Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

[Matteo Martini]

And yet that's exactly what you did in the opening post of this thread. Was it not 100% fair then?

Maybe, it was not 100% fair too.

 

[RandFan]

I assume your point is that death penalty does, indeed, something good.

Yes, it is capable. So, in light of that I don't understand your objection to my last post.

You can prevent inmates from having sex and using drugs, if you want.
You can having inmates living in partial isolation, with limited access to contact with other inmates.

Yes, is it realistic? I don't know how else to ask the question. I don't think it is realistic. Experts in the field tell us that such efforts consume a lot resources and often turn inmates into animals.

So, again, is it realistic?

 

[Elind]

So, I have to come to the US, pay taxes there, in order to be qualified to talk?

No, lots of Americans pay no taxes, but they do buy mattresses.

Which authority do you have, to speak in behalf of the British population?

Don't go silly on me. I lived there for quite a few years. Call it an opinion if you wish. What's yours based on?

Proving my point.
Every country is different.

Which is why not every comparison is relevant to every situation. But I knew that. Did you?

 

[Matteo Martini]

No, lots of Americans pay no taxes, but they do buy mattresses.

I see.
Then, I have to buy mattresses in order to be qualified to talk

Don't go silly on me. I lived there for quite a few years. Call it an opinion if you wish. What's yours based on?

If you aknowledge that this is just your personal opinion, that is OK.
I wrote ( very ungrammaticaly ):
" I see the OK police change fron non-armed to armed hardly as a prove of anything. "
Should have been:
" I see the police change fron non-armed to armed hardly as a proof of anything.
If you say it is, well, provide evidence.

Which is why not every comparison is relevant to every situation. But I knew that. Did you?

Then, we should stop to make comparison between situations in different countries, just because the different countries are different ?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, it is capable. So, in light of that I don't understand your objection to my last post.

I have yet to see what is the good coming out from sending an inmate to death

Yes, is it realistic? I don't know how else to ask the question. I don't think it is realistic. Experts in the field tell us that such efforts consume a lot resources and often turn inmates into animals.

So, again, is it realistic?

I do not see how it can be difficult to control an inmate, in order to have him not consume drugs and not perform sex.
BTW..
I would not qualify becoming a drug addict and having sex with a big bubba as " enjoying the pleasures of life "..

 

[RandFan]

I have yet to see what is the good coming out from sending an inmate to death

I've told you. There is not much more that I can tell you. I can't make you see what you don't want to see.

I do not see how it can be difficult to control an inmate, in order to have him not consume drugs and not perform sex.

Then you are rather naive about the realities of penal systems.

BTW..
I would not qualify becoming a drug addict and having sex with a big bubba as " enjoying the pleasures of life "..

Somehow I don't think you are everyone.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I've told you. There is not much more that I can tell you. I can't make you see what you don't want to see.

Where did you tell me?
Again, please, do copy and paste.
I beg to re-iterate
What is the good coming out from sending a person to death?

Then you are rather naive about the realities of penal systems.

Please, give me a rational answer of why you can not seclude an inmate, excluding any contact between him and other inmates..
It has been done for years in Italy, for dangerous mafia men.
And, I bet, it has been done in the US too.

 

[RandFan]

Where did you tell me?

Justice. Sending a person who forces children to watch their parents die and then tortures the children and then kills the children isn't justice.

Please, give me a rational answer of why you can not seclude an inmate, excluding any contact between him and other inmates.

I can only tell you what the experts say. In America we have what is called supermax prison but a person can't be sent there simply because that person murders people. In America we have prohibitions against cruel and unusual treatment. In order to recieve such incarceration a person must be a danger to himself or others.

It is a HUGE cost and consumption of resources.

Now, you might not like those reasons. You might not even think they are rational. However, those are the facts.

If you keep asking all I can do is keep answering.

We are not getting anywhere.

In any event, sans sex and drugs it's still not justice.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Justice. Sending a person who forces children to watch their parents die and then tortures the children and then kills the children isn't justice.

