:rolleyes:
tdn, I think your post is a little disingenious, and quite a bit misleading. In no way can I accept Starving Artist, his handful of friends and their “warm fuzzy feeling in the 60s” as the “general populace”.
Huh? I never said they were the same.
First you say this as a reply to another thing but I take it this is your stance… right?
You say this about the killer of your SO or child.
So, if they pay that pittance, then they have done for you all that you require of them for the killing of your SO or child?
So, if they pay, then they walk? Or they must be in prison? I’m cornfused…
But if the state ( read society ) says they have to stay in prison while working to make money, then you are okay with that because you didn’t say it yourself?
It sounds to me like you are saying that if a little money is paid, then that is all that needs to be done. The rest is un-neccessary suffering??? How much?
Rivch people can kill poor people as long as they can give anysurvivors their expected income??
Nah… Shirley not?
He was talking about ‘punishment’. The fact that some wrongs are worse than others and require a greater punishment. Not that far-fetched really. There exists a hierarchy of crimes and, for the most part, a heirarchy of punishments. Worse crimes demand more serious punishments.
We just don’t have anything serious enough to dish out for the crime of murder.
So, why can’t we have the DP for the crime of murder when there is 2 or more witnesses and the police have the perp in view also and he still has the weapon in hand at the time of capture which has to be at the time of the crime. ( No one has not left the scene yet )
That is 100% accurate so why not write that into the DP requirements? If it is not within these written and agreed upon very close guidelines, then LWOP is the max sentence. Should work … right?
And for those who have stuck it out this far, you deserve to know where / why I come to this.
In 1991 My eighteen year old daughter was murdered. she was doing nothing wrong. It was cold and brutal. The cops know who did it and I know who did it. He was allowed to walk away because the of the DA would not risk public opinion on his ongoing political campaign. The police ( in private ) confirmed this. I have several good friends who were on the force at the time. They also told me and my son that if anything happened to the guy, “GOD” would not be a good enough alibi and we’d go down. So yes, the fear of punishment has stayed my hand and the . 000000000000 % (since I was not actually a witness ) that I’m wrong. So I have to live with the fact that not only did the system not work, it did not work for the most corrupt of reasons. I have to live with the knowledge that I did not kill the bastard anyway regardless of the consequences and that now that he has left the country, my daughter will never have her killer brought to justice. ( Would you really feel like a father and a man to know you let him walk away? ---- you willing to live with this like I have to?)
And so many of the folks in these discussions think this is a good thing and I should agree that this is justice and the way it has to be.
Laws and justice have nothing in common…
And how many here really give a flying fuck about my daughter and what happened to her? None, you did not even know. You don’t who was innocent and who was not and how many…
All you are is afraid it might happen to you. So no death penalty is the choice.
Come on and walk in my shoes…
And, no it is not just a single bad thing.
I have a sister who was raped by the same guy twice, house break-in and all because they let him out on bail even though he said he would rape her again ( said right in court) ( he had a good lawyer ) if they did. The police did not even put her on extra drive by checks. ( wanna have your sister live with what my sister lives with for the rest of your sisters life?)
No one in the justice system even said they were sorry.
She had to jump though a closed window and flee down the street nude to save her life…
And he keeps getting recommended for parole…
But of course in a civilized society, the victims should not have any say so. Remember all that you have said here if, "God forbid, " it ever happens to you.
:: Not really aimed at Dead Badger, his is just the post I was using for a point I’m trying to make. ::
Wow. Let me first say that I’m so sorry to hear about your sister and especially your daughter. I cannot imagine how much that must suck.
However, one must think that if the asshole got off from LWOP on a technicality, then he would have escaped the DP for the same reason – and maybe even more easily. DP or not, nothing would be different for you. And if you go after this guy yourself, yes, it’s vengeance, and you should go to prison. But I could hardly blame you if you decided it was worth it. (Please note, I am not condoning that course of action.)
So was the guy aquitted? If not, any way of shaming the weasel DA into prosecuting?
Sounds a* little * like you are only outraged by the harm by the government, and a little indifferent to the suffering of the victims of criminals.
Correct. Sorry, should have included a smilie.
For a couple of reasons:
- First, how do we write this law to include all open-and-shut cases, and only open-and-shut cases?
- How do we deal with police corruption?
I am terribly sorry for your experience: it’s awful, and I know I can’t begin to imagine the emotional pain. I can’t come close.
Your story does, however, include a corrupt prosecutor, it sounds like. And I wonder, couldn’t the corruption have gone in the other direction?
Couldn’t a prosecutor who’s worried about an election campaign strongarm the police into making an arrest? Couldn’t he get a couple of cops on the take to claim they’d seen the murderer redhanded? Couldn’t he find a couple of hard-up druggies to claim they’d seen it, too?
I just don’t think it’s possible to design a system that’s immune to corruption and error. Setting aside the moral arguments about capital punishment, I think it’s impossible to have a system that’s foolproof.
