Death Penalty - Approve, Disapprove & What Procedure [Archive]

nimrod

02-22-2006, 09:00 AM

hm0504

02-22-2006, 09:21 AM

As the statistics seem to show a strong correlation between having the death penalty and a HIGHer-than-average rate of crime, I strongly oppose it.

nimrod

02-22-2006, 09:29 AM

I personally do not know how to answer this question. Whenever this topic comes up I think on it and do not know where I stand, personally I do not believe in the taking of another humans life, but there are those who's crimes are so hidious, the question of if they deserve to live comes up. If a person kills someone and is condemed to death, does the one who kills "him" derserve to die? To me it is still a murder. I do not believe that a person who willfully kills another derserves human rights, because that person does not value human rights, but they are still human. So I question what to do with them. Do we make them human test subjects, or crash test dumbies? Maybe something akin to what the Germans did to the Jews during WWII? What happened is terrible, but a lot was learned of what the human body can endure. For me this subject brings up more questions that I do not have answers for.

nacktman

02-22-2006, 10:22 AM

If a man could (and did ... see link above) kill another over the lack of toilet paper in the house having the death penalty is of no use.

All the reasoning of an eye for an eye, deterant, etc., for having the death penalty and all the reasoning of cruel and inhumane, senselessness, etc., for not having the death penalty are moot if as a society we foster such reactionary incidents as the one clearly illustrated in the news article cited.

Without the death penalty crime rates are lower for all crime while they are higher with the death penalty and for good reason: Cultures without the death penalty are more apt to be open and less judgmental and crime is not 'necessary' as a means of survival within those cultures because fewer people are ostracized from the mainstream of the culture by differences as they are in cultures that are closed and more judgmental.

Such closed and judgmental cultures have more 'laws' to criminalize differences and therefore make crime a 'necessary' survival tool within those cultures: The death penalty is envoked among these cultures yet they still have high crime rates and its presence does nothing to abate the crime rate.

Indeterminate imprisonment or swift execution is strictly an economic quandry and the soundest economic answer for the quandry is to make it so that the quandry doesn't exist ... but that my friends is another whole kettle of fish.

namedun

02-22-2006, 12:09 PM

What he said http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

Also, I think we should examine more the causes of crime and murder, rather than stand around like fools asking if we have the "right" to kill someone for their crimes.

shãybare

02-22-2006, 12:26 PM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif
No, I do not think watching action movies or violent games causes someone to go out and kill. I do think they influence our thinking of what is right and wrong but not what if it is moral or not.

Having the higher crime rates where death penalties are invoked should be prove that the penalty does little to deter crime.

The criminal system should treat prisoners as mental patients and treat that.

FireProf

02-22-2006, 12:43 PM

This topic can open up a whole case of "canned worms."!

Funny this topic is being discussed. Had a chance to sit and have a cup of coffee with my crew yesterday, while at work, and was approached by a radio personality and asked this same question.

One reply and one only. I will answer it as honestly as I can. There's no definate answer to this question. We all feel differently about it and for many different reasons. The Prof and I may differ for all I know.

I believe in the death penalty. I believe that someone who takes the life of another in that given context (not to be compared to those imposing the punishment) and is found not only guilty but sentence by a jury of their peers and a judge, should be put to death. To me, it seems that those that have suffered the most, the person initially killed by this criminal, are forgotten. All their suffering, pain and ultimate death are placed aside and many say, "it's not going to bring them back, taking the life of another." Why does this evil person get to continue to live, whether it's in prison, in an institution, or on parole.

I think if we really did the math, it does cost us tax payers more to house those on death row for years and years and years, regardless of the court costs. In my opinion.....remember, it's just my opinion......the reason the death penalty does not deter crime, is because we don't impose the death penalty.

That's it...........I'll leave the building and this topic. It's really a topic that will not change anyone's mind, I think.

jon71

02-22-2006, 01:31 PM

Because of my personal faith and John chapter 13 that the death penalty is morally wrong. I am aware that the number one reason people support the death penalty is because some criminals are such a threat to society that they should never be let loose. That is reasonable and I agree. Because of that I support greater use of life without possibility of parole.

Nude in the North

02-22-2006, 02:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by namedun:
I don't really approve of the death sentence, but if you are going to do it, this expensive injection/electrocution crap has to go. I have a simple and effective solution: guillotine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you seen the price of Razor Blades lately??
Imagine how much one big enough for a guillotine would cost.

usmc1

02-22-2006, 02:41 PM

Because I am a left-winger, I mistrust government. Or maybe, because I mistrust government, I became a left-winger.

I am opposed to the death penalty because I do not want to cede to the government the power of life and death. No government should be given the power of choosing who lives and who dies and for what reasons.

Put aside all the nonsense moralizing, ethics, quibbling, victims rights of vengeance and closure, mistakes are made, imposition is uneven, and all the other bilge that gets spouted--no government should have the power to determine the life or death of its citizens.

Once you cede that authority to government, you have ceded all authority. Life is Creator endowed and does not belong to the state.

Futhermore, I think justice can be well served by other forms of punishment.

Nude in the North

02-22-2006, 03:03 PM

Cruel and Unusual?

What's cruel is leaving them on death row for decades while the victims families wait for the sentence to be carried out.

It wouldn't be so unusual if they would actually carry out the sentence in a timely manner. One Appeal or One year should be the limit.

There has never been a repeat offence by anyone that has had the death penalty carried out on them.
It is to save the next victim as much as it is to punish or deter.

Steve

grl66

02-22-2006, 03:06 PM

I used to believe that the death penalty should be used only in extreme cases and where the evidence is irrefutable. Over the years my thinking has changed some what and now I find it extremely difficult to believe that capital punishment would be the correct sentence in any circumstance.

Case in point, and probably the driving force behind my change in heart, was the conviction of Martin Bryant. On April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant allegedly murdered 35 people in a mass killing spree spread over the small Tasmanian township of Port Arthur. He was using high powered rifles and shooting from his right hip, inflicting head wounds with the precision of a crack military shooter. Martin is left handed, has an IQ of approximately 66 and has received no military training. I could rant about the irregularities of this case for a while, but that's not the point here. My initial thoughts on this case were "if ever Australia was thinking about putting capital punishment into place, that's a case that deserves the death penalty" but that was before I read into the case more.

