Susan's Place Transgender Resources

this is not a poll.  i don't believe that the death penalty can bring about peace but it does bring about justice, i feel that it is entirely justified...if there were a mad animal biting people, i would have no compunction about shooting it....not to punish it...not to deter other animals (both are ridiculous) but to ensure that he didn't bite more people.  my philosophy is that mass or serial killers have reduced themselves to the level of a rabid dog, and society must take whatever steps are necessary to protect itself.

life in prison instead?


how would you like to be a low paid prison guard, sent in to break up a fight between 2 or more inmates who are serving life?
they wouldn't want to hurt you would they? they wouldn't want to become a big shot in prison by killing you would they?
look at the cots of keeping someone in prison for life (till what, 80 - 90 years old). room and board, medical treatment, medication, etc the total is extremely high. If someone is a violent offender, wouldn't it be better for society to execute the person and put the money to better use on social programs? ???
moreover:


1. those who are executed will [never] kill again.
2. the overall cost for imprisoning a criminal for life is far more expensive than simply executing them after "X" amount of years.
3. if our judicial system was run more efficiently, the death penalty would serve perfectly as a deterrent.


Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person
Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence, many having already served over 2 decades on death row. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person. Once someone is executed the case is closed. If we execute an innocent person the real criminal is still out there and will have successfully avoided being charged.

Re: DNA
DNA is available in less than 10% of murder cases. It's not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It's human nature to make mistakes.

Re: Appeals
Our appeals system is designed to make sure the trial was in accord with constitutional standards, not to second guess whether the defendant was actually innocent. It is very difficult to get evidence of innocence introduced before an appeals court.

Re: Deterrence
The death penalty isn't a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think about the consequences or even that they will be caught (if they think at all.)

Re: cost
The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

Re: Alternatives
48 states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is swift and sure and is rarely appealed. Being locked in a tiny cell, forever, is certainly no picnic. Life without parole incapacitates a killer (keeps him from re-offending) and costs considerably less than the death penalty.

Re: Who gets the death penalty
The death penalty isn't reserved for the "worst of the worst," but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??

Re: Victims families
The death penalty is very hard on victims' families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

Opposing the death penalty doesn't mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning the facts and making up their minds using common sense, rather than revenge or "eye for an eye" sloganeering.

you can all hate me more now.  >:D  opinions? comments? thoughts? rants?

Ok, you have presented 'both sides' of the argument.

At top you present what I must characterize as a lame argument for (I should ignore the low-paid guard appeal, any person that likes that kind of work enough to do it is in for a penny in for a pound as they say.): the EVER-POPULAR Bottom-line Cost Benefit Analysis; (so one is a taxpayer? Good luck with that. I am not, so I do not remotely care; taxes are supporting a trillion-dollar effort to make the oligarchy even filthier-rich in the Middle East, so wtf; I have no skin in that game.), which isn't remotely supported with any actual facts or figures here.

Per: "IF.... would serve perfectly as a deterrent"; I would also demand that one back that up, even beyond the WOULDA SHOULDA COULDA aspect, which of course is absurd.

The rest of your argument is correct, against. Good job.

I thought you were for the death penalty. The argument doesn't bear out the statement in the first paragraph, 'I feel that is is entirely justified', in fact goes overwhelmingly the other way, so, I'm baffled.

N

I'm baffled too.  and boondoggled and even buffalo'd.

I disagree with the death penalty.  I like your argument against it.

Were you trying to be ironic with the "i feel that it is entirely justified..." stuff?  If so, you need a rewrite.

Question:

   Is this post meant to get an argument going? or is it a statement? Or is it a yea or nay kind of response that ye be seeking?

   P.s.
   I will gladly take the place of the next prisoner up for execution.

(Nero panics and quietly backs out of the room knowing he's on the verge of another 11 page tirade)

Many (or maybe even most) criminals don't care about the death penality.

Today life is considered "cheap", if you kill the victim, there might be no witnesses and you get away with it.  The odds of the police actually catching you is 50/50, if you get caught, it might take years to come to trial, if (and that is a big if) the jury actually convicts and and calls for the death penality, you get an average of 25 or more years before your number comes up.  And with the way the legal system works today, there is a large likelyhood that when you do come up for death, there will be a fight over how it can be done and you get years more while that if worked out in court.

Do I believe that a "cold" blooded killer deserves death, Yes.  Do I believe someone who has committed multiple murders deserves death, Yes.  Do I believe a child molestor deserves death, Yes (and that one I say with deep personal feelings).

Do I believe most cases fit this discription, No.

The death penality should be used "rarely", but when it is used, it should be carried out expidiciously, not 25 years later (that to me is cruel and unusual punishment).


Sarah L.

Quote from: Nero on July 23, 2007, 09:03:28 AM
(Nero panics and quietly backs out of the room knowing he's on the verge of another 11 page tirade)

Go for it, young man.

I figure I can't go any further than what I've already stated.

I know opinions won't be changed and I can accept that.

I hope people don't get angry at each other.  These are opinions. It's not like we are holding someone in our own little tribe and arguing how to handle that person. People who disagree can handle their anger by writing to their representatives rather than taking it out on others here.  Just my opinion.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on July 23, 2007, 09:19:25 AM
Life is cheap...

The death penalty should be used ...

one statement tends to follow the other, doesn't it?

Talk about taking statements out of context.  If your going to quote, please include the entire sentence.

I almost consider the way you have done that to be imflamatory and rude.  In both cases you ignore what the intent was, I said "Today life is considered "cheap", (with more description following) and I said "The death penalty should be used, "RARELY" (with more description following)


Sarah L.

you can frame it how you like.

show me how it's out of context. you are referring to putting people to death. that's your context.

you have claimed, (appropos of what? you have enough experience as a criminal???) that criminals believe life is cheap.

then below, which I accurately quoted, you say "THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE USED", which means this or that death, you believe should be enforced, which indicates quite strongly that your value of life is CONDITIONAL; it's difficult not to draw the inference that life is cheap, if one uses a more-or-less critical faculty, as in an actual argument.

modifiers such as the omitted 'rarely' do not interest me, in the context of Katia's assertion that 120 people recently were found innocent on death row.