Consider that our current system only allows conviction when their guilt is beyond reasonable doubt; isn’t that what you’re suggesting should be the standard? Yet it still has problems.
Daniel
Ah. Gotcha ya. You had me doing some serious head scratching there. :dubious:
GusNSpot:
While what happened to your daughter was horrible, and the lack of a conviction must be terribly hard for you to bear, i’m struggling to see how this case would have been at all affected by whether or not the death penalty was in force.
After all, you said yourself that the guy walked. And, whether he walked away from a long prison term, or from the death penalty, he still walked. It was not the sentence laws that failed you in this case, it was the prosecution. The presence or absence of the death penalty was completely irrelevant.
As for your desire to have the death penalty in open-and-shut cases, it’s worth remembering that, of the 100+ men who have been released from death row after being found to be innocent, every single one was initially found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
:: sighing and getting very tired of constantly having to refute things I never said ::
Kindly point out to me where I said all statistics are meaningless? Did I say that, or did I say that there are certain thorny questions that are a matter of personal opinion and belief versus others that can be answered factually: “GNP of Romainia,” for example?
I never said we couldn’t tell. I said common sense and the natural aversion of human beings to things they fear tell us it works. And also that it is fair and just that if you deprive another human being of life that you forfeit yours.
[QUOTE=tdn]
Ah, but you had a feeling in the 60s. And you’re asking us to accept that over facts and statistics. Sorry, that shit doesn’t fly on this board, and it better not fly in society. As I told mhendo, I’m not expecting you to do anything. I gave my opinion and the reasons I hold it. Make of it what you will.
Again, I didn’t say we’re not talking about the GNP of Romania. I said a subject like the GNP of Romania can be determined by facts and statistics, unlike a Google search of murders vs. executions during the time period of the forties and fifties which cannot because it leaves out too many germane influences.
I would suggest it is those who feel as you do that are going for a warm, fuzzy feeling. In the real world, it’s better to off killers than to make them pay for your wife’s pension.
GusNSpot, I’m very sorry to hear about what happened to your daughter and sister. I hope nothing I’ve said here has opened any wounds or made anything worse for you. You have had inflicted on you what I think is the worse thing that can happen to a human being, and that is the loss of a child. You have my deepest sympathies.
For now I’m going to leave the rest of your post alone and concentrate on just this, as it is at the heart of what I’m trying to get at. “It leaves out too many germane influences.” Yes, it does. I couldn’t agree more. We can’t use the statistics to undeniably prove that the death penalty is not a deterrant. But by the same token, we can’t use it to prove that it is a deterrant, either. That door swings both ways. You say that common sense dictates that it would be. But you haven’t shown any data that bears that out. Just because something is common sense doesn’t necessarily make it the truth.
So in the absence of useful data, what are we to do? Kill people, just in case? Or not kill them, at least until we can find out more? It seems to me that the prudent course is to not kill people until we can find a compelling reason to do so.
No, we don’t kill them “just in case.” We kill them because they deliberately took the most precious gift we know, life, away from another human being. And because they committed that supremely egregious offense, they deserve to pay for it with their own lives. To the degree that this contributes to a safer society and results in fewer murders, so much the better.
The first two sentences are your opinion, which you are certainly entitled to. But not everyone agrees with you. So who wins?
As to the last sentence, we just don’t know that. And we can’t have a system in place that depends so much on that unknown. Do you see what I’m saying?
GusNSpot, I’m truly sorry for what happened to your daughter and you. Please believe me when I say that the sort of miscarriage of justice you’ve experienced grieves me as much as do miscarriages in the opposite direction, and I would like to see the elimination of both. I also can’t honestly say that if I were in your shoes I would not want the killer dead. I used to spend quite a lot of time having the DP argument on another board, and have genuinely tried to imagine what it must be like to lose someone to murder. I pretty much failed, but have heard enough victim stories first-hand to have an inkling of what it must be to have to live with the aftermath. It means I’m unwilling to dismiss arguments about serving justice to the survivors, and I’ve tried to avoid doing so in this thread. I believe the justice system should strive to provide justice to both the victim and the accused, and it’s tragic when it fails in either end. But I believe the process has to be continuous; just as I sincerely hope that your daughter’s killer is caught and put away no matter how long it takes, I want those convicted to always have the opportunity to prove their innocence, if they are truly innocent. The death penalty simply doesn’t allow this.
Left Hand of Dorkness says pretty much what I want to with regard to the implications of your post. You have witnessed first-hand the miscarriages of justice that corruption and self-interest can cause, even in an apparently clear-cut case. It cuts both ways, and in the very example I cited above, an innocent man nearly went to his death because police coerced a witness statement. How can we impose death when we’re so fallible? So far in this thread only one person, spooje, has tried to argue with the fact of miscarriages of justice. His query, while valid, does not prove that miscarriages of justice don’t occur, merely that we don’t know about them. It’s not enough for me. It doesn’t mean I don’t care about what happend to your daughter, or you; it’s just that there are other innocents that need consideration, too. It’s not about concern for murderers; there are normal people in their midst, and we’re not good at telling the difference.