For those who are thinking "he's just been reading the rantings of a conspiracy theorist", the further readings have not, by any stretch of the imagination, proved in my mind that Bryant is innocent. Rather what it has done is remove from my mind the certainty of his guilt and hence any thoughts that this case deserves the death penalty.

Further reasoning for my change in heart comes from the onslaught of DNA testing now days. Michael Evans and Paul Terry (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002706.html) were acquitted of murder some 3 years ago after spending 27 years in jail. What if they had been put to death for that murder prior to them being found innocent?

DNA testing is not the only way new evidence comes to light sometimes many years down the track. What if Geronimo Pratt (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/483.html) had been put to death prior to his finding of innocence? Or more recently, Canadian Rory Christie (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/05/alberta-acquitted-051205.html) in Australia?

Here's a list (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110) of more people tried, convicted, sentenced to death and subsequently exonerated. Towards the bottom of this page (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#executed) is a list of people who have been convicted and it would now appear there is a possibilty of innocence.

How would we feel discovering the innocence of a person who's blood is on our hands? For this reason I can not subscribe to the death penalty. What are the options without capital punishment? Well there's a whole new debate topic.

sw1sweendog

02-22-2006, 03:59 PM

the criminals death should be a slow and painfull as there victims.why should they get the easy death.and for all that oppose,you flip the bill.a piece of rope is alot cheaper than life in prison.

Silverback

02-22-2006, 04:47 PM

SW1* has my vote.

Boreas

02-22-2006, 05:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FMII:
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/worried.gif Those that oppose the death penalty. Have little rationalization of what the survivors go through when a loved one is murdered and/or maliciously molested. The inmates that have been sentenced to the death penalty should be awarded their fate. Keeping an inmate on death row for thirty some years is absurd. Has anyone out there, figured out the cost for his/her incarceration. Over a period of thiryt years? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While a long prison sentence does cost a lot of money and does not reform or rehabilitate, I still am totally opposed to the death penalty. I find it totally distasteful and morally wrong.

Canada abolished the death penalty years ago. One case which helped to get rid of it was that of Steven Truscott. (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/truscott/) In 1959, Steven was a 14 year old boy who was charged and convicted of killing a 12 year old girl. The police railroaded him and witheld evidence from him and the court. There were men in the community who were very real candidates for the crime. He spent 10 years in jail and has never had his name cleared. This is in spite of the fact that there is no way he could have killed the girl for a variety of reasons. There is an excellent book by Julien Sher called "Til You are Dead". If the death penalty had been completed with him, he would have been killed less than a year after the murder. Instead, he has been a productive citizen and has had no trouble with the law for almost 40 years.

The cost in dollars is not the only way to measure things. We have to look at social costs and also into what causes criminals. Simple things like supporting families in poverty, improving education programs for children etc can be far more effective and an investment in the future of our countries.

Qikdraw

02-22-2006, 06:28 PM

Death row inmates should be killed in gladitorial combat on pay-per-view. Death row inmates get to live as long as they are victorious in the arena.

Pay-per-view would help pay for their incarceration, and people would pay through the nose to watch people kill each other for sport.

I think this is the way to go.

Qikdraw

Jason Lee

02-22-2006, 06:41 PM

I oppose the death penalty and believe there are other effective forms of punishment.

Ren

02-22-2006, 07:19 PM

Killing is wrong, even if it's state sponsored. If you read a recent "Mother Jones" magazine, you will find that the cost of putting someone in jail is actually less than sentencing someone to death. But if you're just talking money, you don't have much of a heart.

It is called a department of corrections for a reason. Maybe they should start correcting and stop treating people like animals. Jail needs to be rehabilitative.

Also, perhaps if we didn't have the economic gap that keeps so many down, we wouldn't have the violent crime we have. Crime comes out of desperation a lot of the time.

puffledud

02-22-2006, 07:44 PM

The death penalty is wrong and there are other means of punishment. I agree with shaybare

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The criminal system should treat prisoners as mental patients and treat that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dave

MJ_KC

02-22-2006, 08:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
the criminals death should be a slow and painfull as there victims.why should they get the easy death.and for all that oppose,you flip the bill.a piece of rope is alot cheaper than life in prison. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Carry out the death penalty in a manner as similar as possible to the crime committed by the death row inmate.

I have zero sympathy for someone who commits a capital offense.

l2ltlarry

02-22-2006, 08:45 PM

If you oppose the death penalty, don't you also have to disarm all police officers? People are just as dead when law enforcement is forced to kill someone.

Just a few days ago here in Central Ohio, a policeman stopped a 26-year-old for apparent drunk driving. The officer's dashboard video and audio camera captured the whole incident. The young man, after exiting his car, almost immediately pulled a .45 caliber (large caliber) gun and shot at the officer, just missing him. The officer wrestled with the man, attempting to get the gun away from him. He was unsuccessful and instead pulled his gun and shot the man in the head, killing him. This all happened in a matter of seconds. The audio clearly recorded 2 shots which showed both of them shooting once.

If someone could have stopped the 9/11 terrorists by killing them before they were able to crash their planes, killing almost 3000 people, would that have been wrong?

There are evil people in this world (for whatever reasons they get that way); I think some people grossly, desperately deserved to be killed and no other response is proper.

Having said that, I too am extremely skeptical of our prosecutorial society and what seems too often to be "make-work" lawmaking and law enforcement for job security purposes of those making and enforcing laws. But that indicates a broken system that needs to be fixed and doesn't call for a wholesale disavowal of accurately and properly adjudicated death sentences.

Boreas

02-22-2006, 08:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
Killing is wrong, even if it's state sponsored...... But if you're just talking money, you don't have much of a heart.

It is called a department of corrections for a reason. Maybe they should start correcting and stop treating people like animals. Jail needs to be rehabilitative.

Also, perhaps if we didn't have the economic gap that keeps so many down, we wouldn't have the violent crime we have. Crime comes out of desperation a lot of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

I also wonder why putting on a uniform and going overseas is any better than a criminal who murders. Killing is killing. That is a topic for another thread though and I know it is off topic.

Jason Heh

02-22-2006, 09:06 PM

500,000 murders since 1973,

A little over 1000 put to death for murder,

One number seems rally high, while the other seems low.

