I have searched previous posts for something similar without results, so if this is re-hash of an exhausted topic, I apologize.


As a juror during the sentencing phase of a murder trial, with only Execution or Life Imprisonment as your options, what is your choice? For personal reasons -- no real belief in an afterlife for one -- I believe that spending the remainder of your life in confinement is far worse than the oblivion of death.

Please select a punishment and and let me know your position on a life after this one (be it spiritual or otherwise.)

Hi goofyfish :)

Well, morally I don't support the death penalty; I just don't think that revenge is okay. That said, the US's judicial & penal systems are a bad joke and I think I'd be inclined to choose execution over life imprisonment. If there were a system in place that actually used rehabilitation as a primary method of managing criminals*, I'm sure I'd feel differently. However, as it is, the cost of keeping a person separated from society until he's dead, without expectation of any usefulness, is greater than just killing him. And there are exceptions to this along with a lengthy list of disclaimers, but "in general," I think this wraps up what I believe.

And now, having not yet even approached your question, I'll give that a shot ;) It's impossible for me to make a comparison of life and death, because I don't know anything about what happens after death. The factors that contribute to my above choice of execution over life imprisonment have nothing to do with what might or might not happen after death, but are based solely on effects on the living. In my limited perception, death is a complete unknown - I don't even have information with which to speculate [unless you count others' speculations]. In short, I don't have a position on a life after this one.


*and if the system we had in place only dealt with people who actually committed crimes, and left alone those of us who aren't causing harm

However, as it is, the cost of keeping a person separated from society until he's dead, without expectation of any usefulness, is greater than just killing him.
I wonder: How much does a life cost, even a criminal's?

Or maybe a defective condum.

You've got to be kidding, Merlijn.

Take care. ;)

This is a really hard question for me, as I saw a very good friend fight to keep from going to death row. I had been a staunch supporter of the death penalty, seeing people on death row as scum who deserved no better. My feelings have stumbled now not just because it's someone I know, but because I have a different perspective of a set of events that led up to the situation.

David R. was not a murdering psycho. David R. was not some deranged pervert. David R. had fallen through the cracks while surrounded by friends and family who couldn't see him falling. He never talked much about home. We all knew he came from a screwed up family, but nothing on the surface ever said just how screwed up it was. His mother abandoned the family. His father would hit on every girl he'd ever bring home, then tease David, calling him 'gay' because he didn't have a girlfriend. His sister sold his stereo and computer so she could have money to give to her boyfriend. Not once did David call out for help. If I could only turn back the clock...

It's very painful for me, because this man would come to our house (he was my brother's friend) and play with our dogs. He was genuinely hurt when one of them, a chihuahua named Penny, wouldn't make friends with him. He kept trying, though. When we had no running cars, he loaned us a Ford and a Buick (he rebuilt cars as a hobby) and ended up giving them to us. I had to work late one night and he volunteered to pick me up. He showed up with a bag from McDonald's because he knew I'd probably be hungry after all that overtime. This man was an angel.

I won't go into the horrific details of the crime he committed. At the first trial, none of his family showed up. My family did. He took his seat and turned around. We were all right behind him. God, how I wanted to just put my hand on his shoulder. The company his father worked for offered him the free use of the company lawyers to keep David out of lock-up. The jerk refused and stuck David with a public defender.

I have to stop here. It still hurts too badly. I think of the girl he killed and the other girl whose life will never be the same. I think of David crying over the phone at the jail, swearing he didn't know why he did it. Maybe it's personal sentiment, but I believe him. This wasn't Ted Bundy grinning at the cameras, this was David, and he was a scared little boy.

The last I heard from him he had received life in a mental institution. I don't know if that was a good thing or a bad thing. I just know that David is alive, an innocent girl is dead, and another innocent girl will bear the scars for life.

I knew all three of these people personally, and my feelings on the death penalty are now as clear as pea soup in a heavy fog.

I whole heartedly support the death penalty, but not as it is now, and I think that cruel and unusual punishment should make a come back in the united states. In my opinion there should be but two punishments for crimes, death and torture. You get a parking ticket you get ten lashes, steal something fifty lashes breaking and entering death, rape death, assualt death, ect. However the cost of execution is far to high, I say screw human rights, two to the back of the head. Easy enough after all this is the land of fire arms. Cost is reduced by thousands! That and burieal, hell no they are criminals what do they need a grave for? Feed them to the dogs! two problems with one solution, the budget is cut in half. The k9 unit would have free and cheap food, prisoners would not be costing us so much money.

really funny mato. haha :-\

I fully support the death penalty. But On one hand, we are wasting millions of dollars by keeping inmates confined for years and years, and on the other - what if were killing an innocent man. It does happen. I think if you kill someone in a gruesome manner, if you rape and kill a child, or just kill for the fun of it - yes you deserve to die. I have seen many people who abused children even killed and they got off with a lap on the wrist because of special circumstance. I do believe in an eye for eye. A life for a life.

Originally posted by Merlijn
really funny mato. haha :-\

The only joke in there was the torture part, the rest I was serious about. We need to have a more libral death penalty. I'm serious.

Goofyfish:
Given the parameters of your poll, I would be bound to choose death. But let me say this,

Murder: The willful killing of another by plan, design, and purpose
A. Proved motive
B. Proved means (accused had access to ACTUAL means of death of the deceased)
C. Proved opportunity (witnessed at the scene of the crime; not circumstantial)
By my definition, it is most assuredly "pre-meditated".

Manslaughter/Homicide: The killing of another by any means other than planning (self-defense would be one; but proved self-defense would be a "justifiable homicide"). Neglegence would need be proved before any penalty other than monetary would be invoked in my "perfect little world".

Your post however stated "murder".

Why am in favor of the death penalty? If it is enforced as Aristotle (swiftly, certainly, severely), suggested, it serves three purposes.
1. This criminal shall not ever, again, re-offend.
2. The punishment (but only when meted out unilaterally) serves as a deterrent.
3. This criminal, cannot/shall not breed (further). "The apple don't fall to far from the tree, usually."

Let me say that I would prefer a thousand guilty men went free, than to hang one single innocent (as accused) person. I would make it much harder to convict, than it currently is. I would make illegal for cops to particpate in "sting" operations. I would tighten the parameters for internet spying/telephone tapping/and general surveillance by law enforcement, but I am a hard core civil rights/privacy activist. I also believe that it is my legal right (and duty) to defend myself, and others, from violence. If that means the assailant gets dead in the process, well, that's on him, and he can deal with it. Yes, I know, even car-jackers have mommies that love them: tough cookies. He should have thought about trying to steal MY car. And yeah, I do expect the cops to clean up the mess I left lying in the street-it's their job. No, it isn't just up to the cops to find and catch these guys-that's part of why crime is so rampant, (along with the inclusion of thought crimes and the ever expanding definition of crime) we expect ONLY cops to deal with it-bad idea (I believe cops to be little more than megalomaniacal doorknob rattlers). I've read several studies where the only difference (psychologically) between cops and crooks is the badge and the gun, for some, as yet unknown reason, the cops have the desire to serve rather and take. The only slight difference is that cops have a tendency to be slightly more insecure than the crooks who tend to be slightly more sociopathic/agressive (ruleless).

We, ALL, have a responsibility to enforce the laws whether we agree with them or not. If we grin (and admire the kid's chutzpah) and say nothing when a kid puts a candy bar in his pocket and walks out without paying for it, we share complicity in HIS crime. It makes no difference whether it is a nickel candy bar (think how old I must be) or the 2 billion Kenny Lay snagged from Enron employee pension funds, the crime is the same: theft. I believe that if convicted of theft, the convicted must
A. Repay his victim(s).
B. Provide punitive damage compensation (I think 500% is about right)
C. Think about why what they did was "wrong" while they repay it (slowly).
Should theft be a "hanin'" offense? Well, no, it shouldn't-although I'm not sure the Arabs aren't right with their right hand cutting thing. The slob has to eat with the same hand he wipes is arse with for the rest of his life while being IMMEDIATELY identified as a convicted thief. But should this extend to the kid and the candy bar? No, it shouldn't. In Kenny Lay's case I think they should strip him of EVERYTHING he AND his wife own, and then cut off BOTH hands, but that's me.

However there would have to be a pool of funds for the immediate retribution of the aggrieved that will be replenished by Indentured servitude at 65¢ an hour is about right, I figure. This places the burden of support of the convicted upon the individual who accepts the 'service'. However, these people who employ the indentured would be receiving large benefits from the decrease in prevailing wages. Naturally a "secondary market" would develop as it did in the 18 century. How do you keep the servants around? Well that technology already exists. The courts are using them currently for some convicts: GPS locators in non-removable anklets. I would add a factor. If the indentured "stray" beyond the limits of their permitted confines, or attempt to remove the bracelet they receive an automatic lethal injection, but that would be the "servant's" choice. Naturally these would be "programmable" like garage door openers to allow for travel for legitimate purposes (at the debt holders choice). My program sure solves the problem as to who it is that cleans the toilet bowls…But I wouldn't have them cooking for me, if you know what I mean.

I saw a very interesting TV show years a go, when ABC tried (poorly) to revive the old Twilight Zone. In one episode, thought crimes existed and the punishment was self-imposed shunning (as they do in the Amish community). They had cute little drone TV cameras that enforced it (the punishment for violating shunning was death by being vaporized). In this episode, a woman falls in love with a shunned man, and violates the code of silence, becoming a victim (but the man allows her to remain a victim ignoring her plight). The main emphasis of the show was that both crime and punishment require the consent of the populace (we agree as a group decide WHAT is an acceptable standard of behaviour, and we agree as a group as to what the punishments shall be for violating these standards of behaviour. The Death penalty after all is just the ultimate shunning.

The challenge with life in prison versus the death penalty is that the cost of keeping them there is far greater than the "cost" of their crimes to society. For example: The moron robs a 7/11 store (why they aren't 24/7 stores, now, confuses me) in full view of the security camera, and is convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison. The THIEF got 50 bucks (the most they keep in the register at any one time), and may have well spent it before arrest. The PUBLIC gets a bill for 300 grand for his five years in the slam, PLUS the cost of conviction, which may be another 150 grand (fully burdened court costs). The bill to the public to "teach this guy crime doesn't pay" is 450k!! While he's there, he learns more and better crimes, and more and better ways of NOT being caught: BAD idea.

Instead, how about we put an anklet on the guy, allow him to travel to and from 7/11 and require he work there at 65¢ an hour (plus his groceries)? Let's give him 12-14 hour shifts 7 days a week, so he really doesn't WANT to go anywhere, or have the time to do it, and bada-bing, bada-boom, Southland Corp has just reduced their payroll by about 75%, reducing the cost of a coke from 85¢ to 22¢! Anyone who wanted could "hire" these guys (if they can pay for the anklet) and yeah, the crooks would have to be immediately identifiable in some way (by dress or removable tattoo or something). Maybe by using a bulky bracelet instead of anklet, but you get my point.

