Punishment. It’s the same as the death penalty. In fact, it is the death penalty. In point of fact, the government is still taking the person’s life with a life w/o parole sentence. It’s just slower, and doesn’t make everyone feel so icky.
I have no moral problem whatsoever with the death penalty…if we could guarantee that its application were perfectly fair. As it is, in many cases, we can not. Therefore, I am against the death penalty in most cases.
That said, in Tookie’s case, I believe that not only was his guilt in the four murders established beyond doubt, but also his complicity in hundreds of other murders, rapes, home invasions, robberies, and assaults was firmly established. Actions have consequences, and human lives call out for severe consequences.
In this case, justice was done, and an unrepentant murdering bastard is worm food. I’m OK with that.
Ah yes. The StarvingArtist approach. Drop a huge pile of dumb into a thread and then make a joke instead of responding to peoples points. :rolleyes: How lovely.
From the NY Times, October 5th, “Serving Life, With No Chance of Redemption”:
The article goes on (sorry for not linking, but it’s a service paid for by my firm). Is life without parole in maximum or supermaximum conditions more humane than a death penalty? Or are they two sides of the same coin? I believe the latter.
If I were to be morally opposed to the death penalty, I feel I would have to be as morally opposed to life without parole. Within the current system, as least a convict on death row gets his case reviewed.
As it stands, I am opposed to life without the possibility of parole. It seems to me to a vindictive sentence with no hope of redemption or betterment. Obviously, I am also opposed to the DP.
I used to feel anger at DP advocates, that has been replaced by something closer to pity.
Pity; because they cannot see past a juvenile desire for revenge. Pity; they value human life as little as any killer. Pity; because one should always pity those who are morally and ethically underdeveloped
You can take your pity and your oh-so-superior morality and shove it up your ass. There are individuals out there who are a danger to anyone they encounter, and society needs a way to ensure that they present no danger to the public at large. Williams was an asocial, amoral murderer who should never again have walked the streets free. It’s not about revenge; it’s about protecting anyone who might ever cross his path 30-40 years after conviction. He took no responsibility for his crimes; he showed no remorse. I would question for Williams, had parole been an option, if any remorse he might have shown would have been sincere.
Jump down off your high horse looking down on those who disagree with you. My “juvenile desire for revenge” is no worse than your juvenile naivete.
Shove it. Right up your retentive arse. get off your own high fucking horse for a moment and see yourself for what you are. This has nothing to do with protecting other people (and I really am not talking about Williams alone here) - it has to do with your (hmmm, what to call it - oh yeah) juvenile desire for revenge.
Please note experiences from other countries where the majority of released murderers do not go and kill again. Why? Perhaps they are not brutalised so much. Perhaps they are not hounded and hated forever by the likes of you.
Let me put this in another way. Those in support of the Death Penalty have the moral standing of those they seek to kill. I include you in this D_Odds.
Call me naive all you like. I call you brutal, incapable of compassion and mercy and having no concept o the value of a human life - no matter what the owner of that life may or may not have done
You’re right. I’m not a bottomless well of compassion and mercy. I have to dole it out, and I’ll choose to dole it to the victims of Stanley Williams, to the victims of Ted Bundy, and John Waynce Gacy, and Dahmer, and Manson, and Berkowitz, etc. These are a special breed of bad. This does not mean that every person on Death Row belongs there nor that every person serving life w/o parole belongs there, or that the appeals process should be streamlined. I’ve stated I have enough issues with the way the death penalty is currently applied and carried out, and I have enough issues with the way guilt is sometimes established, to abolish it. The difference is that you are on a moral high horse that says “I’m right, you’re wrong” simply because I believe that some people are unredeemable and that society is better off without them (whether through lifelong incarceration or a DP fairly applied without regards to race or economics of both victim and perpetrator). The difference is that I’m not stating my position is right, your position is wrong, and you are a child for believing as you do. I acknowledge adults can have differing opinions; I acknowledge that adults can have a moral objection to a DP and that is their perogative. It does not make them juvenile.
