Death Penalty?

[songbird36]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20050301/ts_nm/court_execution_juveniles_dc_5

The US Supreme Court has just declared the juvenile death penalty unconstitutional. Should the death penalty be allowed for any crimes and if so, which ones, and why?

[Claverhouse]

Treason ( but only in monarchies, since you can't commit treason against a republic: one can only betray a person, not a state that exists in the imagination ).
Rape ( If proven ).
Serial/Sex Killings ( In GB, the West husband and wife team: in America Dahmer, Gein ?, etc. ).
Hurting Animals.
Mass-Murder ( Cambodia, USSR, American Indians, etc. )
People Trafficking.
Annoying Smokers Regarding Their Harmless & Enjoyable Pastime.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Undoubtedly a few more I can't think of; but 'Religious Fanaticism', 'Being Boring', 'Aggressive Atheism', 'Paying Low Wages', and 'Starting Unnecessary Wars' are probably somewhere amongst them. ]

[YardGnome]

Annoying Smokers Regarding Their Harmless & Enjoyable Pastime.


YES!

[songbird36]

Hey - I wasn't expecting this thread to turn to mush on the second post!

lol

[Thermo]

A big problem is that it is cheaper to hold them for life than to kill them.

[songbird36]

Are you serious?

[Chicken]

I say no. If murder is a crime, then it is a crime. There should be no exceptions. Not only is the death penality murder, it is also premeditated.

[Swift]

A big problem is that it is cheaper to hold them for life than to kill them.Why is that? I thought it was cheaper to kill them...

Anyway, I think death penalty is too quick and too soft for some criminals. They have to rot away in jail, thinking about all the things they are missing right now, the joy of liberty, etc... Comfort should be limited to a minimum, and if possible, convicts should make themselves usefull by forced labour.

On the other hand, some guys will never understand or regret what they did wrong, or their crimes are just too gruesome, and it would be a waste of money to keep them alive in jail.

Swift

[SensEye]

You can see my opinion here:http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1618

[songbird36]

I guess the arguments fall into a number of categories:
(1) Moral (is it right)?
(2) Economic - the cost
(3) Practicality

NZ abolished the death penalty around 50 years ago for everything (and even at that time it only still existed for treason).

[Thermo]

Swift:
Legal challenges make it more expensive.

[songbird36]

Ah - good to know we have some good old fashioned red necks on this site..

hehehe.

Now shall we talk about the merits of the chair versus lethal injection?

[Dman]

I say no. If murder is a crime, then it is a crime. There should be no exceptions. Not only is the death penality murder, it is also premeditated.

Yep. What’s wrong with that? A soldier in a war is committing pre-meditated murder as well, and everyone seems to accept that as justifiable (considering they believe the war itself is justifiable).

If someone chooses to commit a heinous act against a member of society, that society should have the right to treat the guilty party as it seems appropriate, including murder. My only argument would be to find a more cost-effective way of doing it.

Tell me the "moral" reasons it should not be done.

[Crispy]

Ok a morale reason

My no 1 only problem with the death penalty is that innocent people can be misjudged and condemned to death for crimes they have not committed, and I am sure that I have heard of cases where an innocent man or woman has been committed to death for crimes that were later proven to be carried out by someone else.

I am still very split on this issue though as I have not fully decided that execution is either right or wrong, I can understand the logic from both sides for and against.

[CoHo]

When it comes to the falsely convicted death penalty or not, there is no good outcome.

So you sit in jail for the murder of your children and 20 years later someone comes by and says "Oh, funny story, see we left some evidence in the bottom of a drawer that proves you were actually innocent, my bad!"

I don't see that as being a better alternative then the death penalty.

[Chicken]

Yep. What’s wrong with that? A soldier in a war is committing pre-meditated murder as well, and everyone seems to accept that as justifiable (considering they believe the war itself is justifiable).

If someone chooses to commit a heinous act against a member of society, that society should have the right to treat the guilty party as it seems appropriate, including murder. My only argument would be to find a more cost-effective way of doing it.

Tell me the "moral" reasons it should not be done.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with everyone on this.. In fact, I don't agree with war at all. Sure, it happens, but it doesn't make it right, either.

In America, citizens are treated as inidividuals (supposedly) as far as rights go. Each individual is free to do what he or she likes as long as it does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of another person, or group of people.

A good way to put this is.