Yup.
It keeps them away from society (preventing reoffense) and it at least partially makes my survivors whole, by giving them the financial support I’m no longer able to give. If, as you now seem to be proposing, I were the survivor, then a financial penalty wouldn’t exactly serve the same purpose (my hypothetical kid isn’t a breadwinner), but I suppose it’d follow in the tradition of awarding money for “pain and suffering”.
They are in prison in order to (1) work to pay my survivors, (2) prevent reoffense, and (3) possibly be rehabilitated. Even if, say, they invent some new way to make license plates and they end up paying my survivors an entire life’s pension in just a few years, we must still consider the other two reasons they’re there before letting them out.
I’m OK with that because it’s serving a purpose other than making them suffer.
No, I don’t see where you’re getting that from my posts.
OK, but why does it require a greater punishment? Only because the greater punishment acts as a greater deterrent? Or perhaps because of some sense of “justice” that can only be served by making the criminal suffer?
If someone is “suffering” because the government won’t kill a criminal for him, that doesn’t move me any more than someone else “suffering” because the government won’t buy him a Porsche. Doesn’t mean I’m entirely indifferent to their plights, only that there’s a limit to what I’m willing to do with my tax dollars to make someone feel better. OTOH, if he’s willing to settle for therapy instead of blood, then I’m willing to pay.
Yes, I see what you’re saying but I don’t think you are seeing what I’m saying.
(Hunh…?)
I said to the degree that it results in a safer society and fewer murders, so much the better. It’s an ancillary reason, not the primary one. Even if no such benefit occurred at all I would still be just as strongly in favor of the death penalty as the appropriate punishment for making the decision to take someone’s life.
Earlier today I read an account of a gun battle that had taken place between a group of Palestinians and Israelis. A 12 year old boy was caught in the crossfire and killed. So a group of Palestinians heard about it and beat two innocent Israeli citizens to death as revenge. They said so themselves.
This is an example of revenge gone haywire. Because of things like this too many people have taken the position that all revenge is bad. I disagree. As I said early on in this thread, that someone should be allowed to continue to draw breath after having purposely deprived someone else of the ability to do so offends my sense of what’s fair and just.
In another thread of this type I suggested an alternative to the death penalty that would come as close to depriving the murderer of the same elements of life that he or she had deprived someone else of but which would still mollify the anti-DP proponents. I suggested that since the killer had deprived his victim of all of the pleasures and diversions and entertainment that they would have enjoyed in life, the killer should be deprived of these same things also. Murder victims can’t visit with their loved ones; they can’t read or write letters; they can’t create art; they can’t work out with weights; they can’t even enjoy sunrises and sunsets. So my suggestion was to allow murderers to live but deprive them of these same things also. Put them in a cell, feed them whatever is necessary to keep them alive, and let that be it. No phones, no television, no newspapers, no visitation, none of anything…just like they did to someone else, someone who, unlike them, had no say in the matter.
But natually I was assailed as a sadistic would-be torturer motivated by a desire to be as cruel as possible. But that is nonsense. I’m motivated by a desire to see killers experience as closely as possible what they inflicted on someone else.
So anyway, now it’s not enough to just put them away but not kill them. No…we have to be nice to them as well. To do otherwise is barbaric. So we come around to where we pretty much are now. People such as you lobby for taking a killer and putting him in a cell somewhere where he can read books and magazines; visit with loved ones; socialize with other inmates (for good or ill); lift weights and exercise; watch television; experience a pleasant springtime breeze; and all sorts of other things they took away from someone else.
And the only reason I can come up with for the proponents of this type of approach is that there are certain people in society who want to be able to sit back and congratulate themselves for being so evolved and having risen above their crass animalistic desires for “revenge” and “justice,” and therefore feel themselves to be superior. And I’m just not willing to accept a system that allows killers to continue to live and derive even minimal pleasure out of life when they’ve deliberately chosen to deprive someone else of the ability to do the same.
Do you realize even vaguely how silly this sounds? Do you know how much money prison laborers make?
And then, what if they kill several people? Is their six-cent-an-hour income going to be split among all the victims’ families? And what if the person being pensioned dies? Is the killer then cut loose? And to get back to our old friend deterrence, is someone going to be persuaded not to commit a murder they are contemplating because they’re going to have to make monetary payments to the survivors?
And what about your statement:
Quote:
“It keeps them away from society (preventing reoffense)…”
What about all the people killed in prison each year by convicted murderers? What about their families and the suffering they go through?
I find it ironic that many of the people who are so concerned with the possibility of innocent people being executed can be so oblivious to the murders that occur because some murderers are put back on the streets (usually through parole if not a no-parole conviction, or as a result of plea bargaining) or are allowed to continue to live in prison. Don’t ask me for a cite, but it is my opinion that more people are killed in a year by previously convicted murderers who are still alive than have ever been killed through wrongful execution.