Sweden, for years, had their "inmates" making all that minimalist furniture that was so popular (and cheap) in the fifties; it was never done in this country because of "unfair" competition laws (the reason slavery was abolished in the first place). The US gov't has prison laborers churning out military consumables, and many States are using prison labor to produce licence plates (hence, the old saw), but it isn't being done in any economically feasible means. The movie Shawshank Redemption dealt with how prison labor was rife with corruption. It needn't be. The 1860's abolitionist movement had NOTHING to do with morality, it was moralized to justify the economic elimination of indentured servitude/slavery…

I can continue rambling about this for decades, but until the USA decides IF we are going to rehabilitate, shun, or penalize our criminals (which they haven't, yet) there isn't a great deal of point in debating it. I would penalize WHILE teaching re-integration skills which to a certain extent is the "cause" of "crime". But if someone stole a brand new BMW, uh at 65¢/hour he's going to take 15 years to repay it. But in answer to your post; The penalty for murder SHOULD be death (but swift and certain upon conviction), I think that was my point...

Let me say that I would prefer a thousand guilty men went free, than to hang one single innocent (as accused) person.

I would make it much harder to convict, than it currently is.

The penalty for murder SHOULD be death (but swift and certain upon conviction), I think that was my point... So what you're saying is instead of the current three to five years
currently required to execute a convicted murderer, you would stretch it
out to eight to twelve years (which it already is in some cases) or would you
not allow appeals to a higher court?

So where is the 'swift and certain' aspect?

Or do you intend to give the 'megalomaniacal doorknob rattlers' authority
to terminate with prejudice when the situation is clearly one of 'The willful
killing of another by plan, design, and purpose."?

Methinks you're running in circles a bit.

Take care ;)

Chagur:

In a word: Yes, but (Yeah, I know it's two. Does this make me a Yeahbutt?)

Crime and Punishment (pun inteneded), and how governments deal (or don't) with it is the most obvious examples of abdicated personal responsibility-one of my pet peeves-which to my thinking is the most prevalent dysfunction of this country.

Your "three to five years" is of course an exaggeration for literary purposes MOST trials go UNDER six months (even in the FED calendar which is backed up for DAYS by their EXCESSIVELY exaggerated definition of "crime", MOST are plead out for "lesser offenses", and most "crimes" aren't.

Morally, (er, that is the purpose of these posts I believe) I do believe that the guilty should go free, unless there is compelling evidence of guilt. Just as past performance is no gurantee of future returns, past criminal behaviour is NOT relevant to the current accusation of crime. I actually believe in the PRESUMPTION of innocence before the law, should be enforced as an absolute. Unless there is specific evidence (not circumstantial) that
A. A crime has been committed, (I define crime later)
B. THIS accused was witnessed (in some manner not necessarily by a person) committing it,
C. THERE was a profit (reason) to the accused to commit the crime,
There is NO reason for this issue to even be before the court in the first place. Yes, Virgina MOST crimes aren't, and MOST of the court's time is a waste and sham.

The public time and MONEY shouldn't be wasted on bums, bimbos, and parking/speeding violators (that is a municipal TAX, not a crime, but I made my point). Am I running in circles? As ALL philosophical issues do, but just a bit, but since you ASKED, I'll run it down... [B]In my perfect little universe,[/B}

Suggested conviction impediments would be,

A. Previous convictions are NOT evidence of current accusations (and irrelevant to anything but, possibly sentencing, which should (mostly) be monetary). Before you get off onto examples of some horrendous offender who was cut loose, repeatedly, they probably should have put a bullet behind his left ear the FIRST time, most likely when he was a punk teenager--My ideas there are far more severe than many peoples'. I don't care if he was only 10, if he took a FULLY automatic assault rifle and shot up the school, killing half a dozen students and staff, they should have taken him outside and blown his little punk head off, cleaned up the mess, and been done with it. This goes along with the dead would be carjacker in the car park, IF someone tries to jack my car, and I blow him away, defending my life and property, I should be able to just walk away from it and have the department of sanitation take care of it.

B. Conspiracy as currently defined, would be eliminated. Planning a heist, is NOT a crime (or shouldn't be). THINKING is NOT criminal, just as buying a book (ie: Poor Man's James Bond, the Anarchist's Cook book, or military publications of field munitions manufacture) or a gun is NOT criminal, nor necessarily done with the intent of committing a crime. Under current law, wistfully conjuring all the money you COULD make, and (more importantly) how you would spend it by selling cocaine IS currently illegal (even if you do not express it to anyone--pray the Feds don't invent a thought reader to go with those fancy new "KNOW ALL airport" security cards with biometric-666 tattoos-and attendant data bases).

C. THERE are only two types of true crime.
ALL of the other issues are issues of (publicly defined) aberrant behaviour. THAT is not and shouldn't be a public issue, and in MOST cases it should be dealt with on an individual basis, by the individuals concerned. Yes, I believe in PUBLIC NUT houses (or something more efficient and definitely Darwinian…).
---->1. Property: Vandalism. Coerced-indentured servatude-repayment, PLUS monetary punitive award and repayment of court's costs).
---->2. Personal: Injury against individuals. Punitive Monetary award (plus repayment of court costs)
In BOTH cases, a monetary award is sufficient to appease the injured party (as you cannot replace limbs nor "innocence"). HOW much is enough, well, to my thinking, the national average income indexed to the CPI would most likely do it, unless it can be conclusively shown that more is needed for adaptive eqipment in service of medical needs… He's going to have to wark hard, AND there will have to be a public (inviolable) slush fund.

By example, selling dope, per se, does not injure ANYONE, financially, except the addict and the GOV't by taxation loss. When he resorts to crime to pay for his habit (even if it is twinkies) his issues become public and the "cure", is for him to repay his debts (by compulsion if necessary-after all, there are OTHER uses of a GPS locator than telling me where my car is WHILE I'm DRIVING IT). Morally, dope selling has been decided (for us by our legislators-every time the people vote, they vote FOR it. California legalized marijuana THREE TIMES, and the CALIFORNIA/FED JUDICIAL branch overturned it-the last time Ashcroft started locking up the docs who were 'legally' prescribing it for medical issues it showed a propensity for alleviating) to be an unacceptable behaviour for which we shall pay on average 90-180k per "offender" to "correct" by incarcerating the individual (which in reality teaches him HOW NOT to get caught by MANAGING his business better, NEXT time.

Rape (not statutory between ages of 16 & 18-who is going to stop a 16 year old girl from getting herself some, if she wants it? hm? I would, also, eliminate "date" rape as a crime. She should have said "no" A LONG TIME BEFORE she got nekked-if HE removed her clothes without her consent it isn't date rape, just rape), murder, kidnapping, torture, should have but one punishment upon (final) conviction. While such conviction may well take a couple of years to go through the courts, there should be only one punishment (and go ahead and let them choose it) which is DEATH (I would only allow appeals on issues of the EVIDENCE, not the machinations of interpellation of arcane procedure).

The State of California currently pays 65k a year to keep Sirhan-Sirhan locked up for using MORE bullets than his gun could hold in shooting RFK. I met this convicted assassin before the crime occurred--he didn't know WHAT a RFK was, let alone WANT to kill him... He wanted his family to come over and was working TWO full time jobs (at the time I met him) to make that happen. I'm not saying he didn't do it; I'm not saying that the FEDs invented his diary, I'm saying that when I met him he was nearly as apolitical as they come, and a VERY hard working immigrant... IF he became involved with hypnotherapy experiments, it was for the MONEY. Ooooooops back on track,

As to the EVIDENCE, I want there to be solid evidence of INJURY, whether monetarily, or physically of a business or person before we even GET to the trial phase. I want all the moralistic nonsense eliminated from the criminal code-it should be purely objectively rational. IF some gal wants to rent parts of her anatomy by the hour, it's her BUSINESS (and so long as she pays the VAT and sees a doc occasionally) WHO CARES? If your wife does, then I suggest it's HER problem, and SHE should deal with it. Supply and demand will determine pricing. Good business practices will determine who may participate in such a "business". Who is Ashcoft to say that some upwardly thinking teenybopper in Portland SHOULDN'T rent parts of herself by the hour, if SHE wants to hang out her shingle, pay her taxes, and prove she's seen a doc...?

Long story short, MOST of the crimes on the books are redundant hidden taxation, which I would eliminate. My views on personal recreational (although I do not choose to participate) substance use and alleged prostitution are obvious. Simple assault is personal issue which should be handled personally and privately. IF you are monetarily damaged (or medically, and irreparably) then you are entitled to compensation, IF you didn't start it (and have demonstrable proofs).

IF you want more, you have my addy as this disccusion could go for years... As always it is the abdication of responsibility that causes a problem to become a public issue. Somebody wants SOMEBODY else to do something (my basic response is, "Go do it yourself, and shut up, please, but don't tell me what I SHALL do because YOU want it that way").

Mr. K.

Your "three to five years" is of course an exaggeration for literary purposes MOST trials go UNDER six months (even in the FED calendar which is backed up for DAYS by their EXCESSIVELY exaggerated definition of "crime", MOST are plead out for "lesser offenses", and most "crimes" aren't. I thought we were speaking about 'murder' ... Or did I get lost somewhere along the way?????

And, I was referring to the start of trial to execution time frame.

Take care ;)

POI What have you got against CEOs? :)

Actually the topic was Crime and Punishment, generally, and whether in the crime of murder or other captial offense, there "should" be a death penalty, (or why life in prison is more viable).

Yes, I think life in prison costs too much, and I believe that indentured servants would cost CEOs LESS than they currently pay for the "in"justice system. I have NOTHING against CEOs. My point was actually to give CEO's a break by providing them with lower costing labor, actually, by providing a labor pool at 10% of the cost of the general pool. I'm not saying the quality of work would be outstanding, (ceratinly good enough to swipe packs of smokes at 7/11).

I said, in my perfect little universe there wouldn't be "technical" appeals but only evidentiary, so the case wouldn't go FIVE years from conviction to execution. In most capital cases, if you threw out the MANDATORY technical appeals, it would be less than 2 years from arraignment to execution. The purpose of the mandatory appeals is to ensure the state has incurred no liability (the prisoner's guilt has been decided) if they pull the switch. IF my stronger evidentiary requirements were followed, the marginal cases wouldn't be in court in the fist place, hence no need to appeal, hence no severe backlog of cases.

Mr. K.

Some people deserve to die, but does anyone have the right to kill?

Tom

Sorry about the misunderstanding re. CEO's.

In my 'perfect little universe' most CEO's would
be considered criminals.

Take care ;)

I dont know where u people all come from
im from Australia and the last person hung in victoria was a man named Ronaled Rian (sorry i cant remember how to spell his name) but he was hung when there was a huge movement to abolishe the death penelty and it was mainly done for political reasons. they are now 99.5% sure that he was inosent but as u can't unhang someone its to late

if u give life inprisonment u can always let the person go and put the real offender in their place

i personally belive that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than to convict 1 inocent person especially where u are talking about the death penelty
:mad:

I believe in:
Killing the criminals....:mad:
locking up the lawyers....:mad:
and free ice cream to everyone else.... :D
so there.... :D


"Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual." Friedrich Nietzsche
If you believe everything you read, better not read. Japanese proverb

The Death penelty is NEVER justifided because once someone is in jail they are harmless anyway and its a bit hard to UNkill someone when they are proven inoccent:mad:

No appeals/ No remorse:

Re. "...because once someone is in jail they are harmless"

Maybe to those outside the prison, but how about the
other inmates and staff?

