# The Death Penalty for Sex Offenders



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2004)

In Minnesota, my home state (yes, I live in WI at the moment, but I can see my home across the river from my house), we are debating whether or not to reinstate the death penalty.  If reinstated, according to the governers plant, the death penalty would apply to sex offenders.  

After reading this story, what do you think?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4146010/

In light of these recent events and after many hugs given to my little girl, I am undecided.

Upnorthkyosa


----------



## Spud (Feb 6, 2004)

At the gut level, I dont have problems with capital punishment. Then I think twice about the costs involved to the taxpayers and the fact that at least 141 people have been exonerated (cleared based on DNA or other evidence, not technicalities or sentence reduced - US courts).  It really gives me pause.

An aside  last year I spent 6 months on the county grand jury and heard well over 30 cases. There are a lot of dirtbags deserving of the worst our penal system can provide. That being said, there are also prosecution witnesses who lie and prosecutors and cops who can twist evidence to suit their agenda. 

We only evaluated probably cause for prosecution, Id hate to be called upon to hold somebodys life in my hands based upon a court case.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2004)

The state should not take a human life. 

The state does have a responsibility to keep its citizens safe, but when necessary, this can be done via incarceration. 

In my opinion, capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. 

Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *The state should not take a human life.
> 
> The state does have a responsibility to keep its citizens safe, but when necessary, this can be done via incarceration.
> ...



Not only that, but our legal system is not 100% accurate.

If even one innocent life is lost due to in innaccurate verdict, then in my opinion death penalty is not justifiable.

Just how I feel.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *The state should not take a human life.
> 
> The state does have a responsibility to keep its citizens safe, but when necessary, this can be done via incarceration.
> ...




Mike and Paul,

I can see where you say the State SHOULD not take a life. This comes across as your opinion which I assume you were giving .

I agree that the ostrecizing a person is a good way for a community to punish people.

Yet, sometimes a community finds it necessary to have a sufficient deterent to certain acts. Now, I am not saying that it really is a deterent, only that people feel like it might be.

Interesting subject


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Yet, sometimes a community finds it necessary to have a sufficient deterent to certain acts. Now, I am not saying that it really is a deterent, only that people feel like it might be. *



I think that is the question; Is Capital Punishment a *Deterent* or is it *Revenge*. 

Of course, those in favor of the death penalty claim they are supporting it for its deterence factors. But I think in practice, it is about hurting the SOB. In fact, UpNorthKyoso posted a story that was designed to invoke anger in his question. At the visceral level, I'm sure he wants the person who is took the girl to suffer (alot); but intellectually he is trying to come to grips with that emotion. (UpNorthKyoso - no offense meant, and I hope I am not putting too many words in your mouth).

I hope I am not rehashing some arguements for a few months back, but this is one of the reasons why trials have an impartial jury ... so that guilt or innocence is not decide emotionally.

My opinions are taken from the intellectual point of view. I hope that I am never tested to see if they can stand the pressure of an emotional connection. The death penalty is *always* wrong. I do not think Timothy McVeigh should have been executed. I do not think Saddam Hussein should be executed. 

If these people are so horrible that they must be removed from society, in order to protect society, as long as we have the means to incarcerate them eternally, we should take course of action.

One last thought, I am not opposed to suicide. And I don't think it would be inappropriate to provide a 'Life and From Now On' convict a healthy dose of potassium cyanide for personal consumption, if they so desire. That is a completely different situation.

Mike


----------



## jfarnsworth (Feb 6, 2004)

I'm sorry here for sounding so harsh but I think we need to bring "sparky" back. This unexcusable excuse for a man who just murdered that little girl in florida (caught on tape I might add) once arrested, you were seen taking her, convicted, body found; leave him in the cuffs and take him to sparky .  As a father of 3 and even before I had children my believe was for the death penalty. As far as it goes for small petty crimes then jail is find. However murders, rapes, and when children are involved is just absolutely horrible. My tax dollars could be spent on better things than to have someone live in jail for decades that has murdered. 
Again,
That's my stand, my statements and I'm sticking to them. :asian:


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *I think that is the question; Is Capital Punishment a Deterent or is it Revenge.
> 
> My opinions are taken from the intellectual point of view. I hope that I am never tested to see if they can stand the pressure of an emotional connection. The death penalty is always wrong. I do not think Timothy McVeigh should have been executed. I do not think Saddam Hussein should be executed.
> ...



