Death vs. Life Imprisonment

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.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi goofyfish

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wonder: How much does a life cost, even a criminal's?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ten or fifteen minutes of one's time ...

Or maybe a defective condum.

You've got to be kidding, Merlijn.

Take care.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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...

 

mrk ...

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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... 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.

 

mrk ...

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

POI What have you got against CEOs?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

 

mrk ...

Sorry about the misunderstanding re. CEO's.

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

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I believe in:
Killing the criminals....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

locking up the lawyers....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and free ice cream to everyone else....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

so there....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No appeals/ No remorse: