I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. I’m for the death penalty - and lots of it!
But leave it up to the families of the victims to kill the convict face-to-face. If the family would rather not kill the man/woman who killed their son/daughter/brother/sister/father/mother, then the convict serves no more than five years and walks.
Anyone who claims that punishment is about “justice” is full of shit. It is about vengeance and forcing our fellow men and women to remain within the bounds of civilized behavior. The same people who jump to the fore with cries of, “We must have Justice - Hatred breeds Hatred!” are the very same people I see slapping their kids and yanking them around by the arm yelling at them when they act up and disobey. Their actions speak to quickly suppress disobedience by superior force and anger while their words speak of ideals like blind justice, morality and deterrence. Children fully understand which speaks louder.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
I’ve misrepresented myself. I did not think that you were saying that we should drop the whole discussion, but that is how my reply came across. Sorry.
I should have gone on to say that ignoring the deterrent argument is dangerous because some people actually believe it. Some people of influence use this argument and others believe them without questioning. The deterrent argument is a neat little package of justification. If capital punishment were proven to be an effective deterrent against violent crime, it would be very easy to stomach. The reason so many people accept capital punishment is that they truly believe what they have been told. They will continue to believe it as long as we “just drop it”.
You and I seem to be on opposite sides of this debate, but I’m sure that neither of us wants anyone to make decisions based on imperfect information. Although we are challenging each other, we must align ourselves against ignorance, our common enemy, right?
OK . . . and apparently you think this is a good thing that should be taken to its absolute extremes. If you really believe this, there is no way that I will debate this issue with you, and it makes me sad that you use “Samurai” in your chosen name.
What you would get in this system is a society with justice only for the cruel. If you didn’t have the stomach to kill someone, then the criminal is out in 5 years. Why reward the violent?
The DP is about vengeance. Prison is about restraint. Family members of violent crime victims have often turned to the DP to seek vengeance, but usually find themselves satisfied for only a few days. Then they realized that the DP didn’t bring their loved ones back, it just killed yet another person. Lots of DP proponents are “converted” to DP opposition in this way.
Actually, I’ve observed the opposite. The type of people that would slap their kids are more often DP supporters.
Well, if you would take the time to read the Atlantic Monthly article mentioned above, you’ll see that it’s not unheard of for an innocent man to face execution, even with our unwieldy trials and juries.
Or are you saying these people deserve to die because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or that they probably did something else to deserve it?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by MrsBWayne:
There’s no punishment in this country, the whole thing is a joke.
[QUOTE]
Gotta agree with DoctorJ here. And there’s no punishment in this country? I’d like to see you spend a year in prison, and tell us that’s not punishment.
But otherwise, I must agree. Fry 'em all. Give cops rights to kill suspects. It’s not like defendants have a right to a fair trial. This isn’t America, after all.
Well, this puts a new spin on things! Perhaps we should just let them all out. After all, there might be a couple of innocent ones in there.
I say s*** happens. If he wasn’t arrested for this, he could have been killed by a drunk driver while he was walking to his honor classes at school. Then what? You can’t protect everybody from misfortune.
One innocent person is in jail out of how many millions that do the crimes and are back out on the street the next day doing more crime, or those that are sitting in jail for life using my tax money to get some degree they’re never going to use, or other equally frivolous activity.
My brother actually just got out of jail. He served a whole year and a half for kidnapping/murder and for a meth lab that he started while out on bail for the kidnapping/murder thing. He said prison was just like a vacation. No kidding, those were his exact words. Three squares and lots of TV and other activities. Oh, and that he was becoming bi-lingual, learning Spanish from all of his new friends.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never said let them all out. I said people should have a trial by jury. I also stated that the DP is impractical.
Why is it the to some people that a lack of total unreasonable punitive measures equals putting all violent criminals back on the street? Ever heard of a happy medium?
Here’s a radical concept for you: Put criminals in prison, don’t put innocent people in prison. Or is that just being too soft on crime?
tymp: I suppose we had the thread’s shortest debate, then.
tdn: “Justice for the Cruel”?? Like I said, justice has nothing to do with it. If a man kidnaps and repeatedly rapes my 3 year old daughter, I don’t think it’s at all cruel for me to hold a 12-gauge to his head and pull the trigger.
Sentencing someone to house-arrest is restraint: locking them in a prison is nothing but violent vengeance. Perhaps you are are naive as to what goes on behind the doors of a prison.
Please, for every “converted” DP proponent there are ten who were against the DP until their victimizer brutalized them, was convicted, locked up and escaped or was released from prison and become a terror once again.