Guess I was involved in too many 'altercations' over the
years to buy your bit.

Take care :rolleyes:

Is that REALLY a good thing. To kill an inocent person is WRONG i dont care how you justify it. To kill as a punishment make a sociaty that tolerates it into the very evil that they seek protection from. You are no beter than the killer you just killed.


I also wasn't talking about people who are found not guilty because of Apeals and so forth i am talking about people who are actually found to be INOCENT of the crime but not till after the event (Ronald Ryan springs to mind and so dose the woman who's baby was taken by a dingo, think her name was Lindy Chamberlin but im not sure)

Oh and as for the last post if there is a problem with the Jail system FIX IT. Dont use that as an exscuce to KILL.

Re. "... if there is a problem with the Jail system FIX IT.

Short of keeping someone in their cell twenty four hours a day and
manacled whenever they have to be moved, what do you propose?
Keeping them constantly tranq'ed? Or do you want all prisons to
operate like Camp X-Ray?

Get real, man!

Take care :(

I recently read a story in Stars and Stripes about a nice ole' fella that viciously raped a teenager and than, when he was done I quess, hacked her arms off with an ax. Believe it or not she survived and he was convicted. This happened years ago, the man recently died off old age on death row. Now with that in mind, I can understand the different views on the death penalty. The wrong people can be put to death, of course, nothing is fool proof. But people spending a life time to think about a horrible crime that they were glad they commited(this man told her this much later on) just doesn't sit well with me. After his trial, I think they should of grabbed that son-of-a-bitch, ground him into dog food and fed him to the wild animals. But maybe that would of been too good for him. So, think about this: your daughter had been raped, arms hacked off at the shoulders and is left for dead. Now he goes to court, and he threatens her and says," To bad I didn't finish the job". Put your self in her parents shoes...

In a country where thousands of people are killed every year by drunken
drivers and little is done about it, it seems ridiculous to me that 'god forbid'
we should possibly kill a couple of dozen 'innocent' perps a year.

The madness of it all!

Take care :rolleyes:

First off i would like to say i dont have any answers about the situations in jails. All i can say is they are designed to keep dangerouse people housed so if there is something wrong with them the goverment of the paticular country needs to deal with that

but as to the point about capital punisment

Are we talking JUSTICE or REVENGE

i dont think ANY county calls there leagle system their "Revenge system" so we ARE talking about justice now there was a man in Tasmainia named Michel Briant (think thats right but if its not feel free to corect it) who hunted down 2 little girls and merslely shot them. Now after having a Fair trial (something which from looking at the US they have no idear about) he was sentinst to life inprisonment without the possablity of parole. Do you know what the father of those 2 little girls did when the verdict was handed down. He didn't curse the goverment for not having the death penelty even though he had just lost both his wife and daughters he PRASIED the courts that this man could never do it again.

Everyday i thank god we don't live in a hipercritical sociaty that acepts the Death Penelty

Just one last point i read somewhere on this site that 1/2 of the people put to death in the US are later found not to have done it

it is better to let 100000000 gulty people go than to kill 1 incocent person


(oh what was with that car thing are we playing God again):mad:

I agree with Asguard, ful heartedly! There are a lot of innocent people killed.

I am against the death penalty. Guess it is better in any way to lock murderers and other criminals away. That they don't like, some of the criminals prefer the death penalty. It is an easy way out for them. Then again, if finally found out a prisoner is locked away innocent, he/she can be set free again. There are a lot judgements made much too quick. Once killed, no more right done.

No death penalty, it is ridiculous!

The ones who are in command of that death row, are killers themselves! 'Righteous' murderers in service of the country! And I mean the U$ in specific...

Thank u banshee the death penelty is WRONG

Apart from the chance of killing innocent suspects, there is this:

Considering the obvious lack of evidence for the assumed deterring effects of the death panelty (in fact: crime rates are higher in countries and states with the death panelty) it seems, to say the least, a bit foolish.
Those of you think capital punishment is just, because of feelings of revenge are at risk of seeming barbaric. You know what they say: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

There are a lot of innocent people killed.

I used to major in criminal justice and I think its like 3% of death's due to the death penalty end up being innocent. That is not a very high number. I agree that innocent people shouldn't have to die, but in most circumstances there are downfalls. I mean should we keep paying and paying for criminals? I think its like 90% of murders and sex offenders are repeat offenders. Now thats a high number. If you do something wrong you should pay the price. If you take a life, why not have your life taken away. Its only fair. Well, my opinion anyways


Groove on

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
3% of death's due to the death penalty end up being innocent. That is not a very high number.Nope. Not too high at all.
Unless it's you, I guess.

Peace.

No, I agree Goofyfish, it should be 0%, but realistically speaking, there is going to be a percentage of people that are innocent executed. But the quiestion is, Does the pros outway the cons? I think it does. No system in the world is perfect.

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
But the quiestion is, Does the pros outway the cons? I think it does.At the risk of being repetitive, I'll say again: Unless it's you.No system in the world is perfect.That is absolutely true. But I believe that a system that is known to be flawed should not allow such finality as it's outcome. You can release the wrongly accused from prison. You cannot bring them back to life.

Peace.

*StrGrl*, you may have a pretty face, but you sure have a dumb set of ideas:
"If you take a life, why not have your life taken away. Its only fair. Well, my opinion anyways "

How short sighted can you get?
- I believe the maffia world also works that way, doesn't it? ;)
And the scary thing is that people with opinions like that can also say "I used to major in criminal justice".... *shiver*

EVERYBODY WHO FAVORS DEATH PENALTY IS ULTIMATELY ACCESSORY TO MURDER
(even if you define murder to be the killing of innocent people: think about those 3%!)

Or am I missing something major here?

Asguard
Re. "Are we talking JUSTICE or REVENGE
Gee, I always considered them to be synonymous except in cases of
dispute resolution ... Foolish me.

Re. "... 1/2 of the people put to death in the US are later found not to have done it
*stRgrL* correctly answered with the actual %.

it is better to let 100000000 gulty people go than to kill 1 incocent person
Great! Eliminate the 'Justice' sys. completely ... No more problem.

Merlijn
Re. " ...the obvious lack of evidence for the assumed deterring effects...
Cut the BS ... Whose talking 'deterrence'? Execution is a 100% effective
deterrent to repetition ... To the best of my knowledge.

Re. "...you may have a pretty face, but you sure have a dumb set of ideas..."
Thanks for my chuckle of the day ... you should never have posted your
picture. And yes, you are missing something: rational thought.

Take care all :rolleyes:

thanks Chagur.

Justice and Revenge: you state "I always considered them to be synonymous". I am interested: what do you think does 'rational' mean?

killing somebody will stop them from commiting future crimes, true. I have to admit, that one was funny.

Revenge is only PART of a justice system when its there at all.

Justice is about protection and reabilatation (something that is imposable with the death penelty)

If Revenge was important then the victom would set the penelty. funny i don't think this hapens in ANY country because justice requires impartiality something no victom can give>

Well... Opinions are like a**holes, everyones got one:D

I find myself in total agrement with the last person

pitty is the amount of people on this thread talking out of there's

And the scary thing is that people with opinions like that can also say "I used to major in criminal justice".... *shiver*

And by the way Mer, the reason why I dropped Criminal Justice as my major was because I think the system sucks! To continously let repeat offenders out and watch them do the same things over and over. Apparently you have never lost anyone due to a gruesome murder. I think you would change your mind if someone murdered your child or someone really close to you:confused:


Groove on

No if i lost someone to murder i would hope i had the courage to forgive the murderer but in any case i would hope that people would ignore what i thought and that Impartial justice would prevail. I also hope that you are never found guily of a muder you don't comit and are put to death by a justice system that is unfair and babaric

Barbaric, adj. 1.lacking civilizing influences; 2.primitive

Primitive, adj. 1.being the first or earliest of the kind or in existence

Now can someone please explain how the death penalty is consirdered barbaric?
Hanging in town square, beheading, torture chambers, firing squad, oh and my personal fave, death by electricity (being sarcastic) We give a person a shot and they go to sleep and never wake up. Sounds real cruel and unusual to me. Lets just throw em all in a prison and let the AIDS statitcs keep growing in numerous numbers. CMF, which is a really big prison here in Northen California has 1/3 inmates infected with AIDS. And then pretty soon they'll twice as many prisons and people will do more crimes because they know they wont die for it. And they know the worse consequence will be sitting in a cell with cable tiv and 3 meals a day. Do you guys honestly believe thats punishment? Call me old fashioned, but they dont use it enough!

Now, Im ready for all the cruel insults, and even if I dont agree with someone, I would never put someone down and call them dumb. I think thats pretty immature, but, thats just my opinion.

And you know what I think of opinions:D

I am sorry about that (i thought you were insulting me in the post above it)

But as to your questions it is primative to kill someone (it was the same pratice in the Roman empire) to say that you use a better method dose not change that (and how long ago was someone hung in the US, i seem to rember something about one only a couple of years ago)

We are supost to be civalised (i appologise for my spelling) and you are telling me that with all our superier knowlage we can't think of a better way to deal with people who break our laws.

Lets all die for J-walking

would u call someone who mudered someone babaric.
yes well i think the same of any SOCIATY that condones the DP

(hope none of this offended you)

*stRgrl*,
Firstly: I do realize that some things I wrote are not what one would call constructive and I apologize sincerely for the insults. You see I can get carried away: this is a subject very close to my heart. It really hurts for me when I read "pro-death" posts. I value life very much. So much for me loosing my patience. :-\
But this also brings me to this: I would like to know your reaction to the more constructive things I have written.

Now back to your posts:
Barbaric, adj. 1.lacking civilizing influences; 2.primitive

Primitive, adj. 1.being the first or earliest of the kind or in existence

Now can someone please explain how the death penalty is consirdered barbaric?
I can. Since the most primitive (i.e. first of its kind) reaction to being hurt is to cause pain to the cuase of that pain this kind of reaction is barbaric.
Institutionalizing (in the sense of having it made institutional), and ritualizing retribution does not change the fact that retribution is in principle barbaric.
(BTW Freud once said that the first person who was civilized was the (wo)man who called an other names instead of hiting them on the head with a rock. Maybe it was a civilized act calling your ideas stupid, after all :D)

Needless to say, I hope with all my heart that nobody close to me gets murdered, raped, tortured, etc. But if it does happen I hope, just like Asguard, that independent jsutice will prevail and that I am kept away from the purpetrator.

I am not sure what you mean by "... has 1/3 inmates infected with AIDS. And then pretty soon they'll twice as many prisons and people will do more crimes because they know they wont die for it. And they know the worse consequence will be sitting in a cell with cable tiv and 3 meals a day."
Was this meant to be something like "the prospect of being locked away in room does not deter"? if so: read one of my former posts- crime rates are higher in countries and states with the death panelty!
Furthermore; I thought people value their freedom very highly. Having this taken away seems quite a serious punishment to me.

