quote:Originally posted by scholar: As far as prison being a cushy time, try committing a crime in AZ during summer. No AC, limited water, green meat, no tv and of course the infamous pink underwear. Of course, I moved a few years ago and haven't heard much since then.
posted
Sherif Joe thought pink underwear would add an element of humiliation to the prison experience. The public seemed to like it and thought it was funny, so he sold them as a fundraiser about ten years ago. Though as far as I am aware, the prisoners still get only pink underwear. (But again, I haven't lived in AZ for four years so policies could have changed)
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What bothers me about Sheriff Joe is that a lot of people being in held in jail haven't been convicted yet. Purely punitive measures for people who are being confined not for punishment but to ensure appearance at trial is antithetical to our system.
It all sounds great, but unless his jail is unlike every one I've ever heard of and only has convicted criminals serving their sentence, his policies ignore half his job function.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you fail to see that the world is and has been historically in a state of anarchy, then pointing out 'my' ignorance..
Well..
As for the police. If you carry a badge and a gun, you are a law onto yourself. In a dark alley, on any given Sunday, there is no real law except that law that you can muster as an officer by the force of your weapon and your badge. Cops have always known this, in fact, I think it's part of their training. Civilians probably don't want to know it.
My friend Louie calls it: 'the Awful Truth'.
Truth might be awful, but I belive it can set you free.
My point: if people want to kill each other to get a sense of 'justice' let them. But let the victim's survivors be the killers, not 3rd parties, and MOST ESPECIALLY NOT THE GOVERNMENT. If a Government gets in the business of killing, then the best route would be to literaly 'kill em all' and let got sort them out.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
If you fail to use words according to their actual definitions and instead distort and twist meaning unti everything you say was right no matter what, then yes, I'm going to point out your ignorance.
You could try actual evidence instead of making statements as though you already proved yourself. But you won't do that. It's more fun to sneer and smugly sound smarter than everyone else.
Anarchy: 1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2.Political disorder and confusion.
3.Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
The world does have some political authority, the world is not in political disorder, and there are several cohesive standards and purposes which nations cling to.
I don't care what your friend Louie calls it, it doesn't change the fact that the statement you made was wrong. Police officers sometimes go over the line and execute sentence. This is not commonplace, and in any case how about some hint of evidence it's happening in Oklahoma?
You know, to set met free and all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine I detract said comment that people seem to be getting pissed off at me for . No more generalizations from me. Even though I get those every day from everyone and get caught in all the stereotypes as well.
posted
Dag will have to weigh in on this, but if I am not mistaken, the US Supreme Court ruled at some point that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment as per the 8th Amendment when applied to rape and was thus unconstitutional. Of course we have a different court now and who knows how they will see this law.
I'm perfectly fine with the Oklahoma law as I understand it from reading the thread. One heinous crime probably doesn't always merit the death penalty, but do it twice . . .
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: Dag will have to weigh in on this, but if I am not mistaken, the US Supreme Court ruled at some point that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment as per the 8th Amendment when applied to rape and was thus unconstitutional. Of course we have a different court now and who knows how they will see this law.
I think that's Coker v. Georgia.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Your naivitee befuddles me. I use very precise words, child-like, so that any child can understand them. Is English your first language? Not mine.
Your little coocoon of reality is so flawed, so utterly devoid of ... clarity... that it is impossible to argue a point with you because you simply do not 'see' what is really happening out there, nor will you be interested in 'seeing' if it contradicts your eroded version of reality.
Gary Davis (whose life I turned into a never-released screenplay) was the one who more or less explained to me best why we really do live in a state of international anarchy.
But bloody hells, man! There is a bloody war in Irak at this instant to pave the way for 'our' Oil-Cowboys to dominate the middle east's supply of oil. The war, be it a just or unjust war, clearly demonstrates our lack as humans to govern ourselves wisely.
Wether it's cowboys or shieks it's of little difference, since global warming will kill us all anyhow.
My suspicion is that the US of A is preparing for WWIII and Bush knows he needs those oil fields in his hands to keep them away from his adversaries.
Is that not anarchic? Bloody hell! What else would you like to see? Rioting in downtown Salt Lake City?
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for confirming my opinion that you are a trollish ass, Robin. Now I need not waste further time discussing anything except acid trips with you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sergeant: Dag will have to weigh in on this, but if I am not mistaken, the US Supreme Court ruled at some point that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment as per the 8th Amendment when applied to rape and was thus unconstitutional. Of course we have a different court now and who knows how they will see this law.