This particular way of thinking about justice, is not my way.
Justice, in my opinion, should be useful to repair something wrong that happened in the past, and to avoid its occurrence in the future.

I can only tell you what the experts say. In America we have what is called supermax prison but a person can't be sent there simply because that person murders people. In America we have prohibitions against cruel and unusual treatment. In order to recieve such incarceration a person must be a danger to himself or others.

If you have to choose to send him to death or there, I would suggest to send him there

 

[RandFan]

This particular way of thinking about justice, is not my way.

I respect that.

Justice, in my opinion, should be useful to repair something wrong that happened in the past, and to avoid its occurrence in the future.

I don't know how to repair dead people.

If you have to choose to send him to death or there, I would suggest to send him there

As I have said countless times. I'm opposed to the death penalty. It's just that I'm opposed to it for different reasons.

I'm opposed to the death penalty because it demonstrably is not administered in a fair and impartial manner. Rich people don't get the death penalty. Poor black people do. The death penalty appears to be based on biases and prejudices.

That is not acceptable.

 

[Elind]

I see.
Then, I have to buy mattresses in order to be qualified to talk



If you aknowledge that this is just your personal opinion, that is OK.
I wrote ( very ungrammaticaly ):
" I see the OK police change fron non-armed to armed hardly as a prove of anything. "
Should have been:
" I see the police change fron non-armed to armed hardly as a proof of anything.
If you say it is, well, provide evidence.



Then, we should stop to make comparison between situations in different

:sigh:

 

[balrog666]

This thread looks like it is winding down but I would like to throw one more thought out for consideration.

For you people who were arguing about how many people sentenced to death were subsequently found innocent and released or pardoned (i.e., the system worked, even if it took a long time), why not look at the other side of that situation?

First, if they had simply been sentenced to life in prison, how many would still be in prison without anti-death-penalty advocates, lawyers, and investigators pushing for certainty?

Second, out of, say, the last 100, or 1000, people executed in the United States, how many were innocent? Each of them had the same endless supply of lawyers, advocates, judicial appeals, and even some independent investigations. So, how many were innocent? Any?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Then, we should stop to make comparison between situations in different

:sigh:

You mean..
" Then, we should stop to make comparison between situations in different countries "?

People make comparisons between countries all the time, and I think this is pretty legitimate, as long as we keep in mind that, different countries are, er, different..

 

[Matteo Martini]

This thread looks like it is winding down but I would like to throw one more thought out for consideration.

For you people who were arguing about how many people sentenced to death were subsequently found innocent and released or pardoned (i.e., the system worked, even if it took a long time),

The system worked, for those who were innocent and have been found innocent.
Since it seems there have been quite a number of people on the death row, who have been later found innocent, it is legimitate to think, if it has never been the case that an innocent ( or more than one ) has been sent to death, and he/she was not found innocent afterwards.

why not look at the other side of that situation?

First, if they had simply been sentenced to life in prison, how many would still be in prison without anti-death-penalty advocates, lawyers, and investigators pushing for certainty?

You can push for certainty even if the inmate is not sent to death.

Second, out of, say, the last 100, or 1000, people executed in the United States, how many were innocent? Each of them had the same endless supply of lawyers, advocates, judicial appeals, and even some independent investigations. So, how many were innocent? Any?

Who knows?
Maybe 1, maybe 3, maybe 50....
Sometimes extra evidence was found, sometimes not.
Some times the re-opening of the process was granted, sometimes not.
But, since when extra-evidence was found, and the re-opening of the process was granted, sometimes the guy was found innocent, it is legitimate to think that, even when re-opening of the process was not granted, sometimes the guy was not found innocent, some of the guys could have been innocent too.
Justice is not perfect, you know..

 

[Matteo Martini]

I respect that.

OK

I don't know how to repair dead people.

You can not.
This is why I am having a hard time to understand what " justice " there is, in sending a guy to die.
Basically, are you repairing any wrong-done, this way?
Death ( of the victim ) can not be repaired sending the criminal to die, as sending the criminal to die do not take back the victim` s death

As I have said countless times. I'm opposed to the death penalty. It's just that I'm opposed to it for different reasons.