I am not at all a softy. But I believe in just punishment. And capital punishment is not just: two wrongs do not make a right.

enough for now.
hope good fortune will meet you
Merlijn

*... crime rates are higher in countries and states with the death panelty!
Furthermore; I thought people value their freedom very highly. Having this taken away seems quite a serious punishment to me.*

Exactly!

Perhaps people living in a country where the death penalty is a common habit, should think about this a little more and look into their minds what it would do to them if it were they who are on the death row.

I would be very shocked and sad and probably ful of anger when someone dear to me got murdered. Doesn't take away the fact that I never, and I mean never ever should want to have anything to do with the killing of the murderer. Then I am just as bad as the murderer him/herself!

It is about time that every country where the death penalty still is a fact, gets rid of this barbaric behaviour... :confused:

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
I think you would change your mind if someone murdered your child or someone really close to youOriginally posted by Asguard
No if i lost someone to murder i would hope i had the courage to forgive the murderer.I don't know about that, Asguard. I am reasonably certain that if a loved one was murdered, I would be enraged, and demand that justice be served, and an eye for an eye… all despite my somewhat pacifistic leanings. That is precisely the reason that it must be considered before it gets to that point. On NPR this morning there was a blurb about Illinois’ prisoners on death row. Thirteen of twenty-four where exonerated. That is a scary statistic.

The maxim "the punishment ought to fit the crime" is one of our most enduring foundations of criminal justice. We are offended when we do not think the guilty have been punished enough and we chafe at the story of Jean Valjean. There is evidently something hardwired in our brains that tells us what, at least generally, appropriate standards of punishment are. In an IRC discussion recently, someone stated, “without this idea of appropriateness, there is no justice.”

Why? What is the rational justification for this appropriateness? How can we possibly accept this as a guideline for punishment when standards of "punishments fitting crimes" varies tremendously across time and space? Standards of punishment change over time as do the standards of what is a criminal act. We don't burn people at the stake for heresy, we no longer hang people for having sex with barnyard animals, and we don't maim people for stealing bread. Justice is based on what society sees as appropriate, and is ever-evolving. It is time to put the death penalty behind us.

Peace.

Lets all die for J-walking

To get the death penalty here you have to commit a murder with special circumstances. "Special" meaning, out of the ordinary, gruesome, etc. And with all the advancements in DNA, the 3% will drop by at least half. Look, I really wish I lived in a world where nobody committed murders and we didnt have to use the death penalty, but we dont. And by putting people in a cell and giving them a chance to escape or appeal or possibly get their conviction overturned and let them out to walk the streets and due it again. I, as a mother, would feel a whole lot safer if I knew that possiblity couldnt happen.
And thanks for you guys letting up on me a little:D


Groove on

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
And with all the advancements in DNA, the 3%Stop that... unsupported speculation. :)And by putting people in a cell and giving them a chance to escape or appeal or possibly get their conviction overturned and let them out to walk the streets and due it again.Then perhaps you might focus on changing existing due process to eliminate those opportunities. Make "life" in prison mean exactly that: life in prison. But the appeals are important, especially to the innocents who have been wrongly convicted.

Peace.

Can Anyone please explain to me how the DP protects more than a Life sentence (without the possablity of parole)?

Oh Goofyfish I do actually hope that i could forgive the Murderer because that shows that I am a better person. It might take a while for me though (I would be Angered by the crime).

hahaha.
I would very much like to know the answer to that one as well.

Can Anyone please explain to me how the DP protects more than a Life sentence


1. The convict could excape.
2. The convict could get an appeal.
3. The convict could get his conviction overturned and be set free.
4. Usually a person who commits these types of crimes, has led a criminal life, and therefore is used to the system and probably has ties in prison making it easier to get "luxuries" like drugs and cigs.


What kind of punishment is this?


If the convict is dead, no more problem.


Groove on

I am sorry about that (i thought you were insulting me in the post above it)

Why would I insult you asguard? You were the only one who stuck up for me earlier:) Any sarcasm or skeptism was directed to Merlijn and Chagur:D

And I was also wondering, in the poll up above, its about 50/50, where is everyone else who shares my views?:D

Groove on

As i have said before if there is a problem with the department of corections (this is what it is called in Australia anyway) then FIX IT don't use that as justification for MURDERING someone.

As for the Apeals and so forth a person has a RIGHT to them and they can't be MURDERED till they are finished anyway. If they are found to be Inocent of the crime in Apeal its a bit late after you have MURDERED them

"As i have said before if there is a problem with the department of corections (this is what it is called in Australia anyway) then FIX IT don't use that as justification for MURDERING someone."

Im not using the problems with our systems to justify the death penalty. I actually think the death penalty is a good idea. If people didnt commit murders, the death penalty wouldnt exist. Why cant anyone accept that? If a person KNOWS that he could get the death penalty for a committing a murder, why do they still do it? Its actually pretty simple, Dont kill and you wont face the death penalty. Simple.

Groove on

Can someone please post (or send me) a comparitive Levels of Murder comited (against population) for the USA vs Australia or England or Something (i cant find one)

I belive that you will find the US has the highest murderer rate. I mean why not every citerson (again i ask you to exsuse my spelling) is a murderer.

the dictonary definition of Murder: the Intentional killing of one human being by another.

As there isn't a killing more intentional than the DP i refuse to refer to it as anything other than MURDER from now on





Quote:"If a person KNOWS that he could get the death penalty for a committing a murder, why do they still do it?"

The anwer is simple. Death is an easy way out, and the other reason if someone is going to comit a crime they arn't thinking of the concequences. So Death is shown not to be a deterent.

Can someone please post (or send me) a comparitive Levels of Murder comited (against population) for the USA vs Australia or England or Something -
Will it be comparitive by population? Are you going to add england and australias population together. It might equal California, lol.

What if you found that crime in america was at a all time low.


A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Winston Churchill

I did ask for it compairing population and if its acurat i don't care what it shows

I am still digging for homicide per capita statistics, but in the U.S., it is apparent that crime is not likely to be at an all time low.

Number of persons in custody of State correctional authorities by most serious offense, 1980-1999

Year___ Violence___Property____Drug____Public Order
-----------------------------------------------------
1980___173,300____89,300____19,000____12,400
1981___193,300___100,500____21,700____14,600
1982___215,300___114,400____25,300____17,800
1983___214,600___127,100____26,600____24,400
1984___227,300___133,100____31,700____21,900
1985___246,200___140,100____38,900____23,000
1986___258,600___150,200____45,400____28,800
1987___271,300___155,500____57,900____31,300
1988___282,700___161,600____79,100____35,000
1989___293,900___172,700___120,100____39,500
1990___313,600___173,700___148,600____45,500
1991___339,500___180,700___155,200____49,500
1992___369,100___181,600___168,100____56,300
1993___393,500___189,600___177,000____64,000
1994___425,700___207,000___193,500____74,400
1995___459,600___226,600___212,800____86,500
1996___484,800___231,700___216,900____96,000
1997___507,800___236,400___222,100___106,200
1998___545,200___242,900___236,800___113,900
1999___570,000___245,000___251,200___120,600

Source: Department of Justice Web Pages

Violent offenses include murder, negligent and non-negligent manslaughter,
rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, extortion, intimidation, criminal
endangerment, and other violent offenses.

Property offenses include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft,
fraud, possession and selling of stolen property, destruction of property,
trespassing, vandalism, criminal tampering, and other property offenses.

Drug offenses include possession, manufacturing, trafficking,
and other drug offenses.

Public-order offenses include weapons, drunk driving, escape/flight
to avoid prosecution, court offenses, obstruction, commercialized vice,
morals and decency charges, liquor law violations, and other
public-order offenses.

Peace.

I was hoping for a comparison between the US and a country without the DP

I will try to email the department of justice see if they can help me

Still looking for country comparisons, but a state to state comparison within the U.S. is certainly interesting.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/MurderRateGraph.gif

When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.

Peace.

Everyone who suports the DP should read this

http://www.acadp.com/

Some Stats for 1999
All done with very rough math.

Population of England and Wales: 52.7 million (source (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=601&More=N))

Murders in England and Wales - 761 (source (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=off-docsa&STEMMER=en&WORDS=murder+rate+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-04.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match))

Population of the United States - 274 million (source (http://www1.stateline.org/fact.do?factId=641))

Murders in the United States - 15,533 (source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm))
Interestingly, murder rates have been declining since
1994, but they are obviously not at an all-time low.

The Population of the United States is 5.2 times that of
England and Wales. Increasing their murders rate the
same amount, would result in 3,957 murders.

Comparatively, America had a murder rate almost 4 times as high.

Peace.

Thank u goofyfish

Last resort, check the F.B.I. for year 2000 stats

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/cius2000.htm
http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/dying.html

Interestingly, us deranged sociopathic Americans liked to dish out
murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults in the following order:

Firearms 25.6%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 31.5%
knives or cutting instruments 15.0%
Other dangerous weapons 27.9%

...and on that note kiddies, I'd like you to ponder these last words of the condemned:

You are going to hurt me, please don't hurt me, just one more moment, I beg you!
Guillotined.
~~ Madame du Barry, mistress of Louis XV, d. 1793

Take a step forward, lads. It will be easier that way.
Executed by firing squad.
~~ Erskine Childers, Irish patriot, d. November 24, 1922

You sons of bitches. Give my love to Mother.
Executed in electric chair.
~~ Francis "Two Gun" Crowley, d. 1931

Remember, the death penalty is murder.
Executed by injection, Texas.
~~ Robert Drew, d. August 2, 1994

Hurrah for anarchy! This is the happiest moment of my life.
Last words on the gallows.
~~ George Engel
(He was one of four executed after the 1886 Haymarket bombing in Chicago)

I love you.
Spoken to the executioner.
Executed by injection, New York.
~~ Sean Flannagan, d. June 23, 1989

I'd like to thank my family for loving me and taking care of me. And the rest of the world can kiss my ass.
Executed by injection, Texas.
~~ Johnny Frank Garrett, Sr., d. February 11, 1992

I'd rather be fishing.
Executed in electric chair, Louisiana.
~~ Jimmy Glass, d. June 12, 1987

Good people are always so sure they're right.
Executed at San Quentin.
~~ Barbara Graham, d. June 3, 1955

I did not get my Spaghetti-O's, I got spaghetti. I want the press to know this.
Executed by injection, Oklahoma.
~~ Thomas J. Grasso, d. March 20, 1995

I am innocent, innocent, innocent. Make no mistake about this. I owe society nothing. I am an innocent man and something very wrong is taking place tonight.
Executed by injection, Texas.
~~ Lionel Herrera d. May 12, 1993

I don't hold any grudges. This is my doing. Sorry it happened.
Executed in electric chair, Indiana.
~~ Steven Judy, d. March 9, 1981

Such is Life
Executed by hanging.
~~ Ned Kelly, Australian bushranger, d. 1880

Shoot me in the chest!
To his executioners.
~~Benito Mussolini, Italian dictator, d.1945

Capital punishment: them without the capital get the punishment.
Executed in electric chair, Florida.
~~ John Spenkelink, d. May 25, 1979

And you don't think there is anything wrong with that. I bet if u read the victoms last words they would closesly match that list. You have proved my point that there is no difference between state killing and MURDER

And I say...