Should I make an argument that your post is 'inflammatory', because you disagree? That's your second context.

Posted on: July 23, 2007, 07:42:17 AM

---

Sarah Louise, your take is arguably more compassionate than some who support the Death Penalty; this doesn't exclude you from that group. Any one reading this thread can read your words and take what they want from it. I took what I needed from it to support my argument, which is the kind of thing what happens <in an argument>.

I don't mind when people disagree with me, people disagree everyday.  What I was against what quoting without the entire sentence and changing the context and meaning of what I felt I had said.

Whether it is the death penalty or something else there will always be differing opinions, and each is just the persons or groups opinion.

Since I am not here to fight, I will leave my statement as written and refrain from posting in this discussion.


Sarah L.

A killer that kills without mercy deserves to be punished with death.  No question about it.

(Nero listened through the door and now runs before he unleashes a tirade that will crush entire forum)

I agree with the following statements:

- Those who are executed will never kill again.
- The death penalty is not a deterrent in preventing more murders.
- In our society today, life is cheap.

Had more, but thought I would comment on these.

Those who are executed will never kill again
Not only do dead men tell no tales (except on CSI Miami) but they also cannot harm anyone.  This presupposes that the person executed did, in fact, actually kill someone to start with...with our judicial system, this may be pushing it.  I still remember several years ago when the two Menendez sons killed their parents and the jury member wanted to go easy on them "because they were orphans".

The death penalty is not a deterent in preventing more murders
As stated earlier, most murders are not planned.  Those who do plan to murder someone probably would not be stopped by the chance that IF they are caught, they MAY get put to death (sometime a long ways down the road).

In our society today, life is cheap
Let's see, we have music that glorifies "busting a cap in that MF", we have thousands of homeless that most don't care about, and we abort thousands of pregnancies "just because".  Oh, but why do I keep seeing the same folks protesting the death penalty but advocating Pro-choice?  Wouldn't the consistent position to be protest both, or neither?

Personally, I would like for sentencing to work like we all thought it did when we were kids.  You got sentenced to 10 years, that meant 10 years (or maybe 9 with good behavior), not 3 years like it means now...and Life in prison was until you died, not just 20 years or so.  Prisoners farmed the land and raised livestock to provide their food, so the cost of keeping an inmate was reduced, but we all decided that was cruel and unusual punishment, so we gave them cable-TV and air conditioning.

Don't get me wrong.  Prison is a bad place (unless you like being raped, beaten or killed) and I have no desire to go.  Still, I wonder if we have made it too humane and Prison itself is no longer a deterrent for "lesser" crimes.

These are my opinions.  They are no more "right" than the ones you may hold, but they are no more "wrong" either...simply mine at this moment.  I reserve the right to keep them or change them without notice or explanation.

.....Laurry

When these controversial subjects are presented, there will be some who will try to make their opinion a personal issue.  I have my views, youve got yours, dont try to make me change my viewpoints because it will not work.  It is really not that complicated at all.  Attacking people who give an opposite viewpoint from yours & twisting their words is infantile.

I used to support the death penalty, I do not support it anymore. There, I said what I had to say and I am not going to rant and argue. There is enough of that stuff on the net anyways.

Please stick with debating the issue at hand. I would much rather see people listing pros and cons rather than trying to tear into each other over an issue.

Otherwise the topic will be locked.


Posted on: July 24, 2007, 11:07:14

---

Thought I would come back and offer up a topic of conversation.

Studies have shown that the death penalty does deter killers and has had an impact on murders within the United States. A 2003 study (revisited in 06) done by Naci Mocan (who does not support the death penalty) showed that each person who is executed decreases murder in the population by 5. Other studies have come in with other figures, as high as 18.

Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml)

The Impact of Incentives on Human Behavior: Can We Make it Disappear? The Case of the Death Penalty (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=938957)

Quote from: Katia on July 22, 2007, 11:25:56 PM
... i don't believe that the death penalty can bring about peace but it does bring about justice, i feel that it is entirely justified...if there were a mad animal biting people, i would have no compunction about shooting it....not to punish it...not to deter other animals (both are ridiculous) but to ensure that he didn't bite more people.  my philosophy is that mass or serial killers have reduced themselves to the level of a rabid dog, and society must take whatever steps are necessary to protect itself.

Which isn't, in and of itself, unreasonable. Take them out and summarily shoot them, is a more humane solution and more honorable way to do it, is my take on that...

If this is the Wild Wild West.

Ok - I have a belief system that is the basis for my point of view and my entire argument, and since that subtext is not getting picked up necessarily, I guess I hafta spell it out: It's bad karma to kill. period. What goes around comes around, again and again, you are putting out bad intention in spades with the whole thought, and such intention feeds all the bad juju what we got here. Golden Rule stuff. When there is a person who tells me that a loved one has been murdered, I will excuse that emotionally-held opinion on this, practically entirely. I understand that.

In the abstract, I have to wonder why a compassionate person jumps the gun and draws the conclusion, Death Penalty, YES.

And I am not so very interested in speculation based on facts and figures, which I don't necessarily trust in the first place. The death penalty extends suffering, and does so for a substantial period of time, according to my belief, indefinitely. You buy into killing, at any level, for any justification, you align yourself with killers. I don't think this requires a lot of parsing-out.

Quote from: Kiera on July 24, 2007, 11:39:40 AM

Quote from: LostInTime on July 24, 2007, 11:27:38 AMOtherwise the topic will be locked.

LOL Please LIT, don't allow any of us to inhibit you!

Quote from: Nero on July 23, 2007, 05:32:53 PM
(Nero listened through the door and now runs before he unleashes a tirade that will crush entire forum)

Can Nero, probably bulging to bust by now, undo what you do?