You kill someone you should lose the right to live. I think you give that right up when you murder another human.

Still the numbers show, even the threat of death is not enough to stop murder.

I can't see putting someone who was convicted and then they wait 20 years to carry out the penalty. You are a different person, 20 years is too long to make them wait. It's cruel punishment I think.

Some people, Jeffery Dalmer, Manson, The BTK killer, they deserve to live? After all the pain they caused? I'm sorry you make choices in life if you make the wrong one, and you know it. You deserve to die. Ask a family member of one of Jeffery Dalmers victims, someone he ATE, if they think he should have faced and recieved the death penalty. But it took karma and another killer to take his life. Funny how if Jefferys killer had been put to death for his crime, It might have saved Dalmers life. Now his killer is serving 2 life terms instead of 1.

Maybe he'll kill again? Sounds like non-violent crimnals are actually in danger. There are killers mixed in with them. We should worry more for them then life takers.

The death penalty will never stop murder, the numbers show this, it's about paying for your crime.

DNA testing and massive oversight should be instatuted, any question should be checked. The wrong person should never face this penalty. Here is where real oversight needs to be.

You have a video tape of a grown man taking a young girl (12 y/o) from infront of a carwash in Fla. Then she turns up dead.

No appeals, Video tape of the crime....Bang

I say this because a man in Columbus Ohio is on trial for murdering a friend of mine, lovely young girl, in college, a future. They found her in a dumpster........

Once a crime touches you like this......your choice might change.

A DUMPSTER.

l2ltlarry

02-22-2006, 09:07 PM

"Killing is killing?" That's far too simplistic! That's disrespectful of people who defend others by the sometimes necessary use of deadly force. I don't think you would want to live in a society in which evil people get their way but good people don't.

At the end of the new TV show 'Injustice' a couple of weeks ago -- in which an innocent 15-year-old boy had been forced to confess to his sister's murder by homicide detectives lying to him, and when he turned 18, was transferred to prison, then the lead 'Injustice' investigator and his students found the real killer and got his confession by lying to him -- a student investigator asked the lead investigator, "Now the police lied to the innocent boy to get his confession, but then you lied to the real killer to get his confession. Why was it wrong for the detectives to lie to the boy but it was right for you to lie to real killer?" His reply (which I think is priceless, life being not as simplistic as some make it out to be), "Life is complicated."

Ren

02-22-2006, 09:11 PM

Wow, never got applause before.

Re: l2ltlarry --- I think you need to watch "Minority Report". You're asking questions about precognition as described in the movie - where the police go out and apprehend criminals before they commit their crime.

Regarding evil people. There are evil people. Some people are driven to evil by other evil people. Some people are evil, but do it legally under the cover of a corporation or a government. Which is worse? A desperate person who kills another or a filthy rich corporation that keeps people at minimum wage, doesn't provide health care, and kills the local economy. Which has a worse effect on society - the one who harms one person brutally or the one that harms a community subtly? Is it worse that one (the person) does it illegally or that the other (the company) does it legally because it has high powered lawyers who can bend the rules for them? Perhaps there wouldn't be as much desperation if the companies that hold the purse strings weren't so greedy and weren't choking off the societies they impact.

Just food for thought. Brutality doesn't have to be in one fell swoop. Yet the criminals are always the ones who react, not the perpetrators of the system of inequity.

l2ltlarry

02-22-2006, 09:33 PM

"A desperate person who kills another...." What if the killer is not desperate?

As for "killer" or killer corporations, I agree with you. They are slicker than "ham-handed" killers who "only" kill people one at a time or a few at a time or 3000 at a time. To rob people of their life's savings or take their jobs is just a slick way to get people to destroy themselves. Yet so far this is legal, "free market economics" at work.

The preamble to our constitution has the words, "To promote the general welfare". What some corporations are doing could be viewed, by stretching things only a little, as "unconstitutional".

Ren

02-22-2006, 09:40 PM

I would say that if you're killing someone, you're pretty desperate --- just that the desperation can come in many flavors. I think there are many underpinnings of finance, even if the people are considered to be well off, that lead to killing. That or insanity.

Ren

02-22-2006, 09:46 PM

sw1 - I believe Boreas stood up for her beliefs when she made her statement about the military. She's entitled to her belief even if it is unpopular or an affront to you personally. It makes no sense to berate her just because she holds an opinion different from yours. Plus, she's Canadian, so you didn't really put your life on the line for her. I can understand your sentiments, but at the same time I don't think we live in a totalitarian society where we must all think alike.

As for the first part of your post --- it takes a strong person to see one they love murdered and then to not seek the death penalty. It takes someone who believes in a better way to handle the issue --- such as attacking the source rather than the result --- and certainly vengeance will be on a victim's mind. However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there that shows victims not seeking death, a revenge killing really, for the perpetrator of the crime.

For me, it comes down to the government having the right at all to end someone's life, no matter what.

l2ltlarry

02-22-2006, 09:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're asking questions about precognition </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't thinking of precognition, I was thinking of "caught in the act". After 9/11 happened, I think Congress (or someone) decided that the proper course of action, were "plane bombs" to be headed for targets in the future, would be to shoot the planes down before they reach their targets.

l2ltlarry

02-22-2006, 09:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For me, it comes down to the government having the right at all to end someone's life, no matter what. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So disarm all police officers?

Ren

02-22-2006, 09:55 PM

Rehab the causes, not the symptoms, and then we might not need to have armed police officers.

l2ltlarry

02-22-2006, 10:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Rehab the causes, not the symptoms, and then we might not need to have armed police officers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But in the meantime?

I don't think I want to hold my breath until armed police officers are no longer needed.

sw1sweendog

02-22-2006, 10:10 PM

so when the terrorist take out the u.s.a. canada is safe?ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha
thats agood one.

shomymojo

02-22-2006, 10:13 PM

One guarantee...with the death penalty...the person executed...will never kill another innocent victim

OZJames

02-22-2006, 10:16 PM

grl66 QUOTE - the death penalty should be used only in extreme cases and where the evidence is irrefutable

I agree with the above statement. I think neither death nor life in prison is a deterant to murder.

I think a life in prison, hard labour, locked in small cells, no TV , little excersize, no books to read etc is inhumane treatment (e.g. Guantanamo Bay -? spelling). I think many prisoners who have the prospect of suffering that sort of cruel treatment for their whole life would rather be executed.

