Cleon
King of the Pod People
Yeah, I'm with Claus and Shanek on this one. Call me a commie, call me a libertarian, but I don't like the idea of giving the government the right to kill its citizens.
Death Penalty...Yes, No or Undecided?
- Thread starter Moliere
- Start date
-
- Tags
- death penalty
Suddenly
No Punting
sackett said:
Execution fans?
Check out this place...
http://prodp.proboards47.com/index.cgi?
There are some scary people there. I used to post now and then before they limited posts to registered members... I'm not going to go that far.
They want to kill a whole slew of people... fun bunch...
Suddenly
No Punting
Cleon said:
Nah... Not a commie (those guys wrote the book on the idea) or a libertarian... maybe just a bit short-sighted...
It is a reasonable point of view if you presuppose a level of affluence that allows for other forms of punishment, such as humane imprisonment. It can be that the DP just makes no sense.
However, if there is no such affluence to allow for reasonably sure removal from society, we may reach a different result as a matter of simple self-preservation. If someone insists on raping and killing children, and we can't afford to imprison him or otherwise remove him from society, well... it is him or the innocents, and I vote him...
So I'm lothe to make a blanket declaration that the Death Penalty is wrong...
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Am I correct in assuming here that your saying that if a society is not affluent enough to humanly imprison a violent criminal that it is acceptable to execute him? Would not the fallible judicial system argument appy here? What about alternatives. Which countries that exists now are not affluent enough to support a encarceration facillity?
Hmmm. I voted for it. I live in IL, and you should know a few things about that beloved Governor. Jim Ryan is his name and he is currently being indicted on numerous racketeering charges. I read them. He may well have been one of the most corrupt Governors we've had. So don't give me that crap that he's a 'moral man' or that he felt any type of remorse for those poor criminals on death row. The guy's about as moral as James Baker. It was a purely political move. He was trying for a higher office, but then all these nasty charges got filed. Kinda killed his career. I know this is somewhat Ad Hom, but it does address the politics involved. And for those of you who have never heard the term 'Chicago Politics', just remember that everyone in Chicago votes, and the dead vote twice!
Now, on to more relevant arguments. I find it disgusting that people say that you can't kill a man, but you can cage him like an animal. I would prefer death to losing my dignity. Some people might be ok with living like a rat in a cage, but not me. You wonder why we have repeat offenders? Well, it's because they go to an enviroment that trains them to commit more offenses. It fuels rage and disillusionment with the system. Do I find the death penalty good in all cases. No. Personally, I'm not sure we can transport all our bad guys to one spot. We've kinda run out of world. But I am in favor of Exile. Put them on the first ship out. A couple of years in Rhowanda will change your outlook on life. Maybe you'll appreciate things more. And who knows, you might do better there. Wish ya all the best. I think it's better than caging a man and treating him like a lab rat.
You can take a good dog, put him in a cage for a few years where he gets beaten and raped anally at random intervals. But would you welcome that dog back into your house with your kids? Now imagine you put it in that enviroment because it attacked a neighbor's child. Does this make any sense to anyone? It'd have been kinder to shoot it in the head.
Just a point of view.
Now, on to more relevant arguments. I find it disgusting that people say that you can't kill a man, but you can cage him like an animal. I would prefer death to losing my dignity. Some people might be ok with living like a rat in a cage, but not me. You wonder why we have repeat offenders? Well, it's because they go to an enviroment that trains them to commit more offenses. It fuels rage and disillusionment with the system. Do I find the death penalty good in all cases. No. Personally, I'm not sure we can transport all our bad guys to one spot. We've kinda run out of world. But I am in favor of Exile. Put them on the first ship out. A couple of years in Rhowanda will change your outlook on life. Maybe you'll appreciate things more. And who knows, you might do better there. Wish ya all the best. I think it's better than caging a man and treating him like a lab rat.