Nope. LIT's my boss. :laugh:

 Whenever there is suffering there are deep roots for it. Might be that there is a cycle of behavior, of abuse, of a lot of very ugly things that makes a person decide to go for killing another human being as if going for the gusto. By drawing the conclusion that it's a good idea to continue these cycles, and enforcing that idea, in my view is actually worse than doing nothing at all, in the long run.

Round and round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

ON DETERRENT:
Talking about incentives as all stick and no carrot sure feels like it ignores psychology, not to mention the  whole range of ethical questions it might indicate.

NONE

You don't feel sorry for the people that were brutally murdered? They don't sentence people to death who "accidentally" kill people. Those that are sentenced thought about it, and in many cases took great pleasure in killing their victims. For some, death for the guilty is the only way to gain closure for the murder of their loved one.  Those that kill take no regard for their victims lives, why should they get any pity?
We don't have death penalty in France but I strongly support it.

My sympathy for victims doesn't enter into it. They sentence innocents to death, whether that is an accident or not, and that is unacceptable.

If your definition of murder is that of the judicial system in this country, it's based upon premeditation.

Sentencing a person to death is certainly a premeditated act.

It's simple.

"They sentence innocents to death" is a powerful statement.  Whilst this may be true in some instances, innocent people die daily at the hands of murderers, wars, terrorists.  I think the US wastes the citizen's tax dollars in keeping mass murderers alive.  Once a sentence has been given, they should execute them straight away not twenty or thirty years after the sentence was conducted.
It's simple.

I do not believe in the immediate execution. There are appeals set up for a reason and without them then those few who have been found innocent would have been unjustly dealt with in the end.

For the 120 (ACLU says 123) I would like to see a complete breakdown of age, gender, ethnicity, crime committed and the date, evidence presented, and why the reversal.

Quote from: Jeannette on July 24, 2007, 05:45:24 PM
You don't feel sorry for the people that were brutally murdered? They don't sentence people to death who "accidentally" kill people. Those that are sentenced thought about it, and in many cases took great pleasure in killing their victims. For some, death for the guilty is the only way to gain closure for the murder of their loved one.  Those that kill take no regard for their victims lives, why should they get any pity?
We don't have death penalty in France but I strongly support it.

Jesus never said to forgive is to kill. (I'm not a Christian. I do respect his teachings, though)

    It is wrong to kill any person for any reason except for immediate self defense or to prevent another person from being harmed. and I'm not leaving that statement open ended for some to say - "but we prevent them from harming others in the future by killing them.
    If you have someone in custody and are capable of killing them, then you're just as capable of holding them for all eternity if necessary.

    Every single person who sentences another person to die, and every single person who walks them to their death, and every single person who manages the killing, and every single person who watches without protest; is complicit in a capital crime.

   Don't forget,  I say this with love.   :angel:


Posted on: July 24, 2007, 07:02:16 PM

---

Quote from: Jeannette on July 24, 2007, 05:45:24 PM
You don't feel sorry for the people that were brutally murdered? They don't sentence people to death who "accidentally" kill people. Those that are sentenced thought about it, and in many cases took great pleasure in killing their victims. For some, death for the guilty is the only way to gain closure for the murder of their loved one.  Those that kill take no regard for their victims lives, why should they get any pity?
We don't have death penalty in France but I strongly support it.

   I almost forgot.

   Blue - If someone has to have someone killed in order to gain closure, they are thinking of the murderer and not their loved one.

   Red - If we can't show pity for the worst of us, then, what is it for?

again.   said with Love  :angel:


I am not judging anyone. I chose Jeannette's post as the impetus of my argument because, to me, it provided very clear ideas with which I could construct my opinion.

Quote from: Katia on July 22, 2007, 11:25:56 PM
i don't believe that the death penalty can bring about peace but it does bring about justice, i feel that it is entirely justified...if there were a mad animal biting people, i would have no compunction about shooting it....not to punish it...not to deter other animals (both are ridiculous) but to ensure that he didn't bite more people.  my philosophy is that mass or serial killers have reduced themselves to the level of a rabid dog, and society must take whatever steps are necessary to protect itself.

I agree with this paragraph, but I think that the remaining of your post is not consistent with what you have expressed here.  One of your mind games, ma cherie?
I'm almost certain that it is but I will wait.  I wouldn't like to make any assumptions about you and post them in a public forum.  ;)

Quote from: Fer on July 23, 2007, 06:01:26 PM
When these controversial subjects are presented, there will be some who will try to make their opinion a personal issue.  I have my views, youve got yours, dont try to make me change my viewpoints because it will not work.  It is really not that complicated at all.  Attacking people who give an opposite viewpoint from yours & twisting their words is infantile.

Tell me about it! ::)

I believe that the death penalty is just when there isn't any other penalty to equal the crime someone has committed.  As an example, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer raped, tortured, mutilated, and killed many people (young men and women of all ages, the youngest being a 13 year old girl)  Can you honestly tell me that these men did not deserve to die?  Please!

Additionally the aim of the death penalty is to remove murderers from society who have committed heinous acts as the ones you can google out on the web; crimes that have seriously damaged the lives of the victim's loved ones.  Murderers who can't stop abusing and killing; people who can't adjust to society in anyway because it is in their nature to kill and destroy.  Uncivilized? What is uncivilized is the way that this country let these vicious people remain alive, burning our tax dollars in prison.  Unfortunately some of us do pay taxes and very high rates indeed for being single, childless and earning a salary which is considered "too high"  ::) for our government statistics.