On the other hand a soft easy life in prison, TV, regular excersize, gyms, work for money, pleasant cells full of personal effects, a good prison library, access to church services, opportunity to study and do University courses, plenty of mates to talk to in jail, medical teatment, regular visitors etc is not sufficient punishment for someone who has committed violent, pre meditated 1st degree murder and the evidence is irrefutable.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

jon71

02-22-2006, 10:52 PM

OzJames you are painting with a broad brush. How easy/punishing prison is fluctuates depending on the seriousness of the crime and various factors. A pickpocket will have it easier than a murderer. The worst are basically kept in a windowless cage for 22 or 23 hours a day, at times maybe 24 (solitary). The worst deserve that. Those who will be released should be reformed and educated with the hope they will be law abiding productive citizens. I know it won't be 100% but that should be the goal. Lifers won't (and shouldn't) get that kind of consideration.

OZJames

02-22-2006, 11:30 PM

jon71 <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The worst are basically kept in a windowless cage for 22 or 23 hours a day, at times maybe 24 (solitary) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that sort of treatment "animalises" a person even if they were not an animal already (with apologies to animals). I would like to think that most people are kind and generous. If I were a Judge or law maker I would be ashamed to have been responsible for creating/executing laws that treats people like that - much better to put them out of misery with a quick painless execution.

How could one's conscience bear the thought of being responsible for enflicting such pain and suffering on a person for what may be anything up to 80 year life in solitary confinement.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

jon71

02-23-2006, 12:16 AM

With all due respect the worst of the worst deserve that. As long as there is crime there will be problems and debate about dealing with criminals. Rehabilitation is important for any who will be eventually released but imho not for those who will never be released.

usmc1

02-23-2006, 03:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
One guarantee...with the death penalty...the person executed...will never kill another innocent victim </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about guilty victims?

Sanslines

02-23-2006, 03:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> How could one's conscience bear the thought of being responsible for enflicting such pain and suffering on a person for what may be anything up to 80 year life in solitary confinement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

James,

Time for you to take a trip to Los Angeles and see just how bad the gang problems are. Indiscriminate killing is common in certain parts of LA. No one has a really good solution to this problem. Does our society bring back firing squads and start to kill off the more violent aspect of our society? Imagine living in a country where over 30,000 people are killed with guns each year. Imagine how much more crime and violence takes place. Imagine where it is not safe for women to walk the streets of many major cities for fear of attack. Welcome to America.

shomymojo

02-23-2006, 06:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
One guarantee...with the death penalty...the person executed...will never kill another innocent victim </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about guilty victims? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>.....Guilty Victim...Jumbo Shrimp...Military Intellegence...etc

usmc1

02-23-2006, 06:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
One guarantee...with the death penalty...the person executed...will never kill another innocent victim </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about guilty victims? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>.....Guilty Victim...Jumbo Shrimp...Military Intellegence...etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Au contraire; Naked nudist, large giant, dumb Republican, innocent victim.

shomymojo

02-23-2006, 06:37 AM

LOL..don't forget ...new and improved

shãybare

02-23-2006, 06:49 AM

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif
Well said, Still_Boreas.

Qikdraw, Are you off your meds? Just joking but people may believe you are serious.

hm0504

02-23-2006, 09:17 AM

hm0504

02-23-2006, 09:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
so when the terrorist take out the u.s.a. canada is safe?ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha
thats agood one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Canada also has troops overseas in the "War on Terror" -- mainly in Afghanistan.

I think there can be valid reasons for military action against a foreign country and Afghanistan met those criteria.

Unfortunately, when a country wars against another without sufficient cause (or reasonable chance of winning) -- like the U.S. against Iraq -- then that becomes a major ethical problem. Nonetheless, we must never blame the foot soldiers for the decision to wage an unjust war because they're not the ones who made that decision. Put the blame where it properly belongs -- on the leaders who did make that decision.

Boreas

02-23-2006, 11:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
"Killing is killing?" That's far too simplistic! That's disrespectful of people who defend others by the sometimes necessary use of deadly force. I don't think you would want to live in a society in which evil people get their way but good people don't.

At the end of the new TV show 'Injustice' a couple of weeks ago -- in which an innocent 15-year-old boy had been forced to confess to his sister's murder by homicide detectives lying to him, and when he turned 18, was transferred to prison, then the lead 'Injustice' investigator and his students found the real killer and got his confession by lying to him -- a student investigator asked the lead investigator, "Now the police lied to the innocent boy to get his confession, but then you lied to the real killer to get his confession. Why was it wrong for the detectives to lie to the boy but it was right for you to lie to real killer?" His reply (which I think is priceless, life being not as simplistic as some make it out to be), "Life is complicated." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are going to quote the show In Justice, what about the one last week. That is where the man was put to death for killing a priest. The team had excellent info to show he probably didn't do it, yet the court system stood by their decision and killed him.

Boreas

02-23-2006, 11:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
sw1 - I believe Boreas stood up for her beliefs when she made her statement about the military. She's entitled to her belief even if it is unpopular or an affront to you personally. It makes no sense to berate her just because she holds an opinion different from yours. Plus, she's Canadian, so you didn't really put your life on the line for her. I can understand your sentiments, but at the same time I don't think we live in a totalitarian society where we must all think alike.

As for the first part of your post --- it takes a strong person to see one they love murdered and then to not seek the death penalty. It takes someone who believes in a better way to handle the issue --- such as attacking the source rather than the result --- and certainly vengeance will be on a victim's mind. However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there that shows victims not seeking death, a revenge killing really, for the perpetrator of the crime.

For me, it comes down to the government having the right at all to end someone's life, no matter what. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Ren.

For the record, I was a proud member of the Candian Army Reserve. I did so in total peace time for sure. There was no threat of combat as there is now. Had I been called to go somewhere, I would have. My unit was second line service support, so not in the throws of things, but also not behind the scenes.

When I speak against violent ways to respond to violence, or against the Iraq war, I am not saying we should just sit back and do nothing. I believe there are alternatives. Calling for the death penalty or declaring war are about the most simplistic answers I can think of. This is especially true for a country that considers freedom to be the most important value.