I'm perfectly fine with the Oklahoma law as I understand it from reading the thread. One heinous crime probably doesn't always merit the death penalty, but do it twice . . .
Sergeant
I can't claim to understand the 8th amendment death penalty jurisprudence. I do know that the death penalty requires "aggravating" circumstances be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury, and that the defendant have an almost unlimited right to present mitigating circumstances to the jury prior to sentencing. Without a jury imposition, no death penalty is possible. I'm not sure if a judge must be able to convert the death penalty to life imprisonment, but many states allow that whether it's required or not.
I do know that juries do not constitutionally have to be told that there is no chance of parole if a life sentence is given, leading many to speculate that some juries in some states give death sentences out of fear that the defendant will be released.
As to the specifics of the crime, though, I'm not up on that at all. 8th amendment jurisprudence is very confusing with almost no hard and fast rules, only standards.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am actually a little fuzzy on the law. It says convicted twice. So, let's say someone rapes two kids before getting caught. Is he then eligible for the death penalty? Or does he need to rape two kids, serve time, and then show he can't be rehabilitated by raping another kid? On the giving death penalty for fear of the guy getting out, TX I think reenforced those fears last year. Some guy who killed like ten people was given a deal, life in prison in exchange for details on all the crimes (he was good and left no evidence so they could only get him on one crime). For any crime he committed in TX that he gave full disclosure on, he could never be charged with. Then, TX changed the rules and the guy became eligible for parole. So, there was this really fun rush to find some other crime he had committed that he hadn't disclosed and charge him with it. I forget which state managed to find a crime. The other state really had sketchy evidence, but they got the judge to admit his confession to the other ten murders and the fact that otherwise he would be let free, so the jury voted guilty, though it seemed like no one was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he had killed that particular woman. They just really didn't want him out.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, tried to post this last night but Hatrack was down. The thread has move in a new direction, but I think this is still relevant. - - - - - - - - - - -
I'm kind of in the gray area when it comes to the death penalty, I see it as a failing of mankind in general, just as I see war as a failing of mankind. But sometime your opponent leaves you no choice but to war, and sometimes a criminal leave you no choice but the death penalty.
But I think we reach for that solution, both in war and in crime, much much to quickly. It should be reserved for criminal who are so feral, so anti-social, so void of any conscience or capacity to understand right and wrong, that they simply can be allowed to live in any society. When people have crossed the line into animals, then I think the death penalty should be considered.
Now, all crimes of rape and murder are terrible horrible unforgivable crimes, but it becomes much too easy to be swayed by a slick talking lawyer that any one particular crime is death penalty worthy. When that slick talking lawyer lowers the bar and make the death penalty easier, then the irredeemable nature of crime becomes lower, next thing you know we are sending little kids to the Death Chamber.
I think a crime can't just be particularly brutal, but must show a true pattern of lack of conscience and irredeemability.
I'm reminded of the 'Three Strikes' law, in some states it was enacted with the intent to included crimes of violence and other extreme felonies, but it gradually was soften until it included any three felonies.
In the case in question, I can see the death penalty for VIOLENT rape but two strikes doesn't quite seem enough, and Life In Prison should be considered before death. The implication of this law seems to indicate that any two strikes and your dead. Without excessive violence, without a clear lack of conscience, and with repentance or remorse, I don't think the death penatly is justified. If they indicate habitial but non-violent behavior, then at some point, total life long isolation from society is the preferred method.
To rape a child is a terrible terrible thing, but to kill a man is also terrible. I think the circumstances of the event in question needs to be looked at. Sadly, some kids are seduced through a gradual process. In a sense, they engage willingly. However, it is still a crime, because willing or not, kids simply don't have the knowledge or experience to understand the full implications of their actions.
Further, the seduction is a form of misinformation. Kids trust adults to guide them with a sense of right and wrong, and the seducer is quiding them with a false and warped sense of right. It is still rape. However, insidious as it may be, it is not violent, and while it shows complusive desires, it doesn't show a lack of conscience.
We need to be extremely careful with the death penalty, and make sure that we don't allow the emotions of the moment to override our deeper sense of humanity and compassion.
Certainly sentences should be punishment, but I don't think it should be vindictive.
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man: Fine I detract said comment that people seem to be getting pissed off at me for . No more generalizations from me. Even though I get those every day from everyone and get caught in all the stereotypes as well.