Timothy McVeigh was rightly executed because of the extreme loss of life he created for a warped cause. The loss of life included children. 

Ted Bundy was rightly executed for the murders he committed.
The Green River Killer is getting away with 42 murders because he plea bargained for a multiple life sentence, that is a horrible injustice.
Jeffery Dahmler was murdered in prison before his execution and the people (victims families) rejoiced.

Saddam should be tried and judged by his own people. It's very likely they'd choose the death penalty.

While I agree with Gandalf (Tolkien) that "many who live deserve death and many who die deserve life...can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death and judgement..."
the cusp of it all is that if a person murders then it's definitely wrong. Does it merit like punishment? Depends. The guy who raped/murdered that beautiful young child in Fla. had no thought of the affect he would have on the victim's family and friends... if he did he obviously didn't give a damn because he went and did it anyway. He, in my opinion deserves the death penalty. 
Likewise with any mass murderers. Defining "mass murderer?" they who kill more than one.  Okay what about a single murderer? There was a case I read about where a female marine was brutally murdered with a tree branch ("Journey into Darkness" by John E. Douglas, Mark Olshaker) . He was finally executed and rightly so. 
Another scenario is where a guy in a heated argument pulls out a gun and shoots the other killing him... does he deserve the death penalty.. probably not. 
It's (IMO) variant on the amount of remorse afterwards.  Look at the crime itself and the motivation and methodology of it. Look at the victim and then the victim's family.  Look at the perpetrator and see if he/she wouldn't do it again if given the opportunity? 
What may be considered revenge might be construde as justice depending upon the case. 
A life sentence can be a good way to keep the habitiual perp(s) off the streets/society. So long as they do not have the opportunity for parole. But when they so violently take a life without (obvious) thought or regard to the victim or their families, or that they enacted out a sick fantasy or gave no rein to their anger/hatered and took it out on a hapless (and often times innocent) individual then IMO they have no use in our society. 

Offering a suicide pill I think is doing the victim and the families an injustice. It's giving them (the perps) control over their fate/destiny. They raped and murdered because they "wanted" control over that particular individual. By doing the execution ourselves we are taking it "out of their hands" and in effect they lose. 

Should non-murdering sex offenders be executed? As one who interned with a group of offenders under going therapy (one of my MANY vocations) I found that once they were made to accept 100% accountablilty for their crime(s) and taught empathy for their victims they were very remorseful and less likely to re-offend.
Those who were/are (remorseful) not should and have receive the maximum penalty by law in their state. 

What irks me the most is the length of time an inmate sits on death-row waiting for their DOE. I feel that the maximum should be two years. Reasons  being 1. that the families of their victims shouldn't have to wait so long for closure. 2. Defense attorneys who feel their clients are really innocent would get off their duffs and work to find the DNA evidence which would clear them. 3. The drain on the tax paying citizen would be considerably less. And so on.

When it comes to a child the loss of THAT life is inexcusable when it's taken by someone. The punishment should fit the crime.  

(ok, ok I rant again :soapbox: but obviously I have some thoughts/feelings about this subject). 


:asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *The state should not take a human life.
> 
> The state does have a responsibility to keep its citizens safe, but when necessary, this can be done via incarceration.
> ...


 not to mention a lot of scuicidle people will use the state to kill themselves, and the severity of there crimes will only increase. The Death penalty is only a detourant for sane well adjusted people.:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 6, 2004)

"The essence of the law is that the sweets of private vengeance shall be denied."

--Sinclair Lewis


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 6, 2004)

In my mind, I have arrayed all of the rational arguments against the death penalty that I can think of at the moment.  I know that there are too many problems with this thing.  Yet, on a visceral level, I want vengence.  

Is this bad?  

