This is topic Yeah, he's 15. He knew what he was doing. Kill him. [UPDATE (p. 2): SUPREME COURT] in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:The United States remained virtually alone in the world in imposing death sentences on those who were juvenile offenders--under the age of eighteen--at the time they committed their crimes. Only the United States, Congo, and Iran have executed juvenile offenders in the past three years. Twenty-two U.S. states continued to allow the death penalty to be imposed on juvenile offenders; eighty-three--thirty-nine of whom were black--were on death row as of July 1, 2002.
Congo and Iran.
Many conservatives on this board argue that juveniles are too young to have sex. The law says they're not old enough to drink. Or vote.
But they can still make a decision that could result in the government deciding they deserve to die? That same government that's protecting them from themselves by insisting they don't drink alcohol?
I always sort of knew in the back of my head that this happened. But I never really stopped to think about it.
I think I might just have found a worthy cause.
[ October 13, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It's a worthy one, all right.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Murder of juveniles is my second biggest irritation with the death penalty. The judicial system's penchant for thinning the black population is my first.
Luckily for those of us who like these kinds of things simplified, according to K-Dub's stats, half of the juveniles executed are black. Most of the other half is almost certainly Hispanic.
White people must have amazing consciences...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
But Kasie, we wait until they are 18 to actually carry out the sentence!!!
<gets depressed about the death penalty> <goes to another thread>
Good luck Kasie...
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Aw, but the noble and just causes always require the most woooorkk.....
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm with you on what your fighting for Kasie, but I just want to point out that what other countries are doing has nothing to do with the morality here. Killing children is wrong because they still have the oppurtunity to change, grow and learn new things at that age; and are less aware of the consequences surronding their actions. The fact that Spain (for instance) agree has nothing to do with it.
Hobbes Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I honestly don't know that we have many pro death penalty people on this board. I used to be, until I gave it some thought and prayer, and I now think that being pro death penalty is at odds with my Christian beliefs. I'm no longer for it, in any case, especially in the case of juveniles.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Me too, Belle. These kids have messed up their own lives. We don't need to kill them to REALLY teach them a lesson.
I do believe kids who kill need to perform hard labor in Alaska, however. But death? No way.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Hobbes, I think she was trying to point out what bad company we're in, not use it as an argument against it.
Kasie, i FULLY agree. It's a horrible thing to do, as it deprives children of a chance to live and change, and has no real benefits for society at all.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I am also pro life for accused criminals as well as the unborn. Even pretty much proven criminals, since I don't think any mortal institution has the right to say what constitutes such proof.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
So don't kill the kids because they don't know better, but kill the adults because they're evil and a menace to society?
If we're gonna go around killing people for stuff, why not go all the way and do it to everyone, young and old? I mean, you can make an argument that children don't understand the consequences of their actions, or that it deprives children of the chance to change, or point out that it has no real benefits - but those arguments are already used to oppose the death penalty for adults, and have nevertheless been ignored.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
quote:So don't kill the kids because they don't know better, but kill the adults because they're evil and a menace to society?
**looks around**
**looks at tres**
Are talking to me?
If so, I never said this.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm not sure if you're reffering to me specifically or to everyone in general, I'll answer for me because it would be rather auspicious to claim to speak for others.
I don't know where I stand on death penalty, I'm pretty sure I'm against it, but my mind is still processing, the books not closed. I do, however, recognize that any murder is wrong, but that sometimes, one moral violation is worse than another. Just as beating a women and raping her is worse than using date-rape drugs which is worse than not believing a "stop it" at the moment of truth. All three are very wrong, but I have no qualums ranking them. (If you disagree with my ranking, that's not the point, the point would be if you disagree with ranking at all). I also think that the execution of children is worse than that of adults, a matter of scale true, but I believe the scale exists.
Hobbes Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I think this is one of those rare threads where pretty much all hatrackers are gonna agree. I don't know any of us that believe juveniles should be executed.
And Tres, if you're not talking to Hobbes, then I don't know who you are talking to...because I haven't seen anyone say "Don't execute juvies, but adults is okay" Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
If no one here agrees, why is it still legal? I think hatrack is a pretty decent cross section of the population to get a pretty good idea on public opinion...
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I do.
If you commit a crime worthy of the death penalty, and are convicted to that penalty, you should die. The fact that you are 15 is a mitagating (sp?) circumstance is some cases yes, but hence the reason that we make that decision on a case by case basis.
Over 18, no question. Ideally within a year of the decision, even.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think you are wrong, Xavier. Just the fact that ALL of Hatrack reads for fun on a regular basis sets us apart from, oh, 90% of the population? And I *think* that's probably a conservative estimate.
[ March 05, 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Thanks, Storm, that really depresses me. Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
What about wrongful conviction, HollowEarth?
What of the fact that more blacks are executed than whites for the same crime?
Until we've answered these two questions satisfactorily, we have no business deciding who will die and who will live.
[ March 05, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Eaquae Legit ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*considers working out statistics on numbers of people found innocent after more than a year on death row*
*decides it wouldn't do any good, anyways*
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
I am not a supporter of the death penalty, but I know I, for one, would understand the consequences completely were I to murder someone. I've known other minors who have killed someone, and by no stretch of the imagination were they incompetent. While I agree with the ideas presented in this thread, I see them as reasons why youths need more legal rights (like the right to use a pizza oven, for starters ) and and adults need a less severe form of punishment.
And that's probably the hippiest thing I've ever posted.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
If we are not going to execute those who are sentenced to it we should get rid of the penalty. It does lots of damage to have a penalty that doesn't mean anything, in fact I would say that its a misuse of the idea of a penalty. Being placed in prison is hardly a penalty. A warm place to sleep, TV, AC, 3 squares, no Taxes. Why is that I'm going to college? The rate of committing crimes would drop if what you'll lose is much higher that what the crime will cause you to gain.
Due tell what good society will ever gain from allowing these people to live? I see no gain at all, just an unrelenting expense to keep them alive and well and fed, at my expense. Those who are sentenced thusly have made the choice to divorce themselves from acceptable behavior (I challenge any of you to fit murder or rape into your moral world view as acceptable.)
Eaquae Legit - I've heard this argument before, but i don't recall ever seeing numbers that show that this inequality isn't matched to the conviction rate.
I would like to add more but I've got to get some sleep. Also come now, I can be the only one that is for the death penalty.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
I'm for capital punishment for both adults, and in some very extreme cases, minors. Do most people here disagree with me? More than likely. Will that change my opinion? I doubt it.
To me, if someone is old enough to contemplate the seriousness of their crimes, then they should be able to be tried as an adult. Growing up, I wasn't in the best of areas, and knew people who would take advantage of the juvenile system because they knew that once they were 18, they would be tried as an adult.
One thing that I always wonder, is if anyone here that's against the death penalty has ever had someone close to them be killed (or another serious crime like that)? I've never had the chance to ask, and from what I've seen from most people, the tables might turn quickly if someone was caught after killing a spouse, child, parent, etc.
I can guarantee you that if someone did intentionally kill someone close to me, I would have no qualms about that person being put to death.