Society = Parent
Individual = Child
Hitting = Murder

The parent tells his child not to hit other children. When the parent finds out that his child has hit another child, he hits his child to discipline him. Therefore, teaching the child, and other children around, that hitting is an acceptable method of control once the child has gained enough ground. So when the child loses control, the child turns to hitting. Big surprise.

In other words, if society is going to preach about there being crimes horrible enough to end someone's life over, then maybe they should take a step back , relook, and rethink their own actions. They are the one's condoning murder, which they so often claim to be one of the most sinful crimes. In fact, what are the prisoners on death row most commonly there for? Murder.
If society is getting the message that the answer to solving problems is killing people, then naturally, what does law enforcement expect to happen? They are sending the message that it's OK to kill people as long as you can get away with it, and have the support of many. People have to learn to practice what they preach.

Ever wonder why gangs are so powerful? They know the system and they manipulate it, because it is flawed.

I guess the death penalty is reasonable if you don't mind living around a bunch of hypocrites, but personally, I find it rather taxing.

Oh, and if you're worried about your money going to prisoners, then maybe you can find a way to get all those innocent people out of jail/prison and you'll have solved your financial problem. And perhaps you'll have also retained your dignity.

----

Murder will get you into hell. Unless, of course, you're doing it for a good reason.

Tell me, who will be left to decide what these "good reasons" are?
I'm sure we'd all like to go back to being killed for having sex before marriage, or something to the equivalent, just because society says so.

[PonderBee]

In my view the death penalty should be applied only to those convicted of the most horrific crimes, the conviction based on actual proven fact - not circumstantial evidence and not "beyond reasonable doubt." I believe that prison is just too damned comfortable for some of the bastards that walk the face of this planet. You might want to believe that the most evil prisoners eventually get what is coming to them - but that is not necessarily true.

[Boneca]

A good way to put this is.

Society = Parent
Individual = Child
Hitting = Murder

The parent tells his child not to hit other children. When the parent finds out that his child has hit another child, he hits his child to discipline him. Therefore, teaching the child, and other children around, that hitting is an acceptable method of control once the child has gained enough ground. So when the child loses control, the child turns to hitting. Big surprise.This analogy assumes that if a child wasn't hit by his parents, he'd never hit another child. That's simply not true.


Murder will get you into hell. Unless, of course, you're doing it for a good reason. If you believe there is a hell, that is. For me, that's just not a valid argument.


I'm sure we'd all like to go back to being killed for having sex before marriage, or something to the equivalent, just because society says so.The definition of what is a crime has nothing to do with the existence of death penalty. Do people get life-time sentences for having sex before marriage?

[Claverhouse]

Oh, I forgot property developers.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Vivisectionists come under the Hurting Animals quota: they ought to be shot or bombed on sight. ]

[songbird36]

Well I nominate smokers then...

Oh but wait..they're imposing it on themselves anyway...

[Dman]

Ok a morale reason

My no 1 only problem with the death penalty is that innocent people can be misjudged and condemned to death for crimes they have not committed, and I am sure that I have heard of cases where an innocent man or woman has been committed to death for crimes that were later proven to be carried out by someone else.

I am still very split on this issue though as I have not fully decided that execution is either right or wrong, I can understand the logic from both sides for and against.

If that's the only moral reason not to have the death penalty, it's pretty weak. Like others mentioned, you would also need to abolish any form of imprisonment for that matter. It's immoral as well to lock up an innocent person for life, so should life imprisonment be abolished? Bah.

[Dman]

Well, I don't necessarily agree with everyone on this.. In fact, I don't agree with war at all. Sure, it happens, but it doesn't make it right, either.

Even to stop people from being killed in gas chambers? Or if soldiers were marching down your street, raping and killing along the way, would it not be right to stop them? Nonsense. If someone is trying to kill you, is it * right * to kill them first? If someone is trying to kill another person right in front of you is it * right * to kill the aggressor before he kills the other person? I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift. At some point you have to reconcile idealism with reality.


In America, citizens are treated as inidividuals (supposedly) as far as rights go. Each individual is free to do what he or she likes as long as it does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of another person, or group of people.

A good way to put this is.

Society = Parent
Individual = Child
Hitting = Murder



This analogy does not work for many reasons. I think Boneca already outlined some of them.


I guess the death penalty is reasonable if you don't mind living around a bunch of hypocrites, but personally, I find it rather taxing.