That's my opinion about the death penalty, and as you well put it in another thread Katia, take it or leave it!

tink :icon_chick:

(Nero runs and vows never to listen through this door again)

no, no, no, wait a minute.  i'm not against the death penalty.  this is what i posted;

Quote from: Katia on July 22, 2007, 11:25:56 PM
this is not a poll.  i don't believe that the death penalty can bring about peace but it does bring about justice, i feel that it is entirely justified...if there were a mad animal biting people, i would have no compunction about shooting it....not to punish it...not to deter other animals (both are ridiculous) but to ensure that he didn't bite more people.  my philosophy is that mass or serial killers have reduced themselves to the level of a rabid dog, and society must take whatever steps are necessary to protect itself.

the rest was supposed to be a quote.  i was only tying to provide a fair assessment citing both points of view.
i concord that the death penalty may not deter someone else from committing murder, but it sure prevents that particular person from being free to murder again doesn't it? iow the death penalty puts the fear on the current criminals and the criminals in the making, often making them think twice and helping them become normal citizens. in some countries (i believe it is in the philippines), where the laws are so strict that spitting on the street will get you in jail and receive corporal punishment, murders are really rare.  in such countries murderers are not only repaid with the death penalty, it is preceded by gruesome torture. fear is the key in educating people & preventing killers from committing crimes.

of course, educating criminals is the best option if we are not dealing with murderers. but when it involves the lives of innocent humans as a trial and error, the opposition of the death penalty should consider that they're really the accomplices of future murderers. learning from patterns and histories is a valuable lesson.

ever since nyc adopted the death penalty, homicide rates dropped 4 times (2000 to ~500 a year) making nyc the safest city in the nation. it may sound like a cruel method, but it is the most efficient method in keeping crime down.

fear has been the proven method of dealing with criminals time and time again. and what better way is it to put fear in people other than the fear of death itself?

Quotemy philosophy is that mass or serial killers have reduced themselves to the level of a rabid dog, and society must take whatever steps are necessary to protect itself.

Here's the thing Katia.... I would venture to guess that many people do not "reduce themselves" into the pit.  We've all been in the pit haven't we?  Have we "reduced ourselves" to find out that we are depressed beyond limits being TS?  There's a lot of societal pressure out there and other external influences.

I can never pretend to understand why someone would kill someone else.  And that's where I leave it.  I don't understand.  If it were very cut and dried, I might be able to make the binary choice, but I just can't.  I don't have a problem removing the rabid animal from our society.  But I have a hard time putting it down to be rid of it. 

I could never actually pull the switch on someone......

Quoteand what better way is it to put fear in people other than the fear of death itself?

Ask them to testify before a senate subcommittee! ;)

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on July 28, 2007, 09:05:24 PM


Here's the thing Katia.... I would venture to guess that many people do not "reduce themselves" into the pit.  We've all been in the pit haven't we?  Have we "reduced ourselves" to find out that we are depressed beyond limits being TS?  There's a lot of societal pressure out there and other external influences.

are you trying to imply that being ts is more or less the same as being a murderer?  do societal pressures make someone a murderer? i didnt choose to be ts; they did choose to kill people methodically & cruelly.
i respect your pov cindi but don't concord with it.

Quote from: cindi jonesI could never actually pull the switch on someone.....

tell this to a parent whose child has recently been murdered & see what kind of answers you get.

Quote from: Katia on July 28, 2007, 09:29:05 PM

Quote from: cindi jonesI could never actually pull the switch on someone.....

tell this to a parent whose child has recently been murdered & see what kind of answers you get.

   At the age of 5, I heard my father get bludgeoned to death in his own bedroom while I was in my bedroom.   I would not pull the switch. In fact, I pity the kid (he was 18 at the time) who did it. That was almost 40 years ago. I don't have time for hatred. I don't have the will for revenge.
   A lot of lives were destroyed that night. I never want to hear another person die again.

   Maybe I shouldn't have written this, but all I want is for people to understand that violence is not the answer to violence. I don't expect to change any minds. I just want people to know that I have no choice but to defend life over death no matter the circumstance.

   There is no way I can change my mind.  I am okay with others having a different opinion. I cannot come over to your point of view.

Love
without it, there is no life,

Rebis

I said before:

I am all for capital punishment. Someone who commits a murder does not have the right to keep their own life. I say 2 appeals maximum for a death sentence, and then if still found guilty the sentence should be carried out. No more of this 25 years of appeals stuff.

Im sure many more will get on here and start whining about the poor innocent people who might die for a crime not committed. We all know that has happened in rare instances, but prisons are full of innocent people. You just have to ask them. Theyll tell you. Our own tolerance as a society has gotten us to where we are today.


Basically the death penalty is a deterrent more than a punishment. Someone would think much longer and harder about murdering someone else if they knew that the crime would lead to their own death.

Too many times people try to tie this subj with another that I wont even say because I dont wish for the thread to get hijacked. The two just simply are not the same.

When a criminal makes the choice to end another persons life, they deserve the maximum sentence allowed by the laws of the state (or province or country for our posters outside the US) in which the crime took place. In one of the states I am familiar with, that is death by lethal injection. With this, the accused is likely receiving more mercy than their victim.

Quote from: Pia on July 28, 2007, 11:30:43 PM

Too many times people try to tie this subj with another that I wont even say because I dont wish for the thread to get hijacked. The two just simply are not the same.

         Yes. they are not the same. So let us agree that if one person deserves to die. We all deserve to die.  If so much as one person deserves to live. We all deserve to live.

Quote from: Rebis on July 28, 2007, 10:04:40 PM

Quote from: Katia on July 28, 2007, 09:29:05 PM

Quote from: cindi jonesI could never actually pull the switch on someone.....

tell this to a parent whose child has recently been murdered & see what kind of answers you get.

   At the age of 5, I heard my father get bludgeoned to death in his own bedroom while I was in my bedroom.   I would not pull the switch. In fact, I pity the kid (he was 18 at the time) who did it. That was almost 40 years ago. I don't have time for hatred. I don't have the will for revenge.
   A lot of lives were destroyed that night. I never want to hear another person die again.

   Maybe I shouldn't have written this, but all I want is for people to understand that violence is not the answer to violence. I don't expect to change any minds. I just want people to know that I have no choice but to defend life over death no matter the circumstance.