Whose ass are you trying to blow this smoke up? Really, lets be honest here, redemption? Betterment? Who are you kidding? You oppose the DP (while looking down your oh-so-superior nose at those of us who support it), you oppose life without parole, so that means that you figure that someday, these vicious criminals should be released on the public again( Is there a 3rd alternative I’m missing? I don’t see one), right? I want you to pin it down for me. It’s easy to throw around words like redemption and betterment to make yourself feel better, that high horse you’re on about not killing anyone because it’s morally wrong is an easy one to mount, but I want details. What shall we say to the families of the four people that Tookie Williams murdered in clod blood as we let him walk free? “Well, he’s really, really, really sorry, and he wrote a children’s book saying gangs are bad, so we figure he’s redeemed. Too bad your mother/father/son/daughter can’t be with you on Christmas, s/he would have enjoyed meeting cousin Sam’s new baby” What are you going to say to the victims of the murderer you let walk as they bleed out their life into a gutter, killed because the animal you released couldn’t stop himself from killing again (and that WILL happen) “We’re awful sorry that you are dying, but Mr. Johnson got a college degree in prison. He bettered himself! I just don’t understand this!” Redemption? Betterment? In a pig’s eye. You’re deluding yourself to avoid facing the reality of the situation: Some people are scum and deserve to be executed (or imprisoned for their entire life w/o parole if you prefer). Tell me how you justify otherwise, and why.
Are the murder victims included in this somehow? I believe it’s that very compassion for them that would drive the adoption of something so harsh as a death penalty. Or once again do you just lose all rights and value once you’re dead? How this focus on and compassion for the value of a life often gets transferred, seemingly in it’s entireity, from the murdered to the murderer just mystifies me to no end.
If the death penalty is out there as a law and you violate it at your own disgression and peril, how is it that anyone was “seeking to kill” you?
So your support of the death penalty is NOT predicated on, “It will prevent the criminal from committing any more murders,” since you reject this option that would ALSO prevent any more murders.
So – what specific and unique value, in your view, does the death penalty give us?
Deal.
I absolutely oppose abortion, and I’d love to see it outlawed.
I would have thought that security on death row would be as tight as possible, since these are the ones judged worthy of our worst punishment. One wonders, if we can’t even be sure that a repeat murderer (as D_Odds points out) on death row won’t get loose, how can we be sure of those in supermax?
Even assuming they are never furloughed, attack a guard, transferred from one facility to another, etc.
To the best of my knowledge and google-fu, no one has ever escaped supermax conditions. That’s good, because if they weren’t sociopathic when they went into supermax, they’re likely to be exiting supermax. Prison is prison, and I wouldn’t want to spend time in one even in an enlightened country, where I’m sure an afternoon tea social is de rigeur.
Here’s my point- you can oppose the DP on moral grounds (as I do) yet agree that Tookie did not deserve “special treatment”. Sure, the DP is immoral. But for gawds sakes dudes- picking WILLIAMS :rolleyes: as the “posterboy” to show the DP is wrong is just a damn stupid idea. Williams was evil- if anyone deserved to die it was him. So fercryingoutloud- pick someone the Middle Class can rally behind, willya? Maybe this next guy in line, who’s old & crippled. Why execute him? THAT is a cause I can see getting “Mr & Mrs America” thinking about how the DP is a bad idea. But NOT “Tookie”. Tookie was even a strong argument that “life w/o Parole” isn’t enough- as during his early years the Prison Authorities assert Williams was still helping run the Crips and order killings from behind bars. :mad:
So- don’t pick some hard-core unrepentant mad-dog racist killer. Pick some dude with some real doubt as to guilt- or real repentance & remorse. It’s just plain stupid to pick the Tookies and the Mumias.
Just kidding!