I'm not sure that it is and I'm not sure that it isn't?  Perhaps we cannot help it.  In fact, the more I think about it, I kind of see it as an evolutionary second chance.  It is a well documented fact that a mammallian male will attempt to kill the offspring of a female in order to show his dominance.  Perhaps revenge is a reactionary mechanism to this loss, causing the progenitor of the lost offspring to take out the usurper.  Thus giving the individual a second chance at passing on his heredity.

If this is the case, then the emotions associated with revenge are sunk into every cell in our body.  Which would explain why I would feel the need to kill a man if he did that to my daughter.  I'm not trying to sound crazy, I'm being honest.  Things like this, make me ask the question, "what would I do in this case?"  

Perhaps if my nerve faltered and my social conditioning was strong enough, I would want to make the state do it.  Otherwise I would grab the sword...isn't that an archtype!  Who here would see that man as a hero?  Who would see him as a murderer?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 6, 2004)

> _Posted by jfarnsworth_
> My tax dollars could be spent on better things than to have someone live in jail for decades that has murdered.



I don't know if it is true or not, and perhaps someone can find the data, but I thought I read somewhere that it costs 3 times as much to execute a death row inmate than it does to keep the inmate incarcerated for life. Does it actually take more of your tax dollars to execute someone?



> _Posted by MACaver_
> Timothy McVeigh was rightly executed
> Ted Bundy was rightly executed



What exactly makes their execution "right"? Yes, the crimes these men commited were extreme and violent.

I see this argument as a very clear choice between two options. Are we trying to keep the citizens of the country safe, or are we trying to be fair.  

Is the purpose of their execution to make society safer? or is the purpose of their execution to exact revenge? 

Assuming that a maximum security prison is escape proof (I know, I know), aren't the communities safety concerns met by the incarceration? If the purpose of the execution is to exact revenge for the crimes committed, then the death penalty is acceptable.

I do not view the United States justice system as an instrument of vengence. I understand that others may see things differently. I understand that I am in the minority in our country at the moment. But I always reasoned that 'An Eye for An Eye' left the whole world blind.

One more thought ... some say the purpose of the death penalty is deterence. Studies have shown that people who commit criminal acts, from the smallest to most extreme, do not think they will be caught. If you don't think you are going to get caught, how can a punishment for getting caught deter you?

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 7, 2004)

I don't think the death penalty can be logically explained.  This debate is about an emotional response.  I think that revenge and outrage are so much a part of us that when these horrible events happen to someone we love, our entire bodies cry out a primordial call to action.  This happens despite the logic in which we compartmentalize our lives.  

At this moment, I have a lot of empathy for the family of that little girl because I have one of my own.  If I had to put a vote in the ballot box though...what does everybody think?  Is vengeance a part of humanity that cannot be avoided?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2004)

I think the desire for vengence is, perhaps, unavoidable on a personal level. 

However, on a societal level, it is not unavoidable. Most of the 1st world countries on the planet have banned capital punishment.

I have no doubt that citizens in those countries, when subjected to a personal loss, feel the desire for revenge, but society imposes its better judgement.


----------



## TonyM. (Feb 7, 2004)

I can't justify capitol punishment. As a former correctional officer I've met some people that make me resentfull that I'm breathing the same air, but by the same token people in general are such incredible lyers that to trust them to tell the truth after the fact and have a persons life depend on the truth tells me that innocent people are being executed. Sure there is the odd case where everyone saw such and such do something and there's tons of evidence, but what about the majority of the cases that are not so clear. The last figure I heard was a ten percent error rate in executed convicted murderers. For me one percent is too much.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *I think the desire for vengence is, perhaps, unavoidable on a personal level.
> 
> However, on a societal level, it is not unavoidable. Most of the 1st world countries on the planet have banned capital punishment.
> ...




Micheal Edward,

I can look at a country and guess a third world country. I can look around my house and guess at a first world country.

Is there a list of whch country is which? Is there a definition?


Now back to the subject.

If a peson has a gut reaction, either from religious morals, hereditary evolution, or what have you. Yet, in the USA, our coutnry tries to resolve this in the following way. If it violates your morals, and your personal values then you argue to make the point ethical. If society determines an action to be ethical then they usually create a law to enact some type of action that the state or federal law system may execute or carry out.

