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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
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?
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 donāt 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.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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, letās 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.
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.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
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
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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? Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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, itās not about how precious life is but rather about what life is and what are proper justifications for taking it.
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?
posted
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.
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
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't it be interesting, if, ten years down the road, the title of his book was 'I was wrong'? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