My work has allowed me to see first hand the effects of violence on people's lives. I cannot ever condone it and will continue to stand up as a voice against violent acts. I have also met people who have been convicted of doing violent acts and who have done their time and have actually become valuable, contributing members of society.

I actually do know someone who is in court for allegedly taking a roofing hammer to two people's heads. It was a terribly gruesome murder, and shook this town of about 20,000 people to the core. The verdict was probably given out on Tuesday. Anyway, I am good friends with this man's father. The accused has schizophrenia. He was declared fit to stand trial. He is a very good example that we cannot ever take a simplistic view of the death penalty. If he were to be able to be put to death (which he cannot in Canada thankfully) these men will be no less dead. He also has a family who loves him and have been affected by this crime.

BTW, I have reported sw1's post.

Ratbas

02-23-2006, 11:50 AM

Re: "Cruel and unusual punishment." I can understand the cruel part, but who cares if it's unusual? Why are we punishing creative thinking?

Re: What method to use. Firing squad [insert Cheney joke here].

Re: "States with the death penaly have higher murder rates." Even if this is true why is there an assumed corelation?

Re: "Death penalty is not a deterrant." Maybe not for everybody (it is for many) but it's still appropriate punishment.

hm0504

02-23-2006, 12:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratbas:
Re: "States with the death penaly have higher murder rates." Even if this is true why is there an assumed corelation?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would call it a statistical corelation, not an assumed corelation.

I'm sure there are many factors that go into homicide rates, but if states that do not have capital punishment also have lower homicides, then I have to assume they are doing something right. It would seem to refute the idea that capital punishment is a deterrent.

OZJames

02-23-2006, 03:58 PM

Sanslines - <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Indiscriminate killing is common in certain parts of LA. No one has a really good solution to this problem. Does our society bring back firing squads and start to kill off the more violent aspect of our society? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might read in my earlier post

"grl66 QUOTE - the death penalty should be used only in extreme cases and where the evidence is irrefutable"
James QUOTE -
"I agree with the above statement."

Sanslines -
I think there are very few murders that are extreme cases of premeditated murder where the evidence is irrefutable. There is no way I would advocate killing off the more violent aspect of our society.

Sanslines, you are changing the subject - we are not discussing about creating a society which somehow manages to reduce social problems, poverty etc and therefore reduce murders. Obviously if our Govts, make our society better there will be less murders.

The topic is should we have the death penalty and if so how should the death be administered.

Over many years because of old age and/or fatal illness I have personally injected anaesthetic in large doses to kill several of our family pets and one horse. In each case the animal in my arms, just drifted away in sleep then the heart stopped. There was no pain, no stress, no violent reactions just quiet passing away.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

Nude in the North

02-23-2006, 04:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sure there are many factors that go into homicide rates, but if states that do not have capital punishment also have lower homicides, then I have to assume they are doing something right. It would seem to refute the idea that capital punishment is a deterrent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What came first? The soaring murder rates or the capital punishment?
I doubt that any state with low murder rates would enact capital punishment if there wasn't a problem.
And if a state did not have capital punishment and murder rates started to soar, can you blame them for taking steps to try to control it?

People with no respect for life, deserve no respect.

Steve

sw1sweendog

02-23-2006, 04:25 PM

what exactly have you reported still_boreas?

Boreas

02-23-2006, 04:26 PM

sw1sweendog

02-23-2006, 04:37 PM

oh,i see only those opinions that you agree with are allowed?if you dont like my opinions,then dont read them.

Qikdraw

02-23-2006, 05:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shaybare:
Qikdraw, Are you off your meds? Just joking but people may believe you are serious. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never been on meds. I'm just insane. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

But you don't think that Americans would buy into this? I do.

Qikdraw

grl66

02-23-2006, 05:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
what exactly have you reported still_boreas? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm guessing the part of your post still_boreas took offence to was the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
still_boreas....[snip]......i put my life on the line for pr_cks like you who are afraid to stand up for your belives. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree all are welcome to and have a right to their own opinion, but this comment was just a touch over the top for a forum don't you think sw1?

Boreas

02-23-2006, 06:33 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
oh,i see only those opinions that you agree with are allowed?if you dont like my opinions,then dont read them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I take issue with being called insulting names. Differences of opinions are fine. Insulting labels are not. I see that the offending post has been amended by the moderator. I guess I am not the only one who took offence.

May you find some peace of mind.

Boreas

02-23-2006, 06:36 PM

Thanks Greg. True enough.

sw1sweendog

02-23-2006, 07:20 PM

well then they should take the one down where you call everyone in uniform,criminals/killers

Boreas

02-23-2006, 08:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
well then they should take the one down where you call everyone in uniform,criminals/killers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Feel free to report that post because that is not what I said. If the moderators consider it inappropriate they will take action.

sw1sweendog

02-23-2006, 08:46 PM

thats ok,i dont go crying to the athouritys every time theres somthing i dont like.i just move on.

sw1sweendog

02-23-2006, 08:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ren:
Killing is wrong, even if it's state sponsored...... But if you're just talking money, you don't have much of a heart.

It is called a department of corrections for a reason. Maybe they should start correcting and stop treating people like animals. Jail needs to be rehabilitative.

Also, perhaps if we didn't have the economic gap that keeps so many down, we wouldn't have the violent crime we have. Crime comes out of desperation a lot of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

I also wonder why putting on a uniform and going overseas is any better than a criminal who murders. Killing is killing. That is a topic for another thread though and I know it is off topic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sw1sweendog

02-23-2006, 08:51 PM

so you meant what then....

Boreas

02-23-2006, 09:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
so you meant what then.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I meant is:

1. murder is against the law. It is killing someone else.

2. the death penalty is okay in some states/countries. It is killing someone else.

3. Countries sending people out to fight wars is okay. That is killing someone (or many someones) else.

Tell me the difference. I am not criticizing the soldier. I am criticizing the war machines or the "powers that be" who say that one kind of killing is okay and not another.

It is a shame that a country as powerful and as full of resources and brilliance such as the US has to use wars as solutions rather than finding other ways to solve problems. That doesn't mean there should be no more wars or such, I am not naive. I just think more effort needs to be put into resolving conflict by other means.

I also think that other countries such as Canada, Britain, Australia....to name a few, need to have the same priorities. Is that not what the UN was started for?