   There is no way I can change my mind.  I am okay with others having a different opinion. I cannot come over to your point of view.

Love
without it, there is no life,

Rebis

I'm so very sorry to hear this, Rebis.  Now I understand why you posted the polls.  You are right, there's always something behind us which shapes our thoughts, opinions,, etc.

I'm sorry that you had to go through this at the very young age.  I can't imagine your pain.

:icon_hug:

tink :icon_chick:

Many people here state that the death penalty is a deterrent, when on earth has that ever been proven!!

Somebody said the crime rate diminished in NYC when then introduced it, the problem with that is that during the same period, crime diminished all over america regardless of the death penalty and that NYC underwent a real turnaround during the 90's (crime is linked to poverty and to the proportion of young people in society, that's a relationship that's certain).

Canada has no death penalty and the crime rate is rather low considering we've got an incredibly multi-ethnic with the highest level of emigration per population with Australia.

Of course, there's the Bundy's, etc. But, most people on death row are not serial killers. A substantial amount were convicted on a mix of circumstantial evidence and questionable or biased eye withnesses; not to mention a incontroversial racial bias in death penalty case. Not to mention that the defense mounted in regards to their case by public defendants is often pitiful.

Most of those on death rows are not psychopaths that will kil again regardless of how long they stay in prison. I'd only support it in the case of unredeamable psychopaths (a few year inside a psychiatric ward could assess this) with iron clad cases, preferably based on physical evidence instead of eye withnesses. In the case of Charles Manson for example, 30 or 50 years behind bars doesn't change anything, they're still psychopaths.

Quote from: Keira on July 29, 2007, 01:44:14 AM
Many people here state that the death penalty is a deterrent, when on earth has that ever been proven!!

Somebody said the crime rate diminished in NYC when then introduced it, the problem with that is that during the same period, crime diminished all over america regardless of the death penalty and that NYC underwent a real turnaround during the 90's (crime is linked to poverty and to the proportion of young people in society, that's a relationship that's certain).

   I spent a few days roaming around Times Square and 42nd street in NY city back in the early eighties.  It was very very different than what it is now.  There were 'undesirables' (drug dealers, prostitutes, porno palaces) everywhere. I had to keep explaining to people that I did not want to buy their drugs on the sidewalks in broad daylight.
   I lean towards Keira's explanation of why the murder rate dropped in New York.

Quote from: Kiera on July 24, 2007, 08:41:16 AM

Quote from: Nero on July 23, 2007, 09:03:28 AM
(Nero panics and quietly backs out of the room knowing he's on the verge of another 11 page tirade)

DITTO! (Katia knows exactly how i feel on the subject) :icon_bunch:

Totally.

Quote from: Keira on July 29, 2007, 01:44:14 AM

Many people here state that the death penalty is a deterrent, when on earth has that ever been proven!!

If you go to my post on the first page you will see a link about a study that did prove a connection so that has already been answered and by a peer reviewed article no less.

oh well, time to be contravershul again *sigh*
death penalty is good, it discourages some, and with correct implication, ie, only cases that are without doubt. then i agree. its something to be weilded deciceively. to be taken seriously.

Quote from: Rachael on July 30, 2007, 08:58:10 AM
oh well, time to be contravershul again *sigh*
death penalty is good, it discourages some, and with correct implication, ie, only cases that are without doubt. then i agree. its something to be weilded deciceively. to be taken seriously.

I agree. I am vehemently against the death penalty, but many are executed in my state, and I am troubled by the fact that most who are put to death are minorities who had no money for an attorney and got stuck with a public defender who half-assed the whole thing. While middle class white men convicted of the same crime never get the death penalty. Seems middle class whites are only sentenced to death if it's really gruesome (as in the case a while back where a 9 year old girl was raped and tortured for days and then buried alive).

I don't like the discrepency there. It disgusts me that people are put to death when they had a half-assed attorney (and believe me the public defenders here are horrible; they make a mistake on the paperwork and their client ends up serving extra time for it) and thus a poor defense.

If my state has to put people to death, the accused should have a fair chance.

killing people aint good katia.  it dont matter if criminal or not. we dont got a right to kill nobody.

Quote from: Hidrix on July 30, 2007, 06:49:50 PM
we dont got a right to kill nobody.

I wish murderers could understand this statement too, Chris.

tink :icon_chick:

I think that if we provided basic education, health care, and a decent living wage for people, we could prevent a lot of this stuff before it happens. 

We'll never be able to prevent many of them but if you look at the prison population, there are a lot of people in there who have never had any chance or hope at a normal life.  You think we've got it bad?  Just roll it around in your mind for a while.  Think of being a minority, growing up in a project, never getting a proper meal, never knowing who your dad is, you go to school but the teachers just baby sit .... they don't teach, thinking that the only way to succeed is to become a football star or drug dealer, have to join a gang to get by..... it's a mess.  It really is.  Yes, there are a few who can pull themselves out of that hole.  But not many.

I went to such a school.  Only 15 of the kids that I started junior high with finished high school.  There were three of us who finished college.  I had it much better than most.  I'm white.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on July 31, 2007, 01:26:07 AM
I think that if we provided basic education, health care, and a decent living wage for people, we could prevent a lot of this stuff before it happens. 

We'll never be able to prevent many of them but if you look at the prison population, there are a lot of people in there who have never had any chance or hope at a normal life.  You think we've got it bad?  Just roll it around in your mind for a while.  Think of being a minority, growing up in a project, never getting a proper meal, never knowing who your dad is, you go to school but the teachers just baby sit .... they don't teach, thinking that the only way to succeed is to become a football star or drug dealer, have to join a gang to get by..... it's a mess.  It really is.  Yes, there are a few who can pull themselves out of that hole.  But not many.

I went to such a school.  Only 15 of the kids that I started junior high with finished high school.  There were three of us who finished college.  I had it much better than most.  I'm white.