*exits thread*
Stan, sorry to see you go over this. I wasn't at all mad, but I vehemently and personally disagreed with what you said. I don't see why this had to be a big deal. Romany didn't seem too bent out of shape, either, but I shouldn't speak for her.
Certainly what you said had the potential to be more offensive than anything which was said to you... and what you said is certainly something that I, personally, could not let go unchallenged.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I'm posting without reading the whole thread so chastise me if I'm repeating what someone else said...
I'm pro-death penalty.
I think killing child molesters would do everyone a world of good.
However!
I'm against the death penalty for anything other than murder! Because if you expand it to crimes where the perp *really* deserves to die but hasn't actually killed anyone, it will make it more likely for a molester, kidnapper, name-your-crime to kill the person they're violating.
I'd rather child come back severely traumatised than in a box.
I think I still disagree, but that's an aspect I hadn't given much thought to, and now have to. Thanks.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'd much rathered see a thread titled, "Oklahoma can now cure repeat rapists, recidivism declines sharply." I'm ashamed to see all the joy in this thread over the fact that it's now easier for our government to kill more human beings, no matter what they've done. We're still more punatively minded than we are focused on rehabilitation. That's sad to me.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Because if you expand it to crimes where the perp *really* deserves to die but hasn't actually killed anyone, it will make it more likely for a molester, kidnapper, name-your-crime to kill the person they're violating.
I'd rather child come back severely traumatised than in a box.
I had this thought too. I don't know how true this is, but I've heard of cases where if the perpetrator would have killed the kidnapping victim, they actually would have gotten less jail time than for the kidnapping conviction.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Personally, I'd much rathered see a thread titled, "Oklahoma can now cure repeat rapists, recidivism declines sharply." I'm ashamed to see all the joy in this thread over the fact that it's now easier for our government to kill more human beings, no matter what they've done. We're still more punatively minded than we are focused on rehabilitation. That's sad to me.
Bao, every time you write something like this, I remember why I like to read forums.
Mazer, I wrestle a great deal with this one myself. In fact, one of my proposals was to give children martail arts training across the board. Turn them into little warriors for peace. But wouldn't it be better to turn them into choir boys?
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Ok, I'm posting without reading the whole thread so chastise me if I'm repeating what someone else said...
I'm pro-death penalty.
I think killing child molesters would do everyone a world of good.
However!
I'm against the death penalty for anything other than murder! Because if you expand it to crimes where the perp *really* deserves to die but hasn't actually killed anyone, it will make it more likely for a molester, kidnapper, name-your-crime to kill the person they're violating.
I'd rather child come back severely traumatised than in a box.
Pix
And yet there are also cases where a child has been abused so severely that he is unable to cope with it all and commits suicide after years of trying to endure the effects of that abuse. But I am willing to conceded that the cases where the child could be rehabilitated probably outnumber the "Lost causes."
I think there is still merit to the arguement that people abuse children because its so hard to prosecute and because sentencing is relatively light that the risk seems worth it. Do you have any knowledge what the typical sentence time is for rape and for sexually molesting a child Dag? Is there a range?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Oh, if we're going to put them in prison for life, yeah, I'd vote for that in a heart beat. But let's fix THAT problem. And save Death for the murderers.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a rather interesting perspective on this one. My cousin was kidnapped when she was 13. She was beaten, drugged, and repeatedly raped before being left for dead, naked, in the middle of the woods in Massachusetts - in October (aka it was damn cold). She has grown up and now has a family of her own. She is a relatively normal person, and someone who I respect because she has gone through hell. They caught the man that did this to her, and she faced him in a court of law; in Massachusetts and in Wisconsin! He had kidnapped, beaten, drugged, and repeatedly raped another girl there, but he killed her. She looked eerily similar to my cousin. He even had newspaper clippings about the dead girl in his wallet when he was captured. To this day my cousin is terrified of going to see a doctor. When they took her to the hospital after they found her (an off-duty cop walking in the woods found her) they ran all sorts of tests and poked and prodded her. Now she will cry for a week if she knows she has an appointment coming up. Other than that, she is pretty much ok.
So my thoughts on the death penalty: 1. I hate the idea that "killing someone is wrong - you killed someone , so now we will kill you"
2. I also hate the idea of someone sitting in prison and earning a college degree on my tax dollars when I had to work my butt off to go to college ( and yes it does happen).