Give them to God, let him sort em out:D

I hope you are never acused of murder in the US rightfully or Wrongfully

By the way reading that list made me sick to my stomic
if you thought it would incorage me to change my view all it did was convice me to fight the DP to the death (No pun intended)

I hope you are never acused of murder in the US rightfully or Wrongfully
You make it sound as if our police just drive around and say, "tag, your it". I never seen that happen, nor have I ever met someone
who was wrongfully accused. I did have a friend from high school that stabbed his father to death, but he was covered in his dad's blood, holding the murder weapon, and yes, he said," I did it". So as wether he was guilty or not, I think there was no question.
By the way reading that list made me sick to my stomic
Take some medicine...
you thought it would incorage me to change my view
Why would I want to change your views. What fun is that if everyone shared my way of thinking. It's peoples different views that make conversation interesting. So there ;)

*You make it sound as if our police just drive around and say, "tag, your it". I never seen that happen, nor have I ever met someone who was wrongfully accused.*

No, of course you didn't see that happen, or met a person who was wrongfully accused. They are dead!

I am sorry, if you are talking that kind of crap, you can get a crap answer.

Please, think, the U$ has the highest death rate in the world. As well as murderers. I am real sorry to say so. And there are mistakes made a lot of times and then it's too late to make it right again.

It is damn easy talking from your warm seat at home. What if it was your brother, father, sister or mother or who ever close to you? And it turns out that they arre falsely accused? Then again, it doesn't matter! Nobody has the right to take the life of another person! It is wrong to take a life, even if that person has done so, it's not up to other humans who are so called justified killers.

DEATH PENALTY IS WRONG!!! IN ANY CASE...:(

No, of course you didn't see that happen, or met a person who was wrongfully accused. They are dead!

My God, you don't say. I was wondering about all those missing person signs all over. Tell me, how many people are missing in your neighborhood.

It is damn easy talking from your warm seat at home.
What makes you think I'm anywhere close to home. My home is actually about 4000-5000 miles away.


And there are mistakes made a lot of times

So whats your suggestion for fixing our legal system.

What if it was your brother, father, sister or mother or who ever close to you?

Hmm...good question. But what if they did do it?

Please don't get hysterical, just sarcasm, nothing mean. See what six months of excruciating boredom does to you.
:D

Bullets,

***Hmm...good question. But what if they did do it?***

Then you'd be the brother/son/close relative or friend of a murderer.

Regardless of whether they were wrongly or rightly convicted, why would you favor us murdering your relative or friend vs putting them in prison for the rest of their life?

Regardless of whether they were wrongly or rightly convicted, why would you favor us murdering your relative or friend vs putting them in prison for the rest of their life?
We'll, i quess life in prison is still execution, since their locked up till they die, right. They both equal death, huh? Sorry, I'm just not compassionate to killers, and if a family member/ friend did kill someone, I don't think I could feel too much sympathy. I don't feel sorry for my former friend. But!!! I think it should be up to the victims family to decide what the punishment is. Killing a Killer just seems right to me, sorry guys.:)

Ever hear of Impartial Justice. Its not just part of the leagle system you know sports use the same system because it is build into sociaty

*We'll, i quess life in prison is still execution, since their locked up till they die, right. They both equal death, huh?*

No, there is a significant difference in killing a person or send her/him to prison for the rest of her/his lifetime. In prison they die a natural death. Yes, there is a chance they get killed by another prisoner. I shall mention this up front, you come up with that fact anyway.

A murderer shall find it very hard to spend the rest of his/her lifetime in prison, more than being send to the death row. Guess this is a far better punishment. Justice done!

*I think it should be up to the victims family to decide what the punishment is. Killing a Killer just seems right to me, sorry guys.*

So the family has to speak their veto over the murderer? Is that justice according to now-a-days society? Then the family carries the burdon of someone being killed, because they happen to be family of the victim... :( Yeah, right! Chaos and anarchy!

Not that I am a fan of humans civilization, it's just not right.

Killing a killer makes you a killer! :confused:

Funny how there are only two choices: Execution and life imprisonment??

Doesn't anyone believe in rehabilitation anymore?? Do we just lock people up and throw away the key? After all aren't prisons called CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES??

It's interesting that people come out of correctional facilities worse than they came in(if they come out at all). The US is so blind with vengance that it can't even see the obvious. Revenge is so strong in the US that they're even treating kids as adults and executing mentally handicapped people!! Funny that kids are not allowed to have guns because they are irresponsible, but if someone gives a kid a gun and the kid kills someone, then suddenly they are responsible!!!

The solution is to turn prisons into correctional facilities, and for people to start using their brains a little instead of just their emotions.

Tom

Joeblow,
In an ideal situation (as if there were any crime then...) prisons would be correctional facilities. However-
Some, if not most, of the criminals under discussion here cannot be corrected. They're mentally ill and there is no known cure.
Untill there is they should be kept indoors (but alive!).

Merlijn

Merlijn,

Your right, but why aren't there cures for those mental illnesses?

Maybe because the government is in such a hurry to have criminals killed, that they don't take the time to find out what's wrong with them and find a cure.

For this behavior I would have to blaim religion. If we took the scientific approach, this kind of behavior would be considered mental illness and sooner or later a cure would be found. Maybe it might even then be prevented. Unfortunately, when religious people see criminals, they do not see mental illness, they see EVIL. And since evil can't be cured, they figure that criminals should be locked up for life or executed.

What was wrong with John Wayne Gacy? Did he have an extra chromosome that caused his behavior? Did he have a physical defect in his brain or was his illness the result of how he was raised? Maybe it was the result of a chemical in his evironment?

We will never know what was truly wrong with him because instead of treating him as sick, we treated him as evil. And when the next John Wayne Gacy appears, we will have to start from scratch all over again.


Tom

Originally posted by Banshee
Guess this is a far better punishment. Justice done!Originally posted by Joeblow93132
Funny how there are only two choices: Execution and life imprisonment?? Doesn't anyone believe in rehabilitation anymore?? There are four basic motivations for punishment: Prevention (i.e. while you're in jail, you can't commit any other crimes.)
Deterrence (that sign in the bank.)
Rehabilitation (it sounds good in theory.)
RevengeRevenge is simply not a proper, civilized motive for punishment, and in the U.S., theoretically, we base punishment decisions on the other three. In practice, however, punishment is almost invariably for revenge.

With our present system, I pretty much accept that rehabilitation and deterrence are a joke, and that prevention only lasts as long as the punishment. Even the permanent prevention solution (the death penalty) is not applied based on who is more likely to do it again, but on how badly society wants to get back at the criminal.

And of course "the punishment fits the crime" is ALL about revenge. In the U.S. at least, it's based on societal standards. In California, they have had several recent referenda on adding specific crimes (killing a witness, killing a juror) to the death penalty list. The voters basically decided what punishment they felt was most appropriate for the crimes specified.

I have also heard the theory that the death penalty is necessary because it prevents citizens from taking their own revenge and lets off some "societal steam". This is revenge pure and simple. When criminals end up in front of a judge, whatever lip service we may pay to teaching them about the consequences of their behavior, our real motivation in punishing them is apparently to get back at them for what they have taken from society.

Peace.

Banshee,

***Killing a killer makes you a killer!***

Yes. Because this is a reality that is so simple to see, it is also a reality that is easy to side-step when we (Bullet, for example) are not the one's actually pulling the switch.

Bullet,

***Killing a Killer just seems right to me.***

As Banshee pointed out, killing a killer makes you a killer. When will your murderous acts be made right?

Aren't you the least bit concerned about owning such murderous acts and carrying them to your grave?

If killers deserve to die, then what do you deserve?

If killers deserve to die, then what do you deserve?


Its not like the people who support the death penalty are actually giving the injection. Its one thing to gruesomely murder someone and another to support the death penalty. It is the law right now, and if you guys want to write your senator to have it changed, then go right ahead. But until then, your going to have to accept that it is the lawful and rightful punishment. And in my opinion, the best one.


Groove on

Joe,

I'm all for rehabilitation. I know a number of people who were rehabilitated decades ago. There crimes were more a matter of immaturity and having poor role-models.

However, as far as this goes:

***If we took the scientific approach, this kind of behavior would be considered mental illness and sooner or later a cure would be found. Maybe it might even then be prevented. Unfortunately, when religious people see criminals, they do not see mental illness, they see EVIL. And since evil can't be cured, they figure that criminals should be locked up for life or executed.

What was wrong with John Wayne Gacy? Did he have an extra chromosome that caused his behavior? Did he have a physical defect in his brain or was his illness the result of how he was raised? Maybe it was the result of a chemical in his evironment?

We will never know what was truly wrong with him because instead of treating him as sick, we treated him as evil. And when the next John Wayne Gacy appears, we will have to start from scratch all over again.***

Why not take this matter up with the scientific community?

stRgrL,

***Its not like the people who support the death penalty are actually giving the injection. Its one thing to gruesomely murder someone and another to support the death penalty.***

The manner of killing, whether you consider it to be gruesome or not, does not justify the kill. Because the person is killed with your support, you own the act of killing of another human being as surely as the one who gives the injection. Accept who and what you are - a death penalty supporter... a killer.

When and where do you want your lethal injection administered?

If killers deserve to die, then what do you deserve?
I tell you what, when I get back to the States, I will treat myself to a cold bottle of beer.


peace











Ten and a wake up- ICARRYALOTOFBULLETS :D

Because the person is killed with your support, you own the act of killing of another human being as surely as the one who gives the injection.

Puhlease! Thats like saying if the pilot flies the plane with my support, I am somehow helping fly the plane. Dude, get over it.
Okay, I have a question to all you non-supporters. Would you kill someone in self defense? To protect your child, you would pull the trigger?


I rest my case


Oh, and bullets, yes you deserve a nice cold one, Ill buy ya one when ya get back here:D


Groove on

*Okay, I have a question to all you non-supporters. Would you kill someone in self defense? To protect your child, you would pull the trigger?*

NO, never! I have to inform you that I do have a child. Don't have a gun. I hate every weapon to begin with! If I have to protect my child from being killed, I will! I just use my teeth, nails, feet and every other part of my body to fight with. It may perhaps not work out and if my child will be killed, so be it. Then at the least I have tried and probably get killed in the progress also.

Treatment of murderers is being done in many cases. Some of them are considered cured after some years in a mental institution and released. In some cases the 'cure' works, in other cases the 'cure' does not work and the murderer goes back to killing. Question is which person will go back to his/her killing and which person doesn't. That is hard to tell, because if they are mentally ill, they can play a roll and fool the so called system. That is a tough decision for the ones who treat such persons.

I do agree that churches with their silly power over people do have serious influence on people and their actions. As parenthood does and other influences in life from child on.

Anyway, I stay with it... Death penalty is NOT the solution. Never...

ICALOB, have your cold beer. Guess your mind is messed up through society. Hopefully you only carry your bullets and you don't have a gun to load with them. You seem a danger for others then...