I don't see how living by a set of rules and being punished for violating those rules is hypocritical. It's not right to imprison anyone, but we imprison people for violating rules - is that hypocritical? Your argument discounts the entire concept of punishment. Should no one be punished for anything? How do you punish someone without being "hypocritical", according to your reasoning?


Oh, and if you're worried about your money going to prisoners, then maybe you can find a way to get all those innocent people out of jail/prison and you'll have solved your financial problem. And perhaps you'll have also retained your dignity.

Yes, we all know * everyone * in prison is INNOCENT!

----


Murder will get you into hell.

Hmmm... that explains a lot...



Unless, of course, you're doing it for a good reason.

Tell me, who will be left to decide what these "good reasons" are?
I'm sure we'd all like to go back to being killed for having sex before marriage, or something to the equivalent, just because society says so.

Nah, everyone should just do whatever they please, no matter whom it harms, cause god will sort it out in the end. I'm goin' lootin'!

[knome]

The death penalty doesn't actually prevent crime. It probably worked better back in the day when they'd hang someone in front of the town as a warning, but now days the threat is a ghost one. You don't come face to face with it. It's not real. It's just a petty vengeance. "You killed him so we'll kill you back."

I don't think the purpose of the legal system should be vengence. Justice, but not revenge. These seem to me distinct concepts.

Considering the sheer numbers we( being Americans) have on long term incarceration, it has always seemed to me that establishing small closed towns would perhaps be a good way of handling the people imprisoned. Not modern ventures, mind you, but more of thh Amish type farm community dwellings. Get them perhaps even to be self sufficient.

[snarled]

The death penalty doesn't actually prevent crime.

Well...it sure does make it harder to re-offend.

[Claverhouse]

Not modern ventures, mind you, but more of the Amish type farm community dwellings. Get them perhaps even to be self sufficient.
Dear God, even my implacable justice has limits to the cruelty allowed...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[jimkopelli]

Lethal injection and the chair... these do cost too much. What happened to throwing people off a cliff? It's just as humane... it only hurts for a second, and you get to fly...

[Miss Anthropic]

Swift:
Legal challenges make it more expensive.
Actually there would be no more appeals for someone on the way to the electric chair than for those stuck in prison for life would there? I mean everyone in prison has a right to the appellate process whether or not they received the death penalty. So along with the expensive appellate process if they lose we have to house them for life at something like $75,000 per inmate per year instead of offing them.

Actually the death penalty would probably be a deterrant to crime if the system were a little more fast and loose with it. But then there is the problem of those wrongly convicted....

My actual feeling on the subject is that death is an easy way out for those convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. They should have to spend the rest of their days in a little cell with only a bed, sink and toilet. No TV, no cigarettes, coffee, snack foods, visitors or phone calls. Give them 3 basic meals a day and water to drink. Offer them a book to read, a piece of paper and pencil and let them out to walk for 30 minutes a day. Now that would actually be punishment. Well, to an INTP it might not be so bad......But an ENFJ would suffer!

[songbird36]

The death penalty doesn't actually prevent crime. It probably worked better back in the day when they'd hang someone in front of the town as a warning, but now days the threat is a ghost one. You don't come face to face with it. It's not real. It's just a petty vengeance. "You killed him so we'll kill you back."



It prevents *that* person committing another crime and it's cheap and efficient.

How's that for a Chicago School argument?

[Eileen]

I'm against the death penalty for (surprise!) religious reasons.

[Star]

Considering the sheer numbers we( being Americans) have on long term incarceration, it has always seemed to me that establishing small closed towns would perhaps be a good way of handling the people imprisoned. Not modern ventures, mind you, but more of thh Amish type farm community dwellings. Get them perhaps even to be self sufficient.

I say we ship them all off to Salusa Secundus, and create an elite Imperial fighting force.

I'm against the death penalty for humanistic reasons. I think anyone can be rehabilitated.

[Chicken]

This analogy assumes that if a child wasn't hit by his parents, he'd never hit another child. That's simply not true.

If you believe there is a hell, that is. For me, that's just not a valid argument.

The definition of what is a crime has nothing to do with the existence of death penalty. Do people get life-time sentences for having sex before marriage?


Actually, the analogy does no such thing. It's simply an example of how hypocrites operate. Of course, there are other ways of dealing with infractions of the law, that is all it's demonstrating. Funny.