So, the discussion here, is a natural part of the system. People expressing their view, and trying to get others to either believe in them or to understand them. The better you present your arguement in a logical point of view not just emotions the better you have of communicating your point and possible getting others the change their mind. There s nothing wrong with a rant or personal point being emotional, as long as it follows our rules here, And these posts have. So, no one take this wrong please.

No one is wrong and no one is right in this case. I do not think you will find 100% of scoiety to agree upon anything. Hence the request for putting it to the voters, if the majority who vote, vote for an action then society has determine something to be ethical and also taken action.

MY Point to this post?

Keep posting and get out and vote when there is an election. Make your views and beliefs count.

My Apologies if I upset or insulted someone.
:asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Feb 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *My Apologies if I upset or insulted someone. *



Brother Rich;
You didn't offend me.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Feb 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *I don't know if it is true or not, and perhaps someone can find the data, but I thought I read somewhere that it costs 3 times as much to execute a death row inmate than it does to keep the inmate incarcerated for life. Does it actually take more of your tax dollars to execute someone? *



I have no idea. Maybe or maybe not. I'm thinking about 2000 volts of electricity  to someone who has raped or murdered a child or any other heinous crime for that matter. I was watching america's most wanted a couple of weeks ago or so and seen a story of a woman who got attacked while trying to enter her home. She had been stabbed over 20 times. As soon as they catch this bird he needs to be tried then immediately executed. This evil man does not need to walk our streets nor does he need to be jailed for 20 yrs. or so then let out to walk our streets again.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 7, 2004)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

This link provided to answer some question concerning the death penalty. No doubt the site advocates one point of view or another. I just took a quick look concerning costs.

Here's one quote:


> Each death penalty case costs Texas average of $2.3 million
> That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 7, 2004)

OK, why not.

There are--I'll put together a lowball figure from different numbers I've read--a minimum of 20,000 kids working as prostitutes in this country. Probably a million plus world-wide. I would consider them to have been raped, and I would consider their ongoing employment as a kind of ongoing serial rape, and so...shouldn't we execute all the, "customers?"

The US government apparently did experiments at Oak Ridge giving lethal doses of radiation to terminally ill kids back in the 1950s--not as an experiment in helping them, either, but to study the effects of fatal radiation doses in kids. I would consider anyone who knowingly participated in this to be guilty of anything from "special circumstances," murder (premeditation; young victims; a particularly cruel death) to conspiracy to commit murder, wouldn't you? So...shouldn't they die?

Such examples can be multiplied endlessly. People who beat children to death; irresponsible landlords who rent firetraps; those guys in France who knowingly sold HIV-contaminated blood fractions to hemophiliac kids; the guys who did Bhopal; the guys like Ollie North who aided and abetted right-wing death-squads that killed kids as well as parents. So....

Incidentally, it is relatively rare for a child to be hurt, kidnaped, killed by a complete stranger. In well over 90% of these cases, it's family that does it. So...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 7, 2004)

Just a thought...We spend 87 (plus!) billions of dollars to kill 15,000 innocent people in Iraq.  Why can't we spend some cash so a victim's families can release their fury upon those who actually killed people they loved?  Which is more of a worthy cause?  If we gotta kill people, why not scum bags?

Seriously, though, do inmates locked up for life beg for death?  Is a life sentance worse then death?

I see the point about false convictions.  From that standpoint alone, I couldn't vote in good conscience for the death penalty.  Yet, these last few days, I have given my daughter more hugs and kisses then normal and I know that if anything ever happened to her like what happened in Florida that there is no question in my mind that I would want to kill the man who did it.  I hope that doesn't sound like bravado or some sort of brash fantasy.  

I can understand why some could vote for the death penalty, though.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *OK, why not.
> 
> There are--I'll put together a lowball figure from different numbers I've read--a minimum of 20,000 kids working as prostitutes in this country. Probably a million plus world-wide. I would consider them to have been raped, and I would consider their ongoing employment as a kind of ongoing serial rape, and so...shouldn't we execute all the, "customers?"
> ...



"many who live deserve death and many who die deserve life..."

