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
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.
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.
“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?
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
This thread reads more like religion than sociology, but here goes…
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?
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.
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!
[[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