Just my $0.02.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
*considers dragging out statistics that show that it's actually cheaper to keep a criminal in prison for life than to kill him*
*decides it wouldn't do any good, anyways*
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Kasie brought up a good point, though. I'm responsible enough for my actions to be executed, but not responsible enough to drink? Why not have a consistent definition for minors? One age where you have all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. Or perhaps give people the chance to apply to get those rights early. Or have a Heinleinesque system where you have to qualify to be a citizen through civil service.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think deliberately killing someone -- with malice and planning aforethought -- qualifies for applying for the rights (and responsibilities!) of adulthood early.
(Our society, IMO, is far too concerned with rights, and not nearly concerned enough with responsibilities. This is merely one example of that problem.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: At the time of the crime, Beazley, now 25, was approximately three and a half months short of his 18th birthday.
quote: Beazley took the wheel and stated again that he wanted to steal a car. When Cedric asked why, Beazley explained that he wanted to see what it was like to kill somebody.
quote: Jones' cell mate from the Gregg County Jail testified that Jones told him that he and his accomplices saw Davis walking to his car and approached him. Davis told Jones and his accomplices that they could not have his car and that they would have to kill him to get it. Jones told his cell mate, in a very calm manor, that he then shot Davis.
quote: Thereafter, Patterson returned to Evelyn's house and fatally shot Kimberly and her two children, three-year-old Ollie, and six-year-old Jennifer, with a .38-revolver. Patterson shot Kimberly in the head as she relaxed on a living room recliner. He shot Jennifer in the head as she watched cartoons and played in her bedroom. Ollie, who was on the bed in the same room, was killed by a gunshot to the head. Ollie also had gunshot wounds to her left hand and neck. The children's injuries indicated that Patterson was only three feet away when he shot them, and Ollie's injuries were consistent with an adult standing over her and firing downward while she cowered in the corner of the bed and covered her ears.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
The argument that it cost more to put a convicted criminal to death is a poor one. The fact that something cost boatloads of money stops hardly anything else.
_________
Yeah the other half is most definatly hispanic because the whole damn system is by those rasict oppressing white assholes who spend every goddamn waking moment trying to come up with way to put some one of an other race down, because we all live a life of such richs that we just dont have anything else to do. I mean the whole damn world run by old racist white men. Who just sit around trying to make everyone else's lives miserble dull pathectic excuses for exsistance.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I've had the displeasure of sitting through and covering capital murder cases before. Let me explain one to you, first for perspective.
Two brothers, living together in a double wide trailer, one night decided to go out and find a woman in my hometown. They nabbed her in a parking lot, threw her into the back their van and took her home. There, over the next six hours, they took turns raping and beating her, again and again. When she was finally too damaged, too exhausted to even struggle (the two men even took a break to watch TV and get something to eat), they put her back into the van and drove to a field. They dumped her in the field, assaulted her some more and shot her. Luckily, one could say, they were too lazy to make sure it was a fatal shot, and she was hit in the neck. The woman laid there and played dead, and that's what they left her for. If a nearby person hadn't heard the shot, no one would have come to her aid.
The two men left and drove for home. Along the way, they stopped at a country store. There, a 75-year old man who was well loved by the community was working. The two men grabbed sodas and a couple of rental videos, casually walked to the counter, pulled a gun and shot. This kind old gentleman's brains were sprayed across the back wall of his family's business.
Two days later, the pair were arrested in broad daylight in the parking lot of the local hospital while sitting in their van. Why were they arrested? Because instead of renewing their tags on the van, they had stolen a license plate off of a car. I remember the detective answering the question, "How did you know that the tag had been stolen."
"Because it was the one that had been stolen from my wife's car."
I mention the hospital parking lot arrest because it turned out to be very important. While awaiting trial, the older brother one night asked for a pen and some paper from the jailer. That night he wrote a confession letter and suicide note. He hanged himself using the bed sheets after lights out (and it was a slow, deliberate death). What he had written, though, was chilling. He admitted that he and his brother had been responsible for the abduction, repeated raping and murder of a 12 year old boy earlier that year in the county.
I remember the scene where they had found the boy's body, tucked under a low water bridge on the river. I remember sitting with the boy's mother and sharing her grief. I remember sitting with the local police chief and hearing from him, off the record, of how the boy had been raped, something that was never released to the public.
And I remember sitting through that trial, feeling such anger, such loss, such hurt at what animals had done within our community. How many lives had been savagely destroyed? And I remember how, in a moment of extreme grace and humanity, the jury returned a guilty conviction on the surviving brother and then sentenced him to life in prison.
I tell this because I want you to know how savage crimes can be without receiving the death penalty. Now, I ask you to look into those "juvenile" death row cases. I've read many of them, they put the grisly story I've told you to shame.
I do not like the death penalty. It bothers me deeply to the core of my being when someone has to be put to death, and it should. But there still, in some way, needs to be an ultimate penalty. There must be and we should feel very uneasy about using it. That unease is why there are guarantees of appeal, that is why there are so many years before an inmate is put to death. It is to give every chance to find an alternative.
Yes, that system has failed before and it will again. But we still strive to give every chance before someone is made to take the last walk. But for the worst, the very worst, we must always reserve that cold tile floor for those who are without remorse or rehabilitation.
We must have it, and we must always feel bad when we use it. But it is their actions that have warranted the ultimate penalty, it is not a siren's call of the executioner that brings it on.
[ March 05, 2004, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That's a terrible story, Sopwith.
But, the main point remains - killing the perpetrator does nothing to bring back to life the victims. As for wanting there to be an ultimate penalty for the most heinous of criminals, why don't we go back to sentencing to hard labor?
That would serve as a pretty horrific punishment, if you ask me.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
It is a disturbing and puzzling question.
I've worked in the crime victims' advocacy field, and Sopwith's story is important to this discussion. Why? Not as a "tear-jerker" or "horrifier" but as the reminder that any action we take, for good or for ill, affects the entire community.
Think about the mobile image Bradshaw used to show how movement in one family member caused movement in others - and apply that on a larger scale. (In a sense, this is the troubling part of President Bush using footage from 9/11. He is setting the mobile of our national community to vibrating again by playing on people's fears and feelings.)
On the other hand, I've worked with troubled youth (nowhere near as extensively as mack, but some). It's equally troubling to me that we would try an adolescent as an adult, especially when that adolescent has no ability to clearly read and write, does not understand or even know to ask about his/her rights as an accused person under our Constitution, and has clearly been unduly influenced by exposure to a wide variety of things (too much violence on the media and not enough time with caring adults that can and will direct and guide the learning and socialization of the child, for instance - we won't even start exploring the effects of poor nutrition, abuse, poverty, etc.)
I do not excuse the behavior - at all - and I believe it should be decisively dealt with. I don't know that the death penalty is necessarily the way to go. I don't know that many victims of crimes think so, either. I've heard feedback relating to being present at the execution and not feeling the sense of closure or relief that was expected.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Belle, honestly, hard labor should be a part of most prison sentences. There is a rehabilitative and punitive effect with hard labor that has been weeded out of the system. Since then, the rate of repeat offenders has swollen. For so many who end up there today, prison isn't that much worse than the lives they had lived prior to incarceration.
All prisoners should be required to perform labor, receive counseling and be required to pass a literacy and math test before they leave. That, I believe, would help to rehabilitate some, but not all.