Gandalf

Sometimes the world stinks...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Just a thought...We spend 87 (plus!) billions of dollars to kill 15,000 innocent people in Iraq.  Why can't we spend some cash so a victim's families can release their fury upon those who actually killed people they loved?  Which is more of a worthy cause?  If we gotta kill people, why not scum bags?
> 
> Seriously, though, do inmates locked up for life beg for death?  Is a life sentance worse then death?
> ...



And those that died in the twin towers also had families and a nation cried. OUr nation declared a war on terror and we went to war in Afghanastan and also Iraq. We enacted a lot of laws that enfringe our tights or remove our rights.

All of this, why because a nation was crying and emotional and wanted revenge.

Does this excuse any ones' actions includnig the US Government? No it does not.

Yet a day on the 7th of December in 1941 the US was attacked and on the 8th a told numbers registered to go to war. Why, because of emotional response to get even to defend yourself.

When ever anyones dies that you know or can relate too, then a person reacts.

Do you feel the same for the young adults and children who are shot regularly in Flint and in Pontiac and Detroit, just because they wore the wrong shoes or jacket down the wrong street? OR because their parents live in the wrong neighborhood?

Young children, babies, and in particular female children bring out these reactions even more.

Is this wrong? No, it just is.

Recognize it, lobby for what you believe is right, and if you feel the same in 6 month and 6 years as you do today then you know you made the right decisions. There is nothing wrong with the feeling of anger and or revenge, it is a normal part of healing. Just do not let it consume your life, and to take you away from your own responsibiliteis including your own children. Yes, voice your opinions and fight for you believe is right.

Sorry for the psycho-babel and the lecture tone. I just want people to realize that anger and frustration is a normal part of life and an event such as this.

:asian:


----------



## jfarnsworth (Feb 8, 2004)

Ok, Ok,  . I realize that some here have much more advanced higher education than I.  Some here do not like the idea of the death penality. FINE. As bro. Rich said everyone has the right to their own opinion and yet no one of us are going to change anyone's mind here.  As I was speaking about the young girl who was found murdered a few days ago low and behold I read in the newspaper just this morning (before turning on my pc) that this man had murdered another woman earlier in his life. Once again he was put in prison and let out. In fact it said he has been arrested 13 times in his life so far.  Somehow the state of Florida let him out on bond and so this is what we get. He has murdered a woman and a female child. Now where does it end. 20yrs. from now, let us let him out again and see what happens. He will announce that he's a changed man, right? Perfect.   All in all, this just happens to be one case. How many more are out there in the U.S. just like it?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by jfarnsworth _
> *Ok, Ok,  . I realize that some here have much more advanced higher education than I.  Some here do not like the idea of the death penality. FINE. As bro. Rich said everyone has the right to their own opinion and yet no one of us are going to change anyone's mind here.  As I was speaking about the young girl who was found murdered a few days ago low and behold I read in the newspaper just this morning (before turning on my pc) that this man had murdered another woman earlier in his life. Once again he was put in prison and let out. In fact it said he has been arrested 13 times in his life so far.  Somehow the state of Florida let him out on bond and so this is what we get. He has murdered a woman and a female child. Now where does it end. 20yrs. from now, let us let him out again and see what happens. He will announce that he's a changed man, right? Perfect.   All in all, this just happens to be one case. How many more are out there in the U.S. just like it? *



Good Points Brother JF.

The question is are we as a civilization and society going to accept that there might be a mistake made to gaurentee that the real bad guys are removed from society and the gene pool?

And by the way, I am for the Death Penalty. I am also for Choice, and assisted suicide.

And JF, your education does not weigh into this discussion. This is a discussion of your views and personal beliefs and opinions. Education may have helped to give you points of view. It does not determine it.

Life is precious, yet, there are times you must make choices.

The Apache had a custom for the oldest male not of the immediate family was responsible to take a sickly or deformed child out and drown them or smuther them. Why? The family would want to take care of them. The tribe would suffer and so would the family. The herd or mass can only move as fast as the slowest entity. This society, would leave behind adults who could not keep up. Why, the survival of the tribe. They would ostracize major criminals. And a single person could not hunt well enough nor defend himself enough to survive long. This was a form of death penalty.

