, and he worked on Va Death Row for over 10 yrs, where he was known as the counsler who worked for prisoner issues, taking the prisoners side most of the time and in his opinion all but ONE of the prisoners put to death during his time there deserved it.

If you want to understand what I'm talking about go research James and Linwood Briley and tell me if you don't think those psychos needed to be put to death.

Oh yeah, let me Pick a Nit, the term "murder" is a legal defintion meaning a willing, unlawful homicide. Calling the Death Penalty murder is implying that it is illegal, which it is not. I can understand a disagreement with the death penalty, but trying to imply it is illegal, even if you consider it immoral, shows that you are trying to evoke an emotional response to make a point instead of using facts. Face the facts, The Death Penalty is not Murder, until is is made Illegal.

wduty

[[Big Iron, for some prison is NOT a punishment. There are some crimminals who like it and commit crimes specifically to go back. ]]


So making THEM submit to torture and inhumane conditions is OK, I guess, huh?

[[For most of you posting on this thread, you like most of Americans don't seem to understand that almost all people on death row (I'm NOT saying ALL, for there are some who, while guilty of their crimes don't belong there.) have been in prison multiple times for violent offences and are beyond hope of ever functioning in any type of society, including IN prison.]]


Putting aside the fact that from time to time the guy on death row isn't guilty period, I'm aware of all that, and it is really beside the point as far as I'm concerned


[[ My stepfather works as a counsler in the Va prison system, and he worked on Va Death Row for over 10 yrs, where he was known as the counsler who worked for prisoner issues, taking the prisoners side most of the time and in his opinion all but ONE of the prisoners put to death during his time there deserved it. ]]


Well, then -- it's settled! <g>


[[If you want to understand what I'm talking about go research James and Linwood Briley and tell me if you don't think those psychos needed to be put to death.]]


Again, do not flatter yourself that there is something you are discussing that most people don't understand. Death penalty opponents know full well that most (or at least many) of those under sentence are vile and virtually irreemable. We still think it's wrong -- society should be better than that.


[[Oh yeah, let me Pick a Nit, the term "murder" is a legal defintion meaning a willing, unlawful homicide. Calling the Death Penalty murder is implying that it is illegal, which it is not. I can understand a disagreement with the death penalty, but trying to imply it is illegal, even if you consider it immoral, shows that you are trying to evoke an emotional response to make a point instead of using facts. Face the facts, The Death Penalty is not Murder, until is is made Illegal.]]


"Good morning, Tautologies R'Us."

Katmandu:

Presently there is entirely too much focus on rehabilitation.Nowadays,
it has become politically incorrect to state that the main focus of the
penal system should be to punish, not to rehabilitate.

Are you out of your mind? Or just waking up from a coma you went into back in '78? There is virtually NO focus on rehabilitation these days.


Why are we
trying so desperately to rehabilitate these people rather than focusing
on punishing them for their crimes and keeping them out of society so
they can not do any more damage?

We're not. We should be.

I know, we're trying to make
them into "productive members of society", but why?

Again, we are NOT trying to do any such thing, and we absolutely SHOULD BE.

BECAUSE (oy) to treat inmates as we do now pretty much GUARANTEES that we will create bigger, badder, madder criminals for the future. And most criminals WILL get out some day (and don't even go there re: "let's keep 'em all locked up" - yeah, guy steals a car, locked up for life. No, dont' think so.) so it behooves us, for our OWN SAKES, to see to it if we can that the men who emerge from the system are BETTER, not WORSE. And if that doesn't make sense to you, then my explaining it further won't help.

Regarding your ideas for the money we would supposedly save if we stop doing what we are NOT doing, which is itself a ridiculous idea, we won't do any of those things. So why not use the money to save ourselves from the criminals of tomorrow, eh?

concentrate on improving the lives of a bunch of deadbeat
criminals.

No, not improving their lives, improving THEM so that they won't BE deadbeat criminals all their lives, constantly harming people and draining the society. DUH.

Big Iron:

Thank you!

wduty:

Man, for a guy who has a relative working in the system, you just don't get it, do you?

Criminals dont' "like" prison.... what they LIKE is what we all like: feeling SECURE. And if you have spent years and years in a culture of violence, with no control whatsoever over the simplest tasks of your daily life, with no clue how to function as a normal human being in the real world, prison seems alot safer, more secure, and more comfortable than dealing with that big bad world out there.