And btw, the last bit was sarcasm.

[Chicken]

Even to stop people from being killed in gas chambers? Or if soldiers were marching down your street, raping and killing along the way, would it not be right to stop them? Nonsense. If someone is trying to kill you, is it * right * to kill them first? If someone is trying to kill another person right in front of you is it * right * to kill the aggressor before he kills the other person? I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift. At some point you have to reconcile idealism with reality.



This analogy does not work for many reasons. I think Boneca already outlined some of them.



I don't see how living by a set of rules and being punished for violating those rules is hypocritical. It's not right to imprison anyone, but we imprison people for violating rules - is that hypocritical? Your argument discounts the entire concept of punishment. Should no one be punished for anything? How do you punish someone without being "hypocritical", according to your reasoning?



Yes, we all know * everyone * in prison is INNOCENT!

----



Hmmm... that explains a lot...




Nah, everyone should just do whatever they please, no matter whom it harms, cause god will sort it out in the end. I'm goin' lootin'!

People have different beliefs. Get over it.

[Shai Gar]

self defence is the only reason to kill. and the death penalty isnt self defence.

[Miss Anthropic]

I think anyone can be rehabilitated.

My my! Aren't we optimistic! Have you ever met a sociopath?

[PsiKik]

I am opposed to the death penalty because it does not deter
crime and gives a false sense of security.
Those that favor it seem to think that if the death penalty is in
place they can just sit back and relax while crime is detered.
There has never been a real effort in any society
to get to grips with the causes of crime which are a large
part due to the entire way society is structured.
There is not enough of an understanding that many problems
have no solution only prevention.

[Swift]

If that's the only moral reason not to have the death penalty, it's pretty weak. Like others mentioned, you would also need to abolish any form of imprisonment for that matter. It's immoral as well to lock up an innocent person for life, so should life imprisonment be abolished? Bah. You can still release an innocent prisoner, but you can't revive a dead one. Ever thought about this? :blink:

[Swift]

Swift:
Legal challenges make it more expensive. What do you mean with legal challenges? And why are they more expensive than housing a criminal for life?

[Swift]

I am opposed to the death penalty because it does not deter
crime and gives a false sense of security.Those that favor it seem to think that if the death penalty is in place they can just sit back and relax while crime is detered.True.

There has never been a real effort in any society
to get to grips with the causes of crime which are a large
part due to the entire way society is structured.Some people are actually BORN with a lust to kill, rape, whatever... Me think we can get rid of them the easy way.

There is not enough of an understanding that many problems
have no solution only prevention. True.

[PsiKik]

I should add that I think that crimminals are for the most part not deterred by the
possible punishments because :

1) they think they will get away with the crime

2) the crime is commited in a mental state not conducive to thinking about the consequences of their actions. eg drunkeness, mental illness

Would the certainty of being caught deter crimminals? Not in the case of those in severe mental states.

[Claverhouse]

You can still release an innocent prisoner, but you can't revive a dead one. Ever thought about this? :blink:

I've never really hankered to revive Heinrich Himmler.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dman]

People have different beliefs. Get over it.

Some logical, some coocoo. Yes I accept that.

[Dman]

You can still release an innocent prisoner, but you can't revive a dead one. Ever thought about this? :blink:

Wha...? You're kidding! Oh no!

Of course I have. The point being argued was morality. Yes you can release an innocent prisoner, but was it moral to lock him up for most of his life?

The better argument for or against the death penalty was brought up earlier. What are we hoping to accomplish with it. According to the law, it is ostensibly a crime deterrent. I think most would agree this is bogus. The real argument is whether it is justice or vengeance.

Personally, I would rather bring back the days of chain gangs and hard labor, which I would find to be preferable to a death sentence. Work the SOB to death, make life miserable for him until the end of his days. Vengeance? You bet. Justice? Yep. A deterrent? Possibly more so than the death penalty.

Of those opposing the death penalty, what do you think about that? If someone was innocent, they would not be killed, so they could be released. And those guilty who were eventually released would be very unlikely to do anything to get sent back to an environment such as that. Or is it "cruel and unusual" punishment (as if imprisonment itself isn't)?

[Star]

My my! Aren't we optimistic! Have you ever met a sociopath?

This is a mental illness and should be treated as such. Death is not a treatment.

[MacGuffin]

This is a mental illness and should be treated as such. Death is not a treatment.
There is no effective way to treat sociopaths.