Cindi

Well, I don't know about you being white, but I do agree with the rest of your post.  (that was a joke  ;D )
  Besides just learning reading and math, I think we could do better having classes that teach civics and real basic how to's about living in general like how to pay rent and buy groceries and balance a budget and that kind of thing.

Rebis without a Ruben

QuoteBesides just learning reading and math, I think we could do better having classes that teach civics and real basic how to's about living in general like how to pay rent and buy groceries and balance a budget and that kind of thing.

Yes Rebis! Additionally, music, art, and other "fun" classes have all but disappeared from our lower income schools.  Learning has to be fun.  Education must include the arts to be well rounded.  We are seeing what happens when we cut those classes that have always been so important.  They exist in the upper income schools but not in the impoverished areas of our country. 

Cindi

when a criminal invalidates someones human right to life, they forfit thiers...

R :police:

Our approach to everything in this country is backwards.

It's sortta like our sewage is backing up into the bathtub and showers.  What we do is to pass a law prohibiting use of the toilet.

Wouldn't it make much more sense to clear the line first?

Cindi

what if we lobotomize them and then kept them in cages forever?

Quote from: Rachael on July 31, 2007, 02:29:06 PM
when a criminal invalidates someones human right to life, they forfit thiers...

R :police:

Rachael, haven't read through this post (guess I don't need to on this topic) but what makes the UK a way more civilised community than the US is that we will never have the death penalty ever again .....

If we did we'd be kinda validating the sentence on that poor woman in Iran who was stoned to death just a week or so ago for adultery, or the 18 year old boy strung up in the same country for alledged rape.

And will the US servicemen who undeniably killed absolutely innocent Iraquis get the lethal injection ?  Thinks not !

Until we can have justice for all murderers .... and the verdict can be drawn without any doubt, then the death penalty is a sham.

But I really belive that the death penalty is a medeival remnant, no civilised person could condone killing a human whatever his / her crimes  ???

Laura x

Quote from: Laura Eva B on July 31, 2007, 06:38:59 PM

And will the US servicemen who undeniably killed absolutely innocent Iraquis get the lethal injection ?  Thinks not !

Until we can have justice for all murderers .... and the verdict can be drawn without any doubt, then the death penalty is a sham.

But I really belive that the death penalty is a medeival remnant, no civilised person could condone killing a human whatever his / her crimes  ???

Laura x

Good point.  I'll bet even that guy who tossed a grenade into a tent at the beginning of the war did not get the death penalty.

[edited because the wrong meaning was implied]

The death penalty is hypocritical.  Just listen to your heart and you know you don't want to harm another human being, despite what they did.  I myself, could never, EVER, kill another human being (while being of sane mind).  So who among you are going to press the switch that triggers the electric chair personally?  Who will administer the lethal injection PERSONALLY?  yeah, i bet you will.  So nice and convenient you have someone else do the dirty work...

There are studies that say over 75% of prison inmates were sexually abused when they were children.  How's about that for losing trust in other human beings?  Don't you have any compassion whatsoever for people in prison?  That could be YOU. 

I believe people who are intent on harming other human beings, such as murderers and rapists and robbers, etc., should be segregated from the rest of the population, without question.  But, I think by killing them, we are condoning their actions as a society and this is the wrong message to send.

QuoteIf we take a look at the lives of serial killers like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, Wayne Gayce, you will notice that they are not your typical project minority resident people who grew up in total misery.

Fortunately, these freaks are few and far between. As a percentage of those on death row, I'd say that their presence is insignificant.  I agree that this sort of thing happens, but it is extremely rare.

QuoteAnd will the US servicemen who undeniably killed absolutely innocent Iraquis get the lethal injection ?  Thinks not !

Let's see. You give a bunch of teenagers guns and train them to kill.  Then you take them to a foreign country where they don't speak the language and tell them to be peace officers. Then you send them out in a couple of trucks and they see their buddie get blown in half.  Hmm.... I wonder what they are going to do.

Can it be that we expect too much from our trained killers? We just can't do this with kids.  It does not work!  You want them to not kill?  Don't give them guns.  Oh... they can't do their job without guns?  What is their job anyway? Can anyone tell me what that job is?  I betchya THEY can't.

I believe that we should be held to a higher standard.  There is no doubt in my mind.  However, in combat, our armed forces are going to kill.  We should realize this, our leadership should KNOW it.

I don't know the specifics of this case, but it is a heart wrencher any way you look at it.

Cindi

Quote from: Suzie on July 31, 2007, 08:45:58 PM
There are studies that say over 75% of prison inmates were sexually abused when they were children.  How's about that for losing trust in other human beings?  Don't you have any compassion whatsoever for people in prison?  That could be YOU.

They're still responsible for their actions.  Plenty of people are sexually abused (and yes, it's a horrible thing) and never commit crimes.

Nonetheless, like you, I oppose the death penalty.  I have philosophical reasons (that it is wrong to take any human life, except in response to a clear and present threat on another person's life, including one's own) as well as practical ones (those who get the death penalty are often those convicted on weak evidence because their court-appointed lawyer didn't do his job; it costs more in money and time to carry out the death penalty than life imprisonment because of all the appeals) for that position.

Cindi -- I agree with you that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.  I'd say we should stay far away from world-policing expeditions of any kind. 

Even in the best judicial systems in the world, i.e., Western Europe, it is estimated that as many as 10% of people found guilty of any crime are, in fact, innocent.
I believe that to not have the death penalty, is the sign of a civilised country. As a European, I am proud we led the way in this.
Much better to leave a person in jail for the rest of his life. Forensics are advancing all the time,. and many convicted murderers can, in fact be proved innocent years later.
The common argument is that they get it too easy in prison- i'.e., colour televisions. I think that would be the ultimate torture, to have to watch television for the rest of your life.

i was wating for a 'lets execute the soldiers then.
But under law, soldiers arnt subject to the same laws as civilians in combat, laws yes, but different ones, in war, civilians die, its sad but true. and ESPECIALLY in urban combat.you would not bandy around suggestions of executeing those who go to fight and protect inocents, (regardless of the political intent) if you yourself had seen combat. thats just disrespectful.