Our Society does have forms of medical care and support systems for people and children. It may not be the best, yet people are trying. How do we deal with the extreme people who are criminals that may require a death penalty? We can not just ostracize them as they can go elsewhere, and start all over being a predator.

Do we create a penal colony? There are no islands left. Except maybe Antacrtica, and that would be a death penalty also. Do we create a moon base colony for criminals? Lock them up and let them all live out there by themselves?

Do you create a separate area such as the state of Nevada (* Chosen at random *) where only Criminals can go?

How do you confirm that a person ostracized stays ostracized?

The world is too small today for that, in my opinion.

Thoughts?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2004)

Talking about the capital punishment is not the same as talking about recidivism. People who oppose the death penalty are not necessarily 'soft on crime'. By confusing these arguments, you dilute the discussion. 

Also, by talking about one case as the basis for the entire justice system, you weaken the discussion.

If the motives of the justice system are to dispense punishment, then the death penalty might be acceptable. 

If the motives of the justice system are to protect the citizenry, the death penalty can not be acceptable. It is possible to protect the law abiding citizens without killing the person who is dangerous. It is possible to lock the a convicted criminal up and never release them. There does not need to be any discussion of 'rehabilitation'. Just lock the criminal up forever.

In my opinion, we are discussing the Eight Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.





> ''No cruel and unusual punishment is to be inflicted; it is sometimes necessary to hang a man, villains often deserve whipping, and perhaps having their ears cut off; but are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting these punishments because they are cruel? If a more lenient mode of correcting vice and deterring others from the commission of it would be invented, it would be very prudent in the Legislature to adopt it; but until we have some security that this will be done, we ought not to be restrained from making necessary laws by any declaration of this kind.'' - Annals of Congress 754 (1789).



Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 8, 2004)

Mike,

I believe in the constitution. The biggest reason is that the document was meant to be a living document. There are provisions to make admendments hence the Bill of Rights or the first ten Admendments. An previous Admenment or a portion of the constitution may be superceded by a new admendment. I like this idea a scoiety can grow and deal with there problems.

As to Cruel and unusual, in times past certain acts were not cruel but the norm, and they most certainly were not unusual. Yet, today's society is not 100% either way on any subject. Hence the request for the voters to have their say. And this also protects the legislature from being recalled or voted out of office until they can see the returns and the support level.

I agree, locking people up with no parole or release is a solution. This was done in our past. It could be done again.

Do you consider, death by the state to be cruel? or Unusual, or both?  Jsut curious.

Thank You


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 8, 2004)

Is there room for, "pointless?"

A couple other things. First, it's interesting that (as often happens), one's education is getting linked to being a) unrealistic, b) soft on crime. Being a pointy-head intellectual does not necessarily mean that you're an impractical idiot (or intelligent and moral)--just as being working-class does not necessarily mean that you're more in touch with reality, more honest, more moral (or dumb as a rock). But the decision is an aspect of capitalist ideology, that's pretty sure.

Second, Charlie Manson will get out of jail before this guy will. And I hadn't previously read that he'd comitted another murder--could I ask what the source for that was?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Mike,
> 
> I believe in the constitution. The biggest reason is that the document was meant to be a living document. There are provisions to make admendments hence the Bill of Rights or the first ten Admendments. An previous Admenment or a portion of the constitution may be superceded by a new admendment. I like this idea a scoiety can grow and deal with there problems.
> ...



In today's society, I believe the death penalty is cruel. I, too, agree that the constitution should be thing that is 'alive' and adaptable. 

I believe the state should take the *least intrusive, effective* action to achieve its goals. I believe 'Life and From Now On' is a less intrusive method way of enforcing criminal acts that might merit capital punishment than the death penalty; therefore, that should be the choice selected.

If the choice is between a) the death penalty and b) the convicted walks away free, the death penalty should be used as the method to provide for the safety of the society. But, I do not believe this is the case. If the choice is between a) the death penalty and b) Life, without parole; the State should choose option B. 

The criminal is effectively prohibited from revisiting criminal activity; society is safe, and the state has not been required to take a human life.