Labor shouldn't be an imposed penalty, but part of a penalty.
Yes, the death penalty does not return any of the victims to life. Nothing in this world can. It does not provide solace to the families of the victims. It does not scare people into not commiting grisly murders.
What does it do? It prevents that person from ever, ever commiting such acts again. Escapes by convicted murderers are rare, but they do happen. Murderers in the prison system do at times commit more murders in the violent bowels of our prison system. They also do now and then inspire those who have committed lesser crimes but have been incarcerated with them. They are also more of a danger to the personnel of the prisons, from the guards to the doctors, as well as their fellow inmates. But no one ever pays attention to those statistics, those murdered and brutalized within the prison system are often forgotten to the outside world.
And lastly, in these extreme cases where the death penalty is warranted, perhaps it is the humane thing to do for the murderer themself. It is not humane to lock them away in a silent hole to spend decade upon decade, stewing in their own evil actions, festering in the madness that provoked the actions that turned them from citizen to murderer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Lalo sais: White people must have amazing consciences...
Well, you know, we get together each year and decide the best way to keep you all down...
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Thanks, Storm, that really depresses me.
For you, ma'am. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:What does it do? It prevents that person from ever, ever commiting such acts again. Escapes by convicted murderers are rare, but they do happen. Murderers in the prison system do at times commit more murders in the violent bowels of our prison system. They also do now and then inspire those who have committed lesser crimes but have been incarcerated with them. They are also more of a danger to the personnel of the prisons, from the guards to the doctors, as well as their fellow inmates. But no one ever pays attention to those statistics, those murdered and brutalized within the prison system are often forgotten to the outside world.
So you're saying that the reason we have to kill people is because our prison's aren't competent enough to absolutely ensure they don't commit criminal acts again? If this is the case, isn't just keeping a tighter watch a far simpler option that would achieve the same effect?
More importantly, though, why is it worth killing one person for sure just to avoid the one in a million chance that that person might escape from prison AND decide to kill again AND succeed in doing so before being caught? When's the last time that ever happened?
quote:And lastly, in these extreme cases where the death penalty is warranted, perhaps it is the humane thing to do for the murderer themself.
And if this is true, why not just ask the convicted person themselves if they would rather die or be put in jail?
If these are the only two reasons for the death penalty, I think we are killing people for very little reason.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are generally four reasons for criminal punishment:
Rehabilitation: Treating the underlying pathology that caused the crime. Some theorists hold that all crime results from such a pathology, some are much more pragmatic and limit the concept to drug addiction, theft resulting from lack of job skills, etc.
Incapacitation: Preventing a specific person from committing another crime. A child molester cannot molest children if he’s locked up away from children.
Deterrence: Discouraging people from committing crimes in the future. There is general deterrence, which is the crime-reducing effect that punishing criminals has on the populace at large, and specific deterrence, which is the crime-reducing effect punishment has on those who are punished.
Retribution: based on a normative argument that some crimes deserve punishment. This concept also generates the proportionality limitations on the other four reasons. For example, life sentences would incapacitate jaywalkers, but we do not consider such a sentence proportional to the crime.
Every theory of punishment acknowledges a place for all four of these reasons. Theories that concentrate on the first three over the fourth are considered utilitarian. Theories that stress the retributive aspects are considered deontological.
Very rational justifications for the death penalty can be found in all these reasons except rehabilitation. My thought is that a duly instituted government has the moral authority to put criminals to death, but practically I’m not sure it’s the best policy.
My main reason for leaning slightly away from support of the death penalty is that it deprives criminals of the chance to repent before they die. Hopefully, that’s a religious reason acceptable to the secularists for having a political opinion.
Dagonee
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Actually, Xap, if you look at both escape rates and in-prison murder rates, the chances are much more than one in a million that a convicted murderer will murder again.
Increased vigilance in our prison systems would be good, but currently our system is pretty much at the breaking point. Overcrowding, recitivism, open gangs and gang warfare, mixing of violent and non-violent criminals.
Sadly, our prison system, as it currently is, is not providing the measure of safety necessary for both the public at large and the in-prison population itself. Somewhere, along the line, we've had a failing of idea and effort. I don't know precisely what it is, or how to correct it. That discussion, however, does cloud the issue of the death penalty being right or wrong, although it is a factor in some way.
It still comes down to both an ultimate punishment and a final protection for society versus the offender.
Personally, I am in no hurry to condemn anyone to die. I don't want to see it happen, I hate that it is a necessity. I hate that sometimes it is a person bordering on the physical definition of juvenile whose life hangs in the balance. But somewhere, somehow, an ultimate penalty must await those who have commited the most horrific or heinous crimes.
[ March 05, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
EL,
quote:What of the fact that more blacks are executed than whites for the same crime?
Well, at least it means that blacks and whites are working together for some common goal!
But seriously, in theory the death penalty may have some value, but in practice (and that's all we have), it's got gaping flaws. Namely: wrongful convictions, and racial disparity.
Now, do we want to discuss the death penalty in theory or in practice.
--Steve
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
In theory, because the flaws in practice just indicate something that needs to be improved upon.
Excellent posts, Sopwith.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Thank you Stormy, they're beautiful. *sniff*
Smell good too.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Big supporter of capital punishment. Especially in Rape cases and extremely whacked murders. I support keeping them off the streets in any way possible. Especially away from my family. Has anyone ever thought of how they would possibly react if a member of the family was raped or murdered. frankly, it scares the living heck out of me. and give the police some credit. These people put their lives on the line to protect us on the domestic field. And they do this being underpaid in my opinion.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Thanks Icarus, trying my best to be as level headed as possible about a very difficult subject.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Personally, I am in no hurry to condemn anyone to die. I don't want to see it happen, I hate that it is a necessity. I hate that sometimes it is a person bordering on the physical definition of juvenile whose life hangs in the balance. But somewhere, somehow, an ultimate penalty must await those who have commited the most horrific or heinous crimes.
Is life in prison not ultimate?
You say "necessity" as if we have no choice but to kill these people. Yet the worst (in the utilitarian sense) that would come from not killing them is an extremely slight chance that they could kill again. There is no evidence of the death penalty deterring crime any more than other penalties, and there is certainly no rehabilitation that comes from it. Some people might think a criminal's life is not worth even the slightest and most remote chance that they could ever murder again, but it is a far far stretch to call it 'necessary' to kill them. Being adequately safe from criminals is a necessity. But reducing the threat they pose to absolute zero is a luxury. The death penalty is a luxury.
The only solid argument for the death penalty is retribution. But, again, I see no reason why death penalty makes a better "ultimate" penalty than life in prison.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Why should we be forced to pay to keep them alive and locked up when we could execute them? What good does it do to keep someone in prison for life when they have recieve death as their penalty? What benefit does society receive from allowing them to live? Did they not bring this upon themselve through their own actions?
(note: I'm not suggesting that all those with life sentences be killed.)
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Why should we pay to kill the man when we can just lock him up? What benefit does society get from killing them?
I don't think there's much benefit, for the reasons I argued above. But I can tell you a huge benefit society gets in keeping him alive - one less killing to bloody our hands.
And I don't think we should ever shift away the responsibility for our own choices by saying "they brought it on themselves."