Without a punishment that threatens a reciprocal outcome for someone who commits grievous crimes [murder, rape, treason], criminals will always know that they can literally get away with murder [at least once] without any repercussions other than a dry bed, three squares a day and like minded neighbors [isn't that like summer camp?] for the rest of their lives.

who says people who support the death penalty are uncivilized?
i think it's possible for a person to forfeit their own life through their actions.

i think justice sometimes requires that the criminal dies too.

i feel that some people just don't have the guts to make the hard call and destroy somebody that truly needs destroying.

i feel like my tax dollars shouldn't be spent to keep rapists/child molesters/murderers alive indefinitely when bullets are so darned cheap.

i think your god can sort them out faster and more economically than we can.

Quote from: Rachael on August 01, 2007, 04:17:40 AM
i was wating for a 'lets execute the soldiers then.
But under law, soldiers arnt subject to the same laws as civilians in combat, laws yes, but different ones, in war, civilians die, its sad but true. and ESPECIALLY in urban combat.you would not bandy around suggestions of executeing those who go to fight and protect inocents, (regardless of the political intent) if you yourself had seen combat. thats just disrespectful.

The soldiers pulled innocent people out of their home and executed them.  There have been at least 2 cases where the fiends raped a female. They also beat and tortured some of their victims.

That is not combat.

Posted on: August 01, 2007, 09:07:09 AM

---

Quote from: Katia on August 01, 2007, 05:35:27 AM
Without a punishment that threatens a reciprocal outcome for someone who commits grievous crimes [murder, rape, treason], criminals will always know that they can literally get away with murder [at least once] without any repercussions other than a dry bed, three squares a day and like minded neighbors [isn't that like summer camp?] for the rest of their lives.

who says people who support the death penalty are uncivilized?
i think it's possible for a person to forfeit their own life through their actions.

i think justice sometimes requires that the criminal dies too.

i feel that some people just don't have the guts to make the hard call and destroy somebody that truly needs destroying.

i feel like my tax dollars shouldn't be spent to keep rapists/child molesters/murderers alive indefinitely when bullets are so darned cheap.

i think your god can sort them out faster and more economically than we can.

     If I decide it is okay to kill one person, even if it is someone I saw commit their crime, then I will be capable of killing 2 people.  I would not stop there.  I know myself and I know that, given the circumstances, I would become quite the killer.  There are many people I'm sometimes in the mood to kill. Don't worry, they tend to be violent criminals and people who hurt others.

     My sense of morality does not allow for exceptions.

    Honestly, if I went to war, I would have the same problem.  Why should I just kill the enemy?  To me, the enemy is also people on our side who show no mercy to others or who break my moral code in how to behave in wartime, therefore, I would have to kill them too.

Quote from: Rachael on August 01, 2007, 04:17:40 AM
i was wating for a 'lets execute the soldiers then.
But under law, soldiers arnt subject to the same laws as civilians in combat, laws yes, but different ones, in war, civilians die, its sad but true. and ESPECIALLY in urban combat.you would not bandy around suggestions of executeing those who go to fight and protect inocents, (regardless of the political intent) if you yourself had seen combat. thats just disrespectful.

Unfortunately there are no such thing as rules of combat. If you are in the middle of a city with bombs and napalm raining down onto your head, it doesn't matter what you or your enemy thinks, you either run, be decapitated, or do that to your enemy. The only rule in any warzone is might makes right. This is the case in every war; I can't imagine that during the Iraq War that the Republican Guard in Baghdad stopped and tried to explain to US forces what the Americans could and couldn't do in their nation. The US Army would laugh as they ran roughshod over the Iraqis.

With that said, I don't believe in any form of the death penalty with the exception of genocide proven in a court of law. If you sanction murder within a country, your murder rates usually go up. Take a good look at the violent crime rates in the countries that make up the Southeastern USA versus the ones in the Northeastern quarter. The SOuthern states have violent crimes rates similar to some of your Latin American countries and all of the SOuthern states have a death penalty culture. On the other hand, the Northeastern countries, while some of them do have the death penalty, they do not glorify it like the Southern theocracies do, and as a result the Northern quarter of the USA is nowhere near as violent as the Southeast or the West.

Quote from: Katia on August 01, 2007, 05:35:27 AM
i feel like my tax dollars shouldn't be spent to keep rapists/child molesters/murderers alive indefinitely when bullets are so darned cheap.

At least for now, it is much cheaper to warehouse them for the rest of their lives than to go through all the appeals and legal hassle to put them to death here in the US.  Quite honestly, I feel ambivalent about some cases.  So I'm not on some high horse here.  But I also know that in ALL cases, I do not have all the relevant facts.

As a teenager, there was a heinous torture murder case in my town.  The hostages where forced to drink Drano and each of them had a pencil shoved into their brain through their ears.  Two of the four survived.  One was a kid my age who attended the same high school as I. He never regained his ability to think straight.  His mother was one of the two that did not survive.    It was clear that these guys did it.  There was overwhelming evidence.  They admitted it.  The other survivor was able to identify them. 

It took them nearly twenty years to dispatch these devils.  I do admit that I wanted them dead.  I also recall the racial rage that existed in my community.  Since the perpetrators were black, there was strong sentiment to get guns and rifles and go into the black neighborhoods to "kill 'em all".  You see where this leads?

Since then, I've changed my opinions on the death penalty.  There was a time in my life when I would have had no compunction to pull the switch on those murderers.  I don't think that I could do it now.  Until we can learn to value all life, we will never be able to prevent war and all else that is ugly that we currently support as a country. Our society does not walk on solid moral ground.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 01, 2007, 02:39:29 PM

Quote from: Katia on August 01, 2007, 05:35:27 AM
i feel like my tax dollars shouldn't be spent to keep rapists/child molesters/murderers alive indefinitely when bullets are so darned cheap.