Thanks stRgrL,
Banshee I wonder about you:
NO, never! I have to inform you that I do have a child. Don't have a gun. I hate every weapon to begin with! If I have to protect my child from being killed, I will! I just use my teeth, nails, feet and every other part of my body to fight with. It may perhaps not work out and if my child will be killed, so be it.Then at the least I have tried and probably get killed in the progress also.
I am just at a loss for words
Guess your mind is messed up through society.
My mind is messed up, huh? Because I disagree with you. I am really glad to know that you would throw your young to the wolves if given a chance. Maybe i've been gone to long, but at least stick up for your family.
I hate every weapon to begin with!
teeth, nails, feet are considered weapons. Anything used to cause harm is a weapon. So how could you hate that.

Nine and a wake up- ICARRYALOTOFBULLETS

teeth, nails, feet are considered weapons. Anything used to cause harm is a weapon. So how could you hate that.

I agree. I would kill someone in a heartbeat to protect my child. And I dont care if anyone thinks Im a killer for saying it!


Groove on

I would probly kill to protect my family and i do belive that the cops should cary guns but that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about killing someone who isn't threating you or your family because they are already in jail. You are talking about Revenge pure and simple and that makes it wrong.

Blond_cupid

"Why not take this matter up with the scientific community?"

Because in the US the scientific community has no power. The lawyers have all the power here. The general rule is that if your not a lawyer, don't expect to be able to climb the political latter.

These problems would not exist if we had teachers, doctors, economists, and scientists as our elected representitives instead of lawyers.

The second problem lies in the people themselves. In the US, about 10% of it's population is responsible for all the great things America is known for. The remaining 90% are idiots. And since idiots are far more likely to follow their emotions than their brains, they would vote out of office any representitive that takes an unemotional and scientific approach to solving societies problems.

What scares me even more is that the masses tend to vote for people that are even DUMBER than they are.(George W. Bush) I guess that way they don't feel intimidated.

What would have to be done is:

1. Reform the electoral system so that people get into office based on their character and intelligence, not on how much money they have or have raised.

2. Education. After all democracy is only a perfect system in an educated society.

3. People that are smarter and more intelligent have to be active. If you consider yourself one of these, you have to vote, strike, picket, and donate money to organizations that support your beliefs. You just can't complain about injustices on internet forums and take no actions. All we are doing is blowing hot air if we talk but do nothing else.

Tom

You are talking about revenge pure and simple

No, if the person is dead, than the person cannot come back and hurt you. Also, I was trying to get the point across - to all you people calling me a killer for supporting the DP, that if you said yes you would kill in self defense - well then your a killer too:D


Groove on

The difference lies in self defence vs cold blood. If someone brakes into ur home and is atacking you and say he had a gun and you grabed it and fired and killed him then i am sure no-one here would have a problem with your actions. Insted the DP murders people in cold blood. I mean whats more calculated than the leagle system. Once in jail they are no longer a threat so killing them ISN'T the ONLY option where it might be in the breakin case. That people is the difference

Asguard,

"We are talking about killing someone who isn't threating you or your family because they are already in jail."

"The difference lies in self defence vs cold blood."

Exactly. one can hardly be clearer.

*strGrl*
"Puhlease! Thats like saying if the pilot flies the plane with my support, I am somehow helping fly the plane."
Well no, ofcourse. But you must be blind not to see the difference. Maybe you are.

here is an interesting question for you:
Mr. A says:"well I knew that the toy bunny was booby-trapped, but I did not feel it was MY responsibility to tell the child."
Is Mr.A in any way to be held responsible for the death of the child?

Now I know you are going to think:"well a murderer knows he is at risk of ending up in Death Row". But that would be missing the point completely. The point is: can you be held responsible for omitting action. You can say NAY to the DP. Until you do, you are in fact partly responsible for the deaths of many humans (criminals and an occational innocent person).

*teeth, nails, feet are considered weapons. Anything used to cause harm is a weapon. So how could you hate that.*

You think I stand looking while someone tries to kill my child or somebody else? That is a whole different matter! If you see something like that happening before your eyes and you refuse to act, then you are useless! As a human being!

Jesus what a crap! I apologize if you took my words wrong. I shouldn't have said you are messed up through society, for I don't know you.

Guess Merlijn says it right here. He makes a good point with that statement. Guess that is what it's all about. Responsibility to other people.

Self defense is not comparible with taking someone's life in cold blood.

My goodness, I get sick of the whole issue! :confused: Don't you people see it is just wrong, that death penalty and how 'justice' is been done here...?

Why is the death penalty not considered to be society's 'self defense'?

Other than the fact that the person was not killed while committing the
act (ex. a Police Officer blowing them away) is there any real difference?

Take care :(

But you must be blind not to see the difference. Maybe you are.

You know, I once heard that when a person puts another person down, he is usually lacking in an area of his life.... gee..... I wonder which one that is?:bugeye:


Groove on:D

the reason the DP cant be considered self defence if because it dosn't fit the criteria. There is no imediate danger (a requirement for a self defence case) and there are other options (another requirement)

oooh *stRgrl* I feel exposed. ;) hehehe.

I hope you yourself are going to give some constructive comments in this discussion again. If you have run out of arguments, don't post instead of going about like a loose canon.

In fact my "you must be blind not to see the difference. Maybe you are". Was a reaction to your "Puhlease! Thats like ...." which is in my view an axample of you being a loose canon.

Instead of pointing at the things I presumably miss in my life, react to the last part of my post. Here is the core idea again:
You are partly responsible for murdering inmates, because you ommit to say NAY to he DP.
Remember: the "Law" is made by the people, and you are part of the people.... so you cannot hide behind the law.

If it doesn't worry you, just say so.
If you think it's otherwise, show me why.
If you think that is an issue besides the point, tell me.

I am always in for a good argument. I admit sometimes I have wandered away from the path of a "good" argument myself. Let's learn from that and continue with more wisdom.

Merlijn

I just wanted to comment on the misinformation on the board. In reality the death penalty is much more expensive than life imprisonment

Here are some facts for you


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Financial Costs
It is sometimes suggested that abolishing capital punishment is unfair to the taxpayer, as though life imprisonment were obviously more expensive than executions. If one takes into account all the relevant costs, the reverse is true. "The death penalty is not now, nor has it ever been, a more economical alternative to life imprisonment."(49)
A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs—including the time of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs—are all borne by the taxpayer.

A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.(50)

In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence."(51) In 1988 and 1989 the Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of "more than $ 11 million."(52) Florida, with one of the nation’s largest death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence.(53)

The only way to make the death penalty a "better buy" than imprisonment is to weaken due process and curtail appellate review, which are the defendant’s (and society’s) only protections against the grossest miscarriages of justice. The savings in dollars would be at the cost of justice: In nearly half of the death-penalty cases given review under federal habeas corpus, the conviction is overturned.(54)

Welcome Danielle and thanks for the information.

Originally posted by Danielle
I just wanted to comment on the misinformation on the board. In reality the death penalty is much more expensive than life imprisonment. Here are some facts for youHi Danielle, welcome to SciForums...

Do you have a site where we can view the statistics you provided? I would be interested in reading it "in context" and be able to make judgement as to the accuracy. Thanks for joining in the discussion!

Peace.

Welcome to Sciforums Danielle. That you may be a happy poster here and not argued to death immediately.;)

I go along with Asguard here. He said it perfectly clear:

*the reason the DP cant be considered self defence if because it dosn't fit the criteria. There is no imediate danger (a requirement for a self defence case) and there are other options (another requirement)*

And if it is true that the death penalty is more expensive, then they are even more stupid to hang on to it then I think. Believe me, I think about people who are justifying the death penalty rather low. It is cold blooded murder. Every time someone is send to the death row! No matter what you say, no matter who's been killed or if it was a brother, sister, mother, father, child or whatever!

Come to your senses please and think about it real hard, with sense...

(I just keep on posting it, over and over the same story if I have to.)

Yes, please do support your claims since, if I remember correctly, the
"almost half" being overturned after review were in more than two thirds
of the cases overturned on techical or procedural grounds.

Take care, and welcome to Sciforums :bugeye:

PS By the way ... being 'overturned' usually results in the case being
remanded back to the lower court, NOT the perp. being freed.

I don't think you will find anyone here or anywhere else who says that criminals should just go free

what we ARE saying is that the DP is wrong

I second that!

Danielle,
Welcome to sciforums! I would also like to know where you got your figures from? I learned in my class that almost ALL of the inmates sentenced to the death penalty, try to appeal. Now, when you appeal, the courts have to provide you with a lawyer. Who do you think pays for these lawyers? And when that appeal is denied, they appeal again, and again, and agian. Im going to do a little research and get back to you guys. Another thing, I was talking to my boss on the death penalty. Her, being a christian does not support the death penalty. But, she said this, Even though I think its morally wrong, if I was on a jury, I would set aside my beliefs and go with whats right in eyes of the law. I think she is right. Because I dont think killing someone is right, but it is the law, and if if you kill someone, you have to pay the price.


Groove on

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
But, she said this, Even though I think its morally wrong, if I was on a jury, I would set aside my beliefs and go with whats right in eyes of the law. I think she is right."Even though I think its morally wrong... I would set aside my beliefs." I can think of few sadder statements. Just because it's the law, it doesn't necessarily make it right.

In America, we are participants in the law. If we believe a law is wrong, we can work to change the law. Were we compelled to obey the Dred Scott laws on slavery? No, we were not. And many, in good conscience, not only fought to change these laws, but also actively disobeyed them; helping escaped slaves to freedom. Hundreds of examples of bad laws can be found, so simple obedience to authorities cannot be the answer.

Peace.

Well, slavery does not compare to the death penalty. Slaves were innocent by all means, the people on death row, are not. And, IT is the law right now, and if you look at the poll above, and a recent poll of the american people is about the same. So apparently, we the people dont think its such a bad law.


Groove on

Since we do not know when and if Danielle is going to reappear, I was finally able to track down a link for her information here ( http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html), at the ACLU website. The paper is written by Hugo Adam Bedau, retired, of Tufts University. He is "opposed to the death penalty in all its forms, no matter how awful the crime or how savage the criminal." You will need to scroll down to "Financial Costs."Originally posted by *stRgrL*
Slaves were innocent by all means, the people on death row, are not.You keep glossing over the fact that not all people sentenced to die are guilty. How do you reconcile that? An acceptable cost for the return value of...?

Peace.

Thanks for taking the time to find the source of the 'facts'.

Most interesting to me is that with regard to the comparative costs,
the data is ancient for all practical purposes. Due to the aging of the
prison population and the cost of HIV treatment, medical costs have
sky-rocketed to the point that there is serious discussion at present
in Corrections regarding the review of 'life without parole' sentences
for the purpose of releasing inmates who are deemed no longer
capable of being a threat to society.

Take care ;)

"there is serious discussion at present in Corrections regarding the review of 'life without parole' sentences for the purpose of releasing inmates who are deemed no longer capable of being a threat to society."

My point exactly. Now lets let them out to the streets and let them do it again. If they were executed, they would not be able to return to the streets.