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I'll take up the Devil's Advocate position. When someone becomes a "menace to society", that means he or she is dangerous to people. Serial killers? What is the point of keeping them locked up, wasting our valuable resources on them? Hardened criminals are unlikely to reform, and they are a burden to the rest of society. Resources that could be used to help kids get a better start in life are instead diverted to keep a "bad guy" alive and caged for the rest of his natural life. Would it not be better for society to do what it can to try to head off crime by improving life for its law-abiding citizens rather than keeping habitual law-breakers behind bars?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What we need is a penal colony.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I hear Australia is good at that.
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*was* good at that. Then they went and got all civilized. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I know I know!
Let's put a wall around New York, and mine the Brooklyn Bridge....
Wait, that sounds familiar...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Why is that I'm going to college?"
Good question, HollowEarth. Why, conditions in jail are so fine that you should just make that your goal in life. Wouldn't be hard. Just break a few storefront windows. At a few grand apiece, it would be simple to change misdemeanor vandalism into a felony charge. And when they let you out, break a few more windows.
The reality is that even the most mentally incompetent of people would prefer eating out of trash cans and freezing on the street to the alternative of having their freedom taken away.
[ May 18, 2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
My perspective is an entirely different one.
I believe that it doesn't matter how much it costs us monetarily to keep someone in jail their entire life, it costs us much more as a civilisation if we kill them.
As a society we need to be better than the people we imprison. Obviously that's an unachievable goal, but we could at least try to act like it. I believe that if we say that killing people is the worst thing you can do, then we should abide by that and not kill people ourselves. We need to show that we're above the need for it. And maybe one day, if we pretend long enough, we actually will be.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: More importantly, though, why is it worth killing one person for sure just to avoid the one in a million chance that that person might escape from prison AND decide to kill again AND succeed in doing so before being caught? When's the last time that ever happened?
There was an article a week and a half ago about this happening.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
HallowEarth,
quote: Due tell what good society will ever gain from allowing these people to live?
The biggest benefit of keeping a killer alive is studying his/her psyche to understand the mind and motive of a killer. You could do brain scans and psychology tests. I trained psychologist could even look at thinking patterns/errors and try to find cause/effect in history and behavior. We could learn a lot from a killer.
Luthe
quote: because the whole damn system is by those rasict oppressing white assholes who spend every goddamn waking moment trying to come up with way to put some one of an other race down, because we all live a life of such richs that we just dont have anything else to do. I mean the whole damn world run by old racist white men. Who just sit around trying to make everyone else's lives miserble dull pathectic excuses for exsistance.
Does this strike anyone one else as being very simplistic and very racist?
Xaposert
quote: More importantly, though, why is it worth killing one person for sure just to avoid the one in a million chance that that person might escape from prison AND decide to kill again AND succeed in doing so before being caught? When's the last time that ever happened?
People are already doing a good job of answering your question, but I would like to add Ted Bundy.
quote:But, again, I see no reason why death penalty makes a better "ultimate" penalty than life in prison.
Because they die.
In general I am in favor of the death penalty. If someone killed someone I know, it would drive me nuts knowing my tax dollars are keeping the murderer alive. I don't care if it costs more, I would want death (depending on circumstances). IF someone kills someone to see what it is like to kill someone, then I think society is justified in saying they don’t deserve life.
The only solace I would get in not using capital punishment is knowing we are keeping the person alive to learn from the killer so we could hopefully prevent future killings. I don't care about age. I think many youth who kill know they are below the age of accountability and use their age to manipulate justice system to be more lenient. However, I bet it is easier to learn from the youth then adults.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
It see ms that those agreeing with the murder of adolecents as a "verdict" aren't exaclty thinking and asking themselves what if they were in their position. if I killed someone, or for whatever reason I got on the death row, then I'd pretty much leave the country and go to Mexico. Or Canada. Or Cuba. I'd just randomly pick a country. Then I'd send vids to the U.S. as to how wrong they've been about me or something and I'd just prove them that when someone kills a person, the solution to the problem isn't to kill the murderer. Specially if it was someone as young. Give them a chance. Ofcourse I don't mean just send them to th "Happy Clinic" and forget there was ever any crime. I just wonder how in the world you can fix something, or amend it, by doing it again.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Everybody is given a chance. But once you kill somebody, I don't think it's wise to give you a second chance.
If the problem is "person A has proven himself to be someone who murdurs people, and we don't want to let him murdur again", then the death penalty solves the problem quite nicely.
[ May 19, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Then just cut off his hands. Maybe that solves the problem too!! Its not like we know WHY he or she did it. They were thinking some weird thought or something. I don't know man. But oh well, we're all going to die someday, so WTF, why bother? Lets kill him and end his or her suffering once and for all, right? From what I've seen, society as a whole thinks is a pretty stupid manner. Why would they have any say as to who lives and who dies?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Exactly. Why should an individual person have that say, either?
Dagonee
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
You people are soo freakin impossible. and by the looks of it, don't value life, the rarest thing in the universe. that which you have asked me, has the most obvious answer. its so obvious that all I'm saying is this:
THINK ABOUT IT DA.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote: THINK ABOUT IT DA.
Nice rebuttal!
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:There was an article a week and a half ago about this happening.
And if we can find similar cases every week and a half, then we can start worrying about that being a serious problem. Even then, though, the solution would be to not allow people to escape from prison. It certainly wouldn't be to kill people.
quote: If someone killed someone I know, it would drive me nuts knowing my tax dollars are keeping the murderer alive.
And what if someone you know killed someone? What if it was your spouse, or your son, or your daughter?
quote:The only solace I would get in not using capital punishment is knowing we are keeping the person alive to learn from the killer so we could hopefully prevent future killings.
What about the benefit of keeping another person alive? You don't consider that worth anything?
quote:Everybody is given a chance. But once you kill somebody, I don't think it's wise to give you a second chance.
Why not? And if not, why stop at killing? Why do we give people second chances for anything? I mean "person A has proven himself to be someone who murdurs people, and we don't want to let him murdur again" could just as easily be "person A has proven himself to be someone who steals things, and we don't want to let him steal again." Both of those statements are equally true. So, why don't we execute people for theft too?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:you people are soo freakin impossible. and by the looks of it, don't value life, the rarest thing in the universe. that which you have asked me, has the most obvious answer
There are many things more rare than life. Like honesty, dignity, honor, respect.
There are some things worth dying for. There are also some things worth killing for.
I value life. But I don't value it above all else.
edit: for clarity
[ May 19, 2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote:And what if someone you know killed someone? What if it was your spouse, or your son, or your daughter?
The same standard I support in the law I would support for my family. We all know there are degrees of murder. Life is precious, and if someone kills someone, I am not trigger happy to kill them. However, if my spouse or brother of mom wanted to feel what it was like to kill someone, or decided to get a kick out of the torture, rape, and death of someone, yes, I would feel fine with the application of capital punishment. I would be sad. I would cry. I would feel justice had been served.
quote:What about the benefit of keeping another person alive? You don't consider that worth anything?
First, let’s be clear that I don't like capital punishment. I think life is sacred and we should be protected. I think we need to look at circumstance. In the most extreme circumstances, I don't think the value of keeping /him/her alive outweighs the demand for justice UNLESS we learn from the perpetrator.