[Star]

There is no effective way to treat sociopaths.

Yet? Seclude them and study them until there is. Wow, and I thought I was cynical. You think extermination is a better way to deal with them?

[Claverhouse]

Yet? Seclude them and study them until there is. Wow, and I thought I was cynical. You think extermination is a better way to deal with them?
DAY: 6463 TIME: 14:03 Also Present: DC Furtwangler, DI Gunby, Peter Yangel, Phd., Amanda Snoggling Phd.

- Mr. West, we'd like to study your childhood again. Go back to when you were three and four months, plus six days. What exactly did your mother say that morning ?

- I see. And you relate this to why you and your wife kidnapped girls for well over a 20-year period, and tortured them to death in your basement ? Let's discuss again why you buried them in parts around your house. What did you dream about as a little boy ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[songbird36]

Heh...touche

Hang 'em high I say. If I was undecided before, the posts on this thread have more than adequately served to convince me of my own position now...

[Star]

- I see. And you relate this to why you and your wife kidnapped girls for well over a 20-year period, and tortured them to death in your basement ?

Har. ;P

Really though, killing such people solves nothing. Anyone who would do such a thing is, IMO, extremely sick, or a product of the society that produced them, and should be looked at as a warning and not disposed of and forgotten.

I don't think this is me being F, either. I think it's more the P's extreme distaste for the irrevocable decision.

[MacGuffin]

Yet? Seclude them and study them until there is. Wow, and I thought I was cynical.
I doubt there will be a way to treat them outside of some type of brain surgery.


You think extermination is a better way to deal with them?
No.

[booyalab]

I think Hollywood has encouraged these notions suggesting that half of the people on death row have additional, secret evidence hidden under their beds in a dusty little box at mom's house or in a ditch in Oklahoma that proves their innocence...and all that is needed is some noble fighter for justice (journalist..long lost cousin researching family tree etc) that will appear out of nowhere and discover this "criminal"'s plight and find the secret hidden evidence and if they just have enough time then everyone will see that this alleged serial killer was actually the victim of some massive chinese mafia conspiracy...

[Thermo]

What do you mean with legal challenges? And why are they more expensive than housing a criminal for life?

Obviously this isn't the best source, since it is biased. I don't have any problem believing lawyers and the political nature of the issue drive up cost.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html
- In Florida, each execution costs the state $3.2 million, compared to $600,000 for life imprisonment.

[Thermo]

Actually there would be no more appeals for someone on the way to the electric chair than for those stuck in prison for life would there? I mean everyone in prison has a right to the appellate process whether or not they received the death penalty. So along with the expensive appellate process if they lose we have to house them for life at something like $75,000 per inmate per year instead of offing them.

Actually the death penalty would probably be a deterrant to crime if the system were a little more fast and loose with it. But then there is the problem of those wrongly convicted....

My actual feeling on the subject is that death is an easy way out for those convicted and sentenced to the death penalty. They should have to spend the rest of their days in a little cell with only a bed, sink and toilet. No TV, no cigarettes, coffee, snack foods, visitors or phone calls. Give them 3 basic meals a day and water to drink. Offer them a book to read, a piece of paper and pencil and let them out to walk for 30 minutes a day. Now that would actually be punishment. Well, to an INTP it might not be so bad......But an ENFJ would suffer!

1.) cost - it is to expensive.
2.) Death isn't a punishment, we can't even explain what it is. I agree with you, but you are forgetting the worst part...the other prisoners.

[Sackanaka]

Another issue torn by morals; I too agree that, though unfortunate, costs v benefits for the community in whole is more important than that of a potentially innocent (either of action or of mental capacity/intent) individual. They do give some time for the individual's innocence to be proven prior to the execution right? If not then that ought to be changed, at least until the cost of holding them is sufficiently significant to outweigh the benefits of holding them.
Perhaps there ought to be some sort of method for executing those condemned to life (or ensured til death) or death; those who plead guilty to the most heinous of crimes (see second post of thread) can be put to death, while those who don't are to be placed in confines (til death or proven innocent).
Supporting family or others involved with the convict could be made to pay, maybe not entirely but in part, for the convict's incarceration costs. If there is no support, the convict could be made to "pay" personally to the taxpayers via services. Of course, the convict may not comply, which would lead to more reason to put them to death. Again, the innocents who would be forced to cooperate with undeserved obligations would be unfair, but really, how do you get falsely condemned for murder or other death-warranting crimes with sufficient reason if you weren't at all involved?