And i know INTIMATELY whereof I speak. The man I lived with that I mentioned earlier? The first time he got out, after spending his life, ages 18-29 in the joint, he was thrilled of course. (He had been sent to military school as a young man so he had grown up in a regimented way already) He was also a basket case. He had no idea how to cope with life on the outside. He was lost. And after about 2 years of living a legal life that absolutely overwhelmed him he couldn't take it anymore and he very conciously and deliberately went into a bank and robbed it, went outside, crossed the street and sat on a bus bench and waited for the cops to come and get him. When he got out again a few years later, after he and I had been together and broken up, and he'd married and had a son, he was freaking out again and did the same thing. The judge basically told him that he wasn't going to make it easy on him by locking him up. He told him he was going to be on probation and he was going to have stay on the outside and learn to cope. He committed suicide a year later.

And THAT is what prison does to people in our society. He was a good man, a very intelligent, funny, good hearted man. He'd had a very difficult childhood and committed a petty crime when he was 17, stealing $16 from his employer, who prosecuted him to the full extent of the law and got him thrown in a very tough adult prison. He made a couple of friends of some older guys who protected him at first. Then the older guys got out or transferred or something and he was on his own, and scared to death. A big baddass dude had been threatening to rape him. So he stole a sledgehammer from the toolshed and had it in his cell in case the guy came after him, which he did. My friend went after him and killed him in front of the captain of the guard, who went on to testify on his behalf at his trial. He still spent the next 10 years in prison. He NEVER would have killed anyone on the outside.

This man was so screwed up by prison, I couldn't even do sweet things lovers do, like surprise him or goose him, because he went into survival mode immediately. The few times I did it he turned on me like he was gong to kill me, and explained to me why I couldn't do that to him. He had spent his whole adult life being afraid of everyone, and on guard for his life.

Prison sucks. It doesn't have to be that way.



------------------
*************
I used to worry about Newt. Then I started worrying about the fact that the sun stopped
producing neutrinos in the early '80s, indicating that its internal fusion process had
stopped. But that was too scary, so now I worry about fashion.

Testing...testing...

I can do that. This is my thread.

------------------
*************
I used to worry about Newt. Then I started worrying about the fact that the sun stopped producing neutrinos in the early '80s, indicating that its internal fusion process had stopped. But that was too scary, so now I worry about fashion.

Big Iron, once again my point is proven, using emotional backlashes to attempt to prove a point is not how you when a debate. And putting words into my mouth and attaching meanings to what I do say that conflict with what I actually said only prove that when you can't win a debate with facts, then sling emotional garbage. Not the way to sway my views over to your side. By using these tactics you only strengthen my resolve in my opinions and (in my eyes) make you look like a blubbering idiot.

Stoidela,

First, if crimminals don't like going to prison, how come there are many young gang members who don't consider themselves as "men" or "real gangbangers" until they've gone to that gangbanger finishing school known as prison? There have been enough news reports and studies reporting these facts.

Second, sorry to hear about your friend. I understand that under circumstances such as prison he had to become hard to survive. However, once he was out, he made a choice , like you said, a concious decision to go back in. There are many people in society who have problems such as this and they get some kind of help for it. As a "friend" of his, I for one would have suggested that he seek help for his problems. (you didn't say if you did or didn't attempt to get him help, and if you did then I think that was a noble thing to do.) And don't tell me he and/or you could not afford it. In any state you can walk into any state run mental instution and commit yourself and get tax paid help and getting out of a instution when you committed yourself is alot easier than getting out if you are committed by someone else.

Another question about your friend, when he was released the first time, was he released on parole? if so, did he ask his parole officer for help?

Sorry, if I don't sound sympathetic, but IMHO, when he made the decision to go back inside, it sounds like he did it while endangering an innocent person. It is hard to have sympathy for someone who does that.

For the record, I HAVE NOT recommended torture or harsh punishment on ALL crimminals. If you read my previous post, (and if you don't seem to "get it", I'll make it easy on you) I have only made statements on the people on Death Row NOT on the General Prison Population. As far as I understood this thread, it is about the Death Penalty and not about the prison system or about crimminals in general.

My position is very simple:

I believe that there are people in our society who are beyond ALL hope. If said person commits several (or possibly one VERY heinous) violent crimes, Then I believe that those crimes should be punished by Death. Not as a detterent, not for revenge, simple punishment. You make your decions, take your actions, and you should suffer the consequences.