Mind you, I am mostly against capital punishment because I feel we are throwing away valuable learning opportunities. I think learning opportunities outweigh the demand for justice. Once you take away someone's rights, you loose a portion of your rights. Depending on the severity of the crime, I do believe a person can loose their ultimate rights. Even tho it is justified, I would feel better putting the offender in solitude and studying them for the rest or their life.
[ May 19, 2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Alt...ofDorthonion,
quote: if I killed someone, or for whatever reason I got on the death row, then I'd pretty much leave the country and go to Mexico. Or Canada. Or Cuba. I'd just randomly pick a country. Then I'd send vids to the U.S. as to how wrong they've been about me or something and I'd just prove them that when someone kills a person, the solution to the problem isn't to kill the murderer.
Let me see if I understand you. If you kill someone, you are going to then lecture the general public on the sanctity of life? O-Kayyy-eee.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- A deeply divided Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday over allowing states to execute teenage killers, with several justices raising concerns that the United States is out of step with the rest of the world.
Nineteen states allow capital punishment for juveniles, and more than 70 people who committed crimes as 16- and 17-year-olds are on death row.
The question for the justices is whether those executions are unconstitutionally cruel, the latest step in the Supreme Court's reexamination of capital punishment in America.
Well, I guess we'll see what happens...
[ October 13, 2004, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't support the death penalty mainly because there is always the possibility that we don't get the right guy. Secondarily, it is apparently very expensive, like 8 million dollars I think I heard once, to get through all the legal wrangling to finally execute someone.
Sure there is the need for justice on the part of survivor's victims, but maybe if they personally have to fund it it will be all the more satisfying. Isn't that what they say about college? Since we don't allow cruel and unusual execution, but the only crimes we execute for are cruel and unusual, there is no possibility of real revenge or justic.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Thanks pooka, I was wondering when that was going to come up.
Frankly, I have no regard for the life of a person once they commit certain types of crimes, such as has been mentioned already here. I feel that once they've made the decision to commit such crimes they've waived their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and should be put down to improve the gene pool and prevent any chance of recividism.
However, DNA tests have found quite a few wrongfully imprisoned inmates, and as soon as I heard about these my stance on capital punishment changed overnight. We simply cannot take that chance.
I see no reason to make an inmate's life pleasant or in any way desirable. But I can't condone killing one if there's any chance at all it's the wrong one. And there's always a chance.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I see no moral difference between murder and capital punishment. Killing is killing. We need better prevention, better security, better pay for our police system, but killing people who kill just turns the state into killers.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I read a bit of this thread before this but the jokes about Escape from New York made me think of a conversation I had with a co-worker over lunch about this case.
She brought up the idea of penal colonies again. Some countries still do this, I am told, but she couldn't remember who did it. Anyway, when a criminal was beyond hope of rehab (by their culture's standards...in our culture, I would assume this is the same as life in prison or death penalty conviction) they are "sent away."
I wonder if there is any support for this notion. I mean, walling Manhattan aside (honestly, we should wall up DC...with the politicians already there) but it seems it could address some of the economic concerns. Someone had the ghastly notion that "why should we pay for them to live...kill them" and it brings up the cost to execute (which is, I hate to remind people, pretty costly in and of itself).
The idea of penal colonies seems to have some merits. There was a time when prisons and mental institutions and other similar organizations had to be in some ways self-sufficient (never mind the poor treatment of mentally ill and such...that is another thread).
Anyway, why not work toward's that end of things. Seriously, if it is simply the cost of maintaining a prisoner for life is all that is separating death penalty advocates from killers themselves, why not explore ways for prisoners to support themselves?
Really, wouldn't something like this be preferrable to becoming a killer yourself? I honestly think if you are for the death penalty you should have to be there to flip the switch or pull the trigger and if you could do that...well, my faith in my fellow citizenry is diminished.
fil
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Which states in the US have actually applied the Death Penalty to minors?
Looking at the numbers there are 38 states that allow the death penalty. 17 allow juveniles aged seventeen-years-old to be sentenced to death; 10 allow juveniles aged sixteen-years-old to be sentenced to death; Arkansas, Utah, and Virginia have the youngest age, allowing juveniles aged fourteen-years-old to be sentenced to death. I'm still looking for other states, but that leaves the current list:
Texas, Arkansas, Utah, and Virginia
only 13 more left to name
edited to note that these statistics were taken from a report published in 2003, so they are fairly recent, other sources cite much higher numbers of states permitting the death penalty and juvenile execution, and I'm assuming that they are based on older data.
[ October 13, 2004, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Audeo ]
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
How can a criminal make restitution for their crime? I'm sure other minds can come up with something I've forgotten but every crime I can think of has some way of making a restitution except murderers, rapist and child molesters. These are the worst of the worst. They can not restore that which they took. For the worst of them, the serial killers and the most heinous murderers, I believe capital punishment is necessary. The only thing they can give to make any kind of restitution is their own life.
I do think we need some reform, better methods of proof, and I think as technology gets better we are getting better at "positive proof". We are an imperfect society with imperfect systems. We have to keep trying to make our system better, more efficient and more accurate. But some criminals need to pay for their crime with their lives.
Just my .02
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Personlly I think no juvenile should be tried as an adult to begin with. This is for several reasons: 1. Defendants are supposed to be able to assist in their own defense, juveniles are inherently at a diminished capacity to do so. 2. Juveniles are inherently at a diminished capacity when they are committing the crime. While they can surely judge right and wrong, they cannot judge the consequences of their actions. 3. If both of the above are false (which may very well be the case for 16 and 17 year olds) then they should be perfectly capable of making decisions regarding smoking, gambling, and most importantly voting.
Having said that I still think adults should be plenty eligible for the death penalty and I couldn't care if its done by Old Sparky, the gas chamber, a firing squad, or lethal injection.
As far as innocents possibly being executed, this is exactly why DNA testing should always be available, but the lack of DNA to test should not be a reason to set free either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since 1988, it has been unconstitutional to apply capital punishement to anyone younger than 16. In any state.
Dagonee
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Back in the early days of our country, capital punishment was necessary in order for decent, hardworking people to sleep at night, knowing that they would be safe. They would be tried, convicted, and hanged within a very short time span, so they could serve as a proper example to other would-be criminals.
Our modern justice and prison systems are so incredibly different from those of the past; a criminal will sit for years on death row before being put to death. Due process must be carried out, and appeals must be made in most cases. It's been so long, it doesn't serve as an example to the general public any longer. The penal system is now an exact science: We can (and do) incarcerate people with much fewer instances of escape than in the past. Capital Punishment is unnecessary.
quote: How can a criminal make restitution for their crime? I'm sure other minds can come up with something I've forgotten but every crime I can think of has some way of making a restitution except murderers, rapist and child molesters. These are the worst of the worst. They can not restore that which they took. For the worst of them, the serial killers and the most heinous murderers, I believe capital punishment is necessary. The only thing they can give to make any kind of restitution is their own life.