Mike


----------



## Ceicei (Feb 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *
> If the choice is between a) the death penalty and b) the convicted walks away free, the death penalty should be used as the method to provide for the safety of the society. But, I do not believe this is the case. If the choice is between a) the death penalty and b) Life, without parole; the State should choose option B.
> *



Unfortunately, the "without parole" part doesn't always stick.  With overcrowding in prisons, even those that shouldn't be released sometimes are, in rare cases, turned loose back to society.  

- Ceicei


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *Unfortunately, the "without parole" part doesn't always stick.  With overcrowding in prisons, even those that shouldn't be released sometimes are, in rare cases, turned loose back to society.
> 
> - Ceicei *



This statement begs the question; 'are the prisons overcrowded?' ... to which I believe the answer is yes. 

Ergo

'Why are the prisons overcrowded?'

Look at the statistics as to who is occupying the prison cells. I think we find many non-violent persons incarcerated for drug offenses which are subject to mandatory sentencing. If this is true, the legislatures have usurped the tools of the justice system. Lawmakers should make laws, the justice system should enforce them (including determining sentencing).

Hmm .... Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 8, 2004)

I might have sounded too "soft hearted" on the death penalty when I first posted here.

I think that some people are scum and deserve to die. Someone who rapes and kills the innocent deserves to die. Your not going to get me to argue that Timothy Mcveigh shouldn't have been killed for his actions. Now, I am not God (believe it or not :rofl: ), so I wouldn't want to be the one to have to decide who should live or die. But, I think that if you do something horrible like rape and kill a child, then you have just signed your life away.

My problem is that there is error in our legal system. With DNA testing and modern foresic science we have reduced the standard of error, but there is still error. There is still that chance that an innocent person could be executed even now a days. Innocent people have been incarcerated, and have been put to death in the past. To me, if we risk putting to death even just one innocent person, then this risk is too much.

Also, I don't like giving the government that kind of power over people lives. History has many examples of Governments abusing their power over peoples lives, particularly with the use of the death penalty. This can happend even on smaller scales where with one wrong judge on the stand, the standard of error on the death penalty could rise.

So, I don't think the state has the right to put anyone to death, but not because there aren't those who deserve it. It is because there is still a possability of error in our legal system, and because the death penalty is a power that could be (and has been) abused.

PAUL


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *The question is are we as a civilization and society going to accept that there might be a mistake made to gaurentee that the real bad guys are removed from society and the gene pool? *



This is a revolutionary and very disturbing idea.  Yet, it begs the questions if people who commit these crimes are born this way, wouldn't the death penalty eventually decrease the amount of criminal minds?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 8, 2004)

I was going to write something about a slippery slope, but anybody willing to remove "the bad guys," on the basis of a genetics argument have already taken a Soap Box Derby racer down to the bottom of it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I was going to write something about a slippery slope, but anybody willing to remove "the bad guys," on the basis of a genetics argument have already taken a Soap Box Derby racer down to the bottom of it. *



No Disrespect Robert, you comment made me laugh.

I Did not mean to beat you to the bottom of the slipper slope. I was only posing a question for discussion.

I think I might even enjoy your post still.

With Respect
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I was going to write something about a slippery slope, but anybody willing to remove "the bad guys," on the basis of a genetics argument have already taken a Soap Box Derby racer down to the bottom of it. *



Yes, yes.  I have read quite a bit about eugenics...still, hypothetically, are these people even worth preserving for the rest of their lives?


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Yes, yes.  I have read quite a bit about eugenics...still, hypothetically, are these people even worth preserving for the rest of their lives? *



A) Only if it costs more to execute a criminal than to keep them incarcerated for life. (Which it does ... see earlier link)
B) What would happen if the convicted criminal already had offspring. Are you then required to kill the offspring (The only way to remove the genetics from society)?


----------



## stephen (Feb 9, 2004)

There is a very good reason not to give sex offenders the death penalty which sidesteps all the moral/ethical/etc... reasons everyone has. That is simply:

More sexual assult victims will be killed by their attackers. 