Clearly, the death penalty has not stopped crime. It is not effective. We MUST find alternatives to that and find true rehabilitation programs.

Anger begets anger. Violence begets violence. We have seen it over and over again. Will we ever learn before we destroy ourselves in the process.

I am sure that your life would have been much better if you had not had to go to fight a war. That does not make your sacrifice any less significant.

Namaste

sw1sweendog

02-23-2006, 10:34 PM

thers a huge difference between a criminal killing someone and a soldier killing someone.

usmc1

02-24-2006, 05:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
thers a huge difference between a criminal killing someone and a soldier killing someone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On an ethical level, yes. But, on other levels the differences are not as great as you might think. Several years ago NPR had a tremendous documentary on the effects of imposing the death penalty on those who had to carry it out. Texas wardens, and others: guards, chaplains, and executioners. For them, it was a devastating human experience. These people were devastated and depleted from what they had to do.

If you sit and talk with combat veterans who have had to kill someone and if you're trusted enough that they will talk with you at a gut level you will hear the same thing. There is something about killing another human being that is so unnatural that its effect and toll on one's psyche is enormous--that is, unless one suffers from some sort of mental illness. There are sociopaths and death-lovers in the military as there are in the police. But, the vast majority are just decent human beings doing a job that they have been trained and mentally conditioned to perform.

But, yes there is a tremendous ethical difference between killing an innocent out of lust, anger, or during the commission of crime, and killing someone in defense of self, family, home, community or country. But, these arguements, as I've said before, have nothing at all to do with imposition of the death penalty.

Military and police who have to kill because of the situtation they're in do so as an immediate response to a threatening situation. When the state kills, it is done after the threat has been extracted from society. It is done coldly, with forethought rather than a hot response to immediate peril--one can argue that bombs and missiles are similar, but that is a whole other discussion.

As I said earlier, I am an arch-conservative, and I mistrust government, and I do not wish to cede to government the power of deciding who lives and who dies. We've seen how enflamed emotions can drive a government under feckless leadership to make horribly, ghastly mistakes (Invade Iraq). If a government that can make monumental mistakes can also impose life and death decisions on its people at some point it will be deemed OK to put to death certain groups, factions, or classes of people.

Or put another way, if murder is wrong for the people of a state, then it is also wrong for the state of the people (which is merely an extention of the people) to inflict murder. But, understand this, not all killing is murder--the soldier, the police the person defending their home might kill, but that is not murder.

When the governemnt coldly, with ritual and planning, and great forethought kills, that is murder. Some believe that is OK, I don't

natinsodak

02-24-2006, 07:23 AM

I feel that for serial killers,death is the only alternative.Heat of passion crimes are a little different.
Surely Sadam must have internet in his cell. I'd like to see his take on THIS topic!!!

sw1sweendog

02-24-2006, 02:54 PM

thanks for your imput usmc1,i've had to point my m-16 at kids as young as 8-10,thankfully i did'nt have to pull the trigger.they stopped as instructed.

Conor B

02-24-2006, 04:05 PM

Death Penalty is really indefensible from any perspective;

1. It is not justice b/c not all convicted murderers are executed;

2. it is not a deterrent:
a. in part d/t the less than 100% relation of executios to convictions
b. and b/c of the dire and irreversible nature of the sentence, the legal checks and balances (i.e.appeals) process is astonishingly and unavoidably long and so the punishment is so far removed from the crime (simple behavioral law there)that no cause/effect connection is made;

3. That same unavoidable appeals process simply prolongs the hope for 'closure' that victims families wait for.

4. Grief is not resolved effectively or healthily by acts of revenge. And given the above mentioned delays, stringing out the greif process is simply foolish at best and bizarrely cruel at it's worst. Trust me on this, violence in act or in your name is not a healer; It may be a release valve for anger, but anger is not resolved through violence. Again, this point is a human behavioral/psychological/ spiritual fact. I am not making a 'values' argument here.

5. It is much much much more expensive to try, house and execute a person sentenced to death. The trials are much costlier, the appeals process is costlier, death row is costlier. Much cheaper for a quick fair trial and into the general prison population.

6. More people in my state have been removed from death row d/t false convictions than have actually been executed. Again, we are not able to 'speed' the process along.

7. And then there's the argument that no one has the right to take a human life unless directly threatened.

I understand, all too well, the desire to see bad people hurt in response to their bad behavior. I think of it whenver I think of 9/11, or watch the insanity of the Islamists. But, does all this vengeance seem to be making them any happier? Or more peaceful? Or more respectful of life? Folks, these people are showing us a more primitive vision of human kind. It is that primitive side that comes out of us all when we 'wish someone were dead'.

MJ_KC

02-24-2006, 04:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
I'm sure there are many factors that go into homicide rates, but if states that do not have capital punishment also have lower homicides, then I have to assume they are doing something right. It would seem to refute the idea that capital punishment is a deterrent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is one example of how statistics can be abused. If one state has a higher percentage of people committing capital offenses, the legislature would see a need to institute the death penalty.

The state with a very low rate may see no need to institute the death penalty and the added expense that this brings to a state's prison system. That does not mean that the lack of a death penalty is why their rate is lower.

Kind of a chicken and egg situation when it comes to trying to show a clear link either way.

Conor B

02-24-2006, 04:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
QUOTE]
This is one example of how statistics can be abused. If one state has a higher percentage of people committing capital offenses, the legislature would see a need to institute the death penalty.

The state with a very low rate may see no need to institute the death penalty and the added expense that this brings to a state's prison system. That does not mean that the lack of a death penalty is why their rate is lower.

Kind of a chicken and egg situation when it comes to trying to show a clear link either way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, this is possibly true only w/ 'real' numbers (i.e. 10 homicdes, 3 Death Convictions).

But, I assume that the phrase 'homicide rates' refers to a homicide/1000 people figure, which evens out the issue a bit.

It is equally valid to suggest that states/communities w/ less violent ideas for crime reduction would in fact be communities that *foster* less violence, rather than simply communites w/less violence.

