In this day and age of video/audio tech I believe that there should be ZERO time wasted on legal masterbation. If it walks like you and acts like you and it Is you, you default.
You kill my kid in front of a crowd- you are fucked and I expect a high five.
It is your belief most murders are caught on camera?
No, but if you are captured on video and it is in fact you, you need to stop and face the truth.
The rest of my instant beatdown and or death attitude stands.
School’s starting soon, right?
Ok I’ll bite, Larry’s school of…?
Internet Tough Guy Correction, I expect.
Internet tough guy is incorect.
I was/am flush when I read your comment.
Sorry bout typo should I beat my own ass?
Won’t share any more feelings here.
Well, there’s the rub isn’t it?
That “if it is in fact you” part is the essence of the legal masturbation you’re complaining about.
Perhaps you’d like to share some thoughts, then?
The mistake is thinking we belong in the civilized group of states. We torture. We execute. We slip into countries and interfere with their sovereignty. We are the worst of those countries. We are in that group because we belong in it. We jail a greater portion of our citizens than any other country. We spend more on weapons. We use them often.
Oppose death penalty in all cases. (Yes, even Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, child rapists). Also oppose Life sentence without parole. And oppose self defense killing in most cases. Also support abortion on demand at least until very late in pregnancy. Don’t see any inconsistency in these positions.
Crimes of passion are actually an interesting subject. You could almost make a case for some understanding in those…maybe.
I would be willing to give up on the death penalty if the truly bad people, carjackers, premediatated murderes, kidnappers, were put in slave labor camps and we could actually get some value out of them.
The way it is now, it’s the worst of everything…they stay in very expensive prisons for many years…we need to make prison cheaper. Possibly have a penal colony out in the S. Pacific…just a jungle camp for them to sink or swim in. That would save a lot of money. Or maybe put the tamest in a prison camp where they live cheaply and create value (picking up trash or picking vegetables or whatever) until they are old enough not to be a danger to society.
Is it" escape from New York" time?
I completely oppose the death penalty for both moral and pragmatic reasons.
I am also surprised that so many folks believe that it is an effective deterrent. I think the chances are better that it actually encourages violent crime. Once a person has committed one act worthy of the death penalty, what incentive does he have not to go on a murderous rampage to cover his tracks or dig deeper into a life of violent crime?
And the “who cares if innocent people die as long as we get the criminals” attitude that usually seems to go along with supporting the death penalty certainly can’t help. It rather undercuts the moral position of the people who say murder is wrong when they support murder themselves.
It’s a pain in the ass to have to warehouse all these inmates; some of them for life. And it’s true–there are a certain number of them who can never be “repaired”. Also, it costs a hell of a lot of money to feed and house these people for years and years (though it appears that in the case of life-without-parole murder convicts it is often cheaper to incarcerate them for life then to go through all of the death-penalty prosecution contortions).
The problem is: what the hell else are you going to do with these people? You obviously can’t set them free so I’m afraid the expense of warehousing them is just one more of many expensive prices we pay to live in a free and civil society.
Oh… what’s that you say? Well, OK, since you brought it up. But it’s a rather silly point that you make. Worse than “silly” actually, but since you can’t quite wrap your head around the idea of justice as striven for by a modern, civilized society (as opposed to medieval or frontier justice. Or anarchy).
It really goes without saying. Clearly you can’t kill these people. That would be wrong. And as mentioned above, clearly you can’t just set them free. That too would be wrong. So what does that leave you with?
I thought prisoners DID do work. (Do they really make licenses plates?) I’m not talking about chain gangs, but obviously there’s probably SOME sort of work or occupation that would be useful for them and for the rest of the population.
(As for deterant – I believe the DP usually comes in with first degree murder, in which cases, most defendants generally seem to have the attitude that they’re not going to get caught.)
That argument is absurd.
The government has no more right to imprison people than people have to imprison people.
The government has no more right to give traffic tickets to people than people have to give traffic tickets to people.
Just silly. The government has the right and the duty to protect society; that’s one of its main functions. When a person demonstrates that they cannot live in civilized society (by committing murder and, in my opinion, other heinous crimes), society has not only the right but the duty to remove that person.
The problem I have with life imprisonment is that the person is not totally removed from society. They still have contact with the outside world, can still bog down our legal system with appeals, can still – as some posters have trumpeted – write books that get published.
If we had a “death penalty equivalent” prison, I could probably be convinced to give up support for the death penalty itself. This prison would be one where once you go in you have absolutely NO contact with the outside world whatsoever, period. No visits from family, friends or lawyers, no letters in or out, no phone calls, no email, no Internet access, no TV, no radio, no newspapers. No right to file ANY kind of motion or appeal to the court system. No ability to have ANY contact with ANY part of society. Removed, utterly and completely; as good as dead, to those of us on the outside. Heavily guarded, of course, to minimize the chance of escape.
Nothing would prevent anyone on the outside who cared from working on such a person’s case, digging for new evidence, etc. But until the courts were presented with compelling evidence supporting the person’s innocence, they would remain completely cut off from any contact.
But that kind of prison will never be built. There are enough factions that would consider that kind of total isolation to be cruel and unusual, or contrary to basic human rights (why a convicted murderer should be granted any basic human rights, I’ll never know) that such a prison would never be allowed.
And so I support the death penalty, because it is the only way we have to completely remove those who seriously harm civilized society.