There are truely evil people out there, the Briley's, Dahmer, Berkowitz, etc. and I think that they should face the Ultimate punishment.

Again, do not read this and think that these are my feelings for ANY other type of crimminal, it is not.

wduty

First, if crimminals don't like going to prison, how come there are many young gang members who don't consider themselves as "men" or "real gangbangers" until they've gone to that gangbanger finishing school known as prison?

I hope I don't need to point at the logical fallacy that not all criminals are "gangbangers," and neither are all gang members criminals. Ergo, this sentence has no general-purpose application to the topic of prison or the death penalty.

There have been enough news reports and studies reporting these facts.

Can you, you know, cite one so we can read it ourselves?

Oh, BTW, all of you who claim to have no problem with the innocent being executed as a necessary consequence of the death penalty: Does it bother you that that means the person who actually committed the crime for which a completely innocent person has been killed is still free?

Oh, BTW, all of you who claim to have no problem with the innocent being executed as a necessary consequence of the death penalty: Does it bother you that that means the person who actually committed the crime for which a completely innocent person has been killed is still free?>>> Phil

But is it not ironic that if the death penalty was abolished, there probably would not be any interest in exonerating these innocent folk?

Think about it. The reason newspaper columnists in Chicago and Northwestern's journalism department in Evanston were in a tizzy over Rolando Cruz's wrongful conviction for murder was that he faced execution. I submit that without the noteriety of being convicted of a capital crime, Mr. Cruz would still be in prison, just another criminal serving his sentence.

I actually am bothered by the concept that innocent people might be executed. I'm even more bothered that the death penalty is applied disproportionately to african-american criminals. But if we were to abolish the death penalty, would people be rushing forward to defend these wrongly convicted murderers?




------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[[Big Iron, once again my point is proven, using emotional backlashes to attempt to prove a point is not how you when a debate.]]Doody

Right, uh huh -- this despite the fact that you're not clever enough to highlight how this ostensible "point" was somehow proved. BTW, learn how to debate intelligently before you presume to tell others how to "when" debates.

[[ And putting words into my mouth and attaching meanings to what I do say that conflict with what I actually said only prove that when you can't win a debate with facts, then sling emotional garbage.]]


Except I didn't do that, pinhead. You suggested that prison is no punishment for some -- with the clear implication that more must be done to make it punishment. If you can't make your intent clear, don't blame the rest of us.

[[By using these tactics you only strengthen my resolve in my opinions and (in my eyes) make you look like a blubbering idiot.]]


Remind me again why I should care if a pea-brain like you claims to think I'm a "blubbering idiot."


[[For the record, I HAVE NOT recommended torture or harsh punishment on ALL crimminals. ]]


Brilliant -- he denies saying that when getting indignant at my suggestion that he wants to torture SOME prisoners, and IN THE SAME POST later admits that's just what he wants! Bravo!!!

[[If you read my previous post, (and if you don't seem to "get it", I'll make it easy on you)]]


Well, you get an "A" for ability to use meaningless cliches.


[[ I have only made statements on the people on Death Row NOT on the General Prison Population. As far as I understood this thread, it is about the Death Penalty and not about the prison system or about crimminals in general.]]


So the constitution doesn't apply to those on death row?

[[My position is very simple: ]]


Well, you've got THAT right at least.


[[I believe that there are people in our society who are beyond ALL hope. If said person commits several (or possibly one VERY heinous) violent crimes, Then I believe that those crimes should be punished by Death. Not as a detterent, not for revenge, simple punishment. You make your decions, take your actions, and you should suffer the consequences.]]


It's ALL punishment, for the most part, Einstein -- the issue is what is the PURPOSE of the punishment. Here, it is plainly retributiuon, and all your denials won't change that fact. Not that I feel retribution has no place in the criminal justice system, but it's dishonest to deny that this is the main appeal of executions.

The thing I have found most fascinating in this colloquy is the number of participants who have stated their willing acceptance of the fact that, given the existence of the death penalty and the imperfectability of human institutions such as the judicial system, human beings must inevitably be executed for crimes of which they are either factually or morally not guilty.

Yet these same people clearly affect a moral superiority to those they would condemn to death, when by their very own words they clearly demonstrate their own moral depravity. In fact, based on my personal experience as a correction officer, I must say that I consider a lot of the 'cons' superior in that they do not 'front' any moral justification for the acts they commit. But anyone who, for the sake of satisfying their own degenerate sense of moral superiority by supporting a system which must ultimately guarantee the legalized murder of any innocent person in the name of all the People of a sovereign state, necessarily calls for their own execution.
===========================================
"In some ways, prisoners have it over outsiders. We can see where the bars are."