Groove on

If they arn't a threat anymore why kill them. They have been Reabilated this is GOOD

Asguard,
Do you know anyone that has been "rehabilitated" befored? Because I do. I work in a rehabilitation center. Numerous friends and family have been in "rehab". And I know this, it rarely works! Thats why, when we do let multiple offfenders out, they do it again. This is not a good thing. At all. My old professor who has worked in corrections for years even says that rehabilition rarely works. Ive seen this first hand and have studied it at school. I know I wouldnt feel safe living to someone who let out of jail for murder, would you??


Groove on

Then you don't belive its possable for people to change and if a kid steals a lolly from a shop they should get life without parole at the toughest prison on earth. Of corse you don't because people LEARN from mesakes.

Don't be ridiculous with your examples. If people 'learned from their mistakes'
the recidivism rate would not be in the 70 to 80 percent range for the 18
to 34 age group of males who have previously committed a crime.

No more than we know how to 'cure' mental illness do we know how to
'rehabilitate' a person. The only thing that has any chance of success, and
then only with certain types of crime, is to lock them away for twenty or
thirty years and let age take it's toll.

Take care :rolleyes:

Then you don't belive its possable for people to change and if a kid steals a lolly from a shop they should get life without parole at the toughest prison on earth. Of corse you don't because people LEARN from mesakes.Huh? No, that is the whole problem. Criminals don't learn from there mistakes. They just sit in jail waiting to commit some other actrocity that you have to read about in the newspaper. Maybe they should just be moved to Australia, since their so criminal friendly. :rolleyes:

Danielle: A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs—including the time of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs—are all borne by the taxpayer Than thats what needs to be fixed. Remove the difference. One .45 bullet= .59 cents. That is cost effective.http://www.ammodirect.com

England already did that and we STILL have a lower crime rate than the US:D

So you think its a good idea than.

I don't think death is the only option out there and they get used to jail, even miss when they get out. If it was up to me, they would be consolidated into a work force and made to clean this country up from east to west. At least we'll get something out of them.:)

Here, here. Bring back the chain gang!!! Im up for that option. Im still very supportive of the death penalty, but Id be willing to change my mind if they took those kind of steps. I seen a special about a Arizona prison system. No luxuries! Meaning no coffee, no cells, they sleep out in the desert under tents. Of course their fenced in, but I think all jails should be like that. To hell with TV and stereos and computers.

Oh, and bullets, I like your idea too:D


Groove on

Yeah, I think if they were condemed to the chain gang for life that would be great. They would sweep, mow the grass along highways, rebuild dilapidated buildings and clean up those cities for the rest of their existence.:D

Ya, I'd be willing to eradicate the death penalty, if we brought back the chain gang. At least you'd know they would be put to some good uses. But then there will be those people... "Oh, its too cruel and unusual of a punishment." It never fails...


Groove on

Re. "One .45 bullet= .59 cents. "

Why the overcost/overkill?

A .22 LR HP to the base of the skull suffices.

If I'm not mistaken the Mossad takes care of things very
nicely with sub-sonic .22 Shorts and silenced Walthers.

Take care ;)

Yes of course, but knives and nooses are re-usable.

So is the garrote ... and no problem with airport security.

Take care ;)

:confused:

Danielle.

First of all what good is the quote without the source, and source notes? howabout a url please.:D

Second, I would like the see the death penalty enforced in most states as it is in FL. I would also like to see that there was some clear cut way for the decedent's family to be compensated adequately when the State screws up and presents a purely circumstantial case and gets a conviction of the WRONG person. ONE of the reasons the captital cases are so much more expensive to the state (us), is that they are being sure all the I/s are dotted and T's crossed, which they don't do in the perponderance of cases, many of which have NO business clogging up the courts.

Take that rediculous dog and pony show in TX. WHY Yates muredered her five kids is NOT the issue. DID she? Yes, good, give her the shot and shut up. SHE didn't NEED due process. She did it, she admitted she did it, she was aware of what she was doing WHEN she did it. Okay end of discussion. Her hsuband did and excellent job of proving to me that you can be a rocket scientist AND a moron... The dog and pony show was for ONE reason, to make sure that IF the jury came back with the death penalty, the state could not be sued by the husband, whom I BLAME for those kids deaths. DID he do it, no, but he also didn't make his wife get the meds and treatment she NEEDED... Of course GOD was going to cure her (he needed to read that story about abrham and Isacc a few more times)...

Did the medical community fail her? Yes it did, and it failed ME too. I sit in a wheelchair because and incompetent resident didn't know what the hell he was doing with a knife. What does this have to do with whether she was or was not aware of what she did at the time she did it. NOTHING. I take one hell of a lot more morphine daily than she was NOT taking haldol, and I am aware of what I do, or don't.

You may not be aware of it, but a Federal DA can and will file charges on "hot button" issues, whether there is ANY case or NOT! THAT is pure waste, but he's protecting his job fulfiling politically mandated prosecutions--and if he get's lucky, he'l get a promotion, uh, hey, that isn't what he's THERE for, is it? Would you like to know what happens to him if he files such a case and loses? Nothing--it doesn't matter if the FBI trashes somebody all over the TV. It doesn't matter if they destroy personal perproperty siezed as 'evidence' that has nothing to do with the alleged "crime". It doesn't matter that they destroy someones life, and it doesn't mater if it destroyes relationships. All the DA did was file a case for which there was ZERO evidence, right? The guy gets off, eventually after sitting in PRISON for eight months WITHOUT A BAIL HEARING. So he can go back to what he was doing before, right--good freaking luck after the media got done frying him on 80 channels...

If these bureaucrats would DO their jobs instead of CREATING crimes (such as smoking in a LA Park), or declaring harmless weeds "narcotics" these trials wouldn't cost millions of dollars. HOW many victimless crimes are heard DAILY? HOW many child abuse cases exist ONLY in the imaginations of vindictive teenagers, but are brought by incompetent bureaucrats? Date rape? Give me a break! If she didn't want to do it, why was she NAKED in the backseat of his car, bed, motel/dorm room, huh? HOW many of these cases have NO business being heard AT ALL. How many of the so called felonies exist purely for political control purposes?

Then there is the antiquated technologies such as some states accepting polygraphs as valid evidence when it was disproved repeatedly FORTY years ago. MOST are still using tape transcribing devices rather than the laptop varieties which can provide the text the SAME HOUR.

Again, with Yates, they should have just given her the shot and been done with it. Instead she'll spend forty years washing dope hookers undershorts. While this may well be WORSE than death, it's going to cost the State of Texas a mere 2.4 MILLION on TOP of the cost of the dog and pony show. Keep in mind that left to REASONABLE counsel, she should have plead guilty and accepted the death sentence. Instead she pleads on that inanity rap which everybody knows isn't going to hold water in TEXAS, and they have a dog and pony show so the lawyer makes some REAL money (and gets plenty of FREE advertizing he COULDN'T buy if he wanted to...

As to due process, the cops, prosecutors and injustice system threw it out the window DECADES ago. RICO is in clear violation of due process but it exists. At the federal level conspiracy (two people discussing a crime CAN occur or not) carries the same time as DOING it--how many YEARS are wasted by the Feds prosecuitng things that NEVER happened? HOW many "criminals" are we supporting who have NO business in prison in the first place? Too many. WHY? To justify the JD's FBI's & BOP's size and budgets.

This is what it comes down to, the STATES & FEDS don't want the death penalty, because they'd ULTIMATELY have to cut jobs and NOT be able to justify OTHER tax increases.

Mr. K

mrk,

***WHY Yates muredered her five kids is NOT the issue.***

It's one of the issues.

***DID she? Yes, good, give her the shot and shut up.***

If she was insane at the time then she should not be held criminally responsible.

***SHE didn't NEED due process.***

Like it or not, everyone is entitled to due process under the law.

***She did it, she admitted she did it, she was aware of what she was doing WHEN she did it.***

All true. So, why did she do it, then? Because she WANTED her children dead? No. Because she WANTED to face the death penalty herself? No. Because she WANTED to spend the rest of her life in prison rather than with her family? No.

She did it because, in the throes of insanity, she believed that Satan was coming for her children. In the throes of insanity, she did what she believed was best for her children - she saved them from the grips of Satan and the fires of hell and gave them to God - with whom they would be safe. Her children were trapped. The fire of hell was closing in on them with no means for them to escape and, in the throes of insanity, she mercifully filled a bathtub with water, drowned them, and gave them up to God in order to prevent them from having to suffer the torment of being burned alive in hell. She knew that what she was doing was wrong "in the eyes of the state". That is why she called 911 immediately, turned herself in and confessed.

She was WILLING to face the death penalty rather than have her children suffer at the hand of Satan. She was WILLING to spend the rest of her life in prison rather than have her children suffer at the hand of Satan. In the throes of her insanity, she was WILLING to give up her own life to the state to save her children from the torment of hell. In the throes of her insanity, she knew that it would have been MORE WRONG if she had allowed Satan to take her children - it would have been MORE WRONG if she had allowed them to suffer the torment of burning in hell. The relative degree of "right" and "wrong" had been changed in Andrea Yates' mind. Why? Because she was insane. She was not criminally responsible. She was insane. She should spend time in a mental institution - not a prison.

***Okay end of discussion.***

ICALOB & Chagur,
You two are dangerously close to (being accused of) enjoying killing!

Originally posted by mrk
I would like the see the death penalty enforced in most states as it is in FL…And how is that? WHY Yates muredered her five kids is NOT the issue. DID she? Yes, good, give her the shot and shut up. SHE didn't NEED due process. She did it, she admitted she did it, she was aware of what she was doing WHEN she did it. Okay end of discussion.Well… apparently not.…the husband, whom I BLAME for those kids deaths. DID he do it, no, but he also didn't make his wife get the meds and treatment she NEEDED...Could your significant other force you to take medication that you did not want to? In any event, let’s stick the needle in his arm, too. Did the medical community fail her? Yes…Line up the doctors, the nurses, the councilors… inject ‘em. HOW many victimless crimes are heard DAILY? HOW many child abuse cases exist ONLY in the imaginations of vindictive teenagers, but are brought by incompetent bureaucrats?I don’t know, how many? Do you have a cite?Date rape? Give me a break! If she didn't want to do it, why was she NAKED in the backseat of his car, bed, motel/dorm room, huh? Ever hear of the drug GHB? Even if no drug is involved, I don’t care if she’s naked and rolls the condom onto him. Once a person says “no”, it stops. Period.HOW many of these cases have NO business being heard AT ALL.How many of the so called felonies exist purely for political control purposes? I don’t know, how many? Do you have a cite?MOST are still using tape transcribing devicesCould you back that up with a reference? Is cost a factor?…it's going to cost the State of Texas a mere 2.4 MILLION on TOP of the cost of the dog and pony show.Could you back that up with a reference, please?Keep in mind that left to REASONABLE counsel, she should have plead guilty and accepted the death sentence.I’m sorry, I missed the presentation of the credentials that permit you to define what reasonable counsel is.RICO is in clear violation of due process but it exists.Would you take a moment to argue that point so that we can understand your view?…the STATES & FEDS don't want the death penalty, because they'd ULTIMATELY have to cut jobs and NOT be able to justify OTHER tax increases.Please provide us with supporting information for this claim.


Or perhaps that was all just a rant? :D

Peace.