Restitution to whom exactly? To the victims? To the families of the victims? Do they get to press the button or squeeze the syringe? I understand sometimes the families witness the execution, but how does that help them reconcile their tragedy?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I left out 4: The Constitution garuantees the right to a trial by a jury of your peers. In the same way it would be wrong to have a jury in which case the defendant was a Black woman consist soley of white men, it is wrong to have a jury consist soley of adults when a juvenile is on trial.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I keep seeing posts about how precious life is, but what majority of people who are against the death penalty are pro abortion? I am curious because I know there are many people out there who believe this.
I know personally I am anti abortion but pro death penalty. But I am only pro death penalty if we have factual evidence such as video tape or something else equally incriminating. There is little worse than putting an innocent person to death. I am also pro death penalty when it comes to rape. Personally I do not think rapists deserve life they are sick individuals and if they can make a contribution to society I do not want what they have to give.
I take this stance because I believe everyone has the right to life. However I do not believe everyone has the right to keep their life in the case of rape or murder. I do not think a mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy under any situation except for if the pregnancy is a mortal risk for her. Not rape, not incest, and definitely not unprotected sex gives someone the right to terminate a pregnancy. The mother may not have asked to be raped but the child did not ask her to be raped either.
I just do not see how people can possibly be anti death penalty but pro-choice, it makes zero sense to me. Could someone who has this view explain their thinking here?
Edit: Oh yes, I believe if there is factual evidence of the type I suggested earlier in this post then the 15 year old should receive the death penalty. Just because the Congo and Iran do it does not make it wrong. When was the last time when a majority didnt do something that made it right?
[ October 14, 2004, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo sais: White people must have amazing consciences... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you know, we get together each year and decide the best way to keep you all down...
Is it called the Republican National Convention? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I just do not see how people can possibly be anti death penalty but pro-choice, it makes zero sense to me.
quote:The majority of people who favor abortion rights think that at least first-trimester abortion is not the taking of human life. Therefore, to them, there's no comparison to the taking of a human life by the state.
Justification for Pro-Death Penalty/Anti-Abortion
quote:From the perspective of someone who thinks that an unborn child is a fully human person from the moment of conception (or implantation, even):
Once that proposition is accepted, then an unborn child occupies the same moral plane as any other human. In general we consider it wrong to kill other humans, absent special circumstances.
Some people consider the commission of a henious crime sufficient special circumstances to justify the taking of life, just like some people consider self-defense to be sufficient special circumstances.
In other words, it’s not about how precious life is but rather about what life is and what are proper justifications for taking it.
Dagonee
[ October 14, 2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: if they <rapists> can make a contribution to society I do not want what they have to give.
what do you have to say about the enormous cost of providing due process and humane lethal injections to capital criminals? It's a drain, the total opposite of a contribution, paid in full by the state.
I don't like capital punishment; I think abortion is abhorrent, but I think ultimately, it's the family's (not in any case the state and not specifically the woman's) right to choose. In both cases I think the right to life should be protected. What group do I belong to?
[ October 14, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One thing that bothers me is discussion of the "cost of due process" with respect to the death penalty. If the extra due process provided in death penalty cases provides greater surety against wrongful convictions, then it ought to available to anyone receiving a severe sentence such as life in prison. If it doesn't provide greater surety, then there's no reason to have it.
Either way, it should not be a distinctive feature of death penalty cases.
Dagonee
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I'd imagine that life-term convicts do too, but they're in less of a hurry.
[ October 14, 2004, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If the cost of due process protections were the same, then how would the death penalty cost more than life with no possibility of parole?
Dagonee
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Because of the high cost of life-ending drugs.
[ October 14, 2004, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Compared to the cost of 50 additional years of imprisonment?
Florida reported the likely cost per execution by lethal injection to be even cheaper. "The Department of Corrections reported a negligible fiscal impact associated with the switch in execution method. The department would have to either build or purchase the associated equipment. The department also reported the cost of one execution by electrocution as follows: executioner's fee $150.00; Last Meal $20.00; Suit and Shirt $150.00; Funeral Home $525.00; and security overtime $1,380.00; for a total cost of $2,225.00." http://www.fcc.state.fl.us/fcc/reports/methods/emleg.html
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This is in response not to anyone in particular, but just a general response to 'if they do 'X', then the punishment should be death'.
Two of the yardsticks that are often used to determine whether the death penalty should be used is whether or not someone understands the consequences of their actions, and whether they intended to kill someone. Thus, a pilot that loses control of a jet and crashes into a building, killing thousands, is quite different from someone who does so intentionally. A pilot who is insane and flys their jet into a building because their condition causes them to percieve or feel things that aren't there is different from one who does so intentionally. Etc.
The problem with saying that the death penalty should be used indiscriminately in an olde tyme eye for an eye fashion is that it ignores these conditions and ignores extenuating circumstances.
I assume most people who indiscriminately advocated the death penalty are o.k. with taking extenuating circumstances into account and just forgot to mention that point when they were advocating the death penalty. So, I'm going to concentrate on the not with it rationale for not giving the death penalty to someone.
Most people agree that people can change, either through drugs or conscious effort or through surgery. The problem is that no outside of the individual knows for sure when they change. So, even if a person is not with it, the argument is that it's better to be safe than sorry. If they killed/raped/whatever once, they may do it again.
My response to this is that given today's prisons, the odds of someone escaping from a maximum security prison are so overwhelmingly small that life in prison is going to mean exactly that--life in prison. On the other hand, I believe that the odds of someone having their case screwed up, either willfuly or negligently, are much greater than the odds that someone will escape and commit further harm. So, saying that society must be protected by killing someone is really a non-starter to me.
Note to doubting Thomases--we can go and google for this, but remember that the criteria is people who are in a maximum security prison for life who have escaped versus those who have been subsequently found to be innocent after being parked on death row for however many years.
Another reason that I've seen raised to kill someone for an offense is that it pays some kind of 'social debt'. I find this argument interesting because, to me, it hearkens back to arguments for blood sacrifices. In order to atone for a certain sin, or to make certain things happen, we must sacrifice a rabbit, two sloths and a giraffe. In some cases, we have to sacrifice Mr. Smith.
(Off-topic note, I wonder what hidden ways this idea manifests in society?)
In other words, I think the argument of killing someone in recompense for some kind of social debt or to force that person to pay back for their crime is non-rational as it assumes certain things regardless of what reality says.
Well, what does reality say about killing someone? What happens when you pop a cap in Mr. Smith's ass?
Nothing objectively happens, except that Mr. Smith dies.
Subjectively, the victim (if still alive) or people close to the victim (if not), might feel a lot better. 'That bastard finally got his! Yee-haw!' For those that feel that way, their feelings are totally understandable.
The problem with basing the death penalty strictly on victim gratification is that, to a large degree, it ignores the way the justice system works. Justice isn't done for victims. Justice is done for society.
The question is, is there a middle ground? Is there a way that both society and victims can be satisfied?
I think so. The societal reasons for killing someone basically revolve around keeping society safe. For reasons already given above, this, to me, means locking them up for life.
For victims, I don't have a good answer. I think the circumstances surrounding crimes that warrant the death penalty now are so varied and complex, the personalities of the victims, as well, different, that I can't think of a one size fits all solution. The obvious answer, to me, is that it's something that can be worked out over the prison term of the guilty party. I know it's vague, but there it is.