You can take a good dog, put him in a cage for a few years where he gets beaten and raped anally at random intervals. But would you welcome that dog back into your house with your kids? Now imagine you put it in that enviroment because it attacked a neighbor's child. Does this make any sense to anyone? It'd have been kinder to shoot it in the head.
Just a point of view.
Not enough for me. I vote no.
I don't trust our government enough to grant it such power, and I don't feel that the state should condone killing as punishment. What could be more "cruel and unusual" than taking someone's life? Not that I necessarily have anything against cruel and unusual punishment heh. Should torture be considered the "greater evil" over death? There is no return from death, as far as I know!
LegalPenguin,
Let's sum up here, shall we?
If a question or a point is uncomfortable to you, you merely deem it "irrelevant". You want to decide on what terms we debate.
When you are asked to explain what a violent crime is, you give me your opinion and not the legal definitions.
You can't prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. You even ask why you should provide it. You merely say it is.
You can't provide evidence that nobody has ever been killed unjustly (death penalty cases).
You think it is OK to execute people if they have committed a violent crime.
You think it is OK to execute people for treason, despite that they have not committed a violent crime.
You think that the death penalty is a deterrent, yet we don't see people stop committing the crimes that can get them executed - far from it.
And that's it. I don't think we will get any further, especially because you want to be the sole arbiter of what we can discuss or not. I am not allowed to bring up points which I feel are relevant. I don't play that game.
Let's sum up here, shall we?
If a question or a point is uncomfortable to you, you merely deem it "irrelevant". You want to decide on what terms we debate.
When you are asked to explain what a violent crime is, you give me your opinion and not the legal definitions.
You can't prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. You even ask why you should provide it. You merely say it is.
You can't provide evidence that nobody has ever been killed unjustly (death penalty cases).
You think it is OK to execute people if they have committed a violent crime.
You think it is OK to execute people for treason, despite that they have not committed a violent crime.
You think that the death penalty is a deterrent, yet we don't see people stop committing the crimes that can get them executed - far from it.
And that's it. I don't think we will get any further, especially because you want to be the sole arbiter of what we can discuss or not. I am not allowed to bring up points which I feel are relevant. I don't play that game.
nightwind
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2002
- Messages
- 397
Death Penalty
Well, I vote no. I have changed over the years. There just seems to be too great of a chance that mistakes are made and innocent people could be put to death.
Sometimes the juries really do not know, and they pretty much have to guess, since there is no forensic evidence. I feel the chance of mistakes in cases like this are quite high.
There are some cases in which there is no doubt of guilt and which are so horrendous, that I would support it for those cases, but I know it would be too complicated to try and decide who really might be guilty. And people would not want to confront the issue that the perpertrator might "not really be guilty" even though found that way by a jury.
So, I vote no. Put them in a very small cell the rest of their life. That way the real perpetrators would be punished, and the falsely accused at least would not be killed, so at some later date they might be exonerated, and the mistake corrected.
Well, I vote no. I have changed over the years. There just seems to be too great of a chance that mistakes are made and innocent people could be put to death.
Sometimes the juries really do not know, and they pretty much have to guess, since there is no forensic evidence. I feel the chance of mistakes in cases like this are quite high.
There are some cases in which there is no doubt of guilt and which are so horrendous, that I would support it for those cases, but I know it would be too complicated to try and decide who really might be guilty. And people would not want to confront the issue that the perpertrator might "not really be guilty" even though found that way by a jury.
So, I vote no. Put them in a very small cell the rest of their life. That way the real perpetrators would be punished, and the falsely accused at least would not be killed, so at some later date they might be exonerated, and the mistake corrected.
CFLarsen said:
That is not like what you do with handcuffs supposedly causing the 'bleedin' obvious' phyiscal harm, though.
I don't expect you to understand, but that should be 'provide evidence', not 'prove'.
Bullying games are more your style anyway. Stick to what you're good at.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
The 'legal definitions'of a violent crime?
So should we add law to the long list of things that Claus turns out to be a poser at?