At least for now, it is much cheaper to warehouse them for the rest of their lives than to go through all the appeals and legal hassle to put them to death here in the US.  Quite honestly, I feel ambivalent about some cases.  So I'm not on some high horse here.  But I also know that in ALL cases, I do not have all the relevant facts.

As a teenager, there was a heinous torture murder case in my town.  The hostages where forced to drink Drano and each of them had a pencil shoved into their brain through their ears.  Two of the four survived.  One was a kid my age who attended the same high school as I. He never regained his ability to think straight.  His mother was one of the two that did not survive.    It was clear that these guys did it.  There was overwhelming evidence.  They admitted it.  The other survivor was able to identify them. 

It took them nearly twenty years to dispatch these devils.  I do admit that I wanted them dead.  I also recall the racial rage that existed in my community.  Since the perpetrators were black, there was strong sentiment to get guns and rifles and go into the black neighborhoods to "kill 'em all".  You see where this leads?

Since then, I've changed my opinions on the death penalty.  There was a time in my life when I would have had no compunction to pull the switch on those murderers.  I don't think that I could do it now.  Until we can learn to value all life, we will never be able to prevent war and all else that is ugly that we currently support as a country. Our society does not walk on solid moral ground.

Cindi

I remember that case, very well. I have not thought about it for a long time. I used to be totally for the death penalty. I have since changed my mind. Not because there are those who don't deserve such, but because history has proven that it is never dished out fairly. If someone kills someone in my family, I don't care if they thought about it first. How stupid, yet that is the difference between getting the death penalty and not getting it.

That of course does not mention all those who have been wrongfully convicted. We have over 70 people now that have been released from death row after DNA proved they were not the killers. How many people died for no reason before we had DNA? And that does not include the fact that it ends up costing over $1 million to execute someone. Life in prison is way cheaper. We know it's not a deterrent. And to be quite honest, I really have come to like the idea of life without parole in supermax, 23 hour a day lockdown. No yard, no friends, no communications. I can not imagine how slow 40 years must go by.

Plus after hearing from family members who watched prisoners executed for killing their family members all felt the person got to die "too easy". It turns out it is not even satisfying. And lastly how can we kill people for killing people. Either killing is wrong, or it's not. It can not be both.

Love always,
Elizabeth

Quote from: Elizabeth on August 02, 2007, 07:12:37 AM
Plus after hearing from family members who watched prisoners executed for killing their family members all felt the person got to die "too easy". It turns out it is not even satisfying. And lastly how can we kill people for killing people. Either killing is wrong, or it's not. It can not be both.

Love always,
Elizabeth

   I think that is the point that I tried to badly make before.  My government should have NO right that I don't have.  If it is okay for the state to kill, then it is okay for me to do it too, and, if it's okay for me to do it too, then the state has no right to kill me for doing it.

bring back torture i say... cant go wrong with a good rack i say...  :angel:

R :police:

About 2 weeks ago here in Atlanta, two lowlife individuals, one local and one (with a VERY long police record) who was relocated from New Orleans decided that rather than work for a living they would just go to an apartment complex, pick out someone and rob them.  However when the individual they picked out decided he didn't want to be robbed that day and took off running, these two became so enraged at being denied a paycheck they started shooting at their escaping payroll.  While the shooter did not hit his target, one of his bullets went through the window of an apartment where a 9 year old girl was sitting at her grandmothers computer.  Said bullet struck the 9 year old in the head and killed her instantly.  Death Penalty?  Hell yes and I hope it hurts like hell and takes a long time when he dies.  It still won't match the suffering her family has gone through.

Rant over.

Beverly

Unfortunately Bev, I doubt that these guys will get a first degree murder rap on that one.  That's the thing with our law... it isn't always appropriate, is it?

Cindi

BeverlyAnn, the problem is that the death penalty in that case is not a deterrent, because most crimes are not premeditated first, and criminals never think they'll be caught, second. (I've much more studies on the side of non deterrence than the other side, and the real life example of most democracies shows that this is the case).

So, you're left with revenge and retribution as the main reason for the death penalty, which is I guess fine if that's stated up front (instead of thinking it will prevent crime). The main problem then is making sure you've got the right person, you're not executing the wrong person in the thirst for revenge.

Right now, with the state of the legal system in response to poorer individuals, especially minorities, no such assurance can be given.

So, your left with the option of possibly executing an innocent in a search for retribution.

If they limit executions to cases with direct physical evidence, first rate public defendants, strong oversight of the judiciaries fairness in regards to minorities and accused with marked long term psychopatic tendencies which makes their rehabilitation unlikely, then the death penalty may be the best option in a whole array of unsatisfactory options.

Quote from: Cindi Jones on August 02, 2007, 02:10:52 PM
Unfortunately Bev, I doubt that these guys will get a first degree murder rap on that one. 
Cindi

Cindi, I'm not sure.  I think in Georgia that if use of a firearm in the commission of a felony such as a robbery results in a death, it is first degree murder (since the robbery was premeditated).  However, since it occurred in Atlanta (Fulton County) even a conviction on first degree probably won't get the death penalty as Fulton County juries are notorious for not handing it out.  Recently a guy who robbed a 20 something year old mother, shot her and her 2 year old child and burned their car with them in it got life from a Fulton County jury.  Even though there was some forensic evidence that one or both may still have been alive when burned.

Keira, I understand about the deterrent argument.  And I agree with you on both that and that of wrongful convictions.  However, there are some cases that are, to use the legal term slam-dunk, where the evidence is overwhelming.  And some crimes are so heinous as to warrant nothing but the death penalty.  If you are not familiar with them, read up on Danny Rolling and Ted Bundy, both executed in Florida.

Beverly