[ October 14, 2004, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Dagonee, I just wanted to let you know I was kidding, before you got to my teasing post. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I got it. I couldn't think of a funny response, so I dodged it. And now you've forced me to admit that, darn you!
Dagonee
[ October 14, 2004, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Everything has transpired as I have forseen it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Quoting your mentor? Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Dagonee thank you for the information.
I have trouble not seeing a fetus as a child especially after taking child development classes. The fetus has a separate heart beat within the first three weeks of conception. How isnt that a separate human being? It is not just a mass of cells.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Quoting your mentor?
My dad.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I am for the death penalty not being ruled out completely based on age alone.
I think each case needs to be handled individually depending on the actual crime and perpetrator.
One thing that comes to my mind.
If teenagers want the right to be able to marry, drink, smoke, etc. or engage in such activities considered "mature/adult" then also that responsibility is entailed.
Do some youths not understand the consequences of their actions? Yes some might, but we live in a VERY mature world.
Girls getting breast implants for their sixteenth birthday. Having Orgies. Getting Drunk with their parents permission, etc.
Responsibility begins on a large scale when teenagers are able to work and to drive.
I don't think the death penalty should be ruled out across the board due to age alone. But should be an option available for those crimes where warranted and weighed on a case by case basis.
Just my opinions.
[ October 14, 2004, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
But why are you for the death penalty at all?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Because if they intentionally and brutally take the life, liberty and persuit of happiness from another human being, they forfeit completely their right to do the same. Unfortunately, keeping them alive in our prison system today allows them SOME freedom and SOME liberty and SOME persuit of happiness (people in our prison system have more civil rights than the general citizens of Saudi Arabia or China). That is not fair IMHO.
I believe they should have NO influence or impact, etc. on outside society.
You put Osama bin Laden in prison, unfortunately (and this is something I disagree with completely) someone is going to defend his right to "write a book" or have "contact" with the outside world or do "Al Jazeera" interviews a la' Chales Manson.
I believe his presence needs to be completely removed.
That's just my opinion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wouldn't it be interesting, if, ten years down the road, the title of his book was 'I was wrong'? Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: If teenagers want the right to be able to marry, drink, smoke, etc. or engage in such activities considered "mature/adult" then also that responsibility is entailed.
But since you don't give them that right they don't have the same responsibilities.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also, one other reason I'm for it is it is a firm, realistic bargaining tool when building a case against a murder or someone who has committed multiple homicides.
If you remove the death penalty, then you will have people who under the death penalty would have received it, but gave info to the police (like body/gave locations), an admission of guilt, etc. as part of a plea bargain for receiving "Life Imprisonment" instead, if the Prosecution only has "Live Imprisonment" as the maximum, then what do you barter with?
You have to give them a chance to get out in order for them to cooperate, or you just plain don't get the cooperation from them and then the victims are never found and their families never have that peace, etc.
No one is going to give up information against themselves if you knock 5 years of 6 consecutive life sentences, because either way you die in prison. You have to give them free cable, or porn mags, or better meals, or any number of things they should NEVER be entitled to as a guilty 1st degree murderer.
However, you tell that same guy that he's going to have the needle put in his arm unless he cooperates, where he'll get Life in Prison instead, they are more apt to cooperate.
Also, I am glad that more innocent people are being released for varios crimes whether Death Row or just wrongfully imprisoned because it shows that our legal system IS improving and that hopefully with DNA testing and "CSI technology" etc, video camer surveilance and future developments, that the chance for someone innocent being incarderated will go down lower and lower and lower.
I don't think the Death Penalty should ever be abolished, but that it should be used only in those cases where the presence of the criminal (Ted Bundy, Manson, Dahmer, McVeigh) remaining by influence alone causes a "threat" to society.
Again, these are just my opinions.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I am for the death penalty, and like some others, would like to see it applied not just to murderers, but also to serial rapists and child molesters.
Child molestation and rape are horrid crimes that keep on giving, frequently for years and decades after the actual event is over.
Why am I for the death penalty? Because some people don't deserve to live. If you commit a crime that heinous, then as far as I'm concerned, you no longer have the right to demand to be alive. I do, however, agree with previous comments that the death penalty shouldn't apply universally. It should be applied on a case by case basis. And again, I don't think that the death penalty should be excluded on the basis of age.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: But since you don't give them that right they don't have the same responsibilities.
On those things they don't, but under age youths can sue for emancipation. They can be married. They can have babies and abortions. They can also commit pre-meditated murder, rapes, agravated assault, etc.
With the death penalty for minors, it is not being open automatically as a penalty to them.
Anyone to whom it may apply has to be found before trial even begins that they are competent to stand trial as an adult. Then and only then can the death penalty be sought.
Generally "banning" it based on age would be wrong because every case is different.
All the time you have a "group" or "gang" of youths who commit a crime where 2 are a month or two older than 18 and 2 are a month or two younger. Every person is unique, but if the group planned the crime together, then the "mentallity" of this group is probably very similar.
Why should the 2 that are 3 or 4 months older be treated more harshly and those that are just under the age of 18 be treated less?
If it can be proved that they are much less mentally mature than their actual ages then you have a point. If they understood that what they were doing was wrong and that it's results would end in the death, rape, assault of another person, but made the conscious decision to participate, then they have the responsibility to claim for those actions as well.
Again, just my opinion.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Wouldn't it be interesting, if, ten years down the road, the title of his book was 'I was wrong'?
Why should he have the right and freedom to persue that? In my opinion he shouldn't for the reasons I stated before.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Your argument rests to some degree on the idea that he would commit more 'bad' by being left alive. I'm just pointing out that that may very well not be the case.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
In fact, let me kind of extend that argument just a little to kind of feel out where you guys are coming from. Let's say that you have a crystal ball and you know that someone that you believe should be put to death will, if left alive, absolutely do ten times more 'good' than the 'bad' he did. Let's say that the person you believe should die, if left alive, causes ten other people to not do the same crime that you believe she should die for.
Should that person live or die?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You would have to give that person the "freedom" to choose to do that. I don't believe they should have that after committing a premeditated heinous murder.
IMHO, you don't take that chance and you don't reward their crime by givig them freedom.
They had that maximum God given freedom to begin with and they choose to do the maximum evil with it.
They had the choice of which path to take, and they chose the worst possible course for which there is NO possible restitution because you can't bring the person back to life.
When the day comes that they can bring that person back to life, and given them a second chance, then they have earned their right at a second chance as well.
The difference for me is "restricting" freedom and "removal" of freedom. You restrict the freedom of a person who abuses freedom. You remove freedom from a person who denies it from someone else. If you deny it forever, then you forfeit it forever.
If they truly are sorry and repentant for what they have done, then plea bargain for life imprisonment.
As a murderer, your victim's death shouldn't be the catalyst that enacts change for the better within you.
A person who has to kill in order to then choose to do good, abuses their victim's death for their gain and betterment.
Someone shouldn't have to be killed for you to decide to start being good.
Again, just my opinion.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
As to the crystal ball hypothetical, you could apply it to anyone who does evil deeds.
It is entirely possible, (although highly unlikely) that OBL could convert to Buddhism and become a strict advocate for peace, lay down his weapons and someday win the nobel peace prize.
Does that small remote possibility mean that we shouldn't persue and try to kill him?