3. I think that to punish a convicted child molester or rapist, that person should be chained in a chair, with their feet chained to the floor. Then I think they should let the mother of the victim into the room (the only other person in the room) with a rusty spoon with a nick in it.... and let her mete out a just punishment!
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
JenniK I can appreciate the indignation directed at a person who certainly deserves it, but to be honest, creating elaborate punishments for these crimes while self consolatory really does not produce useful conclusions.
If any of you have LOTS of time I would refer you to this circumstance:
*warning* it is extremely graphic and descriptive as Crime Library is a very matter of fact website about crimes that are commited.
Granted today, our understanding of the psychology of captivity is much better, so the difficulty in handing out a guilty verdict is a bit lower. Remember though that this guy is still eligible for parole and early release.
Murderers often commit their terrible acts within just a few seconds-several days. This man carefully calculated his acts of cruelty over a period of 7 years and exacted them as best he could. He had every intention of increasing the number of victims, but he was caught. Is he really less deserving of death when compared to a man who in a fit of rage reaches for a gun and shoots somebody?
I really do not know the answer to those questions.
posted
Nor do I, but right now we're killing people anyway. I hope somebody somewhere knows good answers to these questions.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Murderers often commit their terrible acts within just a few seconds-several days. This man carefully calculated his acts of cruelty over a period of 7 years and exacted them as best he could. He had every intention of increasing the number of victims, but he was caught. Is he really less deserving of death when compared to a man who in a fit of rage reaches for a gun and shoots somebody?
No.
It's the attitude that murder is the only crime worthy of the death penalty that continues to boggle my mind.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Personally, I'd much rathered see a thread titled, "Oklahoma can now cure repeat rapists, recidivism declines sharply." I'm ashamed to see all the joy in this thread over the fact that it's now easier for our government to kill more human beings, no matter what they've done. We're still more punatively minded than we are focused on rehabilitation. That's sad to me.
Bao, every time you write something like this, I remember why I like to read forums.
quote:Personally, I'd much rathered see a thread titled, "Oklahoma can now cure repeat rapists, recidivism declines sharply." I'm ashamed to see all the joy in this thread over the fact that it's now easier for our government to kill more human beings, no matter what they've done. We're still more punatively minded than we are focused on rehabilitation. That's sad to me.
quote: Mazer, I wrestle a great deal with this one myself.
Absolute Pacifists are Eloi, only fit to be eaten. But, obviously you do recognize the need to defend life, otherwise you wouldn't even be able to concieve of "Warriors for peace."
So what is the struggle? In attempting to take the life of another, you surrender your own right to life, (If that person was to end your life in the process of defending themselves.) Now that doesn't necessarily justify capital punishment, but clearly there are circumstances where one may have the right to choose life or death for another.
Although you could argue that someone who dies while attacking another has made that choice for themself. Certainly that would appear to be the position of the Dalai Lama who apparently has made pro-self-defense comments.
Posts: 186 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mazer: Absolute Pacifists are Eloi, only fit to be eaten.
Dang, Mazer's already staked out the moral high ground. What's the point in my joining this thread now? Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a member of a family who is reeling from the recent knowledge that a sexual offender in our family is being released from prison, I would much rather have him penalized by Oklahoma's new law then to have to deal with the fear and myriad of emotions knowing that even after 13 years in jail he still doesn't think what he did was wrong and will very likely continue his heinous behavior. We also live in fear of him stalking our children and trying to insinuate himself back into the family. Putting him to death 13 years ago would have been a much better sentence than the state giving him 4 - 20 year sentences to be served concurrently. Whats the point of that?
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Might I introduce an interesting dynamic to this capital punishment thread.
Person A: Does not believe in an afterlife and has put all their efforts into enjoying their life as much as possible on a day to day basis.
Person B: Believes in an afterlife and remains quite stoical about the sting of death. Finding joy in the possibilities that still remain after one is dead, yet enjoying the now in his/her own way.
If both people are shot and killed, who has had more harm done to them?
Just a thought
As an afterlife is not legally recognized nor has any method been developed to prove the existance of one. Is it unfair for the government to assume that this life is all that a man or woman has and use that to weigh the punishments they mete out to murderers?
It seems that a victims belief in an afterlife might alter how serious a murder ought to be taken. I don't know I have just been thinking about that alot.
Heck what views a murderer holds for the afterlife might effect how he handles the death sentence. Ought that to be taken into consideration?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems that a victims belief in an afterlife might alter how serious a murder ought to be taken. I don't know I have just been thinking about that alot.