This is probably the most interesting thread I've read so far. I really enjoy hearing some thoughtful commentary from both sides of the fence.

Just a thought:

As a general rule, the people who support capital punishment (At least the ones I've met) are conservatives who "Don't want government messing in their lives". Fair enough. They don't trust the government to collect taxes fairly or teach their kids properly in public schools. That's fine. My question is this: If you don't think any level of government is competent enough to fix the potholes in your street or run a school system, why would you trust the government with life or death situations?

[matt_mcl]

If you think that any human system of justice is infallible, then you are ignorant. If you think that no person has been falsely condemned to death, then you are naive. If you think that even one innocent person, ripped from their life and their passion and put to death at the hands of the state is in any way justifiable, then you are evil.

-Joshua W. H. Steiner

[december]

This thread reads more like religion than sociology, but here goes...

1. It's popular to assert that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but where's the proof? Common sense seems to say that the greater the punishment, the greater the deterrent. Can those who disagrees to refer to appropriate studies supporting their position?

2. The joke about the death penalty's "low rate of recidivism" might not be so funny if your loved one was a murdered prison guard, a victim of Willie Horton, etc.

3. It's just as unfair for an innocent person to be murdered as to be executed. A lot of people have been killed by convicted murderers.

[Stoid]

3. It's just as unfair for an innocent person to be murdered as to be executed. A lot of
people have been killed by convicted murderers.

So let's kill a few more to make it alright? Good grief.

The Steiner quote is excellent!

[Big Iron]

[[1. It's popular to assert that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but where's the proof? Common sense seems to say that the greater the punishment, the greater the deterrent. Can those who disagrees to refer to appropriate studies supporting their position? ]]


I can't point to any offhand, but I know from my studies in criminal law that this is the overwhelming consensus of learned people who have looked at the issue. Indeed, they generally find that, within reason, increadsed penalties don't have a strong deterrent effect. What deters people is the likelihood of getting apprehended.

Few serious death penalty proponents continue to argue that it serves a deterrent purpose.


[[2. The joke about the death penalty's "low rate of recidivism" might not be so funny if your loved one was a murdered prison guard, a victim of Willie Horton, etc. ]]


I'll bet it's hilarious to everyone else, though, huh?

Willie Horton, right -- thanks for the red flag.


[[3. It's just as unfair for an innocent person to be murdered as to be executed. A lot of people have been killed by convicted murderers.]]


Nice logic.

wduty
Member posted 07-27-99 03:57

“Stoidela,
First, if crimminals don't like going to prison, how come there are many young gang members who don't consider themselves as "men" or "real gangbangers" until they've gone to that gangbanger finishing school known as prison? There have been enough news reports and studies reporting these facts.”

I don’t see how this point supports your argument. If prison is so comfy, why would spending time in it prove that you’re a “real man”? The whole point of prison being something to be proud of is that it’s so hard to survive in it that anyone who does is “tough”.

Hollywood has been a source of pro-death penalty propaganda for decades. Look at virtually any action action/thriller: Speed, The Net, the Die Hard movies, the Lethal Weapon movies, and you’ll see a disturbing philosophy underlying the plots of the movies. Every crime (except those committed by “the good guys”; it’s strange that those supposedly fighting for “law and order” end up breaking several laws and creating almost as disorder as the bad guys) results in either one of two events: either the perpetrator is killed, which is a good thing, or (rarely) the perpetrator get away without any punishment, which is a bad thing. Virtually never is any criminal actually arrested and brought to trial. In fact, the one time that the two Lethal Weapon cops arrest people, they get off on a technicality, and so the cops have to hunt down the bad guys and kill them. The justice system is seen as "coddling" criminals, and killing the only way to secure justice. The basic idea is that there’s only two types of people; “bad guys”, who hurt “good guys” and all deserve to die, and “good guys” who fight against “bad guys”.