In my opinion, no. We should hunt him down and make sure that there isn't enough of him left to make a martyr's burial out of.
Zarqawi the sword wielding beheader? I don't believe he has the right to live or breathe another second.
That may sound very harsh, and I do think it is. But if we start "rationalizing" the lessening of punishments, then where do you draw the line? I believe in keeping the line firm where it is.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also, I'm not trying to convince anyone what my view is right for everyone. Just that view is right for me and this is why.
Beside the reasons above, I also have religious reasons.
Jesus (as far as I know) never remitted the death sentence of anyone who had committed murder.
He was against unjust punishment (ie. Death for Adultery or Death for being a Prophet or Death for saying YHWH.) but for justice.
Also, Jesus was sinless, but killed, while Barabbas was a convicted murderer, and was set free. By Man.
There is something to be said for punishing someone "worse" than their offence. There is someting to be said for punishing someone "equal" to their offence. There is something to be said for punishing someone "less" than their offense.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Why do we stop at execution when we could torture people and then execute them?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Idea that just occured to me:
quote: On those things they don't, but under age youths can sue for emancipation. They can be married. They can have babies and abortions. They can also commit pre-meditated murder, rapes, agravated assault, etc.
I don't know the "rules" on emancipation of minors, but I do know that in order for a non emancipated minor to get married or have an abortion, they need to have adult consent.
Here's a hypothetical: So a parent is legally responsible for a child until they turn 18. What if, in a murder trial, they were (at least to some degree) legally accountable if that child committed first-degree murder?
Here's what it breaks down to, for me anyway:
I believe in God, and I believe that God is infinetely just. I know that our justice system is nowhere near perfect, but God's justice is.
Our system isn't perfect; nomatter how hard we try, people are going to slip through the cracks, however few and far between they occur. Our system isn't perfect, so a peer jury will have a different emotion over an white woman than a black man (or a black woman than a white man). We may try not to, but it happens sometimes.
That, in part, is why I oppose the death penalty. It's never clear-cut across the board. Not even at God's level, I'd think.
[ October 15, 2004, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't think the Death Penalty should ever be abolished, but that it should be used only in those cases where the presence of the criminal (Ted Bundy, Manson, Dahmer, McVeigh) remaining by influence alone causes a 'threat' to society."
But you just mentioned, in the previous part of your post, that you felt the death penalty was an essential bargaining tool, used to extract plea deals. Do you believe that we should only extract plea deals from people who meet the above criteria.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Do you believe that we should only extract plea deals from people who meet the above criteria.
No, the plea bargaining process is open to all. It's the proposed criminal's choice. Take a gamble by not cooperating, pleading "innocent" (when you are guilty) and having the chance of getting off completely (a la' O.J.) or face the maximum punishment of having your freedom completely and permenantly removed.
quote: Why do we stop at execution when we could torture people and then execute them?
Because you have "groups" who think anything considered "cruel and unnusual" is unconstitutional. Such as not allowing them to sit in front of a T.V. all day is "cruel". Not giving them better meals than they serve in public schools is "cruel". Not allowing them to work out or not giving them weights to use is "cruel". Not allowing them outside every once in a while is "cruel". Making them work in extremely hard physical labor is "cruel". Removal of the genitalia of serial rapists is "cruel and torture".
I am against torture. I am not for free room and board and TV.
quote: I don't know the "rules" on emancipation of minors, but I do know that in order for a non emancipated minor to get married or have an abortion, they need to have adult consent.
The constitutionality of "Adult consent" for abortion has been challenged and may be found unconstitutional (may have already been done). But it is pretty well known that a 15 year old has passed puberty. They can have sex and can impregnate and become impregnated.
I support it on a case by case basis. I don't support a ban on it.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I do agree that prison should not be so cushy. I think it wrong that prisoners sit in front of a TV all day and get free medical care while some of my friends have no insurance for themselves or their children. But how is it not cruel to take someone's life?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: But how is it not cruel to take someone's life?
It's not meant to "not" be cruel. That's the problem. Putting them in Jail is cruel (or at least it should be) as is restricting their freedoms and rights.
The definition of "cruel" is very much fluid and debatable.
I'm not saying that it's not cruel. I'm saying that it is cruel, but that is why it's a punishment.
quote: I do agree that prison should not be so cushy. I
As long as they are alive however, there will be someone willing to fight for their "rights" or "freedoms".
If they're dead, there's nothing to debate on. Problem solved.
This is just how I feel about it.
[ October 15, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
And I feel the way I feel about it. Are we at an impasse, then? Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Probably, which is fine.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I'm not saying that it's not cruel. I'm saying that it is cruel, but that is why it's a punishment.
But the Consitution specifically outlaws cruel punishment. Thus, if what you just said is true, it's unconstitutional.
[ October 15, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: But the Consitution specifically outlaws cruel punishment. Thus, if what you just said is true, it's unconstitutional.
But history of the constitution, government and death penalty show that it is not. (hangings, firing squads, electric chairs, etc.)
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
You just said it's cruel. The consitution says cruel punishment is forbidden. The history is irrelevant, except to prove that (like segregation) something unconstitutional was allowed to slide for a long time.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Isn't keeping people locked up cruel? Or making them work in the community they despise?
Hobbes
[ October 15, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No, the history isn't irrelevant, because what is considered "cruel" and what is considered "just" are two different things.
I may consider it "cruel", but putting a person on the table and injecting them is subjective.
Example: A person who is a vegetable mentally being allowed to be euthanized and "die" is "humane", but a person who has murdered and is guilty being euthanized is "cruel".
My P.O.V. isn't the constitutionally proven one.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
one little point.
The constitution says "Cruel And Unusual Punishments" not Cruel OR unusual.
Making your employees get up at 6am to be in on work at time may be cruel, but it is not unusual.
The question is, is killing a 17 year old boy for a crime he committed when he was 14 something too unusual for consideration.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, is that an exclusive "and" or an inclusive "and"?
Chad, If it's your POV, doesn't that mean you think it's right?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
"and" can be exclusive? Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Inclusive: Sunni and Shiite Muslims are angry at America. (Includes all sunnis and all shiites.)
Exclusive: You cannot be Sunni and Shiite. (Is talking about only those who are both sunni and shiite simultaneously.)
[ October 15, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Doh! Of course. Thanks Xap. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think it's cruel AND unusual. Also I don't think historically that executions were considered unconstitutional but still practiced. They were practiced under the authority of the constitution.
I believe the implied meaning behind the phrase "cruel and unusual" is one limiting punishment in "excess" as in it would be cruel and unusual for someone who steals bread to have their hand cut off.
Or someone who swears to have their tongue cut out.
In all honesty I think that "cruel" has been mis interpreted by the courts to mean anything that is considered "cruel" by society which is wholey subjective.
I believe it means punishment in excess of the original crime.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
And I'm currently living in a country where drug possession can get you the death penalty.
So how 'bout we solve the problem this way? Ship those murdering SOBs over here with wads of coke or heroine in their pockets and rat 'em out to the cops.
Yep. Problem solved. Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Remind me never to visit Sri Lanka.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
CStroman, why are you against torture?
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Well, why?
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) and and adults need a less severe form of punishment.![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)