You raise an interesting question, but given that sentencing in a murder case is more about punishing the criminal and protecting the interests of the populace than it is about the victim, I don't think the victim's beliefs should (or will) be a factor in judgement.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems that a victims belief in an afterlife might alter how serious a murder ought to be taken. I don't know I have just been thinking about that alot.
You raise an interesting question, but given that sentencing in a murder case is more about punishing the criminal and protecting the interests of the populace than it is about the victim, I don't think the victim's beliefs should (or will) be a factor in judgement.
But we factor in "Suffering" within the context of just about every court case that ever reaches the bench of a judge. Monetary compensation is often based on "Suffering." A person who tortures THEN kills his victims is often more likely to be given a harsher sentence then somebody who is (forgive my use of this adjective) more humane in how he kills.
In cases of physical abuse, the amount of suffering inflicted is the only measure that we can use to formulate a punishment.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Dang, Mazer's already staked out the moral high ground. What's the point in my joining this thread now?
While I certainly believe what I said, I am not so sure that is the moral high ground.
Also, I said Absolute Pacifists. That does not include people who merely make an attempt to avoid violence.
Posts: 186 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems that a victims belief in an afterlife might alter how serious a murder ought to be taken. I don't know I have just been thinking about that alot.
I don't see why it would. If someone believes in an eternal afterlife, then what's available in the afterlife doesn't change based on when someone dies - infinity is infinity.
The loss caused by killing someone is just as great - something absolutely irreplaceable and precious is destroyed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems that a victims belief in an afterlife might alter how serious a murder ought to be taken. I don't know I have just been thinking about that alot.
I don't see why it would. If someone believes in an eternal afterlife, then what's available in the afterlife doesn't change based on when someone dies - infinity is infinity.
The loss caused by killing someone is just as great - something absolutely irreplaceable and precious is destroyed.
I think I misunderstood you, it seems to me that you are disagreeing that a person who believes in an afterlife loses no more no less than a person who does not.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am saying that if an afterlife exists, a person loses no more or less than if an afterlife doesn't exist.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But we factor in "Suffering" within the context of just about every court case that ever reaches the bench of a judge. Monetary compensation is often based on "Suffering."
Yes, but how does this apply to murder cases?
quote:A person who tortures THEN kills his victims is often more likely to be given a harsher sentence then somebody who is (forgive my use of this adjective) more humane in how he kills.
Torture is universal; beliefs regarding afterlife are not. Torture is concrete; beliefs regarding afterlife are abstract.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
If an afterlife exists then a person can still continue existing in some capacity after they are murdered.
If an afterlife does not exist you have taken away any possibility that person can feel anything when you kill them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black, I've been hesitating to take your words to their logical conclusion, but I'm going to have to ask:
Do you basically believe that atheist lives are more valuable than religious ones, and that the law should legislate this?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Black, I've been hesitating to take your words to their logical conclusion, but I'm going to have to ask:
Do you basically believe that atheist lives are more valuable than religious ones, and that the law should legislate this?
POSSIBLY. Not so much that they are more valuable from MY perspective. But from the individuals perspective an atheist has more to fear from death (typically not ALWAYS) then somebody who believes in an afterlife.
Therefore the suffering of an atheist could be argued as greater then a believer.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm all for the death penalty, but I don't think you should get it unless you killed someone.
Can you qualify this further? By your logic, manslaughter perpetrators deserve to die more than serial rapists do.
Edit: perpetrators, not victims.
His logic doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion.
It just means that death is necessary to justify capital punishment. Not that death is sufficient.
If all we know about two crimes under someones ranking scheme is that neither deserve the death penalty, we don't know which is considered worse.
I misspoke. We DO know that with the information given, manslaughter could justify the death penalty, and child rape could not.
No, we don't. He hasn't listed all the conditions necessary. He did not say that all people who kill someone should receive it.
I know both parties have dropped this, but I didn't see Dagonee admit that he misread erosomniac's last post. According to the original statement, manslaughter could justify the death penalty, and child rape could not. As many times as I've seen Dag make people say uncle over nuances such as these, I feel morally obligated to do the same to him.
-----
Whoever said that this law should be extended to rapists whose victims are over 14 -- I disagree with that sentiment strenuously. Punishing repeat child rapists with the death penalty is quite a different thing than punishing repeat statutory or date rapists with the death penalty.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