At least Claverhouse is having much fun with this thread :lol:

[songbird36]

The appeals process (which is usually long and protracted) more than adequately protects people against the risk of false accusation.

I see no merit in the "innocence" argument whatsoever.

[songbird36]

And I was hoping somehow that Claverhouse may see fit to enlighten us on some suitable medieval forms of punishment that could be used on the transgressors...

[MacGuffin]

The appeals process (which is usually long and protracted) more than adequately protects people against the risk of false accusation.

I see no merit in the "innocence" argument whatsoever.
Except that in the state of Illinois several death row convicitons were overturned due to the investigations by a Northwestern University graduate journalism class.

Eventually Illinois put a moratorium on the death penalty after a total of 13 overturned death penalty cases.

What about other U.S. states that didn't have a graduate journalism class to do the work of the justice system?

[songbird36]

Well I can't help it if these crims have bad lawyers acting for them.

They should hire me!

[Thermo]

The appeals process (which is usually long and protracted) more than adequately protects people against the risk of false accusation.

I see no merit in the "innocence" argument whatsoever.

Sacco and Venzetti.



Well I can't help it if these crims have bad lawyers acting for them.

They should hire me!

I doubt they can afford to. The United States only kills poor people.

[MacGuffin]

Well I can't help it if these crims have bad lawyers acting for them.

They should hire me!
Exactly.

You can sit for the NY bar right now!

[booyalab]

I doubt they can afford to. The United States only kills poor people.

and they say the rich and poor gap is widening *scoff*

[Claverhouse]

And I was hoping somehow that Claverhouse may see fit to enlighten us on some suitable medieval forms of punishment that could be used on the transgressors...
Scarcely. I don't believe in torture, unlike the estimable Mr. Dershowitz, nor any cruelty. Nor keeping people locked up too long.

Don't mind them being topped, though.

They're going to die sometime anyway.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[songbird36]

UOTE]
Scarcely. I don't believe in torture, unlike the estimable Mr. Dershowitz, nor any cruelty. Nor keeping people locked up too long.

Don't mind them being topped, though.

They're going to die sometime anyway.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Yes. Just hypothetically let's take this BTK (Bind, Torture, Kill), Lutheran Scoutmaster guy in Kansas, who's just been charged with serial killings from the 1970s-90s. If Kansas has the death penalty he sure as hell has it coming his way.

Is he going to want to rot in jail for the rest of his life as opposed to being quickly zapped? I think not. We're all better off without him giving interviews from jail.

[Thermo]

Yes. Just hypothetically let's take this BTK (Bind, Torture, Kill), Lutheran Scoutmaster guy in Kansas, who's just been charged with serial killings from the 1970s-90s. If Kansas has the death penalty he sure as hell has it coming his way.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Mahatma Gandhi


Is he going to want to rot in jail for the rest of his life as opposed to being quickly zapped? I think not. We're all better off without him giving interviews from jail.

Why are they all filing appeals then?

[songbird36]

Wouldn't have picked you for a bleeding heart liberal Thermo...

:lol:

[Dman]

I reiterate - SLAVE LABOR.

[sbw]

A big problem is that it is cheaper to hold them for life than to kill them.

how?

Scott

[Thermo]

Wouldn't have picked you for a bleeding heart liberal Thermo...

lol I have a military crew cut, too. I take some conservative and some liberal positions usually pretty extreme at that and probably fall somewhere in the middle.

[PsiKik]

Two sayings that sum up my attitude to the legal system.

The law is like the Ritz hotel, everyones welcome.

The law does not discriminate, both rich and poor men are prohibited from sleeping on park benches.

[Shai Gar]

i would love to live in your country PsiKik

too bad the rich can sleep anywhere they want and can shit all over homeless people if they wanted to

[indie]

I'm still undecided about my stance on the death penalty.

I can see and understand why the law calls for some criminals to be executed, but at the same time, the process is so extremely screwed up (at least in the US it is) that it takes YEARS for people to get their sentences carried out . . . it's such a burden to society. But at the same time, the "humane" type death penalites that are legal don't seem to fit the crime . . .

Deep down, I guess I believe in something like Karma. In this life, or whatever semblance of a "next" life or continuance of consciousness or whatever you want to call it, if a person has not paid penance or felt regret for their doings, they will "suffer" in some sense, regardless of human action.