MrsBW: While I have no problem with shooting a man who’s in the process of placing 50 tons of fertilizer explosive around a day-care center, I can’t see giving the police MORE power than they have. The police force is merely supposed to protect and serve, not decide guilt, innocence and sentence. They should not harass any citizen, nor should they continue the organized highway robbery they relentlessly oppress us with.
DoctorJ: Why this poorly-written article keeps getting linked to SDMB debates is beyond me. Cruz was not guilty of the crime, but he was no innocent man. From the article:
He didn’t “deserve” what happened to him, but surely you can find a better case to cite where the “innocent” man doesn’t implicate himself in the case and isn’t guilty of several felonies. I’m reminded of people who continue to cite Rodney King when police brutality is discussed - Ha!
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
Well, hell! Why don’t we just legalize murder? I mean, s*** happens. If he wasn’t shot and killed by a mugger, he could have been killed by a drunk driver while walking to his honors classes at school. Then what? You can’t protect everybody from misfortune.
Why should my tax dollars support a bunch of cops who are just out there trying to stop murderers, when people are going to die anyway?
No, but that makes you a violent offender all of a sudden. While I (who would never touch a gun, much less fire one) would have no recourse against this hypothetical criminal. You are more violent than I – do I deserve fewer rights than you?
Another scenario – Mr. BadMan kills someone. The victim’s family refuses to personally kill Mr. BadMan. It’s against their principles. Therefore, Mr. BadMan can kill with relative impunity (for some people, a 5-year sentance is nothing). He can’t, however do that to your family. Because you have no problems killing him.
Violence has its own rewards in this case.
Another thing – would you, as executioner, be able to decide how the victim should die? What’s to keep you from torturing him? Or what if you’re a lousy shot, and the guy doesn’t die right away? Wouldn’t a trained professional be a much better choice?
Another scenario – can you see, in a few years, your system breaking down into a vendetta-filled feud between 2 families?
I could think of a bunch more scenarios, but these should suffice.
I can actually see the point of your idea – the avenging family has to see the face of the accused, and have to do it themselves, then live with the consequeces of their actions. In theory, a nice idea. In practice, there is just way too much that can go wrong.
In all, encouraging normally non-violent people to be violent is not the way to reduce violence in our society.
I can understand it is unreasonable to give cops the power of justice right out there on the street. I just get irked when I see some moron risking innocent lives while zooming down a street at 110 miles an hour, in a stolen car no doubt, with a bunch of police cars and helicopter overhead just following the guy and trying to get him to “pull over”! Why can’t the cops just take care of something like that?
I remember being 5 or 6 years old and walking to school. I wouldn’t let my kid at 10 years old ride her bike anywhere where I couldn’t keep any eye on her. It sucks.
Then she goes off to visit her father in Japan, where she can ride off to anywhere she wants to, nobody is going to do anything to here there, at least the chances are very, very, very slim. If you break the law in other countries, they lock you up for a long, long time, and it’s not fun! Why can’t it be like that here?
SW
Agreed. When cops engage in high speed chases, they endanger lots o’ folk. But how do you propose that cops “just take care of something like that?” By killing the driver while he is driving? Certainly that doesn’t put safety first. I’m not real sure what a good resolution would be on this one, but I would love to hear some good ideas.
I also agree with you about locking up violent offenders for a long time. But I strongly disagree with the DP (in case you didn’t figure that out yet ).
tymp, I think a distinction must be made between ‘killing’ and ‘murder’.
Richard Davis tortured and murdered Polly Klaus. He ought to pay with his life for taking hers. I don’t consider the person who has to inject him with the lethal dose to be a murderer.
I don’t think of the death penalty as vengeance…for the state or for the victim. Vengenance should entail ‘getting back’ what was taken, and that isn’t possible.
The death penalty ought not to be considered a deterrent either, because of the instant appeals and the time it takes between the crime and the punishment.
However, I have been wrestling with this for awhile. I don’t think the death penalty should be outlawed either, people like John Wayne Gacy deserve death for the heinousness of their crimes. I would not relish being on the jury that decided that though, even with my doubts, Wesley Alan Dodd, Ted Bundy or Richard Ramiriez, deserve death. I find it offensive when I hear that the family of Sharon Tate STILL has to face Charlie Manson and his ilk at every parole hearing. That is just plain WRONG.
But, I shiver when I hear a prisoner now using DNA evidence and they have been proven innocent. I don’t know what to do with thinking we’ve killed someone who ought not to have been there.
It wouldn’t help my conscience to know sh%# happens, yeah it does, and police make mistakes, and sometimes they lie, and eyewitnesses are just wrong. So, there is the dilemma. I think the death penalty is appropriate, but…it seems like the appeal process should be enough, and yet it isn’t sometimes.
).