To DIF: well said. The decision to kill someone is, in my view, the most serious moral act one can commit against another person. Satan said “I suggest a systematic way of making sure that if you take a life, you will have yours taken from you.” According to this, anyone who participates in an execution should die. Now, I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I have the feeling that what Satan meant to say was “anyone who takes another life without my approval should lose their life”. I find that to be conceited (the attitude, not the speaker). Why do you have the right to decide who lives and who dies, but other people don’t? Ultimately, any system of morals will be arbitrary, but I believe that in opposing the death penalty, I am reducing the arbitrariness of my own personal code. Anyone who supports the death penalty is basically saying “unnecessary killings are acceptable in some situations, and unacceptable in other, and I have the right to say which are which”.
Some might say “well, it’s not me that’s deciding, it’s society”. Yes, your opinion, all by itself will probably not affect whether or not a person is executed. But that doesn’t mean that you aren’t making a personal decision to condone it. Suppose the country was taken over by Nazi and the Holocaust was resumed in the US? Wouldn’t you object to that? So what’s the difference between that and what’s happening now? Is it that you’re just going along with society? No, in the hypothetical you’re going against society. What’s different is that in the hypothetical is that you personally have made a decision about who deserves to die, and found that it severely deviates from society’s. And when a bunch of people get together and decide who to execute, no individual is solely responsible for the deaths, but that doesn’t mean that everyone can point at someone else and say “it’s society that’s doing it!”
Furthermore, I don’t buy this argument that society has special rights that do not derive from the rights of its constituents. I don’t believe anyone has the right to kill anyone else except in self defense or as a deterrence (when no other form of deterrence is available). Therefore, I don’t believe that just because a bunch of people get together and call themselves a “society”, they suddenly get the right to kill anyone they please. For those of you who support the death penalty, I’d like to pose that old rhetorical question: “Why is that one person on his own kills one person, he’s called a murderer, but when a bunch of people get together and kill a bunch of people, they’re called soldiers?”
I agree that the fact that there is a remote possibility that an innocent person might die isn’t necessarily a reason to stop doing something; if it were, I wouldn’t drive above 5 mph. But the possibility of executing an innocent person isn’t remote. It happens all the time. Even if you, in principle, support the death penalty, don’t you agree that our society is too far from a just one for a conviction for a capital crime to provide the level of certainty involved in executing someone? Usually, the evidence consists of a confession and/or witnesses. Anyone that thinks confessions are never coerced is quite naïve [wow, where did that umlaut come from?], and the witnesses are often themselves criminals that have been promised reduced sentences in exchange for their testimony, regardless of the truth of their testimony. Also, remember that you don’t have to kill anyone to commit a capital crime. Pretty much any felony can be a capital offense.
BTW, I don’t think that the SCOTUS saying the death penalty is C&U is the same thing as the Constitution explicitly stating such.
Additionally, I don’t see that the death penalty has been shown to be any more of a deterrent than life imprisonment. Saying that this is “common sense” isn’t too persuasive; humans, especially criminals, are hardly logical. People engage in risky behavior all the time, even when it can result in death. I really think that if anyone is willing to ignore the possibility of life imprisonment, it is highly likely that they’ll ignore the possibility of death. I see the burden of proof in this matter as resting with those that claim that the death penalty is a deterrent, rather than those that claim that they see no conclusive evidence of such.
It has been suggested that such conclusive evidence may be found in statistical studies of states that do or do not have the death penalty. However, I really don’t think that enough control can be exercised over death penalty policy for statistical methods to be valid.

jayron 32
Member posted 07-26-99 02:13 PM
"However, again, certain crimes are so heinous as to merit permanent removal from society. There should, for example, be zero tolerance for rape. If you rape a woman, you have displayed sufficient lack of respect for human life to have forfeited you Human Race membership card."
I find the idea of capital punishment for rape to even more hypocritical than for murder. At least in murder cases, the punishment is on the same level as the crime. I don't think that we, as a society, should be putting ourselves on the same level ass criminals, but apparently other people think that we should. But in by execution of a rapist, society is commiting a worse act than the criminal, and that seems ridiculous to me.
I don't believe that rape is about human life so much as about respect. Rape is a sign that a man has been convinced that sexual access to women is a right rather than a privilidge. This is certainly an attitude I think that should be vigourously discouraged, but not one I believe causes its holder to "forfeit" his right to life. The idea that anyone could "forfeit" their right to life simply because of their point of view seems ridiculously totalitarinist. This is exactly the arrogant, I-get-to-decide-who-dies sort of attitude that makes me opposed to the death penalty. Would you advocate the death penalty for hate speech? After all, they seem to display a “sufficient lack of respect of human life” to lose their “Human Race membership card’. The basic idea behind the death penalty seems to the idea that huma