And if it is a chicken/egg issue, then how could anyone side with the position to take a life?

l2ltlarry

02-24-2006, 06:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">then how could anyone side with the position to take a life? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seventy-six percent of Ohioans support the death penalty, siding with the position to take a life. While I'm in the very small minority on most issues, I'm in the majority on this one.

hm0504

02-24-2006, 06:47 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
I'm sure there are many factors that go into homicide rates, but if states that do not have capital punishment also have lower homicides, then I have to assume they are doing something right. It would seem to refute the idea that capital punishment is a deterrent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is one example of how statistics can be abused. If one state has a higher percentage of people committing capital offenses, the legislature would see a need to institute the death penalty.

The state with a very low rate may see no need to institute the death penalty and the added expense that this brings to a state's prison system. That does not mean that the lack of a death penalty is why their rate is lower.

Kind of a chicken and egg situation when it comes to trying to show a clear link either way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have to remember that most of the world, maybe all of the world, used to have the death penalty. Today, it is relatively few areas in the West which have it.

As I have said, there are many factors that influence crime rates, but there also seem to be common characteristics of societies that have low crime rates. One of those common characteristics is the abolition of the death penalty.

Crime is a complex beast but one can still observe what seems to help and what does not. In my opinion, abolishing the death penalty seems to be one of those factors that create a more peaceful, and less crime-ridden, society.

P.J.

02-24-2006, 09:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
Because of my personal faith and John chapter 13 that the death penalty is morally wrong. I am aware that the number one reason people support the death penalty is because some criminals are such a threat to society that they should never be let loose. That is reasonable and I agree. Because of that I support greater use of life without possibility of parole. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Life without parole is, in my honest opinion, the most cruel and inhumane punishment handed out by the American judicial system.

Unless the prisoner already feels the electodes tightly strapped to his leg and head; aleady notices that the hangman's noose is snuggly placed around his neck; already smells the cyanide pellets in the acid beneath his seat; or after getting strapped to a gurney, feels the needle in his arm, there should always be some hope of freedom.
There are some, who should never be allowed to return to society, but then there are some who have been found guilty of utterly heinous crimes, that deserve another chance.

Those who don't fall into the above categories, and are so despicable that they deserve death, should be executed within a prescribed period of time. I think that if the death sentence is not carried out within that time, the condemned should have their sentence automatically commuted to life.

Life without parole is not the quick fix solution for dealing with violent and evil people.

Imagine being a corrections officer who is responsible for the custody, security and control of a violent criminal who has no hope of freedom and has nothing to lose if he injures or kills another while in the prison system. What would you do? Add a few years to life without parole?

What I find puzzling is how someone who is pro-abortion (but prefers to use the sanitized "pro-choice" label) can be anti-capital punishment.

jon71

02-24-2006, 10:22 PM

The distinction is clear. A criminal is a person indisputably. Even if a lousy one. It is a matter of opinion as to whether a fetus, or more commonly a zygote, is. Theologians are very divided on the issue and very few doctors consider it to be a life. Most of the few who do are "old-timers". With the issue being so complex the obvious choice is to let each individual decide for themself. The reason we are not "pro-abortion" is because what matters is freedom. I would be perfectly happy if sex ed and contraception were so effective that there were no unplanned pregnancies and no abortions at all, as long as the option is there. If a friend had an unplanned pregnancy I would try to be kind and supporting. I would not "push" abortion as a choice, neither would I push motherhood or adoption. I would do my best to be supportive of any of the three choices.
As for punishing someone under life without parole there are options. The most severe would be solitary confinement. Other choices could be things like reducing or eliminating yard time, or tv., less desirable work assignments, etc. I know that sounds weak but when you only have a little then taking away that little can be very motivating.
There of course is a lot more to this issue. We are discussing it like everyone sentenced to die is guilty and we all know that's not true. Before the death penalty was briefly ended in 1972 there were many innocent people executed, usually black or hispanic. There have been so many close calls since the reinstatement in 1974 that in all likelyhood we have again executed an innocent person (or 2 or 3 or more). So far it hasn't been proven that we have but it's very likely. With a sentence of life (with or without parole) an innocent person can go free and recover at least a part of their life. If they're dead what then. Does the govt. just say "oops" and move on?

Revolutionary

02-25-2006, 01:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We have to remember that most of the world, maybe all of the world, used to have the death penalty. Today, it is relatively few areas in the West which have it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well HM0504 the west makes up only what, 1 in 10 people in the world today? And even in the developed world Russia and Poland are considering bringing it back.

I am not concerned with what the northwestern European socialist governments want. If they were truly democratic in the EU they would let their respective peoples vote on the death penalty. If they did we know the Brits would vote to have it and even some polls show the Swedes would too. I'll bet the southern Europeans would vote in favor of it.

Eventually the death penalty will come back in Europe -- hey, with immigration and low Euro birthrates eventually Muslims will make up the majority of the population there and that's when you will see more liberal laws struck from the books.

Conor B

02-25-2006, 07:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by P.J.:What I find puzzling is how someone who is pro-abortion (but prefers to use the sanitized "pro-choice" label) can be anti-capital punishment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good question. And actually it rests on the word "choice". When the government executes someone, they are acting for 'the people' which does include me, for example. I have a horse in that race. And I am against the Death Penalty.

As for abortion, hey, I'm an adopted kid. I'm really glad that I'm around.

It is foolish and astonishly ignorant to suggest that I am pro-abortion.

But I'm not a woman. I have never been pregnant nor have I ever been, er, a paticipant in a pregnancy. I don't believe that a fertilized egg has claims to the title 'human' (potential human? yes). It most definately is a part of someone's else's body though. AND THEREFORE it's not actually my right to make decisions regarding it. That's the mother's. If she doesn't wish to have a child, I would like nothing better than for her to put the child up for adoption (50% of my friends who have children have had them thru adoption).

But It's Not My Right To Make That Decision. It Is Hers. I Am Pro-American's Having The Right To Live Their Lives As They Wish.

And, for the record, I have never failed to be appalled at the way most 'pro-lifers' I've come into contact with have the most backward, second-class citizen type attitudes toward adoption and adoptees.

Boreas

02-25-2006, 08:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I find puzzling is how someone who is pro-abortion (but prefers to use the sanitized "pro-choice" label) can be anti-capital punishment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am equally puzzled by those who are anti-abortion, or "pro-life" that support capital punishment. If you are "pro-life" than all people's lives are valuable. In the same thought, if you are pro-life, war would not be the first answer.