You don't have to be rude. I'm just giving you facts. Look it up for yourself, I'm not gonna do your homework for you. :)

I don't think he was being rude, actually. Most of us would prefer to know the source of your information (as I was so delicately pointing out to him also); otherwise we cannot judge the accuracy of your comments. It is not considered homework, just validation.

Look it up ourselves? Well... I did, with some effort, (and courteously posted a link (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=87736&#post87736) so fellow board members could review it also) and the paper your facts are pulled from is somewhat dated, yes?

Peace.

---Edit: added link to my previous post ---

She was not criminally responsible. She was insane.

You've got to be kidding. You know the thing that bugs me most about this case, is that people are not taking responsiblity for their actions. Mentally ill? Yes. But she knew the difference between right and wrong. *****End of Discussion***** as you would say blond_cupid. Even if she did think Satan was coming for her children, she should know that a person doesnt have the right to take the lives of her children. If she was believed in God and Satan and was a religous person, then she really should of known that it was wrong. She did it, she admitted to it, she should have to pay the price. Like I said in an earlier post: Dahmer, Bundy, the Zodiac - these were mentally ill people, like it or not - but they knew what they were doing. In my book, she is just as bad and should be labeled a serial killer herself.


Oh, and back to the death penalty - I found this quote I thought was pretty funny.
"Capitol punishment turns the state into a murderer. But impisonment turns the state into a gay dungeon-master."
(Rev. Jesse Jackson)


Groove on

I have better things to do than argue online about this. I know the facts- If I had the time I could get you recent information, but that's not possible today, maybe some other time.

:D

"But impisonment turns the state into a gay dungeon-master."

I know some homophobes for who I think it would be 'educational' :) to be sent to prison. hehehehe

http://www.ncadp.org/html/fact3.html

I have this for you to look at now. I don't think the info is outdated, these are last years numbers

Don't get me wrong; I am against the death penalty also. But your most recent link is, arguably, a biased website whose statement of “facts” also have no supporting information. Look for data from state or federal agencies to bolster your position. I believe it is correct to a degree, but you’ll have to show us.

Peace.

stRgrL,

***You know the thing that bugs me most about this case, is that people are not taking responsiblity for their actions.***

Andrea Yates took responsibility for her actions. According to her videotaped testimony, she knew that she would have to answer to the state for what she had done. She called 911. She turned herself in. She confessed.

***Mentally ill? Yes. But she knew the difference between right and wrong. *****End of Discussion***** as you would say blond_cupid.***

(Actually, it was mrk who I was quoting as having said "End of Discussion". I thought that remark was laughable.)

Anyway. Yes, Andrea Yates was mentally ill when she killed her children. In fact, she was insane - and as an insane person she should have been found "not guilty" by reason of insanity. Yes, she knew the difference between right and wrong but not in the sane sense that you and I know it. Her perception of right and wrong was relative to her insanity. She knew that killing her children was wrong is the eyes of the state, however, in her mind it was right for her to kill her children because it would have been MORE WRONG if she did not kill them and instead allowed Satan to get ahold of them.

***Even if she did think Satan was coming for her children, she should know that a person doesnt have the right to take the lives of her children.***

She knew that she did not have that right in the eyes of the state (the law). However, in her mind she rationalized that she was doing the right thing for her children by saving them from Satan's eternal torment and giving them to God.

Let me ask you something, stRgrL...

Suppose a mother and her five children had been trapped in an interior bathroom of a home fully involved in fire with no way out and no hope of being rescued and the mother, in an act of mercy, drowned her children rather than have them suffer through the torment of being burned alive. What would you think of THAT woman?

***If she was believed in God and Satan and was a religous person, then she really should of known that it was wrong.***

Again, she knew that it was wrong in the eyes of the state. However, in her insane mind, she thought it was right to give her children to God rather than let Satan have them. Again, her perception of right and wrong was relative to her insanity.

BTW stRgrL,

***Dahmer, Bundy, the Zodiac - these were mentally ill people, like it or not - but they knew what they were doing. In my book, she is just as bad and should be labeled a serial killer herself.***

I do not agree. Their motives were quite different. In her insanity, Mrs. Yates believed that, by drowning her children, she was saving them from eternal evil and torment at the hand of Satan. Did Dahmer, Bundy or the Zodiac call 911 immediately, turn themselves in and confess?

"You two (ICALOB & Chagur) are dangerously
close to (being accused of) enjoying killing!"

Spoken like one who has never had do what was
necessary to protect their country or society.

"I know some homophobes for who I think it would
be 'educational' to be sent to prison. hehehehe"

And what do you enjoy?

Take care :rolleyes:

What would you think of THAT woman?

The same as I think of Andrea Yates. There is always a slight chance that a firefighter will burst in and save them. I dont care WHAT circumstance Im in, I would NEVER kill my child. Okay, say my daughter and I were standing at a cliff and here comes the fire, would I throw her over? NO! I would jump with her! Andrea Yates had no intentions of killing herself, her intentions were to rid herself of her children. Which she succeeded in doing. And no she did not take responsibility for her actions, claiming she didnt know what she was doing, that isnt taking responsibility. Thats trying to take the blame off herself and put it on something else. She killed her kids! How can you sit there and argue her point? What if your husband killed your kids? Would you think differently then? Hearing all these people argue in her defense makes me angrier by the minute.
"Some people know its illegal but dont think its wrong"

What the hell is the difference between the two? If you know something in illegal - well than your sure in the hell going to know its wrong!

"If you know something in illegal - well than your sure in the hell going to know its wrong!"

Have a bit of a problem with that statement. There are too many antiquated
laws on the books which make certain actions 'illegal' that have become
everyday 'normal'.

Suggest you check out: http://www.ncsfreedom.org/care.htm

Take care ;)

Actually i think you have a point their but not the one you intended. You are right if it had of been a guy who did the killings he would have been automatcaly sentaced to die. which only shows THE LAW IS BIASED. this is just another reason to abolish the DP

*strgirl* i refer you to that other thread we were in. Read the artical carefully and i think you will see why i don't trust that ANYONE can be proven 100% beond dobt to be guilty

I also refer people to this site
http://www.acadp.com/

Its an anti DP site in Australia

Thanks

Your right about that. I admit there are alot of silly laws out there. You'd be surprised some of them that are actually still on the books. I meant murder, I wasnt too clear in my last post. Murder, everyone knows its wrong. Its the ultimate crime. She knew it was wrong. Whether she thought is was the best thing for her kids or not, she knew it was wrong.

Asguard

Thanks for the info, Ill check it out and get back to ya! And I did bring up the point about "if it was the dad, it would of been different". I think it was the "Is he partially responsible" thread. And I agree, if it would of been ANY man sane or not, there would not be the support for that case like there is for this one. Its like just because she is a woman - every symathizes for her and thats not fair.


Groove on

stRgrL,

***And no she did not take responsibility for her actions, claiming she didnt know what she was doing, that isnt taking responsibility.***

As far as I know, Andrea Yates never claimed that she didn't know what she was doing. What she did was motivated by her insane knowledge that Satan was closing in to do eternal harm to her children and what she is claiming is that she thought it was the right thing to do. Why? Because she's insane. Therefore, the defense rightfully argued that she was not guilty by reason of insanity which is a valid legal defense.

***I dont care WHAT circumstance Im in, I would NEVER kill my child.***

So, trapped in the bathroom with your five children, you'd feel more comfortable watching each of them suffer the torment and pain of being burned alive? You'd stand there and do nothing as you watched the skin melt off their bodies while they screamed in agony from the excrutiating pain? Have you ever seen ANYONE burned alive? Believe me, unless you are heartless, if you saw someone getting burned alive and had the means to put them out of their misery, you would.

***What if your husband killed your kids? Would you think differently then?***

Andrea Yates had a long history of severe mental illness. She had previously expressed both her fear that Satan was coming for the children and her thoughts that she was considering killing them rather than allowing Satan to take them. Had she been my spouse, I would not have left my children with her unsupervised. I would have made sure that someone sane was there to help.

If it were my spouse who was insane and had expressed such fears and thoughts - and I left my children unsupervised - and they ended up being killed by my insane spouse, then yes, I would think differently. I would think that my insane spouse should be put in a mental institution and treated for their illness. I would also think that I should be the one to go to prison because I was the sane one who knowingly and negligently put my children in harms way, causing their death.

Had she been my spouse, I would not have left my
children with her unsupervised.

I agree with you. BUT - we already know the outcome. Andrea Yates was not insane, she was depressed, there is a difference. From what I read, she heard voices a few times, early on (maybe first or second kid). Russell Yates had no way of knowing what she was capable of. A person NEVER thinks their spouse would do something like that. He should of been more involved in her mental health. And no she didnt take responsibility. Claiming your insane, is not taking responsibility. If she was taking responsibitity, she would of pleaded guilty.
And your talking about burning kids in a bathroom, that is not the same situation so you cannot compare the two. One, is a life or death situation and Two, is murder. Doesnt matter your state of mind, its still murder. Insane my ass. Who isnt insane nowadays?!

Groove on

stRgrL,

***And your talking about burning kids in a bathroom, that is not the same situation so you cannot compare the two.***

Sure I can. In her mind, it was even a worse situation. In her mind, her children were in imminent danger of being taken by Satan to be tormented in hell forever. In her mind, it was a life or death situation. Eternal death with Satan or eternal life with God. In her mind, her killing her children was an act of mercy.

***Doesnt matter your state of mind, its still murder.***

State of mind might not matter in your mind but it does matter in the eyes of the law.

P.S. Russel Yates did know that his wife had thoughts of killing her children to save them from Satan. She told him so not long before she did it. So, not only should he have been more involved in her mental health, he should have protected his children from her.

"Spoken like one who has never had do what was
necessary to protect their country or society. "
Hahaha. Protect my country or society??? Hahahaha
this is just too right-winged to even consider giving a serious answer to.
Dont' make me puke. %-P * *

"I know some homophobes for who I think it would
be 'educational' to be sent to prison. hehehehe" Again ... And what do you enjoy?

Or would you rather not say?

Take care :rolleyes:

That was sick joke about how I would enjoy seeing them homophobes suffer. But hey...its a joke.

What si not a joke: homophobes, racists, etc. all the same to me. And I hate their way of thinking.

Merlijn

I agree, it was a sick joke ... If it is a joke.

Are you gay?

Curious.

Take care :(

that's a negative.
What makes you think I am?
Do you think I have a brownish colour of skin becuase I think racistm is stupid? Do you think I am 'homo' becuase I think homophobia is stupid?

Actually, I didn't think that you were, based on your posts. But that sick
joke got me wondering. There was a perverted twist to it that made me
wonder 'closet gay?' ... So I asked.

Chalk it up to my life experience ... jail-house rape is not something I
would ever consider joking about, let alone add a 'hehehe'.

And I do agree, homophobia is stupid.

Take care :)

When I was younger I always said I would rather be dead than be in jail for life, but not anymore.

Life imprisonment.
1.) Jail isn't really as bad as some people try to make it out to be.
It depends on who you are and your personal attitude, of course.
2.) It may sound cliche, but they can imprison my body, but not my mind. I can continue to learn, grow write, experience and be me.