I'm opposed to the death penalty because it demonstrably is not administered in a fair and impartial manner. Rich people don't get the death penalty. Poor black people do. The death penalty appears to be based on biases and prejudices.

That is not acceptable.

OK
Just keep in mind, that, to proce your point ( I mean, that death penalty is, in some ways, " justice " ), you have:
1) taken out the worst example of criminal sent to life in prison, not the average one;
2) posted a link to an article saying that some inmates were having sex and drugs, and used this to suggest that inmates, usually?, have sex and drugs in prison ( which I do not think it is the usual case );
3) said that it is difficult to prevent inmates to have sex and drugs in prison, a position I contest;
4) say that keeping an inmate in such a way, costs a lot, which I contest.

 

[balrog666]

The system worked, for those who were innocent and have been found innocent.
Since it seems there have been quite a number of people on the death row, who have been later found innocent, it is legimitate to think, if it has never been the case that an innocent ( or more than one ) has been sent to death, and he/she was not found innocent afterwards.



You can push for certainty even if the inmate is not sent to death.

But without the threat of the death penalty why would anyone, other than the convict's friends and family, care enough to investigate further?

Who knows?
Maybe 1, maybe 3, maybe 50....
Sometimes extra evidence was found, sometimes not.
Some times the re-opening of the process was granted, sometimes not.
But, since when extra-evidence was found, and the re-opening of the process was granted, sometimes the guy was found innocent, it is legitimate to think that, even when re-opening of the process was not granted, sometimes the guy was not found innocent, some of the guys could have been innocent too.
Justice is not perfect, you know..

Please buy a clue sometime tomorrow. Some 11 men were executed in the early 1900's in the USA who were later "believed" to be innocent of the exact crime of which they were convicted. I don't know of any similar case after 1970. I'm happy with that record.

 

[Bob Klase]

BTW..
I would not qualify becoming a drug addict and having sex with a big bubba as " enjoying the pleasures of life "..

I'm sure that big bubba would disagree with you. He's an inmate and apparently he's enjoying the pleasures of life.

Justice, in my opinion, should be useful to repair something wrong that happened in the past, and to avoid its occurrence in the future.

Death ( of the victim ) can not be repaired sending the criminal to die, as sending the criminal to die do not take back the victim` s death

Well, since you admit that the death of the victim can not be repaired, then the only thing left from your above opinion is avoiding its occurrence in the future. The death penalty certainly does that much better than life in prison.

It seems that you have provided the evidence yourself that (at least going by your opinion) the death penalty is closer to 'justice' than life in prison.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'm sure that big bubba would disagree with you. He's an inmate and apparently he's enjoying the pleasures of life.

Again, I would not consider homosexual sex a " pleasure ", if you are not homosexual yourself, and/or you are forced into it.
Also, I have yet to see evidence that taking drugs and having sex is a common behaviour in US prisons, and evidence, that this behaviour can not be stopped somehow.

Well, since you admit that the death of the victim can not be repaired, then the only thing left from your above opinion is avoiding its occurrence in the future. The death penalty certainly does that much better than life in prison.

How?
If a person is in prson for life, how can he kill people in normal society ( i.e. outside prison ), unless he manages to escape ( quite difficult, it seems )?

 

[balrog666]

A
How?
If a person is in prson for life, how can he kill people in normal society ( i.e. outside prison ), unless he manages to escape ( quite difficult, it seems )?

Why do you separate killing an ordinary citizen in "normal society" from killing a fellow prisoner?

Aren't both equally immoral?


And no, people escape from prison every year. Year after year, time after time.

 

[Elind]

You mean..
" Then, we should stop to make comparison between situations in different countries "?

People make comparisons between countries all the time, and I think this is pretty legitimate, as long as we keep in mind that, different countries are, er, different..

Over here we call it apples and oranges. But really, we are getting carried away with pedantic trivia here. No offense, but I need to recharge somewhere.