[heeroyuy]

I say we ship them all off to Salusa Secundus, and create an elite Imperial fighting force.

And eventually get taken over by an offshoot slave group who somehow or another ends up in the desert and rides the abandon "Liberators" which Bush left there after The First Great Purge of Pseudo-Peace before the Humanitarian Jihad unleashed fury against all those which were Bush and created law against creating that which resembles Bush? I don't think so!

No, but seriously, I don't think the death penalty is right, but I see the logic behind it. My reasons are based upon morals, so I won't agree, but it's a decision I guess society has to make and grow up about. Prisons can rehabilitate people, but the way they are now? I doubt it. We need to work on this, some people can be helped-some can't. We need to work on it.

Edit: In addition: It is by will alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the juice of sopho that thoughts acquire speed, lips acquire stain, stain becomes a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

[Sackanaka]

Sorry for another useless post, just wanted to mention that I saw Dead Man Walking the play, playwright Tim Robbins. Anyone else seen it (if it is performed elsewhere as well) or seen the movie?
A little too focused on Christian ideals to capture the entire picture that we're trying to see here on this thread, but it does support the idea that even authentic Christians, not OT'ers, ought to do away with death penalties.
I'm still gonna have to say that there are probably cases which "justifiably warrant" the penalty of death, but I'm all for reformation of sorts.
Too bad I suck at politics and law :'(

[ppc]

There have been far too many innocent people and just in the recent years that have been let off death row who were innocent as hell in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One person is too many people to accidently kill just because some people wanted to get some revenge on some other people. In the mean time we ruin our country and try to pretend that the death penalty actually deters crime - it doesn't - and who knows how many people who REALLY never did it actually didn't do it and have been put to death.

State sanctioned killing/murder seems very wrong and very facist/1984'ish.

[garak]

My view of the death penalty is simply that I don't want the government to be able to kill me. There are lots of other reasons I disagree with it (like what ppc mentioned), but the first reason is enough for me to be against it.

[Architectonic]

I can't believe so many people voted yes.. The poll also lacked a "depends" option... ;)

[Claverhouse]

In the mean time we ruin our country and try to pretend that the death penalty actually deters crime - it doesn't - and who knows how many people who REALLY never did it actually didn't do it and have been put to death.
And who knows how many people who REALLY did it and were never caught and executed and carried on with their lives happily ever after, and in some cases killed extra people each year ?


State sanctioned killing/murder seems very wrong and very facist/1984'ish. :)
I hope this is some kind of joke, but I'm deeply afraid it isn't...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[ppc]

And who knows how many people who REALLY did it and were never caught and executed and carried on with their lives happily ever after, and in some cases killed extra people each year ?

:)
I hope this is some kind of joke, but I'm deeply afraid it isn't...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

So it's ok to kill innocent people because some guilty ones get away is your argument?

What do the shortcomings of law enforcement in this instance have to do with the rights of people?

No that wasn't some kind of a joke - I don't know why you would think it is - oh wait yes I do you thought that was a clever insult. Ad hominem anyone? What's wrong can't make a rational argument? That's ok there are many people who are just like you all over this world, you should find many people who can relate.

[coffeezombie]

"Some crimes" would include Osama Bin Laden's role in the World Trade Center terrorist attacks. When thought of that way, the high number of "yes" votes is not surprising.

[Claverhouse]

So it's ok to kill innocent people because some guilty ones get away is your argument?

What do the shortcomings of law enforcement in this instance have to do with the rights of people?
Should you read more closely I offered no opinion on the innocent suffering, as they must have done, knowing the intelligence of the legal systems, and the necessary limitations placed upon knowledge of whatever truly happened elsewhere. But your argument could be easily turned by pointing out that if you do not punish wrong-doers, they may/will continue to kill.
The supposition that the innocent may be punished if taken to it's logical conclusion leads to having no penalty at all, and no law. Should you say that execution is 'different', then I can only say that I would not enjoy 30 years in any prison for something I had not done ( or had done ), let alone 20 years in Marion or Gitmo.