MJ_KC

02-25-2006, 09:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Conor B:
And if it is a chicken/egg issue, then how could anyone side with the position to take a life? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You do it when you see the murder rate climbing and life sentences do not seem to be having the effect of getting people to stop. Sometimes we just want these people gone. Retribution/vengeance is certainly a factor.

Conor B

02-25-2006, 09:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC: Sometimes we just want these people gone. Retribution/vengeance is certainly a factor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, well we establish laws to reduce the influence of retribution and vengeance. And I believe the murder rate is dropping. It, like all crime rates, is much more sensitive to the size of the 18-45 y/o population than any special enforcemnt techniquies

Sanslines

02-25-2006, 09:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Sanslines, you are changing the subject - we are not discussing about creating a society which somehow manages to reduce social problems, poverty etc and therefore reduce murders. Obviously if our Govts, make our society better there will be less murders. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

James,
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I did not mention anything about reducing social problems, poverty, etc. My example was an extreme example where random, severe violence ie murder continues to occur. California has a death penalty and such types of violence would normally require a death penalty. If the use of the death penalty is justified as being a deterent to such crimes, it does not seem to be working in LA.

Boreas

02-25-2006, 12:00 PM

The trouble with thinking of things as deterrents is that we are thinking that criminals respond to the same types of deterrents as the rest of the population. They don't. Of course the threat of the death penalty, or even mere jail time, is enough to deter most of us. It does not appear to deter the folks who are filling up the jails and prisons.

I have worked in addictions and mental health for many years. I have met some "graduates" of Kingston Penetentiary (the pen for Canada's worst offenders, someone like Jeffrey Dalmer would be put there in this country). These are generally guys who don't care about the consequences and don't generally believe they will be caught. So, are they like this because they learned to act this way because of horrible upbringings, or were they born this way. I would guess there are both types.

Viewing things like crime and punishment in simplistic "good guy - bad guy" ways is not useful. Yes, it would be nice just to "get rid" of those we don't like, or who do bad things. I personally do not want to live in that world. Canada has its criminals like that, Paul Bernardo, to name one. We also have had people who seemed to be like that like David Milgaard who turned out to be innocent.

Listening to the media would have you believe that all criminals get released from prison only to continue commiting horrible crimes. They don't. I have met guys, even from Kingtson Pen, who have been released and who have become productive citizens again.

Black and white thinking will not solve problems. Violence begets more violence. Why don't we figure out how to raise our kids better so they can be productive? Why don't we help to create a society that is more humane and supports health?

P.J.

02-25-2006, 08:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
The distinction is clear. A criminal is a person indisputably. Even if a lousy one. It is a matter of opinion as to whether a fetus, or more commonly a zygote, is. Theologians are very divided on the issue and very few doctors consider it to be a life. Most of the few who do are "old-timers". With the issue being so complex the obvious choice is to let each individual decide for themself. The reason we are not "pro-abortion" is because what matters is freedom. I would be perfectly happy if sex ed and contraception were so effective that there were no unplanned pregnancies and no abortions at all, as long as the option is there. If a friend had an unplanned pregnancy I would try to be kind and supporting. I would not "push" abortion as a choice, neither would I push motherhood or adoption. I would do my best to be supportive of any of the three choices.
As for punishing someone under life without parole there are options. The most severe would be solitary confinement. Other choices could be things like reducing or eliminating yard time, or tv., less desirable work assignments, etc. I know that sounds weak but when you only have a little then taking away that little can be very motivating.
There of course is a lot more to this issue. We are discussing it like everyone sentenced to die is guilty and we all know that's not true. Before the death penalty was briefly ended in 1972 there were many innocent people executed, usually black or hispanic. There have been so many close calls since the reinstatement in 1974 that in all likelyhood we have again executed an innocent person (or 2 or 3 or more). So far it hasn't been proven that we have but it's very likely. With a sentence of life (with or without parole) an innocent person can go free and recover at least a part of their life. If they're dead what then. Does the govt. just say "oops" and move on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Normally we express our opinions from opposites sides of the issues, especially the controversial ones.

I don't want to build up any false hopes that you might have transformed me into a Liberal, but this time I must admit that you have eloquently expressed your point of view with both compassion and rational thought.

Personally, I don't have any concern about the percentage of blacks who are incarcerated for crimes of which they are truly guilty. That's the breaks and the consequences of criminal behavior.

However, I share a deep and passionate concern about a judicial system which can wrongfully convict just one innocent person. Whether the punishment handed down from the court is a weekend in jail or execution, one wrongful conviction is one too many.

Even the initial process, which begins with an arrest, is a punishing experience.

Over 30 years ago, as a not-really-that-common looking white male, I was arrested for attempted grand larceny. The offence was breaking into a car and attempting to steal the stereo system. The owners of the vehicle, especially the hysterical wife screamed that I was the one who she saw breaking into the car. I responded that I was not the one.

I knew who the culprit was, and I did not look like him. (We might've combed our hair the same, but we had different hair color. He was also shorter than me.) Nonetheless, I was still arrested, booked, charged and spent some of the afternoon in jail.

Later, the charge was thrown out of court, but if it wasn't, my life would have been ruined. If convicted, my life would have turned out much differently. I would never have fared as well as I have, if I was convicted, even of a reduced charge.

Unfortunate, but true, Blacks have the misfortune of 'all looking alike' to some folks, especially those white folks who have had little contact or no contact with Blacks and/or Hispanics. Of course, those of us whose lives were not so overly sheltered know that blacks do not all look alike.

Unfortunately this doesn't help any of those who have already been ground up by some of the faulty wheels of judial system.

I still believe in punishing the wrongdoers, but only the wrongdoers and never the innocent.

P.J.

02-25-2006, 08:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I find puzzling is how someone who is pro-abortion (but prefers to use the sanitized "pro-choice" label) can be anti-capital punishment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am equally puzzled by those who are anti-abortion, or "pro-life" that support capital punishment. If you are "pro-life" than all people's lives are valuable. In the same thought, if you are pro-life, war would not be the first answer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your point of view may be old...but well stated.

I once met a British gentleman who was both in favor of the death penalty and in favor of keeping abortion legal. Altough I did not agree with him, his point of view was somewhat logical.

By the way, I love that photo of the cats.

If we disagree on any of the issues, I think that we'll always share a love of cats.