So should we add law to the long list of things that Claus turns out to be a poser at?
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
Im against it cause I dont think you can come up with a fair reliable system.
There are 2 words that come to mind. "SUSAN SMITH". How that evil witch can get out of the DP is beyond me. If she didnt get it, then no one should.
My gov wants to bringthe Dp back saying that DNA evidence will ensure we have the right guy. But what good is DNA in all the cases that rely on witness testimony?
Plus, who says death is punsihment. I want these scumbags to suffer for their crimes.
There are 2 words that come to mind. "SUSAN SMITH". How that evil witch can get out of the DP is beyond me. If she didnt get it, then no one should.
My gov wants to bringthe Dp back saying that DNA evidence will ensure we have the right guy. But what good is DNA in all the cases that rely on witness testimony?
Plus, who says death is punsihment. I want these scumbags to suffer for their crimes.
KelvinG
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2001
- Messages
- 2,387
LegalPenguin said:
This is an incredibly inane rationale. Gee, 25 years in prison would really suck if you were found out to be innocent so it's better that you be put to death many years earlier.
So, what if an 18 year old is convicted of a crime, sentenced to life, but is found innocent after 10 years in prison. If he had been given a death sentence he might have been dead before he was vindicated.
Hmm, he would be 28 years old. Sure, nothing is going to give him back those 10 years, but he can still live a long, fulfilling life. Not so easy to do when you are dead.
Can you imagine telling a family "Well, granted, we did make a mistake by putting your relative to death, but keep in mind that 25 years in prison would be really unpleasant, and it's better for him that he was executed after serving 7 years on death row. Yes, we realize that if we hadn't executed him you could be sitting talking to him right now, enjoying life, reminiscing, etc. But, gee that 25 years in prison would have really sucked so let's all be glad he's dead."
As long as there exists even a small chance that an innocent person can be put to death, then I say error on the side of caution and abolish the death penalty.
Unfortunately there is no perfect system that can guarantee no free person will ever be convicted. But at least by abolishing the death penalty, no free person will be put to death.
And it's not as if the alternative to the death penalty is freedom. Can anyone tell me why life in prison isn't a pretty effective form of punishment?
Tmy
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2002
- Messages
- 6,487
Dont forget the inherent sexism and racism in death penalty cases. That alone is a reason to stay away from it.
Heres my death penalty proposal. If you sentence someone to death, and later he is found to be inncoent. the jury that convicted him can then be charged with murder/attempted murder. That way juries would only hand out the DP when they were 100% positive!
Heres my death penalty proposal. If you sentence someone to death, and later he is found to be inncoent. the jury that convicted him can then be charged with murder/attempted murder. That way juries would only hand out the DP when they were 100% positive!
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
The CJ system certainly results in far more minorities winding up in prison, than their representation in society at large woulld suggest should be there.
But how do you get racist out of the *death row* numbers?
"Of persons executed in 2003:
-- 41 were white
-- 20 were black
-- 3 were Hispanic (all white)
-- 1 American Indian
Of persons under sentence of death in 2003:
-- 1,878 were white
-- 1,418 were black
-- 29 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 14 were of unknown race."
Now this is out of a total prison population:
"At midyear 2004 there were 4,919 black male prison and jail inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,717 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 717 white male inmates per 100,000 white males."
Source: BJS, USDOJ Office of Justice programs.
But how do you get racist out of the *death row* numbers?
"Of persons executed in 2003:
-- 41 were white
-- 20 were black
-- 3 were Hispanic (all white)
-- 1 American Indian
Of persons under sentence of death in 2003:
-- 1,878 were white
-- 1,418 were black
-- 29 were American Indian
-- 35 were Asian
-- 14 were of unknown race."
Now this is out of a total prison population:
"At midyear 2004 there were 4,919 black male prison and jail inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,717 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 717 white male inmates per 100,000 white males."
Source: BJS, USDOJ Office of Justice programs.