As for 'rights', many many nazis, or Germans/others acting with them were state-executed after the war for crimes it was wholly impossible in nature to commit ( I am not referring to the bestial massacres of the victors, nor the extensive torture used to extract the confessions; both disgusting and dishonest: merely to the sentences handed out by the courts established, perhaps illegally I grant, but courts and legal sentences of death nonetheless ). Admittedly this was state-murder of people innocent of those crimes ( not all of them, but certainly the impossible ones ); but most had committed other crimes, and I can't think they were a great loss.




State sanctioned killing/murder seems very wrong and very facist/1984'ish.:)
I hope this is some kind of joke, but I'm deeply afraid it isn't...No that wasn't some kind of a joke - I don't know why you would think it is - oh wait yes I do you thought that was a clever insult. Ad hominem anyone? What's wrong can't make a rational argument? That's ok there are many people who are just like you all over this world, you should find many people who can relate.
I was incredulous at the emotional and unhistorical point, such as it was.
Killing murderers --- and many many people for even very minor crimes --- has been around since we first organised into tiny tribes, almost continously. To make a fallacious and emotive link with 'bogey-words' that arouse instinctive horror in the ordinary mind is impure. The worlds of '1984' or 'Fascists' can be rightly linked with many horrors, but to select Capital Punishment and make it have a connection with them is much the same as linking meat-eating with them. Or liking music or art. All cultures have done these; and execution too.

Not to mention that in '1984' they do not execute: more commonly they change your opinions about the state. And in real life the fascists executed proportionately less people than most countries around in the 30s: Mussolini was a vainglorious unpleasant socialist, but he wasn't bloodthirsty: he imprisoned people. Even the National Socialists in Germany didn't execute or imprison much pre-war: but they made up for it during the war.

If you want to make any link, it could be to communism and the purges when millions died both in Russia and China, in peace, through legal machinery. But as I've pointed out that too would be unfair, because it is not singular to communism any more than fascism or '1984'.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[ppc]

Should you read more closely I offered no opinion on the innocent suffering, as they must have done, knowing the intelligence of the legal systems, and the necessary limitations placed upon knowledge of whatever truly happened elsewhere. But your argument could be easily turned by pointing out that if you do not punish wrong-doers, they may/will continue to kill.
The supposition that the innocent may be punished if taken to it's logical conclusion leads to having no penalty at all, and no law. Should you say that execution is 'different', then I can only say that I would not enjoy 30 years in any prison for something I had not done ( or had done ), let alone 20 years in Marion or Gitmo.

Right so then why bring up the fact that some people got away and didn't get in trouble? Is that you just trying to see if I would fall for it or what? Who cares if it can be turned around? We aren't talking about what happens if you don't punish people?


As for 'rights', many many nazis, or Germans/others acting with them were state-executed after the war for crimes it was wholly impossible in nature to commit ( I am not referring to the bestial massacres of the victors, nor the extensive torture used to extract the confessions; both disgusting and dishonest: merely to the sentences handed out by the courts established, perhaps illegally I grant, but courts and legal sentences of death nonetheless ). Admittedly this was state-murder of people innocent of those crimes ( not all of them, but certainly the impossible ones ); but most had committed other crimes, and I can't think they were a great loss.

yeah maybe they weren't but what if one of them really some how never ordered anyone to be killed and was simply rounded up with the rest of them? That's ok in your mind.



I was incredulous at the emotional and unhistorical point, such as it was.
Killing murderers --- and many many people for even very minor crimes --- has been around since we first organised into tiny tribes, almost continously. To make a fallacious and emotive link with 'bogey-words' that arouse instinctive horror in the ordinary mind is impure. The worlds of '1984' or 'Fascists' can be rightly linked with many horrors, but to select Capital Punishment and make it have a connection with them is much the same as linking meat-eating with them. Or liking music or art. All cultures have done these; and execution too.

Not to mention that in '1984' they do not execute: more commonly they change your opinions about the state. And in real life the fascists executed proportionately less people than most countries around in the 30s: Mussolini was a vainglorious unpleasant socialist, but he wasn't bloodthirsty: he imprisoned people. Even the National Socialists in Germany didn't execute or imprison much pre-war: but they made up for it during the war.

If you want to make any link, it could be to communism and the purges when millions died both in Russia and China, in peace, through legal machinery. But as I've pointed out that too would be unfair, because it is not singular to communism any more than fascism or '1984'.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

The reason I bring up 1984/Facism is because of how this issue goes so far into peoples lives and makes very permanent choices. The state comes before the person, and I disagree. As the religious right types say I would rather err on the side of life.