If crimimal A commits some sort of sex crime for which he/she knows is punishable by the death penalty why not kill the other witness to the crime (the victim). The murder becomes "free" in a sense. In fact, as I understand it, this is exactly one of the reasons rape (in particular) historically is not subject to the death penalty. 

Steve Kovalcik


----------



## TonyM. (Feb 9, 2004)

Could be. When NY legislated the death penalty for drug dealers the number of police officers killed in the line of duty went up substantially.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 9, 2004)

A good movie, "The Thin Blue Line" documents an incident where a drifter was incorrectly convicted of a police officer's murder.  The guy is put on death row and is released as a result of the investigative journalism leading to the documentary.

The actual killer was a teenager.  All the evidence pointed to the teen, but the police and prosecutors went after the drifter because they thought it'd be easier to get a conviction and satisfy the public.

While the drifter was taking a hit for the murder, the teen went on to rape and murder others.  

I'd say incarcerate, don't kill.  It has been said that it is far worse to condemn an innocent man to death than to let a guilty man go free.  This case shows both, in effect.  Had the system worked properly, the kid would have been arrested and tried...and an innocent man would have never been put on death row.

Our system isn't perfect...and innocent people occasionally get convicted of crimes they don't commit.  That alone is reason enough to give the convicted the benefit of the doubt and the ability to challenge their case while serving time.  They can't challenge a danged thing while dead.  Further, the real perpetrator walks...and justice isnt' served.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## stephen (Feb 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TonyM. _
> *Could be. When NY legislated the death penalty for drug dealers the number of police officers killed in the line of duty went up substantially. *




Exactly, this is the same effect. 

Thanks for the assist.

Steve Kovalcik


----------



## OULobo (Feb 10, 2004)

First I want to throw in a case that is happening here in Cleveland that illustrates one of the problems with the idea of sexually oriented crimes, in specific those associated with minors. 

In Coventry Township, between Cleveland and Akron there was a cases where three girls accused a teacher of grabbing their butt and barging into their rooms during an overnight field trip. The case was brought to the prosecuter, the teacher was put on unpaid leave and very soon after, fired for immorality and regulation violations. When the case was brought up for indigctment(sp) by the prosecuter it was tossed because he found there was little or no baisis for the charges, partly because there was a website that the three girls maintained that was titled the "I Hate Mr. Dennis (the accused) Fan Club" and because the "barging in" was actually the teacher knocking to administer medications that were for one of the girls. Of the three accusing girls one refused to testify, one recanted her testimony saying she purposly lied and the third stuck to it. The teacher took the school to task to prove he did anything wrong. The referee found the teacher should be reinstated. 

Now I bring this up to illustrate that the teacher was found guilty in the minds of the school board and consequently most of the parents without the facts being examined. This was because he was accused by minors. I personally don't classify any minor over 15 as a child, as many have learned to be vindictive and logical by this time and many know the, as mentioned, viceral reaction they can get for making false statments, all without serious consequence to themselves. If that teacher was found guilty he would've been a sexual offender. 

I have an aquaintance that was arrested and convicted of gross sexual imposition and corruption of a minor, because he went to a bar and and picked up a patron there. The patron went home with him and they had consentual sex. She never argued this. She was however, 17 years old. This man is labled a sexual offender with all the registration hassles and he would be up for capital punishment if sex crimes against "children" were included. 

My stance on the death penalty in general is that it should be all or nothing. Either don't have it at all or if you do then streamline the process so that it isn't more expensive to execute than to incarcerate for life. Now as to the original question of the thread, I think capital punishment for sex crime should only be used in the most extreme cases (children or not). The best example that comes to mind is the Witchita Horror without the murders. Even if, these men had left the group alive, they would still deserve the death penalty. 

I do think that murder rates will increase when rapist realize that they already commited a capital crime and if they leave the victim alvie they leave a witness alive. They have nothing to loose by comitting murder at that point, but they gain a better chance at getting away. 

On a side note I personally think that comparing prostitution to rape is ludicrous, I hate the idea of ostrasising criminals pst their sentance (I wouldn't mind if you exile them, but where can they go where someone isn't going to already be there and complaining the minute they walk in) and I ain't touchin' the genetic issue. 

I think that covers all my opinions. Did I leave anything out?


----------

